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.

---

Things To Come

by Dan Phillips

(Not the book by Pentecost, but, you know... things to come!)

My "things to do" list has well passed my "things done" list. When that sort of thing happens, blogging is a thing that gives. But I thought I'd tell you of some things in the works:

What it does and doesn't mean to walk in the Spirit. I've mostly written on the second aspect (doesn't mean), but mean to do some writing here, in addition to what's in TWTG. I've preached about it, more than once, but it remains to put it in a blog post.

A review of Matt Harmon's Mentor series commentary on Philippians. Absolutely wonderful commentary, a rare combination of scholarship and devotion. Enthusiastically recommend it, expect it to be used for years to come.

A review of Logos 6, particularly the Reformed package. I was a beta tester. Love it, recommend it.

A review of BibleWorks 10. Also beta tested this, also love it, also recommend it. Every pastor or serious Bible teacher should have this. In fact, I'm to be talking about it on the Theotek Podcast this Friday, Lord willing.

So, when I can, you'll see this. And an SHST this Friday if I can.

In the meanwhile if you've any interest, last Sunday I preached on that theme dear to our hearts: the glory of God.

---

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.

---

Grin and Garrett

by Dan Phillips

In the past and more than once I've shared that the NAC volume on Proverbs (plus Solomon's other books) by Duane Garrett is...er... not my favorite. In fact, what I've said is that mostly it disappoints. Four out of five times when I've gone for help on a verse, Garrett may not even talk about the verse, or doesn't offer much.

All that to say this: Garrett has helped me a lot in approaching the last section of Proverbs 10. As you know, I'm coming to the end of preaching Proverbs 1—10. Despite (or because of) decades of studying Proverbs, the prospect of preaching through this section verse by verse was daunting, brimming with challenges and terrors. As I have drawn near each section, I've wondered how in the world I was going to preach it — but then, when I got under the hood, it's all falling together.

Or it had until I'd done verses 15-17, a triplet of verses on wealth, wisdom and life, tied together by concept and by tag-word. After that I found myself looking down the barrel of verses 18-32. What was facing me now? Fifteen separate sermons? Clusters? Any structure? Anything at all?

Bueller?

Various commenters said this, that, or nothing. But it was actually Duane Garrett whose approach fit the text best to me. He saw it as a chiasm:

A:  On the tongue (vv. 19–21)

B:   On personal security (vv. 22–25)

C:   On laziness (v. 26)

B´: On personal security (vv. 27–30)

A´: On the tongue (vv. 31–32)

You'll note Garrett starts with v. 19, because he emends the text of v. 18 and groups it otherwise. I'm not persuaded by the emendation and, that being the case, see it as obviously fitting just fine with the first cluster of verses on the tongue.

I was really grateful for Garrett's vision on these verses. It just remained for me to make it my own, and to adapt it for preaching. So I added verse 18 to the first cluster, and came up with this:

A:    Speech (vv. 18–21)

B:    Security (vv. 22–25)

C:    Sloth (v. 26)

B´:  Security (vv. 27–30)

A´:  Speech (vv. 31–32)

 The chiasm looks like this:

I preached the first section (vv. 18-21) last Sunday. Gazing at it, reflecting, praying after all my studying, I saw that the whole was connected not only by the topic of speech, but by the fact that each verse posed a paradox. So I preached it under the title Communication: Perilous Paradoxes.

That done, I now need to decide whether what remains breaks down into four sermons, three... or something else. But I d have a structure to work within!

For which I'm happy to credit Duane Garrett.

---

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.

---

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 — 1, 2, & 3 John: Evangelical Exegetical Commentary, by Gary Derickson

by Dan Phillips

1, 2, & 3 John: Evangelical Exegetical Commentary, by Gary Derickson

(Logos Bible Software, 2012)

I made 25 pages of notes in reading this book. So while the review is massive, it could have been a lot longer!

Summary: due to the rich thoroughness of exegetical material provided, this is a must-have commentary for anyone who would preach or teach John's epistles, though I strenuously disagree with some of Derickson's interpretations.

Paradoxical? Read on.

