Stanley E. Porter, Eckhard J. Schnabel On The Writing of The New Testament Commentaries Festschrift For Grant R. Osborne On The Occasion of His 70th Birthday 2013
Stanley E. Porter, Eckhard J. Schnabel On The Writing of The New Testament Commentaries Festschrift For Grant R. Osborne On The Occasion of His 70th Birthday 2013
Stanley E. Porter, Eckhard J. Schnabel On The Writing of The New Testament Commentaries Festschrift For Grant R. Osborne On The Occasion of His 70th Birthday 2013
VOLUME 8
Edited by
Leidenboston
2013
2012025100
This publication has been typeset in the multilingual Brill typeface. With over 5,100 characters
covering Latin, IPA, Greek, and Cyrillic, this typeface is especially suitable for use in the
humanities. For more information, please see www.brill.com/brill-typeface.
ISSN1574-7085
ISBN978 90 04 23291 4 (hardback)
ISBN978 90 04 23292 1 (e-book)
Copyright 2013 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Global Oriental, Hotei Publishing,
IDC Publishers and Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher.
Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV
provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center,
222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA.
Fees are subject to change.
This book is printed on acid-free paper.
Contents
Editors Preface................................................................................................
ix
Foreword: Professor Grant R. Osborne....................................................
xi
Eckhard J. Schnabel and Stanley E. Porter
List of Publications and Papers by Grant R. Osborne........................... xix
Compiled by Stephen B. Smith
Abbreviations................................................................................................... xxxiii
List of Contributors........................................................................................ xxxvii
Part one
33
57
73
91
113
vi
contents
Part two
131
147
contents
vii
Editors Preface
With essays in this volume, the editors and contributors honor Professor
Grant R. Osborne on his seventieth birthday. Professor Osbornes interest
in the interpretation of biblical texts has occupied a central place during his long life as a New Testament scholar and as a theologian who
loves preaching. Having written many commentaries himself, the editors
thought it befitting to show our appreciation of his contributions to biblical scholarship by asking former students, colleagues, and friends to write
about commentary writing. Commentaries focus on texts written by others.
The implication that the enterprise of commentary writing thus requires
a certain humility readily agrees with Professor Osbornes conviction that
the most important text written by an Other was the biblical text.
Six essays explore the genre of the biblical commentary in the context of historical-philological exegesis. The editors discuss commentary
writing in the ancient world in more general terms and the linguistic
competence displayed by New Testament scholars when they write commentaries. Douglas J. Moo comments on the translation of the Greek
Text in New Testament commentaries, Craig L. Blomberg on the significance of genre, Douglas S. Huffman on the historical competence of New
Testament commentaries, and Craig A. Evans on the discussions about
the historical Jesus in commentaries. The next seven essays explore the
understanding of the hermeneutical task exhibited in commentaries written by Old and New Testament scholars. Richard S. Hess writes on the
treatment of the use of the Old Testament by New Testament scholars,
D. A. Carson on the hermeneutical competence of New Testament commentators, Daniel I. Block on the interpretation of the phrase the name
of the Lord in Romans 10:13 in the context its meaning in Old Testament
texts, David W. Pao on the relevance of New Testament commentaries
for ethics exemplified through a discussion of Romans 13:17, Robert W.
Yarbrough on the relevance of New Testament commentaries for pastoral
ministry, Walter L. Liefeld on the importance of commentaries for the
task of preaching, and Scott M. Manetsch on the theological and pastoral focus of Wolfgang Musculuss commentary on Pauls Letter to the
Romans, written in the post-Reformation period. Three essays explore
the relationship between theology and commentaries on the biblical text.
Kevin J. Vanhoozer writes on the theological interpretation of Scripture,
editors preface
Daniel J. Treier on the significance of Christology in a theological interpretation of Scripture, and Linda L. Belleville on Christology in commentaries in the Pastoral Epistles. Four essays evaluate commentaries in the
four areas in which Professor Osborne has written commentaries himself:
Darrell L. Bock writes on commentaries on the Gospels, Stanley E. Porter
on commentaries on Romans, Scot McKnight on commentaries on James,
and Lois K. Fuller Dow on commentaries on the book of Revelation. The
volume concludes with reflections by Daniel Reid on the role of editors
and publishers with regard to biblical commentaries, apropos not only
because without editors and publishers no commentary would move
from the commentators desk to the desk of students and pastors, but
also because Professor Osborne has served on the editorial board of two
commentary series.
The editors thank the contributors for their willingness to write on an
assigned topic for this Festschrift. They thank Stephen B. Smith, one of
Professor Osbornes teaching assistants who compiled the list of publications by Dr. Osborne, and Gregory P. Fewster, Wally V. Cirafesi, and Ben
Snyder for helping with proofreading and for compiling the indices. They
thank the Carl F. Henry Center at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, in
particular Dr. Douglas A. Sweeney, for their support of this project. And
they thank the publishers at Brill for their willingness to take on this project at a time when the publication of a volume of essays has become a
major challenge.
Stanley E. Porter
Eckhard J. Schnabel
Foreword
1Gerhard Binder, Age, in Brills New Pauly (ed. H. Cancik and H. Schneider; Leiden:
Brill, 2002), 1:33135, here 33132. Walter Bauer, et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New
Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (3rd rev. ed. by F. W. Danker; Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 2000), 667 s.v. neanias defines youth, young man as from
about the 24th to the 40th year (with reference to Diogenes Laertius 8.10 and Philo,
Cher. 114). This is only one of many classifications of the stages of life in antiquity. In the
Roman Empire, the age at marriage for young men was between 2030 years of age; cf.
Josef Wiesehfer, Marriage, Age at, in Brills New Pauly (ed. H. Cancik and H. Schneider;
Leiden: Brill, 2006), 8:394995; R. Larry Overstreet, The Greek Concept of the Seven
Stages of Life and its New Testament Significance, BBR 19 (2009): 53763.
2Seneca, De brevitate vitae 20.4.
3Cicero, Cato major de senectute 1520, 3538, 4950, 8485.
xii
xiii
xiv
xv
Robert Gundry answered his critics in several Responses in JETS 26 (1983): 4156, 7186,
95100, 109116.
20Christianity Today Institute, Redaction Criticism, Is It Worth the Risk? Christianity
Today 19/15 (18 October 1985): 112 (insert).
21 Wendell G. Johnston et al., The Evangelical and Redaction Criticism in the Synoptic
Gospels, Talbot Review 1 (1985): 813.
22Osborne, Round Four, 407.
23Grant R. Osborne, Historical Criticism and the Evangelical, JETS 42 (1999): 193210;
Grant R. Osborne, Historical Narrative and Truth in the Bible, JETS 48 (2005): 67399.
24Grant R. Osborne, The Evangelical and Traditionsgeschichte, JETS 21 (1978): 11730.
25Grant R. Osborne, Genre CriticismSensus Literalis, TrinJ 4 (1983): 127; Grant
R. Osborne, Genre CriticismSensus Literalis, in Hermeneutics, Inerrancy, and the
Bible. Papers from ICBI Summit II (ed. E. D. Radmacher and R. D. Preus; Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1984), 16390.
26Grant R. Osborne, Literary Theory and Biblical Interpretation, in Words and the
Word: Explorations in Biblical Interpretation and Literary Theory (ed. D. G. Firth and J. A.
Grant; Nottingham: Apollos, 2008), 1750.
27Grant R. Osborne, Type, Typology, in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (ed.
Walter A. Elwell; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984), 111719; Grant R. Osborne, Typology, in The
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (ed. G. W. Bromiley; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
197988), 4:93032.
xvi
xvii
xviii
biblical theology of the church, proving the point that, for him, truly biblical scholarship always benefits the church.
Colleagues and students have always appreciated Grants cordial agreeability, cheerful disposition, unmitigated affirmation of friendship, deep
humility, concern for the truth, and love of the Word of God. In addition,
there is his sometimes hilariously self-deprecating sense of humor. It is
quite possible that he will be embarrassed by this volume and the attention that it directs his way. He may agree, however, that if the essays on
commentary writing collected in this volume help scholars to write better
commentaries and prompt pastors to preach better sermons, the overriding concern of his own life as scholar, theologian, and pastor will have
been served: Soli Deo Gloria.
xx
stephen b. smith
xxi
Review of R. T. France and David Wenham, Eds. Gospel Perspectives: Studies of History and Tradition in the Four Gospels. TSF News and Reviews
3.4 (1980): 1314.
1981
John 21: Test Case for History and Redaction in the Resurrection Narratives. Pages 293328 in Studies of History and Tradition in the Four
Gospels. Edited by R. T. France and David W. Wenham. Vol. 2 of Gospel
Perspectives. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981.
Co-authored with Paul D. Feinberg. The 1980 SBL/AAR: A Most Remarkable Meeting. Theological Students Fellowship Bulletin 4.3 (1981): 56.
Review of C.H. Talbert, ed., Perspectives on Luke-Acts. Theological Students
Fellowship Bulletin 4.3 (1981): 12.
Review of George B. Caird, The Language and Imagery of the Bible. Theological Students Fellowship Bulletin 4.4 (1981): 17.
Review of Anthony C. Thiselton, The Two Horizons: New Testament Hermeneutics and Philosophical Description. Theological Students Fellowship
Bulletin 4.5 (1981): 13.
And the Gentile Shall Lie Down with the Jew: Particularism and Universalism in Matthew with Special References to 9:3538. Paper presented
at the Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature. San Francisco. December 1922, 1981.
Co-authored with Rodney Petersen. Paradox in Paul and the Apocalypse:
A Model for Attitudes toward Government. Paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature. San Francisco.
December 1922, 1981.
1982
Teaching Our Students to do Quality Research. The Christian Librarian
25 (1982): 12330.
The Evangelical and Tradition Criticism. Pages 5159 in The New Testament Student and His Field. Edited by John H. Skilton. Vol. 5 of The New
Testament Student. Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1982.
Repr. of The Evangelical and Traditionsgeschichte. Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 21 (1978): 117130.
Editor, An Annotated Bibliography on the Bible and the Church Trinity
Evangelical Divinity School, 1982. Unpublished manuscript.
xxii
stephen b. smith
xxiii
Genre CriticismSensus Literalis. Paper presented at the Second Congress of the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy. Chicago.
November 1013, 1982.
Narrative Hermeneutics in the Light of Recent Research. Paper presented
at the Chicago Society of Biblical Research. Lombard, IL. November 20,
1982. Paper also presented at the Annual Meeting of the AAR. New York
City, NY. December 1982.
1983
Evangelical Theological Society: 1982 Annual Meeting. Theological Students Fellowship Bulletin 6.4 (1983): 15.
Genre CriticismSensus Literalis. Pages 16390 in Hermeneutics: Inerrancy and the Bible: Papers from ICBI Summit II. Edited by Eearl D.
Radmacher and R. D. Preus. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984.
Genre CriticismSensus Literalis. Trinity Journal 4 (1983): 127.
Studies in Matthew: Professional Societies Evaluate New Evangelical
Directions. Theological Students Fellowship Bulletin 6.4 (1983): 1415.
Review (Book Comments) of Andrew Lincoln, Paradise Now and Not Yet.
Theological Students Fellowship Bulletin 6.5 (1983): 27.
Review (Book Comments) of Eduard Lohse, The Formation of the New Testament. Theological Students Fellowship Bulletin 6.4 (1983): 23.
Review (Book Comments) of Eduard Schweizer, Luke: A Challenge to Present Theology. Theological Students Fellowship Bulletin 6.3 (1983): 2526.
Review of F. F. Bruce, First and Second Thessalonians (Word Biblical Commentary). Theological Students Fellowship Bulletin 6.3 (1983): 22.
Review of Peter T. OBrien, Colossians, Philemon (Word Biblical Commentary). Theological Students Fellowship Bulletin 6.3 (1983): 22.
Review of Robert A. Guelich, Sermon on the Mount. Theological Students
Fellowship Bulletin 6.4 (1983): 1415.
Review of Robert H. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Literary
and Theological Art. Theological Students Fellowship Bulletin 6.4 (1983):
1415.
Review of Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Gospel According to St. John: Commentary on Chapters 512 and The Gospel According to St. John: Commentary on Chapters 1321. Theological Students Fellowship Bulletin 7.1
(1983): 2930.
Preaching the Gospels: Methodology and Contextualization. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society.
Dallas, TX., December 16, 1983.
xxiv
stephen b. smith
1984
The Resurrection Narratives: A Redactional Study. Grand Rapids: Baker,
1984; 344 pages.
Christology and the New Testament Hermeneutics: A Survey of the Discussion. Semeia 30 (1984): 4962.
Context and Hermeneutics in the Americas: Report 2. Theological Students Fellowship Bulletin 7.4 (1984): 2122.
Evangelical Theological Society. Theological Students Fellowship Bulletin
7.4 (1984): 19.
Preaching the GospelsMethodology and Contextualization. Journal of
the Evangelical Theological Society 27 (1984): 2742.
Theologians from North, South, and Central America Gather in Mexico.
Christianity Today 28.1 (1984): 60, 64.
Mark, Theology of. Pages 68790 in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology.
Edited by Walter A. Elwell. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984; second edition,
2001.
New Testament Theology. Pages 76873 in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Edited by Walter A. Elwell. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984; second
edition, 2001.
Type, Typology. Pages 11171119 in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology.
Edited by Walter A. Elwell. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984; second edition,
2001.
Tongues, Speaking in. Pages 11001103 in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Edited by Walter A. Elwell. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984; second
edition, 2001.
Review of Bruce J. Malina, The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural
Anthropology. Theological Students Fellowship Bulletin 7.4 (1984): 25.
Review of John H. Elliott, A Home for the Homeless: A Sociological Exegesis
of 1 Peter, Its Situation, and Strategy. Theological Students Fellowship Bulletin 7.5 (1984): 21.
1985
Evangelical Interpretation of Scripture. Pages 12959 in The Bible in the
Churches: How Different Christians Interpret the Scriptures. Edited by
Kenneth Hagen. New York: Paulist Press, 1985; second edition 1994.
Athens. Pages 2231 in Major Cities of the Biblical World. Edited by R. K.
Harrison. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1985.
Mind Control or Spirit-Controlled Minds? and Devotions and the SpiritControlled Mind. Pages 5570 and 95114 in Renewing Your Mind in a
xxv
xxvi
stephen b. smith
xxvii
xxviii
stephen b. smith
1997
Christianity Challenges Postmodernism. Evangelical Journal 15 (1997):
117.
Do Inclusive-Language Bibles Distort Scripture? No. Christianity Today
41.13 (1997): 3334, 3639.
Holiness: A Different Way to Live. Decision 38 (1997): 3135.
Editor, Three Crucial Questions Series. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997.
1998
Romans and Semantic Analysis. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting
of the Society of Biblical Literature. Orlando, FL., November 20, 1998.
1999
Christianity Challenges Postmodernism. Pages 93116 in The Relationship Between Epistemology, Hermeneutics, Biblical Theology and Contextualization. Edited by Douglas Welker Kennard. Lewiston, NY.: Edwin
Mellen Press, 1999.
Historical Criticism and the Evangelical. Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 42 (1999): 193210.
Evangelical Biblical Interpretation. Pages 35761 in vol. 1 of Dictionary of
Biblical Interpretation. Edited by John H. Hayes. 2 volumes. Nashville:
Abingdon Press, 1999.
2000
Historical Criticism: A Brief Response to Robert Thomass Other View.
Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 43 (2000): 11317.
Hermeneutics. Pages 43032 in Evangelical Dictionary of World Missions.
Edited by Scott Moreau. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000.
New Testament Theology of Mission. Pages 68286 in Evangelical Dictionary of World Missions. Edited by Scott Moreau. Grand Rapids: Baker,
2000.
2001
Redaction Criticism. Pages 12849 in Interpreting the New Testament:
Essays on Methods and Issues. Edited by David A. Black and David S.
Dockery. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2001.
Response. Pages 13751 in Rethinking the Synoptic Problem. Edited by
David A. Black and David R. Beck. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001.
xxix
2002
Revelation. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand
Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002; 896 pages.
Co-authored with Matthew C. Williams. The Case for the Markan Priority
View of Gospel Origins: The Two-/Four-Source View. Pages 1996 in
Three Views on the Origins of the Synoptic Gospels. Edited by Robert L.
Thomas. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2002.
2003
History and Theology in the Synoptic Gospels. Trinity Journal 24 (2003):
522.
The Christ of Hebrews and Other Religions. Journal of the Evangelical
Theological Society 46 (2003): 24967.
2004
Romans. IVP New Testament Commentary Series. Downers Grove, IL.:
InterVarsity Press, 2004; 447 pages.
Co-edited with Scot McKnight. The Face of New Testament Studies: A Survey
of Recent Research. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004; 544 pages.
Recent Trends in the Study of the Apocalypse. Pages 473504 in The Face
of New Testament Studies: A Survey of Recent Research. Edited by Grant
R. Osborne and Scot McKnight. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004.
Response to Phelan [Revelation, Empire, and the Violence of God by
John E. Phelan]. Ex Auditu 20 (2004): 8588.
Review of B. J. Oropeza, Paul and Apostasy: Eschatology, Perseverance, and
Falling Away in the Corinthian Congregation. Trinity Journal 25 (2004):
10910.
Review of N. T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God. Journal of the
Evangelical Theological Society 47 (2004): 51417.
2005
Historical Narrative and Truth in the Bible. Journal of the Evangelical
Theological Society 48 (2005): 67388.
2006
The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation. 2nd ed. Downers Grove, IL.: InterVarsity Press, 2006; 624
pages.
xxx
stephen b. smith
2007
The Gospel of John. Cornerstone Biblical Commentary 13. Carol Stream, IL.:
Tyndale House, 2007; 313 pages.
Classical Arminian View, Classical Arminian Response (to Buist Fanning), Classical Arminian Response (to Gareth Cockerell), and Classical Arminian Response (to Randall Gleason). Pages 86128, 22032,
293306, and 37895 in Four Views on the Warning Passages in Hebrews.
Edited by Herbert W. Bateman. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2007.
2008
Literary Theory and Biblical Interpretation. Pages 1750 in Words and the
Word: Explorations in Biblical Interpretation and Literary Theory. Edited
by David G. Firth and James A. Grant. Nottingham: Apollos, 2008. Repr.,
Downers Grove, IL.: InterVarsity, 2009.
Introduction to the New Testament and Introduction to the Four Gospels. Pages 15571560 and 15611563 in NLT Study Bible. Carol Stream,
IL: Tyndale House, 2008.
James. Introduction and Study Notes, ESV Study Bible. Wheaton, IL.:
Crossway, 2008.
2009
Jesus Empty Tomb and His Appearance in Jerusalem. Pages 775823 in
Key Events in the Life of the Historical Jesus: A Collaborative Exploration
of Context and Coherence. Edited by Darrel L. Bock and Robert L. Webb.
Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 247. Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. Repr., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010.
Who Was Jesus Grandfather? Christianity Today 53, no. 12 (December
2009): 56.
2010
Matthew. Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament.
Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010. (1,152 pages).
Moving Forward on Our Knees: Prayer in Corporate Worship in the New
Testament. Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 53 (2010):
24367.
2011
James, 1 Peter & 2 Peter, Jude. Cornerstone Biblical Commentary 18. Carol
Stream, IL.: Tyndale House, 2011; 624 pages.
xxxi
Hermeneutics and Theological Interpretation. Pages 6286 in Understanding the Times: New Testament Studies in the 21st Century: Essays
in Honor of D. A. Carson on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday. Edited
by Andreas J. Kstenberger and Robert W. Yarbrough. Wheaton, IL.:
Crossway, 2011.
Abbreviations
AB
Anchor Bible
ACCSNT Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament
ACNT
Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament
AGLB
Aus der Geschichte der lateinischen Bibel
ANET Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament.
Edited by J. B. Pritchard. 3rd ed. Princenton, 1969
ANTC
Abingdon New Testament Commentaries
ASV
Authorized Standard Version
AV
Authorized Version
AzTh
Arbeiten zur Theologie
BCBC
Believers Church Bible Commentary
BECNT Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament
BBET
Beitrage zur biblischen Exegese und Theologie
BETL
Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium
BHT
Beitrge zur historischen Theologie
Bib
Biblica
BLE
Bulletin de littrature ecclsiastique
BNTC
Blacks New Testament Commentary
BST
The Bible Speaks Today
BTB
Biblical Theology Bulletin
BTCB
Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible
CBC
Cambridge Bible Commentary
CC
Continental Commentaries
CCSS
Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture
CEB
Common English Bible
CGTC
Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary
CGST
China Graduate School of Theology
CNT
Commentaire du Nouveau Testament
CRINT
Compendium Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum
DSB Daily Study Bible
EBib
Etudes bibliques
EBC
Expositors Bible Commentary
ECC
Eerdmans Critical Commentary
EKKNT Evangelisch-Katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament
ESV
English Standard Version
xxxiv
abbreviations
ETR
tudes thologiques et religieuses
ExAu
Ex Auditu
FS
Festschrift
HALOT Koehler, L., W. Baumgartner, and J. J. Stamm, The Hebrew and
Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Translated and edited
under the supervision of M. E. J. Richardson. 4 vols. Leiden,
19941999
HBT
Horizons in Biblical Theology
HCSB
Holman Christian Standard Bible
HNT
Handbuch zum Neuen Testament
HNTC
Harpers New Testament Commentaries
HSCP
Harvard Studies in Classical Philology
HTA
Historisch-Theologische Auslegung zum Neuen Testament
HTKNT
Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament
IBC International Bible Commentary
ICC International Critical Commentary
IJST
International Journal of Systematic Theology
Int
Interpretation
IVPNTC IVP New Testament Commentary
JBL
Journal of Biblical Literature
JETS
Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society
JSNT
Journal for the Study of the New Testament
JSOT
Journal for the Study of the Old Testament
JSNTSup Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement
Series
JTSA
Journal of Theology for Southern Africa
KEK
Kritisch-Exegetischer Kommentar ber das Neue Testament
KJV
King James Version
LD
Lectio divina
MNTC
Moffatt New Testament Commentary
NAC
New American Commentary
NASB
New American Standard Bible
NEchtB
Neue Echter Bibel
NET
New English Translation
NIBC
New International Biblical Commentary
NIBCNT New International Biblical Commentary: New Testament
NICNT
New International Commentary on the New Testament
NICOT
New International Commentary on the Old Testament
NIDOTTENew International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis. Edited by W. A. VanGemeren. 5 vols. Grand Rapids, 1997
abbreviations
xxxv
NIGTC
New International Greek Testament Commentary
NIV
New International Version
NIVAC
New International Version Application Commentary
NJB
New Jerusalem Bible
NLT
New Living Translation
NPNF The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 1. Edited by Philip
Schaff. 18861889. 14 vols. Repr. Peabody, MA.: Hendrickson,
1994
NRSV
New Revised Standard Version
NovT
Novum Testamentum
NovTSup Novum Testamentum Supplementum
NTD Das Neue Testament Deutsch
NTS
New Testament Studies
NTC
The New Testament in Context
NTL
New Testament Library
NTTS
New Testament Tools and Studies
OBT
Overtures to Biblical Theology
OSHT
Oxford Studies in Historical Theology
TK
kumenischer Taschenbuch-Kommentar
OTL
Old Testament Library
PCS
Pentecostal Commentary Series
PNTC
Pillar New Testament Commentary
P.Oxy.
Oxyrhynchus Papyri. Edited by B. P. Grenfell, A. S. Hunt et al.
ProEccl
Pro ecclesia
PRSt
Perspectives in Religious Studies
RB
Revue Biblique
ResQ
Restoration Quarterly
RHPR
Revue dhistoire et de philosophie religieuses
RNT
Regensburger Neues Testament
RSV
Revised Standard Version
SB
Sources bibliques
SBL
Society of Biblical Literature
SBLMS
Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series
SBLSP
Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers
SHBC
Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary
SJT
Scottish Journal of Theology
SNT
Studien zum Neuen Testament
SNTSMS Society of New Testament Studies Monograph Series
SP
Sacra Pagina
STI
Studies in Theological Interpretation
xxxvi
abbreviations
TB
Theologische Bcherei
TBei
Theologische Beitrge
TDNT Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by G. Kittel and G. Friedrich. Translated by G. W. Bromiley. 10 vols.
Grand Rapids, 19641976
TDOT
Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Edited by G. J.
Botterweck and H. Ringgren. Translated by J. T. Willis, G. W.
Bromiley, and D. E. Green. 8 vols. Grand Rapids, 1974
THNT
Theologischer Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament
THNTC Two Horizons New Testament Commentary
ThTo
Theology Today
TKNT
Theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament
TNIV
Todays New International Version
TNTC
Tyndale New Testament Commentary
TPC
The Preachers Commentary
TrinJ
Trinity Journal
TSAJ
Texte und Studien zum Antiken Judentum
TynBul Tyndale Bulletin
VTSup
Vetus Testamentum Supplements
WBC
Word Biblical Commentary
WUNT
Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament
ZBK
Zrcher Bibelkommentare
ZECNT Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament
ZNW
Zeitschrift fr die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft
ZTK
Zeitschrift fr Theologie und Kirche
List of Contributors
Linda L. Belleville, Grand Rapids Theological Seminary (Michigan)
Daniel I. Block, Wheaton College (Illinois)
Craig L. Blomberg, Denver Seminary (Colorado)
Darrell L. Bock, Dallas Theological Seminary (Texas)
D. A. Carson, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (Deerfield, Illinois)
Lois K. Fuller Dow, McMaster Divinity College (Hamilton, Ontario, Canada)
Craig A. Evans, Acadia Divinity College (Wolfville, Nova Scotia, Canada)
Richard S. Hess, Denver Seminary (Colorado)
Douglas S. Huffman, Biola University (La Mirada, California)
Walter L. Liefeld, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (Deerfield, Illinois)
Scot McKnight, North Park Theological Seminary (Chicago, Illinois)
Scott M. Manetsch, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (Deerfield, Illinois)
Douglas J. Moo, Wheaton College (Illinois)
David W. Pao, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (Deerfield, Illinois)
Stanley E. Porter, McMaster Divinity College (Hamilton, Ontario, Canada)
Daniel G. Reid, InterVarsity Press (Downers Grove, Illinois)
Eckhard J. Schnabel, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary (South
Hamilton, Massachusetts)
Daniel J. Treier, Wheaton College (Illinois)
Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (Deerfield, Illinois)
Robert W. Yarbrough, Covenant Theological Seminary (St. Louis, Missouri)
Part one
On Commentary Writing
Eckhard J. Schnabel
Commentaries, defined in the singular as a treatise consisting of a systematic series of comments or annotations on the text of a literary
work; an expository treatise following the order of the work explained
(Oxford English Dictionary), are needed by readers of a text they have
not written themselves. Authors who read their own texts do not need an
explanationtheir readers do, if and when the text is difficult to understand, thus requiring explanation for a wider readership, or if and when
the text is removed in time and culture from the original context, thus
requiring explanation for readers who live at a later time and in a different place. Modern readers of the New Testament live two thousand years
removed from the original authors of the New Testament texts, and they
live in a different culture, even if they happen to live in modern Israel,
Syria, or Turkey.
1. Origins of Commentary Writing
The Latin term commentarii denotes continuous records in the form of
note-books, memoranda, or minutes that document the activities of official bodies and their representatives, such as city councils, collegia (e.g.
priestly orders) and commercial businesses (e.g. large households).1 The
diversity of interests and content corresponds to a variety in the level
of standardization, documentation, and publication, the latter being
required in the case of agreements, wills, and laws. The individual record
(commentarius) was almost always part of a larger body of records. By
the late Republic, the term commentarii was used in the sense of written memory aid or memorandum for drafts of speeches, notes for public
1Cf. Jrg Rpke, Commentarii, in Brills New Pauly: Encyclopedia of the Ancient World
(ed. H. Cancik, H. Schneider, and M. Landfester; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 3:62829. On the genre
and the relevant terminology for commentaries in antiquity, understood narrowly as eine
dem Text linear folgende, mglichst vollstndige Erklrung von Sprache u[nd] Inhalt, see
Ludwig Fladerer and Dagmar Brner-Klein, Kommentar, in Reallexikon fr Antike und
Christentum, vol. 21 (ed. T. Klausner; Stuttgart: Hiersmann, 2006), 274329, 27482.
eckhard j. schnabel
lectures, or reports that took the place of oral delivery. According to Jrg
Rpke, this type of secondary documentation, and use of the term to
describe a collection of cases, explains the use of commentarii to describe
commentaries on primary texts, especially in the legal sense (commentarii in XII tabulas) and in Christian exegesis (on OT/NT).2 This sense of
commentarii was derived from the Greek term (memory, then
also notice, memory aid, record) which was used for works with historical, geographical, medical, philosophical, rhetorical, and mixed content.3
Since the Hellenistic period, the term designates a running commentary on literary texts. These commentaries, which are usually organized as sequences of lemma (a portion of the text) and exegesis, exhibit
various interests and contents, from the simple glossographic explanation
of individual words to the explanation of philological, exegetic, antiquarian or mythographical problems; from language and word usage, rhetorical figures, stylistic observations, proverbs, anecdotes and biographical
questions to aesthetic and moral judgements on the work and eventually
to allegoresis.4 Texts which comment on other texts are not always called
commentary. Other terms that were used include , which refers
to the explanation of the meaning of an individual word, and , a
general term that is used for the elucidation of a dark passage that is in
need of explanation. Glosses and scholia were often written in the margins
of texts. A commentary is usually understood in terms of an independent, separately published text that consists of a series of scholia.
The practice of writing philological commentaries on texts can be
traced back to the Athenian schools of the fifth century B.C.5 The Alexandrian philologists consolidated the commentary genre. They presented
2Rpke, Commentarii, 628. Other Latin terms for the designation of the consecutive
exegetical texts include expositio, tractatus, enarratio, libri, volumina, and explanatio; cf.
Fladerer and Brner-Klein, Kommentar, 278.
3Cf. Franco Montanari, Hypomnema, in Brills New Pauly: Encyclopedia of the Ancient
World (ed. H. Cancik, H. Schneider, and M. Landfester; Leiden: Brill, 2005), 6:64143,
who refers to Polybius 1.1.1; Ptolemy, Geographica 1.6.2; Galen; Diogenes Laertius 4.4;
Ps.-Longinus, De sublimitate 44.12; Aristoxenus, Symmikta hypomnemata; Callimachus,
Hypomnemata.
4Montanari, Hypomnema, 64243. Examples are the commentaries of Alexander
of Aphrodisias (second century A.D.; translations are published in the series Ancient
Commentators on Aristotle by Cornell University Press).
5Note the interesting example of a commentary on a commentary preserved in P.Oxy.
XV 1808, dating to the second century A.D. This (fragmentary) copy of a commentary on
Plato, Respublica 8, preserves shorthand notations, attesting to an educated reader who
had learned to write shorthand. Cf. Kathleen McNamee, A Plato Papyrus with Shorthand
Marginalia, Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 42 (2001): 97116.
on commentary writing
eckhard j. schnabel
11 Gaius (A.D. 140180), the author of the Institutiones, a synopsis of Roman civil law,
wrote the commentaries Ad edictum provinciale (thirty books), Ad legem Iuliam et Papiam
(fifteen books), Ad edictum praetoris (ten books), Ad legem duodecim tabularum (six
books), and Ad edictrum aedilium curulium (two books). See Tomasz Giaro, Gaius [II.2],
in Brills New Pauly (ed. H. Cancik and H. Schneider; Leiden: Brill, 2004), 5:64244.
12Servius Commentary on Book Four of Virgils Aeneid: An Annotated Translation
(ed. Christopher M. McDonough, Richard E. Prior, and Mark Stansbury; Wauconda, IL:
Bolchazy-Carducci, 2004). Cf. Fladerer and Brner-Klein, Kommentar, 28889.
13Cf. Donald Juel, Messianic Exegesis: Christological Interpretation of the Old Testament
in Early Christanity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988); Emerson Byron Powery, Jesus
Reads Scripture: The Function of Jesus Use of Scripture in the Synoptic Gospels (Biblical
Interpretation 63; Leiden: Brill, 1999).
14Cf. E. Earle Ellis, Pauls Use of the Old Testament (1957; repr., Grand Rapids: Baker,
1991); Dietrich-Alex Koch, Die Schrift als Zeuge des Evangeliums. Untersuchungen zur
Verwendung und zum Verstndnis der Schrift bei Paulus (BHTh 69; Tbingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 1986); Richard B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale
University Press, 1989); Christopher D. Stanley, Paul and the Language of Scripture: Citation
Technique in the Pauline Epistles and Contemporary Literature (SNTSMS 69; Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1992); Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders, eds., Paul and the
Scriptures of Israel (JSNTSup 83; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993).
