G.K. Beale’s Newest – A New Testament Biblical Theology: The Unfolding of the Old Testament in the New

I just got G.K. Beale’s A New Testament Biblical Theology in the mail and began doing some skimming.  I won’t be able to delve in until late December, but I was thrilled to spend a few minutes spot-reading.

So far I’m quite pleased.  I was anxious as I awaited this book since I’ve been so disappointed by his last two books.  (Readers of this blog will remember that we’ve expressed some hesitation/critique of Beale’s Inerrancy and Idolatry books – use the blog’s search widget and you’ll see those posts.)

While I felt some of his introductory chapter raised some of the same methodological concerns that his Idolatry book raised, once the book got rolling, it was nice, familiar territory – just like the good old days of The Temple and the Church’s Mission and The Book of Revelation!

Here are a few things I’ve enjoyed thus far.

Beale’s discussion of “escalated blessings” that awaited even pre-fall Adam was quite rich.  I just preached on Rom 1.1-7, and was struck that even here, Paul contrasts Adam’s sinless/unglorified state with Christ’s sinless/glorified state.  Beale’s discussion on pages 33-46 was quite fine.

While discussing whether Adam would have eaten from the Tree of Life prior to the fall, Beale makes a contribution that I hadn’t considered.  I’ve tended to follow M.G. Kline’s view that Adam had not eaten of the tree, but have recognized the philological problems of this view and struggled with it. Beale suggests another possibility:

Whether or not Adam was able to eat of the tree of life before his sin, it is likely that there is reference in Gen. 3:22 to what might be termed a “consummative eating.”  The word “also” is the first indication that this was a decisive “onetime” act of eating: “And now, lest he stretch out his hand and take also [gam] from the tree of life, and eat …” …. Thus, even if Adam had been eating previously of the tree of life, this was to be a more decisive act of eating of that tree than had ever occurred…. Adam’s exclusion from the garden and from partaking of the tree indicates that he would be prohibited from decisively eating of the tree of life and enjoying the consequent escalated blessing of eternal life.”

Pgs. 38-39.

This notion of decisive or consummative eating is intriguing.  I’ll look forward to thinking more about this!

A chapter that will likely draw interesting attention to those interested in the recent justification debates is chap. 15 “The Inaugurated Latter-Day Justification.”  I haven’t read enough of it to evaluate how he parses out the “future” aspect to justification, though from what I’ve read so far, it sounds more Gaffin-esque than N.T. Wright-esque.  I was pleased to see him boldly affirm the imputation of Christ’s active obedience (pgs. 471-80).

A few quotes:

Four texts traditionally adduced to support [the doctrine of the imputation of Christ's active obedience] are Rom. 5:15-19; 1 Cor. 1:30; 2 Cor. 5:21; Phil. 3:9.  All, in my view, support the concept of Christ’s righteousness being passed on representatively to those who believe in him.  Here my purpose is to review briefly what I think are viable texts supporting the notion of the attribution of Christ’s righteousness to saints.

Pgs. 471-72.

The notion of Christ doing what Adam should have done and achieving the glorious blessed position that Adam should have inherited and then having believers identified with this glorious position is close conceptually to and suggestive of the idea of attributing Christ’s positive obedience to believers.

Pg. 480.

Whereas many biblical scholars exaggerate the difference between biblical terminology and systematic-theological terminology, especially the later quote by Beale is a solid way of noting that one can still robustly affirm traditional doctrinal formulations while noting that the biblical writers themselves use a different set of terms in explaining those concepts.

All this to say, I’m excited to have this volume in my hands.  Though I suspect that I’ll find myself rubbing up against some positivistic/fundamentalistic strands that characterize Beale’s writing, what I’ve read so far is delightful!  Spend the money, get the book!  From what I can tell so far, it is not going to disappoint!

__________________
Andrew

Water from Jesus’ “belly/womb?” – John 7.38

John 7.38 is one of those passages in Scripture over which scholars go back and forth; for example both Craig Keener and D.A. Carson write that it is “difficult” and end up coming down on different “sides.”  Do the waters of life flow from the believer’s “belly” (“heart” in NIV, ESV, etc) or Jesus’ “belly?”  Where does the period belong, after “the one who believes in me” or before it?  Which OT text(s) is Jesus referring to in verse 38?

I think Keener, A.T. Lincoln, and Joel Marcus are right here (even though Carson in his commentary and Fee in a journal article give some very helpful remarks while disagreeing with Keener, Lincoln, and Marcus).  The water of life flows from Jesus’ “belly.”  Here are the discussions that convinced me.

