Book review — Philippians: A Mentor Commentary, by Matthew S. Harmon

by Dan Phillips

Title: Philippians: A Mentor Commentary
Author: Matthew S. Harmon
Publisher: Christian Focus Publications
Date: 2015

Backstory. Matt Harmon is professor of New Testament studies at Grace College and Grace Theological Seminary, in Winona Lake, Indiana. Harmon has contributed to various books and academic journals in the past, in the former category including a chapter in Crossway's recent work on particular redemption, From Heaven He Came and Sought Her.

I know Dr. Matt because he was kind enough to be a reader for The World-Tilting Gospel. I wanted a professional academic to assess my translations and my remarks on the Greek text, to make sure they were accurate. Matt was so gracious as to do me that great favor. We became cyber-friends, finally meeting in person at Together for the Gospel.

So when Matt asked me to return the favor by reading his manuscript for a commentary on Philippians, and specifically provide pastoral feedback, I was delighted to accept.

Now, of course, one is always a bit concerned in such situations. One good brother asked me to look at a manuscript some time back, and I immediately saw that I would need to suggest radical edits just about every paragraph, starting with the first. I knew I'd never have the time. What would it be like, reading Matt's manuscript? Being an academic and a good brother doesn't n ecessarily make one a good writer.

Overall. As I read, my concerns vanished, turning to great joy. As I often do, let me anticipate my bottom-line: this is an excellent commentary, one I expect to serve for many years. It transcends both series and publisher, and deserves to become a standard go-to resource for preachers, professors, teachers, and serious students alike.

In saying that I mean no snub to the publisher per se. But perhaps most of us don't think of Mentor right-off when we think of leading commentary series; perhaps we think of NIC, or Pillar, or another. I am saying that this book easily walks in that company.

What makes Harmon's commentary so exceptional is its effortless combination of two factors often missing even in useful commentaries. Often a commentary is either academically sound and dives deeply into the text qua text, or it is warmly devotional and breathes a heart of love for Christ, His Gospel, and His church. One may read (say) Boice or Lloyd-Jones for the latter, and (say) Bruce or Marshall for the former.

Harmon's Philippians bridges the gap to unite both strengths. Harmon very thoroughly (and readably) expounds the Greek text, right down to the lexicography and syntax, and he also communicates it in a way fitting to its message. One can recognize the facts of a text without giving any evidence of tasting its beauties and implications. Harmon's commentary does both. He makes this clear in his initial note to the reader, where he outlines his intent, and then calls on the reader to engage prayerfully with the text as with God's word. I don't recall Bruce, Guthrie, or even P. E. Hughes every doing that!

Specifics. Harmon does his exposition in the body of the text proper, relegating scholarly interaction with the Greek text and the sciences to the footnotes. In this way he equally serves both readerships.

Introduction. The book opens with a thorough 46-page introduction. In it Harmon deals with customary matters such as authorship, destination, and place of origin. After discussing the various options, Harmon comes down in favor of Rome, in the timeframe of 60-62 AD (43). One helpful facet not shared by all Mentor volumes is the outline that Harmon gives, which he then uses to structure the rest of the commentary. That way the reader keeps track of the flow of Paul's thought.

In the introduction Harmon treats the more recently prominent issue of the imperial cult (27-29, with extensive footnote documentation), and brings in data from Acts to discuss the presence of Jews in Philippi. Harmon sees a multi-pronged purpose in Paul's writing this letter, including thanks for financial support, assurance that Epaphroditus is welcomed warmly, and updates for the Philippians as to Paul's own circumstances (45-46). Paul's overarching purpose in all of these is the pastoral goal of calling "for the Philippians to live joyfully as citizens of God's kingdom in a manner worthy of the gospel even in the face of internal and external pressures," which means pointing "them to Jesus Christ as the one who made them citizens of God's kingdom through His death and resurrection and now empowers them by His Spirit to be blameless and innocent children of God who sine as lights in this dark world" (46).

Harmon also discusses the opponents and false teachers (47-50), and opens up the book's key themes: the Gospel, Jesus Christ, the day of Christ, already/not-yet, joy, fellowship, and "mindset" (50-56). Two and a half pages on the use of the OT are followed by an excursus of over 7 pages (with tables) on the OT background to the "Christ-hymn" of 2:5-11.

Commentary. The commentary proper is over 400 pages long. Harmon introduces each section with a discussion of its thought-flow, which will be very useful for all teachers and preachers. Then Harmon comments verse by verse, reproducing the ESV text then expounds it from the perspective of the Greek text. All Greek words are transliterated, both in the body and in the footnotes, which broadens the scope of its usefulness. Harmon interacts with the Greek text in the body in an expository way that is accessible to any reader; the deeper explorations of lexicography and syntax are confined to the footnotes, which sometimes take 1/3 (356) to 1/2 (358) of the page. I love that, as you know!

Plus, Harmon's academic strengths are deep and broad; for instance in opening 1:23ff., in a footnote Harmon profitably applies the rhetorical devices synkrisis and dubitatio, with explanation and documentation (142, footnote 97). Harmon also notes the presence of chiasm (200). The text will satisfy "layman" and more scholarly reader alike.

The commentary itself opens on many levels. Harmon's focus is the meaning of the text as it left Paul's pen. But he also deals with it on a Biblical theology basis, setting it in the Canon, ultimately often commenting on the impact for systematics. Not only so, but Harmon also has an eye to the practical impact, the pastoral burden, and occasional clash with false teachings and other perversions of the text.

A good example illustrating Harmon's levels of concern is his treatment of Paul's prayer in 1:9 that the Philippians' "love may abound more and more, with knowledge and all discernment." Taking just those last words ("all discernment"), Harmon first discusses the wording (98):

Other English versions translate this word 'insight" (NIV), 'understanding' (NLT) or 'judgment' (KJV). Part of the difficulty is that this Greek word (aisthēsis) appears nowhere else in the New Testament. It does occur frequently in [the Greek translation of] Proverbs, where it most often has the sense of insight or knowledge (e.g., Prov. 1:22; 2:10; 3:20). If it refers to discernment, the idea is of making necessary distinctions between right and wrong, good and bad, wise and foolish, etc. (cf. Heb. 5:14). But if it speaks of insights, the emphasis rests on a level of understanding that penetrates beneath the surface to the complexity of something along with its implications. The fact that the very next verse indicates the purpose of this growth of love is for the purpose of enabling the Philippians to approve the essential things may slightly tip the scales towards seeing a reference to discernment. By adding the word all Paul stresses the totality of the discernment.

So a flowing introduction to the range of meaning, the presentation of the two main alternatives, and then rather than moving on without a commitment (as is commonly done), Harmon provides a reason to favor one view. But Harmon is not done yet. Then he develops that Paul's concern reveals "at least three important truths," which are:

1. "...although love must have some basis in basic knowledge, its depth, consistency and endurance in some sense depend on growing intimacy with the person or object loved. This point is worth emphasis in a day where mysticism often beckons away from  biblical reality. Knowledge is not the enemy of love for God, but a necessary condition for its existence" (98).
2. "...the fact that Paul prays for this growth in knowledge and insight/discernment implies that it is God who must grant these realities. While it is our responsibility as believers to pursue growth in knowledge and discernment/insight through the available means such as the preaching of God's Word, reading/studying the Bible and helpful Christian literature, these activities are insufficient in and of themselves to produce the kind of knowledge...Paul speaks of here. Apart from the supernatural work of God's Spirit to use those efforts, the only kind of knowledge gained...is the kind that makes a person arrogant (cf. 1 Cor. 8:1)."
3. "...for Paul, love is not a synonym for naivete. Popular depictions of Christian love as gullible credulity, easily taken in by false teachers, parasites, and hucksters, find no basis in the teaching of the apostles. Paul knew that a loving congregation could be a very vulnerable congregation, unless their love were tempered by a vigorously Biblical sense of knowledge and discernment such as is offered in Proverbs and the rest of the apostles' writings."

Each of those points is developed further, and this serves as a good representation of the commentary's strengths.

