A Pleasant Discovery at Tyndale House Library

Today has been preparation day for my departure from Tyndale House tomorrow. One of my tasks has been to replace the stacks of books that I have been using for research. (The library is a self-serve resource center. Use a book and replace it when finished with it. The design is efficient and saves on paying someone to do what we researchers can do ourselves.) Well, as I was replacing a Ph.D. dissertation, I spied another dissertation that I could not resist taking back to my study carrel.

I sat down and began to read the dissertation. After reading the introduction

and preliminary pages, one chapter in particular, Chapter X, caught my attention. So I devoted a fair amount of time to give it a careful reading. The chapter is titled "Justification by Faith." Oh, I didn't tell you whose dissertation it is. It is J. I. Packer's Ph.D. dissertation. Packer gave the copy as a gift to Tyndale House in May 1957. It is titled, "The Redemption and Restoration of Man in the Thought of Richard Baxter: A Study in Puritan Theology," presented for the degree of D.Phil. in the University of Oxford, Trinity term, 1954. Packer's dissertation is extremely long; it is 499 pages. Yet, to look at it on the shelf, one would think that it was only 150 to 175 pages. How does it look so thin? It is typed on onion skin paper. Imagine a dissertation that is 499 pages. No supervisor today would allow such length.

My friend and fellow Ph.D. student and candidate at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Tim Beougher, now Billy Graham Professor of Evangelism and Church Growth at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, wrote his dissertation on Richard Baxter. I know that he accessed J. I. Packer's dissertation, and Dr. Packer was his External Reader for his dissertation. As I recall from several conversation with him, Tim Beougher focused his dissertation on Baxter's beliefs concerning justification. Hence, I was eager to read Packer's treatment of Baxter's view.

Richard Baxter forges his beliefs concerning justification on the anvil of controversy with men called "Antinomians," particularly men such as Tobias Crisp (Christ Alone Exalted) and James Saltmarsh. Whether they were justly called "Antinomians" is disputable. Nevertheless, Baxter took a view of justification by faith that he distinguished from the view articulated by Crisp and others. Baxter saw his own view as in agreement with that of the Puritan Divines, such as William Perkins, Samuel Bolton (True Bounds of Christian Freedom), Thomas Hooker, and others. Baxter's views roused several critics and caught the sharp point of John Owen's pen as they engaged one another. This, then, is the focus of Chapter X of Packer's dissertation.

It seems suitable to quote a portion of J. I. Packer's commentary on the controversy stirred by Richard Baxter's beliefs.

But in fact Baxter's alleged heterodoxy amounted merely to this: he had assimilated the four characteristic Protestant positions concerning justification (that it is a forensic act, done in this life; that it is grounded on Christ's satisfaction; that it is secured through faith; and that a dead fait justifies nobody) to his 'political' doctrine of the new covenant as a legal instrument for its conveyance; and he had distinguished two decisive moments in justification, one present and one future, where other Protestants recognize only the first. The charges brought against him were ludicrous. But we can see why they were made. His readers were completely bewildered by the 'political method'. It involved re-definition right and left: terms like law, works, merit, righteousness, justification, imputation, instrument, all meant something different in Baxter from what they meant in the rest of Protestant literature. Few had the patience or the ability to master his method and definitions; consequently, a great deal of breath and ink were wasted in confuting what he would have meant had he been using these key words in the accepted sense. The controversial wranglings between Baxter and his critics on justification make tedious and unprofitable reading, for the two side make no intellectual contact at all. Both Baxter and the orthodox Calvinists had perfectly consisten positions granted their first principles, and constructive discussion between them could only take place at the level of their first principles. But their endless acrimonious dissections of each other's statements never got down to this level. The only issue of these exchanges was that each side learned to state its own position more accurately. The root difference between Baxter and orthodox Calvinism, from which all their other disagreements sprang and to which they can all be reduced, may here be pin-pointed. It concerned the idea of law. . . .