15Christoph Markschies, Origenes und die Kommentierung des paulinischen
Rmerbriefs. Einige Bemerkungen zur Rezeption von antiken Kommentartechniken
im Christentum des dritten Jahrhunderts und ihrer Vorgeschichte, in Commentaries
Kommentare (ed. G. W. Most; Aporemata 4; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999),
6694, esp 69. See generally Martin Hengel and Hermut Lhr, eds., Schriftauslegung im
antiken Judentum und im Urchristentum (WUNT 73; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994). For an
analysis of the individual Old Testament quotations and allusions in the New Testament,
see Gregory K. Beale and Donald A. Carson, eds., Commentary on the New Testament Use
of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007).
on commentary writing
eckhard j. schnabel
on commentary writing
There are three main reasons why commentaries are written.30 First,
the texts that are commented on are older than the commentaryin the
philological tradition several hundred or, in the case of modern commentaries, several thousand years older. Historical distance implies changes
in language (thus Alexander of Aphrodisias clarifies the Greek diction of
Aristotle who lived six hundred years earlier),31 or a different language
altogether (Stavros Tsitsiridis comments in German on Plato who writes
in Greek),32 and a different world of realia that needs to be explained.
Second, since authors of texts are selective in what they write, they omit
material that they presume their readers to know. Commentators seek
to fill such gaps and clarify difficulties that the text presents for readers,
especially if the latter have not been initiated into the subject matter
(a modern philosopher who easily reads classical Greek needs less philological commentary on an Aristotle text than a philosopher who reads
only English). The third reason why commentaries are necessary is linked
with the fact that some texts are canonical texts for a community, requiring a common understanding of the text. This connection will be further
explored below.
2.The Form of Commentaries
In Greek commentaries the logical and temporal posteriority of the commentary to the text is often signaled typographically by the use of diacritical signs, which refer the reader to a commented passage (lemma),
and by the arrangement of the commentary above, below, or beside the
reference text, or in separate notes below the text or after the text, or
10
eckhard j. schnabel
on commentary writing
11
Book of Acts by F. F. Bruce prints the Greek text at the beginning of each
pericope, without translation.38 The Zondervan Exegetical Commentary
on the New Testament series prints not only an English translation (in a
graphical layout which aims at helping the reader to visualize the flow
of thought within the text), but for each individual verse it repeats the
English translation, which is followed by the Greek text in brackets.39
The Word Biblical Commentary prints an English translation of each pericope; in the verse by verse commentary lemmata in Greek are presented
with the English translation of the lemma repeated in quotation marks.40
Most academic commentaries print a translation of the text, placed at
the beginning of the pericope.41 Some commentaries print a translation
at the beginning of each verse.42 Commentaries for a wider readership
sometimes include a translation,43 sometimes dispensing with printing
the translated text.44 The older volumes of the New International Greek
Testament Commentary include neither the Greek text nor the commentators translation. It is curious that commentaries written for the general reader and for pastors do not use the translations produced by the
38F. F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles: The Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary
(3rd rev. and enl. ed.; Leicester/Grand Rapids: Apollos/Eerdmans, 1990); the first edition of
the commentary, with the same format, was published in 1951 by Tyndale Press, London.
Bruces English commentary on Acts, in keeping with the format of the New International
Commentary on the New Testament series, prints only an English translation; cf. F.F. Bruce,
The Book of the Acts (rev. ed.; New International Commentary on the New Testament;
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988).
39Cf. Eckhard J. Schnabel, Acts (Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New
Testament; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011).
40Cf. James D. G. Dunn, Romans (Word Biblical Commentary 38 AB; 2 vols.; Dallas:
Word, 1988).
41 Cf. Jacob Jervell, Die Apostelgeschichte (Kritisch-Exegetischer Kommentar 3;
Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998); Gerhard Schneider, Die Apostelgeschichte
(2 vols.; Herders Theologischer Kommentar 5; Freiburg: Herder, 198082); C.K. Barrett,
The Acts of the Apostles (2 vols.; International Critical Commentary; Edinburgh: T&T
Clark, 199498); Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Acts of the Apostles (Anchor Bible 31; New York:
Doubleday, 1998); Richard I. Pervo, Acts (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 2008); Daniel
Marguerat, Les Actes des Aptres (112) (Commentaire du Nouveau Testament 5a; Geneva:
Labor et Fides, 2007).
42Cf. David G. Peterson, The Acts of the Apostles (Pillar New Testament Commentary;
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009).
43Cf. Jrgen Roloff, Die Apostelgeschichte (Das Neue Testament Deutsch 5; Gttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1988).
44Cf. I. Howard Marshall, The Acts of the Apostles. An Introduction and Commentary
(Tyndale New Testament Commentary; Leicester: InterVarsity Press, 1980); David J.
Williams, Acts (New International Biblical Commentary 5; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson,
1990); James D. G. Dunn, The Acts of the Apostles (Epworth Commentaries; London:
Epworth, 1996).
12
eckhard j. schnabel
on commentary writing
13
14
eckhard j. schnabel
55Theodor Heinze, P. Ovidius Naso. Der zwlfte Heroidenbrief: Medea an Jason. Einleitung,
Text, bersetzung und Kommentar (Mnemosyne Sup 170; Leiden: Brill, 1997).
56Wolfgang Schrage, Der erste Brief an die Korinther (4 vols.; EKK 7; Zrich/NeukirchenVluyn: Benziger/Neukirchener Verlag, 19912001).
57NestleAland, Novum Testamentum Graece. 27th Edition. (ed. B. Aland, K. Aland,
J. Karavidopoulos, C. M. Martini, and B. M. Metzger; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft,
1993), 44172.
58Raymond E. Brown, The Epistles of John (AB 30; Garden City: Doubleday, 1982).
59NestleAland, Novum Testamentum Graece. 27th Edition. (ed. B. Aland, K. Aland,
J. Karavidopoulos, C. M. Martini, and B. M. Metzger; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft,
1993), 61528.
60Cf. Hubert Cancik, Exegesis III. Greco Roman Antiquity, in Religion Past and
Present: Encylopedia of Theology and Religion (ed. H. D. Betz, et al.; Leiden: Brill, 2008),
4:73031, who comments that only precise knowledge of the language and style of an
author, of the time of composition and life circumstances enables the determination of
(in-)authenticity and thus the proper exegesis of a text, with reference to Gellius, Noctes
Atticae 4.18.45; 6.1; 13.29.
61 Albrecht Dihle, Greek and Latin Literature of the Roman Empire: From Augustus
to Justinian (London: Routledge, 1994), 187. On Ciceros own commentaries, see Hubert
Cancik, M. Tullius Cicero als Kommentator, in Text und Kommentar (ed. J. Assmann
and B. Gladigow; Archologie der literarischen Kommunikation 4; Mnchen: Fink, 1995),
292310.
on commentary writing
15
62Cf. August Buck and Otto Herding, eds., Der Kommentar in der Renaissance
(Kommission fr Humanismusforschung; Mitteilung 1; Boppard: Boldt, 1975).
63Juan Luis Vives, De ratione dicendi 3.11; this text was written in 1532.
64Bodo Guthmller, Commentary I. General, in Brills New Pauly: Encyclopedia of the
Ancient World. Classical Tradition (ed. H. Cancik, H. Schneider, and M. Landfester; Leiden:
Brill, 2006), 1:9991002, quotation ibid. 1001.
65Michael Hillgruber, Die zehnte Rede des Lysias. Einleitung, Text und Kommentar mit
einem Anhang ber die Gesetzesinterpretationen bei den attischen Rednern (Untersuchungen
zur antiken Literatur und Geschichte 29; Berlin: De Gruyter, 1988).
16
eckhard j. schnabel
66Theodor Heinze, P. Ovidius Naso. Der zwlfte Heroidenbrief: Medea an Jason. Einleitung,
Text, bersetzung und Kommentar (Mnemosyne Sup 170; Leiden: Brill, 1997).
67Frank W. Walbank, A Historical Commentary on Polybius (3 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon,
195779).
68Christoph Leidl, Appians Darstellung des 2. Punischen Krieges in Spanien (Iberike c.1
38 1158a). Text und Kommentar (Mnchener Arbeiten zur alten Geschichte 11; Mnchen:
Editio Maris, 1996).
69Kai Brodersen, Appians Abriss der Seleukidengeschichte (Syriake 45, 23270, 369). Text
und Kommentar (Mnchener Arbeiten zur alten Geschichte 1; Mnchen: Editio Maris,
1989); Kai Brodersen, Appians Antiochike (Syriake 1, 144, 232). Text und Kommentar: nebst
einem Anhang, Plethons Syriake-Exzerpt (Mnchener Arbeiten zur alten Geschichte, Bd. 3;
Mnchen: Editio Maris, 1991).
70Simon Hornblower, A Commentary on Thucydides (3 vols.; Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 19912008); the three volumes comprise more than 2,000 pages. Mary Beard, Which
Thucydides Can You Trust? The New York Review 57/14 (2010): 5254, comments that
the obscurity of Thucydides Greek amply justifies Hornblowers project, on which he
has worked more than twenty years, to produce another detailed historical and literary
commentary on the whole of his History.
71 Paul Schubert, Editing a Papyrus, in The Oxford Handbook of Papyrology (ed. R. S.
Bagnall; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 197215, 2089.
on commentary writing
17
who reads the entire Torah to the Jews who had returned from exile to
Jerusalem, and explains it section by section in the square before the
Water Gate:
The scribe Ezra stood on a wooden platform that had been made for the
purpose...And Ezra opened the book in the sight of all the people, for he
was standing above all the people; and when he opened it, all the people
stood up...Also Jeshua, Bani, Sherebiah, Jamin, Akkub, Shabbethai, Hodiah,
Maaseiah, Kelita, Azariah, Jozabad, Hanan, Pelaiah, the Levites, helped the
people to understand the law, while the people remained in their places. So
they read from the book, from the law of God, with interpretation () .
They gave the sense () , so that the people understood the reading
() . (Nehemiah 8:45, 78)72
While the reading of the text already implies a dynamic element which, at
least in a rudimentary manner, breaks open the stasis of the text, it is the
explanation or commentary which produces understanding.73
As regards the function of modern commentaries, we can distinguish
between commentary on the authenticity of the text (textual criticism),
commentary on the sources of the text (source criticism), commentary
on the analysis of the text (explanations of words and realia), and commentary on the reception of the text (Wirkungsgeschichte).74 Above all, a
commentary needs to be useful, a requirement that is explained by Christina Shuttleworth Kraus in terms of three goals: a commentary provides
and argues for a readable text; a commentary serves the linguistic and
grammatical needs of the readers; a commentary provides a groundcover of interpretation from which further readings can start.75 The latter
18
eckhard j. schnabel
suggestion implies that a commentator surveys, differentiates, and evaluates various interpretations either before he writes his commentary or in
the commentary itself.
This process implies two basic functions. On the one hand, a commentary selects from a diversity of explanations and thus limits understanding
to what the commentator deems the only possible, or the most plausible,
explanation of the text or of a statement in the text. The selective dimension of commentary writing is particularly evident in perspectival commentaries, which read, for example, a New Testament text from a feminist
perspective, as well as in popular commentaries, in which there is no
space to discuss many of the exegetical questions raised by the text (e.g.,
the Epworth Commentary, IVP New Testament Commentary, Tyndale
New Testament Commentary series). On the other hand, the elucidation
of the context of the text and its relationship to other texts, combined
with explanations for understanding the text in the new context of readers contemporaneous with the commentator, leads to an accumulation
of potential meanings. A commentary can thus be regarded as rendering
assistance to readers or as patronizing readers.76 Kraus warns that the
louder the commentators voice, the more it may be judged obtrusive or
overbearing, and the more it attracts parody and criticism.77 To avoid
overloading a commentary with information, Manfred Fuhrmann suggests that the commentator must distinguish between primary darkness
and secondary darkness, i.e. between difficulties in understanding that
were present in the text right from the beginning, and difficulties that
are the result of historical distance.78 In the case of primary darkness
(e.g. riddles, oracles), the author presents his first intended readers with
the task of interpretation, a task that arguably should not be solved for
later readers. Secondary darkness results from changes in language and
in the material world, changes that make understanding difficult for later
readers, who become dependent upon the commentary if they want to
approximate the reading experience of the first readers.
The question as to how the task of providing a ground-cover of
interpretation for further readings is accomplished can be answered in
on commentary writing
19
different ways. Paul Spilsbury has illustrated the possibilities with regard
to recent commentaries on Josephus.79 Christopher Begg, in his commentary on Antiquities 57, consistently provides a comparison of the biblical
antecendents to Josephuss narrative, only occasionally addressing other
exegetical questions.80 In his commentary on Ant. 6.131133, a passage in
which Samuel reminds Saul of the divine command to exterminate the
Amalekites, Begg has five short notes which provide information on textual matters, cross-references, and differences between Josephus and the
biblical text, but no discussion of the ethical issues is raised by the command, nor references to scholarly opinions about this matter. In his commentary on Antiquities 14, Louis Feldman provides his readers with full
discussions of all the interpretive questions he deems important.81 Feldmann spends nearly 1,000 words of commentary on the line of text Ant.
1.17, providing a long list of scholarly explanations of Josephuss promise
neither to add nor to omit anything from his retelling of the biblical history. Paul Spilsbury, in his commentary on the Daniel material in Ant. 10
is closer to Feldman than to Begg.82 John Barclay, in his commentary on
Contra Apionem,83 saw it as his main responsibility to provide a commentary with sufficient comprehensiveness to meet the needs of a wide
range of readers while at the same time focusing on the observation and
analysis of Josephus rhetorical strategies as his main contribution.84
4.Challenges of Commentary Writing
Negative comments about commentaries are easy to find.85 Sometimes
reviewers complain that a commentary is too long, or they criticize that
79Paul Spilsbury, Reading Josephus Reading the Bible: Commentary Writing and
Josephus Paraphrase of the Bible (SBL Annual Meeting; San Diego, 2007), from whom
the following examples of Begg, Feldman, and Spilsbury are drawn.
80Christopher T. Begg, Flavius Josephus: Judean Antiquities Books 57 (Flavius Josephus:
Translation and Commentary 4; Leiden: Brill, 2005); the following example is from ibid.
135 nn. 487491.
81Louis H. Feldman, Flavius Josephus: Judean Antiquities 14. Translation and
Commentary (Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary 3; Leiden: Brill, 2000); the
following example refers to ibid. 78 n. 22.
82Christopher T. Begg and Paul Spilsbury, Flavius Josephus: Judean Antiquities Books
810 (Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary 5; Leiden: Brill, 2005), 265392.
83John M. G. Barclay, Flavius Josephus: Against Apion (Flavius Josephus: Translation
and Commentary 10; Leiden: Brill, 2006).
84John M. G. Barclay, Josephus Against Apion and the Commentary Genre (Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the SBL; San Diego, 2007).
85Simon Goldhill, Wipe Your Glosses, in CommentariesKommentare (ed. G. W.
Most; Aporemata 4; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999), 380425, describes
20
eckhard j. schnabel
the author neglects important perspectives (and thus wrote a commentary that is too short). Sometimes reviewers praise the density of the documented secondary literature, while other reviewers find the references
to previous scholarship excessive and unhelpful. Charles Murgia who
admires commentators and thinks that they deserve our every encouragement (with the proviso, the good ones), insightfully asserts that few
works are as useful, difficult, and dangerous.86
Marita Mathijsen outlines seven deadly sins of commentaries in the
field of literary studies,87 not all of which are relevant for modern commentators of New Testament books. The problem of explanations of words
taken from readily available dictionaries is rarely an issue in New Testament commentaries, since most serious commentators do not consult
general purpose dictionaries with simple, not to say simplistic, explanations of terms, but the more sophisticated Greek-English Lexicon of the New
Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (ed. W. Bauer, Frederick W.
Danker, William F. Arndt, F. Wilbur Gingrich), and the detailed Theological Dictionary of New Testament (ed. G. Kittel and G. Friedrich), the New
International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (ed. C. Brown), the
Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament (ed. H. Balz and G. Schneider),
and the Theological Lexicon of the New Testament (ed. C. Spicq), and in
important cases discussions of Greek terms in the scholarly literature. The
problem of an unhistorical procedure which fails to explain terms, events,
and social and political institutions in their historical context exists in
some popular commentaries or Bible study guides. It is an inherent problem in perspectival commentaries that subordinate the author of the
text to the modern reader of the text with her (postcolonial) or his (feminist) concerns. This is not an issue in commentaries written by academically trained New Testament scholars who are committed to explaining
the text. Five of Mathijsens deadly sins are relevant, albeit in different
ways for the various commentary series that pursue different goals.
discussions about the theory of commentary as happening in a fierce arena, where even
recognition of what is at stake in the debate is bitterly contested (381).
86Charles E. Murgia, Review of Francis R. D. Goodyear, The Annals of Tacitus, Books
16. Volume 2: Annals 1.5581 and Annals 2 (Cambridge Classical Texts and Commentaries;
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), in Classical Philology 79 (1984) 31426,
quotation 314; cited by Kraus, Reading Commentaries, 2 n. 8.
87Marita Mathijsen, Die sieben Todsnden des Kommentars, in Text und Edition:
Positionen und Perspektiven (ed. Rdiger Nutt-Kofoth, et al.; Berlin: Schmidt, 2000), 24561,
here 25759.
on commentary writing
21
22
eckhard j. schnabel
92The four volumes of Schrage, Korinther, cost 296 (over $400). Similarly, the four
volumes of James C. McKeown, Ovid, Amores: Text, Prolegomena, and Commentary (4 vols.;
ARCA; Liverpool: Cairns, 1987211), cost over $450. Elaine Fantham, Commenting on
Commentaries: A Pragmatic Postscript, in The Classical Commentary: Histories, Practices,
Theory (ed. R. K. Gibson and C. Shuttleworth Kraus; Mnemosyne Sup 232; Leiden: Brill,
2002), 40321, commenting on commentaries written in classical studies, laments that
North-American publishers no longer seem willing to publish commentaries above the
elementary level, that American scholars are forced to look outside their own country to
publish commentaries (418), and that electronic publication is not really a solution since
the author will have all the burden of input without benefit of copy-editors, and at the
moment would have to fight to get his scholarship recognized for career purposes (419).
93Hans Ulrich Gumbrecht, Fill Up Your Margins! About Commentary and Copia, in
CommentariesKommentare (ed. G. W. Most; Aporemata 4; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1999), 44353.
94Beard, Which Thucydides Can You Trust?, 52. The first volume of Hornblower, A
Commentary on Thucydides, covering Books 1III, has 536 pages of text, the second volume
covering Books IVV.24 has 500 pages, while the third volume covering Books V.25VIII.109
has 1066 pages of text.
95James Henry, Aeneidea, or critical, exegetial, and aesthetical remarks on the Aeneis,
with a personal collation of all first class Mss., upwards of one hundred second class Mss.,
and all the principal editions (4 vols.; London: Williams and Norgate, 187389, repr by Olms
[1969]), 1:viiviii. Noted by Kraus, Reading Commentaries, 5 n. 17.
on commentary writing
23
24
eckhard j. schnabel
well as with references to Str-B, TDNT, and HCNT, requiring the reader to
refer to the list of abbreviations (which is mercifully included in all three
volumes of Aunes commentary).99
The problem of arid style, caused by the accumulation of references,
bibliographical material, and documentation, may indicate that the
commentator has forgotten that the commentary should be a dialogue
between himself and the reader, or ideally enable the reader to enter into
a dialogue with the text. The assembly of parallels and cross-references
invites and creates polyphony: they can, among other things, be deployed
to question other commentators authority, open up new lines of inquiry,
suggest a previously ignored way of understanding an ancient author.100
But it can also close down meaning.101 Density of accumulated parallels
and cross-references certainly makes for difficult reading. An example
from a classical commentary are the first two sentences of Bruce Braswells comments on the first word of Pindars Nemean Nine:
: not future (Fennell, Bury, Sandys, Bowra), but subjunctive (sch.
1b, cf. below) as is ... in 8 below (cf. sch. 18b); on the form v.
Schwyzer i, 790f., R. Arena, Helikon 6 (1966), 12573, esp. 131, Wathelet, Les
traits oliens, 30710, and on short-vowel subjunctives in Pindar v. D. E.
Gerber, HSPh 91 (1987), 8390, esp. 86f., and further Hummel, La syntaxe,
330032. Pindars request is the equivalent of the normal epic invocation
of the Muse (cf. Herbert Meyer, Hymnische Stilelemente, 62 n. 58); for his
use of the hortatory subjunctive v. Weilbach, Die Formen der Aufforderung,
5355, esp. 54 (adding Ol. 6.3 and present example).102
on commentary writing
25
26
eckhard j. schnabel
a particular passage will read the notes on his English translation of the
text, printed in small font, in which he discusses readings of the Western text that he essentially never prefers over the Alexandrian text. For
example, he appends the following note to his translation of Acts 12:13:
Boismard [Texte, 202) reads the simple door. There is D-Text support for
came outdoors rather than to the gate. Bezae has been erased. The Latin
side d has foris (outside). See Ropes, Text, 112. This would make Marys
home less ostentatious and thus demonstrates the relative luxury of her living arrangements.108
Readers may well wonder about the reasons for Boismards reading,
about the precise nature of the D text, about the erasure of Bezae, about
Ropess opinion, and eventually whether any of this matters if the D text
is secondary.
Going beyond Mathijsen, we may add two other problems: the segmentation of the text and the quest for novelty. The problem of segmentation
implies the atomization of the text. Some New Testament commentaries
lemmatize the text in portions of the traditional versification (e.g., Word
Biblical Commentary), while most commentaries divide the text into
larger sections at the beginning of which the text is printed, dispensing
with lemmatization altogether (e.g., International Critical Commentary).
Commentary series that do not print the New Testament text (e.g., New
International Greek Testament Commentary) leave it to the commentator
to decide when to begin a new paragraph in which the next feature of the
text is discussed. Selecting from a text what is commentary-worthy, which
is in itself an act of interpretation, can easily de-center the text, resulting
in a fragmentation that is inimical for seeing the text as a whole.109
The problem of the quest for novelty has increased in the second half
of the 20th century. The dominance of historical study which focused on
text-critical, historical, source critical, and redaction critical questions
gave way to a focus on newer approaches which treated the books of the
New Testament as literature which can be studied profitably with the
help of literary, narrative, rhetorical, and social-scientific methods. Some
108Pervo, Acts, 299. The references are to Marie-mile Boismard and Arnaud Lamouille,
Le texte Occidental des Actes des Aptres. Reconstitution et rhabilitation (2 vols.; Synthse
17; Paris: ditions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1984); James Hardy Ropes, The Text of
Acts (The Beginnings of Christianity, Part. I: The Acts of the Apostles, Vol. III; ed. J. F.
Foakes-Jackson and K. Lake; London: Macmillan, 1926).
109Cf. Kraus, Reading Commentaries, 1016.
on commentary writing
27
110Joel B. Green, The Gospel of Luke (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), ix; for a
fuller explanation of Greens approach, see his comments in ibid. 1120.
111 Richard B. Hays, Review of Commentaries on Galatians, Quarterly Review 5 (1985):
95102, here 95. Hays himself is critical of Betzs commentary in many respects, e.g. he
states that Betz approach is less helpful when it comes to accounting for the progression
of thought within the large structural units.
112Cf. George A. Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation Through Rhetorical Criticism
(Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1984), 144145, who disagrees with Betz
and classifies Galatians as deliberative rhetoric.
113E.g. Ben Witherington, The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998); Ben Witherington, The Gospel of Mark: A Socio-Rhetorical
Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001); Ben Witherington and Darlene Hyatt, Pauls
Letter to the Romans: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2004);
Ben Witherington, 1 and 2 Thessalonians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2006).
28
eckhard j. schnabel
feminist commentaries,114 post-colonial commentaries,115 papyrological commentaries,116 a Rechtsgeschichtlicher Kommentar zum Neuen
Testament,117 and the new popular Resonate series which is billed as a
new wave in commentary.118 In some cases the fresh understanding
that is promised only dresses traditional insights in the garb of new language, in other cases the freshness of the commentary is merely idiosyncratic. This is true, particularly, for post-structuralist and deconstruction
approaches to New Testament texts. A sample commentary on the Gospel
of Mark by Stephen Moore illustrates idiosyncracy of new, postmodern
approaches:
Marks theology is commonly said to be a theology of the cross, a theology in
which life and death crisscross...In Mark, the signature of the disciple can
only ever be that of a crisscross or Christcross, which my dictionary defines
as the figure or mark of a cross in general; esp. that made in signing his
name by a person that cannot write (OED). But a person unable to write is
generally unable to read, and in Mark, the disciples, generally at cross-purposes with Jesus, are singularly unable to read. Jesus must speak cross words
to his puzzled disciples...A cross is also a chiasmus, a crosswise fusion in
which the order established in the first instance (whoever would save their
life will lose it) is inverted in the second instance...Chiasmus comes from
the Greek verb chiazein, to mark with the letter c, pronounced chi. And chi
is an anagram of ich, which is German for the personal pronoun I, and the
technical term in Freud (whose appearance here is anything but accidental)
that English translators render as ego. And Jesus, who identifies himself to
his terrified disciples in Mark 6:50 with the words eg eimi (I am, or it is I),
himself possesses a name that is an echo of the French Je suis (I am), the
114C. A. Newsom and S. H. Ringe, eds., The Womens Bible Commentary (London/
Louisville, KY: SPCK/Westminster, 1992).
115Fernando F. Segovia and Rasiah S. Sugirtharajah, eds., A Postcolonial Commentary on
the New Testament Writings (London/New York: T&T Clark, 2007).
116Peter Arzt-Grabner, Philemon (Papyrologische Kommentare zum Neuen Testament
1; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2003); Peter Arzt-Grabner, et al., 1. Korinther
(Papyrologische Kommentare zum Neuen Testament 2; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 2006); Christina M. Kreinecker, 2. Thessaloniker (Papyrologische Kommentare
zum Neuen Testament 3; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2010).
117See the project description at <http://rknt.uni-muenster.de/index.php>.
118Cf. Paul L. Metzger and David Sanford, The Resonate Series (Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity Press, 2010), publicity information; the form of each volume of the Resonate
series is that of an extended essayeach author writing about the biblical book under
consideration in an interactive, reflective and culturally engaging manner (10). A sample
from the yet to be published commentary on the Gospel of John includes the following
comments on John 7:144, taking up Jesus statement eat my flesh (John 6:53, 54): Many
on his campaign team, including Judas, couldnt believe it...Every time Jesus soars ahead
in the polls, he pulls a Dan Quayle and says something that sound so unpresidential.
on commentary writing
29
single superfluous letter being the I (or ego), which is thus marked out for
deletion: Father not what I [eg] want, but what you want (14.36).119
When he suggests that the desire to turn the art of reading into a science
is part of what draws the profession to the application of sterile concepts,
this could easily be applied to the introduction of new technical terminology into New Testament commentary (e.g. in narrative-narratological and
socio-scientific readings) which increases the difficulty of understanding
the text, an effect which contradicts the very goal of writing commentary.
The verdict of James Wood, Professor of the Practice of Literary Criticism
at Harvard University, concerning the postmodern works of Geoff Dyer,
applies mutatis mutandis to postmodern commentary on biblical texts
as well: Everything is unfinishable, belated, and philosophically twilit.
The Owl of Minerva can barely crank its wings openno doubt because
it has become a fat urban pigeon, toddling between cafs for cultural
leftovers.122
30
eckhard j. schnabel
5.Canonical Texts and Commentary
Not all texts receive attention from commentators. The author of the text
about which someone writes a commentary is always an authority, either
in the poetic, philosophical, scientific, legal, or religious sphere.123 While
there are many exceptions, particularly in our age of increased specialization and of doctoral students search for dissertation topics, the traditional
object of commentary writing was cultural texts which connect the past
with the presenttexts which establish cultural identity by consolidating
the commitment to common norms and values, and by confirming the
memory of a common past.124 Examples are the Greek commentaries on
Homer who remained the teacher of his nation, as the most prominent
author on the school curriculum.125
The tradition of commentaries written on scientific and medical texts
in the ancient world shows that many ancient scientists and physicians
believed that the quest for scientific legitimacy required them to be not
only overtly innovative scientific pioneers, but also historians of science of
engaged in the elucidation, rectification, and transmission of earlier texts,
all in the service of science and .126 Heinrich von Staden explains
the discontinuity between ancient and 20th century commentariesthe
latter written rarely by professionally active mathematicians, astronomers,
and physicians, but, rather, by classicists and professional historians of
sciencewith differences in professional identity. If we regard academics with professional biblical-theological training as a group, the same
discontinuity can be observed: while ancient theologians such as Origen
wrote not only treatises about theological questions but also learned
on commentary writing
31
The commentator who is committed to the Christian faith does not place
himself in the spotlight. He shares the humility of the copyist who merely
reproduces a text by writing a copy of the text: he (she) subordinates his
(her) particular personal interests to the task of explaining the word of
God revealed in Scripture, a responsibility carried out in the service of
God ad maiorem Dei gloriam.
127Notable exceptions are Karl Barth, Der Rmerbrief (Zrich: Theologischer Verlag,
1919); The Epistle to the Romans (trans. E. C. Hoskyns; London: Oxford University Press,
1933); Karl Barth, Die Auferstehung der Toten. Eine akademische Vorlesung ber I. Kor. 15
(Zollikon-Zrich: Evangelischer Verlag, 1924); The Resurrection of the Dead (trans. H. J.
Stenning; New York: Revell, 1933); Gerhard Ebeling; cf. Gerhard Ebeling, Die Wahrheit des
Evangeliums: Eine Lesehilfe zum Galaterbrief (Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1981); The Truth of
the Gospel: An Exposition of Galatians (trans. D. Green; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985).
128Cf. Jan Assmann, Text und Kommentar. Einfhrung, in Text und Kommentar (ed.
J. Assmann and B. Gladigow; Archologie der literarischen Kommunikation 4; Mnchen:
Fink, 1995), 933, here 2231.
129Luke T. Johnson, The First and Second Letters to Timothy (AB 35A; New York:
Doubleday, 2001), 99.
34
stanley e. porter
2I admit that trying to determine this usage is based upon estimates gathered from
going through the various works and using their introductions, bibliographies, and indexes,
where available, as well as examining the commentary proper. I make no claim to being
exact, and in some cases may even have mis-estimated.
3William Sanday and Arthur C. Headlam, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the
Epistle to the Romans (ICC; 5th ed.; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1902 [1895]), vix.
4Sanday and Headlam, Romans, xcviiicix.
5James Hardy Ropes, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle of St. James
(ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1916), 11015.
36
stanley e. porter
Allen on Matthew6 and R. H. Charles on Revelation.7 The modern commentaries are more easily analyzed because of their indexes, which show
that Cranfield uses foreign-language sources extensively, including the
commentaries on Romans by M.-J. Lagrange (French) and Otto Michel
(German), and Davies and Allison do likewise, using a number of German
commentaries (e.g. Ulrich Luz, Adolf Schlatter, and Zahn).8 The WBC commentaries appear to be similar to the later ICC volumes, for the most part.
James D. G. Dunns commentary on Romans, Ralph Martins on James,
and David Aunes on Revelation make widespread and continuous use of
foreign language secondary sources, especially but not exclusively commentaries.9 The one apparent exception is Donald Hagners commentary
on Matthew, which does not seem to use these sources as much as the
others do, confining a number of references to non-commentary literature
to bibliographies alone.10 Much the same can be said of the NIGTC series.
The volume by Peter Davids on James makes wide use of foreign-language
secondary sources, and proportionately perhaps slightly less Greg Beales
on Revelation.11 However, the commentary by John Nolland on Matthew
appears to be much more highly selective of its secondary sources, and
much more restricted in their use, including very limited use of foreignlanguage sources, with concentration on sources since 1980.12 Douglas
Moos commentary on Romans makes wide use of foreign-language secondary sources, especially the three German-language commentaries of
his twelve so-called constant witnesses (Otto Kuss, Michel, and Ulrich
Wilckens; none of the twelve is in French, though he lists and uses those
by J. Huby, Lagrange, and Pinchas Lapide).13
With the BECNT we appear to have entered another approach to the
use of foreign-language secondary sources. By contrast to Moo, Thomas
Schreiners commentary on Romans, while referring to most of the same
German commentaries, uses most of them considerably less (the possible
exception being Wilckens), while French secondary literature is drastically reduced.14 Grant Osborne on Revelation seems to do better, but not
as well as, for example, those in the WBC or NIGTC series, especially on
French sources.15 Dan McCartney uses some foreign-language sources, but
none figure large in his commentary apart from Franz Mussner.16 David
Turner on Matthew clearly concentrates on English secondary sources,
with no French or German source (not in translation) playing a significant
role in the commentary, so far as I can tell.17 The BECNT may attempt to
include the latest scholarship, regardless of source, but these commentaries clearly do not represent German and French commentaries, as well as
other scholarship, nearly so much as do other series.
