Book Review: Knowing Jesus Through the Old Testament

Wright, Christopher J. W. Knowing Jesus Through the Old Testament. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1992. 256 pp, $16.00.

One of my favorite teachers I had the honor of sitting under during my years at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary was Dr. Daniel Block. It was under his teaching that my appreciation for and knowledge of the Old Testament grew in leaps and bounds. It was under Block’s teaching from the three courses I sat under him that I began for the first time to really see the Scriptures as a grand narrative of God’s salvific actions to redeem his creation.

It was also through his recommendation that I became acquainted with the book Knowing Jesus Through the Old Testament. Dr. Block highly advised all his students to read this selection in order to understand Jesus in light of the Old Testament. I recently purchased and finally read this book which he so highly recommended and it did not disappoint.

Wright starts his book out in the Gospel of Matthew and notes how for many Christians, the beginning of understanding Jesus starts at Matthew 1:18. Yet what is missed in the previous verses of Matthew 1:1-17 is the Old Testament roots of Jesus. Jesus was a descendant of Abraham, the same Abraham through whom God promised to bring blessing to all peoples and nations. It is in Jesus that the Old Testament promises find their fulfillment. Or as Wright says, “The Old Testament tells the story which Jesus completes (p 2).

Jesus is also a new beginning. As Wright notes, Matthew’s gospel begins literally, ‘An account of the genesis of Jesus the Messiah…’ For any Jew, this would have caused them to recall the words of Genesis 2:4 and 5:1 (p 7). Just as we find a new work in the Book of Genesis, we find a new work of God in the Book of Matthew.

Wright says that Matthew 1:1-17 really tells us through a genealogy the long history of God and his people, Israel. The names point us to the call of Abraham, the deliverance of Israel from Egypt, the covenant made at Mt. Sinai, the inheritance of the Promised Land, the kingship of David, the splitting of the kingdoms, the unrest of Israel through evil kings, the destruction of Jerusalem and exile of God’s people into captivity, the restoration of Israel, and up to the time to the birth of Jesus.

In chapter 2, Wright details how five events in the life of Jesus as a baby and child reveal fulfillments of Old Testament promises:

1. The son conceived in Mary was a fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14, where a virgin shall conceive a child.

2. The birth of Jesus in Bethlehem fulfilled Micah 5:2, where a ruler is prophesied to be born for Israel.

3. Jesus’ escape to and then return from Egypt fulfilled Hosea 11:1, where it is said, “Out of Egypt I have called my Son.”

4. The murder by Herod of the young boys in Bethlehem fulfills Jeremiah 31:15.

5. The fifth fulfillment is a bit more difficult to detail as Wright acknowledges, but he points to Jesus settlement in Nazareth as a fulfillment of the prophets.

The particular stories that are detailed about Jesus’ early life are given to us with the purpose of helping us understand how the Old Testament was preparing and leading to the birth and mission of this man named Jesus.

Additionally much of the chapter is spent on commenting on the nature of God’s promises and covenants, and their implications. For example, when Wright talks about the implications of being in Christ as it relates to the promise made to Abraham he writes:

To be ‘in Christ’ was to be ‘in Abraham’, and therefore to share in the inheritance of God’s people. And that inheritance now far transcended the national territory, and included rather all the blessings and responsibilities of the fellowship of God’s people. He was the Passover lamb protecting God’s people from his wrath. His death and resurrection had achieved a new exodus. He was the mediator of a new covenant. His sacrificial death and risen life fulfilled and surpassed all that were signified in the tabernacle, the sacrifices and the priesthood. He was the temple not made with hands, indeed he was Mount Zion itself, as the focus of the name and presence of God. He was the son of David, but his Messianic kingship was concealed behind the basin and towel of servanthood and the necessity of obedience unto death (pp 74-75).

Chapter three focuses on the identity of Jesus in light of the Old Testament. Wright argues that Jesus partly understand his own mission as the Son of God from three Old Testament “son” texts, Psalm 2:7, Isaiah 42:1, and Genesis 22:2.