To orthodox Calvinism, the law of God is the permanent, unchanging expression of God's eternal and unchangeable holiness and justice. It requires perfect obedience from mankind, on pain of physical and spiritual death, and confers salvation and eternal life only upon those who perfectly obey it. God could not change this law, or set it aside, in His dealings with men, without denying Himself. When man sins, therefore, it is not God's nature to same him at the law's expense. Instead, he saves sinners by satisfying the law on their behalf, that He might continue just when He becomes their Justifier. . . .

Baxter's 'political method' led him to a very different idea of God's law. To him, God's justice is merely a rectoral attribute, a characteristic quality of His government, and His laws are no more than means to ends. Like all laws, they may under certain circumstances be changed, if the desired end is attainable by other means. When man had fallen, and God purposed to glorify Himself by restoring him, He carried out His plan, not by satisfying the law, but by changing it. . . . Where orthodox Calvinism taught that Christ satisfied the law in the sinner's place, Baxter held that Christ satisfied the Lawgiver and so procured a change in the law. Here Baxter aligns himself with Arminian thought rather than with orthodox Calvinism. And from this source, as is now clear, all his differences with orthodoxy on the subject of justification took their rise.

We may think that Baxter was wrong; we may even judge him wrong-headed; but we must recognize that it was not gratuitous pedantry that drove him to new ways of stating old truths. He was sure that they were Scriptural and necessary for the Church's holiness and peace ("The Redemption and Restoration of Man in the Thought of Richard Baxter," 302-306).

I quote these words at length because they seem quite relevant to the controversy that swirls in the church today. Another Englishman is at the center of the current vortex, N. T. Wright. One may disagree with N. T. Wright, but wouldn't it be wonderful if disagreement would bring about more than the controversy of the seventeenth century yielded in Puritan times?

Today's Research, N. T. Wright

As I enter my final week of research and reading at Tyndale House I decided to give N. T. Wright's doctoral dissertation a closer read than my earlier rather cursory reading of it.

First here are the bibliographical data concerning the dissertation:

Wright, N. T. (1980). "The Messiah and the People of God: A Study in Pauline Theology with Particular Reference to the Argument of the Epistle to the Romans." Oxford University. Doctor of Philosophy Dissertation.

Many if not most of the views that Wright has expressed in his numerous publications are present within his dissertation in seed form at least. Some of his later published views are fairly developed in the dissertation, especially his view of the relationship between Israel and Christ, which is at the core of his thesis.

It seems evident to me that N. T. Wright has become a noticeably improved writer since his doctoral research days. The argument in his dissertation is cumbersome to track. It is quite scattered in its presentation. It is not well focused. Though his thesis is about Paul's letter to the Romans, Wright regularly follows trails that lead away from that letter into Paul's other letters, such as, Galatians, Philippians, the Corinthian letters, etc. One gets the distinct sense that Wright attempted to do too much. One also receives the sense that he could have used closer guidance to tighten his argument and to tie each portion into the core of his thesis much more closely than he did. Often his exegesis leaves one puzzled. Either his argument was too thinly demonstrated, too densely expressed or else my reading capacity is too dense to follow with approval.

The formatting of the dissertation leaves much to be desired. Given that it was typed on a typewriter and not compiled with a word processor, it is understandable why footnotes were eschewed in favor of endnotes. Flipping to the back of the copy to locate footnotes is annoying, but even more annoying is the compressed and packed format of the notes. Margins spill over any formatting regulations, such as found in Turabian, running almost to the paper's edge.

The dissertation copy that Wright gave to Tyndale House puzzles me. Elements of this copy prompt me to wonder if it is unique or if the wording and format is actually the same as the presentation copy Wright submitted to Merton College, Oxford University. I have never seen this phenomenon in any thesis or dissertation before. It contains several pages that have whole sections covered over with paper upon which different text has been typed. On one page, page 159, the lower half of the page is covered over with paper upon which different text is typed. One can read at least ten lines under the paper that have not been replaced with different text. This unusual feature gives Wright's dissertation the feel that portions of it are a palimpsest. If I ever get back to the Bodlein Library at Oxford University I will try to remember to access Wright's dissertation to compare it with the copy Tyndale House holds.

