“Confronting Old Testament Controversies” by Tremper Longman III

Since at least the time of the Enlightenment, it has been fashionable to subject the Bible to criticism and judge it outdated and inferior to the wisdom of the age. In the last several decades, critics have used an increasingly shrill voice that was rare in previous generations. The Bible is denounced as not only inferior but evil. It runs contrary to the sexual ethics of the day. Science has freed us from a savage need for a deity. “God is not good,” the new atheists declare. And within evangelicalism, the Church is giving ground. Evangelicals are for the first time openly siding with the higher critical views espoused by liberal theologians on such matters as denying the historicity of the Exodus, seeing Genesis 1-11 as myth, and disagreeing with the violence condoned by the Old Testament God (who is claimed to be inferior than the New Testament presentation of Jesus). Some evangelical leaders are even pressing for a reinterpretation of Scripture when it comes to homosexuality.

It is against this backdrop that Dr. Tremper Longman III offers his mature reflections in Confronting Old Testament Controversies: Pressing Questions about Evolution, Sexuality, History, and Violence published by Baker Books (2019). In this important book, Longman helps the reader engage with each controversy as he traces out what the Bible says and weighs that against what both those inside and outside evangelicalism are saying. He deals with each question from a confessional standpoint and yet resists an approach that demonizes “opponents” or sees everything as a simple black-and-white matter. He is not afraid to ruffle feathers and take on the errant views of others (even his friends), but he prizes a charitable and irenic discussion that respects those who conclude differently. Personally, Longman has experienced loss of academic positions over his views (as he recounts in chapter 1) and you can tell from reading this that he has thought long and hard over these very challenging questions facing the Church today.

I will be honest, going into this book I wasn’t sure exactly where Longman was going to conclude. I agreed with him that these are the four most pressing questions surrounding the Old Testament today, yet I knew he was friends with Peter Enns who had been dismissed from Westminster Theological Seminary over his questionable views. I had also read Enns’ eye-brow raising The Evolution of Adam and was concerned with his denial of the historicity of the Exodus and dangerous views about how to understand Adam and Eve and the Fall. So when I picked up Longman, I had some reservations.

In an earlier post about this book I said, “The questions are the right questions: I am hoping Longman will give some solid answers.” I can now say that Longman literally blew me away. I appreciated his candor and forth-right treatment of each issue. Having read a lot on the creation/evolution question, and some on the other topics, I greatly benefited from Longman’s approach of unpacking what other evangelical authors are saying and interacting with them. He distanced himself from Enns on both the Fall and the historicity of the Exodus. He discussed John Walton’s views on divine violence (another friend of Longman’s whom I’ve read extensively with both appreciation and some consternation). Walton’s book The Lost World of the Canaanite Conquest presents some novel approaches to viewing violence in the Old Testament, and Longman interacted gracefully and helpfully with that approach (ultimately rejecting it). Longman’s conclusions in some respects are tentative and there are some areas where I may not completely agree with him (or wish he was perhaps more forceful), but the breadth of scope and the path that is taken in handling each issue is unmatched. I am certain his book will be a benefit to those who are being confronted with these questions. He will help you in your own grappling with these issues.

On the evolution question, Longman sides with the BioLogos position on evolution that the Bible is not directly addressing that subject, and that believers can affirm this as a mechanism used by God in creation. After discussing Genesis 1-2 and other creation accounts (Psalm 74, Proverbs 8:22-31, and Job 38:8-11) he concludes:

[W]e have… seen that the most natural reading recognizes the use of figurative language and the interaction with ancient Near Eastern creation accounts. There is no reason we should expect the Bible to provide us with a factual report of the process of creation, and it is a grave mistake to treat the opening chapters of the Bible as such a report. (p. 48)

He goes on to raise a concern over those “in the Christian community who suggest that the theory of evolution is in crisis”. They are “misleading their audiences” (p. 58). He continues:

To try to deny evolution because one is trying to defend the Bible is unnecessary because the Bible is not at odds with evolution. To do so in light of the overwhelming evidence in favor of evolution is putting an unnecessary obstacle to faith. (p. 59)

The natural questions that evangelicals have concerning original sin, the image of God and the historicity of Adam are carefully addressed and he takes pains to clarify his position:

Interpretations that assert that human beings created in the image of God were never morally innocent, or state that the sinfulness of human beings is an inherent trait of humanity rather than the result of human rebellion against God (thus denying a historical fall), do not take the biblical account seriously, denying an essential theological teaching of the Bible. (p. 64-65 – he sites Enns’ Evolution of Adam as one example of such interpretations).

His discussion on this question is the clearest I’ve read, and yet I still have reservations and questions. He points out the absence of the concept of “original sin” (as an inheriting of a sin nature) in the Old Testament (p. 66) and ultimately rejects the Augustinian “‘inheritance’ model (that we inherit sin from Adam like a genetic disease)” noting that “there are other ways to account for our relationship to Adam’s first sin” (p. 71, 72). He maintains that the Fall is a historical reality (p. 69), however, and affirms that “Adam and Eve’s… sin so disrupted the cosmic and social order that it is not possible for those who come after them… not to sin” (p. 72).

On the evolution question, Longman agrees with the evangelicals who are abandoning the once widely-held view of young-earth creationism (I should point out, however, that he looks to B.B. Warfield and other early evangelicals as supporting his own view). On the next three topics, though, Longman speaks for conservatism and resists a call to abandon the historic evangelical position. He holds to the essential historicity of the Bible’s narrative accounts (such as the Exodus), he upholds the Old Testament’s claim that God uses violence in His dealings with humanity, and he defends the universal witness of Christianity that considers homosexual acts as a perversion of God’s good creation design.

On each of the issues above, Longman interacts with real evangelical authors and their actual positions on these matters. He appreciates the motivations (in some cases) behind said positions, but unpacks the Scriptural witness that compels him to stay where he is. His discussion of divine violence as an important theme in both the Old and New Testaments is helpful and yet he ultimately has no satisfying answer but bows to God’s sovereignty. His thoughts on historicity are encouraging, and his charity with respect to the homosexual problem is exemplary. He does think change is needed in how we think of and interact with homosexuals, but ultimately the Bible forbids homosexual practice.

This book is not the be-all-end-all volume with regard to these matters. Nor is it presented as the “final answer” to all your questions. Instead it stands as a model of charitable Christian dialogue on important matters — and it represents an effective and helpful answer to those who take such controversial points as opportunities to abandon Christianity altogether. I cannot recommend the book highly enough. These are the questions worth asking, and better answers will be hard to find.

Learn more about the book by reading the interview of the author included here, or check out this message where Longman addresses the same themes covered in the book. You can also find more in the book detail pages listed at the end of this post.

Blurbs:
“The Old Testament is full of difficult and controversial passages. These are often read without consideration of their original, ancient cultural contexts. Dr. Tremper Longman has tackled four of the most controversial topics: evolution, history, violence, and sexuality. Rather than settling for simplistic explanations that will not hold up under genuine scrutiny, Longman has brought many years of study and scholarship to bear on these problems. In a truly marvelous way, he explains these very complex issues with a clarity that will enhance readers’ comprehension. Far from being a mere Christian apology, this book wrestles with the real issues and sheds light that brings about a full engagement. It is a pleasure to recommend this very significant volume.”
—K. Lawson Younger Jr., professor of Old Testament, Semitic languages, and ancient Near Eastern history, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School

“Fools rush in where wise men fear to tread, but Tremper Longman is no fool. This book covers ground on which people can make fools of themselves, but he has been thinking for decades about the questions he discusses here. He has stayed abreast of changing views among evangelicals and knows how to keep reflecting on issues without giving up ground when he knows one needs to stand firm. if you want not-too-conservative and not-too-liberal answers to the questions he raises, you will find them here.”
—John Goldingay, David Allan Hubbard Professor Emeritus of Old Testament, Fuller Theological Seminary

