Christology

Review: The Glory of the Ascension

/ rtrube54 / 2 Comments
Cover image of "The Glory of the Ascension" by W. Ross Hastings

The Glory of the Ascension

The Glory of the Ascension, W. Ross Hastings. IVP Academic (ISBN: 9781514010617) 2025

Summary: Sets forth this neglected doctrine that celebrates a completed atonement and the exalted glory of the Son.

The very best theology offers the attentive reader glimpses of glory. One cannot read without pausing in awe or breaking out in worship or humbling oneself before the Holy Triune God. This is one of those books. Often I could not read more than a paragraph without having one of these responses. Here is one of many examples I could cite:

“The ascension is beautiful also in that it is the climactic, celebrated outcome of an atonement that was fully accomplished and yet the beginning of the application of the atonement forever to the people of God in union with Christ. It is beautiful because of the symmetry of a humanity created and fallen in the first Adam with a humanity recapitulated, recreated, and glorified in the ascension of the last Adam. The ascension reflects a relation between the Son and his people, with whom he became one in the incarnation–his people who have died and risen with him and, more than that, are now seated with him in his ascended place in the heavenlies (Eph. 2:6)” (pp. 23-24).

W. Ross Hastings contends that we have neglected this magnificent doctrine. And he sets out in this book to remedy that neglect. To begin, Hastings lays out an argument as to why it matters. Specifically, he focuses on how the ascension represents the both the completion of the atoning work of Christ and the exalted glory of the Son at God’s right hand, themes to which Hastings recurs throughout the book. Then, Hastings outlines his methodology, rooted in divine revelation. He discusses both biblical and theological interpretation approaches.

Following this, Chapters 3 through 7 center on what the ascension shows us of the glory of the person and work of Christ. Chapter 3 focuses on the glory of Christ’s deity revealed in the ascension as the God-man. Then Chapter 4 follows the movement from glory concealed in Christ’s life and death on earth, and the revealing of even greater glory as risen and ascended One. He is no longer Messiah-designate but Messiah crowned.

Following this, Chapter 5 discusses his offices as Prophet, Priest, and King. We often think of atonement finished on the cross. However, the seating of Christ at God’s right hand, discussed in Chapter 6, signifies atonement fully accomplished. Not only that, as interceding high priest, we experience the application of atonement to humanity.

It is as God-MAN that Jesus ascended and is in eternal communion within the Godhead. In Chapter 7, Hastings considers the implications of this reality for humanity both now and in glory, as we share in the glory of Christ.

However, the idea of the ascension as the completion of atonement raises questions. Is the ascension itself atoning, as Douglas Farrow proposes, or the sign, the capstone of atonement completed? In dialogue with Farrow, Hastings contends for the latter in Chapter 8. Then Chapter 9 considers more fully the glory of the heavenly continuing application of the atonement through our participation in that work by the Spirit.

Ephesians 3:21 speaks of “glory in the church and in Christ Jesus.” Hastings elaborates in Chapter 10 on our experience of that through our communion with the ascended Lord in the Eucharist. Then Chapters 11-13 explore the last things: his coming again, the glory we will share with the Christ of the cosmos, and the glory of heaven.

This is theology to savor. We may ponder the many-splendored glory revealed in our Lord’s ascension. There is the incredible assurance of the completion of Christ’s atoning work. Then we might consider what it means that we are already seated with Christ in the heavenly places–what his exalted status means for our exalted status, both individually and as the church. And then there is our eternal destiny.

We are in the season of Lent looking toward Easter. The church celebrates the Feast of the Ascension on the Seventh Sunday of Easter, which in 2026 is May 14. Let’s not neglect this Feast nor this doctrine. If you get this book now, you have plenty of time to read, ponder, and prepare to celebrate this important day in the life of the church.

_______________________

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher for review.

Review: God Looks Like Jesus

/ rtrube54 / Leave a comment
Cover image of "God Looks Like Jesus" by Gregory A. Boyd and M. Scott Boren

God Looks Like Jesus

God Looks Like Jesus, Gregory A. Boyd & M. Scott Boren. Herald Press (ISBN: 9781513815510) 2025.

Summary: In the life, ministry, teaching, and crucifixion of Jesus, we see the embodiment of what God is like.

Sooner or later, many parents have to answer, first, the question of “Where is God?” and then, often, the question of “What is God like?” This latter question is one many of us grapple with all of our lives, consciously or subconsciously. How we answer that question is vitally important. It shapes not only how we worship but how we live. Some may live under a cloud of guilt while others angrily deny God’s place in their lives because they don’t like what they believe God is like. Yet, still others live in the joyful security and outward facing generosity of believing they are God’s extravagantly loved children.