Big picture: With this volume, Logos launches a new commentary series titled the Evangelical Exegetical Commentary. Contributors range from the well-known (Walter Kaiser, Jr,; Ronald Youngblood; Robert Thomas) to the unknown.

Taking this volume as a template, the format is superb. After a detailed introduction to the book, the commentary begins along the lines of the author's outline. First is an Introduction to the passage, followed by the Original text (in Greek, in this case), followed by Textual Notes, and the author's original Translation. Then comes thorough, well-documented verse by verse Commentary, then a Biblical Theology section, finishing with Applicational and Devotional Implications, sometimes Additional Exegetical Comments, and finally a Selected Bibliography section. At the volume's end is a list of foreign and technical words (from Actionsart to Synecdoche, this case), a General Bibliography of Journals and periodicals, General books, and unpublished works (dissertations and a thesis).

This is a terrific approach and, depending on the quality of the author, will raise each volume's value.

All of which carries out the editors' stated intent for this series, which they intend for use by ‎"scholars, pastors, and students of the Bible." Each book is written by authors "committed to both the evangelical faith and a careful exegesis of the biblical text," each of whom "affirms historic, orthodox Christianity and the inspiration and inerrancy of the Holy Scriptures" and the whole "reflects the important interpretative principles of the Reformation, while utilizing historical-grammatical and contextual interpretative methods."

Of course, the single trait that distinguishes this series is that it is "the first commentary series produced first in electronic form."‎ This enables the electronic volumes to contain such items as charts, graphs, timelines, and photos. But beyond that, authors will be able periodically to add to their original contribution when new data or insights become available. So your individual volumes may continually be improved from year to year, without having to purchase second or third editions. That's pretty darned cool.

Overview of this volume. ‎Author Gary W. Derickson's acknowledgement includes this: "My greatest desire is that God will be glorified and Christ’s church edified..."

Clearly one way in which Derickson pursues this goal is by unhurried, nearly microscopically-detailed examination of virtually every word and syntactical feature of each verse. Very little escapes Derickson's attention and comment. His diligence shows itself in some of the most thorough documentation I've ever seen: in all, this volume contains one thousand, nine hundred and twenty-one (1921) footnotes. This respectful thoroughness and conversance with the literature alone qualifies the book as indispensable. It is a commentary in its own right, but is also gateway to a wealth of resources.

In addition to clearly having solid academic "chops," Derickson shows a practical eye and God-loving heart in his applications and illustrations.

Introduction. Derickson's first words are refreshingly categorical: "The author of this epistle is John, the beloved apostle." Period. That's different.  Then Derickson wades into internal evidence and external attestation.

As to internal evidence, the author notes that "no extant copy of the epistle is without a title attributing it to John."  Further affirmation comes from the author's "self-disclosure, writing style, and conceptual connection to the Gospel of John." As to date, "For the Gospel, a date between A.D. 80 and A.D. 90 seems plausible, while the Revelation was likely written around A.D. 95. Thus, the first epistle of John most likely was written around A.D. 90, a few years before the writing of the Revelation." I prefer authors who don't excessively pussyfoot, and Derickson doesn't.

I found scores of typos, which I sent to Logos; but very few factual (as opposed to interpretive) errors. One error was on 2:24, where Derickson wrongly calls ἡ ἐπαγγελία ἣν αὐτὸς ἐπηγγείλατο a "cognate accusative."‎ Or again, on ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ θεοῦ in 2:5, he says it has "three possible meanings" — and then he gives four, and favors the fourth! Similarly, Derickson says there are "four major views" on water and blood in 5:6 — and then details six views. There are other errors, but they are relatively few.

As an example of the Application and Devotional Implications feature, which closes each section, consider Derickson's thoughts on 2:7-11 —

‎Additionally, as is shown by John later in the epistle, this lack of love most often expresses itself, not in anger or conflict but in indifference. How much do we care about the Christians around us? Do we care enough to get involved in their lives, to help them with personal needs? Or are we deceiving ourselves into thinking we are good people while being unengaged in the body of Christ?

