“In the Box” posts highlight new books I’ve received in the mail.
I periodically showcase new titles that arrive at my doorstep in posts like this. Today’s post highlights two books that are more controversial than most. One is a personal reflection by a significant Evangelical leader who is viewed as controversial from both the Evangelical right, and the progressive left. The other title takes a look at four controversial topics as they relate to the Old Testament.
Confronting Old Testament Controversies: Pressing Questions about Evolution, Sexuality, History, and Violence by Tremper Longman III (Baker Books)
I’m intrigued to see where this evangelical Old Testament scholar lands on the controversial topics addressed in this book. I believe he is going to side with a 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. He distances himself from Peter Enns in his acknowledgements however, and I’m wondering in what ways. Having read Peter Enns’ eyebrow-raising The Evolution of Adam, I believe Longman might take issue with Enns’ claims that Paul was wrong about Adam and that the Exodus was not real history.
History is another topic in this book and I’m interested to see where Longman lands on that question with regards to Old Testament narratives. I assume he will maintain a conservative position on sexuality, but I really don’t know. This book is needed however, as these issues and the other he tackles (violence), are high on many people’s list of reasons given for abandoning Christianity. They are also reasons that some key Evangelical leaders today are de-emphasizing the Old Testament (Andy Stanley’s controversial comments come to mind). The questions are the right questions: I am hoping Longman will give some solid answers. I expect to review this book in the next few weeks.
To learn more about this book, you can cheat and listen to a message I found online where Longman addresses these same topics – which should give you an idea where he is going to conclude. (I haven’t listened to that audio yet.) You can also learn more about this book, by checking out the book’s product page at Christianbook.com, Amazon or Baker Books.
Restless Faith: Holding Evangelical Beliefs in a World of Contested Labels by Richard J. Mouw (Brazos Press)
This book intrigued me as it represents some thoughts on Evangelical Christianity in today’s world by an Evangelical statesman. Richard Mouw has been a leader among a certain segment of Evangelicals. He is conservative to a degree but willing to dialogue and push the envelope on a variety of topics. As a former fundamentalist who is now a self-described conservative Evangelical (of Reformed persuasion), I find his thoughts intriguing and stimulating – while they also raise red flags in my mind. He is very aware of the real challenges facing Christians today, and some of his reflections have merit. From what I’ve read so far the good points have to be gleaned from among less helpful ideas.
Holman Bible Publishers will soon be releasing the Day by Day Chronological Bible. The brown imitation leather edition is being launched later this month. Now through January 25, there is an opportunity for one of my readers to win a free copy of this Bible, compliments of the publisher. Enter the giveaway here.
Have you ever read the Bible through in a chronological order? You may not know that the books of our English Bibles are not arranged chronologically. Genesis through 2 Kings are mostly in chronological order, and Ezra through Esther are from roughly the same time-frame: but the arrangement of the Old Testament books are made by type (law, history, poetry and prophecy) rather than time. Daniel comes before Hosea, but was written later. Ezra comes a few books before Isaiah, but is closer to Haggai and Malachi’s era. The Gospels often tell the same story three (or four) different times, and are followed by Acts: but the rest of the New Testament is composed of letters grouped according to author.
In the Day by Day Chronological Bible, the Old Testament books are given in their chronological order (with respect to the historical unfolding of God’s dealings with Israel). Psalms and Proverbs are interspersed throughout (where their theme complements that day’s reading). The prophetic books appear in the time periods when the prophet was ministering. For example, Isaiah has some sections which describe King Hezekiah’s interactions with the Assyrians. These sections are parallel with similar accounts in both 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles. The three accounts appear together in this Bible. Also, since Isaiah had a long ministry which overlapped with other prophets, the book of Micah is found in its entirety within the Isaiah readings in this Bible. (On another note, Isaiah 40-66 is treated as written by Isaiah in the same time period – which is in line with most conservative interpreters). For the New Testament, the Gospel accounts that describe the same events are arranged together, and the epistles are interspersed with Acts in the order of when they were likely written.
Reading the Bible chronologically gives a fresh perspective and is quite enjoyable. This endeavor is made much easier when you use a “day by day” Bible like this one. The chronological arrangement of the books of the Bible is spread out and divided into daily readings. Each reading is numbered in two separate ways. First, there are 52 weeks of readings, with 7 days per week. (The Bible text is actually divided into just 6 textual readings per week, so if you miss a reading it is easy to catch up.) Then the readings are also arranged according to acts and scenes. There are three acts: God’s Plan for All People (Gen. 1 – 11), God’s Covenant People (Gen. 12 – Mal. 4), and God’s New Covenant People (Matt. 1 – Rev. 22). The acts are further divided into scenes, with readings making up the content of those scenes. A final word about the arrangement: the readings are numbered and not dated. This means you can pick up this new Bible in February or June and start reading it then (no need to wait for January 1).