Gregory A. Boyd and M. Scott Boren advance a simple but profound assertion in this book. God looks like Jesus. If you want to know what God is like, God has definitively revealed himself in his Final Word, Jesus. This Jesus, incredibly, both fully God and man, humbled himself to live under human constraints. This includes the ultimate constraint of death on the cross. Indeed, all of his life was formed by and toward the cross, to bear the sins of a lost humanity. The authors call this cruciform life the “center of the center.” This leads them to propose that we read all of scripture with “cross-tinted glasses.” Thus, they would contend that all of scripture is about an points toward Christ.

But this raises the question of how we deal with scriptures in which God sanctions violence. Part of the answer is that we see in the cross God taking upon God’s self, the Incarnate Son, the violence and evil of the world to reconcile the world to himself. But this doesn’t erase the herem passages from scripture. Commendably, the authors neither rationalize nor try to minimize the actual extent of herem. Rather, they argue that Moses misunderstood God and commanded herem in God’s name. He cites Exodus 23:28-30 and Leviticus 18:24-25 to indicate God’s intent to gradually displace the Canaanites. But God’s non-violent plans were too radical for Moses, who didn’t get it and commanded violent conquest. In the end, God in God’s humility accommodates this. Thus, the authors preserve the loving, humble God revealed in Christ.

To me, this seems a bit of fancy exegetical footwork. It dodges the plain meaning of the texts. I appreciate the effort, because these are among the most troubling texts in scripture and they seem to contradict the portrait of the loving, humble servant God we see in Jesus. Yet, I think this portrait becomes a Procrustean bed that does violence to these violent texts. I continue to wrestle with these texts personally. The best treatment I’ve found is L. Daniel Hawk’s The Violence of the Biblical God (reviewed at: https://bobonbooks.com/2019/08/05/review-the-violence-of-the-biblical-god/). Hawk accepts that God-sanctioned violence is one of the “voices” in scripture and must not be glossed over but which ultimately (as the authors of this work also argue) takes violence upon himself and thus signals its end.

The authors move on from this to discuss the kingdom Jesus proclaims, and how cruciform love shapes it. Enemies are loved and love is extended in broadly inclusionary fashion to all those society, and often the church, would marginalize. They also argue that instead of the classical notions of God’s unchanging nature, the loving God we encounter in Jesus has passions and suffers. Finally, our ultimate hope is in a renewed creation where God does right by all that moves us to exercise God’s love for it in the present.

I found much to commend in this compact book. Especially, I commend the focus on Christ and his cross as central to the gospel message and our rubric for understanding all of scripture. And to understand experientially that the Christ we encounter in scripture reveals the God we may worship joyfully in Spirit and Truth–that is a gift! While I differ in the authors’ attempt at theodicy, I affirm the courage to address the signal objection to their thesis. I would commend Hawk’s approach, not cited by the authors. But above all, for those who struggle with what they think the God they believe in is like, this book cuts through the verbiage and says “look at Jesus and you will see what God is truly like.”

_______________________

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher for review.

Review: Writing and Rewriting the Gospels

/ rtrube54 / Leave a comment
Cover image of "Writing and Rewriting the Gospels" by James W. Barker

Writing and Rewriting the Gospels, James W. Barker, foreword by Mark Goodacre. Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. (ISBN: 9780802874528) 2025.

Summary; Drawing on ancient compositional practice, argues for for a “snowballing” process of gospel writing.

We have long noticed the similarities of the first three gospels. Hence the term “synoptic” (literally “seeing together”). Yet we also notice that Matthew and Luke share a body of material in common not in Mark as well as some material being unique to each. The scholarly consensus is that Mark wrote first. Matthew and Luke used Mark as well as a second source known as Q (short for Quelle). No actual Q manuscript has ever been found but its existence is posited on the basis of shared material. Finally, John wrote much later and independently.

James W. Barker challenges this consensus, defending a hypothesis by Farrer that argues for a “snowballing” of composition. The argument is that Mark indeed wrote first, Matthew followed, drawing upon Mark. In turn Luke wrote using both Mark and Matthew. Finally, John used all three Synoptic gospels in a creative formulation. And there was no such thing as Q. The shared material of Matthew and Luke was added by Matthew and used by Luke.

Barker develops his argument in part upon recent research into ancient compositional practice. Some of this includes his own work in copying the gospels onto codices and bookrolls. He also develops evidence of that the practice of rewriting an earlier writer’s work was common practice. Moreover, it was not overly cumbersome to work with multiple sources in rewriting. He then turns to the synoptics and offers evidence for Matthews rewriting of Mark and Luke’s use of both. For example, in Mark 12:38b-39, Jesus warns about scribes, their finery, the greetings and the seats they expected. Matthew 23:2b, 5b-8a elaborates this. Luke 20:46 virtually copies Mark verbatim, but Luke 11:43 adds some of Matthew’s material.

