Finest In Its Class
The New Bible Commentary: Revised, edited by D. Guthrie and J. A. Motyer (Eerdmans, 1970, 1310 pp., $12.95), is reviewed by Clark H. Pinnock, professor of systematic theology, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, Illinois.
Since its appearance in 1953, demand has not abated for the New Bible Commentary. Yet in view of the progress made since that time in biblical studies, the publications committee of the Inter-Varsity Fellowship in Great Britain has undertaken a full-scale revision of the original, distinctly evangelical, one-volume commentary on the Bible. The aim of the work has remained the same—to provide the student of Scripture with an up-to-date treatment of the text that would combine a reverent regard for divine authority with careful scholarship of the highest order. Without fear of rebuke it can be said that this aim has been brilliantly achieved and that this volume must be the very finest in its class. For those who have profited from the first edition, the revisions have been very extensive—in numerous cases involving a completely new discussion of a biblical book (e.g., Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Isaiah, Matthew, Luke, John)—with the result that the volume has been vastly improved. Large quantities of the most illuminating comment, illustrated with the latest archaeological and linguist researches, have been added to produce a tool of enormous value to the Christian Church.
One way of indicating the special strength of this new edition is to observe how many highly qualified evangelical scholars have been added to the team in this new effort. Men like R. K. Harrison, G. L. Archer, M. G. Kline, D. Wiseman in the Old Testament section, and D. Guthrie, I. H. Marshall, R. P. Martin, S. J. Mikolaski in the New. One cannot avoid the encouraging impression that since 1953 there has arisen a body of committed scholars of evangelical persuasion who have both retained their biblical convictions and received training in biblical studies of the highest caliber. This volume attests to the existence of a body of men now in their prime who are capable of truly outstanding and lasting work in the ministry of the Word of God. For that we must be profoundly grateful to God.
Fresh strength has been injected into the introductory articles. While the handling of revelation and inspiration by Packer and Bromiley required little change, several improvements are visible as the section advances. Articles dealing with the history of Israel, the shape of Old Testament theology, and the Mosaic origin of the Pentateuch have been added, together with an important new discussion of the Pauline corpus by Guthrie. There has been no shift whatsoever in commitment to the total trustworthiness of Scripture. The changes have entirely to do with increasing the precision of argument and exposition. If anything, the position taken, for example, on the authenticity of the Pentateuch and on the unity of authorship in the book of Isaiah has been sharpened and the conservative view stated more positively.
In the Old Testament section, three scholars especially, entirely fluent in ancient Near East studies, have improved the treatment of the Pentateuch greatly—Kline on Genesis, J. A. Thompson on Numbers, and R. K. Harrison on Deuteronomy. Because of their acquaintance with the cultural-linguistic setting, coupled with a profound theological understanding, they offer the reader a superb guide to this section of Scripture. While Ellison’s discussion of First and Second Chronicles is retained, an entirely new commentary on First and Second Samuel (D. F. Payne) and First and Second Kings (W. S. LaSor) has been provided. For each biblical book, excellent introductory material is presented, along with very pertinent comments and frequent appendices. As for the prophetic books, D. Kidner has written an entirely new entry for Isaiah, based firmly upon the conviction of its unity. Jeremiah has been revised and rewritten by A. Millard. Beasley Murray on Ezekiel and Young on Daniel have been kept unchanged. Half of the Minor Prophets enjoy a new entry altogether while the rest have undergone amplification. The entire Old Testament is treated in such a way as to instill deep confidence in its historical trustworthiness and theological profundity. Space does not allow even a listing of a fraction of the positions taken on key issues (e.g., Genesis 1 is topical, not chronological; Genesis 1–11 is historical; the extent of the Flood is not settled; the late date for the exodus is accepted). A student of Scripture, and certainly the preacher and teacher, cannot afford to be without this powerful aid to understanding.
In the New Testament section, it is suitably impressive to list the entirely new entries: Matthew (R. E. Nixon), Luke (I. H. Marshall), John (D. Guthrie), Galatians (Mikolaski), Ephesians (R. P. Martin), Colossians (Guthrie), and others as well. Here we find scholarly judgment unsurpassed in quality and balanced in perspective. It is simply impossible to do justice to this work! In its revised form, this commentary matches both in excellence and in form (type style, scholarly apparatus) the New Bible Dictionary. Together the two books compose the single most valuable resource at present available to the student of Scripture. They deserve only the highest praise. The commentary is sent out with the prayer that God will use it by his Spirit to help many gain a fresh understanding of his truth so that the whole of human life may be brought into subjection to the Word of God. We believe that this prayer will continue to be answered as God’s people avail themselves of this most useful tool.
Bunyan—A Hybrid
John Bunyan, by Richard L. Greaves (Eerdmans, 1969, 176 pp., $5.50), is reviewed by Fred H. Klooster, professor of systematic theology, Calvin Theological Seminary, Grand Rapids, Michigan.
John Bunyan was “a Bedfordshire tinker with the vision of Paul, the conviction of Luther, and the commitment to freedom of Milton.” What was the theological stance of this popular preacher and author who never graduated from a university? When one of his contemporaries (Fowler) stated that he saw the influence of Calvin, Martyr, Musculus, and Zanchy upon him, Bunyan retorted: “It matters nothing to me, I have neither made my Creed out of them, nor other, than the Holy Scriptures of God.” Bunyan’s response and the problem of identifying his theology remind us of Elector Frederick III of the Palatinate, who was charged with Calvinism when he published the Heidelberg Catechism in 1563.