1. From Psalm 2, Jesus is identified as the Son of David and as King is the authoritative spokesman for all Israel.

2. From Isaiah 42:1, Jesus understands himself as a servant son. This Davidic, Kingly Son would serve his people even unto death as the Servant Songs of Isaiah teach us. The servant would suffer so that we his people might be healed.

3. From Genesis 22:2, Jesus sees himself as the beloved only son of God like Isaac unto Abraham. Yet in stark contrast, Isaac was spared, Jesus will not be.

Wright additionally launches into a major section on viewing the New Testament fulfillments of Old Testaments texts through typology. Here he makes 6 points about typology (pp 110-16). This discussion will definitely help many in the church who have a difficult time understanding in what sense many NT events are fulfillments of OT events, as we typically think of fulfillment as being only fulfillments of specific predictions.

Chapter four is largely spent surveying the mission of Jesus as the Messiah. Wright covers common Jewish expectations. But the large portion of this section is spent surveying the Servant Songs in Isaiah. In the songs, Wright says we find the Messiah’s mission to Israel, but also to the Gentiles. For example the Lord says in Isaiah 49:5-6,

And now says the Lord, who formed Me from the womb to be His Servant, to bring Jacob back to Him, so that Israel might be gathered to Him (For I am honored in the sight of the Lord, and My God is My strength), he says, "It is too small a thing that You should be My Servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob and to restore the preserved ones of Israel;I will also make You a light of the nations so that My salvation may reach to the end of the earth."

Wright concludes this chapter by addressing what implications Jesus’ own mission has for understanding our own present mission as God’s people. Wright concludes, “Mission lies at the very heart of all God’s historical action in the Bible. Mission to his fallen, suffering, sinful human creation, and indeed ultimately to his whole creation as well. That is why he called Abraham, sent Jesus, and commissioned his apostles. For there is one servant people, one Servant King, one servant mission (p 175).”

In the closing chapter, Wright looks at the temptation of Jesus in the wilderness by Satan. Wright notes that Jesus’ rebuttals to Satan all come from the early parts of Deuteronomy, so Wright looks to Deuteronomy 4-11 as an instructive paradigm for living before God as his people. This leads into a proper understanding of the place of the law in the life of God’s people. Wright’s major point here is that law is always a response to salvation and then he lists four major reasons or motivations for Godliness.

This last chapter is filled with helpful teaching on how to grasp the way in which we are called to live as the people of God, where to place our priorities in light of the way Jesus prioritized his values. Perhaps one of the most helpful summarizations Wright leaves us with in closing about living for Jesus comes on pages 247-8 and this is where the review will end as well. Wrights says:

To enter the Kingdom of God means to submit oneself to the rule of God and that means a fundamental reorientation of one’s ethical commitments and values into line with the priorities and character of the God revealed in the scriptures. The point of being Israel and living as the people of Yahweh was to make the universal reign of God local and visible in their whole structure of religious, social, economic and political life. They were to manifest in practical reality what it meant to live as well as sing, ‘the LORD reigns’.

Can there be any doubt that this statement should also be true of the church of God which has been grafted into Israel through Jesus Christ? Should not our goal be also to be the visible and local manifestation of God’s reign here on earth?

I would recommend this book to both pastors and church members. Wright’s style is easy to take in. He thoroughly explains larger theological terms. The book does not have footnotes that distract the common reader. I would use this book as the answer to someone’s desire to learn about how the Old Testament relates to the New Testament and more importantly, to Jesus.

Book Review: The Gospel & Personal Evangelism

Book Review: Dever, Mark. The Gospel & Personal Evangelism. Wheaton: Crossway, 2007. 124 pp, $9.99.

Mark Dever’s plan for biblical evangelism is summarized as “A God-given commission and method, a God-centered message, and a God-centered motive. We should all evangelize. Evangelism isn’t all those other things we considered; it is telling the good news about Jesus, and doing it with honesty, urgency, and joy, using the Bible, living a life that backs it up, and praying, and doing it all for the glory of God (p 107).