In his "Note to the Reader," Harmon announces his hope to serve "the pastor, the Sunday school teacher, the missionary, and the small-group leader." In keeping with this aim , Harmon crowns each section with "Suggestions for Preaching/Teaching and Application."

Also, the publisher made the wise decision in this volume (though not, alas, in others) of providing Harmon's extensive documentation in footnotes, not endnotes. A fourteen-page bibliography, a Scripture index, and a subject index close out the book.

In summary: I can't recommend this book highly enough. If you want to study Philippians closely, let alone teach it or preach it, I'd class it as a must-have, right alongside both classic and modern writers such as Eadie, Ellicott, Lightfoot and Alford, as well as O'Brien, Silva, or Hawthorne.

In fact, if you were about to buy your first commentary, or could have only one, Matthew Harmon's Mentor Commentary on Philippians would be the one I'd recommend. It's both the full package and the real deal, and I expect it to serve Christ's church for years to come.

---

Tip: thinking of teaching/preaching Philippians? Not...just...yet

by Dan Phillips


Next month an absolutely splendid commentary on Philippians is coming in the Mentor Commentary series. It's by my friend Dr. Matthew Harmon, Professor of NT Studies at Grace College and Theological Seminary in Winona Lake, IN.

The good doctor did me the favor of checking my translations and Greek comments in The World-Tilting Gospel. Then, turnabout being fair play, Matt asked me to read and offer pastoral comments on his manuscript for this commentary. I was happy to oblige.

...and, as I went through the manuscript, I was happier and happier that I'd obliged! It's rare to find a commentary that reflects top-notch academics and a heart warm with passion for Christ and His Gospel. But that's just what you find in this volume. Harmon has done the church a real service, and set an example for Christian academics. I see this volume being used for years to come.

Get the word out. Mentor doesn't have the publicity machinery that Crossway and others have, so this book would be well-served by enthusiastic word-of-mouth. I'm seeing hopeful signs that those who have the ears of many won't let this one languish in obscurity, and that's very, very good. I hope they give it the notice it deserves, so it can gain the audience it should have.

Which is just what I'm doing right now.

For my part, I wouldn't want to preach or teach through Philippians without Harmon's book on my shelf.

Pre-order it, and you won't be sorry.

---

Book review — Philemon: Evangelical Exegetical Commentary, by Seth M. Ehorn

by Dan Phillips

Philemon: Evangelical Exegetical Commentary, by Seth M. Ehorn

(Logos Bible Software, 2011)

Logos' Evangelical Exegetical Commentary series continues to grow. I reviewed the first volume by Gary Derickson first, then the commentary on James by Will Varner, then the commentary on the Song of Songs by A. Boyd Luter. Refer to the first (Derickson) review to understand the well-designed aim and focus of this series, which Logos provides me for possible reviews such as this.

Though Logos is selling Colossians (by H. Wayne House) and Philemon (by Ehorn) together, only Philemon is currently available. A longtime lover (and teacher, and preacher) of Colossians, I'll likely review that volume for you when it is released. The author of this commentary is Seth Ehorn, who is in the doctoral
program for New Testament language, literature, and theology at the University of Edinburgh, New College. Before this, Ehorn distinguished himself in his Master's studies at Wheaton College Graduate School, and has been creating entries for journals and upcoming publications.

As to this commentary, the thoroughness and currency of documentation once again immediately makes an impression. Six of the three hundred and sixty-eight footnotes speckle the first paragraph alone, referring to lit from the 1920s to the 2000s.

Approaching Philemon, Ehorn notes the letter's the lack of explicit development of usual Pauline themes (resurrection, etc), and the fact that theologies seldom refer extensively to Philemon. Yet,

[d]espite these apparent lacunae, Philemon is not just a fine literary and rhetorical achievement. Nor is it just an interesting cultural artifact. ...Presumably, Paul himself imagined that this letter would instigate great change in his hearers and especially in the life of a slave named Onesimus. Further, the multiple addressees in the letter seem to invite a wider readership, perhaps not only for the accountability of Paul’s request in the letter, but also for the edification of all who were addressed. It is in this latter sense that Philemon is to be understood as Christian Scripture.

In keeping with the brevity of the epistle, I'll keep my review briefer than some previous. I appreciated Ehorn's detailed and up-to-date attention to every aspect of the Greek text from every angle. I also appreciated the breadth and thoroughness of his documentation, which itself opens the doors to a lot of great material.

However what often stood out to me was Ehorn's reluctance to commit himself. Now, obviously one would not want a scholar to pretend certainty unwarranted by the evidence. Yet one has to admit that one wondered why Ehorn was chosen to write this particular commentary, given that he did not appear to have many singular insights to bring to light or trumpet.

For instance, we read, the epistle might have been written from Rome. Or maybe it was Ephesus. The evidence is inconclusive — though Ehorn makes an extended case for an (undocumented!) Ephesian imprisonment. Ehorn then argued against too tightly joining Colossians and Philemon, as is commonly done; he thinks Philemon precedes Colossians. By how long? Unknown. Or maybe it should really be connected with Philippians, instead of Colossians? Don't know. Finally, he concludes, "In the light of Paul’s request for lodging, it is easier to think that Paul wrote to Philemon from Ephesus than from Rome, thus probably between A.D. 52 and 55." Oh, so Ephesus it is...maybe.

So, what is the letter about? Exactly who was Philemon? What was Onesimus’ relationship with him? Why was Onesimus absent from him? How did Onesimus come to encounter Paul? In response, Ehorn quotes C. S. Lewis: “Almost anything can be read into any book if you are determined enough,” adding:

These words—penned by C. S. Lewis—are acutely true of the letter to Philemon. All these questions are left unanswered by the letter that is both short in length and short on details. Of course, such information would have been unnecessary to include in the letter seeing as the recipients would have had intimate knowledge of such issues already. Thus, as modern interpreters we are operating at a deficit. We are reading only half of the conversation. Nevertheless, such historical distance (not to mention social, political, etc.) should not drive readers to despair. Rather, it should warrant caution against over interpretation and humility regarding conclusions.

I'll attest that Ehorn certainly heeds his own advice. For instance, what is the narrative frame to the epistle, the background? The traditional (fugitivus) hypothesis sees Onesimus as a runaway slave, converted by Paul's ministry, returned by Paul. But, Ehorn counters, this would be a legal offense, and no remorse is expressed by or for Onesimus. Ehorn floats other possibilities, then concludes that it is impossible to be sure. For his part, he is "tentatively inclined to follow the recent trend of interpreters who read the letter to Philemon as concerning a slave who intentionally sought Paul for intercession with his master." But who knows?

Ehorn then says that the subject of slavery, peripheral to the book itself, has come to overshadow the actual content of the book. So no great help on that issue, here.

Ehorn makes good theological observations. For instance, though  Philemon doesn't stress usual Pauline themes, Ehorn notes that God and Christ (not the Spirit) are mentioned numerous times directly, and 2 passages feature the "divine passive" in two passages:

In two instances Paul employed the divine passive to indicate God as agent (vv 15, 22).61 Taken thusly, Paul not only hinted at the providential outworking of God in the details of Onesimus’ separation and return (v 15), but indicated that it was God who could grant him freedom from his imprisoned status (v 22). If God’s hand were involved in the separation of Onesimus from Philemon, then Philemon’s response to his slave would have to be tempered by his own view of the reality of God’s presence and providence in his life. Much like the circumstances of Joseph with his conniving brothers (cf. Gen 45:5, 8; 50:20; cf. also Esth 4:14), Philemon was summoned to look upon his circumstances and see them as the outworking of God. Perhaps with the clarity of hindsight, Philemon saw that the return of a slave who was now “useful” (v 11) and “a beloved brother” (v 16) was an act of God, who works “all things for the good of those who love him” (Rom 8:28).

This is a good example of Ehorn's theological sensitivity, and the useful material he produces.