“In this book Tremper Longman III is courageous, clear, charitable, and confessional. He is courageous in tackling subjects that arouse intense controversy as well as baffled distress. Any time I teach the Old Testament, someone will raise one or another of these issues. Longman writes with pleasurable clarity, making his deep scholarship available with lightness and warmth. His disagreements with other scholars, including evangelical friends, are expressed with respect and without vitriol. Above all he writes out of clear evangelical conviction on the inspiration, trustworthiness, and moral authority of the canon of Scripture. This book will be a blessing and resource for those wrestling with these contentious issues in honesty and faith.”
—Christopher J. H. Wright, Langham Partnership; author of Old Testament Ethics for the People of God and Knowing Jesus Through the Old Testament

Where to Buy:
Pick up a copy of this book at any of the following online retailers: ChristianBook.com, Amazon.com, or direct from Baker Books.

Disclaimer:
This book was provided by the publisher. The reviewer was under no obligation to offer a positive review.

Quotes to Note 45: Herman Bavinck on Yearning for God’s Word

Herman Bavinck is best known as a Reformed theologian from the early 20th Century. His four volume Reformed Dogmatics has been widely respected and embraced in the English speaking Reformed community. I am currently reading a small book he wrote on the importance of public confession of faith that has been reissued with a new English translation by Hendrickson Publishers.

In an almost Spurgeon-esque way, Bavinck’s writing abounds with Scriptural allusions and references. Here is a gem from this book, focused on the role of the Word of God in the believer’s life.

…it is a true mark of spiritual life when our heart yearns after and longs for that word. It is completely natural, just as one who is hungry longs for bread, the thirsty for water, and the sick for medicine. Just as naturally, the one who is spiritual with a holy longing reaches for the word of God and for Christ, who is offered in that word. Those who are spiritual never grow beyond that word. Unlike the mystic’s dreams, the word is not used as a ladder to ascend to a certain height, and then to spread one’s own wings and support oneself. Anyone who tries to do so will soon fall to earth broken. Anyone who refuses food will soon starve. Anyone who does not heed the word of Christ does not love him [1 John 5:3]. Anyone who rejects medicine has no need of a physician.

But the spiritual person, as long as one lives and with all one’s soul, feels bound to that word as the means of communion and fellowship with God, because God has bound himself to that word. It is only in the proportion one is planted in that word that one grows and becomes stronger. As ivy to a wall, the spiritual person holds fast to the word. As one leans upon a rod or a staff on a pilgrimage, so one leans on the word. One becomes increasingly attached to it, and increasingly devoted to it. The spiritual person’s love for the word becomes stronger, considers it ever increasing in value, and always finds in it a rich treasure for both heart and life. For the one who is spiritual, it becomes increasingly God’s word, a word that comes to that person from God, a letter from one’s Father sent from heaven, to be a guide to the Father’s house. “Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path” [Ps. 119:105]. “Oh how I love your law! It is my meditation all the day” [Ps. 119:97].

Therefore parents must feed their covenant child, even from early childhood , with this word….

~ Bavinck, Herman, The Sacrifice of Praise (Hendrickson Publishers, 2019), translated and edited by Cameron Clausing and Gregory Parker Jr., pp. 24-25.

Pick up a copy of this book from Westminster Bookstore, Christianbook.com, Amazon.com or direct from Hendrickson.

Disclaimer: This book was provided by the publisher, I was under no obligation to offer a favorable review.

Lost in a Good Footnote: The Final Number of the Saved

Have you ever read something in a footnote that was just too good to leave there? If you are like me, you can get “lost in a good footnote.” This post focuses on another great footnote.