Derickson writes as a Christian, and not merely as an academic. In his Biblical Theology Comments on 1 John 2:18-27, he says "the large number of false teachers today is a reminder to our generation that the Antichrist is coming, and also, to our great joy, so is the real Christ!" Then, on the same section of 1 John in his Application and Devotional Implications, Derickson writes:

‎Our best defense against false teachers is not to study false teachings but to know God’s truth. We can only do that by knowing God’s Word. We can only do that by reading and studying it. Listening to good preaching is edifying. Reading devotionals or books by Christian authors is edifying as well. However, neither comes close to knowing God’s Word. It is through His Scriptures that God has chosen to instruct and protect us. That is why Paul commanded the Colossians to “let the word of Christ richly dwell within” them (Col 3:16). That is why John speaks of the “anointing” dwelling in us. The idea of dwelling is not just that we are to know God’s Word. That is part of it. We are also to be influenced (guided) by God’s Word. That is our defense against false teaching today, even as then. The better we know Jesus (have correct Christology), the closer our fellowship can be with Him and God the Father. Any congregation that is serious about communing with God must devote themselves to teaching each member about God

To this, we all would give a hearty "amen."

Back to the larger view: Derickson rejects singling out any single theme for the book.

John states four purposes within his epistle, though they may not exhaust all of his reasons or motives for writing. In 1:3 he writes so that he and his readers may have fellowship with one another and with God. This is immediately followed by a second purpose, that he or they, or better, both, may experience joy (1:4). Then, near the end of his first section of instruction, he writes so that his readers “may not sin” (2:1). Finally, near the end of this epistle, he writes so that his readers might have assurance of their salvation on the basis of their belief in Jesus (5:13).

It is this that brings me to:

Central problem. For all its many strengths, this volume's value is badly compromised by Derickson's doctrinal grid.

My first worries began when Derickson noted that Kostenberger "appears to interpret the epistle through the rubric of the Calvinist doctrine of perseverance, that true believers (the elect) will persevere in good works till the end and that the non-elect will fall away or their faith will fail before their deaths." That's a "Calvinist" view? To Derickson, it is, as he betrays a baleful allegiance to the Zane Hodges approach to Scripture. While his allegiance is far from slavish (he often cites Hodges, then disagrees), it is overwhelming and very troubling.

Derickson takes the view that the letter has multiple purposes, but largely centers around tests of fellowship, and "does not see the tests being related to salvation."

As you might imagine, this leads to some brain-achingly bizarre interpretations and denials of the obvious. His position is a very troubling expression of what I expose at length as "Gutless Grace" in TWTG (195-204).

For instance, on 1 John 2:1, Derickson says

You cannot have sanctifying faith without justifying faith having preceded it. But sanctifying faith does not necessarily follow.

It gets worse on 1 John 2:4, which says "Whoever says 'I know him' but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him." Derickson says:

‎John is not saying he is unregenerate (contra Burge, 98; Schnackenburg, 102), an unbeliever, but just a liar. ...“Truth” is not equivalent to “salvation” or “gospel message.” Rather, John uses it often and, in this case, to indicate the body of orthodox teachings that impact one’s lifestyle. It is important that we not read every description of a person soteriologically. We must remember that not all saints are saintly in their behavior. Disobedience reveals the lack of a personal knowledge of Jesus in the same way that the apostles, who accompanied Jesus for three and a half years, lacked that knowledge in the Upper Room. Thus, claiming to know Him while disobeying His word is to live a lie, described here by John as “the truth is not in him.” What he means by this is that truth is not a controlling influence in the believer’s life as was possible for John in 1:6, 8, and 10.

Again 2:12-14, Derickson points out that John writes with assurance of his readers' salvation, then triumphally proclaims that John

writes to assure them of their secure status with God. Recognizing this is important if one is to understand the nature of the “tests” in this epistle. Since John is so certain of the spiritual standing of his readers, it conversely stands against reason to think that any test provided in the epistle would be related to the question of whether they are “saved.” The Test of Life view of the epistle cannot be sustained without either ignoring this fact or lessening its significance

It "cannot"? Derickson can't envision any other approach that would do justice to both John's assurance and the plain sense of his tests and warnings? What if John writes with the positive expectation that his readers will apply the tests of life and find that they are saved — though they still remain genuine tests of life? That's all it takes to avoid the gymnastics Derickson's grid requires.