The legitimate and logical question to ask is why it is that, despite their
various claims, some commentaries are better than others at making use
of foreign-language critical scholarship. There are of course any number
of reasons. One of course is the abilities, inclinations, and viewpoints of
the individual scholars involved. One common pattern noted in most of
the above commentaries is the reliance upon other commentaries as the
primary source of foreign-language scholarship. This is perhaps inevitable,
although one would think that commentaries are more easily accessible
than other secondary literature. The reliance upon previous commentaries
is also bound to have a constricting effect on the nature of the questions
asked of the text, and to perpetuate the same questions being considered time after time. Another possible reason is the nature of scholarship
itself. Commentaries and other work continues to be produced at a huge
rate, making it virtually impossible, even for those writing commentaries on smaller New Testament books, to keep up with all of it. A third is
the nature of commentaries such as these. Commentaries such as I am
13Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996).
Moo cites a number of other German-language commentaries as well.
14Thomas R. Schreiner, Romans (BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998).
15Grant R. Osborne, Revelation (BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002).
16Dan G. McCartney, James (BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2009).
17David L. Turner, Matthew (BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008).
38
stanley e. porter
The first period, up until 1885 or so, we can call the rationalist period.
The rationalist period reflects language study dominated by attempts to
make logical and rational sense of language phenomena. As a result, grids
were developed so that there were a balanced number of forms and, so
far as possible, each cell had its element. Georg Winers grammar, first
published in 1822, fits into this category.19 The second period, from 1885 to
1961, is the comparative-historical period. The period begins with the work
of the great comparative philologist Karl Brugmann.20 Grammars during
this period reflect a comparative approach to language, whether it is comparing the Greek of the New Testament with classical Greek (Friedrich
Blass, and later Blass and Albert Debrunner, including the translation by
Robert Funk),21 with the recently discovered papyri (James Hope Moulton
and Adolf Deissmann),22 or with its historical origins (A. T. Robertson).23
Ernest DeWitt Burtons work on moods and tenses also fits in this period,
as do C. F. D. Moules Idiom Book, Margaret Thralls work on particles,
and the Syntax and Style of Nigel Turner.24 The third period, from 1961
modern linguistic period of the twentieth century. Similarly, in discussing the study of
Greek verbal structure, we can identify the rationalist period up to 1885, the Aktionsart
period up to around World War II, and the aspect period from World War II to the present. See Stanley E. Porter, Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament, with Reference
to Tense and Mood (SBG 1; New York: Lang, 1989), 5065.
19This grammar is available in several English translations, as well as German editions.
The most widely used is Georg Benedikt Winer, A Treatise on the Grammar of New Testament Greek Regarded as a Sure Basis for New Testament Exegesis (trans. W. F. Moulton; 3rd
ed.; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1882). Other editions will be cited below as appropriate.
20Karl Brugmann, Griechische Grammatik (Munich: Beck, 1885).
21 Friedrich Blass, Grammatik des Neutestamentlichen Griechisch (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1896), with Debrunner assuming authorial duties with the fourth edition on; Blass and Albert Debrunner, Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch (17th
ed. by Friedrich Rehkopf; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990); Blass and Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (trans.
Robert W. Funk; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961). For a critique of this grammar
and its approach, see Stanley E. Porter and Jeffrey T. Reed, Greek Grammar since BDF: A
Retrospective and Prospective Analysis, FN 4 (8; 1991): 14364.
22James Hope Moulton, Prolegomena, vol. 1 of A Grammar of New Testament Greek (3rd
ed.; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1908 [1906]); Moulton and W. F. Howard, Accidence and WordFormation, vol. 2 of A Grammar of New Testament Greek (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1929);
Moulton and George Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament (London: Hodder
and Stoughton, 1930); Adolf Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East (trans. L. R. M. Strachan; London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1910 [1908]).
23A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical
Research (4th ed.; Nashville: Broadman, 1934 [1914]).
24Ernest DeWitt Burton, Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in New Testament Greek (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1892); C. F. D. Moule, An Idiom Book of New Testament
Greek (2nd ed.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959 [1952]); Margaret Thrall,
Greek Particles in the New Testament: Linguistic and Exegetical Studies (NTTS 3; Leiden:
40
stanley e. porter
to the present, I will call the modern linguistic period.25 It begins with
the publication of James Barrs The Semantics of Biblical Language,26 and
includes major work done on aspect theory (K. L. McKay, Stanley Porter,
Buist Fanning, and Rodney Decker),27 discourse analysis, and a variety
of other areas of study, besides linguistically sensitive grammars (Stanley
E. Porter and Richard Young).28 Lexical study consists of the traditional
work of Walter Bauer and his successors and the papyrologically informed
work of Adolf Deissmann, both during the comparative period, and the
linguistically innovative semantic domain oriented work of J. P. Louw and
Eugene A. Nida.29
In this section, therefore, we will consider the linguistic competence
of the commentaries in roughly chronological order. Four commentaries
were written during the comparative-historical period: Sanday and Headlam, Allen, Ropes, and Charles. Though they do not refer to Winer, Sanday
Brill, 1962); Nigel Turner, Syntax, vol. 3 and Style, vol. 4 of A Grammar of New Testament
Greek (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1963, 1976).
25For a summary of recent work and trends, going beyond the scope of this chapter,
see Stanley E. Porter and Andrew W. Pitts, New Testament Greek Language and Linguistics in Recent Research, CBR 6.2 (2008): 21455.
26James Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1961).
27K. L. McKay, Syntax in Exegesis, TynBul 23 (1972): 3957; McKay, A New Syntax
of the Verb in New Testament Greek (SBG 5; New York: Lang, 1994); Porter, Verbal Aspect;
Buist Fanning, Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek (Oxford: Clarendon, 1990); Rodney
J. Decker, Temporal Deixis of the Greek Verb in the Gospel of Mark with Reference to Verbal
Aspect (SBG 10; New York: Lang, 2001). I do not include Constantine Campbell here because
his works were too late to be used by any of the authors considered here. That such an
idea is not outrageous is (at least to my mind!) confirmed by the following statement by
Frederick Danker: no one ought to undertake the task of preparing [a Greek grammar]
without thorough immersion in Stanley E. Porter, Verbal Aspect.... Only those who think
that laws governing perceptions of Greek grammar were codified on stone in the nineteenth century for eternal observance should ignore this book. The future is definitely on
the side of this work, which takes a look at Greek verbs from within the Greek language as
used by those who spoke and wrote it, and not from the Procrustean ordinances of much
traditional grammar (Multipurpose Tools for Bible Study [rev. ed.; Minneapolis: Fortress,
1993], 13031).
28Stanley E. Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament (BLG 2; 2nd ed.; London: Continuum, 1994 [1992]); Richard A. Young, Intermediate New Testament Greek: A Linguistic
and Exegetical Approach (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1994). I do not include Daniel
Wallaces work here (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New
Testament [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996]), because he essentially takes a traditional
historical approach. If anything, his work should be considered as a remnant of the first or
possibly second period noted above. However, I will comment upon the use of this work
in the commentaries.
29J. P. Louw and Eugene A. Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on
Semantic Domains (2 vols.; New York: UBS, 1988).
30Edwin Hatch, Essays on Biblical Greek (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1889).
31 Georg Benedikt Winer, Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Sprachidioms. I. Theil: Einleitung und Formenlehre (8th ed.; ed. Paul Wilhelm Schmiedel; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1894).
32Alexander Buttmann, A Grammar of the New Testament Greek (trans. J. H. Thayer;
Andover: Draper, 1874); Ludwig Radermacher, Neutestamentliche Grammatik: Das
Griechisch des Neuen Testament im Zusammenhang mit der Volkssprache (HNT; 2nd ed.;
Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1925 [1911]).
33Ropes, James, 148, citing Burton, Blass, Buttmann, Winer, and Moulton.
42
stanley e. porter
44
stanley e. porter
46
stanley e. porter
reference once to Barrs work on time, Porters Idioms three times and
Verbal Aspect once, Reed once, Frank Stagg once, and Moiss Silvas Biblical Words and Their Meaning.63
Three commentaries on Revelation appeared in close succession and
provide a useful comparison. Though the most recent, Osbornes is linguistically the weakest, devoting only two pages to the language of Revelation.64 He cites Blass and Debrunner in Funks translation, Turners Syntax,
Wallace, and Zerwick, along with Gerhard Mussiess work on morphology
once and Steven Thompson on Semitisms.65 The only modern linguistic
grammar cited is Porters Idioms. At times his linguistic comments seem
to be in tension with each other.66 Beales commentary presents a fairly
balanced discussion of language issues, appropriate for a commentary on
Revelation, citing Charles, Thompson, and others on matters such as Semitisms. His most widely used grammar is still Blass and Debrunner translated by Funk, but he also uses Moulton, Moulton and Howard, Turners
two volumes, Moule, Robertson, and Zerwick, along with Bauer, Deissmann, and Moulton and Milligan. Beale also makes use of James Brooks
and Carlton Winberys traditional intermediate syntax.67 Beales incorporation of modern linguistic research into his commentary is significant,
as seen in his discussion of Rev 12:7.68 Besides citing Barr on semantics
(although one time knowingly committing illegitimate totality transfer)69
and on time, he extensively cites Fanning, Porters Verbal Aspect as well as
several articles, and Silva once, along with Louw and Nidas lexicon based
upon semantic domains. Finally, Aunes commentary on Revelation is no
doubt the most linguistically well-informed commentary examined here.
63Jeffrey T. Reed, Indicative and Imperative in Rom 6,2122: The Rhetoric of Punctuation, Bib 74 (1993): 24457 (but not his major work on discourse analysis); Frank Stagg,
The Abused Aorist, JBL 91 (1972): 22231; Moiss Silva, Biblical Words and Their Meaning:
An Introduction to Lexical Semantics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983).
64Osborne, Revelation, 2425.
65Gerhard Mussies, The Morphology of Koine Greek as Used in the Apocalypse of St. John:
A Study in Bilingualism (NovTSup 27; Leiden: Brill, 1971); Steven Thompson, The Apocalypse and Semitic Syntax (SNTSMS 52; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985). For
a strong rebuttal of Thompsons proposals, see Stanley E. Porter, The Language of the
Apocalypse in Recent Discussion, NTS 35 (1989): 582603.
66E.g., sometimes he seems to endorse aspectual theory and other times endorse competing conceptions. The only major grammatical topic listed in his index is the divine
passive.
67James A. Brooks and Carlton L. Winbery, Syntax of New Testament Greek (Lanham:
University Press of America, 1979).
68Beale, Revelation, 65354. Beale has no subject index.
69Beale, Revelation, 386.
48
stanley e. porter
50
stanley e. porter
52
stanley e. porter
54
stanley e. porter
upon to comment upon any and every relevant detail of the text, including text-critical, historical, theological, and even grammatical issues (even
if these have fallen by the wayside in some commentaries). They are also
expected to reflect and avail themselves of the full range of scholarly literature, including the latest research in all of these fields. No doubt the
burden of so much secondary literature is great, with quite a bit of it
perhaps not particularly useful or germane (hence its being cited only in
bibliographies and perhaps indexes, but not in the commentary itself).
The absurdity of such an undertaking is seen in the fact that even in
major commentaries on the Greek text there are still numerous issues
and resources that are still overlooked, both primary topics and the use of
important and relevant secondary sources. It is also clear that, to a large
extentperhaps to too large an extentcommentaries have become less
commentaries on the Greek text, or even on the text in translation, and
more commentaries on previous commentatorsas these commentaries provide the major source of information for current commentators. I
believe that it is time to re-assess what it is to write a commentary, and to
adjust our sights to something much more manageable and attainable
commentaries that specialize in particular elements of the text, or that
reflect particular viewpoints, and that can make a valid attempt to cover
the most important secondary literature and actively respond to it in the
commentary itself, all the while keeping the text as the center of focus. In
other words, we should have commentaries that investigate the linguistic
issues of the Greek text (I dont know of a commentary series devoted to
such an approach), the historical and literary issues, or the theological
issues; as well as commentaries that approach the text from a particular
point of advocacy, such as an epistolary commentary, or a historical commentary, or a particular ideological commentary.
In any case, as this study has shown, the days of the New Testament
Greek language commentary being counted upon to analyze the Greek
text utilizing the latest available linguistic tools are a thing of the past if
current commentaries are any indication.
Matthew
Allen, Willoughby C., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to
S. Matthew (ICC; 2nd ed.; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1907).
Davies, W. D., and Dale C. Allison, Jr., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel
according to Saint Matthew (ICC; 3 vols.; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 19881996).
Hagner, Donald A., Matthew (WBC 33AB; 2 vols.; Dallas: Word, 19931995).
Nolland, John, The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005).
Turner, David L., Matthew (BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008).
Romans
Cranfield, C. E. B., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (ICC;
2 vols.; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 19751979).
Dunn, James D. G., Romans (WBC 38AB; 2 vols.; Waco, TX: Word, 1988).
Moo, Douglas J., The Epistle to the Romans (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996).
Sanday, William, and Arthur C. Headlam, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the
Epistle to the Romans (ICC; 5th ed.; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1902 [1895]).
Schreiner, Thomas R., Romans (BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998).
James
Davids, Peter H., The Epistle of James: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans 1982).
McCartney, Dan G., James (BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2009).
Martin, Ralph P., James (WBC 48; Waco, TX: Word, 1988).
Ropes, James Hardy, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle of St. James (ICC;
Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1916).
Revelation
Aune, David E., Revelation (WBC 52AC; 3 vols.; Dallas: Word, 19971998).
Beale, G. K., The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999).
Charles, R. H., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Revelation of St. John (ICC; 2
vols.; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1920).
Osborne, Grant R., Revelation (BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002).
By Series
Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (BECNT)
McCartney, Dan G., James (BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2009).
Osborne, Grant R., Revelation (BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002).
Schreiner, Thomas R., Romans (BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998).
International Critical Commentary (ICC)
Allen, Willoughby C., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to
S. Matthew (ICC; 2nd ed.; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1907).
56
stanley e. porter
Charles, R. H., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Revelation of St. John (ICC; 2
vols.; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1920).
Cranfield, C. E. B., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (ICC;
2 vols.; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 19751979).
Davies, W. D., and Dale C. Allison, Jr., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel
according to Saint Matthew (ICC; 3 vols.; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 19881996).
Ropes, James Hardy, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle of St. James (ICC;
Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1916).
Sanday, William, and Arthur C. Headlam, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the
Epistle to the Romans (ICC; 5th ed.; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1902 [1895]).
New International Commentary on the New Testament (NICNT)
Moo, Douglas J., The Epistle to the Romans (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996).
New International Greek Testament Commentary (NIGTC)
Beale, G. K., The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999).
Davids, Peter H., The Epistle of James: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans 1982).
Nolland, John, The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005).
Word Biblical Commentary (WBC)
Aune, David E., Revelation (WBC 52AC; 3 vols.; Dallas: Word, 19971998).
Dunn, James D. G., Romans (WBC 38AB; 2 vols.; Waco, TX: Word, 1988).
Hagner, Donald A., Matthew (WBC 33AB; 2 vols.; Dallas: Word, 19931995).
Martin, Ralph P., James (WBC 48; Waco, TX: Word, 1988).
58
douglas j. moo
59
2Grant R. Osborne, Revelation (BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002); Matthew (ZECNT;
Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010).
3Grant R. Osborne, Romans (IVPNTC; Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004). With
the recent release of an updated NIV (2011), it becomes necessary to distinguish between
the original NIV (latest revision in 1984) and the updated NIV.
60
douglas j. moo
Commentary, the series in which this volume appears.4 The Life Application Bible series (which Grant helps edit and also writes in) follows a different, and unusual, approach, giving its authors the freedom to choose,
in every verse, whether they want to comment on the NIV, the NLT, or
the NRSV.
Like Grant, I have written commentaries in series that expected me to
use a particular translation and in series in which I was given the option
to work with an existing translation or to provide my own. So I have some
perspective on the issues involved and the strengths and weaknesses of
these different scenarios. In this first section, I will survey the existing
landscape and offer some comments on each of these approaches. Since
it is impractical to survey the vast number of commentaries across the
entire New Testament, I will take soundings in commentaries on Romans.
I have chosen Romans partly because Grant has himself written a commentary on this letter, partly because most of the more important modern
series have Romans volumes in publicationbut mainly, I must confess,
because it is a book that I have some acquaintance with. In cases where
an important series does not yet have a volume on Romans, I will bring
into our conversation commentaries on other books of the New Testament. Finally, as a way providing illustrative specifics, I will further focus
on one paragraph, 8:14.
I provide here the Greek text of this passage as a basis to analyze some
of the translations we will consider below.
. 2
. 3 ,
, 4
.
61
5Leander E. Keck, Romans (ANTC; Nashville: Abingdon, 2005); Craig S. Keener, Romans:
A New Covenant Commentary (Eugene, OR.: Cascade, 2009); Frank J. Matera, Romans (Paideia Commentary on the New Testament; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2010).
6Charles Hodge, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (reprint; Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1950 [1886]).
7John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans (2 vols. in 1; NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1959, 1965).
8F. F. Bruce, The Letter of Paul to the Romans (rev. ed.; TNTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1985).
62
douglas j. moo
In his Preface, Bruce comments on his choice of the RSV over the AV,
which was the translation previously used in the Tyndale series. The
series gives commentators the choice to use whatever modern version
they want.
Roy A. HarrisvilleAugsburg Commentary on the New Testament (1980)9
The editors of the series recommend that the RSV be used.
Paul AchtemeierInterpretation (1985)10
Matthew BlackNew Century Bible Commentary (2d ed., 1989)11
NRSV and NIV
N. T. WrightNew Interpreters Bible (2002)12
NIV
Leon MorrisPillar New Testament Commentary (1988)13
The Pillar New Testament Commentary series makes no requirements about translation. Most contributors have chosen the NIV or
the TNIV.
John StottThe Bible Speaks Today (1994)14
Robert MounceNew American Commentary (1995)15
James EdwardsNew International Biblical Commentary (2d. ed., 1995)16
Douglas MooThe NIV Application Commentary (2000)
Grant OsborneIVP New Testament Commentary (2004)
Most of the volumes listed above provide formal paragraph quotations of
the respective version as a basis for comment. But several (Osborne, Bruce,
Harrisville, and Edwards), following the format of the series in which they
write, simply weave the translation (usually marked in bold or italic type
and sometimes incomplete) into their comments. Achtemeier makes little
reference to any translation in the course of his commentary. One series
that fits this category but does not yet have a volume on Romans is the
63
17Scot McKnight, The Letter of James (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011).
18Speaking as a translator, I was encouraged to note Morna Hookers comment in the
Preface to her Mark commentary: The requirement to produce my own translation for
this series demonstrated how much easier it is to point out the errors in the work of others than to produce an adequate translation of ones own! (The Gospel According to Mark
[BNTC; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1991]).
19Stott, Romans, 221.
64
douglas j. moo
At the same time, commentators need carefully to weigh just how they
will express their disagreement with the decisions found in English translations. In his commentary on Romans, for instance, Grant Osborne reproduces the NIV of Rom 8:3b with a brief editorial comment: in that it was
weakened by the sinful nature (literally, the flesh).20 As a translator Grant
knows well how fraught that little comment literally really is. For the
Greek word does not literally mean flesh. Rather, the Greek word
and the English word share a significant degree of space in their respective semantic domains. But those semantic domains do not precisely overlap; as we know, they very rarely do when we compare languages. Part of
the problem here is the gloss method of doing lexicography, by which
we learn to think of word meanings in terms of substitute words.21 The
problem is that the gloss method, and the baggage that comes with it,
suggests to people that Greek words possess a literal English equivalent,
and that departure from this rendering is, therefore, to be paraphrastic
(horrors!) or even inaccurate. Again, Grant knows this; and I also grant
that it is difficult to make the point Grant wants to make in the reference
I noted above succinctly without using the word literally. He would not
intend the baggage that I am reading into it. And perhaps I am being a bit
overly defensive as a result of some scars from the translation wars over
the TNIV. But commentators could render a service to translators by at
least on occasion taking time to point out the issues involved in moving
from the Greek they are commenting on to the English.
Commentaries That Display a Straightforward Rendering
As we noted above, many of the contemporary commentary series that
are directed to a more scholarly audience require their contributors to
supply their own English rendering. Given the choice, most commentators prefer to provide a relatively straightforward rendering as a guide to
the English reader. Romans commentaries that fall into this category are:
C. E. B. CranfieldInternational Critical Commentary (n.s.) (1975, 1979)22
Joseph FitzmyerAnchor Bible (1993)23
20Osborne, Romans, 195.
21 See on this issue esp. John A. L. Lee, A History of New Testament Lexicography (Studies in Biblical Greek 8; New York: Peter Lang, 2003).
22C. E. B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans
(2 vols.; ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1975, 1979).
23Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary
(AB 33; New York: Doubleday, 1993).
65
66
douglas j. moo
Commentators translations are commonly intended to bring out as clearly
and forcefully as possible the commentators own conclusions concerning
his authors meaning. When this is so, the translation, though it may be
placed before the exegetical notes on each section, is really a summing up
of the conclusions reached in those notes. My translation is designed rather
to be a help to the reader at the earliest stage of his exegetical work. I have
therefore refrained as much I could from presupposing in it my own conclusions on controversial points, and have tried simply to represent as nearly as
possible in English the Greek which has to be interpreted.
We may note a similar comment from Craig Evans in his Word Biblical
Commentary volume on Mark 8:2716:20: I have attempted to render
the Greek as literally as possible31even to the point of maintaining
English present-tense translations for every Greek present-tense verb
(many of which have traditionally been labeled historical presents and
so translated as English past tense in even formal equivalent versions
[e.g., NASB; RSV; NRSV; ESV]). R. C. H. Lenski decides to reflect the presence and absence of Greek articles in his English rendering, which means
either (1) he has a very questionable view about the semantic overlap of
the Greek article and English definite article; or (2) he is supplying an
interlinear, not a translation. Here is his rendering of Rom. 8:14:
Accordingly, now, not one condemnation for those in Christ Jesus. For the
law of the Spirit of the life in Christ Jesus liberated me from the law of the
sin and of the death. For the thing impossible for the law, in that it was
weak by means of the flesh, God, by sending his own Son in likeness of sins
flesh and in regard to sin, condemned the sin in the flesh in order that the
righteous requirement of the law may be fulfilled in us as those walking not
according to flesh but according to spirit.32
31Craig A. Evans, Mark 8:2716:20 (WBC 34B; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2001), xii.
32R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Pauls Epistle to the Romans (Minneapolis:
Augsburg, 1936), 493.
67
their discussion. In Rom 8:2, for instance, most commentators who supply
their own rather literal translations choose to use the traditional English
of to keep options open: the law of the Spirit of life. The commentary proper can then discuss just what this of construction might mean
with reference to the Greek genitive, perhaps concluding with respect, for
instance, to the second genitive (), that it is objective and can be
rendered [the Spirit] that gives life.
Of course, this method has its obvious limits. No English translation,
however literal it might be, can reproduce what is going on in the Greek.
Beginning Greek students are sometimes taught that the equivalent to the
Greek genitive is the English of construction, but this, of course, is not
the case. There is considerable semantic overlap between the two, but the
overlap is not perfect. Further, there are places in the Greek that simply
cannot be rendered into English without making an exegetical decision.
Cranfield, for instance, in his translationwhich, as we noted above,
tries to represent as nearly as possible in English the Greekinevitably
makes a series of decisions that tips the scales toward one interpretation.
He renders the controverted in v. 2a as law; he attaches
in v. 2 to the verb (has in Christ Jesus set thee33 free); and he
translates in v. 3 as to deal with sin (instead, e.g., of as a
sin offering).
Commentaries That Display an Expanded Paraphrase
Only two Romans commentaries that I checked provide an expanded,
dynamic equivalent, translation as the starting point for commentary. It
is worth providing their translations of Rom 8:14 in order to capture the
flavor of what they are doing.
Sanday-HeadlamInternational Critical Commentary (o.s.) (1902)
This being so, no verdict of Guilty goes forth any longer against the
Christian. He lives in closest union with Christ. The Spirit of Christ, the
medium of that union, with all its life-giving energies, enters and issues
its laws from his heart, dispossessing that old usurper Sin, putting an
end to its authority and to the fatal results which it brought with it. For
where the old system failed, the new system has succeeded. The Law
of Moses could not get rid of Sin. The weak place in its action was that
33Cranfield also decides to use the old English second-person singular pronouns to
distinguish Greek singular from plural second-person pronouns.
68
douglas j. moo
our poor human nature was constantly tempted and fell. But now God
Himself has interposed by sending the Son of His love to take upon
Him that same human nature with all its attributes except sin: in that
nature He died to free us from sin: and this Death of His carried with
a verdict of condemnation against Sin and of acquittal for its victims;
so that from henceforth what the Law lays down as right might be fulfilled by us who regulate our lives not according to the appetites and
passions of sense, but at the dictates of the Spirit.34
34William Sanday and Arthur C. Headlam, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the
Epistle to the Romans (5th ed.; ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1902), 18990.
35C. K. Barrett, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (HNTC; New York: Harper &
Row, 1957), 153. Barretts reference to the old religion helps explain why the so-called
New Perspective was launched in the first place.
36J. B. Lightfoot, The Epistle of St. Paul to the Galatians, with Introduction, Notes, and
Dissertations (10th ed.; London: Macmillan, 1890); The Epistle of St. Paul to the Philippians
69
70
douglas j. moo
39Murray J. Harris, Colossians and Philemon (rev. ed.; Exegetical Guide to the Greek
New Testament; Nashville: B & H Academic, 2010).
40An example I ran across just recently is the textual-critical decision in Mark 1:41.
Most of the English versions continue to assume the reading , hence, e.g.,
moved with pity (ESV)which, to be sure, is the text printed in UBSGNT4 and NA27.
But eight of the most recent commentators I checked in a totally unscientific sample all
supported the variant (William L. Lane, The Gospel According to Mark [NICNT;
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974], 86; C. E. B. Cranfield, The Gospel according to Saint Mark
[CGTC; Cambridge: University Press, 1966], 92; Hooker, Mark, 7980; Robert A. Guelich,
Mark 18:26 [WBC 34A; Dallas: Word, 1989], 72; James R. Edwards, The Gospel According
to Mark [PNTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002], 70; Robert H. Stein, Mark [BECNT; Grand
Rapids: Baker, 2008], 1056; Joel Marcus, Mark 18: A New Translation with Introduction and
Commentary [AB 27; New York: Doubleday, 2000], 206; R. T. France, The Gospel of Mark
([NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002], 115). Yet only NIV (2011) and CEB (2010) use this
reading in their texts.
71
message that evokes faith.41 But the sparse support among scholars for
this view is matched by the lack of support from any major translation.
Most scholars take the genitive in some kind of loose attributive sense,
dividing over whether means the thing heard or hearing. Each
of these options has good support from English translations, the former
in NIV (believing what you heard), NRSV, NLT, NET, NJB, CEB, and the
latter in RSV (hearing with faith), ESV, NASB, HCSB. Citing translations
provides the reader with a good sense of the options.
Third, the translations found in English translations can often be an
effective way of communicating the exegetical decision reached by a
commentator and comes with a bit more authority than if the commentator simply used his or her own rendering. In my commentary on Colossians, for instance, I note the compact nature of the Greek Paul uses in
Col 2:20 and suggest that the NLT (the version Grant has had significant involvement with)
captures Pauls intention very accurately: You have died with Christ, and
he has set you free from the evil powers of this world.42
The use of translations to track exegetical issues has its limitations.
Certain exegetical issues are not capable of being expressed in English
translation. Even more difficult are those places where one might think a
translation embodies an exegetical decision when, in fact, it does not. The
debated in Col 2:11 is a case in point. Many English versions (RSV; NRSV; ESV; NAB; NASB; HCSB) render circumcision
of Christ (the Messiah in HCSB), and I would argue that this English
phrase would most naturally be read as suggesting an objective genitive
interpretation (the circumcision performed on Christ). Yet most of the
translation committees responsible for these renderings, I would guess,
translated this way because they thought (mistakenly in my view) that
this allegedly literal rendering simply captured in English the ambiguity
of the Greek.
Despite the limitations, however, I think that commentators working at
all levels would be well advised to integrate translations more often into
their exegetical argument.
41 See, e.g, Andrew A. Das, Oneness in Christ: The Nexus Indivulsus between Justification and Sanctification in Pauls Letter to the Galatians, Concordia Journal 21 (1995)
17386.
42Douglas J. Moo, The Letters to the Colossians and to Philemon (PNTC; Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2008), 233.
74
craig l. blomberg
instilling faith in him, the greater resemblance to Kleinliteratur than to Hochliteratur, and
the mode of composition that highlights theological lessons. Cf. Mary Healy, The Gospel of
Mark (CCSS; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008), 2526, who offers the caveats that the Gospels
are unique in that the subject of the biography is believed to still be alive and active for the
readers; they were written in conscious continuity with the Old Testament, and written
not for general interest but specifically for Christian communities.
7E.g., Wilfrid Eckey, Das Markusevangelium: Orientierung am Weg Jesu (NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener, 1998), 2427. Adela Y. Collins distinctively thorough survey (Mark
[Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007], 1544) concludes that Mark is an eschatological
historical monograph.
8John Painter, Marks Gospel: Worlds in Conflict (NT Readings KY; London and New
York: Routledge, 1997), 1011.
9E.g., Joel B. Marcus, Mark 18 (AB: New York: Doubleday, 2000), 1:6469.
10E.g., Sharyn Dowd, Reading Mark (RNT; Macon: Smyth & Helwys, 2000), 2.
11 See, respectively, M. Eugene Boring, Mark (NTL; Louisville, KY: Westminster John
Knox, 2006), 69; and Robert H. Stein, Mark (BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008), 1921.
75
are reasonably content to leave it at that,12 but most pursue one of the
further options discussed above in conjunction with Mark. Because of
Matthews extensive didactic material, the ideologically purposive nature
of ancient biographies, and the large amounts of teaching ascribed to
Jesus, Greco-Roman biographical writing comes even more quickly to
mind.13 Assuming Matthew both utilized and modified Mark, it is equally
natural for proposals of mixes or combinations of genres to appear, even
more commonly than with Mark. Davies and Allison speak of an omnibus of genres,14 while Hagner views Matthew as primarily a gospel, then
akin to Hellenistic (lives) but subordinately encompassing midrash,
lectionary, catechesis, church correctives, missionary propaganda, and
polemic against the rabbis.15
Because of Matthews retelling of Marks narrativesteeped in considerably more quotations and allusions to the Hebrew Scriptures, akin
to Second Temple Jewish rewriting of Torah in, for example, the Genesis Apocryphon or Jubileesmidrash has proved particularly popular as
either Matthews full-fledged genre or at least a governing set of techniques. Robert Gundry clarified in the second edition of his controversial
commentary that he was not using the expression in the former sense,
only in the latter,16 but even then it is difficult to see the process in Matthew as pervasively as he does, as playing as loose with historical accuracy as he suggests, or as central to first-century Judaism (as compared
with later rabbinic Judaism) as he implies.17 A second influential, very
specific proposal has been that of encomium or encomiastic biography,
written to praise a hero, and focusing on an individuals life with the aim
12E.g., Ulrich Luz, Matthew 17 (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007), 1:1318, but
only after significant discussion of the alternatives.
13E.g., Michael Mullins, The Gospel of Matthew (Dublin: Columba, 2007), 1319.
14W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel
according to St. Matthew (ICC 3 vols.; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 198897), 1:3.
15Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 113 (WBC 33A; Dallas: Word, 1993), lviilix. John Nolland
(The Gospel of Matthew [NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005], 1922) reviews proposals
involving biography, Old Testament lives, Christian proclamation, a manual for discipleship, midrash, Christian self-definition and liturgy, finding elements of most of these but
concluding that Matthew seems to have understood himself to be creating a foundational
text to which people would feel the need to return again and again (p. 22).
16Robert H. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Handbook for a Mixed Church
under Persecution (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 599; cf. ibid., 62340.
17Cf. D. A. Carson, Matthew, in Expositors Bible Commentary, Revised (eds. Tremper
Longman III and David E. Garland; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010), 6366.
76
craig l. blomberg
Gnilka, finally, incorporates Marks sense of gospel, the purpose of interaction with the synagogue, a kind of catechism and liturgy, a churchbook,
ancient biography, but also Old Testament-like (esp., Deuteronomistic) history, in a synthesis of Hebrew Scripture and Christian tradition so that Mt
schreibt die Geschichte Jesu Christi als Geschichte des Gottesvolkes.22
18Esp. C. H. Talbert, Matthew (Paideia; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2010), 6, building on his
earlier monographs.