Conservative evangelicals share the traditional position of the Church down through the centuries with respect to a literal Hell. Universalism (the belief that all people will be eventually be saved) has had its proponents but has always been a minority position in the Church. The Bible teaches that there is a literal Hell where the unbelieving will endure conscious torment in punishment for their sins. Such torment is never-ending (Matt. 25:46; Mk. 9:43,48; 2 Thess. 1:8-9). While we don’t know exactly what Hell will be like, the pictures painted in Scripture aren’t pretty. And there is little basis for the annihilationist position either (the belief that the lost will have their existence mercifully ended rather than suffer continually). Jesus spoke more of Hell than of Heaven, and evangelicals traditionally have included a warning of Hell along with their appeals to believe in the gospel.

The idea of eternal torment is hard to stomach in our contemporary world, and it seems unjust by human standards. This makes the doctrine of Hell something that believers have always grappled with. Alongside a belief in Hell stands the assumption that the Bible also teaches that the majority of humanity will end up there. Such a belief is widespread in Christian circles, and many former Evangelicals condemn Christianity for it. They rejoice in denouncing as harmful a religion they see as teaching that a spiteful God gleefully consigns most of humanity to Hell.

But does the Bible explicitly teach that most of humanity will ultimately miss out on salvation and an eternity with God in heaven? Many Christians will point to the Sermon on the Mount and Jesus’ explanation that a wide road goes to destruction with many are on that road; but a narrow road leads to life and few are the ones who find it (Matt. 7:13-14). To this is added the common experience of the Church over the years as being a “remnant” and a marginalized slice of society.

Here is where the footnote I mentioned comes in. In William Boekestein’s new book The Future of Everything: Essential Truths about the End Times (Reformation Heritage Books, 2019), we find the following in his chapter on Hell:

Other Reformed theologians have been even more optimistic: on the basis of God’s electing grace, “we have reason to believe…that the number of the finally lost in comparison with the whole number of the saved will be very inconsiderable. Our blessed Lord, when surrounded by the innumerable company of the redeemed, will be hailed as the…Savior of Men, as the Lamb that bore the sins of the world.”17 “In the lack of people is the downfall of a prince” (Prov. 14:28). Will God have such a problem? Will He not be honored by a multitude?

…The diverse and often unexpected ways God has fulfilled past promises “should render us modest in our interpretation of those predictions which remain to be accomplished; satisfied that what we know not now we shall know hereafter.”18
(p. 93-94, bold emphasis added)

This hints that it is possible that more than just a few will be saved. I was interested in hearing more and found the following footnote quite instructive:

17 [Charles] Hodge, Systematic Theology, 3:879–80. B. B. Warfield also affirms that “the number of the saved shall in the end be not small but large, and not merely absolutely but comparatively large; …to speak plainly, it shall embrace the immensely greater part of the human race.” “Are They Few that Be Saved?” in Biblical and Theological Studies, ed. Samuel G. Craig (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1968), 349. In this essay Warfield argues that the texts (e.g., Matt. 7:13–14) frequently adduced to sustain the argument that the total number elected are few, in fact merely reflect the situation of pervasive unbelief current in Jesus’s day. Most pointedly, they urge the hearers not to prognosticate about the proportion of the elect but that “salvation is difficult and that it is our duty to address ourselves to obtaining it with diligence and earnest effort.” He adds, “We can never learn” from these texts “how many are saved” (338). On a related text, Matthew 22:14, Calvin recognizes that while the apparent ratio of saved to unsaved persons varies throughout the ages, Jesus’s words, “For many are called, but few are chosen” ought not prompt us to “enter… into the question about the eternal election of God.” Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989), 2:175.
18 Hodge, Systematic Theology, 3:850–51.
(pg. 94, bold emphasis added)

I then found that the essay from B.B. Warfield is available online. It is a relatively quick read, you can find it here: Are They Few That Be Saved?

Warfield gives a treatment of the three passages most often claimed to support the idea that few are saved: Luke 13:23, Matthew 7:13, and Matthew 22:14. His treatment of Luke 13:23 and its immediate context is quite convincing, and serves to provide the background for his treatment of the other passages. His case is bolstered by appeal to others who agree with his position. His main point in the essay is to point out how weak the basis is for the doctrine that only few will be saved. Such a position “crumbles when subjected to scrutiny” (p. 10).