In seven chapters, Dever asks and answers seven crucial issues concerning the issue of evangelism:

Chapter 1 Why Don’t We Evangelize?
Chapter 2 What Is the Gospel?
Chapter 3 Who Should Evangelize?
Chapter 4 How Should We Evangelize?
Chapter 5 What Isn’t Evangelism?
Chapter 6 What Should We Do After We Evangelize?
Chapter 7 Why Should We Evangelize?

The most important chapter in the book is “What is the Gospel?” No issue rises above getting the gospel right for the Christian because the gospel is what makes us Christian. It is the message that God uses to forgive, reconcile, and redeem sinners. If the Gospel message itself is confused, evangelism will not take place and God will not be honored.

Dever tackles common modern misconceptions about the gospel. The gospel is not God saying we are okay (pp 32-35). The gospel is not a message that “God is love (pp 36-37).” The Gospel is not simply “Jesus wants to be our friend (pp 37-39).” The Gospel is not a message about right living (40-43). Dever writes, “One of the early stages of becoming a Christian is, I think, realizing that our problems aren’t fundamentally that we have messed up our own lives, or have simply failed to reach our full potential, but that we have sinned against God (p 35).”

Dever closes the chapter by presenting the gospel. “The good news is that the one and only God, who is holy, made us in his image to know him. But we sinned and cut ourselves off from him. In his great love, God became a man in Jesus, lived a perfect life, and died on the cross, thus fulfilling the law himself and taking on himself the punishment for the sins of all those who would ever turn and trust in him. He rose again from the dead, showing that God accepted Christ’s sacrifice and that God’s wrath against us had been exhausted. He now calls us to repent of our sins and to trust in Christ alone for our forgiveness. If we repent of our sins and trust in Christ, we are born again into a new life, an eternal life with God.”

Chapter 5, “What Isn’t Evangelism” complements nicely with chapter 2 because here Dever gives examples of how well-intentioned Christians fall short of evangelism. One of the most common ways I have seen this personally is in the giving of personal testimonies. Personal testimonies are often full with ways God has blessed, but far too often the gospel itself is never spoken. Jesus is often completely left out.

An additional confusion when it comes to evangelism is the lumping in of decisions made or not made after the presentation to a sinner. Many believe evangelism occurs when someone hears the gospel and embraces it. However, evangelism is simply sharing the gospel. Dever writes, “We don’t fail in our evangelism if we faithfully tell the gospel to someone who is not converted; we fail only if we don’t faithfully tell the gospel at all. Evangelism itself isn’t converting people; it’s telling them that they need to be converted and telling them how they can be.”

A great strength of this book is its practicality. Chapters 1 and 4 are filled with helpful suggestions for how a Christian can evangelize more frequently and more faithfully. Particularly helpful was the author’s teaching on balancing honesty, urgency, and joy in presenting the gospel (pp 55-60). First, be honest about the cost of following Jesus Christ. Those who follow Jesus will live a cross-bearing life. Sins will need to be repented of and forsaken. Second, be urgent in your presentation of the gospel. No one knows the day or hour when Christ shall return therefore we should not harden our hearts to God’s gospel. We do not become coercive in our urgency, but we should plead with men for Christ’s sake. Third, we should infuse the joy of salvation into our gospel presentations. Talk much of the love of God. Talk about the joys of eternal life. Talk about the joys of being reconciled to our Creator God.

The book alone is worth the price for the great stories concerning evangelism. The opener about John Harper is truly remarkable. But perhaps the most encouraging is found on page 81 in the context of trusting in God for conversion.

“It took a long time for the conversion of Mr. Short. He was a New England farmer who lived to be one hundred years old. Sometime in the middle of the 1700’s he was sitting in his fields reflecting on his long life. As he did, “he recalled a sermon he had heard in Darmouth [England] as a boy before he sailed to America. The horror of dying under the curse of God was impressed upon him as he meditated on the words he had heard so long ago and he was converted to Christ—eighty five years after hearing John Flavel preach.”

We thank Mark Dever for this helpful contribution concerning the oft neglected duty and privilege to evangelize sinners. Let us glorify God by being more faithful and diligent to tell others the greatest news ever.

Highlights from Why We're Not Emergent

I just finished reading Why We're not Emergent: By Two Guys Who Should Be and I commend it highly. I am not reviewing the book, but wanted to give some highlights of why I enjoyed the book so much.

