I will be catching up on book reviews in this post. IVP Academic sent
me complimentary copies of these books. My reviews are honest!
A. Daniel C. Timmer. Obadiah, Jonah and Micah. IVP Academic, 2021. Go here to purchase the book.
Daniel C. Timmer teaches biblical studies at Puritan Reformed
Theological Seminary and also in Montreal, Quebec at the Faculte de
theologie evangelique. As the title indicates, this book is a commentary
on the biblical books of Obadiah, Jonah, and Micah.
Some items:
—-The sections on Jonah and Micah are more interesting than the one
on Obadiah. The Obadiah section still engages some intriguing scholarly
views, such as one that the ancient Judahites hated the Edomites because
the Judahites feared that the Edomites had replaced them as God’s
people. Not surprisingly, Timmer rejects this view, but what is amazing
is the ideas that scholars put out there in an attempt to be fresh and
original.
—-The Jonah section is noteworthy because it treats the Book of Jonah
as historically accurate and as pre-exilic. That contrasts with the
picture I long got about the book in my reading of scholarship: that it
is some post-exilic fable promoting inclusivism towards Gentiles when
there was controversy about inclusivism and exclusivism within the
post-exilic Jewish community. Timmer’s commitment to Jonah’s historicity
is manifest in three areas. First, Timmer contends that the language of
Jonah reflects pre-exilic Hebrew and defends the idea that the Hebrew
is authentically archaic as opposed to being post-exilic archaizing.
Second, Timmer notes the deterioration of the Assyrian empire in the
ninth century, which would have made the Ninevites receptive to Jonah’s
prophecy of doom. Third, Timmer harmonizes the text of Jonah with
history. Jonah 3:6-9 mentions a king of Nineveh and, because Nineveh was
not Assyria’s capital city prior to 705, Timmer concludes that this
“king” is not a king of all Assyria but rather a magnate over one of the
fragments of the Assyrian empire.
—-Timmer offers intriguing possibilities and engages scholarly
speculation. He speculates that Jonah himself may have commissioned the
ship that took him to Tarshish, meaning Jonah was more than a mere
passenger. And, contrary to those who maintain that Jonah’s message to
the Ninevites is solely one of doom, Timmer notes possible indications
that Jonah preached repentance to the Ninevites.
—-In the section on Micah, Timmer attributes the false prophecies of
the false prophets to demons. I am hesitant to accept Timmer’s
conclusion here because I think that it projects later demonology onto a
pre-exilic book. Plus, it brings to mind annoying tendencies of my
religious background, which attributed anything supernatural outside of a
rigid religious construct to demons. Still, Timmer’s conclusion does
raise profound questions. First, to what did the Hebrew Bible attribute
false prophecy? Were the false prophets lying? Did they receive their
visions from a supernatural source other than God? There are places in
the Hebrew Bible that appear to engage this question. Jeremiah 23:16
asserts that false prophets are speaking their own ideas, not the words
of God; here, they are deluded or lying. I Kings 22:21-23, however,
depicts God himself sending a lying spirit to the mouths of the false
prophets. On a similar note, Deuteronomy 13:1-3 asserts that a false
prophet may be part of God’s testing of the Israelites’ faithfulness,
implying, perhaps, that God sent the false prophet to test the
Israelites. Second, while I doubt that pre-exilic ancient Israelites
conceived of an arch-enemy of God, Satan, having a retinue of demons
seeking to undermine God’s plan, that does not mean that they lacked a
demonology altogether, and they may have seen at least some demons as
more than pesky spirits, which is how some scholars tend to portray the
ancient conception of demons. Deuteronomy 32:17 states that the false
gods to whom Israelites sacrificed were demons (shedim); these were more
than pesky spirits but were able to impersonate deity.
—-Since I became aware of the historical-critical method, I have
wondered how to approach the eschatological passages of the Old
Testament prophets. Micah forecasts the dramatic, supernatural
restoration of Israel and the Davidic king in reference to the nations
of his time, such as Assyria. Micah 5, which Matthew 2:6 applies to
Jesus’s birth in Bethlehem, depicts seven princes defeating Assyria, a
power in Micah’s own time that had largely vanished from the scene by
the time of Jesus. Is Micah 5 Micah’s view about what would happen in
his own day, within his own geo-political context, as opposed to being a
prophecy about the distant future? Timmer engages this question,
treating the references to Assyria in Micah 5 as paradigmatic and
typological for Israel’s foes in general. Timmer states on page 181 that
“this typological understanding of these two empires fits well with
Micah’s use of Nimrod for Babylon (cf. Gen. 10:8-10).” As
Nimrod in the Book of Genesis could foreshadow later Babylon, so could
Assyria be a type for Israel’s eschatological enemies.