While Warfield does not make a case for why we should believe that the majority of mankind will be saved, he does offer some brief thoughts: “Christ must reign until He shall have put all His enemies under His feet—by which assuredly spiritual, not physical, conquest is intimated” and Christ came “to save the world [and] nothing less than the world shall be saved by Him” (p. 10). Earlier in the essay he does look to the Kingdom parables of the mustard seed and the leaven as pointing toward a world-wide conquest of the Gospel as well.

Now this doesn’t answer all our questions around Hell, but it does underscore that the question about how many shall be saved has not been explicitly addressed in Scripture. We can trust in God, whose wisdom is exceedingly above our own. He will right all wrongs and settle all scores – and we can trust in His goodness and kindness.

You can read my review of Boekestein’s book here.

UPDATE: The Gospel Coalition just published an article today (3/13) by William Boekestein on this very subject: Are Only Few People Saved? This is an expanded treatment of the topic I bumped into while reading his footnote. Go read his whole post!

Echoes of Mark in the Gospel of John

Many people have wondered why the New Testament includes four different Gospels. The differences can be confusing, and critics argue that they betray a difference of opinion among early Christians about Jesus and His message. Evangelical Christians respond by stressing that each of the Gospels is a separate, unique witness to the authenticity of the account of Jesus Christ’s life and ministry. The very fact that they are written from different perspectives and have different points of emphasis, strengthens their ability to independently testify to the truth of the Christian message.

In analyzing the Gospels, scholars have often claimed that John’s Gospel was written by someone who had no clear knowledge of the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke). The theology in John is more advanced, and must come from a later date in the “evolution” of Christian doctrine. From this scholarly debate has come a fresh look at the literary evidence in the Gospels themselves, and the results have been startling (or encouraging, depending on your perspective). NT scholarship is starting to change its tune on this point, in fact. Even for those of us who aren’t scholars (I include myself here for sure), there are meaty takeaways that can improve our grasp of the interplay between the Gospels – and heighten our appreciation of the revelation of Jesus we find there.

In this post, I want to highlight that the author of the Gospel of John (who I hold is John the Apostle), is not only familiar with the Gospel of Mark, but that he also assumes that many of his readers have read Mark. He even structures His Gospel (John) so that it fills out and explains much that Mark does not include in his Gospel. In short, there are echoes of Mark in John’s Gospel, and John intends His Gospel to differ from Mark’s. As Richard Bauckham puts it, “John is explicitly incomplete in aspects which… the Synoptic Gospels supply.”[1]

Puzzling Statements (John 3:24; 11:2)

What follows here is drawn from a chapter titled “John for Readers of Mark” by Richard Bauckham[2]. In reading Jonathan Pennington’s book Reading the Gospels Wisely, I came across a summary of Bauckham’s thoughts on this, and I have dug up more on the topic from simply following the helpful footnotes for more info.[3]

Two small and seemingly insignificant verses reveal John’s knowledge of Mark. And following their lead, a few other verses throw open the door to how John and Mark dovetail together.

John 3:24 “(For John had not yet been put in prison).”

John 3:24 is an aside, a parenthetical expression that is quite odd. Bauckham himself explains this quite clearly:

To understand the reason for the explanation, we are obliged to postulate implied readers/hearers who know more than the Gospel itself has told them. They seem to be expected already to know that John’s ministry came to an end when he was imprisoned, but even this knowledge is not sufficient to account for the explanation. Whether or not readers/hearers already know that John was imprisoned, they do not need to be told the obvious: that he was not yet imprisoned when he was still baptizing.[4]

Of the few references to John the Baptist’s imprisonment in the Synoptics, the one most likely referred to here is Mark 1:14. The comment in John 3:24 is there to let the reader know that this portion of Jesus’ ministry is taking place in between Mark 1:9-13 (which details Jesus’ baptism and subsequent temptation in the wilderness) and Mark 1:14 (which has Jesus going to Galilee to start his ministry there — right after John is imprisoned). This section in John’s Gospel, begins right after Jesus’ baptism (as hinted at in John 1:30) and continues through John 4:43 (where Jesus goes into Galilee for formal ministry — his time at Cana in John 2 was before his public ministry). So John wants his readers to know that John 1:19-4:43 fits between Mark 1:13 and 1:14.