1. I liked how the authors showed how many emerging writers can be very dogmatic with their particular beliefs while at the same time question the dogmatic beliefs of others, especially Protestant Evangelical ones. The following is an excerpt from pages 43-44.

What bothers me is all the other times McLaren chastises us supposed moderns for being too linear and too persuaded of our own fallible interpretations, when, at the end of the day, he reaches his conclusions like every other mortal studying the Bible. He asks, "Does this make sense with the context? Does this fit together with other parts of Scripture? Does this piece together a myriad of readings without contradiction?"

We can know some things after all, then. We are not trapped in a hermeneutical spiral pulling us down into the morass of "all we have are our interpretations." There is meaning in the text. There are bad interpretations and good interpretations. Bell may list a series of stumper questions about the Bible to convince us that "the Bible is open-ended (Velvet Elvis, 46)," but he is certain that the first three miracles in the book of John are directly related to Dionysus, Asclepius, and Demeter, and that the reference to women being saved in childbirth is a direct reference to Artemis, and that the first chapters of Revelation follow the sequence of the Domitian games (Velvet Elvis, 64-65). It appears that the dance of uncertainty is fun but hard to keep up for a whole book, let alone a lifetime.

2. I liked how the authors showed how emerging and non-emerging churches are often times doing many of the same practices and disciplines, the only real difference is the language the emerging crowd are using to pump up their own and play down others. The following is an excerpt from pages 153-154.

The supposed radical difference between modern spirituality and postmodern spirituality is often nothing more than semantics. For example, many of Kimball's side-by-side comparison charts are especially guilty of hyperbolizing the differences between the modern church and the postmodern. Kimball says that preaching in the emerging church "teaches how the ancient wisdom of Scripture applies to kingdom living as a disciple of Christ" while the modern preacher "serves as a dispenser of biblical truths to help solve personal problems in modern life (The Emerging Church, 175)." Those two sentences would say the same thing if not for Kimball's choice of language, employing uninspiring words like "dispenser" and "solve" for the modern church instead of cool words like "ancient wisdom" and "kingdom living." Similarly, in the modern church "the Bible is a book to help solve problems and means to know God," and discipleship is based on modern methodology and helps." Conversely, in the emerging church, "the Bible is a compass for direction and a means to experience God," and "discipleship is based on ancient disciplines (The Emerging Church, 215).

Meanwhile, Pagitt says we must distinguish between storytelling and testimony time. "sharing our stories is not the same thing as giving our testimonies.... While not sounding like 'testimonies' in the traditional sense, these stories of the way God bubbles up in others' lives serve as testaments to who God is and how God acts in our lives. Telling and hearing these stories shapes us and forms us (Reimagining Spiritual Formation, 56-57)." So, let me get this straight. They aren't testimonies, just stories that serve as testaments to what God is doing in our lives. Sounds like a testimony to me.

3. I liked how the authors showed that when you reduce or conflate orthodoxy into orthopraxy you get something that looks very much like old liberalism. Here are two excerpts from pages 177-178 and 111-112.

According to the piece, "the movement's innovations go beyond worship and extends to theology. McLaren isn't preoccupied with hell--who's in and who's out." It seems to me to be the proverbial Wide Gate, and for a movement that has generated so much controversy, is completely un/controverisal. As an addendum, the paper lists nine characteristics of emerging churches: 1. Identify with the life of Jesus. 2. Transform the secular realm. 3. Live highly communal lives. 4. Welcome the stranger. 5. Serve with generosity. 6. Participate as producers. 7. Create as created beings. 8. Lead as a body. 9. Take part in spiritual activities.

Out of curiosity and for the sake of comparison, I looked up the guiding principles of the Unitarian Universalist Association on the UUA Web site: We, the member congregations of the Unitarian Universalist Association, covenant to affirm and promote 1. The inherit worth and dignity of every person; 2. Justice, equity and compassion in human relations; 3. Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations; 4. A free and responsible search for truth and meaning; 5. The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large; 6. The goal of world community with peace, liberty and justice for all; 7. Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part. Both lists, for the record, are full of good and noble things; however, there is nothing said in either list of guiding principles about Jesus' death and resurrection and the need of both for our salvation...Hell is tricky because, though I may not be preoccupied with it now, when it is time to be "in or out" it may be too late to engage the topic.