Biblical Scholarship and Proper Humility

D. A. Carson reviews David A. Brondos. Paul on the Cross: Reconstructing the Apostle's Story of Redemption. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2006. Pp. xiii + 241. Paper. $20.00 ISBN 0800637887.

If you have read this blog from its inception, you will recall my entry titled A Humbling Experience While Researching. In it I indicated that I had read a couple of journal articles on precisely the same biblical passage upon which I had earlier written a rather substantial essay, "'Redeemed from the Curse of the Law'": The Use of Deut 21:22-23 in Gal 3:13." If you take a look at it, you will see that it is technical in that if offers a close and tight exegesis of the passages involved. It so happens that David Brondos, whose book D. A. Carson reviews, is one who wrote an essay on the same passage, "The Cross and the Curse: Galatians 3:13 and Paul's Doctrine of Redemption," Journal for the Study of the New Testament 81 (2001): 3-32.

When I read Brondos's essay, I decided to put the best construction on the fact that he made no reference to my essay, which, by the way, shows up in every major index system, including ATLA. I decided to give him the benefit of the doubt that he had simply missed my essay in the ATLA listing as he researched essays on the selected passage. Yet, I wondered if he selectively ignored my essay because it demonstrates from biblical evidence an argument that leads to conclusions that counter his own conclusions. Upon reading D. A. Carson's review of Brondos's book, Paul on the Cross, which I have not had an opportunity either to see or to read, my formerly private thoughts may be more accurate than my previously expressed public thoughts. Is it conceivable that I misplaced the cause of my expressed humility? Which is the cause? Did he accidentally overlook my essay by missing it on the ATLA or other index retrieval system? Or, did he overlook my essay by suppressing it because my argument and conclusions countered his own? You be the judge. Read D. A. Carson's review of Brondos's book. As in his book, so also in his essay, Brondos contends that

Pauline scholars have tended to look to some version of the doctrines of atonement found in later Christian tradition for the narrative framework and ideas necessary to interpret Paul's thought in Gal. 3.13. However, a proper understanding of the foundtational story found in the primitive Christian tradition provides us with all the elements we need to understand this passage: by being obedient unto death in seeking the redemption of others, Christ attained that redemption once for all when God responded by raising him, since now exalted in power, he is certain to redeem God's people from the law's curse when he comes again ("The Cross and the Curse: Galatians 3:13 and Paul's Doctrine of Redemption," JSNT 81 (2001): 32 [Brondos's own abstract]).

Taking offense at the longstanding Christian belief in substitutionary or vicarious atonement may have prompted his slighting of my essay, for, as you will see if you read the following paragraphs, I make a case that Deuteronomy 21:22-23, in the Old Testament covenant framework, depicts substitution. On the other hand, it seems somewhat odd that Brondos did not cite my essay as a contemporary example of one who holds what he regards as a wrong view of Paul's understanding. Here, then are crucial excerpts from the conclusion of my essay.

Reading Deut 21:22-23 from this hermeneutical matrix clarifies the legitimacy of Paul's use of that passage in Gal 3:13. In its OT covenantal context, Deut 21:22-23 prepares for and anticipates Christ's curse bearing upon the cross. The corpse of the covenant-breaker is hung “upon the tree" as a gruesome sign that he is an object of curse. He is suspended between heaven and earth, exposed to the vengeance of God to propitiate his wrath toward Israel (Num 25:4; 2 Sam 21:6ff).

From his salvation-historical perspective, Paul argues that Christ hung “upon the tree" in Israel's place, bearing the curse of the violated covenant and turning away God's wrath from his people by redeeming them out from under the law's curse. This redemption of believing Jews from the law's curse is epochal in character, for Christ replaces the law for Jews and in so doing extends to Gentiles the blessing promised to Abraham. Thus, Jew and Gentile together are made recipients of the long-awaited Spirit of the new covenant.