Then Barker turns to John. Only about a quarter of the material in John is shared. He notes that the differences reflect a storytelling device known as oppositio in imitando, the imitating of a story while turning many elements inside out. Barker compares, for example, the synoptics treatment of Samaritans with Jesus encounter with the Samaritan woman. He looks at the paralysis healings, the feeding of the five thousand and taking Luke’s Lazarus character and literally raising him to life. He develops from this a case that John also “rewrote,” interacting with the prior material.

Finally, he traces Christology in Paul’s work, the synoptics, and John, as well as later works. He contends Mark and some of Paul left room for adoptionist Christologies. Matthew and Luke, with the birth accounts laid groundwork for a higher Christology. He argues that John’s high Christology anticipates the councils and contributed substantively to them.

The most attractive aspect to me of Barker’s proposal was his argument against Q. I always wondered about this shadowy source no one has ever found. He offers a plausible account to me for both the distinctive composition of each gospel and how they “snowballed” on earlier accounts. In so doing, he advances Farrer’s hypothesis of the literary relationships between the gospels. I think he makes a good case for this being at least a viable alternative to the two source explanation. And he even incorporates John in the process, although I suspect there is much more to be done to make his case fully persuasive. All told, this is an important contribution to our understanding of the relationship of the four gospels.

____________________

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher for review.

Review: Scripture in Doctrinal Dispute

/ rtrube54 / 2 Comments
Cover image of "Scripture in Doctrinal Dispute" by Frances M. Young

Scripture in Doctrinal Dispute (Doctrine and Scripture in Early Christianity, Volume 2), Frances M. Young. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. (ISBN: 9780802882998) 2024.

Summary: A study of how scripture was used in the doctrinal controversies concerning the Trinity and Christology.

One of the challenge early teachers in the church faced was how to articulate the evidence of the biblical text when discussing the nature of God as well as the nature of Christ as the Incarnate Son of God. These questions came to a head in the fourth and fifth centuries. The Council of Nicea in 325 AD and Constantinople in 381 AD articulated the church’s doctrine of the Trinity, of God’s singular nature subsisting in three persons. The Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD addressed the nature of the Incarnate Christ as the person of the divine Son, who subsisted in two natures, divine and human.

What Frances M. Young does in this second volume of her study of doctrine and scripture in early Christianity is show how the scriptures were used by the different parties to these controversies. The book begins in setting the stage with the discussions on the nature of God in the earliest centuries where the Oneness of God was affirmed but also the three persons of the Godhead. The ambiguities that remained led to further controversy.

Chapters 2 and 3 focus on the discussions of the Trinity. Chapter 2 addresses the challenge of Arius and his use of scripture and the response of Athanasius and Basil of Caesarea. Chapter 3 focuses on the Cappadocians and the decisive work of Gregory of Nyssa leading up to Constantinople. Chapters 4 and 5 turn to the unresolved questions about Christology. Chapter 4 contrasts the exegesis of Hebrews by Chrysostom and the interpretation of the Gospel of John by Cyril of Alexander. Chapter 5 centers on the polemic between Cyril and Nestorius over whether Mary was theotokos (Cyril) or christotokos (Nestorius).

Then Chapter 6 summarizes Young’s findings of the use of scripture. One was the importance of the Rule of Faith and baptismal creeds as summaries of scripture. These didn’t resolve controversy but pushed the church to articulate clearly the nature of the Godhead, Father, Son and Spirit, in whose name new converts were baptized and the person of the Lord Jesus Christ who they confessed. Young also observes how the process of “prooftexting” and the effort to express the overall teaching called for extrabiblical terms to express the mind of scripture, terms like ousia (substance) and hypostases (persons). Citing Augustine, Young notes both how doctrine informs right reading of scripture and the wrestling with the body of scripture leads to refined doctrinal understanding. She concludes that it is in worship where scripture and doctrine coinhere.

I would say in reading Young, one has to work to keep the forest in view with all the “trees” in the discussion. In addition to keeping a thumb in the detailed table of contents, it might have helped to have some summaries in tabular form. Absent these, the studious reader may want to take their own notes and outline.

Young describes a process far “messier” than many of us might like. Even after the councils, not all agree, as is the case with the Nestorians. Her discussion also underscores that everyone here treated scripture as authoritative and appealed to the Rule of Faith. As I personally consider the outcomes of the Councils, I see not a power struggle with winners and losers but a process superintended by God that led to wise formulations that guide us well to this day in articulating the sense of scripture.