Rob Bell is also suspicious of orthodoxy, putting it several notches below orthopraxy. For example, Bell admits that he believes in the virgin birth, but it is not as important as living for Jesus:

"What if tomorrow someone digs up definitive proof that Jesus had a real, earthly, biological father named Larry, and archaeologists find Larry's tomb and do DNA samples and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the virgin birth was really just a bit of mythologizing the Gospel writers threw in to appeal to the followers of Mithra and Dionysian religious cults that were hugely popular at the time of Jesus, whose gods had virgin births? But what if as you study the origin of the word virgin, you discover that the word virgin in the gospel of Matthew actually comes from the book of Isaiah, and then you find out that in the Hebrew language a that time, the word virgin could mean several things. And what if you discover that in the first century being born of a virgin also referred to a child whose mother became pregnant the first time she had intercourse? What if that spring was seriously questioned? Could a person keep jumping? Could a person still love God? Could you still be a Christian? Is the way of Jesus still the best possible way to live (Velvet Elvis, 26-27)."

This emphasis on right living over against right belief is nothing new. It is, in fact, quintessentially modern, Adolf Harnack, the brilliant and popular promoter of Protestant liberalism, said the same thing at the turn of the last century: "True faith in Jesus is not a matter of creedal orthodoxy but of doing as he did."

Book Review: If You Could Ask God One Question

Williams, Paul and Barry Cooper. If You Could Ask God One Question. Surrey: The Good Book Company, 2007. 127 pp.

This short paperback is designed to engage skeptics who have common objections to the Christian faith. The authors answer 12 frequent questions asked by skeptics. These are the 12 questions answered: If You’re Really There, God, Why On Earth Don’t You Prove It?; Isn’t the Bible Just a Bunch of Made-up Stories?; All Good People Got to Heaven?; If Jesus Really Was Your Son, How Come He Got Killed?; If I Can Be Forgiven Everything, Doesn’t That Mean I Can Do Whatever I Like?; How Can Anyone Be Sure There’s Life After Death?; What About Followers of Other Religions?; Isn’t Faith Just a Psychological Crutch?; Why Do You Allow Suffering?; Why Do You Hate Sex?;& Why Don’t You Just Do a Miracle?

The chapters range from 6 to 12 pages. So the book is not designed to exhaustively give every biblical evidence for each particular subject addressed, however the authors do give a concise and powerful argument from Scripture that will open the skeptics mind to what the Christian faith does claim about itself.

For example in chapter 10 titled, “Why Do You Allow Suffering,” the authors point out that if suffering really proved that God did not exist, how much worse of a reality would this create for us:

The conclusion is this: if we decide to reject God out of hand because of the suffering we see in this world, then we must come to terms with something far worse than suffering: meaningless suffering. Because without God, there is no justice, no future and no significance to human life. The very thought fills the writer of Ecclesiastes with horror: “Meaningless! Meaningless! Utterly meaningless! Everything is meaningless (p. 96).”

Then the authors point the reader to Jesus as God’s remedy to our suffering:

At the cross, we see a suffering God, suffering for his own people because he loves them and wants to free them from all suffering in eternity. All that remains for us to do, as Jesus told the crowd still bewildered by the loss of life at Siloam, is “repent”, or to put it another way, “turn back to God.” And those words were not spoken by someone seeking to frighten, intimidate or bully. Neither were they spoken by someone who does not know what it means to suffer. In fact, they were spoken by a man shortly to die on your behalf (p. 101).

This book could easily be expanded into an effective sermon series to address new Christians. Of course the book should be given out to skeptics that any Christian meets during the week. I am thinking about displaying copies of this book and a companion book titled, Christianity Explored in our church building, making them available to members and visitors. I highly recommend If You Could Ask God One Question.