In this interesting book Professor Greaves attempts to determine Bunyan’s theological position by surveying his views of the pilgrim’s God, call, response, covenant, and stately palace. Greaves disagrees with those critics and historians who regard Bunyan as simply a Calvinist, though he agrees that this was the dominant theological influence. He also disagrees with those (S. T. Coleridge, for example) who claim to see only Lutheranism in Bunyan; Bunyan’s detailed exposition of the covenants is sufficient evidence to the contrary. Greaves contends that on a Lutheran foundation Bunyan has built an essentially Calvinist superstructure. But Bunyan’s theology is more hybrid still:
No single theological label without careful qualification will fit Bunyan. He was bitterly opposed both to Arminianism and to Quakerism, and he was neither a moderate Calvinist nor a true Antinomian, although at certain points his doctrine was harmonious with Antinomian tenets. His foundation principles were basically Lutheran, but much of his theology was in full accord with the orthodox Calvinism of his period. His doctrine of the church and sacraments was neither Calvinist nor Lutheran but a heritage from the Independent-Baptist tradition, particularly the segment of that tradition of which he was a part [p. 159].
The attempt to evaluate Bunyan’s theological stance is welcome. In its original, expanded form, this study was presented as a doctoral dissertation at the University of London. But one is forced to ask whether Professor Greaves, who is now professor of humanities at Michigan State University, has provided adequate theological criteria for his assessment of Bunyan. A glance at the glossary of theological terms appended to the study indicates the theological weakness. In assessing what in Bunyan is Lutheran and what Calvinist, the author usually employs the sixteenth-century Lutherans and the seventeenth-century Calvinists as his standard. A more accurate evaluation would have resulted had he used Luther and Calvin as his standard for judgment. Furthermore, he has usually taken over such common misconceptions (caricatures) of Calvinism in his evaluation as “abstract concepts of sovereignty,” “abstract philosophical principles,” and “more logic bound orthodox Calvinism.” If he had used Calvin as his standard for Calvinism, he would have seen that Calvin also set predestination in a soteriological context (cf. p. 157). Greave’s treatment of the covenant and of antinomianism are also in need of further theological refinement.
Such weaknesses in the author’s theological perspective prevent many of his arguments from carrying conviction. Bunyan’s thought is obviously difficult to classify theologically. Apart from his views of the Church and the sacraments, Bunyan may have been close to the truth when he simply claimed to be biblical: on that score Luther and Calvin were themselves closer to one another than many theologians have made them out to be. While we must still await a definitive study on Bunyan’s theology, Greave’s work is a stimulating contribution to that end.
Union With Christ
All Things Made New, by Lewis B. Smedes (Eerdmans, 1970, 272 pp., $6.95), is reviewed by E. Earle Ellis, professor of biblical studies, New Brunswick Theological Seminary, New Brunswick, New Jersey.
For the Reformers, justification through faith was the center of Pauline thought. Many scholars in the nineteenth century, however, came to regard union with Christ as the capstone of the Apostle’s doctrine. In most recent discussion, Paul’s eschatology has been the core theme by which are explained both the unio mystica and the justification resulting from it: union with Christ is nothing less than a participation in Christ’s death and resurrection and, thus, an anticipation in the present of the future glory. But in what sense can it be said that Christians were “with Christ” in his death and resurrection in A.D.33 (Rom. 6:11 ff.; Gal. 2:20; Col. 3:1–3)?
Subordinating the eschatological question, Professor Smedes returns to the theme of union with Christ and its manifold implications for Christian life and faith. To be “in Christ” is not a Christ-mysticism (Deissmann) nor an ontological mysticism (Mascall) but an incorporation into a new situation brought about by Christ’s death and resurrection. In elaborating this thesis, Smedes rightly maintains that affirmations of Christ’s resurrection are statements of faith only “when they verbalize the reality of my entrance into the new order of life that was created when [Christ] died and rose again.” He also makes illuminating contributions to the current discussion on the sacramental body of Christ and the relation of Eucharist to sacrifice. On two scores, however, one is left less satisfied. In rejecting a contemporaneity of the believer “with Christ” at Calvary, Smedes does not appear to do full justice to the Pauline texts. Furthermore, his continuing oscillation between exegesis and modern philosophical theology raises questions of methodology for those trained in a more rigorously historical approach.
Book Briefs
Bible Teachings, by Doris Cutter Swann (Broadman, 1970, 46 pp., paperback, $.95). A short, easy-to-read volume of basic Bible truths.
The Spirit-Paraclete in the Gospel of John, by George Johnston (Cambridge University, 1970, 192 pp., $12.50). Contends that John’s approach to the Spirit-Paraclete as interpreter of Jesus of Nazareth was a defense against heresy.
Does the Church Know How To Teach?, edited by Kendig Brubaker Cully (Macmillan, 1970, 387 pp., $7.95). Designed to promote “intrade-nominational and intraconfessional” dialogue in the area of religious education.
“Der Spiegel” on the New Testament, by Werner Harenberg (Macmillan, 1970, 246 pp., paperback, $1.95). A newly translated report of the debate between European conservatives and radicals in both universities and parishes.