_____________

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher for review.

Review: Crowned with Glory and Honor

/ rtrube54 / Leave a comment
Cover image of "Crowned with Glory and Honor" by Michael A Wilkinson.

Crowned with Glory and Honor (Studies in Historical and Systematic Theology), Michael A. Wilkinson. Lexham Academic (ISBN: 9781683597308) 2024.

Summary: Argues for a Christian anthropology based on Chalcedon’s understanding of Christ’s person-nature constitution.

There is what seems to be a stalemate in contemporary Christian circles when it comes to anthropology. Basically it is a debate between dualism in various forms versus physicalism. In Crowned with Glory and Honor, Michael A. Wilkinson argues for beginning in a different place from discussions that are largely around philosophic categories. He believes the place to begin is Jesus Christ, who as the Incarnate Son is the human, man extraordinaire. Jesus is the ultimate expression of what it means to be human. Wilkinson believes the clearest and definitive expression of the church’s understanding of who God the Incarnate Son is may be found in the definition that resulted from the Council at Chalcedon.

To begin with, Wilkinson establishes both the biblical and epistemological warrant for defining what it means to be human in light of Christ. He then traces the antecedents to the Chalcedonian ontology of Christ. Briefly, this arose from the debates over the Trinity, how God may be both one substance (ousia) subsisting in three persons (hypostases). In a sense, Chalcedon both used and flipped this language in saying the person (hypostasis) of the Son subsisted in two natures, one divine and one human. In the incarnation, the divine person of the Son acted through a human nature with a human will.

Wilkinson offers one of the clearest summaries and explanations of the councils that led to the church’s understanding of the Trinity and of Christology I have read. However, the challenge for me was in moving from Christology to anthropology. Based on his understanding of Christology, he would argue for a similar person-nature understanding of human beings. He argues that the human person is created and exists by God’s power subsisting in and acting through a body-soul human nature. At first glance, this is an interesting alternative to the stalemate between dualism and physicalism. But I found myself considering several difficulties as I weighed the proposal:

  1. Wilkinson rightly states Christ is one divine person (hypostasis) subsisting in two natures, divine and human. Yet to argue that he is man extraordinaire, but not a human person, but a divine person subsisting in a human nature, seems problematic given the analogy Wilkinson pursues. Man ordinaire seems more human than Jesus as both human in person and nature. Wilkinson acknowledges the analogy needs to be modified but his explanations did not resolve this difficulty for me.
  2. It was unclear to me how the created human person acts through the body-soul nature.
  3. Wilkinson comes down on the side of body-soul dualism but does not explain his reasons for doing so.
  4. How is the human person different from the soul? Why is a soul necessary in this anthropology?

These difficulties noted, I am nevertheless intrigued by this proposal. It has always seemed intuitively obvious that we look to Christ for what it means to be fully human. Wilkinson adds to that intuition a biblical and theological warrant and the rich formulation of Chalcedon. Wilkinson’s mentor, Stephen J. Wellum, describes this proposal as “not the final word on the subject, but it is the place to begin.” I would agree and hope Wilkinson will continue to refine this proposal as God gives more light.

_____________

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher for review.

Review: Conceived by the Holy Spirit

/ rtrube54 / Leave a comment
Cover image of "Conceived by the Holy Spirit" by Rhyne R. Putman

Conceived by the Holy Spirit, Rhyne R. Putnam. B&H Academic (ISBN: 9781087766317) 2024.

Summary: A study of the nativity narratives offering a defense of the virgin birth and considering its significance.

“Conceived by the Holy Spirit.” Some of us speak this phrase every week, or even every day. It is part of the Apostles Creed, one of the early creeds of the church. It is a confession to the supernatural conception of Jesus in the womb of Mary apart from sexual relations with a man. There has always been skepticism surrounding this idea. Babies just don’t happen that way. Yet Christians regularly confess that it did happen this way on one occasion.

Rhyne R. Putnam has given a wonderful gift to pastors preaching the nativity passages and to all of us who wonder about these things. This book explores the nativity passages in Matthew and Luke, defending the doctrine of the virgin birth, conceived by the Holy Spirit and considers the importance and significance of this doctrine. In the book, he takes small portions of the narratives and draws out the significance of the textual material.

He begins with Luke’s introduction and notes the Marian perspective of the early narratives evident in the following:

  • Only Mary would know whether she had never been sexually involved with a man.
  • Only Mary would have knowledge of a private visitation from Gabriel.
  • If Mary spent three months with her cousin Elizabeth, she would have been very familiar with the circumstances surrounding John’s birth.
  • Although Mary was not present with the shepherds when the angels visited them, Luke explicitly tells us that the shepherds “reported the message they were told about this child” to Mary and Joseph (Luke 2:17).
  • She was present when Simeon and Anna blessed the child in the temple.
  • Like any other parent, Mary would remember the time when her son went missing in a large city (p. 22)).

