����ԭ��

Book Reviews

[maxbutton id=”10″]

David Beale, Historical Theology In-Depth: Themes and Contexts of Doctrinal Development since the First Century, 2 volumes (Greenville, SC: Bob Jones University Press, 2013). 532 pages; 516 pages. Reviewed by David Saxon.

During his several decades of teaching church history and theology at Bob Jones University, Dr. Beale became known for painstakingly accurate scholarship, a generous and humble spirit, and an infectious passion for the majesty of God. These three attributes are on full display in this two-volume history of Christian theology.

While most histories of doctrine opt for either a chronological or topical organization of the vast amount of material involved, Beale combines the two approaches. While pursuing a largely chronological narrative, he mixes in various topical studies, finally settling into a topical arrangement of the majority of volume two. The book advertises itself as an “in-depth” treatment of this enormous subject, and, at times, the detail of the discussions fully delivers on this promise. In one thousand pages, however, the history of Christian theology cannot be explored in depth, and the depth of the coverage varies from section to section. Nevertheless, even the sections that feature more summarizing are valuable.

The strongest aspect of this work is no doubt its handling of the patristic material. Beale’s doctoral dissertation dealt with the eschatology of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, and it is obvious that he has spent countless hours exploring the Fathers in the years since. Approximately fifty-seven percent of the two volumes explores material from the Early Church (through about A.D. 500). Beale devotes most of the first volume to the Fathers, and he includes valuable readings from their writings in almost every chapter. His handling of this material is extremely judicious, resisting the temptation to minimize their theological aberrations and make Protestants of them but also undermining Roman Catholic interpretations that are equally anachronistic. Some of the highlights in volume one include his analyses of Tertullian (chapter 17), Cyprian (chapter 18), the Council of Chalcedon (chapter 24, which includes the complete text of Leo’s Tome), and five chapters on Augustine (covering nearly one hundred pages). Volume two returns to the patristic era for detailed discussions of sabbatarianism, the eternal generation of Christ (a doctrine Beale distinguishes sharply from Christ’s eternal Sonship and which he disputes as erroneously subordinationist), and abortion. In four appendices to volume two, he gives detailed attention to various cosmological questions (the shape, age, and creation of the earth), once again drawing most of the material from the Fathers.

Beale devotes only about seven and one-half percent of his work to the ten centuries from 500 to 1500. The most interesting discussion from this period is a long chapter on the Second Council of Nicea, which dealt with the Iconoclastic Controversy. The subtitle of this chapter is “Milieus of a Patristic Theology of Art,” and Beale provides an insight-filled analysis of the relation­ship between the deification theology of Eastern Orthodoxy and its use of icons in worship. Otherwise, he shows little interest in scholasticism. He provides a “Basic Outline of Scholasticism” that lists the key figures in the movement, and he summarizes its key trends, but the discussion is by no means “in-depth.” One looks in vain for a chapter on Anselm, Aquinas, or even German mysticism with the same depth and attention to detail he shows in his treatments of the Early Church. But all authors must choose their priorities.

The first five chapters of volume two discuss the Magisterial Reformation, and chapter eight covers the early Anabaptists. In these chapters, as in the rest of the work, Beale can hardly mention a place, name, or key term without providing a footnote that traces its history, linguistic derivation, or some other interesting tidbit. The two volumes overflow with fascinating facts of this kind. The chapters on Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin devote most of the space to historical narrative rather than theological analysis. A chapter on Melanchthon includes a survey of nine Lutheran controversies of the 16^th century, but the eight pages devoted to them can hardly do them justice. Beale’s treatment of Calvin’s theology is limited to a survey of the contents of The Institutes of the Christian Religion. A more comprehensive treatment of Lutheran, Zwinglian, Calvinist, and Anglican theology (the last of these receives no treatment) with comparisons between them would have enhanced this section.