If this study is reasonably correct in its identification of biblical authorization for Paul's quotation of Deut 21:22-23 in Gal 3:13, it demonstrates the short-sightedness of exegesis that becomes unduly entangled in pursuing hidden midrashic link-words. Paul's warrant for employing his selected passage, though undoubtedly influenced by gezerah shawah, is not bound to the middoth, nor is he driven to find and appropriate in an ad hoc manner OT passages to validate the NT creed. The eye of faith, reading the OT through Paul's optic (namely the coming of Christ) will yield fresh and rewarding insights concerning how the NT cites the OT.

Do scholars selectively ignore some books or articles that do not fit the direction of their research or challenge the conclusions to which they have come? I am afraid that we scholars are very much tempted to do just that when we encounter an essay or a book containing an argument, especially a carefully reasoned exegetical argument, that does not fit our template. Do scholars have templates in their minds from which they argue. Indeed, we do. Is it possible to overcome the temptation to lay our preconceived notions and beliefs upon the text and avoid coming to the conclusions that we presume from the beginning? Yes, but it is difficult for us as it is for all others.

We are made rather uncomfortable with the ideals and principles that ought to guide all scholarship. Why? It is because true biblical scholarship will arrive at conclusions to which the biblical text leads, and often those conclusions cut cross-grain with our preconceived notions and ideas. Is there a danger in submitting ourselves to wherever the biblical text will lead us? Indeed, there is, for our ideas, beliefs, prejudices, and conclusions may be significantly challenged by the biblical text rightly read and followed. Such is the nature of Scripture. Is it not? Is this not precisely why biblical scholarship must always be prepared to be humbled rightly and even greatly by the biblical text? Herein is proper humility.

---

The other essay that shows no indication of any knowledge of my essay is Kelli O'Brien, "The Curse of the Law (Galatians 3:13): Crucifixion, Persecution, and Deuteronomy 21:22-23," JSNT 29 (2006): 55-76. Here is the author's abstract.

It is widely accepted that Christians were persecuted for preaching a crucified messiah because, according to Deut. 21.22-23, one who is crucified is also accursed. However, the arguments in favor of that position are weak. A larger examination of Jewish texts on Deut. 21.22-23 and crucifixion per se demonstrate that attitudes toward crucifixion and its victims were generally very different. The article conclues that Deut 21.22-23 is an unlikely basis for early Jewish rejection and persecution of Christianity and that other causes should be sought.

How could a scholar who gives careful examination to Galatians 3:13 and to Deuteronomy 21:22-23 fail to account for a substantial essay that addresses both passages at length? May God spare me from failing to account for essays, theses, dissertations, and books in my research, and especially those that I need most crucially to read and to examine in that they will challenge me and push me to examine the biblical text more closely and to scrutinize my own predilections and assumptions. Amen.

Book Reviews

Here is the most recent set of reviews provided by SBL's Review of Biblical Literature:

Roger Beck
The Religion of the Mithras Cult in the Roman Empire: Mysteries of the Unconquered Sun
Reviewed by Jan N. Bremmer

Tomas Bokedal
The Scriptures and the Lord: Formation and Significance of the Christian Biblical Canon; A Study in Text, Ritual and Interpretation
Reviewed by Tobias Nicklas

David A. Brondos
Paul on the Cross: Reconstructing the Apostle's Story of Redemption
Reviewed by D. A. Carson

Clayton N. Jefford
The Apostolic Fathers: An Essential Guide
Reviewed by Laurence L. Welborn

Antti Laato and Johannes C. de Moor, eds.
Theodicy in the World of the Bible: The Goodness of God and the Problem of Evil
Reviewed by Lorenzo DiTommaso

Philip L. Mayo
"Those Who Call Themselves Jews": The Church and Judaism in the Apocalypse of John
Reviewed by David L. Barr