While these don’t “prove” the virgin birth, the likelihood that Luke’s account was based on the witness of the one in the best position to know about these things is not to be lightly disregarded. Along the way, Putnam also offers sidebar discussions of objections posed such as the origins of the virgin birth in pagan theology. He shows how the miraculous conceptions in the Old Testament (and that of Elizabeth) anticipate this event.

Not only does he defend the virgin birth, he unpacks the theological significance of this event. God keeps his covenant promises. We listen to Mary’s glorious Magnificat and realize we are even more blessed. The accounts reveal the babe as Savior, King, God with us, God’s Anointed One. He was born under the law, and from his circumcision and dedication onward, met all its requirements for all of us who don’t. And he is the King manifested to the nations in the visit of the Magi. For example, Putnam writes:

“In the case of the magi, something wonderful and unusual was happening. These men of a higher station–potentially emissaries from an eastern king–were lying prostrate in a humble Jewish home before a small child, revering him as a king unlike any other. More remarkable still, God had called these pagan men from a faraway land to worship at the feet of his Son. What Matthew depicts in this humble, earthly scene mimics the future heavenly scene where ‘a vast multitude from every nation, tribe, people, and language, which no one could number’ stand around the throne and sing praises to God and to the Lamb (Rev 7:9) (p.181).

Putnam’s writing is at once theologically and devotionally rich. This extends to the second part of the work which considers “The Virgin-Born King in Christian Theology and Practice.” Putnam discusses briefly and concisely the Christological debates of the early church. In concluding, he argues that they “saved Christmas.” Then he discusses how Jesus is both God and Man in One Person, and how it is fitting to call Mary theotokos (the God bearer). Appendices offer a harmonization of the accounts and an irenic discussion of the author’s differences with Marian dogma in the Catholic Church.

I especially liked the chapter on the “fittingness” of the virgin birth. Firstly, it is a sign we are saved by God’s grace alone. Secondly, it demonstrates that divine revelation is solely God’s initiative. Thirdly, it is a sign of Jesus uniqueness as the natural, only begotten Son of God. Fourthly, it is a sign of Christ’s supremacy. Finally, it is a fitting sign of Christ’s pre-existence. Rich stuff!

I wish I could have read this during Advent! As I’ve noted, Putnam does more then defend and expound the virgin birth. He leads us into the blessedness of these truths. Thus, our response becomes “O Come Let Us Adore Him!” I’d encourage you to pick up a copy to have it on hand for Advent reading next year. And pastors, get a copy to enrich your thought and preparation for next Advent and Christmastide. Apologists will benefit from the defense of the virgin birth. I’m glad to add this to my library!

_____________

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher for review.

Review: The Divine Christology of the Apostle Paul

/ rtrube54 / Leave a comment
Cover image of "The Divine Christology of the Apostle Paul" by Chris Bruno, John J.R. Lee, and Thomas R. Schreiner

The Divine Christology of the Apostle Paul, Chris Bruno, John J. R. Lee, and Thomas R. Schreiner. IVP Academic (ISBN: 9781514001141) 2024.

Summary: On recent scholarship considering how Paul reconciled monotheism and the divinity of Jesus.

Why did Paul write of Jesus in terms reserved for God? How could a strict monotheistic Jew like Paul call Jesus “Lord” and worship him along with God the Father? While we may take this for granted, for devout Jews, Paul’s language is startling. From where did he get this idea?

Since the early 1900’s, Wilhelm Bousset’s ideas dominated the discussions of these questions. He “argued that early Christian devotion to Jesus originated from a Hellenistic setting where pagan religious influences such as Hellenistic mystery religions were more readily available to and accepted by Jesus-followers” (p.7). Rudolph Bultmann, one of the most prominent New Testament scholars of the twentieth century, promoted Bousset’s contention. The authors of this work engage the work of more recent scholars who argue for the early and Jewish origins of the high Christology of Paul and other early Christians.

Part One: Recent Proposals for Pauline Divine Christology

In part 1, the authors consider the proposals of Richard Bauckham, Larry Hurtado, Chris Tilling, and N. T. Wright. Bauckham proposes a divine identity paradigm. He notes how Paul and other NT writers include Jesus in God’s unique identity as sole creator, sovereign, and worthy of worship, as revealed in the Old Testament. Hurtado focuses in on the corporate worship paradigm. He observes that corporate worship and public devotion is offered to Jesus along with God the Father as clear evidence of Jesus divine status in the eyes of Paul.