Back to the issue of slavery. Ehorn hasn't much to contribute on the issue:

The relationship of Paul to slavery will be discussed only briefly in this section because of the publication of a recent monograph surveying studies on Paul and slavery and another recent collection of specific studies on Philemon. There is hardly necessity for an in-depth rehearsal of the trends of research on Philemon in view of these works. Suffice it to say, the general impact of the letter vis-à-vis slavery is presently in flux.

So Ehorn footnotes two academic works which are not in general circulation to explain why he won't have much to offer on the subject. I rather think it is a major issue in how we approach this book. Will it really do to say "I won't write very much about this (—in a commentary on the letter to slave-owner Philemon!) because some books few people own have"?

This is not to say that Ehorn has nothing to say on the issue. He notes J. M. G. Barclay's verdict that Paul's silence is "disturbing," adding this:

One cannot help but agree with Barclay’s empathetic statement that, “one can only weep on behalf of those millions of slaves whose lives might have been immeasurably better had Paul been just a little less ‘poetic’ ” (125). This, however, is not so much a problem with Paul per se, as it is with the history of interpretation.

Then, without comment, Ehorn notes that Moo "concluded that Paul did not realize the full implications of the theology he explicated." What? That sounds disturbingly like Paul K. Jewett's (and others') view on the issue of Paul and women pastors — that Paul just hadn't worked out his own theology yet, so the apostle (!) wrote in error in some passages. Does Moo think that? Does Ehorn agree with Moo?

While Ehorn writes and documents further, he does not really come to a conclusion, other than the conclusion that we do not know enough to come to a conclusion.

In fact later, commenting on vv. 15-16, Ehorn says Paul's "request was opaque."

This [opaqueness] is demonstrated by the variegated readings of v 16 among commentators. For example, one commentator boldly opined that “Paul is telling Philemon that he surely must manumit Onesimus now that he and Onesimus are brothers in Christ” (Witherington, 80; cf. Bruce, 217; Wolter, 270–72; Fitzmyer, 114–15). Conversely, other scholars find no legal implications regarding the issue of slavery (Lohse, 206; O’Brien, 305–06). Still others find the statement ambiguous, permitting either reading (Stuhlmacher, 43–45; Dunn, 335–36). Or, perhaps as Barclay argues, Paul may have been purposefully ambiguous because he did not know specifically what to recommend.

Ehorn's conclusion? None, apart from affirming that slave and master are now brothers — which is important, to be sure. But is it really all that is warranted?

This is all introductory. Ehorn's commentary, proper, is very detailed, sensitive to nuances of word-choice and case. For instance, on Paul not using "apostle" in the opening words, Ehorn makes a valuable observation:

It is of no small significance that the title ἀπόστολος is not found in letter opening, nor in the document at all, for its absence was likely part of the rhetorical strategy of the letter. That is, Paul had no intention of appealing to his authority as an apostle (cf. vv 8–9). The use of the self-appellation δέσμιος Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ ["prisoner of Christ Jesus"] sets the tone for the letter.

Ehorn's thoroughness is on display in his handling of verse 6 (ἡ κοινωνία τῆς πίστεώς σου ἐνεργὴς γένηται ἐν ἐπιγνώσει παντὸς ἀγαθοῦ τοῦ ἐν ἡμῖν εἰς Χριστόν), which he notes contains "the most exegetical difficulties of the letter." Ehorn contributes more than 2000 words (not including footnotes) of exegesis. First, he opens with an array of divergent translations, noting that even the NIV84 and current NIV differ. Here is his own translation: "that the fellowship produced by your faithfulness might become effective in the knowledge of every good thing that is yours for the sake of Messiah."

Later, Ehorn makes the valuable "applicational and devotional implication" that Onesimus' return teaches that

Onesimus too was to act in a selfless manner when he returned to his master as a “new man” (cf. Eph 4:24). By this it may be seen that conversion was not an escape from the responsibilities of his past. What was wrong still needed to be set right (cf. vv 18–19). Nevertheless, Onesimus’ new status in Christ would shake the foundations of his former relationship with Philemon, perhaps allowing for the forging of a new one as “a beloved brother” (v 16). By his example, Paul demonstrated that one effective way to guide fellow Christians is by gentle shepherding rather than coercive commanding (Calvin, 396).

Again, on the meaning of v. 21, Ehorn says maybe Paul wanted Philemon to release Onesimus to do gospel ministry with Paul. Or maybe Paul wanted Philemon to manumit him. Ehorn explains the former option, is a bit dismissive of the perspicuity of the latter, and (non-)concludes, "Either way, Paul left the options open, expecting Philemon to discern the right decision for himself..."

Ehorn's own translation is sometimes unusual. For instance, in verse 23, we read "my fellow-prisoner in reference to Messiah Jesus." This seems an odd rendering of ὁ συναιχμάλωτός μου ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ. How "in reference to"? What does that even mean? Isn't "in Christ" a major Pauline theme? Ehorn doesn't really explain the phrase, except insofar as he debates whether the term "fellow-prisoner" is literal or metaphorical (—  here he is again noncommittal).

I did very much appreciate Ehorn's comment on the names in vv. 23-24:

“Epaphras, who is my fellow-prisoner in reference to Messiah Jesus, greets you. Likewise, Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, and Luke my fellow-workers greet you.” Just as Paul opened the letter by including not only Philemon (v 1), but also Apphia, Archippus, and a church that met in Philemon’s house (v 2), so also Paul concluded the letter by including an epistolary entourage of no less than five people (vv 23–24). This confirms that the issue between Philemon and Onesimus is not just a private affair. Not only does the matter appear in a broader sphere of discourse, but the pressure is on, seeing as Paul had effectively “carbon copied” several others into the conversation.

So it's like using the "CC" function in an email, both spreading the mail, and alerting the primary addressee that others are reading it. Excellent observation. When I teach this, I'm sure I'll use that.

The book ends with a single excursus: "Christ, The Messiah In Theology And Translation." You know how many times you and I have pointed out that "Christ" isn't Jesus' last name? It's a title? Not so fast, says Ehorn in effect; sometimes it does function as a name in the NT, and not a title.

As to OT use, Ehorn notes that

With the exception of Dan 9:25–26, the use of “Messiah” always referred to a present person, not a future one. Thus, the OT itself does not provide the impetus for expectation of an eschatological figure who would be designated “the Messiah.”

This argument is almost too precise to be helpful, overlooking the body of material pointing to an eschatological priest, king, prophet — all of which share the term "anointed."

Ehorn concludes:

Although the consensus of scholarly opinion is that Χριστός had lost its titular significance within Paul’s letters, we have seen strong textual and historical reasons to see Paul’s use of Χριστός as not less than, but certainly more than titular.

In other words, Ehorn wants to translate it (sometimes!) as a proper name, not as a title. So he adds,

While translating the word Χριστός differently in context may present something of a problem to English sensibilities, particularly those who are used to hearing the word “Christ” in certain constructions, this is part and parcel of the task of understanding what ancient texts mean.

Accordingly, Ehorn works at coming up with a rationale for sometimes translating Χριστός as "Christ," and sometimes translating it as "Messiah," as the HCSB maddeningly does. So δέσμιος Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ in vv. 1 and 9 is "prisoner of Messiah Jesus," but ἀπὸ … κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ in v. 3 is "from...the Lord Jesus Christ." Also: εἰς Χριστόν  in v. 6 is “for the sake of Messiah,” and vv, 8 and 20 ἐν Χριστῷ are “in Messiah.”

As with all the EEC volumes, Ehorn concludes by providing a list of foreign and technical words (such as anaphoric, conative, dittography, enclitic, hendiadys, inclusio, etc.), and extended bibliographies.

In sum: Ehorn has provided a good survey of the issues in the text, with commentary on those issues worth considering. He offers a number of helpful observations on the text, and is sensitive to its theology. The book is a good education on the current state of Philemon studies. That Ehorn views so much of the evidence as inconclusive earns my respect for Ehorn's humility and candor as a scholar, but prevents me from seeing the commentary as significantly ground-breaking in its own right.