John 11:2 “It was Mary who anointed the Lord with ointment and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was ill.”

This statement in John 11:2 is similarly puzzling. Why name Mary of Bethany as the one who anointed Jesus one chapter before the story of Jesus’ anointing (by Mary) is told in John (chapter 12)? Readers of Mark (and the other Synoptics) would have known of a woman who anointed Jesus in Bethany. John connects their knowledge of that story with his account by naming the woman here. (She is not named in Mark 14:3-9.) John will go on in chapter 12 to use a different chronology than Mark, putting the anointing before the triumphal entry, rather than after it.

Filling Out, Re-Ordering, and Summarizing Mark

From these two examples, you can almost imagine John as he is writing his account of Jesus’ ministry. He feels the need to re-order a story here or there from Mark, and add a name or highlight a detail. He moves the clearing of the Temple (Mark 11:11-25) to the beginning of Jesus’ Judean ministry (John 2:13-22), and gives a new account of Jesus’ trial before Annas (John 18:13-23) not mentioned in Mark, just prior to the trial before Caiaphas (John 18:24). John’s briefer mention of Caiaphas’ trial is due to it already being discussed in detail by Mark (Mark 14:53-65).

At other points John quickly passes over long sections already mentioned by Mark, and fills out what Mark only hints at. John skips the sending of the 12 (which Mark includes), but gives a fuller account of the feeding of the 5,000 – explaining why Jesus and the disciples have to leave in such a hurry (Mark 6:45 compared to John 6:14-16). John also includes the longer discourse about the Bread of Life (John 6:22-71) which follows the miracle. And this is the closest John gets to mentioning the Lord’s Supper (this omission may serve to interpret/stress the significance of the Lord’s Supper).

Next, the second half of Jesus’ ministry in Galilee (Mark 6:54-9:50) “is summarized by John in a single sentence” (in John 7:1a)[5]. Mark 10:1 mentions a ministry in Judah followed by time beyond the Jordan (where Mark 10:1-31 takes place). John follows along by giving us a long description of Jesus’ Judean ministry (John 7:10-10:39) understood as occurring in the gap implied in Mark 10:1, and then devotes just a few verses (John 10:40-42) to describe the beyond-Jordan ministry that Mark already described more fully (Mark 10:1-31).

One more puzzling reference in John may allude to Mark. John 14:31, ends with the curious words “Rise, let us go from here.” But John 15 continues the conversation from John 14. The words “rise, let us go” or literally “get up, let us be going”, are also found in Mark 14:42, “Rise, let us be going; see, my betrayer is at hand.” Bauckham interprets this echo from Mark as a way John emphasizes that Jesus is voluntarily facing his death (mentioned in the verses just prior to 14:31)[6]. John uses these familiar words (to readers of Mark) as a way to call to mind Jesus’ decision to embrace his suffering.

For a fuller look at the arrangement of John in relation to Mark, the following two articles take Bauckham’s argument, expand on it, and provide tables comparing the two accounts side by side:

Historical Corroboration?

There may even be evidence from Church history that supports the treatment above. We have the following testimony of Eusebius, writing in the fourth century, of what Papias wrote (in the early second century) concerning Mark’s Gospel.

Papias gives also in his own work other accounts of the words of the Lord on the authority of Aristion who was mentioned above, and traditions as handed down by the presbyter John; to which we refer those who are fond of learning. But now we must add to the words of his which we have already quoted the tradition which he gives in regard to Mark, the author of the Gospel.