Tilling argues for a Christ-relation paradigm. He points to the parallels of language for the relationship of YHWH and Israel in the Old Testament with that used of the relationship of Christ and believers. Finally, Wright sees a YHWH’s return paradigm. Citing the OT promises that YHWH will return to Zion, he argues that Christ’s fulfillment of these promises is Paul’s basis for a high Christology.

After outlining each of the proposals and commending their contribution, the authors note a few problems. One is that the proposals, focused as they are, fail to integrate all the evidence. Relatedly, they also fail to integrate Christology within Paul’s larger theological concerns. Finally, the authors believe these proposals fail to consider Paul’s presuppositions about scripture as divine revelation. This last criticism does not seem warranted, knowing something of the writing of these scholars.

Part Two: Exegetical Analysis for Pauline Divine Christology

The second part of the work offers an exegetical attempt by the authors to formulate Paul’s divine Christology. They treat the relevant Pauline passages under three headings: 1) Jesus, the One Lord of Israel, 2) Jesus, the Incarnate God Who Humbled Himself as Man, and 3) Jesus, the Ruler and Sovereign of Creation and New Creation. They weigh relevant OT and Second Temple influences and engage the work of the previously discussed scholars. A final chapter considers biblical texts that have been used to argue against a high Christology, namely I Corinthians 15:24-28 and Romans 1:3-4.

Afterword and Appendices

The main part of this work reflects the efforts of Chris Bruno and John Lee to summarize and engage recent work demonstrating the early and Jewish roots of Paul’s divine Christology. But the after matter has treasures of its own. First is an afterword by Thomas R. Schreiner develops further the ideas of Jesus’s Lordship, including the scholarship of David Capes, the prayers to Jesus found in Paul, other places where God and Christ are spoken of in parallel, and the trinitarian dimensions to be found in Paul. This last is an important corrective in a work that might be critiqued for a binatarian emphasis!

Appendix I then deals with David Capes and seven other scholars who have also contributed to discussions related to divine Christology in Paul. Appendix II offers a tabular review of the content of the book. Finally, Appendix III is a helpful introduction on Second Temple Jewish writings with a bibliography of additional resources.

Concluding Comments

One of the popular criticisms of Christianity is the idea that “Jesus became God” and that this was a late development that would have been unacceptable for monotheistic Jews. While not a direct response to this critique, this book undercuts that contention. The authors show a recent, significant scholarly consensus for the early and Jewish roots of divine Christology in Paul. In addition, this work offers a helpful survey of that scholarship for those who wish to pursue these questions further. And Bruno and Lee offer their own constructive exegetical Pauline Christology to further the discussion.

____________________

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher for review.

Visit Pauline Studies Reviews at Bob on Books for other reviews in the area of Pauline studies.

Review: The Wood Between the Worlds

/ rtrube54 / 3 Comments

The Wood Between the Worlds, Brian Zahnd. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, (Forthcoming) 2024.

Summary: An approach to the kaleidoscopic theological meaning of the cross. the center of the biblical story through the lens of poetry.

The title to this work captures what Brian Zahnd is trying to do. The reference to “the wood between the worlds” is to the wood of the cross, which stands between the world that is and the world that is to come. The language is poetic, pointing to the author’s project of exploring the theological meaning of the cross. He resists the attempt to reduce that meaning to technical prose statements, contending for a “kaleidoscope” of the “infinite number of ways of viewing the cross of Christ as the beautiful form that saves the world” (p. 3). And why his focus on the cross? He believes it is the interpretive center of all scripture that offers a lens through which one may interpret the rest of scripture.

What Zahnd offers us is a series of theolgical meditations couched in poetic language. Each chapter begins with a poetic epigraph. One of the key ideas in this work appears in an early chapter, “The Singularity of Good Friday.” Zahnd proposes that on Good Friday “the sin of the world coalesced into a hideous singularity that upon the cross it might be forgiven en masse” (p. 17). The cross is not where God punishes sin or appeases his anger but where God in Christ endured sin and death inflicted by humanity, revealing God’s love in revealing God’s forgiveness. In another chapter, reflecting on Elie Wiesel’s Night, he speaks of a God, who is in the Christ, was on the gallows, the focal point of human suffering.