To treat modern church history in depth, one must choose particular topics. Many volumes could not address all the strands of theological development since the Reformation. Beale devotes a fairly lengthy chapter to the contest between Arminianism and Dortian Calvinism, although nearly half of it is the complete text of the Canons of Dort. He has a brief but incisive chapter on Baptist Landmarkism, followed by a chapter on Baptist “backgrounds, doctrines, and practices” that includes the text of a number of important Baptist confessions of faith. Interesting chapters follow on the histories of Harvard and Yale and the development of the New Divinity and New Haven theologies. Clearly, American themes dominate the post-Reformation discussions. Indeed, key Continental thinkers such as Schleiermacher and Ritschl appear only in connection with American developments (such as the theology of Horace Bushnell). The longest and, perhaps, best chapter in volume two is entitled “Evangelicalism and the Bible: Apologetics and Philosophy since 1800.” In a sprawling discussion, Beale summarizes evidentialism, Common Sense philosophy, and presuppositionalism; analyzes Louis Gaussen, the Princeton Theology, and the Neo-Calvinist Dutch School (Abraham Kuyper, Herman Bavinck, etc.); surveys the thinking of Karl Barth and Neo-Orthodoxy; and concludes with brief treatments of Gresham Machen, Cornelius Van Til, and Francis Schaeffer. This is an ambitious program, but Beale delivers interesting discussions throughout.

Beale chooses not to discuss several important themes. There is no detailed explanation of the origins of higher criticism and its impact on theological liberalism. Perhaps because he tells the story elsewhere (In Pursuit of Purity), Beale gives no attention to the development of American Fundamentalism. The five pages he devotes to Barth in the chapter on Scripture is his only treatment of Neo-Orthodoxy; absent are Brunner, Bonhoeffer, Bultmann, the Neibuhrs, Tillich, etc. Some of these thinkers—Bultmann and Tillich, in particular—are sufficiently sub-Christian to warrant exclusion, but it is still surprising to read a history of theology that omits them. No consideration is given to modern theologies such as Liberation Theology, Vatican II Romanism, or Postmodern theologies.

The selection of topics is distinctly practical, addressing matters such as the Sabbath, abortion, and inerrancy that are helpful for Fundamentalists. The treatment of these topics is scholarly and precise while also being passionate and devotional. For the medieval and modern periods, a reader desiring thorough treatment must supplement this work with others. What Beale does, though, he does extraordinarily well, and the books turn out to have a rare quality: they are precise historical theology that engenders worship.

Robert Yarbrough, 1, 2, and 3 John, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008). 464 pages. Reviewed by David Hockman.

Robert Yarbrough’s commentary on the Epistles of John is tremendously helpful in providing a clear explanation of the Greek text of John’s letters. The introduction is concise consisting of twenty-seven pages, which indicates that the purpose is not to cover the introductory items in full detail. Yarbrough is clear that he views the apostle John as the author of the epistles that bear his name. He does interact with the critical views on authorship and demonstrates why he does not find these views compelling. He views the apostle John to be the author while admitting that this is not the dominant view among scholarship today. He understands that the letters were written in the 80’s to the geographical area of Ephesus.

The commentary’s focus is historical and linguistic. In light of this he provides key insights from the OT and also from John’s gospel that impact John’s letters. He supports word meanings from the Septuagint as well as extra-biblical literature of the day (e.g. ὁπαράκλητος in 2:1 and ἱλασμός in 2:2). His interaction with the Greek text is very valuable in that he points out the significant syntactical uses of various parts of speech. This is extremely helpful in aiding one’s phrase/block diagramming of the text and noting the relationships between phrases and clauses. He often cites Wallace as support and on occasion will disagree with Wallace. For example, in 1:9 where Wallace declares a theological conundrum with the ἵναclause, Yarbrough sees the ἵνα in 1:9 as a result clause with the idea that God is faithful and just and as a result forgives sin.

Yarbrough notes that there is no agreement among commentators on the structure of John’s letters. He organizes 1 John according to the structure of the NA²⁷ (1:1-2:6; 2:7-17; 2:18-3:8; 3:9-4:6; 4:7-14; 4:1-5:15; 5:16-21). He then understands 1 John 1:5 to provide the thesis of the first letter. He recognizes four purposes for 1 John (1:3; 1:4; 2:1; and 5:13). He views these four as secondary purposes. Instead, he views the indicative “God is light” as that main purpose. He provides others who agree with him. Along with this focus on “God is light,” he also recognizes the three dimensional view of the aspects of faith that John develops throughout the letters of doctrinal, ethical, and relational (1 John 2:1; 3 John 6). He does discuss the key textual variants but keeps the discussion to the endnotes.

Yarbrough does not avoid the difficult passages. In 1 John 2:2 he deals with the issue of the meaning of ἱλασμός. He presents the expiation view and provides support for the meaning of Christ’s “cancellation” or “dismissal” of one’s sins. He then turns to the evidence for ἱλασμόςmeaning the “turning away of one’s wrath.” As typical of his style, he presents evidence from the Old Testament and from John’s gospel that supports each position. He concludes by noting that Christ’s death did wipe away sin’s penalty (expiation) but that one cannot avoid that it also appeased God’s wrath.