Book Review: God's Lesser Glory

Ware, Bruce A. God's Lesser Glory: The Diminished God of Open Theism. Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2000. 240pp. $17.99.

Bruce Ware's sensitivity is apparent early on in this book. Foremost for Ware is his sensitivity for the glory of God. Ware views Open Theism as a direct assault against God as it denies his exhaustive knowledge of the future, and as Ware demonstrates, would if true, dramatically lesson our confidence in God.

At the same time, Ware is sensitive to the authors whom he critiques. Ware says, "It is the views of this movement and its advocates that I oppose, not the individuals who advocate them (9)." Ware successfully avoids attacking the open theists themselves, and more importantly undermines the weaknesses in the exegesis and theology of the open theists.

Open Theism proposes that God voluntarily created this present universe with human beings who are free to make decisions regardless of whether they please God or not. Because human beings are created free, God does not know perfectly what the future holds. Open Theists believe that if God knows the decisions of mankind before they actually were made then somehow they would not be free decisions but predetermined by God.

The importance of God's Lesser Glory is significant because many open theologians including Boyd, Sanders, and Pinnock claim to be evangelical Christians. Subsequently, this means that each of these theologians sincerely believe the theologies they espouse are biblical. This point makes Ware's treatment of the subject all the more weightier. The classical Christian understanding of God's exhaustive knowledge of past, present, and future and open theism, which denies God's exhaustive knowledge of the future, cannot both be true.

In God's Lesser Glory, Ware chiefly interacts with open theologians Gregory Boyd, Clark Pinnock, John Sanders, and David Basinger. In chapters 2 & 3, Ware lays out the open theist position chiefly described by the theologians named above. Ware not only describes the theology of open theism but he also expresses the so-called applications and benefits this view of God brings to his people.

The driving contention of open theists, according to Ware is genuine relationship. Open theists reject God’s exhaustive knowledge of the future because it simply eliminates, according to them, any potential for an authentic interaction between God and mankind. Therefore open theists reject the idea that God decreed points about our lives in eternity past before we were born. Open theists also reject doctrines like irresistible grace. Any doctrine which impedes human freedom is rejected.

In chapter 2 & 3, Ware highlights some of the more prominent biblical texts used by open theists as evidence that God does not know the future. God’s comment of “now I know that you fear me,” to Abraham as he is about to sacrifice his son Isaac (Genesis 22:10-12), God’s repenting of making Saul King of Israel (1 Samuel 15:11, 35), God’s changing of his mind about the descendants of Abraham with Moses (Exodus 32), and God’s word about how he thought Israel would turn back to him, but they did not (Jeremiah 3:6-7) are all discussed through the lens of open theology.

In the minds of the open theologians these texts demonstrate first, that God did not know if Abraham was willing to slay Isaac, therefore it was important for God to establish a test to see if Abraham was trustworthy. Second, open theists declare that God repents like man, therefore he has remorse about his own actions. Third, God can even be wrong about his understanding about what will take place in the future.

Ware even makes note how some open theologians believe that God knew it was a possibility that Adam and Eve could choose to sin, but considering all that God did for them, it was not probable. Furthermore Sanders, as quoted by Ware (46-47) suggests that Jesus’ death on the cross was not fully known by God until after the prayer in Gethsemane.

Ware goes on to show that in the minds and hearts of open theists, the implication of God not knowing the future helps with ministering to hurting people. Ware gives a lengthy example given by Boyd (56-58). But the question that arises in this reader’s mind is: how is it helpful to me to know that God does not know the future and that he is either unwilling or unable to sovereignly counter the choices of his sinful creatures?

From this point in the book, Ware scripturally demonstrates the teaching of God’s perfect knowledge of the future, the very thing open theists claim the Bible teaches otherwise. Ware primarily accomplishes this by diving into the teachings of Isaiah in chapters 40-48. Through many examples (42:9, 44:6-8, 44:24-28, 45:1-7), it becomes clear that God’s claim to being God is inextricably tied to his knowledge of the future. For example, God says in Isaiah 42:9, “Behold, the former things have come to pass, now I declare new things; before they spring forth I proclaim them to you.”