Another chapter centers on John Coltrane’s “A Love Supreme.” He speaks of all the Trinity as “co-crucified” in Christ rather than the idea of the Son as an object of the Father’s wrath. He contends that the cross reveals the supreme love of God. Zahnd portrays with great eloquence the beauty of God’s love revealed on the cross. I feel however that this is but a partial truth–that Zahnd (as many other contemporary writers) caricatures and then eviscerates the model of penal substitutionary atonement. He accepts the caricature of penal atonement as God punishing the Son and makes the only wrath that of human beings brought to focus on the cross. Gone is the idea of the cross as the place where God’s love and justice meet. I do not believe he does justice to the thoughtful proponents of theories of penal substitution that see this as a work of the Triune God working in harmony involving many of the elements the author dissociates in his portrayal of penal atonement and embraces for his own view. In his view, there is both identification with suffering and forgiveness, but no judgment, only love,

This criticism noted, I would also hasten to say that this work sparkles with insight. He challenges us to consider and live into the grotesque beauty of the outstretched arms on the cross, living lives of cruciform love. He offers a fascinating study of Pilate in literature, in contrast to Christ, and our likeness to Pilate in our embraces of violence. He offers a compelling treatment of the choice between the cross and power in a chapter on Tolkien’s One Ring and the illusions about wielding its power. He renders an interesting introduction to the work of Rene Girard on the scapegoat and, in a subsequent chapter, citing James Cone, on how the lynching tree became the cross for Blacks, and they became our scapegoats.

There is a beautiful reflection on Mary, neglected by Protestants, on the swords that pierced her life, culminating with the cross. He discusses Yeats “centre that does not hold” and how the cross is the place where the center does hold. He considers the slain Lamb on the Throne in the place of the Lion in Revelation and how he conquers, not by violence, but undoes death by dying.

Zahnd’s theopoetics certainly challenges tired theological formulations with theological imagination. The title image of the cross as the wood between the worlds is a compelling one. His focus on the cross as central to biblical interpretation challenges our “flat” approaches to the Bible. I think he gives the lie to caricatures of penal theories but I wonder if a reading of the best and not the caricatures might further enrich the kaleidoscope. What he does do is offer a rich collection of theological meditations, one that may make for nourishing Lenten reading.

________________________________

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received a complimentary review copy of this book from the publisher.

Review: The Paradox of Sonship

/ rtrube54 / 3 Comments

The Paradox of Sonship (Studies in Christian Doctrine and Scripture), R. B. Jamieson, foreword by Simon J. Gathercole. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2021.

Summary: A discussion of the use of “Son” in Hebrews proposing that it is a paradox, that Jesus is the divine Son who became the messianic “Son” at the climax of his saving mission.

The very first verses of the book of Hebrews present us with a challenge. What does the author mean when he refers to Jesus as “Son”? Verses 1-3 seem to describe one who is the eternal Son, the second person of the Trinity, eternally God with the Father and the Holy Spirit. Yet verse 5, quoting Psalm 2:7 and the parallels in 2 Samuel 7:14; 1 Chron. 17:13 seem to suggest that Jesus is given the title “Son” at the point of his enthronement, after resurrection and ascension. This has resulted in at least three approaches: 1) that Jesus only becomes the Son, an adoptionist, less than eternally divine, approach, 2) being the Son and becoming the Son are irreconcilable, resulting in a Christology at tension with itself, and 3) Jesus is always and already the Son, a divine Christology approach.

In this work, R.B. Jamieson proposes an alternative. He sees a paradox in which both meanings are true. Jesus is the Son who became the Son. Jamieson begins his argument with highlighting six Christological concepts that he contends are part of the classical Christological toolkit: 1) Who Jesus is? A single divine subject, 2) What Jesus is? One person with two natures, 3) When this Jesus is? Eternal divine existence and incarnation in time, the last times, 4) Theology and economy, or “partitive exegesis,” that is distinguishing passages speaking of Jesus as eternally divine, and those speaking of his incarnation, 5) Twofold or reduplicative predication, a complement to number 4 in focusing on the incarnate state, and distinguishing what passages reference Jesus divine nature an what his human nature, and 6) paradoxical predication: the communication of idioms, that seemingly incompatible qualities must be ascribed to the single person of the Son. He roots these in conciliar Christianity and proposes that these, although an unusual exegetical strategy, actually allow one to read with the grain of Hebrews.

In succeeding chapters then, he unpacks his argument of the Son who became the Son. Chapter 2 focuses on the use of Son as a divine designation of his mode of divine existence, distinct from the Father and the Spirit, and as a reference to his deity. Chapter 3 turns to the Son’s incarnate mission, fully divine and fully human, and that his life, suffering, death, and resurrection are not fissures in Christology but reflect tension and resolution. Chapter 4 focuses on the enthronement of Jesus upon completion of his saving mission, confirming his messianic rule, in which he is designated messianic Son. Then, the unique twist of chapter 5 is that Jesus could only become the messianic Son because he is the divine Son incarnate–only the God-man can fill this office.