What makes this particular edition especially helpful are the guided readings by Dr. George Guthrie (Professor of New Testament at Regent College, Vancouver and author of several commentaries – learn more about him here). Guthrie introduces each week’s reading plan, and each individual day’s reading – highlighting themes to be looking for and points to pray or meditate over. His thoughts are typically a short paragraph or two to get you going with that day’s reading. He provides somewhat longer introductions for each act and brief introductions for each scene as well. Aside from these introductions, there are no additional study helps outside of a Scripture index and a few maps in the back.
The look and feel of this Bible is really nice, and the text is uncluttered and easy to read (9 point font). Often daily reading Bibles don’t get the royal treatment. And while this is not actually leather, the brown imitation “leathertouch” feels like the real thing and is nice enough to bring along on Sunday morning. There are two ribbon bookmarks which is nice (but do you need two if you are following the daily reading?). I absolutely love the single column text with a nice wide margin. My main critique is that there are no footnotes or cross references. The CSB Bible normally comes with footnotes that provide additional information about the Greek text and alternative renderings, and many editions have cross references. Perhaps it was determined that notes and references get in the way of just reading the text day by day. I can sympathize with that, and a Bible like this may be aimed more for those new to Bible reading. But I still miss the notes, and feel that readers miss out on the inter-textual parallels that the cross references provide.
The Christian Standard Bible (CSB) text is noticeably improved from the earlier Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB) of which it is a revision. I never liked the free use of “Yahweh” to refer to the LORD, and it seems the translation “Messiah” was inconsistently applied (used only in Jewish contexts). These idiosyncrasies have been abandoned for more mainstream translation choices, and the publisher’s name was removed from the work as well. This translation aims to be both readable and literal (using “optimal equivalence“) and compares well with the ESV, my translation of choice.
I highly recommend this exceptional Bible. It provides a user-friendly tool for reading the Bible chronologically with understanding. May it encourage people to read the Bible more and enlighten them on the big picture of what the Bible is really all about.
Why are there so many different Christian denominations? Why are their Baptist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Episcopal, Roman Catholic, and other types of Churches? Why are their dozens and dozens of other denominations as well?
Many a Christian wonders about this at some point. The split between the Roman Catholic Church and Protestant Churches is explained by the Reformation. But the differences between Protestants largely boil down to how we are to understand the two most important “rites” that the New Testament expects of the Church: Baptism and the Lord’s Supper.
Now if you want to explore the debates surrounding Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, look no further than 40 Questions about Baptism and the Lord’s Supper by John S. Hammett. I have reviewed other “40 Questions” books from Kregel, and have been consistently impressed by both their depth and clarity. The authors present the different arguments dispassionately and carefully, always asking the right questions; yet they don’t shy away from offering their own answers, which at times are appropriately tentative depending on the question. See my reviews of 40 Questions about the End Times, and 40 Questions about Creation and Evolution.
In 40 Questions about Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, even the most theologically aware reader will stumble across questions or points they haven’t before considered. The 40 questions format, however, prevents the book from becoming an inaccessible tome since both Baptism and the Lord’s Supper have to be covered from all angles within about 300 pages. Practical questions and pastoral concerns also are given full treatment, making the book more valuable. It is not just informative but helpful.
Some of my personal quibbles about Communion are explored as well! I’ve long thought that the small size of the elements often used today (mini-cracker and thimble sized cup of juice anyone?) may not be the best way to share in the Lord’s Supper. And I’ve wondered if the Lord’s Supper shouldn’t be observed in the context of a church-wide meal (as was done in the early church). Hammett addresses both of these concerns in passing (respectively pp. 208-209, pp. 186-187). Hammett also has an entire question devoted to when children (as opposed to infants) should be baptized (see chapter 20).
Hammett concludes with a Baptist view of baptism and the Lord’s Supper, but stresses a spiritual presence of Christ in Communion. He also explores to what degree our view of these Church ordinances should impact our unity with fellow believers.
This book will be most helpful for pastors and Bible teachers, but can be read with benefit by lay Christians, students and others. I highly recommend it.
Disclaimer: This book was provided by the publisher. The reviewer was under no obligation to offer a positive review.
About Book Briefs: Book Briefs are book notes, or short-form book reviews. They are my informed evaluation of a book, but stop short of being a full-length book review.
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:
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]).
[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.
[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).
From everything I have heard and seen about the film, this looks like a good one to go see. Here is its description:
Can we trust the Bible?
Our faith is based on the New Testament—but can we really trust the Bible? Skeptics say no, arguing that the Gospel manuscripts have been doctored to push a theological agenda.
In this new Faithlife original film, Dr. Craig Evans takes this claim head-on, traveling the globe to track down the most ancient New Testament manuscripts. Along the way, he highlights groundbreaking new evidence, demonstrating that the case for the reliability of the New Testament manuscripts is stronger than ever.
“In the Box” posts highlight new books I’ve received in the mail.
Confronting Old Testament Controversies: Pressing Questions about Evolution, Sexuality, History, and Violence by Tremper Longman III (Baker Books)
Restless Faith: Holding Evangelical Beliefs in a World of Contested Labels by Richard J. Mouw (Brazos Press)
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.