“This also the presbyter said: Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord’s discourses, so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely.” These things are related by Papias concerning Mark.[7]

Concerning this passage (and the brief quote evidently from Papias on Matthew), Richard Bauckham draws this conclusion:

The only reason Papias could have had for thinking that the Gospels of Matthew and Mark both lacked the kind of order to be expected in a work deriving from an eyewitness is that he knew another Gospel, also of eyewitness origin, whose chronological sequence differed significantly from Mark’s and Matthew’s and whose ‘order’ Papias preferred.[8]

The presbyter (or elder) John, that Papias mentions, is sometimes understood as John the Apostle and author of John. In any case, a good argument can be made that Papias prefers the chronological order of John’s Gospel to that of Mark. Bauckham points out how the Muratorian Canon (late second century list of New Testament books with brief commentary) betrays influence by Papias, and so it’s statement that John wrote his Gospel “in order” suggests that Papias indeed did prefer John’s order to the lack of order in Mark and Matthew.[9] Here is the quote from the Muratorian Canon:

For so [John] confesses (himself) not merely an eye and ear witness, but also a writer of all the marvels of the Lord in order.[10]

Even More (Interlocking/Transposing Mark’s Theology)

Beyond the literary dovetailing described above and the historical pointers that John intended to re-order the Gospel accounts of Mark and Matthew, other testimony to Mark’s presence can be found through observing John’s own theology and points of emphasis. Pennington pointed out what he calls “the interlocking relationship of John and the Synoptics.”[11] This is a broader look at the question, and examines how in John’s theology and inclusion of material he is aware of Mark (and the Synoptics). Pennington draws from D.A. Carson on this point. Carson points out that in “many places… John and the Synoptics represent an interlocking tradition… they mutually reinforce or explain each other, without betraying overt literary dependence…”[12] Carson goes on to list many ways where the Synoptics and John overlap and interlock when it comes to theology and message. Andreas Köstenberger goes further and calls John’s approach a “theological transposition” of the Synoptics. For further study on this, see the resources listed in this note.[13]

Conclusion

I have rambled on and on, but I hope you can now appreciate even more how closely intertwined the Gospels are with one another. A lot of literary crafting is going on here! Readers of John who are unaware of Mark, can still find a coherent account of Jesus’ life and ministry in John. But the pointers are included for those aware of Mark to see how and where John is adding to Mark’s account and providing a fuller picture of the life of Jesus Christ.

Paying close attention to how each Gospel develops vertically (through its own account of Christ’s ministry) and horizontally (through its parallel passages and interlocking/dovetailing with the other Gospel accounts) is important for fully understanding each author’s intent. I also trust that you are better equipped for responding to criticisms directed at the discrepancies between the Gospels. Most of all I hope you can see how the life of Christ and the significance and message of the Gospel transcends any single telling. None of the Gospels alone can contain or explain it, and all four together only scratch the surface, as John himself says:

John 21:25 “Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.”

Footnotes

[1] Richard Bauckham, “The Johannine Jesus and the Synoptic Jesus,” online essay, p. 3 (This essay matches the name of a chapter from Gospel of Glory: Major Themes in Johannine Theology [Baker Academic, 2015]).

[2] Richard Bauckham (editor), “John for Readers of Mark”, The Gospel for All Christians: Rethinking the Gospel Audiences [Eerdmans, 1997], p.  147-172. [Preview available online here].

[3] Jonathan T. Pennington, Reading the Gospels Wisely: A Narrative and Theological Introduction, p. 64-66; also p. 59 note 16 and p. 194 note 12.

[4] Bauckham, “John for Readers of Mark”, 153. This quote is taken from Amazon’s “look inside” preview of the book. I had not yet purchased the book at the time this post was first published.

[5] Ibid, 156.

[6] Bauckham, “The Johannine Jesus and the Synoptic Jesus”, p. 8.

[7] “Eusebius of Caesarea – On Papias – original Greek Text with English translation“, [from Historia Ecclesiastica, 3. 39], paragraphs 14 and 15 accessed 11/13/18.

[8] Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony [Eerdmans, 2006], p. 226. My attention was brought to this by Kyle R. Hughes, “Papias and the Gospels: Analysis and Evaluation of his Testimony in Eusebius’ H.E. 3.39“, accessed 11/13/18.