Donald K. McKim, ed.
Calvin and the Bible
Reviewed by Henning Graf Reventlow

Aharon Oppenheimer; ed. Nili Oppenheimer
Between Rome and Babylon: Studies in Jewish Leadership and Society
Reviewed by Edward J. Mills III

Kim Paffenroth
The Heart Set Free: Sin and Redemption in the Gospels, Augustine, Dante, and Flannery O'Connor
Reviewed by Alice M. Sinnott

Udo Rüterswörden, ed.
Martin Noth-aus der Sicht der heutigen Forschung
Reviewed by Steven L. McKenzie

Joachim Schaper
"Wie der Hirsch lechzt nach frischem Wasser.": Studien zu Psalm 42/43 in Religionsgeschichte, Theologie und kirchlicher Praxis
Reviewed by Stefan Beyerle

Udo Schnelle; trans. M. Eugene Boring
Apostle Paul: His Life and Theology
Reviewed by Kenneth Atkinson

Edward Stourton
Paul of Tarsus: A Visionary Life
Reviewed by Valérie Nicolet Anderson

Christiane de Vos
Klage als Gotteslob aus der Tiefe: Der Mench vor Gott in der individuellen Klagepsalmen
Reviewed by Marianne Grohmann

Brian J. Walsh and Sylvia C. Keesmaat
Colossians Remixed: Subverting the Empire
Reviewed by Angela Standhartinger

Research Productive Despite Interruptions

Despite attending three meetings--weekly chapel, a residents' meeting, and a lecture at the Faculty of Divinity--I suppose that I should assess today as fairly productive. I read two books that make quite different claims concerning Paul's Letter to the Romans.

1. Chae, Daniel Jong Sang. Paul as Apostle to the Gentiles: His Apostolic Self-Awareness and its Influence on the Soteriological Argument in Romans. Paternoster Biblical and Theological Monographs. Carlisle, Cumbria: Paternoster, 1997.
2. Kim, Johann D. God, Israel, and the Gentiles: Rhetoric and Situation in Romans 9-11. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 176. Atlanta, Georgia: SBL, 2000.
   

I have also dipped into Demetrius K. Williams' Enemies of the Cross of Christ: The Terminology of the Cross and Conflict in Philippians. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Series 223. Sheffield. 2002. Another monograph that caught my eye from the shelf as I was reaching for another book is the engaging dissertation by Jung Hoon Kim, The Significance of Clothing Imagery in the Pauline Corpus. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 268. London: T. & T. Clark, 2004. I have worked my way through much of it. I find it particularly heartening in that the conclusions that Kim has drawn, on well-reasoned exegesis, are the same to which I have come on much less detailed and developed exegetical work. His carefully reason monograph confirms what I have been claiming concerning Paul's unclothing and clothing imagery, such as the apostle's affirmation (Col 3:9-10) and admonition (Eph 4:20-24) to put off the old man and to put on the new man. Other noteworthy passages are Romans 13:11-14 and 1 Corinthians 15:50-54. I have contended, as Kim well shows, that the imagery derives originally from the nakedness/unashamed imagery of Genesis 2:24-25 and the ashamed/clothed imagery of Genesis 3:1-8 and Genesis 3:21-24.

Research Concentration

My initial concentration was upon revisiting a paper that I initially wrote for and presented at the annual meetings of the Evangelical Theological Society in Valley Forge, Pennsylvania, November 2005. At the time of presentation, the paper turned out to be quite different from what I initially expected. Since then, the paper has taken a more firm and developed form. The paper, initially titled "The Ox and The Man: The Use of Deuteronomy 25:4 in 1 Corinthians 9:9," has morphed into, "The Muzzled Ox and the Abused Apostle: Deuteronomy 25:4 in 1 Corinthians 9:9." I have brought research for the essay up to date, I believe, and have it almost prepared to submit for publication. I have not yet decided to which journal I would like to submit it.

Now, as I gather information, the focus of my research at Tyndale House library has turned to three areas. I am scheduled to complete three essays for publication before the end of December.