On 1 John 2:19, Derickson has I. Howard Marshall (no Calvinist!) affirming "the Calvinist doctrine of perseverance."  Derickson further says ‎"the idea of perseverance proving election is foreign to John" and "John does not address perseverance." Amazing. Then very oddly, he goes on to say:

‎The departure of the false teachers from the midst of the apostolic band (“us”) revealed they were not true believers; they were never regenerate (Grayston, 77; Smith, 72). ...By saying that these false teachers were “not of us,” John indicates that they were never identified with the apostolic circle and had never agreed with the teachings of the apostles. If their teachings had agreed with those of the apostles, then they would have remained associated with them.

So a person can make a false profession that identifies him as a member of the apostolic group, and when he departs that group we can conclude that he never was a true member — which we know by the departure. If he'd been a true member, he'd've stayed. But that same test can't apply to the visible church? This strikes me as very bizarre.

Then on 1 John 2:29, Derickson says:

‎Finally, what John has affirmed in the positive, that we can see those born of God from their righteous conduct, need not be true in the reverse. He is not saying by this that those who do not practice righteousness are not born of God.

On 1 John 3:6 (emphases added) —

This is much like what he said of those who do not believe in Jesus in John 3:18. They do not believe in Jesus because they have already been judged and stand in a state of judgment. John is affirming here that a sinful character indicates either these people are not eyewitnesses of Jesus (going back to 1:1–4) or they do not really understand God, much like the disciples whom Jesus chided for their ignorance in the Upper Room (Smalley, 164). They are out of fellowship with God (Pentecost, 79). This is parallel in thought with 2:9, where one may claim to be in the light while hating his brother but in actuality is in the darkness. Here someone may claim to know God, but a sinful lifestyle indicates that their knowledge is not personal but cursory; they are spiritually blind and ignorant (Hodges, 146). A child can know who their father is without knowing their father. In the same way, a child of God may know of Him, and may have placed his or her trust in His Son sufficient to save, without knowing Him intimately...

‎Habitually sinful conduct reveals the lack of fellowship with Christ in the life of a believer. Even so, when someone claims to be a Christian while sin remains the characteristic of his or her lifestyle, their conduct makes it legitimate to question their salvation. However, questioning their salvation is different from declaring that it is impossible for him or her to be a sinful believer. Westcott notes well, “St John speaks of ‘abiding’ in Christ and not simply of ‘being’ in Christ, because his argument rests on the efficacy of continuous human effort” (Westcott, 104). When one recognizes John is discussing issues of sanctification within the household of God, it is natural to see the issue of human responsibility in sanctification arising from the text.

Again, on 1 John 3:8 —

...every believer has habitual sins. The need for daily confession of sins indicates that we all habitually sin, though we confess only known individual acts of sin (Matt 6:12). The distinction made by him ignores 1:8–10 and ignores the reality of every believer’s experience. It also ignores John’s use of literary dualism to develop absolute antitheses. John is purposefully making a stark contrast between kinds of people. Whereas the one doing righteousness is described as righteous and is identified with Jesus who is righteous, this person is identified with the devil. John’s use of ἐκ sees Satan, the devil, as the source of the sin-doer’s conduct. Does this necessarily translate into that person being unregenerate? If taken in isolation, this statement might mean such. However, if being used in a purposefully dualistic context, should it not be seen in light of rhetorical license?

Then in the footnote:

‎Even so, the idea that this is describing someone who practices sin and is therefore unsaved is invalidated by the implication of all New Testament commands. Christians are not given positive and negative commands for things that automatically result from their salvation. For example, we are never commanded to be baptized in the Holy Spirit. Why? It is automatic. We do not baptize ourselves. God baptizes us at the instance of our spiritual birth. Without it there is no spiritual birth (Rom 8:9; 1 Cor 12:13). In the same way, when we are commanded not to do something, it must be possible for believers to do it. Otherwise, the command is nonsensical. Also, if a believer can commit a certain sin once, he or she can obviously do it a second time, a third time, and then habitually. Thus even habitual sin proves nothing. In that light, what John is saying here has to be recognized as rhetorical rather than prescriptive.