—-Timmer states on page 228: “‘Zion’ will no longer be limited in terms of space and geography, so will be able to welcome many nations
(4:1-4) from across the globe (7:11-12). Her newly arrived citizens,
particularly those of non-Israelite ethnicity, will radically expand her
population (it is important that Daughter Zion identifies herself as
Abraham’s offspring, rather than extending that title to all ethnic
Israelites).” Timmer essentially sees continuity between Micah’s
eschatology and the New Testament’s inclusion of Gentiles into the
people of God. How convincing this is, is a worthwhile question. Timmer,
of course, has to deal with Micah 4:5’s declaration that the nations
may walk in the name of their own gods, whereas Israel will walk in the
name of the LORD. Does this envision a time of eschatological tolerance
and pluralism, when Gentiles will worship their own gods rather than
becoming part of the people of Israel and worshiping the LORD alone?
Timmer’s solution appears to be that Israel recognizes she had better be
faithful because that would be what would attract the nations to the
God of Israel; otherwise, the nations will continue to worship their own
gods. There is also the focus on ethnic Israel throughout Micah and all
of the Old Testament prophets, for that matter, which makes me question
whether Micah is downplaying ethnic Israel in favor of a spiritual
community that includes Gentiles. Moreover, one may wonder if the
nations in the “inclusivist” passages of the Old Testament prophets are
necessarily joining the people of God or rather are becoming subordinate
to the Israelites, meaning that their honor for God is an aspect of
their political subordination to Israel. If so, such prophecies may
concern Israel’s political prestige in the eschaton more than the
nations becoming closer to God.
B. Darian R. Lockett. Letters for the Church: Reading James, 1-2 Peter, 1-3 John, and Jude as Canon. IVP Academic, 2021. Go here to purchase the book.
Darian R. Lockett (Ph.D., St. Andrews) teaches New Testament at Biola
University. This book goes through the Catholic epistles—-James, 1-2
Peter, 1-3 John, and Jude—-while noting themes that unite them.
A few items:
—-Lockett largely accepts the traditional views of authorship, as he
engages scholarly skepticism about said authorship. Some of his
solutions are predictable, in light of conservative scholarship:
attribute stylistic features to a secretary, patristic support, etc. In
his discussion of II Peter, though, he refers to elements of II Peter
that appear to regard the letter as a sequel to a previous letter,
meaning one person may have written I-II Peter.
—-Where Lockett may stray, somewhat, from conservatism is in his
treatment of Jude’s quotation of I Enoch. He surveys conservative
scholarly denials that Jude regards I Enoch as divinely-authoritative
and simply does not find them convincing. If Jude does regard I Enoch as
divinely-authoritative, then that has profound implications, including
Christians having another book in their canon.
—-Love is a theme that recurs in the book. This troubles me, as a shy
introvert with grudges and social anxiety who cannot bring himself to
love people and questions whether Christians manifest the unconditional
love they judge me for lacking. That rant aside, Lockett, in some cases,
shows how love fits into the argument of the Catholic epistles: James
opposes favoritism for the rich over the poor, and James’s stance, of
course, is consistent with love. In some cases, Lockett perhaps could
have more effectively showed where love fits into the equation. In II
Peter 2:21, for example, the author criticizes those who turned away
from the sacred command, and Lockett interprets that sacred command as
the command to love. Yet, Lockett also regards the context for that
passage as pertinent to apostasy: leaving the faith and returning to
pagan sensualism and hedonism. How does rejecting love fit into that
apostasy?
—-In Jude 9, Jude refers to Michael’s dispute with Satan over the
bones of Moses. The interpretation that I usually heard of that incident
is that Satan wanted to make Moses’s bones an object of worship.
Lockett, however, offers a different interpretation: that Satan was
saying that Moses did not deserve proper burial because Moses had killed
an Egyptian. Whether there is a basis for this interpretation is a good
question, especially since, as Lockett states, the story “most likely
comes from the lost ending of the Testament of Moses” (199).
—-Lockett is especially effective in painting the perspective against
which II Peter contends, one that draws together different elements of
the book. Why does II Peter focus on the inspiration of Scripture and
divine judgment? Because people were saying that the prophets were
merely conveying their own ideas, not divine revelation, and they were
denying that divine judgment was something to fear, since things have
continued the same way for millennia.
C. R.B. Jamieson. The Paradox of Sonship: Christology in the Epistle to the Hebrews. IVP Academic, 2021. Go here to purchase the book.
