John Goldingay. Biblical Theology: The God of the Christian Scriptures. Downers Grove: Intervarsity, 2016. See here to purchase the book.
John Goldingay teaches Hebrew Bible at Fuller Theological Seminary.
Before that, he taught at St. John’s Theological College, which is in
Nottingham, England.
Overall, I agree with what the description of the book on the inside
flap says about it, with some reservations. To quote from the
description: “While taking the New Testament as a portal into the
biblical canon, he seeks to preserve the distinct voices of Israel’s
Scriptures, accepting even its irregular and sinewed pieces as features
rather than problems. Goldingay does not search out a thematic core or
overarching unity, but allows Scripture’s diversity and tensions to
remain as manifold witnesses to the ways of God. While many
interpreters interrogate Scripture under the harsh light of late-modern
questions, Goldingay engages in a dialogue keen on letting Scripture
speak to us in its own voice. Throughout he asks, ‘What understanding
of God and the world and life emerges from these two testaments?'”
Here are some comments on this description, based on my own reading of the book:
—-The early part of the book has more of a Hebrew Bible emphasis,
while drawing occasionally on the New Testament. This was particularly
the case when it was discussing God’s attributes. In talking about the
atonement and justification, there was a balance of emphasis between the
Hebrew Bible and the New Testament. The book came to have more of a
New Testament focus, though, as it discussed such issues as the church
and being in Christ.
—-In exploring biblical diversity, the book focuses more on themes
than on sources and authorship. If you want a book that, say, discusses
the Deuteronomist and the Holiness Source, their distinct ideologies,
and how they reacted to their historical contexts, then this book will
disappoint you. But this book does probe different perspectives and
complexities in the Hebrew Bible and, on some level, in the New
Testament. For instance, its discussion on God seems open to the
insights of open theism (which disputes that God can know the future),
while noting biblical passages that coincide with a more traditional
view of God. Overall, in interacting with the Hebrew Bible, the book
tends to note diverse concepts, without attributing those concepts to
specific biblical authors. Its interaction with the New Testament
diverged from this tendency, though, as it discussed concepts and
thoughts that appear in the synoptic Gospels, the Gospel of John, and
Paul’s epistles.
—-Overall, the book recoils from artificial attempts to harmonize
complexities and tensions. In many cases, it allows tensions to stand.
On the one hand, that allowed Goldingay to be refreshingly honest about
what the Bible says, as opposed to harmonizing it forcefully and
seeking to conform it to orthodoxy. On the other hand, there were times
when coherence got sacrificed. For example, Goldingay notes that the
Greek word often translated as “justification” in the New Testament
usually does not occur in a judicial context, so he pursues another
interpretation of justification, one that focuses on God’s covenant
commitment. Yet, in other places, Goldingay’s discussion of
justification tends to fall back on judicial language. On the
atonement, Goldingay appears to reject penal substitution, while also
embracing it. My impression is that Goldingay wants to create an
alternative model, but he finds that the model is inadequate in
accounting for all of the biblical data, so he falls back on
conventional models. At the same time, Goldingay does well to show that
conventional models, themselves, have limits and are not the only way
to interpret biblical passages. His discussion of justification and the
atonement may be inconsistent, but it was rich as it highlighted
different dimensions of these topics.
—-Goldingay’s discussion of Paul and the law was remarkably coherent,
as Goldingay integrated Paul’s pro-Torah and anti-Torah (if that is the
right term) sentiments into a coherent package.
—-Although Goldingay explores the diversity of Scripture, the book
does read as a narrative of God’s activity in the world. And, in some
cases, the book takes a rather harmonizing approach. For instance, in
addressing pro-Temple and anti-Temple voices, Goldingay states that God
was initially hesitant to dwell in a Temple, then became gun-ho Temple
once Solomon built it. In terms of Christology, the book seems to
privilege or emphasize the voices that believe in Jesus’ pre-existence,
or divinity. Goldingay argues that I Timothy 2:15’s statement that
women shall be saved through childbearing is consistent with
justification by grace through faith alone, as he argues that good works
are an expression of faith. My impression is that Goldingay was
searching for coherence. This may go back to what I said above about
the dearth of source criticism in this book: Goldingay may recoil from
seeing the Bible as a composite of different human voices, preferring
instead to regard it as a divine revelation that is ultimately coherent,
notwithstanding its tensions.
—-Whether Goldingay’s big picture is ultimately coherent is a good
question. On the one hand, Goldingay seems to portray God as one who
has forsaken wrath, due to the work of Christ. On the other hand,
Goldingay’s God still appears to judge people’s behavior. Perhaps
Goldingay’s narrative can only be as consistent or coherent as the Bible
allows!
Here are some other thoughts about the book, unrelated to the book’s description:
—-I liked how Goldingay phrased things. Personally, I tend to recoil
from Christian exclusivism, the idea that everyone needs to convert to
Christianity to avoid going to hell. Goldingay managed to phrase
exclusivist or potentially exclusivist concepts in an appealing manner,
however. Rather than saying that non-Christian religions are wrong,
Goldingay says that the Bible is clear that there are things that
non-Christians need to know. Regarding Jesus’ statement that he is the
way, truth, and life (John 14:6), Goldingay states that “Dying is his
way to the Father, and his dying is the only way they will get there”
(page 547). Goldingay seems to express agnosticism about the eternal
destiny of adherents to other religions, but he effectively conveyed
that Jesus’ death was necessary to provide people a way to the Father.
—-Goldingay’s discussions of communitarianism stood out to me.
Goldingay, with some empathy, noted the individualism of Western
culture, while saying that people are still part of a community, whether
or not they desire or recognize that. Later, Goldingay contrasts the early
Christian church with the voluntary societies of its ancient context:
according to Goldingay, the church was intentionally organized to be
like a family, not a voluntary society that people can join and leave as
they wish; that discussion was unnerving, yet informative. In a few
places, Goldingay seems to say that relationships in church should take
precedence over natural family relationships. That last concept rubs me
the wrong way. Not only does it sound rather cultish, but it also
strikes me as unrealistic in the Western world, where people are rather
individualistic. If I ran into financial trouble, for example, I would
expect my family to be more helpful than any church! Still, the
sentiment that the church is a family, one that should take precedence
over natural family connections, does appear consistent with certain
passages of Scripture (Matthew 12:46-50).
—-The prose of the book is accessible, yet reading the book required
focus and concentration. I did not want to miss any gems, and there
were many! As a result, reading this book could be time consuming and
even exhausting. Still, it was worth the effort, on a spiritual and an
intellectual level.
I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher. My review is honest!