[9] Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, p. 425, ff. Note also that Bauckham holds that “presbyter John” is a disciple who was an eyewitness follower of Christ and the author of the Gospel of John, but he does not believe he is the Apostle John (son of Zebedee).

[10] The Muratorian Canon, lines 35-37, accessed 11/13/18.

[11] Pennington, Reading the Gospels Wisely, p. 64-65.

[12] D.A. Carson, The Gospel According to John (Pillar New Testament Commentary), [Apollos/Eerdmans: 1991], p. 52, ff.

[13] Andreas Köstenberger, A Theology of John’s Gospel and Letters [Zondervan, 2009], p. 555-563. Also see a fuller treatment (but without the handy tables) in “John’s Transposition Theology:
Retelling the Story of Jesus in a Different Key”, available online here (this is a chapter in Earliest Christian History: History, Literature, and Theology [Mohr/Siebeck: 2012]).

Image created from icons available here and here.

“Israel – God’s Heart: Landscapes and Legacy of Israel” by Ron Gafni and Kathleen Barrett

In every Christian’s heart there is a warm spot reserved for the land of Israel. Who wouldn’t want to visit the land where so many biblical stories unfolded — the place where most of the Bible was written? I know I would like to pause in the valley where David chose his five stones. I would enjoy a boat ride on the Sea of Galilee (if there are no storm clouds in sight). And I would be captivated by a visit to Jerusalem, where I’d enjoy the western Wall almost as much as the empty tomb.

Most of us can only make one such trip in a lifetime, and many never get the chance. But with today’s technology, Israel can come to us. This is where the aerial photography of Ron Gafni comes in. He is the author of several photobooks showing Israel’s beauty from above. In his latest book, Israel – God’s Heart: Landscapes and Legacy of Israel, he partners with author Kathleen Barrett to provide “a captivating pictorial of the Holy Land and a scriptural journey through God’s redemption story.”

The images in the book do include the sights I mentioned above (with the exception of the empty tomb), but the focus is not on the biblical world directly. Instead it is modern Israel and its landscapes which monopolize the camera’s lens. The collection of images does foster reflection and the Bible verses and devotional thoughts are helpful to that end. The quality of the devotional writing however, is not what you’d expect and the occasional formatting and spelling errors serve to distract the reader (character formatting – p. 78; spelling – p. 70 “influencee”, p. 90 “totallly”, etc.). I would almost think from the grammar in some places that the original text was in Hebrew and translated back into English, although that doesn’t seem likely.

I could wish for a map, as many of the places mentioned are not familiar, such as the Maagan Michael coastline pictured on p. 78-79. And when there is a biblical connection, most readers would still benefit from a reference on a map: an example is Eilat (known as Eloth in the Bible) pictured on p. 80. The caption doesn’t inform the reader that this city is located on the gulf of Aqaba, an arm of the Red Sea. Another wish would be for the book to be available in a larger format. The small size roughly 9 x 6.6 inches (23 x 17 cm) makes this book unlikely to find a place next to more durable and vibrant photobooks adorning the coffee table. Perhaps a larger size will come later, as other books produced by SkyPics (Ron Gafni’s company) do come in two sizes, with the larger size being roughly 10 x 13 inches (25 x 34 cm).

Finally, some of the pictures seem odd in a book geared for devotional use. Several pictures of beach goers (many sporting bikinis) are captured with a wide lens, and there is an odd picture of some sort of beach party on p. 62-63.

These caveats aside, the book would make a nice addition to most Christian homes. The pictures are well done and intriguing, the landscapes are fascinating, and the devotional thoughts can be uplifting. The book can make a nice gift.

Preview the book here.

See more reviews at litfuse.com.

Where to Buy:
Pick up a copy of this book at any of the following online retailers: Amazon or direct from SkyPics.

Disclaimer:
This book was provided by the publisher. The reviewer was under no obligation to offer a positive review.