19Ben Witherington III, Matthew (SHBC; Macon: Smyth & Helwys, 2006), 1112.
20E.g., Grant R. Osborne, Matthew (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010), 3031.
21 Howard Clarke, The Gospel of Matthew and Its Readers (Bloomington, IN: Indiana
University Press, 2003), xvii.
22Joachim Gnilka, Das Matthusevangelium (HTKNT; Freiburg: Herder, 1986), 2:526
30, with quotation on p. 530.
77
Luke
As with Matthew, it is clear that Luke first of all follows Mark in his newly
created hybrid form of Gospel.23 But his penning Acts as a sequel, in
keeping with Conzelmanns famous thesis, makes Luke also the first true
Christian historian, and his use of so many chreiai, apophthegms, gnomoi,
and other discrete episodes from the life of Jesus creates a particularly
close parallel to Hellenistic philosophical biography.24 As with the more
specific subgenres proposed for Mark and Matthew, this identification
still leaves room for a wide spectrum of opinion as to Lukes historical
reliability.25 Again, as with Matthew, many commentators settle for some
mix of pure genres, including those which reflect both Jewish and Hellenistic backgrounds.26
C. H. Talberts thesis that Luke and Acts together create a Greco-Roman
biography, replete with the protagonists teachings often thematically
arranged, followed by a succession narrative that legitimates the apostolic communities, has proved particularly influential.27 More idiosyncratic are views that see a significant element of aretalogy present or that
question whether Lukes readership would have thought of any established genre at all.28 Occasionally, Loveday Alexanders thesis concerning
Lukes prologue is endorsed to support Lukes having penned scientific
literature or technical prose rather than historiography per se.29 Luke
Johnson, on the other hand, argues that despite superficial parallels to
Greco-Roman biography, Lukes emphasis on the Gospel as the fulfillment
of the story of Israel shows that it must be apologetic history, comparing it to such contemporary Jewish literature as the Letter of Aristeas,
23Curiously denied by Hans Klein, Das Lukasevangelium (KEKNT, rev. ed.; Gttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2006), 4344, who suggests instead a repository for catechesis.
24Walter Radl, Das Evangelium nach Lukas 1,19,50 (Freiburg: Herder, 2003), 1719.
25Jacob Kremer, Lukasevangelium (NEB; Wrzburg: Echter, 1988), 910, thinks Luke
took great latitudes to include fictional embellishments or free representation akin to
Josephus in his work. John Nolland, Luke 1:19:20 (WBC 35A; Dallas: Word, 1989), xxxi,
recognizes this spectrum but comes to much more conservative conclusions, passage-bypassage throughout his three-volume work.
26E.g., Franois Bovon, Luke 1 (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002), 5: more than
a historical monograph and...reminiscent of Jewish historiography.
27C. H. Talbert, Reading Luke, rev. ed. (RNT; Macon: Smyth & Helwys, 2002), 24.
28See, respectively, Frederick W. Danker, Jesus and the New Age: A Commentary on
St. Lukes Gospel (Philadelphia: Fortress, rev. 1988), 4; and Walter L. Liefeld and David Pao,
Luke, in Expositors Bible Commentary, vol. 10 (2007), 21, although they go on briefly to
list several of the common suggestions.
29E.g., Herman Hendrickx, The Third Gospel for the Third World (Collegeville, MN:
Liturgical, 1996), 1:3.
78
craig l. blomberg
79
36Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of John (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003), 1:352.
37Ibid., 1:81122. On the latter point, see also throughout Herman N. Ridderbos, The
Gospel of John: A Theological Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997).
38E.g., Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Acts of the Apostles (New York: Doubleday, 1998), 48.
39F. Scott Spencer, Acts (Readings; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 1314,
sees partial parallels in Sallusts Roman History, the Deuteronomistic history in the Old
Testament, Josephuss apologetics in Antiquities, and novelistic elements in Charitons
Chaereas and Callirhoe. Mikeal C. Parsons, Acts (Paideia: Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008), 15,
believes the mixed genre thesis is becoming the consensus position.
40Darrell L. Bock, Acts (BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007), 13.
41 E.g., Rudolf Pesch, Die Apostelgeschichte (EKK; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener;
Zurich: Benziger, 1986), 1:23.
80
craig l. blomberg
most in-depth, focus on how the closest parallels are those Greco-Roman
histories usually assessed as most factually trustworthy.42
Particularly idiosyncratic is Richard Pervos major, recent Hermeneia
volume, which develops his career-long interest in Acts as a largely fictional
novel. But, unlike Witherington, and other important evangelical scholarship on the topic, Pervo rarely engages in comparative analysis with the
full range of possible parallels, but just stresses ways in which Acts could
be perceived as akin to more romantic Greco-Roman genres. More plausibly, but still distinctively, Franz Mussner sees Acts as a salvation-historically oriented missions chronicle (Missionschronik) that documents the
gradual process of the early churchs separation from Israel.43
Again, as with the Synoptics, studies also need to balance these emphases by including Jewish literature in their comparisons, especially Jewish
historiography. Although Jacob Jervell consistently overestimates how Jewish and non-Hellenistic Acts and its author are, he does adequately defend
his overall thesis concerning genre, which insists that whatever other elements one might want to stress (and in his survey he lists historiography,
historical monograph, biography, historical novel, apocryphal apostolic
history, praxeis-literature or aretalogy, travel narrative and apologetics),
what must remain decisive is that Luke is writing the continuation of the
story of Israelof biblical history. More specifically, Acts reflects tragic
history writing, in the literary sense of the term, focusing on fruitful and
lively characters who end up suffering.44 David Peterson may well capture
the best balance, with his healthy confidence in Actss historical reliability
despite its theological purposiveness when he encourages us to see the
closest parallels to Acts in the best of both Greco-Roman and Hellenistic
Jewish historiography.45
3.Pauls Letters
Unlike the Gospels and Acts, the Pauline epistles have not received
nearly as much detailed attention by recent commentators with respect
42Ben Witherington III, The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 420.
43Franz Mussner, Apostelgeschichte (NEB; 2nd ed.; Wrzburg: Echter, 1988), 9.
44Jacob Jervell, Die Apostelgeschichte (KEKNT; rev. ed.; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1998), 7679.
45David G. Peterson The Acts of the Apostles (PNTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009),
815.
81
46Slightly differently, Everett F. Harrison and Donald A. Hagner, Romans, in Expositors Bible Commentary vol. 11 (2007): 2627, argue against a supposed distinction between
epistle and letter with respect to Pauls writings and believe that all of his documents
mix aspects of private letters and public epistles.
47E.g., Luke T. Johnson, Reading Romans (RNT; Macon: Smyth & Helwys, 2001), 1213.
48E.g., John P. Heil, Pauls Letter to the Romans: A Reader-Response Commentary (New
York: Paulist, 1987), 910.
49For all three suggestions, see James D. G. Dunn, Romans 18 (Dallas: Word, 1988), lix.
50Ulrich Wilckens, Der Brief an die Rmer (EKK; Zurich: Benziger, 1978), 1:4748.
51 Robert Jewett, Romans (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007), 4246.
82
craig l. blomberg
letters or that they are a smorgasbord of genres.52 Other proposals create labels that state the obvious and in no way advance the interpretive
process.53 Once in a great while a commentary will actually make a helpful proposal. Joseph Fitzmyer, for example, surveys and rejects attempts to
identify 1 Corinthians as a friendship letter or a deliberative letter, opting
instead to follow the cue from Pauls use of in 4:14 and assigning
the Epistle to the category of typos nouthetikos, an admonition intended
to instill proper action in the person(s) so counseled.54 Murray Harris
observes that a wide range of interpreters recognize that 2 Corinthians as
a whole is essentially an apologia, a defense of the apostolic and pastoral
ministry in general and of Pauls apostolic authority in particular. But
he breaks down the letter into its three major segments, observing that
apology dominates in chapters 17, whereas chapters 89 are hortatory
and 1013 polemical.55 Implications emerge both for the overall unity of
the letter and for the likelihood of Paul having dictated it in stages, interrupted en route by fresh information from Corinth.
Galatians
Unlike the letters just surveyed, Galatians scholarship has been dominated by one central proposal and responses to it: Hans Dieter Betzs
assessment of this epistle as an apologetic letter.56 Already by 1990, the
direction of reaction was clearcautious acceptance of the subgenre.57
Recent evangelical commentators have seemed unnecessarily suspicious
of Betzs identification, given the striking number of details Betz musters
83
84
craig l. blomberg
85
1 and 2 Thessalonians
Almost no genre analysis appeared in Thessalonians commentaries until
Charles Wanamakers ground-breaking NIGTC volume in 1990. Wanamaker identifies 1 Thessalonians as primarily a parenetic (exhortational)
letter, mixed with elements of encomium or praise. Second Thessalonians,
in light of the changed circumstances behind it, falls more into the category of a letter of advice.74 Unfortunately, not much has been done since
Wanamaker either. Malherbe agrees that the two epistles have parenetic
or hortatory functions combined with more pastoral elements, as does
Gaventa.75 Michael Martin focuses more on the elements of affirmation and
encouragement, while Gene Green speaks of mixed genres.76 Those who
believe in the pseudonymity of 2 Thessalonians often highlight its apocalyptic elements, because apocalypses were typically pseudonymous.77
Pastoral Epistles
Although little was done with the genre of the Pastorals until even more
recently, Luke Johnson demonstrated how the recognition of a specific
form of letter could produce major interpretive consequences. By identifying 1 Timothy and Titus as mandate letters, akin to instructions from civic
rulers to their subordinate officials, and 2 Timothy as a personal parenetic
letter, Johnson provided credible explanations for the differences in style
and content between the Pastorals and the rest of the Pauline corpus,
and within the Pastorals between 1 Timothy/Titus and 2 Timothy.78 In
so doing, a major plank in the platform for the pseudonymity of these
epistles was removed. Jeremias had already adopted somewhat similar
74Charles A. Wanamaker, The Epistles to the Thessalonians (NIGTC; Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1990), 4648.
75Abraham J. Malherbe, The Letters to the Thessalonians (AB; New York: Doubleday,
2000), 85, 361; Beverly R. Gaventa, First and Second Thessalonians (Interpretation; Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1998), 5.
76D. Michael Martin, 1, 2 Thessalonians (NAC; Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1995),
47; Gene L. Green, The Letters to the Thessalonians (PNTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002),
7273.
77Esp. Linda M. Bridges, 1 & 2 Thessalonians (SHBC; Macon: Smyth & Helwys, 2008),
194201.
78See throughout Luke T. Johnson, Letters to Pauls Delegates: 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy,
Titus (NT in Context; Valley Forge: Trinity, 1996); cf. idem, The First and Second Letters
to Timothy (AB; New York and London: Doubleday, 2001), 4647; and I. Howard Marshall
with Philip H. Towner, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999), 12. More cautiously, see also Philip H. Towner, The Letters to
Timothy and Titus (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 3336.
86
craig l. blomberg
79Joachim Jeremias, Die Briefe an Timotheus und Titus (NTD; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1975), 3.
80E.g., Lorenz Oberlinner, Die Pastoralbriefe (HTKNT; Freiburg: Herder, 1994), 1:xxiv.
81 Marshall with Towner, Pastoral Epistles, 52108.
82E.g., Alfons Weiser, Der Zweite Brief an Timotheus (EKK; Neukirchen-Vluyn:
Neukirchener; Dusseldorf: Benziger, 2003), 3439. Weiser also finds elements of a friendship letter present in 2 Timothy.
83Peter T. OBrien, The Letter to the Hebrews (PNTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010),
20, citing H. E. Dana.
84Classically, William L. Lane, Call to Commitment: Responding to the Message of
Hebrews (Nashville: Nelson, 1985), 1520; later incorporated throughout idem, Hebrews
(2 vols.; WBC; Dallas: Word, 1991).
85E.g., R. T. France, Hebrews, in Expositors Bible Commentary, vol. 13 (2006), 20,
2527.
87
the Old Testament, a few speak of the genre as homiletic midrash.86 Given
the five main warning passages, several writers label Hebrews a warning speech (Mahnrede).87 In light of the diversity of older proposals
essay, treatise, oration, biblical exposition and exhortationDavid Allen
stresses the documents mixed genre.88
James
Opposite to Hebrews, James begins like a letter but does not end like one.
In between, there are again homiletic and midrashic elements.89 Kurt
Richardsons overview itemizes the major proposals that have characterized studies of James genre and opts for a mixture of all of them: a circular
letter, a diatribe, a parenetic letter and a document of Jewish wisdom.90
Recent attempts to be more specific have tended to liken James to an
apostolic letter to the diaspora, akin to Jewish leaders pre-Christian letters meant to reach Jews outside of Israel throughout the ancient Mediterranean world.91 Unfortunately, the only examples from this period that we
have of this genre are as literary forms within larger documents, and the
actual evidence from this early a date points to specific Jewish-Christian
audiences much more than diaspora-wide influence. More helpful are
proposals that focus on James as proptreptic discourse (a subcategory
of the parenetic letter that focuses on exhortation developed by means of
extended argumentation, often with vivid illustrations).92
1 and 2 Peter, Jude
First Peter both begins and ends like a letter, and 1:1 makes it clearly an
encyclical. Older theories of its origin in baptismal catechesis or liturgy93
have largely been abandoned. Proposals involving an apostolic letter to
86E.g., George W. Buchanan, To the Hebrews (AB; 2nd ed.; Garden City, NY: Doubleday,
1976), xix.
87E.g., Erich Grsser, An die Hebrer (EKK; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener; Zurich:
Benziger, 1990), 1:15.
88David L. Allen, Hebrews (NAC; Nashville: B & H, 2010), 2325.
89See esp. Pablo A. Deiros, Santiago, Judas (Miami: Editorial Caribe, 1992), 2629.
90Kurt A. Richardson, James (NAC; Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1997), 2729.
91 E.g., Dan McCartney, James (BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2009), 3940.
92Craig L. Blomberg and Mariam J. Kamell, James (ZECNT; Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
2008), 29, 32.
93Associated particularly with E. G. Selwyn, The First Epistle of St. Peter (London: Macmillan, rev. 1947).
88
craig l. blomberg
the diaspora94 face the same problems that such theories for James did.
But other than general parenesis, no other specific subgenres have commanded any recurring support. Witherington thinks of it just as an ad
hoc pastoral document.95 Second Peter is almost certainly a final testament or farewell speech in the form of a letter, as Richard Bauckham
has demonstrated in detail,96 though that does not necessarily entail the
pseudonymity for which he argues.97 Jude is primarily a midrashic letter, reminiscent of some of the pesharim at Qumran,98 with elements of
apocalyptic.99
1, 2 and 3 John
The First Epistle of John baffles commentators as much as any New Testament document. Neither beginning nor ending like a letter, its structure
is equally difficult to discern. Smalley likens it to a paper or brochure,100
while Strecker calls it a homily.101 Other suggestions have included an
enchiridion (an instruction booklet for applying the tradition in disturbing circumstances),102 a treatise or essay,103 or an informal commentary
on the Gospel of John.104 On the other hand, 2 and 3 John fall into the
classic, short personal or private letter form, although 2 John is usually
understood as addressing a house church with that form.105 Third John
by contrast really is written to a single individual, Gaius. Elements of a
parenetic letter are intermingled in 2 John as well, and elements of letters
of recommendation and blame in 3 John.106
94E.g., Reinhard Feldmeier, The First Letter of Peter (Waco, TX: Baylor, 2008), 3032.
95Ben Witherington III, Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians, vol. 2: A SocioRhetorical Commentary on 12 Peter (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2006), 23.
96Richard Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter (WBC; Waco, TX: Word, 1983), 131 et passim.
97See esp. Peter H. Davids, The Letters of 2 Peter and Jude (PNTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 14349.
98Anton Vgtle, Der Judasbrief, der zweite Petrusbrief (EKK; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener; Dsseldorf: Benziger, 1994), 34.
99E.g., Robert Harvey and Philip H. Towner, 2 Peter and Jude (NTC; Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity Press, 2009), 14849.
100Stephen S. Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John (WBC: Waco, TX: Word, 1984), xxx.
101 Georg Strecker, The Johannine Letters (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), 3.
102Kenneth Grayston, The Johannine Epistles (NCB; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), 4.
103Donald W. Burdick, The Letters of John the Apostle (Chicago: Moody, 1985), 6870.
104Hans-Josef Klauck, Der erste Johannesbrief (EKK; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener;
Zurich: Benziger, 1991), 31.
105E.g., Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Johannine Epistles (New York: Crossroad, 1992),
267.
106Hans-Josef Klauck, Der zweite und dritte Johannesbrief (EKK; Zurich: Benziger, 1992),
16.
89
5.Revelation
Given the widely varying interpretations of the last book of the Bible, one
might be surprised to learn that there is virtual unanimity on its tripartite
genre (apocalypse, prophecy, and letter, including the letters to the seven
churches in Revelation 23 as subforms),107 on the definition of apocalypse (the definition of the Apocalypse Group of the SBL Genres Project
having almost become canonical),108 and on key distinctives of Revelation
from most other apocalypses. Eduard Lohse nicely summarizes the major
similarities and differences: like other ancient Mediterranean apocalypses,
Revelation builds on shorter prophetic words to create a full-fledged survey of history with a crisis at the end and hostility, or perceived hostility,
against believers that only Gods supernatural intervention can rectify,
ushering in paradisiacal conditions. The angelic and demonic realms do
battle. Truth is disclosed in visions and dreams, with heavenly secrets
revealed to a seer and warnings and encouragements to Gods people
to persevere. Unlike other apocalypses, Revelation is not pseudonymous
or pessimistic, it is addressed to specific and identifiable audiences, it is
explicitly messianic, not sealed up only for future generations, not surveying all of past history (or ex eventu) and given in the age of the arrival of
the fullness of the eschaton.109
Beasley-Murrays comparison of the apocalyptic dimension to political cartoons has also proved influential,110 as has Roloffs emphasis on
metaphorical language, numerical speculation, and the interrelation of
vision and interpretive meanings.111 More speculative, though still plausible, is James Blevins suggestion that Revelation is a drama in seven acts.112
Intriguingly, the classic dispensationalist and the staunchly covenantal
107For a particularly full and helpful treatment, see David E. Aune, Revelation 15
(Dallas: Word, 1997), lxxixc.
108Apocalypse is a genre of revelatory literature with a narrative framework, in which
a revelation is mediated by an otherworldly being to a human recipient, disclosing a transcendent reality which is both temporal, insofar as it envisages eschatological salvation,
and spatial, insofar as it involves another, supernatural world.J. J. Collins, Introduction:
Toward the Morphology of a Genre, Semeia 14 (1979): 9. Cf. also Grant R. Osborne, Revelation (BECNT: Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002), 14.
109Eduard Lohse, Die Offenbarung des Johannes (NTD; rev. ed.; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993), 34.
110George R. Beasley-Murray, The Book of Revelation (NCB; London: Oliphants, 1974),
1419.
111Jrgen Roloff, The Revelation of John (CC; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 35.
112James L. Blevins, Revelation as Drama (Nashville: Broadman, 1984).
90
craig l. blomberg
113See, respectively, Robert L. Thomas, Revelation (Chicago: Moody, 1992), 1:2329; and
David Chilton, The Days of Vengeance: An Exposition of the Book of Revelation (rev. ed.;
Horn Lake, MS: Dominion Press, 2006), 1020.
114Bruce J. Malina and John J. Pilch, Social-Science Commentary on the Book of Revelation (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2000), 24.
1Douglas S. Huffman was a student of Grant R. Osborne in the late 1980s and early
1990s at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, where he completed an M.A. in Christian
Thought (1989) and a Ph.D. in New Testament Exegesis and Theology (1994). After teaching for nearly two decades at Northwestern College in St. Paul, Minnesota, Huffman now
serves at Talbot School of Theology as associate dean of the undergraduate division of
biblical and theological studies for Biola University in La Mirada, California. This essay is
offered with gratitude for the scholarship and instruction of Osborne and for the helpfulness of Northwestern College student David Danielson II for his gathering of resources for
this project.
2Richard N. Longenecker, On the Writing of Biblical Commentaries, with Particular
Reference to Commentaries on Romans, in From Biblical Criticism to Biblical Faith: Essays
in Honor of Lee Martin McDonald (ed. William H. Brackney and Craig A. Evans; Macon,
GA: Mercer University Press, 2007), 7492, quotation, 74. Cf. Brevard S. Childs, The Genre
of the Biblical Commentary as Problem and Challenge, in Tehillah le-Moshe: Biblical and
Judaic Studies in Honor of Moshe Greenberg (ed. Mordechai Cogan, Barry L. Eichler, and
Jeffrey H. Tigay; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1997), 18592, esp. 18586. For a brief history of commentary writing, noting both Jewish and Graeco-Roman antecedents to patristic commentaries on the Gospels (and the ability of patristic commentaries to be both
academic and pastoral ), see Markus Bockmuehl, The Making of Gospel Commentaries,
in The Written Gospel (ed. Markus Bockmuehl and Donald A. Hagner; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 27495.
92
douglas s. huffman
3Ernest Best, The Reading and Writing of Commentaries, ExpTim 107 (1996): 358. He
continues dryly, It is perhaps only to those who write them that commentaries seem
exciting.
4Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Is There Meaning in This Text? The Bible, the Reader, and the
Morality of Literary Knowledge (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998), 285. Earlier Vanhoozer
asks rhetorically, What are commentaries doing if they are not trying to grasp the authors
intended message? (89).
5Grant R. Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical
Interpretation (2nd ed.; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2006), 158.
93
Commentators, then, are seeking the original meaning of the text in its
own particular historical context, a historical context different than their
own. Modern western commentators live in cultures very different from
those of the biblical writers.... Whether commentators understand it or
not, many of their readers certainly do not. If they are to convey the meaning of the text, they need then to make some attempt to cross the division
between the cultures.7 As John Riches argues, Their task is to discover
what the author of, for example, Galatians meant at that time and in that
place, or, to put it in another way, how that text was understood by those
to whom it was addressed in its original context of utterance.8 So also
D. A. Carson observes, the fact is that so much of Gods gracious selfdisclosure in the Scripture lies in actions and words that are powerfully
embedded in history, so that the historical dimension must not be marginalized too hastily.9
As Grant R. Osborne puts it, Biblical literature has two dimensions:
historical intentionality, in which the author assumes certain shared
information with the original readers; and literary intentionality, in which
94
douglas s. huffman
95
96
douglas s. huffman
came to exist in its present form. Synoptic comparisons often throw helpful light on Matthews distinctive take on a given saying or incident, but
I have not felt obliged to comment on them where there is not obvious
exegetical payoff.18
2.Factors Affecting Historical Competence in New Testament
Commentaries
Commentaries are not all equal in the area of historical competence. This
is simple enough to acknowledge. But we should also note that, by design,
commentaries are not all intended to have the same historical emphases.
A survey of commentaries soon makes it clear that there is no uniform
answer to the question of what one is doing in writing a commentary.19
Some commentaries intend to have more (or less) concern for historical
matters than others.
There are several factors that influence historical investigations in
commentary writing. Some of these factors are under the control of the
commentator and some of them are not. Some of the factors have more
variation than others. Some of these factors have a certain amount of influence upon other factors (e.g., commentaries written specifically for clergy
members are naturally more concerned to address matters of preaching).
Differences in each of these factors result in differing levels of concern for
history and differing levels of historical competence.
2.1Different Purposes
It seems that no single commentary can do everything. People will look
in it for everything they ever wanted to know about the text under discussion; and people will inevitably be disappointed in one respect or another.
Inevitably a priority of importance must be established, otherwise what
are already large books would become ridiculous and quite unusable.20
18R. T. France, in France and Nolland, Reflections, 284. On critiquing historicalc ritical investigations of a texts construction as something less than full-fledged commentary (thin description of a text vs. thick description of a text), see Vanhoozer, Is There
Meaning in This Text?, 28487.
19John Nolland, The Purpose and Value of Commentaries, JSNT 29 (2007): 305.
20Nolland, The Purpose and Value of Commentaries, 310. Borrowing the words of the
Apostle Paul, Margaret Y. MacDonald writes, In todays current climate of biblical scholarship, one simply cannot be all things to all people; The Art of Commentary Writing:
Reflections from Experience, JSNT 29 (2007): 314.
97
21The following paragraph is heavily dependent upon Carson, New Testament Commentary Survey, 1517.
22John Glynn, Commentary & Reference Survey: A Comprehensive Guide to Biblical and
Theological Resources (10th ed.; Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2007), 4142.
23Glynn defines: Expositional as opposed to technical, exegetically based commentaries often succeed better at providing the general theological and applicational thrust of a
given passage or biblical book (Commentary & Reference Survey, 36, n. 17).
98
douglas s. huffman
the Pillar New Testament Commentary (PNTC) series, which are designed
specifically for the serious student and the general reader alike.24
With regard to purpose, much can be learned from examining the preface to a given commentary series. Note, for example, the far-reaching and
overlapping intentions expressed in the preface to the Baker Exegetical
Commentary on the New Testament series (BECNT), which states that
the series has as its chief concern to provide, within the framework of
informed evangelical thought, commentaries that blend scholarly depth
with readability, exegetical detail with sensitivity to the whole, attention
to critical problems with theological awareness.25
Is it possible for a series or single commentary to span the breadth
of these categories and their diverse concerns? Childs observes, The
commentaries that have emerged through continual usage as enduring
classics are characterized by the authors ability to work successfully on
many different levels and to address several audiences.26 On this matter
Andrew T. Lincoln remarks, The expectation of such series is that their
contributors will produce mainstream works that interact judiciously with
the most recent scholarship and the range of contemporary interpretive
approaches, while containing detailed exegesis based on the best linguistic, historical and literary data, and providing both reliable and distinctive
insights into the content of a text. But is this expectation any longer one
that can or should be met?27
That is, while we admit that it is impossible for one commentary to
do everything in a most thorough manner and at the highest levels, it
seems that there should be room for a commentary to cover the most
significant aspects of scholarship in at least a satisfactory manner. Lincoln dubs such comprehensive works as mainstream commentaries and
so-called standard commentaries. From one perspective, this sort of
commentary writing might be seen as the culmination of the work we do
on say, hermeneutics, Greek philology, historical investigations, literary
analysis, first-century Judaism and Graeco-Roman society and literature.28
99
With regard to historical investigation, then, a commentary or commentary series should be at least competent (if it cannot be top notch),
especially where the intended meaning of the text is most clarified by the
historical background information.
2.2Different Audiences
Tremper Longman agrees that no single commentary, no matter how
exhaustive, can provide all the information the reader might want and
need, and then notes that commentaries are addressed to specialized
audiences. A commentary written with the needs of the layperson in
mind will often not be of real interest to the scholar, while one written
for a scholarly audience is often of no use to the layperson.29 R. T. France
observes that the commentator is always confronted by the need to make
choices over what should and should not be included in the space available, and these choices must be made in the light of what are expected to
be the primary interests of ones readers.30 Thus, the particular audience
in mind for a commentary will affect the level of historical competence
expressed within it. Nolland comments on this with the following questions: Is one addressing people for whom the world of biblical scholarship or even the world of the Bible is quite unknown, or can one assume
a broad general acquaintance with the world of the scholarly study of the
Bible? Can one assume that the readers will view the Bible text as a privileged text, or are they as likely to come from outside the world of Christian faith? Will Christian readers expect explicit connections to be made
from the biblical text to their own context of Christian discipleship, or will
they be content to see the commentarys contribution as providing them
with the raw material for such exploration?31
It is such reflection on the intended audience for a commentary that
will affect, in part, how much historical background material is included
in the work. Best observes, Quite often in explaining some of the moral
teaching of a Pauline letter it is helpful to refer to a saying of Epictetus.
Should the saying be quoted in full or only a reference given? If the constituency is the academy it can be assumed that readers have access to
29Tremper Longman III, Old Testament Commentary Survey (4th ed.; Grand Rapids:
Baker, 2007), 15.
30France, in France and Nolland, Reflections, 287.
31Nolland, The Purpose and Value of Commentaries, 310. See also Nollands remarks
in France and Nolland, Reflections, 27677.
100
douglas s. huffman
32Best, The Reading and Writing of Commentaries, 35859. Of course, the commentator is not always the one to decide on the target audience. Lincoln (From Writing to
Reception, 355) comments, The publication of stand-alone commentaries is a rare phenomenon. How and for whom commentaries are written are largely in the hand of publishers and editors of series. I have not yet had the experience of writing a commentary
whose deadline, word length and format were not established by publishers and editors in
advance. But, by virtue of accepting a contract to produce a commentary in a particular
series, the commentator accepts the mission of communicating with the intended audience of that series.
33Childs, The Genre of the Biblical Commentary as Problem and Challenge, 189.
Childs continues, Conversely there are many examples of exceedingly poor commentaries, regardless of the level of technicality.
101
the study of the letters; and Comparative Religion parallels and Narrative Theology understandings in studies of all of these New Testament
portions).34 We address here the data factor briefly (see section 2.5 below
for comments on the second factor: methods).
Grant R. Osborne observes, We are part of the greatest explosion of
biblical knowledge in history. Never before has so much been discovered
and published in the same generation. For virtually every book of the
Bible major projects are coming to light, and commentaries benefiting
from them are being written.35 Because so much new background data
has come to light in the last century, modern commentators have much
more to draw upon than their predecessors.36 Whether or not they actually do draw upon the background material is affected by some of the
other factors we are exploring here. In his magisterial work on hermeneutics, Osborne commends the gathering of historical background information to help with the understanding of the biblical text in its historical
context. Information on the historical background of a book is available from several sources. Perhaps the best single source is the introduction to the better commentaries.37 This, of course, begs the question of
how commentators can obtain knowledge of the historical background
material.
2.4Different Genres of Scripture
New Testament commentators recognize axiomatically that we must
study and proclaim each biblical genre differently, according to its own
purposes and rules, lest we proclaim a message alien to the divine intention in the text.38 With this recognition it seems that some genres of Scripture are more given to and affected by historical inquiry. For example, it
is easy to think that the Gospels and Acts require more historical competence because they contain more historical narrative, while the didactic
102
douglas s. huffman
39See the explanation offered by Nolland, The Purpose and Value of Commentaries,
307.
40Nolland, The Purpose and Value of Commentaries, 307.
41Vanhoozer, Is There Meaning in This Text? 339.
42Grant R. Osborne (The Hermeneutical Spiral, 510) gives a nod in this direction, even
while momentarily looking in another direction. Genre determines the extent to which
we are to seek the authors intention. That is, if the authors intention is to be broad and
vagueeven mysteriousthen he will write that way and the reader will be correct to
read the text that way. In many types of poetry and narrative the text itself is multilayered
in terms of meaning, but that in itself is the authors intended message.
104
douglas s. huffman
45Nolland, in France and Nolland, Reflections, 273. See John Nolland, The Gospel of
Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005).
46France, in France and Nolland, Reflections, 285.
47Lincoln, From Writing to Reception, 355.
text, and write with a tendency toward naturalistic explanations of otherwise implausible phenomena to the point of dismissing historical evidence and arguments. A commentator with a supernaturalist worldview
may demonstrate a bias in favor of the historicity of supernatural events
in the biblical text, and write with a tendency to ignore problematic features of the text and coordination with extra-biblical sources. Thus, a low
view of Scripture is often correlated with a high view of biblical criticism
and a low view of biblical criticism is often correlated with a high view
of Scripture.
A case in point is William Barclays eighteen-volume New Testament
commentary, which is famed for its engaging readability.48 But Barclays
naturalistic worldview betrays itself in his treatment of the miraculous
events portrayed in Scripture. Barclay often maximizes spiritual application from the text after minimizing the historical foundation (e.g.,
miracles tend to be lessons rather than events).49 The worldview of the
commentator can be such that questions of a historical nature are not
even considered. Thus we see that the factors of methodology and worldview overlap.
In this regard, D. A. Carson mourns the widespread loss of historical respect for the Gospel of John. Without wanting to disparage in the
slightest the many literary-critical, narrative-critical, biblical-theological,
and social-science approaches to the Fourth Gospel around today, one
does get the impression that, by and large, the driving forces behind much
contemporary Johannine scholarship ignore historical questions.50 After
defending, from several angles, the presence of true and recoverable history in the Gospel of John, and in defense of his own approach, Carson
queries rhetorically, Should not at least some Johannine interpreters
echo Johns testimony, I write these things to you who believe in the
name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life
(1 John 5:13)? This, I suggest, is not a weaker position or a merely traditional position. He concludes, In short, the confessional approach I bring
to the interpretation of the Johannine corpus, whatever its limitations,
sanctions a certain independence from strong currents within the guild of
48Daily Study Bible series (2nd ed.; Edinburgh: St. Andrews; Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1993).