He also deals with the extent of the atonement from 2:2. He likens the universal dimension of Christ’s atonement found in 2:2 to the universal nature of God’s promise to Abraham that all would be blessed through Abraham. Also, the sacrifices were offered for “all Israel” but this did not mean every Israelite received personal saving grace. He is clear that 2:2 does not support universalism. He notes that Christ’s death is the basis for God to extend mercy and how God can temporarily overlook human sin and exercise longsuffering to all mankind. He also concludes on the extent of the atonement that there is a sense that God died both for the whole world and also only for the elect. He prefers to ask, “Is the full eschatological benefit of the cross applied to all equally or only to those who in God’s design (election) receive the gift of grace by faith?”[1] Yarbrough concludes that for John the answer is the latter and this is consistent with John’s gospel (17:9).

In 1 John 3:4 he deals with the distinction between sin and lawlessness and demonstrates how this impacts 3:6 in understanding the tension in the phrase “keeps on sinning.” He resolves this tension by appealing to the meaning of ἀνομία that he developed in 3:4 (transgression so weighty that the perpetrator is outside the pale of Christ’s followers^[2]). He develops this in light of the context of the letter as a whole. He refers to the three areas the letter develops where one may potentially err: doctrine (faith), ethics (work), and relations (love). Therefore, “keeps on sinning” refers to sins that mark those who do not “abide” in Christ.

In 2 John he provides a cogent argument that the “elect lady” and her children is a reference to the church and its members. He develops the chiastic structure of verse five and six and understands the term “commandments” to refer to more than simply the love command. He interprets this term to refer to the doctrinal, ethical, and devotional integrity before God. He then develops the warning not to receive those teaching another doctrine. He makes the application to today in not accepting Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, or other heretical views in the sense of endorsing their teaching.

In 3 John he notes the error of individuals such as Oral Roberts in interpreting verse two as a promise of material prosperity for all believers. He develops the triad of the doctrinal, ethical, and relational aspects of faith in relation to Gaius’ love toward strangers. These strangers are worthy of such treatment because they took nothing from unbelievers. He again delves into the syntax to interpret Diotrephes’ error as “status loving.”

In all, this commentary is extremely helpful on multiple levels as demonstrated in this evaluation. However, I am not convinced of his view that “God is light” is the thesis for 1 John. Since the structure of John is not overtly clear, this leads to a conclusion that disagreement will exist regarding the main focus of the letter. It seems, in my opinion, that 5:13 provides the main thesis as 20:31 does for John’s gospel. In his gospel John wrote for the purpose that one would believe that Jesus is the Messiah and as a result he would have life. Now, in John’s letters he maintains the emphasis on Jesus as Messiah. The light theme does support this focus in contrast to the darkness of the false teachers. However, now in the letters, John writes that they may know they have eternal life despite the teaching of the false teachers. In support of 5:13, John employs various forms of “knowing” God throughout 1 John (2:3, 4, 5, 13, 14; 3:24; 4:2, 6, 7, 13, 16; 5:20).

While appreciating his interaction with the Greek, I found his treatment of the Greek to be more on the micro level (words, phrases, and clauses) rather than on the macro level. As Yarbrough admitted there are many views on the structure of 1 John. Discourse Analysis, which works more on the macro level, aids in understanding the overall structure of a discourse. Longacre published an essay of a discourse analysis of 1 John suggesting it provides a natural outline for the book.[3] While Yarbrough demonstrates more of a thematic unity to the book (doctrine, ethics, and relational), it is interesting to note a major similarity between Yarbrough and Longacre. Both note the importance of 4:7-21. Longacre concludes this passage to be the ethical peak of the body of the letter. Yarbrough concludes that 4:7-14 promotes the assurance of God’s love while 4:15-5:15 appeals for the reader to respond to this love. So, even though the linguistic focus of Yarbrough is not on the overall structure, I found the points of similarity with Longacre to be helpful on a macro level.

[churchpack_divider style=”solid” margin_top=”10px” margin_bottom=”10px”] [1] Robert W. Yarbrough, 1–3 John, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 80.
[2] Ibid., 182.
[3] Robert Longacre, “Towards an Exegesis of 1 John Based on the Discourse Analysis of the Greek Text,” in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Discourse Analysis, eds. David Alan Black, Katharine Barnwell, and Stephen Levinsohn (Nashville: Broadman, 1992), 271.