So the fact that God commands us not to sin means that we can, in fact can do so habitually and characteristically, therefore it has nothing to do with salvation. Does this not strike one as incredibly perverse — in a verse that says Jesus came to destroy the works of the devil, for a commenter to say the works of the devil may not even be budged (let alone destroyed) in the life of a believer?

Derickson  translates 1 John 3:10 "everyone who has been born from God does not sin, because His seed abides in him, and it is not able to sin, because it has been born from God," and actually argues at length that the seed is the new nature, and it is not able to sin, though the believer is able to sin. In fact, once again, Derickson spends a lot of energy arguing that the believer can continue in sin and be enslaved to sin.

‎However when Paul commands believers not to let sin reign in their mortal bodies (Rom 6:12), by implication such is not only possible but the experience of most. Further, sin does not “reign” through occasional lapses. Paul’s warning about becoming enslaved to sin (Rom 6:5–6, 12–14) means that such a believer will habitually sin. Thus, though being born from God gives a person a new nature, that nature does not guarantee immunity to habitual sin any more than occasional sin. The old nature is still resident within and still likes to sin. It has neither been eradicated nor incapacitated. It must still be dealt with in the life of the believer. Thus Paul commands us to “reckon” ourselves “dead to sin” (Rom 6:11). Moreover, he warns that failure to do so results in slavery to sin rather than righteousness.

On 1 John 3:10, John says "By this the children of God and the children of the Devil are apparent: everyone who does not do righteousness is not of God, and the one who does not love his brother. " Does this mean what it appears to mean? Not to Derickson:

‎Christians reveal their new natures by choosing righteous living. The devil’s children reveal their unregenerate natures by sinning. So when a Christian sins, he or she fails to express the new nature but reflects the devil’s pattern by expressing the old nature.

In that case, should John not have said "everyone who does not do righteousness is either not of God, or he actually is of God, but he just isn't expressing his real down-deep new nature"?

Once again, in 1 John 4:7, a verse that says ‎πᾶς ὁ ἀγαπῶν ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ γεγέννηται καὶ γινώσκει τὸν θεόν, Derickson takes the opportunity to say:

Though we often use the phrase “to know God” to mean “to have exercised justifying faith in God” or “to be a Christian,” John teaches that justified believers may not “know” the God in whom they believe (Grayston, 124). This knowledge of God is conditioned on meeting certain criteria, such as obedience and love of other Christians. The disciples were with Jesus more than three years and still did not “know” Him. Modern disciples can be in the family of God for decades and still not really know Him as well.

So what's important in a verse that says that love indicates regeneration and knowledge of God — what is important to Derickson — is to say it's okay not to know God; you're still saved.

On 1 John 4:16, his constant refrain:

‎Failure to love does not prove one is unregenerate. If it were impossible for a believer to fail to love other believers then we would not have the command to do so. By its very nature, any command, whether positive (“do this”) or negative (“don’t do that”) implies that believers can do the opposite of what is commanded. They can disobey. Thus, believers can and do fail to love other believers with God’s love. The consequence is loss of mutual relationship with God (fellowship) as well as with other believers.

On 1 John 4:20, he says:

‎Love of God is demonstrated by loving Christians. In this verse and the one that follows John affirms that an absence of love denies relationship with God. This denial does not mean a person is unregenerate. It just means that the person is not living according to what is true.

So, if you don't love other Christians, you have no relationship with God, but you're regenerate. Got it. A regenerate person with no relationship with God. Because he's saved by "gutless grace."

‎More twisted reasoning, on 1 John 5:10 —

...‎justifying faith is not always sanctifying faith. What makes justifying faith effective is its object. It is Jesus who saves, not faith. God the Father justifies those whose faith has His Son as its object, not their theology. God justifies them apart from works both at the moment of faith and subsequently (Eph 2:8–9). Furthermore, if justifying faith is workless at salvation, it may remain workless and still justify. However, as Jas 2 teaches, apart from works faith will not sanctify, being ineffectual, being “dead” but not nonexistent.

"Saved by dead faith." Just like the Bible says...the opposite of. I think this may be the single most perverse mishandling of a fairly plain verse that I've ever seen.