Lincoln brings us back to Ezek. 47.1-12, where eschatological rivers of life flow from the new temple.  Furthermore, writes Lincoln, Zech. 14 has to do with the Feast of Tabernacles/Sukkoth (which is happening during John 7-8) and the water and light of life symbols.  Still further back, Lincoln reminds us of Ex. 17 and Ps. 78, the OT recollections of water flowing from the rock during Israel’s wilderness years.  Finally, as extra-biblilcal (yet extremely helpful) proof, Lincoln notes that the Rabbinic descriptions of the Feast of Tabernacles associate the water from the rock in the wilderness to the water in the temple — water “rituals” that took place during the Feast of Tabernacles.  In summary and in Lincoln’s own words, “Jesus is now the rock, from whose womb come the waters of new life, the waters of the Spirit, the agent of new birth” (A.T. Lincoln, The Gospel of Saint John, [Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2005], 256-7).

Joel Marcus links John 7.38 to Is. 12.3, discusses the Hebrew, LXX, and Greek text a bit, as well as Rabbinic “midrash,” then concludes, “Do not read, ‘from the wells of salvation,’ but ‘from the belly of Jesus,’ for rivers of living water shall flow from his belly” (see Joel Marcus, “Rivers of Living Water from Jesus’ Belly” Journal of Biblical Literature, 117 [1998]: 330).

Finally, Craig Keener: “From this center [Jerusalem/temple] would flow the rivers of life to water the whole world; and in John, where Jesus’ body becomes the new temple (2.19-21), he becomes the shattered cornerstone from which flows the water of the river of life” (Craig Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary [Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2002], 730).

See also G.K. Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004), who agrees that “the ‘innermost being’ from which ‘flow rivers of living water’ is Jesus himself as the new ‘holy of holies’ and not the one who believes in Jesus” (p. 197).

shane

sunnyside wa

Yahweh, the Stormy Sea and Its End

G. K. Beale and Sean McDonough have some helpful notes on Revelation 21.1-4, specifically verse 4. After discussing some clear parallels between Rev. 21 and Isaiah, they focus on some of the imagery of the new heaven and new earth.  In Isaiah (25.8, 35.10, and 51.11) the prophet predicts “that ‘pain and grief and groaning’ will have ‘fled away.’”

Very helpfully, they also note how both Isaiah and John write about the sea that is gone in the new creation.  Isaiah uses language about Yahweh “drying up” the Red Sea (51.10); in the very next verse (51.11), Isaiah writes about the redeemed obtaining everlasting joy and living without sorrow and sighing.  John writes similarly, “the sea was no more” (Rev 21.1); there will be no more sorrow nor crying, etc. (Rev 21.4).

In other words, as Beale and McDonough note, the Exodus “event” and the New Creation “event” have huge parallels.  It is significant that Yahweh overcame/destroyed the chaotic sea and his Egyptian enemies which resulted in joy and peace for his people, Israel.  In the New Creation, the same can be said: there will be no more chaotic sea, there will be no more Pharaohs or Serpents.  All that is left is joy and peace, life and rest.

The above references and quotes are found in G. K. Beale and Sean McDonough, “Revelation” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament ed. G.K. Beale and D. A. Carson [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007], 1151. 

Of course, there are quite a few more allusions and references to be addressed, but this is a great start.  Thanks, Beale and McDonough!

shane

sunnyside wa

On the NT use of the OT

In the intro to the long awaited commentary of the NT use of the OT by our favorites, Beale and Carson, they list six questions they’ve asked the contributing scholars to answer while commenting on the NT books.  While all six are very good hermeneutical/exegetical questions to ask, I thought #2 was brilliant and most helpful as one considers the interpretation of Scripture.

“What is the OT context from which the quotation or allusion is drawn?  Even at its simplest, this question demands as much care with respect to the OT as the first question demands of the study of the NT.  [My note: the first question is, "What is the NT context of the (OT) citation or allusion?"]

“Sometimes energy must be expended simply to demonstrate that a very brief phrase really does come from a particular OT passage, and from nowhere else.  Yet sometimes this second question becomes even more complex.  Under the assumption that Mark’s Gospel picks up exodus themes (itself a disputed point), is it enough to go to the book of Exodus to examine those themes as they first unfold?  Or are such OT exodus themes, as picked up by Mark, filtered through Isaiah?  In that case, surely it is important to include reflection not only on the use of the OT in the NT but also on the use of the OT within the OT” (emphasis mine).

“Or again, how does the Genesis flood account (Gen. 6-9) get utilized in the rest of the OT and in earlier parts of the NT before it is picked up by 2 Peter?  Sometimes a NT author may have in mind the earlier OT reference but may be interpreting it through the later OT development of that earlier text, and if the lens of that later text is not analyzed, then the NT use may seem strange or may not properly be understood.”

See Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament ed. D.A. Carson and G. K. Beale (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), xxiv.

shane lems

sunnyside wa