---

Life Coach

by Frank Turk

As many of you know, I am on hiatus, but being like that does not absolve one of his responsibilities to other people.  So for example, if a friend or an acquaintance to whom you own some small debt publishes a book while you are taking a long break from your world-famous blog, it seems right to come out of hiatus for a few minutes and give your friend a hand.  It wouldn't be a sin to do otherwise, but it would be a little thick.

Some of you may know Alex from his previous book, Thriving at College. Born and raised in Chicago, IL, he earned a B.S. Degree at Alfred University in Ceramic Engineering and M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in Material Science & Engineering from U.C. Berkeley. He worked as an engineer for IBM for three years (1996-1999). From 2005-2007 he was an apprentice at The Bethlehem Institute (now Bethlehem College and Seminary), a masters-level theological training program overseen by Pastors John Piper and Tom Steller. During those years, Alex got his start in Christian higher education at Northwestern College. As of 2007, he’s been a professor of engineering and physics at California Baptist University.

Back in 2011, I met Alex and tried to do a podcasted interview with him, but due to operator error in my equipment use, that never happened.  I dutifully posted a review of his previous book, and promised to help him with his next project as thanks for the time he spent (or wasted, as it might seem) with me at the Little Rock Airport.

This week, Alex is releasing his follow-up book Preparing your Teen for College. To read a thorough review and recommendation of this book, have a look at Bob Hayton's write-up as I think he covers more than enough ground to encourage you to buy this book if you have a teen who you are preparing for college.

However, I do have a few items about this book which you might also enjoy:

1. I really have no idea how the publishing industry decides on titles for books.  Actually, I do, and I hate it.  What Alex has written is a book on teen parenting -- which takes a correctly-balanced view of academics in the whole picture of preparing a young person to launch into life -- and they have wrapped it in cover which does two things: tries to leverage the franchise created by Alex's first successful book, and misleads you to think this books is really about college.  It's the second part which you ought to ignore because this book really isn't about college so much as it is about focusing on the right critical few items in parenting kids through teen years in our culture so that they will become faithful, useful adults when they leave your home.  There's a better book inside the cover than the title will lead you to believe.

2. It is rare for me to endorse a book over 400 pages which is not a reference book.  I'm endorsing this book in spite of its length.  Personally, I don't have a lot of use for a book which is too long to remember unless it is also worth filling with post-it tabs for reference in the future.  This book, which covers a lot of ground, will be one you'll want to read and mark up before your kids turn 12, refer back to as they turn 14 and 16, and then review and send off with them when they turn 18 and need to know the story behind all the things you expected from them.  To call this a reference book doesn't do it good service, but you will use it for reference after you read it the first time.

3. Alex doesn't need my endorsement. He has the likes of R.C Sproul, Doug Wilson, and Gene Veith endorsing this book. But he gets it because he's the real deal as a professor, a father, and a christian guy.

I'm a fan of Alex.  He would be a good life coach for you as a parent.

---

Book review — Song of Songs: Evangelical Exegetical Commentary, by A. Boyd Luter

by Dan Phillips

Song of Songs: Evangelical Exegetical Commentary, by A. Boyd Luter

(Logos Bible Software, 2013)

Logos' Evangelical Exegetical Commentary series continues to churn out worthwhile volumes. I reviewed the first volume by Gary Derickson first, then the commentary on James by Will Varner. Refer to the Derickson review to understand the aim and focus of this series. I continue to appreciate both the design of the series and the structure of each volume.

The author, A. Boyd Luter, is Adjunct Online Professor of New Testament at Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary. He has already written books on Ruth, Esther, preaching and other matters, as well as scholarly articles in periodicals such as BibSac and JETS.

Now to the part where I confess my weakness. Normally, when I review a commentary, I've already used some or many on that particular book. Not in this case. Song of Songs is a topic on which I'm not agnostic, but am unsettled. I could claim a position if you held a gun to a loved one's head, but once you eased off the trigger, I'd acknowledge others as having value, and admit indecision.

So I read this, my maiden voyage (if you'll pardon the minor pun) in the hopes that it would settle everything everything for me. Did it? Let's see.

Luter's tone is mature and reasonable throughout. He isn't in excited pursuit of any strange theory, and has no interest in bringing in readers with lurid discourses on erotic particulars. In fact if anything he's a bit (just a bit!) squeamish on the topic; that's all right, since others have clearly made up for that hesitance.

As to the topic of the Song, Luter says:

the overall movement of this ancient “love song” is from the early longings and expressions of affection of a young couple to their wedding day and night, then through the continuing growth of their relationship in the face of various problems that could easily derail their passionate love.

Very helpfully (and persuasively), Luter sees the book as composed of seven sections in chiastic structure. The first three and the last three frame the central section, which focuses on the wedding day and night. He also notes seven uses of the name "Solomon": two at the beginning, two at the end, and three in the middle.

As to authorship and date, Luter provides a good section on dating by language, in which he issues an overdue challenge to the old evolutionary model of the development of the Heb language, suggesting that so-called “classical” and “colloquial” Hebrew, which included extensive use of Aramaisms, developed side-by-side." He mounts an aggressive, positive case for Solomonic dating. He notes and responds to the various challenges to this position.

As to the opening words, Luter grants the wording could mean it was composed for or in the honor of Solomon, but then reminds that the goal of exegesis is finding the most likely meaning, not just possible meanings — and "the most natural meaning of 1:1 is certainly that Solomon is the author of the Song of Songs."

If you're like me, the big issue to you is how Solomon is in any way qualified to write this book. A tome titled "On the Virtue of Selfless Truthfulness In All Things" and written by Bill Clinton would receive nothing but derision and mockery, and rightly so. How is this different? And anyway, what is the Song actually about? King Solomon and one woman? Other figures? Christ and the church? Yahweh and Israel? Celebrity bloggers and hit-count?

Luter faces the question (well, most of it) squarely and at some length, though frankly I wished the section was longer and dealt more fully with objections. Here's the core of his response on the issue of Solomon's fitness:

    At this point, consideration of one of Solomon’s more widely accepted compositions, Prov 1–9, will be helpful in two respects: 1) the wisdom laid out there for his son to follow (e.g., 1:8; 2:1; 3:1) was clearly not followed by Solomon’s son Rehoboam, whose behavior in 1 Kgs 12:1–17 reflects anything but the wisdom of the Book of Proverbs, and which likely is at least partly attributable to Solomon’s parenting; and 2) his own recorded wisdom in regard to the exclusivity of marriage in Prov 5:15–20 was followed only partially. There is no evidence that Solomon ever went after prostitutes (5:20), though he apparently married virtually any and all women he desired, whether for pleasure (1 Kgs 11:2) or political advantage (e.g., 3:1; 11:3–8).
    The key point here is that it was not necessary for a biblical author to be an exemplary figure with regard to the subject matter of the book in question. Under the dynamics of divine inspiration stated and implied in 2 Pet 1:21, the Holy Spirit sovereignly chose particular biblical authors and guided what was said. Relevant examples are Peter, who denied Christ three times, and Paul, who described himself as “a blasphemer, a persecutor, and an arrogant man” (1 Tim 1:13). In addition, the Spirit chose David, the author of many of the psalms, in spite of his adultery and blood-guiltiness (2 Sam 11–12; Pss 32, 51).
    The Lord chooses whom He will—sometimes irrespective of what many contemporary readers would consider to be major lifestyle blind spots—to accomplish what He wills. It appears He did exactly that with the flaws of character and practice of Solomon in his authoring of the Song of Songs.

Luter argues that the book was framed and written earlier in Solomon's life, during a possibly three-year coregency w/David, allowing for the freedom of movement the Song seems to reflect. Still, he thinks it unlikely that the Song depicts Solomon's first marriage.  There were at least two marriages during coregency. First-mentioned marriage, to Naamah the Ammonite, was probably political.

As to the purpose of the Song, the book

was intentionally crafted to portray God’s perspective on the romantic and sexual love between a man and woman. No other extended treatment of this subject, introduced as early in Scripture as the conclusion of the creation accounts (Gen 2:24–25) as a major aspect of man and woman coming together in marriage, is found elsewhere in the whole of Scripture. That is indeed a worthy purpose for the composition of the Song of Songs.