This is really troubling. So it turns out a claim to faith can be tested — but only by doctrinal means. If the claim isn't worked out in doctrinally correct ways, it's invalid.

But just think this through: if I am "workless," if I show no submission to the person of Christ, doesn't that mean I "believe" in a Jesus who has no authority over my life, whose teaching about my life is inconsequential and can be ignored safely and soundly, with whom I am free to disagree about literally everything apart from formal acceptance of a couple of propositions? Does such a "Jesus" exist?  Does such a "Jesus" save? Is the testimony that God bore about His Son "Give the nod to a few propositions about Him...then hold His person and everything He actually taught and commanded in contempt and do whatever you want"? I don't recall reading that verse.

On 1 John 5:18, again, ‎Derickson is quick to assure us that all Christians do in fact sin, habitually and all the time, no matter what John's words seem to say. Derickson complains that any other reading "is a deduction necessitated by the doctrine of perseverance and its implications rather than a teaching of Scripture." Derickson further complains that repentance is not stated nor implied in the verse. (And carefree continuance in sin is?) And yet does Derickson not do the same thing he objects to, here?

‎The implication of Jesus’ instructions to confess our sins whenever we pray necessarily means we have sins to confess every time we pray. If we pray every day, which we should, and there are not sins we commit regularly, then either there is a long list of sins we are unconsciously working our way through, or we are just tipping our hats at God and pretending we are sinners. All Christians have habitual sins of which they remain unaware. They have habitual sins that of which they are aware! For a praying Christian, those repeated sins are repeatedly confessed. God forgives them thousands of times in a lifetime, and cleanses that confessing Christian of the other thousands of sins that he or she remains unaware. John cannot be affirming a believer will not persist in some sin as a lifestyle. That becomes equivalent to saying that only intentional sins count in the formula of sinlessness that results from Christ’s protection against Satan. That being said, John is indeed affirming by this that one born of God is not characterized by sin, but only in the sense that divine birth does not give birth to sin and death, but to life.

What a perverse view, when an expositor is driven by a verse saying "everyone who has been begotten by God does not sin" to go on and on about how everyone who has been begotten by God does in fact sin, when the greatest burden he seems to feel is to explain the prevalence of sin (and reassure habitual sinners) rather than talk about its end (and call for repentance and mortification).

Relatively minor problem. The "Gutless Grace" theme is very troubling. The other is more annoying than anything else.

I don't "deduct points" for commenters who stop short of affirming the Biblical doctrine of sovereign grace and effectual atonement. But it is interesting that when he comes to 2:2's οὐ περὶ τῶν ἡμετέρων δὲ μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ περὶ ὅλου τοῦ κόσμου, Derickson drops what he has done about every issue thus far, down to the tiniest minutiae of grammar and textual criticism. He simply asserts‎ "Through these he makes it clear that Jesus’ propitiatory work is not limited just to believers."  Boom. No evidence, nor respectful discussion of alternative views necessary — unlike every other issue so far.

Again, "This is one of the clearest statements of Scripture that Jesus’ propitiatory work on the cross is universal and not limited only to the elect." Again, "However, dying for sins does not remove them from the unrepentant soul." And in a footnote, uncharacteristically polemically, Derickson says

‎Kistemaker (255) notes that “John chooses the adjective ὅλος (whole) instead of πᾶς (every, all) to communicate the idea of universality.” Even so, he does not see Jesus dying for every human being, but limits Jesus’ death to “all the people who believe in him” (253). He defines κόσμος, then, in terms of “the world in its totality, not necessarily in its individuality.” This demonstrates the difficulty those who would hold to limited atonement face. The text is clear, but their theological system forces them to limit its meaning, and so Jesus’ work on the cross, to the elect alone.

Well, there you have it, then. "The text is clear." Leaving aside the irony of Derickson sniping at people whose "theological system forces them" to mishandle the text, Derickson doesn't even allude to the undebatably varying senses of kosmos in John, doesn't allude to John Owen, and he simply ignores the massive elephant in the room (the fact that John says Jesus is the propitiation, not that He provides or offers it) by asserting that "dying for sins does not remove them from the unrepentant soul." Where is that in the text? In fact, earlier he had noted that "‎the verb εἰμί, ...is ...included for emphasis," so that "John is stressing his point. Jesus is the Propitiation!" So He is...and yet He really isn't, to Derickson.