Ware does move on to other areas in Scripture which also teach God’s exhaustive knowledge of future events. He cites examples from other OT passages like Psalm 139:4, 16 where God is ascribed to have the knowledge to know the number of our days before there is even one. How can this be true under the Open Theism model where God cannot know the future actions of free human beings, decisions that might lead to one’s death?

Ware gives NT examples which ascribe to God the son, Jesus Christ a knowledge which open theists declare he cannot have. In John 16:4, Jesus clearly tells his disciples things that will befall them before they happen. Again, is this so because God is great with odds, or because he really does know the future? Most of us who are familiar with the Bible will quickly recall Jesus’ accurate prophecy concerning Peter’s threefold denial. Again, how can Jesus know how many times Peter will deny him, and in addition to this, know when he will deny him?

There are further texts which speak in favor of the classical position. Texts like Acts 2:23 and 4:27-28 clearly teach a predetermined plan, known to God of Jesus’ death. Ware addresses both these as well, in addition to other texts, but Ware does not stop here. He moves on to describe how this theology assaults the wisdom of God. Instead of a God who knows all things, you have a God who can only predict. But in his predictions, as argued by open theists, he can be wrong. As Boyd illustrates in his story back in pages 56-58, God can lead people down a path which he thinks will benefit them in the future, but at any given time, his calculations may prove damaging, and somehow this is supposed to be comforting.

As Ware goes on to say in chapters 7-9, this theology does not drive us to exalt God. Nor does this theology help us to take comfort in God. Open theism diminishes our view of God. The picture of God we see in Open Theism is more like a really wise man rather than a God. The picture we get of God in Open Theism is not the God described in Romans 8:28

Here is the crux of the argument in my mind. It comes down to weighing all the relevant texts. Christians need to honestly weigh the difficult texts in Scripture. We need to seriously consider those difficult texts raised by open theists. But we also need to take the vast amount of texts which undeniably speak of God’s perfect knowledge of the future and consider them. Then we must try to reconcile them if we can. My sympathies are with Ware. I believe the overwhelming support favors the classical view of God. This also means that my explanations might be a little more complicated when dealing with texts like Genesis 22 and 1 Samuel 15. Nevertheless it seems clear to me that the Bible teaches God's perfect knowledge of the future, and if we surrender this truth, we end up with an altogether different God than the one revealed in Scripture. This also is the conclusion Ware comes to as well. He says in conclusion on page 230, “We have here, then, a fundamentally different god, not merely a different version of God. For the sake of the glory that is God’s alone we have no choice but to reject the openness model.”

I highly recommend this text for pastors. While it is not common to meet open theists in my neck of the woods as they say, it never hurts to be prepared. In addition to this, the book is helpful in its analysis of some of the difficult texts raised by open theists. Readers might also want to follow up God’s Lesser Glory by Ware with God’s Greater Glory also by Ware as he lays out a systematic presentation of the doctrine of God’s providence.

Book Review: The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God

Carson, D. A. The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God. Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2000. 93 pp. $14.99.

D. A. Carson is Research Professor of the New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. Carson is widely published and is renown for his work in many fields. He is the co-author of a New Testament Introduction. Carson has written numerous commentaries. His writings have broached a wide array of topics including Worship, Christian suffering, Postmodernism, the Emerging Movement, KJV-Only Controversy, and Exegesis.

This short introduction on the doctrine of the love of God had its beginnings in a lecture series by Carson delivered at Dallas Theological Seminary in 1998. This lecture first appeared in print in the 1999 volume of Bibliotheca Sacra.

One might be tempted to ask, "What is so difficult about the doctrine of the love of God?" This is the first question which Carson seeks to answer and in so doing illustrates the growing problem of the biblical ignorance many have when addressing this topic. In chapter one, the author discusses reasons why the doctrine of the love of God is difficult. The first difficult issue in expressing the love of God today is a source issue. Christians should ground their understanding of the love of God in the Bible. Non-Christians ground their understanding in many sources, but not normally in the Bible. The source determines our understanding, and due to the varying sources used to determine the meaning of the love of God we have worldview clashes and a plethora of definitions in the culture.