He notes that the "Interpretation of the Song of Songs is more varied than that of any other book in the biblical canon, other than possibly Revelation." Indeed. Luter alludes to "very long history of fanciful allegorical and blushing typological approaches," then discusses "The five major interpretive approaches to the Song of Songs," which "are the allegorical, typological, dramatic, cultic, and literal/natural." Each is explained, documented, discussed in turn. He concludes in favor of a consistently literal/natural approach. The book has many echoes of Gen 2–3 in the Song of Songs, as well important aspects of Gen 1 and Gen 4, and part of Gen 3 before the curse in 3:16, which he says have not received significant relevant discussion to this point.

Back to structure, Luter's most persuaded by a "grand chiasm" adapted from David Dorsey:

    A (1:1–2:7) Opening words of mutual love and desire

         B (2:8–17) The young man’s invitation to join him in the countryside

         C (3:1–5) The young woman’s first nighttime search for the young man

             D (3:6–5:1) Their wedding day and night

         C′ (5:2–7:11 [ET 7:10]) The young woman’s second nighttime search for the young man

         B′ (7:12 [ET 7:11]–8:4) The young woman’s invitation to join her in the countryside

    A′ (8:5–14) Closing words of mutual love and desire

In addition to this chiastic structure of seven sections, each structure itself is internally chiastic. (Jim Hamilton will love this book!)

On theology of love in the book:

the overarching theological focus of the Song is love and desire that has these characteristics: it is headed toward marriage (1:2–3:5), it involves making a very public commitment and having a very private consummation (3:6–5:1), and it includes working through the “growing pains” of a marriage relationship—including “baggage” brought into the marriage and tensions which develop within the marital bond (5:2–8:14).
   The theology of the Song of Songs sets forth a marriage-related love. Also, it is important to observe that the Song does so while honestly depicting the full bloom of youthful infatuation (Song 1–2), against the dark backdrop of the selfishness (5:2–4) and disappointment (5:5–8) of “real life,” life worked out against the shadowy unavoidable prospect of death (8:6)—in other words, love in a fallen world!

On that, a further and very interesting note:

    At this point, a careful consideration of Song 6:8–9 serves to reinforce and expand that general point. There, the contrast that is drawn between “the one” (the Shulammite) and the women (queens/concubines/young women) “without number”111 may well have affinities to another part of Gen 1–3. If Genesis 2:24–25 is almost certainly antecedent “marriage theology” for the Song of Songs, what about the immediately preceding verses: Gen 2:18–23? Is it stretching things to hear an echo of Adam going through the process of moving from his aloneness (2:18) to being introduced to his exact counterpart (2:21–23), against the backdrop of the differentiation that came from naming all the animals (2:19–20), in Solomon proclaiming the Shulammite—whom he may have given the name of his exact counterpart (Song 7:1) for the purpose of the Song—as “the one” (6:9) against the backdrop of women “without number” (6:8)? If nothing else, in both cases Adam and Solomon went through a process to come to their points of insight and appreciation for the counterparts Yahweh provided them.

I give the lion's share of this review to those general features since I consider them most important, and I think readers will agree. I also learned a lot of interesting particulars; for instance, I hadn't noticed a feature of the names "Solomon" and "Shulamith":

Solomon and Shulamith, likely the male and female versions of the same name, may echo “man” and “woman” in Gen 2:23 as being perhaps as close to the ideal human couple that there have been since the fall in the poetic depiction of the Song of Songs.

His commentary is detailed and frequently studded with references to the literature and to modern writers. I often wished, nonetheless, for more. For instance, on 8:6, which he renders as "a flame of Yahweh," this is his comment in a footnote:

It remains lexically unclear whether the ending of שַׁלְהֶ֥בֶתְיָֽה (i.e., -yah) should be understood as an intensive (“most powerful flame”) or as “a superlative formed with the divine name” (“flame of Yah” [Estes, 407]).

Yet he doesn't really discuss or defend his translation very much beyond that.

I felt this a few times, as in his interpretations of 8:4 and 9 and elsewhere, where he doesn't fully explain or defend his view (to my mind). But that is not at all the rule, as Luter often notes and comments on points of syntax and lexicography, even relating to geography, as well as flora and fauna of the time.

The book is full of helpful tables and charts. Also, I noted the fewest typos of any EEC volume I've read so far, so something is improving in the editorial process!

In his final words of commentary, Luter gives what he thinks the book is about:

    This is how the Song of Songs ends: from 8:6–7 forward, the closing section paints a picture of silence where commitment needed to be by the man (8:6–7). This created an emotional and spiritual vacuum that was filled by the growing perception of domination (8:11–12) and distanced disenchantment (8:10, 13) on the part of the woman. In spite of all this, the desire for each other they both had exhibited through the book continued to the end (8:14).
    There it is: a struggle of domination and desire. In the end, the picture of the tension between wives and husbands portrayed in Gen 3:16 goes on, because the ongoing theological reality is that their mutual love must be played out in a fallen world.

CONCLUSION: do I recommend the commentary? Yes. Will I use it if I ever teach the book? Absolutely, it will be a first point of reference. Did it answer all my questions satisfactorily. No. But it made a great contribution towards an eventual conclusion.

AFTERWORD: I accidentally mis-typed the title at one point as "Song of Snogs." British readers would have had a merry time over that.

---

Book review — James: Evangelical Exegetical Commentary, by William Varner

by Dan Phillips

James: Evangelical Exegetical Commentary, by William Varner

(Logos Bible Software, 2012)

This book is another addition to Logos' growing Evangelical Exegetical Commentary series. I reviewed the first volume by Gary Derickson previously, and will refer you thither to come up to speed about the aim and focus of this series. I really think EEC has tremendous promise, and love the facets of the books' layout for each section:

• Introduction
• Outline
• Original Text
• Textual Notes
• Translation
• Commentary
• Biblical Theology Comments
• Application and Devotional Implications

This is a genius design. All those strengths are present in this volume by Varner, minus Derickson's lamentable weakness for Hodges' gutless-grace views.

That author, William Varner, is a professor of Bible and Greek at The Master’s College, guides tours in Israel, has authored a number of books, and pastors the Sojourners Fellowship at Grace Community Church. He's written before on James, on the Psalms, and on Jesus as Messiah. Here Varner incorporates some of his earlier material on James in a full-orbed commentary.

The book opens eye-catchingly:

After four hundred years of languishing in a backwater of neglect that was largely influenced by the opinions of two German “Martins,” the Letter of James is finally emerging into the light of serious scholarly attention.

The two "Martins" are Luther and Dibelius. Varner himself thoroughly engages the literature on James, old and new, as witnessed by 852 footnotes. Given the wealth of writing on James, though — including thirty significant commentaries in the past 40 years — why another? Varner answers:

‎Some may wonder if there is anything more that needs to be said about James. I can only say that there will always be a need for good commentaries on a biblical text, because “God yet has light to spring forth from His word” (attributed to a Pilgrim pastor). Furthermore, the application of fresh linguistic methods to exegetical analysis demands an occasional fresh look at familiar biblical passages.

One of the specifics I found most interesting and educational was Varner's emphasis on James' prominence in the early church. Before reading him, asked who the prominent leaders were, I would have answered "Peter and Paul." But Varner asserts that research on James "has led to a new perspective on James the leader and also on James the letter. There is still a need for a fresh reading of the James materials, and to that end results of my own fresh reading are offered."

For instance, Varner notes that

‎A careful reading of Luke’s account in Acts and Paul’s comments in Galatians fully supports the idea that James was not merely a significant leader in the early church and not just the leader of the Jerusalem church, but that he was the leader of the church. The implications of this fact are significant not only for the Roman Catholic attitude toward Peter, but also for the Protestant evangelical attitude toward Paul.

Ironically, Varner observes that it was a chapter written by still another “German Martin” (Hengel) that first raised the possibility of a new perspective on James.‎

So what is the "new perspective on James"?