Apparently it really does depend on what the meaning of the word "is" is.

This becomes still more annoying when Derickson gets to 2:15, at which point he suddenly discovers that the apostle uses the word with several divergent nuances! He doesn't examine those nuances on the first occurrence of the word (because the meaning there is "clear"), but examines it on a later occurrence. Further, here he flatly asserts that the world in this use is evil and anti-God and "a child of God should not love it" — but doesn't wrestle with his earlier insistence that Christ made propitiation for it.

And yet again, on ‎μηδὲ τὰ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ in 2:15, Derickson says “'World' may be being used in one of three senses here." Here, yes; but somehow not in 2:2, where it can only mean one thing.

Once more, on 4:9, he says ‎"Interpreters are divided on the sense of κόσμος in this verse," and discusses two options. But interpreters aren't divided on 2:2? In Derickson's world, apparently not.

Derickson's theological comments on the issue are so theologically tone-deaf that one wonders whether he has actually ever read opposing literature with half the care he shows in most other cases.

Final summary. Derickson's fondness for the "Gutless Grace" school of thought lessens the value of some of his interpretations, and his failure to deal seriously with some aspects of atonement language can be annoying. Yet I still do recommend this resource to any pastor and teacher, due to Derickson's painstaking thoroughness in going over virtually every detail of the text, his marvellously exhaustive documentation, and the frequent real-world applications characterize Derickson's work.

---

Desert-Island Exegesis

by Phil Johnson

he following post from yesteryear came to mind recently when someone approached me wanting to quibble about a fairly basic point of Christology. I had been teaching on the humanity of Christ and had stressed the importance of being precise in how we frame our understanding of Christ's two natures.

My interlocutor objected, saying he doesn't think doctrine is an exacting science. He told me, "I always ask, 'If an unbeliever stranded on a desert island with nothing but a Bible read this text, what would he get from it?' I think that's the best test of one's interpretation."

I replied that an unbeliever stranded on an island with nothing but a Bible is no standard by which to measure the accuracy of one's hermeneutics. In the first place, even if he had a full library and research team, an unbeliever is incapable of receiving the things of the Spirit of God: "They are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned" (1 Corinthians 2:14).

In the second place, the desert island exegete—even if he became a Christian—would simply not be able to decipher several common expressions of Scripture on his own. There are plenty of times when even the most devoted believer absolutely needs to rely on study aids and the scholarship and insight of godly men who have gone before.

There's simply no real virtue in the sort of desert island approach that says we should never look at commentaries or study helps in our quest to understand and interpret Scripture. We can't always get the full meaning of a verse from a simple face-value interpretation.

So here's a post where we dealt with that same issue a few years ago:

Sola Scriptura and the role of teachers in our spiritual growth

Do commentaries and study aids violate the principle of 1 John 2:27?

(First posted 19 January 2007.)

A less-than-admiring reader writes:

Your identity as a "Baptist"; your endless quotations from Charles Spurgeon; your faithful devotion to John MacArthur; and especially your willingness to call yourself a "Calvinist" are all huge red flags that tell me something is seriously wrong with your theology. Why do you teach a system of doctrine that is named after a mere man? Why are you following human teachers instead of going to the Bible alone? After all, 1 John 2:27 says, "The anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you." We ought to go to Scripture alone to establish our doctrine! The truth is in God's Holy word, not in any theological system or theology textbook developed by mere men. Isn't that principle what the Reformation was originally about? Sola Scriptura? Didn't even Calvin himself go to Scripture for the truth instead of reading other men? I believe that if Calvin himself wrote for this blog, he would point people to the truth in God's Holy word, not to a theology developed by some other man.

My reply:

ou have seriously misunderstood sola Sriptura if you really imagine that it rules out human teachers or eliminates systematic theology. The Reformers (including Calvin) often cited the works of Augustine, Tertullian, Jerome, Cyprian, Ambrose, and others—ranging from the early church fathers through Aquinas. They didn't follow any of them slavishly, of course, but they certainly took them seriously. Not one of the major Reformers would have tolerated the claim that because the Church Fathers were mere men they were therefore irrelevant or incapable of shedding any helpful light on tough theological questions.