The second difficulty arises from the first. Understanding the love of God also requires an understanding in complementary doctrines also taught about God in the Bible including the holiness of God, the sovereignty of God, and the providence of God (p 11). The culture in large has already purged these qualities from their vocabulary when speaking about God. This development will necessarily lead to a divergence in our understanding what the love of God entails.

The third problem area arises from the dominant worldview prevalent in industrialized countries, which is Postmodernism. The rejection of the absolute trivializes any attempt to be dogmatic when addressing any topic, not just the doctrine of the love of God. The result of Postmodernism leads to many competing understandings of the love of God, and to reject any of the treatments is considered taboo.

If I have understood Carson correctly, his fourth and fifth difficulties are internal issues. First, Carson says that Christians have themselves been too quick to neglect how the love of God is compatible with God's justice, God's sovereignty, and the problem of evil. Perhaps we have tried to make the love of God seem simpler than what it really is. The author's fifth point is that Christians in their attempts to articulate the love of God have also neglected the diverse ways Scripture talks about the love of God.

This leads Carson to list five different expressions of the love of God used in the Bible, followed by short definitions and Biblical examples. They are:

1. The peculiar love of the Father for the Son, and of the Son for the Father (p 16).
2. God's providential love over all that he has made (pp 16-17).
3. God's salvific stance toward his fallen world (pp 17-18).
4. God's particular, effective, selecting love toward his elect (pp 18-19).
5. God's love is sometimes said to be directed toward his own in a provisional or conditional way--conditioned, that is, on obedience (pp 19-21).

Carson next warns against wrong approaches in the quest for understanding the love of God. First, we should not seek to absolutize any one the five ways in which the Bible speaks about the love of God over the other four. Second, he warns us against trying to speak of these loves independently. Third, he cautions us against a word study approach. Carson's rejects the often preached, "agapao means only unconditional love versus phileo means only erotic love" approach as this has now been debunked academically.

Throughout the duration of chapter 2 through the last chapter (chapter 4), Carson examines biblical texts of each of the five categories previously mentioned. Along the way the author gives a few examples of how each expression of the love of God helps us to understand another expression of the love of God. For example, Carson examines the love which the Father has for the Son from John 5:16-30 (pp 30-34). The Father's love is expressed by his showing the Son all things. The full expression of himself to the Son enables us to more fully understand John 3:16 as the Father so loved the world, he gave his only Son, the Son whom he has uniquely shown all things.

The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God is very helpful as an introduction into the subject of the expressions of the love of God. The book has many strengths. Already mentioned, Carson helps the reader to see how even the church's understanding of the love of God has been distorted due to the pressures coming from the culture. This book harkens us back to the Scripture as the ground for our understanding the love of God. Carson also encourages us to think comprehensively as well, for the church today is saturated with teaching on the 3rd category he lists, God's salvific stance toward his fallen world (pp 17-18), to the neglect of categories 1, 4, and 5 (see above).

Additional strengths of this book are Carson's discussions on the impassability of God and the relationship between the holiness and love of God found throughout chapters 3 and 4. Carson writes concerning the impassibility of God, "Closer to the mark is the recognition that all of God’s emotions, including his love in all its aspects, cannot be divorced from God’s knowledge, God’s power, God’s will. If God loves, it is because he chooses to love; if he suffers, it is because he chooses to suffer. God is impassible in the sense that he sustains no ‘passion,’ no emotion, that makes him vulnerable from the outside, over which he has no control, or which he has not foreseen . . . Our passions change our direction and priorities, domesticating our will, controlling our misery and our happiness, surprising and destroying or establishing our commitments (p 59-60).

One weakness to the book was perhaps the lack of integration of the fifth expression of the love of God with others. Just how do the conditional promises of Scripture relate to the effective, particular love and the providential love of God for all creation?

The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God is a must read for preachers. It has been my experience that preachers have sorely neglected the depth of the riches of the love of God. This book will awaken Christians to the complexity and comprehensive nature of the love of God, and I hope along the way help Christians to know the richness of the love which God has for the church in Christ. In addition to this The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God will serve as a rudder to steer us back to Scripture and away from culture for our understanding of the world around us.