The argument is that after the Pentecostal effusion James rose quickly to a parity of leadership with the traditional apostles and by the early forties was the leader, although as a primus inter pares (“first among equals”), not only of the Jerusalem church (a point usually recognized) but of the entire Jesus movement. If a stranger arrived in Jerusalem or in Antioch between the years A.D. 40–62 and asked, “Who is the person in charge of this movement?” any knowledgeable Christian, including Peter or John or Paul, would have answered without hesitation, “James.”

Vaerner also points out neglected indications of James' priority, such as the fact that apart from alluding to "the tribe of Christians" in the Flavian Testimony about Christ, James is the only NT church figure Josephus mentions.

Varner sees James as "‎probably the first NT document written and the first Christian writing of any kind," written about 46-48. He has a good section on literary connections with the OT, notes the absence of allusion to cultic elements, and notes the frequent resorting to Lev. 19 connected with Christian specifics, ‎which "suggests the function of James as a sort of halakhic midrash (“commentary”) on Leviticus 19." He also includes a solid survey of James' relationship to 2nd Temple literature.

A judicious section on James' theology counters Dibelius' assertion that James "has no theology," as well as criticisms of un-Christian/Christless orientation. I was helped by Varner's observation that "allusions to the oral teaching of Jesus are so abundant that it is not going beyond the evidence to call James the most Jesus-soaked book in the NT after the Gospels" (emphasis added).

Further on that subject, Varner discusses standards of identification, and says that

‎When we realize...the thorough way in which Jesus’ teachings permeate the writing, we could conclude that, after the Gospels, James is the most Jesus-centered book in the NT canon. While Paul theologizes about Jesus, he displays a measured interest in the teachings of Jesus (Acts 20:30). However, almost every point that James makes is grounded in or illustrated by an adapted saying or aphorism that echoes in some way a logion of his brother.

He shows by a table how "‎the teaching of Jesus in some way influences every paragraph of the book." Later, in the commentary, this perspective often "pays off," as in his treatment of 2:5. Varner uses this as an occasion to delve into reflections of Jesus' words in James, probing "layers at which many commentators cease exploring." For instance he sees this verse as echoing Matt 5:3//Lk 6:20b, and says "‎It is more than a chance similarity because both Jesus and James mention the poor as recipients and heirs of the kingdom."

‎

How does Varner deal with the perceived clash between James and Paul? He laments, "Rarely has reading James apart from its being a foil for Pauline theology ever really taken place." He also says, very pointedly: "If either Paul or James is opposing the other, neither has done a very good job, because neither addresses the central point of the other’s argument." Specifically, James' "concern is not 'Should a person have faith?' but rather 'When is faith dead and when is it alive?'"

As Varner later observes:

James and Paul are not opponents facing each other with swords drawn. They are standing with their backs to each other, each drawing swords as they face a different opponent.

Aside: a helpful feature of this book is a list of foreign and technical words. Oddly, however, in discussing James' literary type, Varner uses the uncommon word "protreptic" and doesn't define it or list it later appendix.

In his commentary, Varner shows that he is a very attentive reader of James, frequently featuring judicious observations on James' use of word linkage, catchwords, and alliteration, as well as employment of discourse analysis. And though very scholarly, Varner writes with a pastoral eye. Note his comment on 1:2 —

‎The salutation of 1:1 might sound like a mockery to those who were suffering under various trials, but James proceeds to show that these very trials are grounds for joy. For this thought, see also Matthew 5:10–15 and 1 Peter 4:12–14, where the teaching is that suffering is not strange or foreign to the Christian life, but is a part of the training for glory. Therefore, χαίρετε [rejoice]! The idea is exemplified by the disciples in Acts 5:41: “… rejoicing (χαίροντες) that they had been considered worthy to suffer shame for the name.” “Joy is the proper perspective for the test of faith: ‘consider it sheer joy.’ This joy, however, is not the detachment of the Greek philosopher (4 Macc 9–11), but the eschatological joy of those expecting the intervention of God in the end of the age (Jud. 8:25)” (Davids, 67–68).

Every word and every turn of James' syntax receives thorough analysis and documentation. Varner's style of writing is solid and broadly accessible. Sometimes, it's just plain fun. For instance, after a very technical exegesis of 1:5-8, in the Biblical Theology Comments Varner refers to "‎Mr. Facing Both Ways" from Pilgrim's Progress. Also, Varner calls the χρυσοδακτύλιος of 2:3 "Mr. 'Goldfinger'"! And how many other technical, exegetical commentaries on James will reference Cool Hand Luke, as Varner later does?

One interpretive quibble I might voice is on 1:5-8, where I would have liked to see Varner more explicitly counter the (mis-)reader who would take this as a prescription for mysticism. (My own attempt to do this can be found in God's Wisdom in Proverbs, 107-126.)

Despite the thoroughness of the volume, I might have wished for more, here and there. For instance, still with the stench of Hodges' influence over the commentary on the Johannine epistles, on 2:26 I would have liked to see Varner interact with the pernicious idea that the faith being dead means that this faith was once alive, so it's really saving faith, just not robust in-fellowship faith. You know, it isn't really really dead, it's just restin', just pinin' for the Fjords. Yuck. Varner clearly does not hold that view but, as I say, I'd have liked to see specific engagement and annihilation.

I would have liked more comment on the grammatical force of the aorist passive imperative in 4:10 (ταπεινώθητε — get yourselves humbled?). How do I actively obey the command to receive an action? However, in the Biblical Theology comment section Varner does say:

To “humble ourselves before the Lord” means to recognize our own spiritual poverty, to acknowledge consequently our desperate need of God’s help, and to submit to His commanding will for our lives. As was already mentioned, this humility is exemplified in the tax-collector of Jesus’ parable, who because of the consciousness of his own sin, called out to God for mercy. In response, Jesus pronounces him justified, and declares: “everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted” (Luke 18:14). This saying was echoed later in 2 Corinthians 11:7 and 1 Peter 5:6 and becomes part and parcel of the rich series of paradoxes which convey the true nature of the Christian life (e.g., the last shall be first; the slave will be truly free; to die is to live; to be humbled is to be exalted—see the homiletical suggestions below).

Also, I was a little surprised not to read any comment per se on the unusual words ἡ εὐχὴ or τὸν κάμνοντα in the commentary on James 5:15.

If these are even seen as issues, they are minor. The beauty of the EEC series is that Varner easily might expand any of these with ease in future editions. In the course of reading, I found a host of typos, as I had with Derickson, again making me wonder about the thoroughness of the editorial process; but these were submitted to Logos and were or are being corrected — something impossible in hard-copy volumes.

I recommend Varner's commentary on James. Any evangelical pastor who wants to preach or teach on James must have Varner. Happily for you, there's time to get it for your pastor for Christmas! I appreciate Logos providing it to me for my impartial review, and happy to make a hearty recommendation.

Also: I just learned that this volume will be the inaugural volume of the EEC series to be printed as a hard copy.

---

Book review — The Masculine Mandate, by Richard D. Phillips

by Dan Phillips

The Masculine Mandate, by Richard D. Phillips

(Harrisonburg: Reformation Trust Publishing, 2010; 174 pages)

As I began teaching a 30-week course on marriage and the Bible, it was with some apprehension.

Any reader could pitch a number of accurate guesses as to reasons for that feeling, but the specific niggle was this: what is Biblical manhood — specifically, malehood? How do you textually ground and express the specific difference between God's intent in creating male human beings?

I had read a number of books and articles, and they hadn't helped much. Most of them simply gave popular opinions — popular evangelicaloid opinions — without much bothering to ground them directly in Scripture. Others were some fun, but in the final analysis just nuts. One had a lot of Bible — but it was almost all irrelevant. For instance, it went on and on about what Genesis 1:26-28 teaches us about being a man. The problem? Just read it. "Male and female." Oopsie. Is that the best we can do?

Then came this book by Richard Phillips (no relation, except in Christ), and it flicked the switch for me.