Sola Scriptura means that Scripture alone is the final court of appeal in all matters of faith and practice. It is an affirmation that "the whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from scripture" and that "nothing at any time is to be added [to the Bible], whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men." It recognizes that there is ultimately no higher spiritual authority than God's Word, so "the infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture . . . it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly."

But none of that means we're obliged to discard the wisdom of godly men from ages past and require each man to try to discern truth from scratch by reading nothing but Scripture by himself.

As for Calvin, he certainly did "point people to the truth in God's Holy Word"—but one thing he did not do was steer people away from the important theologians of the past. In fact, Calvin's works are filled with references to the Church Fathers—Augustine in particular. Calvin knew it was important to demonstrate that he was proposing nothing wholly novel and that his theology was in the doctrinal lineage of the greatest theologians of the church. He regarded himself as Augustinian, in precisely the same way many today think of themselves as "Calvinists."

If Calvin wrote for this blog and someone responded to one of his posts by refusing to read what Augustine wrote, Calvin would probably write that person off as arrogant and unteachable.

Incidentally, 1 John 2:20, 27 is the apostle John's response to an early outbreak of gnostic-flavored spiritual elitism. He was refuting some false teachers (he called them "antichrists") who insisted that real truth is a deep secret, different from the apostolic message, into which people must be initiated by some anointed swami. The Holy Spirit indwells and anoints each believer, and He is the One who truly enlightens and enables us to understand truth. But He also gifts certain people with a particular ability to teach others (Romans 12:6-7; Ephesians 4:11). So while John was condemning the notion of enlightened masters in the style of Freemasonry and gnosticism, he was not making a blanket condemnation of teachers. He himself was a teacher.

Bonus:

A follow-up message asks me if I am suggesting it's wrong for someone to abandon all books and human teachers and rely only on what he can glean from the Bible for himself. Answer: yes, I think that's wrong because it's arrogant and reflects a sinful kind of unteachability. This is my whole point: sola Scriptura doesn't rule out the valid role of teaching in the church.

Furthermore, it is simply not the case that any common, unskilled, unschooled individual, sitting down with his Bible and no other tools, can expect to come to a full and mature understanding of Scripture without any help from godly teachers who understand some things better than he will ever get it on his own. Here's Bernard Ramm's famous response to the arrogance reflected in such a perversion of sola Scriptura:

It is often asserted by devout people that they can know the Bible completely without helps. They preface their interpretations with a remark like this: "Dear friends, I have read no man's book. I have consulted no man-made commentaries. I have gone right to the Bible to see what it had to say for itself." This sounds very spiritual, and usually is seconded with amens from the audience.
     But is this the pathway of wisdom? Does any man have either the right or the learning to by-pass all the godly learning of the church? We think not.
     First, although the claim to by-pass mere human books and go right to the Bible itself sounds devout and spiritual it is a veiled egotism. It is a subtle affirmation that a man can adequately know the Bible apart from the untiring, godly, consecrated scholarship of men like [Athanasius,] Calvin, Bengel, Alford, Lange, Ellicott, or Moule. . . .
     Secondly, such a claim is the old confusion of the inspiration of the Spirit with the illumination of the Spirit. The function of the Spirit is not to communicate new truth or to instruct in matters unknown, but to illuminate what is revealed in Scripture. Suppose we select a list of words from Isaiah and ask a man who claims he can by-pass the godly learning of Christian scholarship if he can out of his own soul or prayer give their meaning or significance: Tyre, Zidon, Chittim, Sihor, Moab, Mahershalalhashbas, Calno, Carchemish, Hamath, Aiath, Migron, Michmash, Geba, Anathoth, Laish, Nob, and Gallim. He will find the only light he can get on these words is from a commentary or a Bible dictionary.

[from Bernard Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1970), pp. 17-18 (emphasis in original).]

So it is no test of the soundness of an interpretation to ask what a novice with access to nothing but Scripture itself would make of a particular verse. It would be safer to assume that the desert island guy's interpretation will probably fall short of the mark.

---