R.B. Jamieson (Ph.D., University of Cambridge) is associate pastor of Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington, D.C.
When the Epistle to the Hebrews refers to Jesus as God’s “son,” what
does it mean? On the one hand, Hebrews appears to manifest a high
Christology: Jesus is Son of God in that Jesus is God. Through the Son,
God made the worlds (Hebrews 1:2). The Son’s word sustains all things,
and the Son is the brightness of God’s glory and the image of God’s
person (Hebrews 1:3). The Son is called God in Hebrews 1:8, and the Son
is superior to Moses because Moses was a servant in the house, whereas
the Son built the house, and the ultimate builder is God (Hebrews
3:1-6). The Son also, like God, lacks beginning of days and end of life
(Hebrews 7:3).
On the other hand, Hebrews seems rather adoptionistic, in some
places, meaning that the man Jesus became God’s Son rather than always
possessing that status by virtue of inherent divinity. Hebrews 1:5
appears to suggest that God begot Jesus as Son on a specific day, which
differs from God the Son being eternally begotten. Hebrews 2:10 affirms
that Jesus was made perfect through sufferings. Does that imply that he
was not perfect before? Is not God eternally perfect?
Jamieson’s solution is that there are two types of Sonship in
Hebrews. First, Jesus has always been God’s Son in the sense that he
himself is divine: he is, and always has been, God. Here, Jamieson
rejects the conventional scholarly tendency to divorce the New Testament
from Nicaea and Chalcedon, as if the latter cannot be used to
understand the former. The latter, for Jamieson, is what makes sense of
the former. To quote Jamieson on page 146, “Hebrews is not merely a
significant step along the way to Nicaea but is, in a crucial sense,
already there.”
But, second, being the Son of God also means being the Messiah, God’s
chosen ruler. The Davidic king was considered the son of God (II Samuel
7:14), ruling on the throne of God (I Chronicles 29:23). The king
became God’s son at his coronation (Psalm 2). Jesus, likewise, became
God’s Son, the ruler of the cosmos, at his resurrection. Jesus attained a
rulership and Messianic status that he lacked before. What, then, does
Hebrews 2:10 mean when it says that the Son became perfect? Jamieson
interprets that to mean that the Son, through suffering, qualified to
become the high priest of humanity. By becoming human and suffering as a
human, Jesus atoned for sin and became better able to understand
Christians who struggle with sin (Hebrews 2:17-18; 4:15).
Some items:
—-Jamieson elucidates how Melchizedek fits into Hebrews’s argument.
When Hebrews 7:3 affirms that Melchizedek lacked beginning of days and
end of life, what does it mean? Was Melchizedek eternal? Was Melchizedek
Jesus? Jamieson, of course, replies that Hebrews 7:3 is noting that
Melchizedek lacks a genealogy: his mother and father are unmentioned in
the Old Testament. How, though, does that fit into Hebrews’s argument?
Jamieson’s response is that, according to Hebrews, Melchizedek is a type
of Christ. What is true of Melchizedek merely on paper is true of
Christ in reality.
—-Ordinarily, Jamieson is judicious and detailed in his
argumentation. One aspect of his interpretation of Romans 1:3, however,
is a stretch. Jamieson, echoing other scholars, argues that Jesus was
Messiah due to his descent from Mary, who was a descendant of David.
That was how Jesus was of the seed of David according to the flesh.
Here, he is trying to reconcile Romans 1:3 with the virgin birth. If
Jesus were not the seed of David through Joseph, since Joseph was not
his biological father, then Jesus had to be the seed of David through
Mary. But questions need to be addressed. Can Messianic status pass
through the mother rather than the father? If Luke 3’s genealogy is
indeed Jesus’s genealogy through Mary, does that not disqualify him from
being the Davidic king, since the Davidic dynasty was through David’s
son Solomon (II Samuel 7:14), not Nathan, the son of David mentioned in
Luke 3? And is there any evidence that Mary had Davidic descent?
—-Jamieson at one point seems to deny that Hebrews envisions
Christians reigning with Christ, as it focuses on Christ as king. That
could be: from a historical-critical standpoint, one should focus on
what the text says rather than importing what it does not say. But does
not Jesus in Hebrews bring many sons to glory (Hebrews 2:10)?
—-Where I am unclear, and this may be rectified through a rereading
of the book, is where Jesus’s divinity fits into Jesus’s Messiahship. On
some level, Jamieson appears to go an Anselmian route: only God could
atone for the sins of all of humanity. Jamieson also seems to think
that, according to Hebrews, Jesus’s divinity is part of his
qualification to rule, and that it even elevates the concept of
Messiahship beyond that of a mere Davidic king.