In a very solid, very readable, very Biblical, very theological, very engaging, and very practical way, Phillips leads us to Genesis 2 which, after all, is the narrative of the creation of the first male, in distinction from the creation of the first female. Phillips focuses on and develops Genesis 2:7, 8, and 15. Man's distinctive, pre-Eve task: to work and to keep the garden (8). These are expressed in service and leadership (9).

Phillips develops work as meaning "to cultivate as a gardener" (12ff.), and keep as "to protect as a sword-bearer" (14ff.). He then unfolds these ideas in the categories of man's calling to work (17ff.), man as the image of God (31ff.), and man as shepherd-lord (43ff.). These all focus on the conceptual aspect, getting the ideas Scripturally validated and illustrated.

Then Phillips turns to the practical application, with three chapters on marriage, two on training children, and one each on men in friendship, in the church, and as servants of the Lord.

This was one of those books that just turned on the floodlights for me. I took Phillips' basic idea, and went at the text hammer and tongs. I found in the Hebrew text and context even more clues, verification, and opening of the ideas, thanks to the fundamental pointer Phillips had given me. From what I found, I could probably write another book complementary (see what I did there?) to Phillips' My development of these ideas particularly began with session 23, and went on for several additional studies.

At the end comes a section of questions for reflection and discussion, making the book usable for group-studies; as well as indices of Scripture, subjects, and names. Unfortunately, endnotes also come at the back of the book, a reall bad decision on the publisher's part that is a disservice both to author and reader.

This is just a really terrific book. I don't for the life of me know why it isn't better-known and more widely-discussed. Instead of Driscoll, big Gospel sites ought to be promoting Phillips. I don't know another book that does what Richard Phillips does here at all, let alone so well.

I recommend it to everyone: boys/men/husbands/fathers/pastors, for obvious reasons; girls/single ladies to know what to look for in a man; moms to know how to raise their boys.

Get, read, review, recommend.

UPDATE: I just got word that the book will be on sale for $5 this Friday, November 29, via Ligonier's Black Friday sale.

---

Book review — The Heroic Boldness of Martin Luther, by Steven J. Lawson

by Dan Phillips

The Heroic Boldness of Martin Luther
by Steven J. Lawson

(Sanford: Reformation Trust Publishing, 2013; 145 pages)

My dear wife picked this up at the Strange Fire conference by signing up (for something) with Ligonier, so I read it on my journey home. It isn't that I live in Australia, though the Denver layover was a bit long, it's that this book is that quick and lively of a read.

It is the latest in a series of books edited by Lawson collectively titled "The Long Line of Godly Men profiles." Previous volumes treat of Calvin, Edwards, Spurgeon, and Knox. All but the last are by Lawson; Douglas Bond writes about Knox.

This book consists of six brisk, engaging chapters approaching the legacy of Luther as a preacher from various angles. Lawson writes as he speaks, with energy and urgency. The reader is fairly carried along by a delightful marriage of lively prose and thorough, scholarly documentation. Listening to Lawson in the past, I didn't appreciate the extent of his research into his subjects; I do now.

Even the preface is solid, undergirded by nineteen footnotes endnotes. It issues a "Call for a New Reformation," in which Lawson links the power of Luther's (and other Reformers') preaching to the causes of the great reformation of the sixteenth century. He says the Reformation was a revival of preaching (xvii), of biblical preaching (xviii), of controversial preaching (xix), and of preaching on the doctrines of grace (xx). It's a bracing lead-in to the body of the text, whose first chapter covers Luther's life and legacy. It is an overview Luther's life and ministry, traced from birth to death. The center to which Lawson keeps referring, though, is Luther as preacher — factors that played into the centrality of proclamation in Luther's ministry.

This chapter showcases one of the strengths of the volume. Lawson interlaces his narrative with constant quotations from Luther himself. Better still — and unlike the fun-to-read but exasperating Warren Wiersbe — every quotation is documented. One comes away not simply with Luther as seen by Lawson or even Luther scholars (though they're all there, in the footnotes endnotes), but with Luther in his own words.

Chapter two treats of Luther's deep conviction about the Word: "The pulpit is the throne for the Word of God" (26). Luther laments the neglect of the Word, writing in prose that is unpleasantly timely:

God's Word has been silenced, and only reading and singing remain in the churches. This is the worst abuse.... A host of unchristian fables and lies, in legends, hymns, and sermons were introduced that it is horrible to see.... A Christian congregation should never gather together without the preaching of God's Word and prayer, no matter how briefly, as Psalm 102 says, "When the kings and the people assemble to serve the Lord, they shall declare the name and the praise of God." (27)

Lawson traces out five core commitments in Luther's attitude towards the Word: verbal inspiration, divine inerrancy, supreme authority, intrinsic clarity, and complete sufficiency. Citing Sproul, Lawson argues that the central issue of the Reformation was the issue of authority; it was a crisis about the Word (40-41).

Chapter three deals with Luther in his study, again detailing five ways "in which [Luther's] study for his preaching stood out" (45ff.). He stresses the reading of Scripture, and the importance of a mastery of the Bible's original languages. Chapter four deals with Luther's commitment to the text he is about to expound, illustrating how Luther used a brief introduction to dive right into the passage itself. Lawson notes that Luther "believed that the preacher must advance to his text as soon as possible and, once there, remain there" (67).

Chapter five focuses on Luther's passion in preaching, this time elucidating four feathers of his exposition (indomitable spirit, fervent intensity, accessible speech, and colorful expressions). As with every turn, Lawson illustrates from Luther's own sermons. One arresting example is Luther's vivid preaching on the sacrifice of Isaac (95). Chapter six's theme is Luther's fearless declaration of the truth. Here again five aspects come to the fore, including Luther's conviction that we mustn't keep back some Scriptural truths as being unfit for Christian ears (!; 102ff.).

Lawson concludes with a plea for more who show Luther's boldness and Biblical/Gospel/Christ-centered emphasis in preaching. And that is the purpose of the book, a positive intent to plead for more bold preaching. For that reason, I take it, Lawson doesn't deal with Luther's squirreliness about James, or his execrable and universally rejected words about the Jews.

I recommend the book to any pastor; it's a great read.

My only real complaint is that the publisher has served both Lawson and us very poorly by relegating all of Lawson's careful documentation to endnotes. As always, this is a gratuitous pity and an insult both to author and reader. The practice neither honors Lawson's diligent scholarship nor serves his readers' convenient profit. It is a baffling holdover. We are no longer in the day when footnoting drove up costs due to the issues of typesetting. Footnoting inconveniences no one (don't like 'em? don't read 'em), endnotes inconvenience anyone interested in documentation (two bookmarks, back and forth, back and forth).

I hope there will be future volumes in the series, and that the publisher will elect to serve Lawson and us better in terms of layout.

Aside to authors: Love your readers. For their sake, insist that your publisher use footnotes, not endnotes.

---

Bigger on the Inside

by Frank Turk

First things first today -- you may have noticed that your comments don't automatically plaster the basement of our posts anymore.  All comments now go into moderation when you post them, so the crack-like rush of getting your comment into the conversation is now delayed by what I am choosing to call, "a moment to think it over a bit."  Now, I grant you: it means Dan and I get to think it over a bit more than you do, but in the interest of everyone's peace of mind we will still have comments -- they just won't explode onto the internet like a pumpkin falling off a truck at 85 MPH anymore.

As you all may recall, Phil Johnson has helped write a lot of books, and Dan Phillips has written a couple of books.  In fact, most of the bloggers you have probably read, and a few you haven't, have all written books.

I have not written a book.  I wrote a Graduate Thesis on Wallace Stevens back at the end of the 1980's, but in spite of receiving a 4.0 grade and concluding my career as a professional student, that was only just under 100 pages.  I have written something like the equivalent of 1500 pages blogging, but so what? Am I to repackage that like some sort of Mad Magazine annual?  I would think less of you if you bought such a thing.

So while I have my complaints about what is able to be published these days, and my own regrets about what a useless peanut-roaster of a blogger I am, I have to admit that anyone who can sit down and gin up (more-or-less) 200 pages in one attempt for publication has to earn from me something which is a mix of bitter-and-sweet, respect-and-envy.