First is an essay on Paul's Letter to the Romans for the Southern Baptist Journal of Theology. It will be a reworking of another essay I presented at the 2004 meetings of the Evangelical Theological Society in San Antonio, Texas. The paper was titled, "They Exchanged the Truth of God for the Lie: Echoes of Adam and of Israel in Romans 1:21-25." I anticipate that the essay will bear a different title because it will be broader, less narrowly focused, less technical, and more thematic in its approach.

Second is an essay for an edited book titled, The "Faith of Jesus Christ:" Exegetical, Biblical, and Theological Studies. It will be published by Paternoster. Michael F. Bird, lecturer at Highland Theological College, and Preston M. Sprinkle, a recent graduate of University of Aberdeen, are the editors. The working title of my essay for this book is "The Faithfulness of Jesus as a theme of Pauline Theology."

The third essay that I am working on is one for a five views book on the relationship between Israel and the Church. It will be edited by Chad Brand and published by Broadman & Holman. I will let readers wonder and guess which of the five views I will be presenting.

• Traditional Dispensational View.
• Progressive Dispensational View.
• Kingdom Theology Perspective.
• Traditional Covenant Theology Perspective.
• New Covenant Theology Perspective.
  

Rainy Day Outside. Productive in the Library

Today it has been drizzling and overcast all day. Thus, I have not been outside all day. I have worked in the library throughout the day, and it has been a much more productive day than yesterday, when all I did was wrestle with my computer which was causing all kinds of problems. Today, the first thing I did was sit down to figure out how I could master my computer to make it useful and efficient rather than malfunctioning and testing my patience each time I use it. By God's grace, I stumbled onto information that was extremely useful. Had it been disclosed to me yesterday, I could have resolved most of my computer problems yesterday in 5 to 10 minutes. Instead, that happened today. And since I installed the proxy server software, the computer has been humming along without a hitch.

I am planning to attend Eden Baptist Church tomorrow. I have heard good reports concerning Eden going back to my student days. Now I have an opportunity to attend. Of course, I will be walking to church in the morning. As I've been told, it should take about 40 to 45 minutes.

A Humbling Experience While Researching

It was not always this way, but now after having written and published for magazines, journals, and books, while doing research, it is not unusual to come across my published materials in books or journals or magazines that I read. This week I had an occasion to read an article in a very recent issue of a scholarly journal on the New Testament concerning the same crucial passage in one of Paul's letters on which I had published a sizable and significant article several years ago, an article that derived from my work on my dissertation. As I read the recent article, I observed that the author showed no knowledge of my research and gave no indication that she had accessed my article, even though it is indexed in all of the major scholarly indexes of journal articles.

Well, it was humbling that the author showed no indication at all of having any knowledge of my essay. Humbling as that was, however, it was even more humbling to reflect upon an experience that I had within the past year. I received notification that an essay I had submitted for publication in another scholarly journal for biblical studies had been rejected because I did not show that I had interacted with a particular essay that had touched upon the same passage on which my essay was based. This reflection gave me pause to be humbled further to realize that not even the referees of the journal in which the woman successfully published her essay knew of my ignored, forgotten, not cited, and not even mentioned essay.

Some have said that scholars write things that only other scholars read. Perhaps this is true. However, an corollary may also be fitting: Scholars write things that not even other scholars read.

Update: Humbled again. Today, as I was continuing to research in the area that I addressed in my dissertation, as I revisit that work to update my files with a view to possibly publishing some essays, I came upon another essay that was sort of a twist on the title of my dissertation, "The Cross and the Curse" whereas my dissertation is title, "The Curse of the Law and the Cross." Again, this essay shows no awareness of neither my essay published in 1989 nor my dissertation completed in 1991. What is particularly disconcerting about this essay is that the first segment offers "A History of Interpretation of Galatians 3:13." How thorough was the research that supported this summary of the history of interpretation. The odd thing is that my essay is even available on the internet, here and listed here. Once again, I'm humbled.