49Carson, New Testament Commentary Survey, 34; emphasis original.
50D. A. Carson, Reflections upon a Johannine Pilgrimage, in What We Have Heard
from the Beginning: The Past, Present, and Future of Johannine Studies (ed. Tom Thatcher;
Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2007), 92.
106
douglas s. huffman
51Carson, Reflections upon a Johannine Pilgrimage, 103, 104. For an example of someone who, over the course of his career in biblical studies, has come to embrace a thoroughgoing postmodern abandonment of searching for the authors intended meaning of the
biblical text, see Robert Kysars contribution to this same volume: Robert Kysar, Whats
the Meaning of This? Reflections upon a Life and Career, in What We Have Heard from
the Beginning: The Past, Present, and Future of Johannine Studies (ed. Tom Thatcher; Waco,
TX: Baylor University Press, 2007), 16377. In the same volume is also a response to Kysar
by David Rensberger, Is History History? (17982).
52Alvin Plantinga, Two (or More) Kinds of Scripture Scholarship, in Behind the Text:
History and Biblical Interpretation (ed. Craig Bartholomew et al.; Scripture and Hermeneutics 4; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003), 25.
53Plantinga, Two (or More) Kinds of Scripture Scholarship, 26.
The danger is not in over-emphasizing the more distant discipline of historical understanding. Rather, the danger comes in under-emphasizing the
54Nolland, The Purpose and Value of Commentaries, 306. See also Nollands remarks
in France and Nolland, Reflections on the Writing of a Commentary on the Gospel of
Matthew, 272.
108
douglas s. huffman
110
douglas s. huffman
successfully with biblical texts. They should be helpful companions for the
journey of engagement with the text, and they should provide stimulation and assistance in the task of coming to terms with the challenges of
the text.57 But as Ernest Best observes, commentaries can sidetrack their
readers away from the text of Scripture: Some modern commentaries,
indeed, appear to be commentaries on the commentaries, monographs
and articles written in the last few years rather than commentaries on
the text!58 It is the text of Scripturenot the text of commentariesthat
should remain the focus or our attention, because the text of Scripture is
the inspired account of Gods saving works in history.59
Second, proper focus on biblical salvation history will be advanced by
a higher level of historical competence in New Testament commentaries. Christianity is not a faith system of mere moralistic sentiment; the
Christian faith is intricately bound up in Gods saving acts in history (also
known as salvation history or redemptive history). Continuous historical
reflection in commentaries will aid their readers in staying mindful of
those events recorded and reflected upon in Scripture.
Finally, proper application of the historic Christian faith will be
advanced by a higher level of historical competence in New Testament
commentaries. The writing and reading of commentaries aids Christians
in applying the text of the New Testament in new cultural contexts. To be
sure, we are aided by other theological studies and writings. But commentaries remain an important tool for clarifying the application of Scripture
(in the form in which it has been inspired) to daily living in new generations in ways that are still in line with the historic Christian faith. In
this regard, Margaret MacDonald remarks, With the aid of one volume,
one can alternate between a microscopic view, examining the meaning of
words and concepts, and a wide view, appreciating the shape of the text
57Nolland, The Purpose and Value of Commentaries, 311. It is this central function
and importance of commentaries that makes them an important tool for biblical education. Writes Margaret MacDonald (The Art of Commentary Writing, 315), It should be
acknowledged that commentaries offer perhaps the most obvious mediums for biblical
scholars to disseminate the results of their research to the broader public, from students
in the classroom to members of Bible study groups.
58Best, The Reading and Writing of Commentaries, 358. He writes further, For what
purpose do commentaries exist? A simple answer is: To explain the text.
59Nolland remarks that for me an over-riding priority is for a commentator so to write
as to aid his or her readers in engaging with the text rather than offering the readers an
alternative to engagement with the text. We cannot stop readers using our commentaries
as replacement text, but we can make it difficult for them (The Purpose and Value of
Commentaries, 310).
111
as a whole and the breadth of the interpretative landscape. In fact, arguably, of all types of biblical scholarship, commentaries offer the greatest
opportunity to look through both lenses simultaneously.60 This is why
new generations of Christian scholars produce new commentaries on the
old texts of Scripture. While we are grateful for monographs, journal articles and other specialist studies, there persists an instinct that there is a
need for coming to terms with a work in its entirety and not just in this or
that respect. And as valuable as may be the contribution of commentators
present and past, this coming to terms with is never something that can
be done once and for all, but is in need of constant renewal, influenced
as it is and should be by context and time. So we keep on producing commentaries; and there continues to be a market for them.61
1I recognize that dominical tradition appears in some of Pauls letters and perhaps
also in the letter attributed to James and that this tradition sometimes comes into play
in study of the historical Jesus. Nevertheless, I shall limit my discussion to commentaries
on the Gospels.
114
craig a. evans
115
116
craig a. evans
creation of the evangelist Mark. It is a statement addressed by the evangelist to the Christian readers of the Gospel. It is not something Jesus said
to the questioning scribes who witnessed the healing.3 One might say that
it is a problem of punctuation and quotation marks. Robert Guelich also
contends for the unity and authenticity of the story, but limits the evangelists redactional activity to vv. 12. In contrast to Lane, Guelich thinks
the Son of man statement is traditional, deriving from Jesus himself. He is
making known to the scribes that he, the Son of man, does indeed have
authority to forgive sins. But Guelich is not certain that Jesus has alluded
to the son of man figure in Daniel 7.4
Robert Gundry also argues for the authenticity and unity of the passage,
but he underscores the contrast between heaven where God dwells and
earth where Jesus, the Son of man, conducts his ministry, a ministry that
includes healing and forgiving sins. The epithet, Gundry believes, is best
explained as an allusion to the figure described in Daniel 7.5 Joel Marcus believes Daniel 7 plays an important role in the story under consideration, though precisely how Jesus understood Son of man may never
be known. Marcus also suggests that the opening words of v. 10, that you
may know, may well allude to the narratives in which Moses confronts
the disbelieving Pharaoh: That you may know that there is none like Me
in all the earth (Exod 9:14). If so, Jesus language may have implied that
the religious leaders, in criticizing the work of God being done through
Jesus, are playing the role of Gentiles who in biblical times opposed the
God of Israel and his servants.6 R. T. France believes the saying in v. 10
derives from Jesus, that he called himself Son of man in reference to
the figure in Daniel 7, and that this epithet did not possess technical or
messianic importance in the time of Jesus, as it would later in Jewish and
Christian circles. France also sees in the on earth qualification a deliberate contrast with the heavenly source of the authority, which Jesus exercises in his ministry.7
3W. L. Lane, The Gospel of Mark (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 9199, with
quotation from p. 98. This had been suggested earlier by G. H. Boobyer, Mark II. 10a and
the Interpretation of the Healing of the Paralytic, HTR 47 (1954): 11520. More recently
it has been defended by R. M. Fowler, The Rhetoric of Direction and Indirection in the
Gospel of Mark, in The Interpretation of Mark (ed. W. R. Telford; 2nd ed.; Edinburgh: T&T
Clark, 1995), 20728, here 213.
4R. A. Guelich, Mark 18:26 (WBC 34a; Dallas: Word, 1989), 8194, esp. 8893.
5R. H. Gundry, Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 11414, 119.
6J. Marcus, Mark 18 (AB 27; New York: Doubleday, 2000), 218, 22223, 53031.
7R. T. France, The Gospel of Mark (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 12729.
117
M. E. Boring believes a miracle story was expanded by adding a controversy dialogue (which may reflect genuine tradition). Boring doubts
the unity of the story because he finds it hard to imagine the presence of
hostile scribes and how Jesus would not have been disturbed by the dismantling of the roof above his head.8 Of course, we do not in fact know
that Jesus was not disturbed by the dismantling of the roof. Such an event
would have been extraordinary and its extraordinary character could well
explain its retention in the Jesus tradition. In any case, Boring allows that
Daniel 7 has influenced the New Testament understanding of Jesus, but
it is not clear how influential this Old Testament passage was upon Jesus
himself.9 Adela Collins accepts the unity of the story, stating that one
may not reconstruct two originally separate accounts, one of a miracle
and the other a dispute.10 She also sees an allusion to Dan 7:13 in the use
of the epithet Son of man, but in a very indirect and cryptic way. She
is not, however, sure that the saying goes back to Jesus.11
Mark 3:2035. The present passage is made up of three, perhaps four
principal units: 3:2022, where Jesus is accused of being influenced by Beelzebul; 3:2330 (or 3:2327 and 3:2830), where Jesus rebuts his accusers;
and 3:3135, where Jesus identifies his true family. Some of this material
appears in Matthew and Luke, though sometimes in different locations,12
along with parallel material drawn from Q.13 These discrepancies complicate matters, especially our attempts to make historical judgments. However, the overlapping independent Markan and Q materials support the
authenticity of the tradition that Jesus was accused of being in league
with Beelzebul and that there was tension with his family. The widespread tradition of Jesus as healer and exorcist, whose name was invoked
during his public ministry (Mark 9:3840) confirms its authenticity,
8M. E. Boring, Mark: A Commentary (NTL; Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox,
2006), 7778.
9Boring, Mark, 25152.
10A. Y. Collins, Mark (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007), 184. Collins agrees with
the analysis offered by J. Dewey, Markan Public Debate: Literary Technique, Concentric
Structure, and Theology in Mark 2:13:6 (SBLDS 48; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1980), 2829.
Dewey and Collins disagree with form critics Bultmann and Dibelius, among others, who
see in Mark 2:112 disparate materials joined together. Collins does not engage Borings
commentary, which appeared while Collinss commentary was at press.
11Collins, Mark, 18689.
12For Markan material taken over by Matthew and Luke, see Matt 12:24, 2526, 29,
3132, 4650; and Luke 11:15, 1718, 21; 12:10; and 8:1921. For possible Q material, see Matt
12:2728, 30; Luke 11:1920, 23. There is probably more Q material, which overlaps with
Mark. Cf. Boring, Mark, 103: a very complex set of traditions.
13See the succinct assessment of the material in Guelich, Mark, 16869; Marcus, Mark
18, 27779.
118
craig a. evans
even if it is admitted that the materials assembled in Mark 3 did not necessarily originate from a single episode in the life of Jesus.14
Although most commentators agree that much, if not all, of the materials that make up Mark 3:2035 reaches back in one form or another to the
historical Jesus,15 the meaning these materials have in Marks narrative
is another matter. Marcus raises the possibility that in Marks narrative
world the family of Jesus represents the Torah-observant Jewish Christian
church in Jerusalem against which Mark as exponent of a Torah-free Gentile Christianity was battling.16 Marcus admits there is little evidence for
this interpretation, but it does at least cohere with other factors. Frankly,
I find it bordering on allegory. It is also suggested that Mark 3:2035 mirrors the alienation of some Markan Christians from their own family
members.17 Much more cautiously, Boring comments that Jesus words
whoever does the will of the Father imply that the circle of those around
Jesus can be expanded.18 Similarly Collins suggests that the narrative of
Mark to this point hints at a new social world in the making that began
with Jesus calling disciples.19
These differing points of view raise the difficult question of how the
evangelists intended their narratives to be interpreted and applied in the
lives of their readers. One immediately recalls the widespread practice
of the 1960s and 1970s of reading Mark especially as though his narrative mirrored circumstances and specific, identifiable groups related to
the evangelists community. It was suggested that the disciples represented Christians who held to a false Christology and dubious worldview.20
14Lane (Mark, 13739) is in essential agreement with the analysis offered here. For
a learned review of the relevant cultural and religious background of Mark 3:2035, see
Collins, Mark, 22637.
15As Marcus (Mark 18, 279) rightly judges: Mark 3:2035 is not the sort of depiction
that the church would have created out of thin air. Marcus wonders if part of the tension
between Jesus and his family was due to the latters stricter adherence to the Torah. Classic form critics allowed for an authentic core underlying much of this material. See, e.g.,
R. Bultmann, The History of the Synoptic Tradition (Oxford: Blackwell, 1972), 2930. Cf.
France, Mark, 164: Marks historical restraint is remarkable.
16Marcus, Mark 18, 280.
17Ibid.
18Boring, Mark, 111.
19Collins, Mark, 237.
20Here one thinks of T. J. Weeden, MarkTraditions in Conflict (Philadelphia: Fortress,
1971). See also Weedens The Heresy that Necessitated Marks Gospel, ZNW 59 (1968):
14558. Weedens reasoning was profoundly circular, inferring a heretical emphasis on
triumphal Christology (miracles, power, and the like) from the stories in the first half of
the Gospel of Mark, then interpreting the second half of Mark, which focuses on suffering and passion, as a correction of the misguided triumphal Christology. The logic goes
119
120
craig a. evans
22For example, see Bultmann, History, 210: Clearly the story is essentially intact in its
original form. See also V. Taylor, The Formation of the Gospel Tradition (London: Macmillan, 1935), 12223.
23For example, see C. G. Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels: Edited with an Introduction
and a Commentary (2 vols.; 2nd ed.; London: Macmillan, 1927), 1:111; M. Dibelius, From
Tradition to Gospel (New York: Scribner, 1934; repr. Cambridge and London: James Clarke,
1971), 88: We ought, however, to ask whether the story cannot be understood from its own
self, and so not as a story about Jesus. Collins (Mark, 266) rightly disagrees, stating: There
is no reason to think the story was not originally about Jesus.
24Lane, Mark, 180; likewise Gundry, Mark, 255: The many vivid details...may derive
from eyewitness reporting. So also V. Taylor, The Gospel According to St. Mark (London:
Macmillan, 1952), 27778. See also the interesting and related comments in G. Theissen,
The Gospels in Context: Social and Political History in the Synoptic Tradition (Minneapolis:
Fortress, 1991), 99100.
25H. Sahlin, Die Perikope vom gerasenischen Besessenen und der Plan des Markus
evangelium, ST 18 (1964): 15974, here 16062.
26J. F. Craghan, The Gerasene Demoniac, CBQ 30 (1968): 52236, esp. 531. Appeal to
an incantation text is not in itself misguided; after all, such texts provide helpful background data enabling interpreters to understand better the practice of exorcism in the
time and place of Jesus. But Craghans suggestion that a Babylonian incantation text, dating to the sixth century BC, may have given rise to the Synoptic story of the Gerasene
demoniac (a far closer parallel) strikes me as quite far-fetched and wholly unnecessary.
The incantation referenced by Craghan is found in R. C. Thompson, The Devils and Evil
Spirits of Babylonia, vol. 2 (London: Luzac, 1904) tablet N, col. 3, 1015. Craghan does allow
for an authentic event behind the Gospel story.
27Marcus, Mark 18, 34849.
121
fetters with which he was bound.28 Until he came into contact with Jesus
no one could bind him and, more importantly, no one could release him.
Unlike Marcus and most other commentators, Aus concludes categorically
that the story of the demoniac is so indebted to the Old Testament Scriptures and interpretive traditions even a small historical core cannot be
retained in 5:120.29 The story is a literary invention, says Aus, designed
to legitimate a later Jewish Christian missionizing of the (primarily Gentile) Decapolis after the death and resurrection of Jesus.30
Most of the scriptural and interpretive backdrop proposed by Aus
seems valid, but I cannot see how that negates the historical element of
the story. The people of Gerasa are frightened of Jesus, they wish him to
quit their country, and Jesus refuses the Gerasene mans request to follow
him. It is not clear how these elementsand they are important elements
of the storywould have been invented by Jewish Christians, however
much they drew upon Scripture and Jewish interpretation of it and however much the story may have been understood as foundational to Christian mission in the Decapolis. Gundry readily acknowledges that the story
as told in Mark 5 may have been colored by details from Isaiah 65 (and
mostly the LXX). Nevertheless, there remain good reasons for viewing it as
an authentic episode from the ministry of Jesus.31 As for the roughness of
the narrative, commentators sensibly suggest that the frequent telling and
retelling of the story probably accounts for the inconcinnities.32
Mark 7:113. Mark states that Pharisees had observed that Jesus disciples
ate with unwashed hands (v. 2) and then explains to his readers who
are unfamiliar with this Jewish sect its great concern in matters of purity
(vv. 35). Earlier in Marks narrative some Pharisees had objected to Jesus
free association with sinners and tax collectors (2:16). This time they ask
Jesus why his disciples do not eat with washed hands (v. 5). Both of these
concerns have to do with the Pharisees understanding of purity. Jesus
does not answer the question directly; he does not say that eating with
unwashed hands is permissible or that concerns with purity are unnecessary. Rather, Jesus cuts to the heart of the matter: Pharisaic teachings
often go beyond the requirements of Scripture; indeed, these teachings
28R. D. Aus, My Name is Legion: Palestinian Judaic Traditions in Mark 5:120 and Other
Gospel Texts (Studies in Judaism; Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2003), 1208.
29Aus, My Name is Legion, 91.
30Aus, My Name is Legion, 96. See also R. Pesch, Das Markusevangelium (2 vols.;
HTKNT 2.12; Freiburg: Herder, 1977, 1991), 1:29293.
31Gundry, Mark, 25859.
32As in Boring, Mark, 14950; Collins, Mark, 266.
122
craig a. evans
sometimes nullify Scripture itself. Jesus appeals to Isa 29:13 where the
prophet of old leveled a similar complaint against the religious authorities
of his day. With biting irony Jesus chides his critics: You reject the commandment of God beautifully, in order to keep your tradition (v. 9). By way
of illustration, Jesus alludes to Exod 20:12 (= Deut 5:16) and Lev 20:9 (cf.
Exod 21:17), Scriptures that enjoin grown children to care for their parents.
But the tradition of qorban, whereby something is dedicated to God and
so is no longer available for secular use, was sometimes invoked with the
result that substance needed by elderly parents was denied them (v. 12).
For readers unfamiliar with Jewish religious customs, the evangelist
Mark explains that qorban means given to God (v. 11). Josephus understands it similarly: Qorban to Godmeaning what Greeks would call a
gift (Ant. 4.73); Now this oath (i.e. Qorban) will be found in no other
nationa except the Jews, and, translated from the Hebrew, one may interpret it as meaning Gods gift (Against Apion 1.167). A first-century ossuary
inscription reads: All that a man may find to his profit in this ossuary is
an offering [qrbn] to God from him who is within it. With reference to
Jesus use of the word in Mark 7 the ossuary inscription provides a perfect
contemporary parallel.33
What makes this Markan passage especially interesting is the parenthetic remark in Jesus later explanation of the meaning of his words
(Mark 7:1423). I refer to the words found in v. 19: Thus he declared all
foods clean.34 Here we have either the evangelist Mark or a Christian
teacher before him who passed along the story who applies Jesus teaching on what really defiles someone (v. 15: there is nothing outside a person which by going into him can defile him; but the things which come
out of a person are what defile him) to the post-Easter Christian community. That is, because defilement comes from the heart and not from
what goes into the mouth, all food may be eaten.35 This interpretation
clearly lies behind Pauls teaching in 1 Corinthians 8, where eating meat
33As rightly argued by J. A. Fitzmyer, The Aramaic Qorban Inscription from Jebel
Hallet Et-Turi and Mk 7:11/Mt 15:5, JBL 78 (1959): 6065. The quotation is from the last
page of Fitzmyers study. For a slightly updated reprint of this study, see Fitzmyer, Essays
on the Semitic Background of the New Testament (London: Chapman, 1971; repr. SBLSBS 5;
Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1974), 93100.
34The Greek words are . The masc. sing. participle modifies (he says) in v. 18. Adding the adverb thus, along with the implied declared,
rightly clarifies the meaning of the participle. Lit. He (Jesus) says, Then are you also....
Do you not see...and so passes on?, (thus) cleansing all foods.
35Lane, Mark, 255: The elliptical expression in verse 19b (cleansing all meats) is
almost certainly an interpretive comment of the evangelist which drew out the implications of Jesus statement.
123
36We may have an echo of Mark 7:19b in Rom 14:20, where in reference to food Paul
states: Everything is indeed clean ( ). It is interesting that here in Romans
14, as well as in 1 Corinthians, the all foods are clean interpretation is qualified by emphasizing the importance of conscience and of taking care not to cause someone to stumble.
From this observation I infer that Jesus teaching regarding what really defiles was understood very early as implying that all food could be eaten and that the qualifications we see
in Pauls letters and in Matthew (through omission of Mark 7:19b) were a later response.
For a similar analysis, see France, Mark, 27779.
37And that is because it challenges Pharisaic halakah, not the purity laws of Moses.
38See W. D. Davies and D. C. Allison, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the
Gospel according to Saint Matthew. Vol. II: Commentary on Matthew VIIIXVIII (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991), 535: Matthew the evangelist omitted Mark 7:19 because he could
not abide such a sweeping dismissal of OT law. See also A. J. Saldarini, Matthews Christian-Jewish Community (Chicago Studies in the History of Judaism; Chicago: University
of Chicago Press, 1994), 73, 83; D. C. Sim, The Gospel of Matthew and Christian Judaism:
The History and Social Setting of the Matthean Community (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998),
13435.
39Lane, Mark, 244.
40Gundry, Mark, 35771. In this connection, one should see J. G. Crossley, Halakah and
Mark 7.3: with the hand in the shape of a fist, NTS 58 (2012): 5768. Against scholars who
contend that Marks (with the fist) makes no sense or is perhaps an error, Crossley
shows that it reflects authentic hand-washing tradition.
41Guelich, Mark, 36062; Marcus, Mark 18, 44748. Guelich offers readers a succinct
evaluation of form-critical analysis. Marcus offers a very plausible assessment of what goes
back to the Sitz im Leben Jesu and what elements the Markan evangelist added. For further discussion, see J. Marcus, Scripture and Tradition in Mark 7, in The Scriptures in
the Gospels (ed. C. M. Tuckett; BETL 131; Leuven: Peeters / Leuven University Press, 1997):
17795.
124
craig a. evans
view.42 The doctrine that all food could be eaten, which then has to be
carefully qualified, in my view supports the authenticity of the tradition.
One wonders how controversial inauthentic tradition could have made
such headway during the lifetime of the apostles themselves. Accordingly,
it is probable that Jesus remarkable utterance, originally intended as a
critique of Pharisaic halakah, quickly came to be understood as a general declaration that all food could be eaten (which would have been well
received by early Gentile converts) and almost as quickly required qualifications lest Jewish members of the Church were offended and became
disaffected.
Mark 8:2730. At Caesarea Philippi Jesus asks his disciples who people
say he is (v. 27). The disciples report, John the Baptist; others say, Elijah;
and others one of the prophets (v. 28), recalls the evangelists earlier
summary of opinion regarding the identity of Jesus. According to Mark
6:14 people were saying of Jesus John the baptizer has been raised from
the dead. But others were saying, It is Elijah; and others said, He is a
prophet, like one of the prophets of old (6:15). Even Herod Antipas speculates that John, whom I beheaded, has been raised (6:16). Public speculation that Jesus might in some sense be John the Baptist, whether in spirit
or in some sense redivivus (as in Mark 6:16), pays a significant compliment
to Jesus. The popular wilderness prophet had been put to death by Herod
Antipas, as much for political reasons as for personal reasons. Jesus ministry draws so much attention, and is accompanied by such astonishing
deeds of power, that people wonder if God has raised up John to continue
the work of preparation for the kingdom. It is not surprising in light of
Mal 4:56 (Behold, I will send you Elijah...) that some thought Jesus to
be Elijah. The promise that someday God would raise up a prophet like
Moses (Deut 18:1518) would feed speculation that Jesus could be such.
Jesus then asks his disciples for their opinion and Peter answers,
You are the Messiah (v. 29). The Greek is Christ (christos), but this
is a translation of the Hebrew meshiah, from which the word Messiah
is derived. The word means anointed. But because the word is used in
reference to anointed kings (1 Sam 15:1; 16:13; Ps 2:2), anointed prophets
(1 Kgs 19:1516; 1 Chr 16:22 = Ps 105:15; Isa 61:1), and anointed priests (Exod
29:67; Lev 16:32; 1 Chr 29:22), it is not certain what Peter means by it.
Jesus crucifixion as king of the Jews (Mark 15:26, 32) provides strong
125
support for the traditional view that Peter confessed Jesus to be Israels
messianic King.
In Mark 8:2730 the evangelist Mark takes up the most important
emphasis of his narrative: the messiahship of Jesus. After some eight
chapters of public ministry, highlighted by a series of astounding miracles, Jesus is now recognized by the spokesman of his followers as Israels
Messiah. With this recognition Jesus begins to speak of his suffering and
death. Mark 8:2730 in a certain sense is both the conclusion of the first
half of the Gospel and the introduction to the second. Jesus authoritative
teaching and person have led to a confession of his messiahship. In the
second half of the narrative readers of the Gospel of Mark will discover
what the messiahship of Jesus entails.
Given the importance of this passage in the Markan narrative it is
not surprising that it has drawn considerable attention from commentators. Lane expresses appreciation for the way the evangelist constructed
the first half of his narrative so that readers begin to anticipate an open
acknowledgement of Jesus identity. The recognition that Jesus is the
Messiah, says Lane, is thus the point of intersection toward which all of
the theological currents of the first half of the Gospel converge and from
which the dynamic of the second half of the Gospel derives.43 Gundry
rebuts the claim that Mark 8:2730 is likely an inauthentic story because
Jesus would not have solicited opinions about himself or would not ask
his disciples for information that he himself would already know. Jesus
is not seeking his own education; he is prodding his disciples.44 Marcus
admits no more than that Peters confession may very well echo a primitive Christian confession that was known to Marks readers from their
own worship services.45 Boring adds that the passage contains traditional elements, but Mark is the composer of the whole, which bears a
Markan stamp and expresses Markan theology.46 All of the commentators that I have surveyed provide very helpful exegetical insights, but I am
surprised by their reluctance to see in Mark 8:2730 scarcely more than a
whisper of historical material. I should think that the crucifixion of Jesus
126
craig a. evans
as king of the Jews (Mark 15:26, 32) and the universal proclamation of
him by his followers, foremost among them Simon Peter, as Israels Messiah strongly recommends the historicity of Mark 8:2730. And one must
not forget the rebuke of Peter that follows in v. 33: Get behind me, Satan!
For you are not on the side of God, but of men. This is hardly the stuff of
pious imagination or theological construction. I am inclined to agree with
one of the old form critics, who asserted that the historical Confession is
guaranteed by the words of rebuke.47
There is little doubt that Mark has placed the passage at the center of
his narrativeas a climax of all that precedes and as an introduction to
all that will followand it is likely that the evangelist has edited the passage. But given what unfolds at the end of the story, it is most likely that
Jesus messianic identity was recognized, at the very least by his closest
disciples, at some point before the journey to Jerusalem.
Concluding Comments
As anyone who has written a commentary on one of the Gospels has
observed, commentators have their respective agenda and set of values.
Some commentators are more interested in the historical background,
even if their judgment as to the possibility of success in addressing this
question varies widely. They focus on what Jesus said and did and what
these things would have meant in the early first century. Other commentators are more interested in the given Gospel as literature, sometimes
pressing the text, even reading between the lines, to squeeze out meanings that the author may well have never intended.
Of course, most will readily agree that a commentary on a Gospel, even
the Fourth Gospel, should have in mind both historical as well as literary
concerns. Neglect of either will weaken the commentary. Careful exploration of the historical setting in the life of Jesus and in the life of the
evangelist, as vague and uncertain as that may be, will better position
the interpreter to appreciate the literary character of the Gospel. And of
course, careful assessment of the literary character of the Gospel facilitates the historical evaluation of a given Gospel. Attentive work in both
areas makes it easier to differentiate and thus appreciate the historical
127
Part two
132
richard s. hess
regularly updated.1 From these, I have especially chosen one that emphasizes the Greek text. There are many other fine resources.2 However, with
the exception of those making obvious connections, I have found it necessary to limit myself to a relatively few commentaries that may represent
the larger genre.
It is not my purpose to teach New Testament scholars how to interpret
the New Testament. There are many fine works already published that do
this in much more detail than is possible here.3 Rather, I propose to consider a half dozen sample texts from the New Testament and to examine
something of their background in the Old Testament. In doing so, I will
argue for some important points of interpretation and understanding that
are either overlooked or underdeveloped by the New Testament commentaries that I have consulted. My point will be to illustrate areas in which
New Testament commentaries and commentators may profit from further
research.
This process will include a consideration of the following matters affecting interpretation. First, there is the question of the meanings of words.
Semantics for New Testament readers relates not only to the Greek language, but also the Hebrew, as I will attempt to show in the famous case of
Hab 2:4 and Rom 1:17. Another well-known text, that of the Lords Prayer
in Matthew 6, provides a second example of the importance of understanding the Old Testament background. A more complete survey of the
Old Testament contexts and background to some phrases and expressions
point not so much to new meanings as to a richer context for the connections that the Gospel writer makes in the teaching leading up to this
famous prayer and the prayer itself. The third example, that of the sheep
and the goats from Matthew 25, considers background texts in the prophets and wisdom literature of the Old Testament to affirm the connection
of the judgment with how one treats those who bring the good news, but
then also extends this language to the larger world and to the sacrifice of
Gods people in obedient ministry and evangelization.
1http://www.denverseminary.edu/article/new-testament-exegesis-bibliography-2012/
accessed June 19, 2012. The discerning reader will find reviews and an Annotated Old
Testament Bibliography at this site as well. These bibliographies are regularly updated
and available via free access.
2Of these I must mention at least G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson, eds., Commentary on
the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007). I have consulted
it for this study.
3The reader is invited to consult the above mentioned bibliography and look under the
section, Hermeneutics, for eleven works on this subject, including the second edition of
Grant Osbornes The Hermeneutical Spiral.
134
richard s. hess
136
richard s. hess
15Such a broad, biblical, theological context is not found in Hagner, Matthew 1-13, 15052;
Luz, Matthew 17, 32229; Turner, Matthew, 18890; Wilkins, Matthew, 27880. France, The
Gospel of Matthew, 24954, provides perhaps the most comprehensive discussion but does
not mention the Old Testament background. Nolland, Matthew, 29091, appeals to Psalm
103 to establish the importance of divine forgiveness. However, he cites nothing prior to
Sirach 28 concerning the connection of human forgiveness with divine forgiveness.
16So Craig L. Blomberg, Matthew (NAC 22; Nashville: Broadman, 1992), 37580; Donald Hagner, Matthew 1428 (WBC 33B; Waco, TX: Word, 1995), 74047; Craig L. Keener, A
Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 6026; Turner,
Matthew, 60311. Leon Morris, The Gospel According to Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 63341 also embraces this interpretation but clearly allows for the alternative
view that this text evaluates how Christians treated all the poor, not just the messengers
of the gospel. W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, The Gospel According to Saint Matthew
(ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 19881997), 3:41635, choose to understand here a judgment
according to the deeds of the sheep and goats for all the poor and needy of the world.
They explicitly reject that it only refers to Christian missionaries and support their case
with citation of Jewish and Christian tradition as well as contemporary Jewish literature
and Prov 19:17 (ibid., 42930).
138
richard s. hess
There is much in the way of Old Testament sources from the beginning of this section and one who studies the Old Testament background
will better understand a text that is the subject of no small controversy.
Matthew 25:31 begins the passage with a description of the Son of Man
appearing in glory and surrounded by his angels as he takes his seat in
preparation for judgment. Divine theophanies are well known in Old
Testament poetry, especially as they introduce an ancient poem with the
appearance of God in his glory. For example, this occurs in Exodus 15,
Judges 5, and Habakkuk 3.17 However, the wording here is especially close
to Deut 33:2 where the text describes Gods shining forth in glory with his
heavenly host in order to bring law to his people and to pronounce the
judgment of the tribes and their destinies. So enthroned, God sits as king
over heavenly and earthly hosts.18 For this reason, Zech 14:5 is at best an
intermediate borrowing but does not reach to the heart of the background
of this picture in Matt 25:31.19 The explicit connection of the Son of Man
title with a divine ruler of heaven and earth is found in Daniel 7.
Matthew 25:3233 recalls the divine division of rams and goats in Ezek
34:17, and referred to in vv. 16 and 20 as fat sheep. This describes the
most powerful of the animals of the flock and represents the leadership
of Israel. Their self-interest and lack of concern for the needs of the poor
among those they lead forms an indictment.20 They take the pasture and
water for themselves, leaving little for the sheep of the flock (vv. 1819).
God, however, will take care of his flock and will appoint a new shepherd
to look over them (vv. 2031). The judgment against the more powerful
animals, that is the leadership, is implied but not detailed as in the New
Testament passage. However, the listeners of Jesus message might well
have remembered the passage and been disposed to regard the negative
judgment as falling naturally upon the rich and the leadership. They had
the resources to address the needs of the poor and suffering and were held
responsible for distributing those resources to the ones in need of them.