I work with a fellow named Michael Belote -- I talk to him almost every day.  He blogs at Reboot Christianity, and he has published a book called Rise of the Time Lords: A Geek's Guide to Christianity.  It's available on Kindle and as a Paperback, and as you will expect from me, I'm not going to write you a book report about it.  That sort of review can be found here or here.  What I am going to do is to recommend you read this book for your own good just to get you out of the Reformed ghetto for a couple of hours one Saturday.

There are plenty of shortcomings to Michael's book.  From my desk, while I enjoyed the analogy of Flatland to help us understand the great-than-nature-ness of God, I always worry how we try to make those sorts of analogies work with the Trinity.  Will we gravitate to modalism rather than Trinitarianism as we discuss how God, infinite above creation, can be and is three persons and one essence.  Michael's attempt to explain Free Will through Quantum Mechanics left me, um, blinded with science.  But: in spite of the things I think a few readings of the WCF and the longer and shorter catechisms might have helped Michael avoid, there is something legitimately-gripping about this book which most books published about theology these days simply don't have.

Michael's book has a gigantic heart.  There is an earnestness in his approach and his prose which is surprising.  It's almost like Michael wasn't trying to sell anybody anything -- not a book contract, not a page of text, not a single copy of his book.  But instead, he was trying to invite the reader into something -- to use the conceit of his title, something that turns out to be bigger on the inside.  That is: when Michael fails at analogy to systematics, he is failing because he's trying to express something that is just true.  He's aiming at Truth.

What I like about Michael's book, in spite of its flaws, is that somehow in his exorbitantly-geeky delivery he demonstrates something bigger than his analogies.  He speaks to something greater than creation -- and he does it in a way that works on people and what they already know.  This book isn't any kind of poetry, and it isn't written to be more than the simple prose that it is.  But it does something that good poetry usually does: it speaks past the metaphor and out of the truth which the author is trying to demonstrate.

If you read this book you will certainly see its theological flaws, and frankly its literary flaws.  But you will find something that 99% of our reformed books can't seem to muster: a sense of real wonder and real curiosity about the God who saves us.

That's worth reading.  When you're done, you can hold a study group to uncover all the anti-confessional statements Michael makes if that's what it takes to make you feel smart again -- but maybe what you need is not to feel so smart.  Maybe you need to feel like you have no idea how this faith can actually be bigger on the inside, and to ponder that for a little while as if you just discovered it for the first time.

---

Just Barely Started

by Frank Turk

After Dan's notes on the problem of saying that Grace isn't the only solution for people with a sin problem, pretty much everything I can write today will be a let-down.  But, I have a book I wanted to share with you which, if you haven't read it yet, apparently you really don't understand what the Top Men in evangelicalism have said to do.

Rosaria Butterfield has written a brief spiritual memoir, which was written "so I could remember and keep close the details of the inner landscape of my conversion to Christ. I wanted to remember, and pass on to my children, the rugged terrain and sweet joys."

Pretty much everyone has already reviewed it and recommended it, so whatever notes I would add here as an endorsement will be redundant at best -- so, just to be perfectly redundant, I do recommend it, and you should read it.

My only complaint about this book is this: you have to hash your way through Chapter 1 to get to the real, human, redeemed reflections of a woman who came a long way in a relatively-brief time, and then has come farther still by the grace of God.  Every single concern I had about the real substantive reflection this book would offer which occurred to me in Chapter 1 was ruined and overcome by the third page of Chapter 2.

If you can read this book about one woman's journey from being a gatekeeper in Post-Modernity to being the homeschooling wife of a Reformed pastor and not, in some way, have your personal commitment and view of the Christian faith improved, you need to have your vital signs checked.  You must be dead -- on the inside anyway, if not actually in some state of rigor mortis.

Let's turn, for example, to the beginning of the second chapter of this book, and Prof. Butterfield's exposition of what the Bible means when it speaks about the sin of Sodom.  Listen: you might read 10,000 pastors excoriate the problems with our society today, but you will never read a better exposition regarding what constitutes the core of sexual sin than Prof. Butterfield demonstrates in the first few pages of chapter 2 (and you'll forgive me for excluding page numbers -- I read this book on my Android Kindle app in two sittings).

Then she goes on to say this -- which will be red meat for the readers of this blog:

The purpose-driven movement makes conversion a simple matter of saying the magic words, a mantra that makes Jesus the Mr. Rogers of the conscience. In his popular book, The Purpose Driven Life, author Rick Warren represents conversion in these words: “Jesus, I believe in you and I receive you” (p. 59). There is a pit of false hope in placing our faith in our words rather than in God’s compassion to receive sinners to himself. Warren falsely (and dangerously) assures us of our salvation. He writes: “If you sincerely meant that prayer, congratulations! Welcome to the family of God!” (p. 59). How do I judge my own sincerity? The saving grace of salvation is located in a holy and electing God, and a sacrificing, suffering, and obedient Savior. Stakes this high can never rest on my sincerity.

When I read something like this, I do not recognize Jesus, the Holy Bible, my conversion or myself at all. Recently, on vacation in South Carolina, my husband and I went to a “community church.” My conservative Reformed Presbyterian pastor and husband noted when we got back to the hotel room that we had just witnessed a service that contained a baptism without water, preaching without scripture, conversation about disappointment and pithy observations about financial responsibility without prayer, the distribution of flowers and trinkets without grace, and a dismissal without a blessing. Everyone was smiling, though, when it came time to walk out the door. This church’s conversion prayer was printed in the bulletin. It read like this: “Dear God, I’m so sorry for my mistakes. Thanks for salvation.”

These misrepresentations of the gospel are dangerous and misleading.
Butterfield, Rosaria (2012-09-06). The Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert (Kindle Locations 686-699). Crown & Covenant Publications. Kindle Edition.

That's only the first serving of red meat, by the way -- you'll have to read the book to get the rest.  It would do harm to the text to say she spells out soteriology, ecclesiology, sacramentology, bibliology and general theology with an insightful eye and a willing heart -- because that makes her story into a mere lesson in systematics.  Instead, she somehow journeys in faith through the local church and finds God's people in God's house with God's message for sinners in a peculiar and loving way -- and she makes much of this savior who is the author and finisher of our faith. I absolutely could not stop reading this book and admiring the real maturity and seriousness of the faith of Prof. Butterfield as it unfolded in the text.

But: there's a reason I am reviewing this book today, and it has to do with Dan's post yesterday.

Yesterday, DJP was considering the problem of Grace in Christian life.  That is: while we preach God's Grace, is it our job merely to take a beating from anyone who will give it to us in order that God's Grace may flourish?  Is it right, for example, for a father to underwrite his son's broad transgressions over many years without really drawing a single objection or setting up one boundary which cannot be crossed?

Obviously, here at this blog, we think not.

However: what shall we do?  If what we cannot do is simply be a dishrag for Christ's sake until the HyperCalvinist god elects to change somebody's mind, what shall we do?

It turns out that Mrs. Butterfield has the answer on almost every page of this book.  Listen to this:

Pastor Bruce was eagle-eye direct, painfully honest, and unapologetically bold. There was no question in my mind, as the tears started to run down my face: I had just barely started on the journey of my repentance. And here I had thought that I had repented in full ... Ha! This sermon hit me hard across the face: I was suffering from my own sin, from the pride that was still rising high in my heart, and from my false sense of entitlement and deserved goods.  

Butterfield, Rosaria (2012-09-06). The Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert (Kindle Locations 1373-1377). Crown & Covenant Publications. Kindle Edition.

You know: somebody told her that the matter is not merely Grace, but fully Grace to sinners -- and for sinners who repent.  Sinners who, as she says elsewhere, obey before they understand.  Sinners who are offended by the kindness of others who tell them the truth and then see their own sin in their offendedness.

Somebody has to tell the person who is offending God and offending man, truthfully, and with love, that they are wrong.

As you read this book, and share it with others, may you become that kind of person.

---