In the conclusion of the book, he first returns to the “toolkit” and shows how the Jesus of Hebrews is the Jesus of Chalcedon. He then proposes in brief that one might extend his approach to at least two other passages: Acts 2:36 and Romans 1:3-4. Finally, he points to the pastoral implication of his argument, that in the Son who became the Son, we have been given all we need in Christ.

I thought this book a marvelous example of theology and biblical studies in conversation. We see in careful study of Hebrews the questions and data about the nature of the Son that became the substance of conciliar discussion. And we see how the “Christological toolkit” of the councils offers resources for making sense of the biblical data. What I also appreciated was the carefully organized and articulated argument of this book. Jamieson “shows his work,” enabling us to follow him with clarity of language and steps in his argument. Scholars of other persuasions will have to show why theirs is a better construction of the text than this well-argued case.

____________________________

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received a complimentary review copy of this book from the publisher in exchange for an honest review. The opinions I have expressed are my own.

Review: Confessing Christ for Church and World

/ rtrube54 / 1 Comment

Confessing Christ

Confessing Christ for Church and World, Kimlyn J. Bender. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2014.

Summary: A collection of essays in Barthian theology, exploring his ecclesiology, his confessional theology, particularly as it bears on the canon, and his understanding of the relationship of Christ and creation.

Most will concede that Karl Barth was one of the greatest, perhaps the greatest theologian, of the twentieth century. During his lifetime, however, even while he was challenging the liberal, higher critical-oriented, theology of his day, he was not necessarily given a sympathetic hearing by evangelicals. Kimlyn Bender, the author of this collection of essays, recounts how Barth was at one time approached by Geoffrey Bromiley to see if he would respond to questions from three evangelical theologians for a Christianity Today article. He quoted Barth’s response:

“The decisive point, however, is this. The second presupposition of a fruitful discussion between them and me would have to be that we are able to talk on a common plane. But these people have already had their so-called orthodoxy for a long time. They are closed to anything else, they will cling to it at all costs, and they can adopt toward me only the role of prosecuting attorneys, trying to establish whether what I represent agrees or disagrees with their orthodoxy, in which I for my part have no interest! None of their questions leaves me with the impression that they want to seek with me the truth that is greater than us all. They take the stance of those who happily possess it already and who hope to enhance their happiness by succeeding in proving to themselves and the world that I do not share this happiness. Indeed they have long since decided and publicly proclaimed that I am a heretic, possibly (van Til) the worst heretic of all time. So be it! But they should not expect me to take the trouble to give them the satisfaction of offering explanations which they will simply use to confirm the judgment they have already passed on me. . . . These fundamentalists want to eat me up. They have not yet come to a “better mind and attitude” as I once hoped. I can thus give them neither an angry nor a gentle answer but instead no answer at all.”

Fortunately, the atmosphere has changed since this time (in 1961) and Barth receives a much more sympathetic hearing and many, like the author of this collection of essays have taken the approach Barth commends of “seek[ing] with me the truth that is greater than us all.”

This collection of essays is organized around three of the key words in the book’s title. The first section focuses on “church” and Barth’s engagement with Catholic ideas of the church, dissenting from while holding in tension the strong identity between Christ and church. Bender also explores what his understanding of Christ and church may contribute to evangelical and Free Church traditions in which ecclesiology (the theology of the church) are often lacking.

The second section focuses on “confessing” particularly as this bears on the canon of scripture. There is a fascinating essay here on his relationship with Harnack and Barth’s deep dissatisfaction with the separation between professor’s lectern and pastor’s pulpit, between “the assured results of modern scholarship” and the church’s confession of Christ incarnate, crucified and raised. There is also a fine chapter worth the price of admission of itself drawing on the work of Barth in answering the writing of Bart Erhman which has cast so many aspersions on canon, as well as the church’s confessed understanding of Christ. This section closes with a study of Barth’s response to atheism, which in one sense was not to take it seriously, but in another sense to engage it, not on philosophical terms but rather a clear presentation of the Christian revelation centered in the person and work of Christ.

The third section is focused on the “world”, the creation and Christ’s relation to it. Perhaps the most interesting essay here is one on Barth’s Gifford Lecture. The Gifford Lectures were created as lectures on natural theology. Barth’s lecture amounted to answering the question of why he had no place in his own work for a natural theology, focusing on both the need for revelation and for the redemption of reason. He concludes with a kind of “postscript” on the Christology of Friedrich Schleiermacher in relation to that of Barth.

Apart from shorter works, I’ve not read much of Barth. Bender’s work whets my appetite for more. Maybe in retirement I’ll have to take on Church Dogmatics perhaps in preparation for meeting the great theologian and his Greater Lord.