The list of those in need is a long one: the hungry, the thirsty, the
stranger, the unclothed, the sick, and those in prison. No list precisely
17See also Psalm 68 below. Note R. S. Hess, Israelite Religions: An Archaeological and
Biblical Survey (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007), 101, 158.
18J. G. McConville, Deuteronomy (Apollos Old Testament Commentary 5; Leicester:
Apollos; Downvers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 46869. Hagner sees here a reference to Deuteronomy 33:2 (as well ): Hagner, Matthew 1428, 742.
19In this I disagree with Keener, Matthew, 603, and Turner, Matthew, 608.
20Daniel I. Block, The Book of Ezekiel, Chapters 2548 (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1998), 29293.
140
richard s. hess
As God takes on the debt of the poor and so identifies with them, the
wealthy will find God and his blessing by associating with and supporting
the poor.22 Gods connection (and so that of Jesus) with the poor in repaying any loan or assistance given to them explains the blessing reserved for
those who so assist them. In a similar manner, does the judgment of those
who do not assist those who cry out to them suggest that they have never
met Jesus Christ?
In the end, the least of these my brothers and sisters is a phrase that
most likely refers to Christians in the context of the gospel and Jesus
teachings. However, the Old Testament provides a larger context in which
the words and phrases that Jesus draws upon reach beyond the reception
of Christian missionaries. Texts such as Prov 19:17 legitimize the broader
perspectives on two sides. On the one hand, they provide a theological
connection between the divine judge and the poor so that mercy and kindness shown toward those who risk poverty and death in order to present
the gospel is properly connected with faith in that gospel. On the other
hand, the exercise of Christian faith in deeds of kindness and compassion
is not limited to a single group, however much they uniquely represent
Christ, but overflows in that super-abundance of grace that characterizes
Gods acts toward his people and so necessarily characterizes those acts
of believers toward all the needy of the world.
4.Giving and Receiving Gifts
Psalm 68 describes God as a warrior and examines his great military victories on behalf of his people. In the middle of the Psalm we read of Gods
triumphant march with his people from Mt. Sinai to the mountain on
which the temple would be built. Verse 18 may be translated:
You went up to the heights.
You took captive those who were captured.
You received gifts among the people and even the rebels.
So, Yah(weh) God, you came to live there.
22Bruce K. Waltke, The Book of Proverbs, Chapters 1531 (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 111.
The major differences are the shortening of the third line and the fact
that the action involves giving gifts rather than receiving them. Of course,
here the reference is to Jesus Christ in the third person rather than to
God the warrior in the second person. The commentaries on Ephesians
provide lengthy discussions on the basis of these differences. Noting that
the Targum to the Psalm also supports giving gifts (though by Moses
on Mt. Sinai), and that, as early as the second century B.C. Book of Jubilees, the giving of the Torah at Sinai was associated with Pentecost, there
is a tendency to locate the origins of this text in some other Jewish or
Christian tradition, and to argue that there was no attempt by the author
of Ephesians to quote directly from Psalm 68.24 There is much learned
discussion on this matter. However, I suspect that the targumic interpretation, whether it falls under the category of midrash or some other
approach, points in the correct direction and illustrates what Ephesians
4:8 is doing. Rather than positing an unknown text or some other basis
for these changes, it might be of value to examine a common theme connected with God as warrior and king, and with Gods mountain, whether
Jerusalem/Zion or Sinai. A consistent pattern emerges and is illustrated
by texts such as Genesis 14, Exodus 24, and 2 Samuel 6. In each of these,
a king and warrior receives honors and also gives gifts. Thus near Salem
(Jerusalem?) Melchizedek blesses Abram the warrior, gives him bread
and wine, and receives back a tithe of the booty. At Mt. Sinai the people
23C. Hassell Bullock, Encountering the Book of Psalms: A Literary and Theological Introduction (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 1078; John Goldingay, Psalms Volume 2: Psalms 4289
(Baker Commentary on the Old Testament: Wisdom and Psalms; Grand Rapids: Baker,
2007), 32526; Geoffrey W. Grogan, Psalms (The Two Horizons Old Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008), 126; Willem A. VanGemeren, The Expositors Bible
Commentary Revised Edition, Vol. 5. Psalms (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007), 520.
24Ernest Best, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Ephesians (ICC; London: T&T
Clark, 1998), 37883; William W. Klein, Ephesians, in The Expositors Bible Commentary Revised Edition, Vol. 12. EphesiansPhilemon (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006), 11112;
Andrew T. Lincoln, Ephesians (WBC 42; Waco, TX: Word, 1990), 24244; Klyne Snodgrass,
Ephesians (NIV Application Commentary; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 2001.
142
richard s. hess
romise their total dedication to God (twice) and receive back a feast
p
(Exod 24:911). And in 2 Samuel 6, following on Davids receipt of kingship
over all Israel and the loyalty of the people, he celebrates the arks advent
on Mt. Zion and distributes gifts of food to all the people (vv. 1819). Thus
when God as warrior and king receives tribute from his followers, he may
also be expected to give something in return. This is where the writer
of Ephesians is going with his discussion. The parenthetical remark of
vv. 910 may also support the view that this theme was clear in the authors
mind. For, if, like the warriors of old, Christ gave just as he received, could
the implication of Psalm 68:18 be taken a step farther and understood as
Christ descended just as he ascended?
5.The Sea
In Rev 21:1, the passing away of the sea, in contrast to the new heaven and
new earth, evokes some comment. Beale and Osborne note the negative
associations with the sea elsewhere in Revelation, as a symbol of evil.25
They provide the clearest awareness of this text as building on the imagery of Isaiah and Ezekiel, especially the final chapters of the Isaiah scroll.
New Testament appeal is made to Johns negative imagery of the sea, so
that Witherington suggests it may be entirely symbolic: John may just
mean that evil has finally been removed from the world.26 Mounce shows
an awareness of possible Old Testament roots for this imagery, but he
locates it in the Babylonian Enuma Elish, where Marduk defeats Tiamat,
the ancient dragon of chaos. He suggests the possibility that the Hebrew
writers took over this myth to describe Gods victory over idols.27 However, the Old Testament imagery of the sea does not derive from Babylon.
It comes from the West Semitic mythological tradition where the chief
warrior god battles and defeats the sea. Attested at Mari in the eighteenth
century B.C., it emerges in the battle of Baal and Sea in the Ugaritic Baal
cycle (copy preserved from the thirteenth century B.C.) and is repeatedly
25G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 10391043, 10491051; Grant R. Osborne, Revelation (BECNT;
Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002), 73031.
26Ben Witheringtin III, Revelation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003),
253.
27Robert H. Mounce, The Book of Revelation (rev. ed.; NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1998), 381.
144
richard s. hess
6.Christian Discipleship
146
richard s. hess
148
d. a. carson
but his commentaries on Galatians and the ensuing nine shorter epistles
of Paul have come down to us in Latin translation.1
Origens commentary on Romans is the first commentary on that epistle to come down to us (ca. 246). The original, written in Greek, has been
lost, but the Latin translation by Rufinus, prepared early in the fifth century, has recently been made available in English.2 Written before Origen
was declared a heretic, and more than a century and a half before the
controversy between Augustine and Pelagius erupted, this commentary
on Romans reflects the theological interests of the time when it was written. Origen argues passionately against various Gnostic beliefs, not least
the doctrine of natures, which asserts that all human beings are born
with unalterable natures that inevitably bring them to salvation or damnation, irrespective of anything they do in this life.3 Origens defense of
the freedom of the will could not (of course) take on board the complexities of discussion that would develop across the centuries, but he boldly
opposed the fatalism intrinsic to many kinds of Gnostic thought. Equally,
Origen opposes the reductionism of Marcion: he argues strongly for the
harmony of law and gospel, and for the unity and integrity of Old and New
Testaments together.4
Nevertheless the form of his argumentation, generated by his hermeneutical commiments, places him within the Alexandrian school of interpretationindeed, one of its ablest exponents. For many of the Church
Fathers, Scripture has two senses: the literal sense and the spiritual sense.
The literal sense is variously described: for instance, it is sometimes said
to be the verbal or grammatical sense, the sense intended by the author
(human or divine), the plain sense, the obvious sense, the sense conveyed
by the words themselves. The spiritual sense is the meaning readers find
when, aided by the Spirit, they discern in the text (especially of the Old
Testament) the deeply Christian sense, the paschal sense. The distinction
sprang in part from the conviction that the Old Testament must point to
1The works of both Chrysostom and Theodore of Mopsuestia are readily available in
the standard Migne edition; in English translation, Chrysostom is readily accessed through
the older but standard NPNF series. The relevant work of Theodore of Mopsuestia has
recently been made available in contemporary English in the excellent critical version of
Rowan A. Greer, trans., Theodore of Mopsuestia: Commentary on the Minor Pauline Epistles
(Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2010).
2Thomas P. Scheck, ed. and trans., Origen: Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans
(2 vols.; Washington, DC: Catholic University of America, 20012002).
3Origen, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 22.
4Ibid., 93.
149
Christ in some way or other. In the patristic period the spiritual sense was
also variously called the allegorical sense, the mystery or mystical sense,
or sometimes theoria. Contemporary readers tend to find the hermeneutical assumptions of Origen not so much perverse or arbitrary as manipulative: they enable the interpreter to ensure that the right interpretation
emerges, ostensibly on public hermeneutical grounds, but not transparently so.
Any sense that is labeled spiritual is bound to be appealing, so it
is not surprising that the spiritual sense, variously understood, exerted
huge influence from the time of Clement of Alexandria (150ca. 215) to
the end of the fourth century. Precisely because it embraced within itself
approaches that were fundamentally different (and were not systematically codified until later), one must not think that only the Alexandrian
school pursued the spiritual sense while the Antiochenes remained strict
literalists. Yet arguably, the distinction between the two schools is more
than a matter of degree. It will be easier to make this point in the next
section.
1.2The Medieval Codification
By the medieval period, while the literal sense continued untrimmed,
the spiritual sense had been codified into three: the allegorical (which
included some forms of what is now called typology), offering the hidden
meaning of the text; the tropological, i.e. the moral sense of the text, and
the anagogical or future sense. These have sometimes been tied, rather
romantically, to the three cardinal virtues: the allegorical sense is what
the words of Scripture mean within the context of the larger story of God
(faith), the tropological sense is what the words of Scripture mean with
respect to how we are to conduct ourselves (love), and the anagogical
sense is what the words of Scripture mean regarding the end of history
(hope).
The allegorical method gains its primary impetus from the Greek world,
not least from the Platonic heritage that tried to find transcendental significance in the ancient Greek myths of gods and goddesses whose conduct, at surface value, was scarcely inspiring and still less to be imitated.
It became important to find a deeper meaning, a meaning beyond the
surface. In the Jewish diaspora, the greatest proponent of allegorical interpretation of whom we have any detailed knowledge is Philo of Alexandria.
While he did not doubt, for example, the historical existence of the three
patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, in reality, he argued, they are to
150
d. a. carson
5Peder Borgen, Philo of Alexandria: An Exegete for His Time (NovTSup 86; Leiden: Brill,
1997), 71.
151
first centuryin exactly the same way, though perhaps not to the same
degree, that spiritual sense covers a multiplicity of interpretive strategies. Advancing to the medieval period, the codification of the spiritual
sense into three distinctive senses clearly left plenty of room to maneuver. Inevitably, it was easy in some circles to appeal to the allegorical
sense to make the text line up with whatever the orthodoxy of the day
demanded, with the result, of course, that Scripture was unlikely to have
a hugely reforming function since it could always be domesticated by an
appropriate appeal to the fourfold senses of Scripture. Of course, some of
the ablest interpreters insisted that only the literal sense could establish
doctrine: witness Thomas Aquinas. Nevertheless, Thomas supported the
fourfold hermeneutic in the interpretation of Scripture alone, not only by
appealing to the example of the Fathers but also on the ground that only
God could use language in this multi-signifying way. Meaning is tied to
authorial intent, and because God by one act comprehends all things by
his intellect, he may charge the biblical text with multiple layers of meaning.6 Even here, Thomas is careful to avoid falling into the trap of uncontrolled equivocal meanings. But not all were as restrained as Thomas.
1.3Calvin, the Reformation, and Beyond
All the major Reformers formally rejected the fourfold method, but inevitably they had to think through how they were interpreting Scripture in
order to generate their theology, the theology that was challenging the
Catholic Church. Both Catholics and Protestants held to the truthfulness
and authority of Scripture, of courseso why were their respective readings so very different on crucial matters? Part of the answer lay in their
differing views of the locus of revelation, one group finding it deposited
in the church, including Scripture but also including the unfolding understanding of the Magisterium, whereas the other party found it in Scripture
alone (hence sola Scriptura). That debate is beyond the remit of this essay.
But in avoiding the medieval fourfold method, the Reformers needed to
defend their own approaches.
We shall focus on Calvinbut Calvins theory of commentary writing is best understood when it is compared and contrasted with that of
two of his contemporaries. In the tradition of Aristotle, Philip Melanchthon sought out the loci of texts, the matters he judged most important
6Summa Theologica I Q 1, A 10.
152
d. a. carson
153
[Calvin] learns from both of them what ought to be done and the best way to
do it. With Melanchthon he accepts the need for systematizing the teaching
of the Bible. Unlike Bucer, however, he cannot combine the two methods in
one book. His solution is to make...a separate book for the systematic loci.
This book is the Institutio Christianae Religionis, beginning with the second
edition of 1539.12
In short, this Letter to the Readers is important not only for understanding what Calvin intended to accomplish in his Institutes, but equally for
understanding what Calvin intended to accomplish in his commentaries,
12Ibid., 89.
13Ibid., 91.
14Jean Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (trans. Henry Beveridge; Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1989).
154
d. a. carson
and how he thought the two species of works should operate in tandem.
The two were complementary. The Institutes covered the loci, suitably
arrangedmaterial largely kept out of the commentaries; the commentaries provided the exegetical and expository details that sought to unpack
the text of Scripture in brief compass, material that would have been out
of place in the Institutes, as the loci of the Institutes would have made the
commentaries cumbersome, falling under the same faults as Bucers work.
In Calvins mind, however, his work on the Institutes was to be read in the
light of his commentaries, and vice versa. This approach would remain
operative for the rest of Calvins life.
To recognize how Calvin conceived of the relationship between his
commentaries and the Institutes is to exclude the views of those who hold
to a static view of Calvins theologyviz, the Institutes contain all of
Calvins theology, while his commentaries contain the application of his
theology. This approach fails to recognize (1) that sometimes Calvin does
not transfer to later editions of the Institutes arguments developed in his
commentaries, and (2) that some issues were raised in his commentaries
for the first time after Calvin had finished editing his last edition of the
Institutes (1559).
At the risk of providing some evaluative judgments without the detailed
textual comparisons that would ground them, we might venture three
observations. First: It was not uncommon for Calvins opponents, especially from the camp of Lutheran orthodoxy, to dismiss him as a Judaizer. Writing soon after Calvins death, the Lutheran theologian Aegidius
Hunnius wrote a book entitled Calvin the Judaizer: Judaistic Glosses and
Corruptions by Which John Calvin Did Not Fear to Corrupt the Clearest Passages of Sacred Scripture and Its Witness to the Glorious Trinity, Deity of
Christ and the Holy Spirit, Including the Predictions of the Prophets Concerning the Coming of the Messiah, His Birth, Passion, Resurrection, Ascension
to Heaven, and Session at the Right Hand of God, in a Detestable Fashion.15
In terms of the totality of Calvins thought, the charge is ludicrous; in
terms of what he sometimes does not say in his commentaries (see, for
example, his restraint on Genesis 1:2, 26), it is at least understandable. It
will not suffice to say that when it comes to writing commentaries, Calvin
was an unsystematic theological minimizer; rather, in his commentary
15David L. Puckett, John Calvins Exegesis of the Old Testament (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 1.
155
16Kemper Fullerton, Prophecy and Authority: A Study in the History of the Doctrine and
Interpretation of Scripture (New York: Macmillan, 1919), 133.
17Calvin, Comm. Hos. 6:2 (Opera quae supersunt omnia; ed. W. Baum, E. Cunitz, and
E. Reuss, 18631900), 42: 320.
156
d. a. carson
Third, as long as his rationale was, in part, that his commentaries were
based on what was solid, Calvin could scarcely avoid giving the impression that to include more theological reflection and synthesis would
have been to build on something un-solid. Surely Calvin would not have
wanted to formulate such an inference, but how can he properly avoid it?
Yet with the exception of his massive Harmony on the Last Four Books of
Moses, most of the work that shows how Calvin puts the Bible together,
i.e., the hermeneutical reasons why he puts the Bible together as he does
(as opposed to work that shows the results of his hermeneutic) surfaces
from time to time within the Institutes, not within the commentaries.
It is in the Institutes that one sometimes comes across trajectories that
trace the Bibles story-line and lead to Christjust as in the Harmony,
uniquely among the commentaries, one finds the creation of a biblical
grid drawn from the text itself to justify reading the Decalogue in suchand-such a way. Here, however, most of the commentaries do not help
us very much (even without stumbling over prolonged expositions of
loci) to locate and identify the inner-biblical trajectories, the typologies,
that teach us how the inner-canonical structures drive us toward Christ.
In contemporary categories, we might say that the commentaries do too
little to build a biblical theology as a mediating discipline toward systematic theology. The Institutes, by contrast, while constructing a systematic
theology, sometimes provide relatively brief excursuses that supply the
lacunae. It is not surprising that in his Letter to the Readers (connected
with the 1536 edition of the Institutes), as we have seen, Calvin affirms that
the Institutes, properly read and digested, will enable aspiring ministers
to read the Bible faithfully, to determine what they should seek there and
to what end such a finding should be put; surprisingly, Calvin says nothing about how the commentaries, properly read and digested, will enable
aspiring ministers so to understand their Bibles that they will be able to
construct a faithful systematic theology.
One suspects that one of the reasons many people still read Calvins
commentaries is that he is committed to brief clarity: hermeneutically,
they are not too clever by half, as the Brits put it. On the other hand,
Calvins failure to explain how he connects, hermeneutically speaking, his
commentaries with his even more influential Institutes, where he is again
constantly making appeal to Scripture, makes us wonder if the Reformer
deployed slightly different hermeneutical stances according to the genre of
literature he himself was writing.
Arguably, over the next two centuries commentary writing tended to
become imbued with more dogmatics than Calvin allowed it. There are
157
so many variations that one is reluctant to risk a sweeping generalization, but let us take the plunge: with relatively rare exceptions, commentary writing was commonly shaped by the dogmatic stance of the form
of orthodoxy in which it was written, and by the hermeneutical assumptions needed to bring about the desired outcome. That, certainly, was the
perception of Johann Philipp Gabler when he gave his inaugural address
at the University of Altdorf in 1787: On the Correct Distinction Between
Dogmatic and Biblical Theology and the Right Definition of Their Goals.18
Gabler reserved dogmatic theology (which expression I will use interchangeably with systematic theology) to refer to structures of theological
thought espoused and defended by the church and her professors, structures increasingly removed from the text of Scripture itself, but built rather
on inferences upon inferences, traditions upon traditions. By biblical theology Gabler referred to the theology of the biblical documents themselves, the theology of the documents in their historical setting, which,
he averred, scholars of good will could happily agree upon if they set the
dogmatics to one side. Once such widespread agreement as to biblical
theology had been achieved, it would be time to reconstruct dogmatics.
One smiles at the navet: if the last one hundred years have taught us
anything, it is how much disagreement can be achieved by scholars who
think they are doing nothing other than interpreting the text of Scripture.
But before we tease out where this emphasis on biblical theology led, it is
time to take note of another movement.
1.4The Rising Impact of Skepticism
Even the briefest survey of the rise of skepticism is beyond the range of
this essay. The history does not run in a straight line; it is more convoluted
than some think. Yet the subject cannot be entirely ignored, for the various forms and degrees of skepticism generated their own hermeneutical
transformations that in turn shaped the writing of New Testament commentaries. To keep this paper within bounds, I shall restrict myself to two
observations.
First, some examples may clarify the connections among skepticism,
hermeneutics, and the shaping of commentaries. In some academic circles
in France and Germany in the late 1700s and early 1800s, Johns Gospel was
158
d. a. carson
159
but is a code for Paul. Of the New Testament documents, only the Pauline
Hauptbriefe and the Apocalypse were judged to be early.
The point of canvassing the Tbingen School afresh in this essay is to
point out what was in fact a controlling reductionistic historicism grounded
in a simplistic naturalism led to more than half a century of (mostly German) commentaries that were hermeneutically affected. Even when later
scholarship demonstrated that most of the tenets of the Tbingen School
were untenablevery often by showing that the dates ascribed to the
documents by Baur and his colleagues were simply untenable (judging by
the patterns of use in the patristic sources)the influence of the School
continued in some circles. Even the commentaries (by J. B. Lightfoot and
others) that were in some measure responses to the Tbingen School
were obviously shaped by these debates. Indeed, even today not a few
Neutestamentler bleed into their interpretation of a number of New Testament documents the assumption that Peter and Paul were not only at
odds as depicted in Gal 2:1114, but continued to be at odds and represented enduring polarities in early Christianity.
Again, consider the seminal work of W. Ward Gasque, A History of the
Criticism of the Acts of the Apostles.21 After the briefest survey of earlier
works, Gasque focuses on the history of Acts criticism from Baur on. He
discerns two quite different trajectories of commentaries and other Acts
studies. The (largely) German tradition tends to build on a massive thesis
(like that of the Tbingen School) that hermeneutically shapes commentaries to conform with the thesis; the (largely) British tradition tends to
work inductively out of texts, convinced this is the safer (if less exciting)
way of proceeding. I say largely because there were of course exceptions on both sides, carefully detailed by Gasque. For example, on the
English side, the impressive multi-volume set by F. J. Foakes-Jackson,
Kirsopp Lake, J. H. Ropes and H. J. Cadbury, published in the first half of
the twentieth century,22 preserved a fair amount of historical skepticism,
while in the second half of the twentieth century the multi-volume set
edited by Bruce Winter and others preserved equally high standards of
scholarship while maintaining the essential historical credibility of Acts.23
21W. Ward Gasque, A History of the Criticism of the Acts of the Apostles (Beitrge zur
Geschichte der biblischen Exegese 17; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1975).
22F. J. Foakes-Jackson, Kirsopp Lake, J. H. Ropes, and H. J. Cadbury, The Beginnings of
Christianity, Part 1: The Acts of the Apostles (5 vols.; London: Macmillan, 19201932; repr.
Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979).
23The series title is The Book of Acts in Its First-Century Setting. Vol. 1: Bruce W. Winter
and Andrew D. Clarke, ed., The Book of Acts in Its Ancient Literary Setting (Grand Rapids:
160
d. a. carson
Both polarities generate, and to some extent are generated by, interpretive patterns that shape the writing of commentaries: witness, in clearest form, the contrast between F. F. Bruce on Acts24 and Ernst Haenchen
(who dedicated his work to H. J. Cadbury) on Acts.25 And of course there
is any number of important commentaries that mingle these traditions in
interesting wayse.g., remaining rather skeptical on the historical front
while maintaining a fair bit of traditional orthodoxy on the theological
front (which of course extends beyond Acts to other New Testament
books) or the reverse.
A second way of surveying the influence of skepticism on the interpretation of the New Testament (and hence on the writing of commentaries) is by considering the interplay between the development of biblical
theology and the development of salvation history. Begin with the former.
We left the subject with Johann Philipp Gablers inaugural address at the
University of Altdorf. The first part of his appealthe rupturing of the
link between biblical study and confessional instruction, in order to create biblical theology that examined the biblical documents in their historical contextwas rapidly and widely adopted. The second part of his
appealthat the results of such biblical theology should then be deployed
in the construction of dogmaticswas almost entirely ignored. This was
not out of malice but out of an increasing perception in some quarters
that responsible historical method, largely decoupled from any concern
or responsibility to synthesize all the material in the Bible, could highlight
only the differences in the biblical material. So it was not surprising that,
instead of a biblical theology, G. L. Bauer produced, first, an Old Testament theology (1796) and then a two-volume New Testament theology
(18001802). By the turn of the next century, New Testament theologies
were developing into discussions of Pauline theology, Synoptic theology,
Johannine theology, and so forth; a few decades on, many discussions
distinguished between Pauline theology and deutero-Pauline theology.
Eerdmans, 1993); Vol. 2: David W. J. Gill and Conrad Gempf, ed., The Book of Acts in Its
Graeco-Roman Setting (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994); Vol. 3: Brian Rapske, The Book of
Acts and Paul in Roman Custody (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994); Vol. 4: Richard Bauckham, ed., The Book of Acts in Its Palestinian Setting (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995); Vol. 5:
Irina Levinskaya, The Book of Acts in Its Diaspora Setting (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996).
24F. F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles: The Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary
(3d ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990).
25E. Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary (Oxford: Blackwell, 1971; trans.
from the 14th German edition, 1965).
161
162
d. a. carson
that the only processes worthy of the tag history are those that are naturalistic, i.e. that take place without reference to God and any appeal to the
supernatural, then much of the biblical (including New Testament) depiction of history is impossible. Consequently, one may talk about New Testament theologies (i.e., what various Christians in the New Testament period
believed), but not of any unifying theology. In that case one is forced to
pick and choose as to which constructions are most plausibleto choose,
self-consciously, a canon within the canon. In a more confessional stream,
scholars acknowledge the diversity of the witnesses but insist that these
witnesses point to one reality, one Jesus, one gospel, making a unified biblical theology possible. The point is that these highly diverse perspectives
on history and biblical theology, nurtured by the skepticism that characterized some streams from the Enlightenmentand I have mentioned
only a handful of the options (for instance, I have said nothing about the
Barth/Bultmann debate that was important in the first half of the twentieth century)were at the same time hermeneutical developments that
shaped successive waves of commentaries: compare, for instance, from
a hermeneutical perspective, Karl Barths 1922 edition of Der Rmerbrief
with, say, the 1964 edition of Rudolf Bultmanns commentary on John.
Moreover, on occasion the arguments for a highly naturalistic and reductionistic Jesus eventually evoked a pendulum swing that called forth new
quests for the historical Jesus: currently we are on the trailing edge of
the third such quest (even though some argue that the analysis of three
quests is artificial and misleading). Once again, these quests, rightly or
wrongly, have called forth their own series of commentaries.
1.5The Turn to the Subject
To many, everything I have said so far about hermeneutics will sound
terribly old-fashioned. For the better part of a century, hermeneutics has
no longer been identified with the principles of interpretation that were
thought to enable the interpreter to uncover faithful (read true) interpretations: I, the subject, develop responsible hermeneutics with the aim
of rightly interpreting it, the text. With the turn to the subject, however,
hermeneutics becomes a far more complex subject that has given rise to
new terms, theory, and sub-specialisms seldom if ever envisaged before:
the hermeneutical circle (or spiral), horizons of understanding, interpretive communities, the new hermeneutic, reader-response criticism,
speech-act theory, asymptotic approaches to truth, critical realism, and
much more. As usual, developments have not rolled out in a straight line.
163
Nevertheless there is a world of distance between Bernard Ramms Protestant Biblical Interpretation29 and the voluminous writings of Anthony C.
Thiselton,30 doubtless the premier expert on hermeneutics, at least in the
English-speaking world. What, then, is the impact of this turn to the subject on the writing of commentaries?
One can identify at least four distinguishable trends. First, some commentators largely ignore the impact of the turn to the subject. They interact primarily with post-Reformation and post-Enlightenment literature,
often interacting with (in support or dissent) the more skeptical developments of the last three hundred years, in such a way that it is difficult
to imagine how (m)any of their comments would have to be modified
if none of the new hermeneutic literature had been written. Part of the
reason for this is that many of the best insights of the turn to the subject,
cautiously expressed, had already found expression in different forms in
much earlier literature. For example, in one of his papers, Thiselton considers speech-act theory in connection with 1 Corinthians (on which he was
then writing a commentary), arguing that the uses or functions of language
did not have to await the writings of J. L. Austin and John Searle: ancient
epistolary theorists had their own classification of the functions (i.e.,
speech-acts) of letter writing.31 When Thiseltons magisterial commentary
on 1 Corinthians appeared, the comments were doubtless enriched by the
years of study that Thiselton had devoted to hermeneutics, but much of
the influence was subtle.
Second, the hermeneutical literature that has flowed from the many
branches of research tied to the turn to the subject is so voluminous and
complicated that it seems almost to have intimidated some scholars into
drawing as few conclusions as possible. The hermeneutical literature
today is daunting, of course: even coming to grips with Thiselton is a
considerable challenge, let alone the literature with which he wrestles.
Readers will shortly find available, as a comprehensive guide to Thiselton,
a book by Robert Knowles, who acknowledges that hermeneutics is today
29Bernard Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation (Boston: Wilde, 1956). By the third
edition, however, Ramm was incorporating more of the new hermeneutic.
30In particular, see his The Two Horizons: New Testament Hermeneutics and Philosophical Description with Special Reference to Heidegger, Bultmann, Gadamer, and Wittgenstein
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980); idem, New Horizons in Hermeneutics (London: HarperCollins, 1992).
31Anthony Thiselton, Speech-Act Theory and 1 Corinthians, SBL Greek Language and
Linguistics Sections (Philadelphia: Society of Biblical Literature, 1996).
164
d. a. carson
a disorganized and confusing discipline.32 The result, for some commentators, is an over-cautiousness to commit oneself. One thinks, perhaps, of
the extraordinarily learned commentary on Revelation by Aune,33 whose
breadth of knowledge is matched only by his reluctance to come down
on very much.
Third, almost in direct contradiction to the previous point, the hermeneutical turn to the subject has spawned an array of creative readings of
biblical texts quite unlike anything in the past. If meaning is not so much
located in the text, something that can be released by appropriate hermeneutical discipline, but something located in the mind of the reader, or, at
very least, shaped by the bouncing back-and-forth of the readers identity,
questions, and responses to the text with the words of the text itself, then
highly creative readings might be warranted by the identity and questions
of a specific individual or group. For the strongest voices in this heritage,
this is how the Bible can continue to be prophetic, i.e., to speak to the
issues of our day. Hence have arisen post-colonial studies, queer studies,
feminist studies, and ecological studies of the Bibleboth hermeneutical
analyses within these sub-disciplines, and commentaries that reflect them.
If one were to ask the question, Do you really think that the New Testament writers have any significant interest in, say, green matters?, the
response would be that the question presupposes an antiquated view of
hermeneutics that has not grasped the deepest significance of the turn to
the subject. More cautious respondents would say that we have too often
been blind to all that the texts might tell us if we changed the questions we
are prepared to ask, and these questions emerge from who we are, where
we live, and our own experiences that have shaped our agendas.
Moreover, because the turn to the subject is often associated with
diversity (in this case, diversity of interpretation, since monolithic interpretations are viewed as particularly manipulative and totalizing), there
has also arisen a new interest in, say, Asian biblical studies, African biblical studies, and so forth, along with salutary reminders that what most
of us regard as biblical studies are in fact Euro-American biblical studies. Increasingly, however, these geography-specific biblical studies are as
diverse as biblical studies prosecuted in the North Atlantic countries. For
example, there are African biblical studies that owe a great deal to the
165
166
d. a. carson
and so forth. Since all of them touch on the interpretive process, all of
them belong to the domain of hermeneutics. Therefore even though several of these topics are treated elsewhere in this volume, they cannot be
entirely ignored on this chapter devoted to hermeneutics. Two observations will clarify how these tools have shaped commentaries.
First, most of these tools have introduced some genuine gains in biblical studies. For example, when one reads the commentaries of B. F.
Westcott or J. B. Lightfoot, while admiring their learning one cannot help
but discover again and again that they read the standards of Attic Greek
into Hellenistic Greekand even their understanding of Attic Greek is in
line with assumed linguistic theory in their own day. Doubtless there are
ongoing debates about the nature and relevance of verbal aspect theory
for our understanding of the Greek verb, but no scholar today thinks that
reading Attic Greek as understood in 1860 into the pages of the New Testament is a responsible thing to do. Genre criticism has been underpinned
by sophisticated theory. Some genres have of course received a great deal
of attention: one thinks, for instance, of the complex developments in the
theory of parable interpretation. One should also recognize that a term
like parable is sometimes spectacularly abused, as when, for instance, the
resurrection of Jesus, or even the entire Gospel of Mark, is claimed in a
commentary to be a parable. But no one today says that the nineteenthcentury work of Adolf Jlicher is the last word on parables.
Yet, second, one worries about commentaries that have elected to
unpack the New Testament documents by appealing primarily, if not
almost exclusively, to one particular tool. How do such commentaries fare
on the long haul? Some label themselves as a certain kind of commentary
(e.g., the many socio-rhetorical commentaries by Ben Witherington III),
but in reality are fairly broadly-based commentaries with no more than
a special interest in one or two tools or approaches. Others, by contrast,
focus so heavily on one tool that it is difficult for a reader to avoid the
suspicion that this is an exercise in reductionism.
1.7The Use of the Old Testament in the New
As we have seen, the earliest Christian reflection on the need for an
appropriate hermeneutic arose not out of the experience of reading New
Testament texts but out of the experience of reading Old Testament texts.
Christians had to make sense of what was initially their canon, and what
became part of their canon. Two chapters in this book probe various
aspects of the New Testament use of the Old. Yet once again the subject
167
must be mentioned here, for in some ways the need to sort out how the
Old and New Testaments cohere has lurked behind most of the major
hermeneutical developments across the centuries: the spiritual interpretations of the Fathers, the four-fold interpretive grid of the Middle Ages,
Reformation wrestling with law and grace, the changing understandings
of what biblical theology might be, and so forth.
The last half-century has witnessed a formidable resurgence of interest
in the way the New Testament cites the Old. Sometimes commentaries
downplay this dependence on the Old in favor of Greco-Roman influence
(one thinks, for instance of Betz on Galatians),35 but a preponderance of
contemporary commentaries does not underplay the influence of the Old
Testament and the literature it has called forth. Yet that does not mean
there is widespread agreement as to how the New Testament writers read
the Oldand therefore the commentaries on these New Testament books
are similarly affected. On the one hand, Barnabas Lindars insists that a
large number of Old Testament texts are cited in the New Testament with
little respect for their Old Testament contexts: these passages have been
ripped from their contexts to provide prooftexts for Christian writers.36 On
the other hand, in 1952 Dodds seminal lecture stimulated many scholars
to show how often the New Testament writers presupposed the context
of the Old Testament texts that they cite.37 Nowadays specialist studies
regarding the use of the Old abound for almost every book of the New
Testament, and these are assiduously deployed by the commentary writers. Indeed, occasionally the same scholar who produces a major study of
the use of the Old Testament in one New Testament book also writes a
major commentary on that book.38 Much of the best of this material has
been gathered in a large commentary that studies every Old Testament
quotation or clear allusion in the New Testament.39
35Hans Dieter Betz, Galatians: A Commentary on Pauls Letter to the Churches in Galatia
(Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979).
36Barnabas Lindars, New Testament Apologetic: The Doctrinal Significance of the Old
Testament Quotations (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1961), 19.
37C. H. Dodd, The Old Testament in the New: The Ethel M. Wood Lecture Delivered before
the University of London on 4 March, 1952 (London: Athlone, 1952).
38E.g., G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999);
idem, Johns Use of the Old Testament in Revelation (JSNTSup 166; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999).
39G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson, eds., Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old
Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007).
168
d. a. carson
40Douglas J. Moo, The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives (Sheffield:
Almond, 1983).
41Surprisingly not translated into English until 1982: Typos: The Typological Interpretation of the Old Testament in the New (trans. Donald H. Madvig; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1982).
42The series is ACCS (Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture), published by
InterVarsity Press. The same publisher has just announced a similar project for Reformation sources.
170
d. a. carson
171
172
d. a. carson
174
daniel i. block
within Judaism.3 By their choice, the subject for discussion was Romans
911, specifically Pauls view of the Gospel and his disposition toward Jews.
From this conversation it struck me that Rom 10:13 declares in a nutshell
the scandalous rock ( , Rom 9:33).4 It is not Christian
claims to Jesus Messiahship that Jews view so blasphemous, but claims
of his divinity.5 As in 1 Cor 1:31; 2:16; 2 Cor 10:17; and Phil 2:1011, in Rom
10:13 an Old Testament text is applied to prove nothing other than that
the Pauline has been deified..., has become ,
and has his essential being in God.6 If this is how Jewish interpreters
understand in this text, how have Christian commentators
treated it? This paper seeks to answer this question. However, before we
explore how interpreters understand the phrase we should inquire concerning the origins of Pauls notion of the name of the Lord.
1.The Treatment of the Name of the Lord in Commentaries
on Romans 10:13
Through the centuries Christian commentators have responded to
Pauls reference to the name of the Lord in different ways. In the first
instance, many commentators do not find the expression noteworthy
at all. The following represents all that the notable New Testament scholar
F. F. Brucewhose training was in the Old Testamentsays about
this citation:
Quoted from Joel ii. 32, where it relates to the period on the eve of the
great and terrible day of the Lord when Gods Spirit is to be poured out on
all flesh; compare Peters use of the same Scripture to explain the events
of the day of Pentecost: This is that which was spoken by the prophet
(Acts ii. 16).
3While we meet regularly once each semester for the sheer joy of dialogue, our conversations revolve around specific texts.
4Note also the stone of stumbling ( and )
in Rom 9:3233.
5See more fully H. J. Schoeps, Paul: The Theology of the Apostle in the Light of Jewish
Religious History (trans. H. Knight; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1961), 16067.
6Ibid., 154.
175
176
daniel i. block
he prefaces his citation by declaring that Joel prophesied about the Lord
Christ ( ), and concludes with a reference to Peters
comments at Pentecost in Acts 2:1421.11 In his full length commentary
on Romans, Origen of Alexandria (ca. A.D. 185251) begins the discussion
of Rom 10:13 by citing Joel, and then gives considerable attention to the
person to whom people must call to be saved. Referring also to 1 Cor 1:2
(all who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both
their Lord and ours), he identifies the Lord to whom the prophet Joel
referred and the Lord to whom Enosh, Moses and Aaron, and Samuel had
effectively called as Christ.12 Although this interpretation may be found in
modern homiletical commentaries on Joel,13 it is rare in commentaries on
Romans, and when it occurs it is more restrained.14
A third approach is to interpret in Rom 10:13 in its appellative
or titular sense, that is, sovereign, [divine] lord. This interpretation also
has a long history. After quoting Rom 11:1113, the fourth century theologian from Alexandria, Didymus the Blind, asks, With which name shall
they call upon the Son, those who refer to him neither as unbegotten
God nor as Son, who is of the same essence as the Father, who is the
renowned triumphant one, the savior of the heavens, the earth and the
sea?15 Ambrosiaster comments, If he is the Lord of all, then he is called
on by his servants, and because this is the case, Paul adds what follows.16
But this view is also found in modern commentaries. In 2005, Leander
Keck writes,
Here Paul does not indicate whether Lord of all refers to God (as in 9:5) or
to Christ, whose lordship is confessed in verse 9. Paul does not need to specify one or the other because the status of the resurrected and exalted Jesus
as Lord does not compete with the lordship of the one God, but expresses
11 According to David Satran (Biblical Prophets in Byzantine Palestine: Reassessing the
Lives of the Prophets [Studia in Veteris Testamenti Pseudepigrapha; Leiden: Brill, 1997],
10), The Dorothean recension is characterized by lengthy christological prefaces to the
individual vitae.
12 For the Latin text, see C. P. Hammong Bammel, Der Rmerbriefkommentar des Origenes: Kritische Ausgabe der bersetzung Rufins Buch 710 (Vetus Latina: aus der Geschichte
der lateinischen Bibel 34; Freiburg: Herder, 1998), 65154.
13 E.g., A. Rowland declares (Joel, in The Pulpit Commentary [ed. H. D. M. Spence and
J. S. Exell; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1950], 13:43), His name is Jesus. [italics his].
14 Note for example, J. A. Beet: Joel refers evidently to the day of Christ....The Lord: in
Joel Jehovah, the proper name of the God of Israel. But it is easy to apply it to Christ our
Lord. A Commentary on St. Pauls Epistle to the Romans (London: Hodder and Stoughton,
1900), 287 [emphasis his].
15 Cf. Honscheids German translation, Didymus der Blinde, 195.
16 As translated by Bray, Ambrosiaster, 85.
177
it, as in Phil 2:911. There God, by resurrection, highly exalted him and gave
him the name [Lord] that is above every nameGods own name; moreover the cosmic acclamation, Jesus Christ is Lord, is to the glory of God
the Father. For Paul, the lordship of the one God and the lordship of Christ
are distinguishable but not separable, for Gods lordship is now exercised
through the lordship of Christ.
178
daniel i. block
the name of the Lord Jesus (cf. Acts 9:14, 21; 22:16; 1 Cor. 1:2; II Tim. 2:22) and
therefore accorded to him the worship that belonged to God alone.20
179
persuasion that equalizes the honor of the entire human race. It is likely that
Joels formulation of the name of the Lord would have been understood in
the light of the baptismal formula, into the name of Jesus. Whereas salvation in Joel refers to Israel gaining precedence over other nations, with the
word every one referring to all Israel, including the returning captives, the
new context is fully ecumenical, following the explicit reference to the lack
of distinction between Jews and Greeks.23
180
daniel i. block
181
12:13; Col 3:17; Jas 5:10. : Acts 9:28; 1 Cor 5:4; 6:11; Eph 5:20; 2 Thess 3:6;
Jas 5:14. : Acts 15:26; 21:13; 1 Cor 1:10.
28Acts 8:16; 19:5, 13, 17; 21:13; 1 Cor 1:2, 10; 5:4; 6:11; Eph 5:20; Col 3:17; 2 Thess 1:12; 3:6.
This by no means exhausts the texts in which Jesus is specifically identified as .
Note the ubiquitous references to the Lord Jesus Christ (20+) and the Lord Jesus (30+),
etc. In pronominal expressions like my Lord (John 20:28; Phil 3:8) and our Lord (60+),
we need always to determine whether is simply an epithet of respect, equivalent to
Sir, or actually a substitute for YHWH. But personal names never appear with modifying
pronouns or with the article.
29This contrasts with many of the citations from the Old Testament in chapters 911:
9:9, 13, 15, 17, 25, 27, 29, 33; 10:5, 6, 11, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21; 11:3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 26, 27, 34, 35 .
182
daniel i. block
30Thus P. E. Kahle, Die Kairoer Genisa. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des hebrischen
Bibeltextes und seiner bersetzungen (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1962), 23262; S. Schulz,
Maranatha und Kyrios Jesus, ZNW 53 (1962): 12830; G. Howard, The Tetragram and the
New Testament, JBL 96 (1977): 6366. J. A. Fitzmyer, Der semitische Hintergrund des neutestamentlichen Kyriostitels, in Jesus Christus in Historie und Theologie (ed. G. Strecker;
FS H. Conzelmann; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1975), 26798 (published in English as The
Semitic Background of the New Testament KyriosTitle, in A Wandering Aramean: Collected Aramaic Essays [SBLMS 25: Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1979], 11542). So also D.
Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (NICNT; 2d ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 660.
31 So P. W. Skehan, The Qumran Manuscripts and Textual Criticism, in Congress
Volume: Strasbourg, 1956 (ed. G. W. Anderson et al.; VTSup 4; Leiden: Brill), 14860; H.
Stegemann, Religionsgeschichtliche Erwgungen zu den Gottesbezeichnungen in den
Qumrantexten, in Qumran. Sa pit, sa thologie et son milieu (ed. M. Delcor; BEThL 44;
Leuven: Peeters, 1978), 205; F. E. Shaw, The Earliest Non-Mystical Jewish Use of
(Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Cincinnati, 2002).
32Thus A. Pietersma, Kyrios or Tetragramm: A Renewed Quest for the Original Septuagint, in De Septuaginta: Studies in Honour of John William Wevers on his Sixty-Fifth Birthday
(Mississauga, ON: Benben Publications, 1984): 85101; M. Rsel, The Reading and Translation of the Divine Name in the Masoretic Tradition and the Greek Pentateuch, JSOT 31
(2007): 41128.
33The high priests charge of blasphemy in response to Jesus declaration ,
I am, in Mark 14:62, suggests he interpreted Jesus as uttering the holy name of God.
So also Schoeps, Paul, 161. Compare also the effect of Jesus utterance of this phrase in
John 18:56. The phrase translates into Hebrew as ( Exod 3:14).
34Represented in the Aramaic of New Testament times as . This epithet is reflected
in the expression, , Our Lord come, in 1 Cor 16:22. Of course, this raises the
question whether or not the original addressees of the New Testament epistles would
have recognized YHWH behind the references to . Although the question cannot
be answered with certainty, the frequency of citations and allusions to Old Testament
texts in the epistleseven to predominantly Gentile communities; e.g., Galatians) suggests that early evangelistic and discipleship efforts were accompanied by instruction in
the Old Testament Scriptures, which insisted that the God of Israel was the one and only
183
two expressions reflect totally different relationships; the name is personal, while the title is formal.35 We may illustrate the point with many
modern equivalents: addressing the queen of England as Your majesty,
or Elizabeth; the mayor of a city as your worship or Sid; a professor as
Dr. Jones or David. Commentators are generally agreed that in Rom 10:13
Paul is linking Jesus with YHWH, but the nature of that linkage is disputed; is he associating Jesus with YHWH as Sovereign over the universe
and lord of his people, or is this YHWH of the exodus and the covenant?
We will withhold a consideration of the answer until later. Our concern
here is to explore how sensitive commentators over the centuries and millennia have been to this issue and what significance they drew from it.
Second, whereas the Hebrew, , translates literally
Who call on/with/ by the name of YHWH (e.g., Gen 4:26), LXX renders
the clause with the accusative, , who
call out the name of YHWH. Actually, LXX translates the idiom
, to call by the name of YHWH, either with a preposition, to call
upon the name of the Lord ( ),36 or to call in the name
of the Lord ( ),37 or as a dative, to call to the Lord (
true God. Whether they identified him by name as YHWH or by title as is unclear.
On early preaching to Gentile audiences, see Eckhard J. Schnabel, Early Christian Mission,
vol. 2, Paul and the Early Church (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 138592.
Understanding Jesus as presented in the Gospel of John, particularly the I AM statements
that climax in John 18:56, seems to depend on awareness of the Tetragrammaton as the
name of God.
35The current debate in some quarters concerning how we should render Son of God
in translations aimed for Muslim readers involves a similar issue. Is Jesus divinity really
surrendered if we render the phrase as the Son who comes from God?
For discussion, see Collin Hansen, The Son and the Crescent, Christianity Today 55/2
(February, 2011): 1923. Unfortunately the discussion tends to overlook the fact that the
epithet son of God is not primarily an affirmation of divinity, but a Messianic title, as
Peter recognized in his confession, You are the Messiah, the Son of the Living God. Given
the Old Testament background of the phrase, this title reflected the sons status as vassal
(equivalent to Hebrew = Greek ) vis vis a father, that is an overlord (Hebrew
= Greek ; cf. 1 Kgs 16:6). Although the Israelites collectively were YHWHs firstborn, the title son of God applied especially to David and his descendants in a particular
messianic sense. The descent of the Spirit of God upon Jesus and the heavenly declaration
of This is my beloved Son have less to say about Jesus divinity than about his status as
Messiah; this is the moment of his anointing for messianic service. Belief in Jesus divinity
is not dependent upon this title; it is firmly established by attributing to Jesus the name
Yahweh (as in Rom 10:13), the personal name of the God of Israel, the creator of all things,
and the divine King who rules over all. As Son of God, Jesus is the Son who has come to
do the will of the Father.
36Gen 12:8; Exod 33:19; Isa 44:5 (name of Israel).
371 Kgs 18:2426; 2 Kgs 5:11; 1 Chron 16:8.
184
daniel i. block
185
is our God. (Zech 13:9).44 According to Zephaniah 3:9, a person who calls
out the name of YHWH declares his vassal status and his readiness to serve
him: At that time I will change the speech of the peoples to a pure speech,
so all of them may call on the name of YHWH and serve him with together
(Zeph 3:9).45 This covenantal link may provide the key to Genesis 4:26,
where the narrator declares that in the days of Enosh people began to call
[out] the name of YHWH () , as well as repeated references
to Abraham and Isaac doing the same. In each instance this verbal act was
accompanied by a non-verbal cultic gesture of devotion: building an altar
(Gen 12:8; 13:4; 26:25) or planting a tree (21:33).
If calling out the name of YHWH signified a cry of allegiance or a declaration of commitment, then not calling out his name signaled the absence
of a relationship with him. Nations that do not know YHWH do not call
out his name (Ps 79:6; Jer 10:25). In Jeremiah 44:26, YHWH describes his
rejection of those Judaeans who went down to Egypt in the aftermath of
Gedaliahs murder: Look, I have sworn by my great name that my name
shall no longer be pronounced on the lips of any of the people of Judah
in the whole land of Egypt, saying, As Adonai YHWH lives. Isaiah 64:6
7[ET 78] speaks of a time when no one called YHWHs name or roused
up to take hold of him, for YHWH had hidden his face from his people
and made them melt for their iniquities. However, now they acknowledge
YHWH as their father; he is the potter, and they are the clay.
With this interpretation we may have discovered a key to Joel 3:5:
[
]
44On this covenant formula, see K. Baltzer, The Covenant Formulary: in Old Testament,
Jewish and Early Christian Writings (Oxford: Blackwell, 1971); R. Rendtorff, The Covenant
Formula: An Exegetical and Theological Investigation (trans. M. Kohl; Edinburgh: T&T
Clark, 1998).
45In the context of describing the faithful service of Samuel and Moses and Aaron
(Ps 96:68[LXX 98:68]), the psalmist characterizes them as those who called his name
( , accusative); they called to YHWH and he answered them (v. 6).
46The clause , as YHWH has said, refers to his ancient covenant
promise to restore Israel to full relationship with himself within their land after the
judgment, as declared in Lev 26:4045; Deut 4:2931; 30: 110. Cf. Deuteronomys use of
, as YHWH has declared (Deut 6:3, 19; 9:3; 27:3).
186
daniel i. block
This text is striking for its pairing of concepts: those who are delivered
( ) and the survivors (;) 47 Mount Zion and Jerusalem; those
who call on YHWH and those whom he calls. Indeed this statement sandwiches the divine promise of salvation between two declarations of the
preconditions: people will call upon YHWH, and YHWH will call on the
people.48 The syntax of the two clauses is identical, with both involving
the conjunction , who, the verb , to call, and the preposition
+ noun. However, the word order has been altered to create a suggestive
A B B A chiasm:
If the first line should be translated, all who call on the name of YHWH,
as if this is an appeal for deliverance, then we should render the second
line similarly, those survivors on whom YHWH calls. But this is absurd;
YHWH does not call on anyone to rescue him. The translators of LXX
got it right when they rendered with an accusative:
, who call out the name of the Lord.49 It
remains to be seen whether Paul accepted this understanding of Joel or
whether he adapted his statement to some other purpose in Rom 10:13.
Pauls Use of the Name of the Lord in Romans 10:13
When Paul cites Joel 3:5 in Rom 10:13, the apostle to the Gentiles makes
several significant moves. First, he universalizes the scope of a prophecy
that originally concerned only Israels survival on the day of YHWH. The
prophets focus in Joel 2 is entirely parochial; those who were once known
as the people of YHWH and as his special possession ( ; 2:17), have
47To this pair we might be tempted to add
, escape at the end of line 2. How denotes escape in the abstract, rather than escapees, which is represented
ever,
. See D. I. Block, The Kingship Belongs to YHWH: Hearing the Message of Obadiah
by
(Hearing the Message of Scripture; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, forthcoming).
48Just as Israel calls YHWH by name, so YHWH calls Israel by their name (Isa 43:1). But
Israel is also called by YHWHs name (1 Chron 7:14; Isa 43:7), which probably means that
they are stamped by his name and marked as his vassals (cf. Isa 44:5). Those over whom
YHWH does not rule as divine patron are not called by his name (Isa 63:19). However,
in his grace, to a people that was not called by his name, he has declared his covenantal
presence (Isa 65:1).
49See note 40 above.
187
been divorced from their land and their God and scattered among the
peoples. However, out of zeal for his land and pity for his people, on the
day of YHWH (2:31), YHWH will restore the deity-people-land covenantal
triangle, securing their status as his covenant people by pouring out his
Spirit on all Israelites.50 The nations are indeed involved in this picture,
though not as participants in the salvation, but as the objects of divine
fury (2:115). When Paul prefaces his citation from Joel with a quotation
from Isa 28:16, No one who believes in him will be put to shame, and
then adds, For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same
Lord is Lord of all and is generous to all who call on him (NRSV), he has
sprung the ethnocentric boundaries of the covenant and universalized the
promise of Joel.
Second, Paul reshapes the nature of the salvation. In Joel 3:5 to be
saved (Hebrew ; Greek ) meant escape from the cosmic
upheaval on the day of YHWH. When the nations will face the fury of God,
Israel will be spared. It is not that Israel herself has not been the target
of divine fury. On the contrary, the first chapter of Joel has portrayed in
vivid terms Israels experience of her own day of YHWH, because of her
persistent rebellion against YHWH her Lord. However, in chapter 2 the
focus shifts to a day in the distant future, when the descendants of the
survivors of the first day of YHWH will be faced with a second cosmic
day of YHWH. This time her salvation will climax in the full restoration
of Israel in her land and YHWH dwelling in her midst.
Salvation is an important notion in Romans, particularly chs. 911.51
Romans 10:1 is especially important for setting the stage for Pauls develop
ment of the notion in these chapters, for here Paul expresses a narrow
ethnocentric concern for the salvation () of all Jews, whom he had
earlier identified as my brothers, my physical kinsmen, who are Israelites
(9:34). But there is a certain irony in this statement. The first annual observance in the religious calendar of the Jews was the Feast of Unleavened
Bread and Passover, when they celebrated their rescue by YHWH from
188
daniel i. block
189
Christ actually has two names: Jesus and YHWH. While acknowledging that
this takes us outside the Pauline corpus, it is significant that the first was
the name given to him by his human step-father. According to Matthews
infancy narrative (Matt 1:2125), Joseph named Marys son Jesusalbeit
at the direction of the envoy of YHWH,53 who also thereby interpreted
the significance of this child by interpreting the name: he shall save his
people from their sins. Not only is Jesus () the Greek version of
;Josh 13:16), which alludes to Israels deliverance from
Joshua (
Pharaoh and their exodus from Egypt,54 but the explanation also uses the
language of salvation () and covenant (his people; ).
This is Jesus earthly name, given to him by a human. The name YHWH
represents Gods self-definition and self-identification. He had revealed
this name to his people ( ; ) and invited them
to address him by this name in perpetuity (Exod 3:1415). But later Moses
had also personally heard him introduce himself by this name and then
offer an exposition of its significance (Exod 34:67).55 In Christ these two
names meet.56
When Paul referred to Jesus as YHWH in Rom 10:13, he did not abandon the monotheism of Israel by introducing a new deity, who was distinguished from the God of Israel and who had usurped his place. On the
contrary, his previous declaration was rigorously monotheistic: For there
is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is Lord of all
and is generous to all who call on him (Rom 10:12, NRSV). If the allusion
to the Shema is only implicit here, Paul has been explicit in identifying
Christ with YHWH confessed in the Shema in Rom 3:2930:57 Or is God
the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles
also, since God is one; and he will justify the circumcised on the ground
of faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith (NRSV).58 The old
creedal confession still stands, but in the face of Christs resurrection, to
the Shema we must add, Jesus is YHWH. By raising Jesus from the dead
53Greek in Matt 1:20 is equivalent to Hebrew .
54Moses renamed Hoshea (a generic name meaning He has saved) as Joshua
(YHWH has saved) in the light of YHWHs self-revelation in the events associated with
the exodus (Josh 13:16).
55 ..., YHWH YHWH, the gracious and compassionate El....
The Greek reads, ....
56The significance of these names is matched by the significance of his titles in the
Gospels: from the human earthly point of view he is the Son of God; from the heavenly
point of view he is the Son of Man. Cf. Dan 7:13.
57So also Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel, 19394.
58Cf. also 1 Cor 8:56.
190
daniel i. block
God demonstrated both Jesus lordship over all (Rom 10:12) and his identity with YHWH (v. 9). Within the broader context Paul presents the way
of salvation for Jews and Gentiles with a syllogistic argument:
YHWH is the one and only God.
Jesus Christ is YHWH.
Therefore, Jesus is the one and
only God.59
Conclusion
With these three transformations of Joels prophecy Paul gave his Jewish detractors three reasons to reject his gospel. By ascribing the name of
YHWH to Jesus, this Israelite and Messiah after the flesh ( ,
Rom 9:3, 5), who died60 ignominiously by crucifixion (Rom 6:6), Paul has
presented the scandalous rock that is the Gospel (9:33; 11:9). He has done
so elsewhere even more explicitly and fully in Phil 2:511. It is no wonder
then, that the Jews are offended. To them, Jesus is accursed (
; 1 Cor 12:3). In the words of Schoeps, This myth of the condescension, sacrificial atoning death, and ascension of the heavenly man is radically un-Jewish.61 Pauls Christology is a scandal, i.e., an impossible
faith-idea; for it violates the sovereignty and sheer transcendence of God,
and in fact destroys the world.62 In John 10:33 the Jews tried to stone Jesus
for blasphemy (), because he claimed to be Godeven though
he was only a human being (cf. John 5:18; Acts 7:5460). The messianic
hope within Judaism is summarized by Trypho, the Hellenized Jewish
conversation partner of Justin Martyr, We all expect that Christ will be a
59 That is, Jesus is integral to and shares in the identity of the one and only God, who
identified himself by name to Israel as YHWH. For fuller development of this notion, see
D. S. Yeago, The New Testament and the Nicene Dogma: A Contribution to the Recovery
of Theological Exegesis, in The Theological Interpretation of Scripture: Classic and Contemporary Readings (ed. S. E. Fowl; Blackwell Readings in Modern Theology; Oxford: Blackwell, 1997), 87100. I am grateful to my colleague Daniel Treier for drawing this essay to
my attention.
60 Paul repeatedly associates Jesus with the words , dead (1:4; 4:24; 6:4, 9; 7:4;
8:11; 10:7, 9) , death (5:10; 6:3, 4, 5, 9), and , to die (5:6, 8, 15; 6:8, 9, 10;
8:34; 14:9).
61 Thus Schoeps, Paul, 155 [italics his].
62 Ibid., 162.
191
man born of men.63 Through the centuries Jewish readers of Paul have
recognized the significance of Pauls application of the epithet, , to
Jesus in Rom 10:13. However, they have generally rejected his Christology
because, apart from the reviving and illuminating work of the Holy Spirit,
no one can affirm , Jesus is Lord, i.e., Jesus is YHWH!
(1 Cor 12:3). If in ancient Israel a true and godly Israelite was identified
as one who proclaimed YHWH is our God, YHWH alone, in the New
Testament the self-defining declaration of a Christian is Jesus is Lord
(1 Cor 1:2; Acts 9:14, 21; 2 Tim 2:22). To call out the name of the Lord is to
receive Jesus Christ as Savior.64 In the New Testament those who called
out his name were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus (
; Acts 8:16; 19:5; cf. 1 Cor 1:13), or simply into Christ Jesus
(Rom 6:3; Gal 3:27).65
This identification of Jesus with YHWH is at the heart of Pauls quotation of Joel 3:5. Throughout Romans 911 his focus has been on Jesus
) in the flesh (9:5; cf. 10:67),
Christ, who, while being Christ (
through his death and resurrection has been declared to be both Lord
( ) and the LORD (). While commentators on Rom 10:13 have
done well to highlight the universality of the salvation offered in Christ
(All [] who call]), the means by which this salvation is appropriated
(by calling []), and the blessed benefit that results from the call
(salvation []), these features are relatively obvious to readers of
the epistle. What is not so apparent, and therefore in need of clarification for readers of Scripture, is the significance of Pauls reference to the
name of the Lord ( ). Given the unfortunate loss of the
name of God in Judaism and the inheritance of this loss by the church,
without such aid casual readers will continue to misread this text primarily in terms of lordship Christology. However, when believers cry out the
name of the Lord, they cry out a name, not merely a title. Titles like
highlight the distance between addressee (the suzerain; Hebrew ;
Greek ) and addresser (the vassal; Hebrew ; Greek ), and
call for the submission of the latter to the former. But the revelation of a
name is an invitation to a more personal relationship and an invitation to
63Dialogue with Trypho, 49:1. For further description of Jewish protestations of Pauls
Gospel, see Schoeps, Paul, 16067.
64So also H. Langenburg, Der Rmerbrief: Der heilsgeschichtliche Missionsberuf der
Gemeinde und der paulinische Lehrtypus (2nd ed.; Hamburg: Schriftenmission Langenburg,
2003), 270.
65Cf. Jewett, Romans, 633; D. Zeller, Der Brief an die Rmer: bersetzt und erklrt
(Regensburg: Pustet, 1985), 187.
192
daniel i. block
66Compare the pathetic Prayer to Every God, addressed to the god/goddess whom I
know or do not know, by an ancient Mesopotamian. ANET, 39192.
67Rowe, What is the Name of the Lord? 136. In similar vein, Yeago writes, In the
resurrection, as the church confesses it in worship, God has so utterly identified himself
with Jesus, and Jesus has been so inextricably associated with God, that it is not possible
to turn to the God of Israel without at the same time turning to Jesus (The New Testament
and the Nicene Dogma, 90; italics his).
1Walter Wink, The Bible in Human Transformation: Toward a New Paradigm for Biblical
Study (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1973), 2.
2This article is dedicated to my colleague and friend, Grant Osborne, whose wellknown scholarly contributions range from careful technical studies of texts to the wise
and pastorally sensitive presentations of the results of such studies for the general public.
Equally important is his significant study The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation (2nd ed.; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2006) that
unpacks the processes in the construction of the bridge between the ancient text and the
contemporary audience.
194
david w. pao
3This is not, however, to assume that the doctrinal sections are to be understood
strictly as theoretical discussions and the parenetic as practical ones. In the Epistle to the
Romans, for example, the first section (111) can be considered as a redefinition of Gods
people in light of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, while the second section
(1216) is no less theoretical as it focuses on the reconstruction of this new identity among
the true people of God.
4Graydon F. Snyder, Major Motifs in the Interpretation of Pauls Letter to the Romans,
in Celebrating Romans: Template for Pauline Theology. Essays in Honor of Robert Jewett (ed.
Sheila E. McGinn; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 48.
5Brendan Byrne, Romans (SP 6; Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1996), 385.
6For detailed bibliographies and surveys of scholarship, see, for example, Vilho
Riekkinen, Rmer 13: Aufzeichnung und Weiterfhrung der exegetischen Diskussion (Dissertationes Humanarum Litterarum 23; Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1980), 2202;
Lutz Pohle, Die Christen und der Staat nach Rmer 13: Eine typologische Untersuchung der
neueren deutschsprachigen Schriftauslegung (Mainz: Matthias-Grnewald, 1984), 2328;
Ulrich Wilckens, Der Brief an die Rmer (Rm 1216) (EKKNT VI.3; Zrich: BenzigerNeukirchener Verlag, 2003), 4366; Stefan Krauter, Studien zu Rm 13,17: Paulus und der
politische Diskurs der neronischen Zeit (WUNT 243; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 454.
195
196
david w. pao
which routinely erected and staffed pagan temples as part of a large and
powerful civic religion.10 Pauls command in spite of his awareness of
such practices seems to necessitate a strict observance of Pauls words in
Romans 13.
From the first-century to the contemporary setting, many have found
the relevance of this plain reading of Pauls teaching. See, for example, a
more recent American appropriation of this text: [E]very person without
exception must submit to the higher powers. Whether high or low, Christian or non-Christian, Republican under Democratic rule or Democrat
under Republican ruleeveryone must submit. Whether a persons views
are in the ascendancy or not, he must obey governmental powers.11
Many of those who affirm versions of this reading would readily concede that behind Pauls statement lies the significant affirmation that
ones ultimate allegiance is to God himself. The limit to ones submission
to the state becomes the area of intense debate, and such debate is often
framed by the ways one is to understand the rationale behind Pauls command here in this epistle and the reason behind his positive evaluation
of the state.
1.2Authenticity of the Text
Perhaps the most efficient way of dealing with Rom 13:17 is to challenge
its authenticity. Despite the lack of text critical support for this conclusion, some have pointed to the awkward disruption caused by the presence of this paragraph,12 the apparent fit of this passage in a Sitz im Leben
of a later period,13 and even the general presence of interpolated passages
in Romans14 in support of the argument that this is not the product of the
197
authentic Paul. Such readings would provide a convenient solution for the
problems posed by this passage, but these readings appear to reveal the
desire of these critics rather than that of Paul.
1.3Conceptual Frameworks
On more solid grounds, various proposals of the conceptual framework
of this passage have been evoked in dealing with its significance and
applicability. These proposals highlight Pauls indebtedness to Old Testament exilic prophetic teachings,15 Hellenistic Jewish theology,16 and
Greco-Roman philosophical and political traditions.17 While no scholar
would assume that Paul develops his position within a cultural and historical vacuum, some consider these conceptual frameworks as sufficient in explaining Pauls discussion in this passage. For James Dunn, for
example, this discussion of conceptual antecedents combined with the
observation of the lack of elements that reflect a unique Pauline theology
suggests that this passage is simply the carry over of Jewish wisdom, it is
creation theology if it is anything.18 Others are even less generous: there
is no principle enunciated here, no high-flown notion of the orders of
creation, no Christological grounding of the statejust simple, homespun, garden-variety, practical wisdom.19 For some, the identification of
conceptual parallels and the lack of uniquely Pauline arguments become
the basis for rejecting this paragraph as the basis of the understanding of
Pauls political philosophy.
While it is profitable to identify the sources behind Pauls moral discourse, we should not assume that he is therefore controlled by the
11:2527; 13:17; 16:1720; and 16:2527. This is related to how one views interpolation in
ancients texts in general; cf. Walter Schmithals, Der Rmerbrief: Ein Kommentar (Gtersloh:
Mohn, 1988), 458.
15Cf. Jer 29:7; and its later expressions in Bar 1:11; 1 Macc 7:33; Joseph A. Fitzmyer,
Romans (AB 33; New York: Doubleday, 1993), 665.
16Wayne A. Meeks, The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul (New
Haven: Yale University Press, 1983), 106: in Rom. 13:17 Paul is using a form of paraenesis
that had been formulated by the diaspora Jewish communities. Similarly, Matthew Black,
Romans (2nd ed.; NCB; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), 17980.
17Cf. Seneca, De Clementia 1.14; Troels Engberg-Pedersen, Pauls Stoicizing Politics in
Romans 1213: The Role of 13.110 in the Argument, JSNT 29 (2006): 16372.
18James D. G. Dunn, Romans 13.17A Charter for Political Quietism? ExAud 2 (1986):
67. Some have, however, noted that Pauls use of the anachronistic Jewish tradition is
meant to challenge the centralized Roman imperial system; Dieter Georgi, Theocracy in
Pauls Praxis and Theology (trans. David E. Green; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991), 102.
19Roy A. Harrisville, Romans (ACNT; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1980), 204.
198
david w. pao
sources that he does use. Even if he is borrowing from such sources, sufficient attention has to be paid to the ways such traditions function within
Pauls wider theological and christological arguments.
1.4Historical Contexts
Moving from the conceptual framework to the Sitz im Leben of this
paragraph, many believe that knowing the historical context of the mid50s A.D. would at least contribute to our understanding of the reason(s)
why Paul wrote the way he did. Various scenarios have been proposed,
and a combination of the factors identified may provide a clearer picture for our contemporary appropriations of this passage. First, some have
attributed Pauls positive evaluation of the state here to his positive experience of the Pax Romana in his earlier missionary activities. This passage is understood as having been written at a moment of some peace in
the realm, and is guiding Roman Christians as to how to respond if
the state is operating in a just and fair manner.20 Pauls position here
therefore reflects [h]is happy experience of Roman justice,21 and his goal
is to avoid disturbing the Pax Romana which specifically favoured the
new religion.22
Others have, however, pointed to a number of instances where Pauls
experience with the Roman rule is less than ideal (2 Cor 11:25).23 Moreover, Paul is surely aware of the early Christian understanding that Herod
and Pontius Pilate assembled together with the Gentiles and the people of
Israel in this city to conspire against...Jesus (Acts 4:27). The experience
199
of the peace and safety24 offered by the Roman government may not be
able to explain fully Pauls discussion in Rom 13:17.25
Instead of the general condition of the early Roman imperial period,
many have attempted to identify specific historical events as the context
within which Paul wrote this paragraph. The prime candidate is perhaps
the expulsion of the Jews or the Jewish Christians during the reign of
Claudius (cf. Suetonius, Claudius 25.4). With this paragraph, therefore,
Paul wanted to be certain that the Christian community in Rome was not
responsible for any unrest, for they had already been rejected from Rome
once.26 Some further consider this event as the main reason for Pauls
writing of this entire epistle: Paul wrote Romans to oppose this gentileChristian boasting over Israel, and the corresponding indifference to the
plight of real Jews in Rome in the wake of the Claudian expulsion.27
Others see the beginning stages of the development of anti-Roman sentiments in Palestine as prompting Paul to prevent such sentiments from
spreading throughout the Roman Empire. This is best captured by Marcus
Borg: When Paul wrote this passage to the Christians in Rome Judaism
was on the brink of catastrophe as a result of its longstanding resistance to
Roman imperialism. An emerging Christianity, founded by a Jew whom the
Romans had crucified...was inevitably caught up in the crisis of JewishRoman relations. What was the right posture to adopt toward Rome? This
was a burning question for Diaspora and Palestinian communities alike.28
24Note Pauls use of this phrase in 1 Thess 5:3 precisely to challenge those who thought
that they could rely on the Pax Romana.
25Cf. Wolfgang Schrage, Die Christen und der Staat nach dem Neuen Testament
(Gtersloh: Mohn, 1971), 5153.
26Thomas R. Schreiner, Romans (BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 679. Cf. Andr
Viard, Saint Paul, ptre aux Romains (SB; Paris: Gabalda, 1975), 273; Rudolf Pesch, Rmerbrief (NEchtB 6; Wrzburg: Echter, 1983), 95. See also the more recent statement in Craig S.
Keener, Romans (New Covenant Commentary Series; Eugene, Oreg.: Cascade, 2009), 153.
27Neil Elliott, Romans 13:17 in the Context of Imperial Propaganda, in Paul and
Empire: Religion and Power in Roman Imperial Society (ed. Richard A. Horsley; Harrisburg,
Pa.: Trinity Press International, 1997), 190.
28Marcus Borg, A New Context for Romans XIII, NTS 19 (1972): 218.
29John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapid: Eerdmans, 1959), 146.
200
david w. pao
(Rom 13:67).30 Evidence of unrest prompted by the collection of indirect taxes during the time of Nero provides yet another context for this
paragraph (cf. Tacitus, Annals 13.50; Suetonius, Nero 10),31 and this has
been taken by a number of commentators as providing the most likely
scenario beyond the writing of this paragraph.32
Finally, moving from the situation of the Roman church to the situation
of Pauls own missionary activity, some believe that Pauls intention is to
gain the support of the Romans whom Paul is attempting to recruit in
support of his Spanish mission.33 The call to submission is therefore not
based on a theology of church and state, but an expedient and pragmatic
policy for sake of the greater good.34
Without evaluating these competing proposals, it is worth noting that
many of these proposals are meant to relativize the power and applicability
of this text. Borg, from whom we have quoted above, concludes his study
by noting that Pauls famous generalizations about governing authorities
were intended, not as abiding principles to be applied in every situation,
but as specific advice to particular people facing a historically identifiable
set of circumstances.35 Others who argue for a different context likewise
conclude that Romans 13:17 was not intended to create the foundation
of a political ethic for all times and places in succeeding generations
a task for which it has proven to be singularly ill-suited.36
30Most consider taxation as a concrete historical issue that Paul intends to address. For
a reading that sees taxation rather as a symbol that evokes resentment and thus the need
for the call to be obedient as an act of detachment, see Fabian Pfitzmann, Paiement des
impts et obissance aux autorits: Le dfi dune foi incarne selon Paul (Romains 13,17),
ETR 79 (2004): 41123.
31 See, in particular, J. Friedrich, W. Phlmann, and P. Stuhlmacher, Zur historischen
Situation und Intention von Rm 13,17, ZTK 73 (1976): 15359.
32Moo, Epistle to the Romans, 79293. See also A. J. M. Wedderburn, The Reasons for
Romans (London: T&T Clark, 1988), 62; Brendan Byrne, Romans (SP 6; Collegeville, Minn.:
Liturgical Press, 1996), 386.
33Robert Jewett, Romans: A Commentary (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007),
786. See also Jan Botha, Creation of New Meaning: Rhetorical Situations and the Reception of Romans 13:17, JTSA 79 (1992): 2437.
34Many thus see a sense of political realism behind Pauls discussion here; cf. James
D. G. Dunn, Romans 916 (WBC 38B; Dallas, TX: Word, 1988), 67; Jon Nelson, Pauls Political Paraenesis in Romans 13:17, ResQ 46 (2004): 1128.
35Borg, A New Context for Romans XIII, 205.
36Jewett, Romans, 786.
201
1.5Textual Ambiguities
From the historical contexts to the text itself, certain words and phrases
can be interpreted in ways to suggest that Paul is not advocating an absolute command to submit to civil and political authorities. Four verses
in particular have attracted the attention of many. In v. 1, Paul begins
with the general command: Let every person be subject to the governing
authorities. The word translated as the authorities () has been
taken as a reference to other forms of authorities. These include spiritual
powers,37 Jewish synagogues,38 and even ecclesiastical leadership.39 In
their different ways, these proposals divert attention away from the obedience to the political authorities, even though there is a near consensus
that these authorities are to be understood as political authorities especially in light of references to taxation in Rom 13:67.
Pauls statement in v. 4 (for it is Gods servant for your good) also
provides space for a conditional reading of this passage. This statement
can be understood as a universal and absolute declaration of the goodness of all governing authorities, and some who hold this reading have
accused Paul of being detached from reality.40 Others consider this statement to be a conditional one as Paul points to the need for the governing
37Oscar Cullmann, The State in the New Testament (New York: Scribner), 6570. This
interpretation can be traced back to the second century as reflected in Irenaeus refutation
of this reading as adopted by the Gnostic interpreters (Adv. Haer. 5.24.1).
38Mark D. Nanos, The Mystery of Romans: The Jewish Context of Pauls Letter (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), 28936.
39See, in particular, the paraphrase of part of this paragraph by Arthur Bud Ogle, What
is Left for Caesar: A Look at Mark 12:1317 and Romans 13:17, ThTo 35 (1978): 260: Let
every soul be subject to the higher authorities, for there is no genuine authority apart from
God, and those continuing in Gods ordination. So the ones resisting the authority have
opposed Gods directions, and, having opposed Gods authority, will take judgment on
themselves. For the churchs servant-leaders are not a fear to the good work (e.g., feeding
hungry enemies 12:21) but to the evil (e.g., executing your own style of justice in wrath
[12:20]) or lying to the Holy Spirit as Ananias and Sapphira did [Acts 5:111]). Others who
do not see church leaders as the primary referents nevertheless see this as a legitimate
application of the message. See, for example, Martin Luther, Commentary on the Epistle to
the Romans (trans. J. Theodore Mueller; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1954), 36062, whose
struggles with the Church are reflected in his concluding note: I am inclined to think
that the secular powers fulfill their office better and more happily than the ecclesiastical
ones do.
40See, for example, Wolfgang Schrage, The Ethics of the New Testament (trans. David E.
Green; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988), 237: Paul presupposes almost nively that as a matter
of course the state not only can distinguish between good and evil but will in fact promote what is good and oppose what is evil. Others simply consider Pauls statement here
as a mistaken assertion. Reinhold Niebuhr, The Nature and Destiny of Man: A Christian
Interpretation. Volume Two: Human Destiny (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1996),
202
david w. pao
270 n.1. See also S. Lgasse, Paul et Csar: Romains 13,17: Essai de synthse, RB 101 (1994):
51632.
41See, in particular, Dunn, Romans 13.17, 68: where a government was not serving
God for the good of its citizens, any appeal to this passage as a way of maintaining their
subservience would be a complete distortion and an abuse both of Pauls purpose and
of its continuing scriptural significance. This reading appears in numerous ways in the
history of interpretation. Calvin, Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Romans and to the Thessalonians, 282, for example, considers this verse as shifting from the duty of the citizens to
that of the authorities. Others have also argued for the same conditional reading behind
v. 1 where the verb often translated as governing () is taken in a qualitative sense to denote the authorities who are morally superior. The implications of Pauls
formulation are that any authority which is unjust is an authority to which the Roman
Christian does not owe obedience (Stanley E. Porter, Romans 13:17 as Pauline Political
Rhetoric, Filologia Neotestamentaria 3 [1990]: 127).
42Jonathan A. Draper, Humble Submission to Almighty God and its Biblical Foundation: Contextual Exegesis of Romans 13:17, JTSA 63 (1988): 37. See also Jean Hering,
Serviteurs de Dieu: Contribution a lexgse pratique de Romains 13:34, RHPR 30
(1950): 3140.
43C. E. B. Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans (London: T&T Clark, 1979), 2:665.
204
david w. pao
rendering the surface meaning of Pauls commendation of the authorities
blatantly implausible to them.47
Moving beyond simply the presence of irony, some have argued for a
stronger reading that sees Paul as providing a subversive stance against
the Roman system. Comparing Pauls statement and the Roman imperial propaganda, Pauls description here that emphasizes the governing
authorities as Gods servant[s] (..., v. 4) who are accountable to the God of Israel in performing His assigned task can be read as a
critique of the self-perception of the divinized Roman emperor. As such
[t]he Roman authorities would not have been pleased to read this passage in Romans, since it suggests that they are serving the God of the
Jews, indeed, even the God who expressed himself in Jesus Christ, who
was crucified by Roman authorities.48 Within such a reading, Paul is not
simply qualifying the power of the Roman imperial system, he is providing a strong theological critique of it:
Romans 13 constitutes a severe demotion of arrogant and self-divinizing rulers. It is an undermining of totalitarianism, not a reinforcement of it. By
implication, if the rulers themselves are given the task of judging wicked
people within their sphere of authority, they themselves will be judged by
the God who set them up.49
Both versions of this reading suggest that the power of this paragraph
lies in the dissonance felt by the first-century readers of the text. Borrowing from the work of James C. Scott,50 some have further identified this
perceived irony or subversiveness embedded in the text as a hidden
transcript that articulates the concern of the powerless ones who are suffering under the colonial power.51
47T. L. Carter, The Irony of Romans 13, NovT 46 (2004): 215. See also Robert Hurley,
Ironie dramatique dans la mise en intrigue de lempire en Romains 13,17, Sciences
Religieuses 35 (2006): 3963.
48Witherington, Pauls Letter to the Romans, 307.
49N. T. Wright, Romans, in The New Interpreters Bible (vol. 10; Nashville: Abingdon,
2002), 719. See also John B. Cobb, Jr. and David J. Lull, Romans (Chalice Commentaries for
Today; St. Louis: Chalice, 2005), 172.
50Cf. James C. Scott, Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts (New
Haven: Yale University Press, 1990).
51See, for example, William R. Herzog, II, Dissembling, A Weapon of the Weak: The
Case of Christ and Caesar in Mark 12:1317 and Romans 13:17, PRSt 21 (1994): 341: In a
setting where power relations are asymmetrical, it will be much more likely that the political speech of the weak will dissemble, that is, it will feign obedience and loyalty to the
colonial overlords while pursuing its own hidden agenda. An alternative reading that also
considers Rom 13:17 as the discourse of the disenfranchised would employ the concept of
206
david w. pao
55Schrage, Ethics of the New Testament, 238, who makes reference to 2 Cor 6:5; 11:2225,
3233.
56Walter E. Pilgrim, Uneasy Neighbors: Church and State in the New Testament (OBT;
Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999).
57Calvin, Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Romans and to the Thessalonians, 28084.
58John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (trans. Henry Beveridge; Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953), 2:65076. For discussions on Calvins ways of commenting on
Rom 13:17 as compared to other commentators of his time, see also David C. Steinmetz,
Calvin and Melanchthon on Romans 13:17, ExAud 2 (1986): 7481; Richard A. Muller,
Calvin, Beza, and the Exegetical History of Romans 13:17, in The Identity of Geneva: The
Christian Commonwealth, 15641864 (ed. John B. Roney and Martin Klauber; Westport,
Conn.: Greenwood, 1998), 3956; and G. Sujiin Pak, Luther, Melanchthon, and Calvin on
Romans 5 and 13: Three Reformation Approaches to Reading, in Reformation Readings
of Romans (ed. Kathy Ehrensperger and R. Ward Holder; New York: T&T Clark, 2008),
12243.
208
david w. pao
59See Wilckens, Der Brief an die Rmer (Rm 1216), 45, who points to the works of
Hippolytus and Origen.
60Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 149. Thus also C. K. Barrett, A Commentary on
the Epistle to the Romans (New York: Harper & Row, 1957), 249; Stuhlmacher, Romans,
206207; David L. Bartlett, Romans (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1995), 117.
61On the affirmation of the need of synthesis without a forced harmonization, see, in
particular, Richard B. Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament: A Contemporary Introduction to New Testament Ethics (New York: HarperCollins, 1996), 18792.
62Cf. Krauter, Studien zu Rm 13,17, 284: Rm 13,17 ist keine zeitlose Staatslehre des
Apostels Paulus. Doch genausowenig ist es eine auf ein aktuelles Problem (sei es in Rom,
sei es im Umfeld des Paulus) zugeschnittene situative Handlungsanweisung.
63Schreiner, Romans, 687. See also Leander E. Keck, Romans (ANTC; Nashville: Abingdon, 2005): Indeed, being part of Pauls extended exhortation, it [Rom 13:17] can stimulate unusually serious thought about the character of actual Christian life in a world where
210
david w. pao
65Neil Elliott, Liberating Paul: The Justice of God and the Politics of the Apostle (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1994), 9.
66E.g., Daniel Kroger, Paul and the Civil Authorities: An Exegesis of Romans 13:17,
Asia Journal of Theology 7 (1993): 344366; Arnold T. Monera, The Christians Relationship
to the State according to the New Testament: Conformity or Non-conformity, Asia Journal
of Theology 19 (2005): 10642.
67E.g., Singgih, Towards a Postcolonial Interpretation of Romans 13:17, 11122.
68E.g., Li Xin Yuan, Ji Du Tu Yu Zhi Zheng Zhang Quan Zhe Luo Ma Shu 13:17 Shi
Yi (Christians and the Authorities: Reading Rom 13:17), Christian Life Quarterly 52 (2009):
1320. See also Sam Tsang, Talking Back to the Empire: An Imperialistic Background for
Romans (Or: What does Mission to Spain have to do with Roman Imperialism?Asking
New Interpretive Questions of Old Data), CGST Journal 47 (2009): 13556.
69E.g., Allan Aubrey Boesak, What Belongs to Caesar: Once Again Romans 13, in When
Prayer Makes News (ed. Allan A. Boesak and Charles Villa-Vicencio; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986), 13856; Draper, Humble Submission, 3038. See also the signed declaration by 150 South African theologians in The Kairos Document. Challenge to the Church:
A Theological Comment on the Political Crisis in South Africa (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1985), 1720.
70Monya A. Stubbs, Subjection, Reflection, Resistance: An African American Reading
of the Three-Dimensional Process of Empowerment in Romans 13 and the Free-Market
Economy, SBLSP 38 (1999): 375404.
71 Winsome Munro, Romans 13:17: Apartheids Last Biblical Refuge, 166.
72The Magdeburg Confession turns Pauls statement into a command of God: the rulers
are therefore called to be servants of God. See David M. Whitford, Tyranny and Resistance:
The Magdeburg Confession and the Lutheran Tradition (St. Louis: Concordia, 2001), 68. See
also the shift in Luthers own reading of Rom 13:17 during the final period of his career;
cf. Manfred Hoffman, Martin Luther: Resistance to Secular Authority, Journal of the Interdenominational Theological Center 12 (198485): 3549.
211
73See Glen Bowman, Elizabethan Catholics and Romans 13: A Chapter in the History of
Political Polemic, Journal of Church and State 47 (2005): 53144, who concludes: Romans
13 was consistently molded, and remolded, to fit the changing debates of the time. The
principle force behind this continual, chameleon-like change of face can be found not in
developments within theology, but rather in the practical exigencies of politics.
74Cf. Karl Barth, The Epistle to the Romans (trans. from 6th ed. Edwyn C. Hoskyns; London: Oxford University Press, 1933), 482: Even the most radical revolution can do no more
than set what exists against what exists. Even the most radical revolutionand this is so
even when it is called spiritual or peaceful revolutioncan be no more than a revolt,
that is to say, it is in itself simply a justification and confirmation of what already exists.
75See, in particular, the discussion in Martin Greschat, Rmer 13 und die DDR: Der
Streit um das Verstndnis der Obrigkeit (19571961), ZTK 105 (2008): 6393.
76Cf. William Stringfellow, Watergate and Romans 13, Christianity and Crisis 33.10
(1973): 11012.
77Cranfield, Romans, 2:663. This is followed by many, including Harrisville, Romans,
207208; Fitzmyer, Romans, 66465; Keener, Romans, 154.
78Wilckens, Der Brief an die Rmer (Rm 1216), 4143.
212
david w. pao
Whether one agrees with Cranfield and Wilckens in their problematization of the ancient text through their exegesis of the contemporary
political context, or with other interpreters who are reading this text
from different social and political locations, it is clear that commentators can no longer assume that the text can be understood and applied
without an adequate understanding of both the ancient and the contemporary contexts. Such an awareness forces any interpreter of the canonical
text to recognize his or her obligation in providing morally responsible
readings for the community of believers. A discussion of the ethical relevance of commentaries is thus intricately linked with the ethics of biblical interpretation.79
2.5Ethics of Biblical Interpretation
How then should this ethics of biblical interpretation be delineated? In
the case of Rom 13:17, some commentators consider it their responsibility
to soften Pauls extreme expression of his convictions,80 although one
wonders if they truly understand Pauls convictions. Others highlight
the significance of identifying ones social and political location and thus
allow the multiplicity of readings to take its full effect in the process
of interpretation.81 Reception history would then play a critical part in
the hermeneutical process. In the postmodern context, this rhetorical
hermeneutic is often considered to be the only viable one as [i]t does not
understand historical sources as data and evidence but sees them as perspectival discourse constructing their worlds and symbolic universes.82
While this rhetorical hermeneutic takes full consideration of limitations of one interpreter, it can, in effect, erase the prophetic power of the
79The elements contained in the intersection of these two aspects are well articulated
by J. I. H. McDonald, Biblical Interpretation and Christian Ethics (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1993), 244: Interpretation involves ethics; texts raise moral issues; ethics
considers the treatment of such issues in ancient and modern settings; interpreters consider the moral consequences of their interpretations.
80Cobb and Lull, Romans, 171.
81 Daniel Patte, Ethics of Biblical Interpretation: A Reevaluation (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1995), 29. Speaking for the White European male scholars, he further highlights the importance of his practice as an androcentric and Eurocentric
interpreter. In the case of Rom 13:17, see also the practice of multiple readings in
James W. Voelz, A Self-Conscious Reader-Response Interpretation of Romans 13:17, in
Personal Voice in Biblical Interpretation (ed. Ingrid Rosa Kitzberger; London: Routledge,
1998), 15669.
82Elisabeth Schssler Fiorenza, The Ethics of Biblical Interpretation: Decentering Biblical Scholarship, JBL 107 (1988): 15.
213
text to challenge both the minds and the hearts of its audience. Commentators are then only called to be accountable to their own contexts
and not to the canonical texts. Replacing a responsible historical reading
of the text, this postmodern ethic of interpretation becomes a seriously
irresponsible act of interpretation when it bypasses the historical text to
make all sorts of claims about possible implications of biblical material for
our current social and ecclesiastical contexts.83
How then can a commentator carry out a responsible interpretive act?
Postmodern hermeneutics has taught us that [w]e owe it to ourselves and
others to scrutinize the extra-exegetical interests and values that guide our
choices between interpretations, so that these considerations and criteria
can be examined, criticized, revised, and enlarged.84 Instead of despair,
however, this scrutiny should lead to a humble posture that acknowledges
the limitation of ones interpretive lens without downplaying the significance of the text because of the impotence of its interpreters. In the existing commentary literature, this humility is reflected in the inclusion of a
survey and critical evaluation of competing interpretations available to
contemporary interpreters,85 a history of the reception of the text in various social and political locations,86 a self-awareness of ones own interpretive location,87 and an admission of the limitation of the bridges that are
to be built between the ancient text and the contemporary world with yet
the courage to provide a possible sketch of such a bridge.88 More importantly, this humility is to be shown through a willingness to submit to the
authoritative text, even when that which is demanded of the believers
goes beyond ones expected realm of expectations. It is with such a humility that commentaries can retain their prophetic voices in challenging all
believers who are called to the obedience of faith (Rom 1:5).
216
robert w. yarbrough
will, upon returning to that country, wrestle with roles and expectations
that contrast significantly with a student heading back to, say, Korea
and if the Korean or Romanian ends up serving in an ethnic church in
North America, the dynamics will take yet another set of turns.
A third reason why Grants New Testament scholarship fits naturally
with this chapters topic is that his commentarieswhether as author
(Matthew, John, Romans, Revelation) or as editor (dozens of volumes in a
couple of series to date)are written explicitly with pastors in mind. This
can be traced back to his contention that the final goal of hermeneutics is
not systematic theology but the sermon. The actual purpose of Scripture is
not explanation but exposition, not description but proclamation.2 Since
pastor is to some extent synonymous with preacher, and since Grants
conception of the Bibles actual purpose relates so closely to the homiletical task, his commentary labor over the decades has never strayed far
from the aim of pastoral relevance.
1.Commentaries in the Pastors Upbringing
The relevance of commentaries for pastors begins when they are children. Many grow up in churches where they first observe pastors at work.
A woman I know who attended seminary and now pastors a Lutheran
congregation told me, When I was little I watched the pastor lead the
congregation. I told myself, When I grow up, I want to do that. Even
adult pastors who did not grow up in the church are influenced by preaching ministries whose cumulative effect is to promote a knowledge of the
Bible, or lack thereof, at the national level. Many adults can look back and
recall impressions of the Bible from a televised Billy Graham crusade
they viewed as children. Likewise, black churches and African-American
communities in North America in general have been influenced by the
biblical passages and allusions that peppered the discourses of Martin
Luther King and those who followed in his steps. The commentaries pastors rely on (or dearth thereof) can shape a nations thinking and preaching. Todays most-used commentaries are forming the minds and souls of
children who will be tomorrows pastoral leaders. Pastors who make good
use of commentaries are sowing seed that can provide a harvest of wellgrounded pastors in the future.
2Grant Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral (rev. ed.; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006), 29.
217
218
robert w. yarbrough
Maimonides offers wisdom for life in general, including thinking about the
Scriptures; this 12th century Jewish sage can be of value for anyone who
reads him in opening up the Bible today. Calvinists can learn from Arminian commentators; readers with historic Christian convictions can gain
from the scholarship of interpreters who deny cardinal doctrines of the
Christian faith and who may not even believe in God. Raymond Browns
commentaries on Johns Gospel and the Johannine letters are widely recognized as containing Roman Catholic elements. But their detail, erudition, and clarity make them useful for anyone seeking help for interacting
with the Johannine corpus.
And yet someone needs to write commentaries that are not indifferent
to the nurture of tomorrows pastors who are currently in church nurseries,
youth centers, and worship sanctuaries. Years ago Calvin Katter commended The Laymans Bible Commentary (which included contributions
from seasoned scholars like Bruce Metzger and A. M. Hunter) with the
words, In the face of the discouraging status of biblical knowledge current
in the wider circle of laymen, it would be too bad if our laity encountered
these volumes only at second hand, by which Katter meant via pastors
who read them. Katter continued, Some of them are particularly well
suited to group study and we...may hope they will be put to such use.6
Today numerous commentary series can be named which are suitable for
lay use and might therefore have immediate impact on children through
their parents and church leaders who draw on such aids to Bible understanding: Abingdon New Testament Commentaries, Abingdon Old Testament Commentaries, Believers Bible Commentary, The Bible Exposition
Commentary (by Warren Wiersbe), Everymans Bible Commentary Series,
For Everyone Series, IVP New Testament Commentary, NIV Application
Commentary, Welwyn Commentary Series, Westminster Bible Companion, and others.7
There is another approach to this matter: not through commentaries that might be aimed toward those who parent or teach children in
the church, but through commentaries that help pastors create church
cultures that nurture what is most essential to childrens flourishing in
6Calvin Katter, Some Biblical Commentaries for the Pastors Study, The Covenant
Quarterly 21/2 (1963) 4.
7For basic description of most of these commentary series, plus almost 90 more, see
John F. Evans, A Guide to Biblical Commentaries and Reference Works (9th ed.; Oakland, TN:
Doulos Resources, 2010), 2746. Other series continue to appear, like Belief: A Theological
Commentary on the Bible (Westminster John Knox) and International Theological Commentary (T&T Clark). Evans lists only a few non-English language series.
219
220
robert w. yarbrough
12G. B. Caird, Pauls Letters from Prison (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1976).
13Bill T. Arnold, Encountering the Book of Genesis (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002);
C. Hassell Bullock, Encountering the Book of Psalms (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004); Andreas
Kstenberger, Encountering John (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002); Douglas J. Moo, Encountering the Book of Romans (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002); Donald A. Hagner, Encountering
Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002).
221
222
robert w. yarbrough
commentary that is being used in a course they are taking. I know a pastor who still savors commentaries written by his professors at GordonConwell, where he studied in the 1980s. I can hear Dr. Fees voice when
I read his commentaries, he says wistfully.18 Commentaries preserve and
extend the scholarship of some of each generations best biblical interpreters, and pastors in training and beyond are the beneficiaries.
3.Commentaries in Non-Western Pastoral Settings
The availability of commentaries for pastoral utilization varies widely
according to geography. One could reasonably argue that Western countries and especially those with Protestant heritages tend to be over-served,
while those quarters of the world that have seen meteoric growth in Christian numbers in the past century are vastly under-served by comparison.
The new world dominance of non-Western peoples in the church
regarded globally means that in numerous locales the availability of commentaries is nil, particularly in local vernaculars but often even in international languages like Chinese or Arabic in which few commentaries exist
or have ever been written. In Nepal, a half century ago there were almost
no Christians; today there are 900,000, with little available in the way of
formal education, let alone published resources. Many pastors receive
only a rudimentary five-month training program; beyond that little educational opportunity exits.19
As for Chinese, developments leading to the production and use of commentaries are promising. In conjunction with the increase in the Christian
population of China to 40 million or more, theological education in China
has experienced a remarkable resurgence, so that between 1981 and 2009
some 10,000 theological students graduated from the nineteen theological
seminaries in China.20 The publication of learned Christian resources lags
behind this growth. David Pao, a colleague of Grant Osborne at Trinity
Evangelical Divinity School, recently published Commentary on the Gospel of Luke (2 vols.; Hong Kong: Tien Dao Publishing House, 20082009),
the first Luke commentary in Chinese ever written that interacts with the
18Gordon Fee has published commentaries on 1 Corinthians, Philippians, 12 Thessalonians, and the Pastoral Epistles.
19Dietrich Werner, Theological Education in the Changing Context of World
Christianityan Unfinished Agenda, International Bulletin of Missionary Research 35/2
(April 2011) 95.
20Ibid. 94.
223
224
robert w. yarbrough
225
226
robert w. yarbrough
Websites report that there are 350,000 copies of this book in print. This is
far more than most commentaries in any language and at any level. The
book is said to have been translated into 16 languages. Tigrinya would
be the seventeenth. It is the language of thousands of expatriate Eritrean
Christians, driven from their country into neighboring African nations.
Pastoral leaders among this people known to me eke out a sparse existence in exile that may be permanent. But they engage in ongoing pastoral training, even in Sharia law settings, and, next to Bibles, their highest
need is for practical commentary on Scripture. One of their leading pastors with sufficient command of English translated Albans book. It is hard
to imagine a clearer demonstration of the pastoral relevance of commentaries, at least from the standpoint of impoverished and persecuted Eritrean believers who have been driven from their country, lost all their
property, and now languish in foreign lands with no sure prospects for
the future. For them, man shall not live by bread alone is more than a
metaphor or platitude, and they place a high premium on commentary
that will open up for them every word that proceeds from the mouth of
God, i.e., the Scriptures.
4.Commentaries in the Pastors Church Tradition and Personal Study
Pastors serve in ecclesial contexts that may be more or less disposed to
the consultation of commentaries. The traditional ethos of the Lutheran
pastor is expressed by Pfitzner: A parish pastor is well advised to make a
thorough study of the Greek text of at least one New Testament book each
year, with the help of a scholarly commentary.33 The Lutheran tradition
has upheld high academic standards in pastoral training since its Reformation beginnings. This is not to overlook grave shortcomings in that tradition; for example, as of 2002, Werner Schmlke could note that the topic
of evangelism had no formal place in Germanys Protestant theological
education system in the university faculties.34 More fundamentally, much
of the scholarship of that tradition has been destructive of historic Christian belief. Still, it must be said that the central impetus of biblical studies
227
228
robert w. yarbrough
229
nderstands that the study of Scripture has its doxological and sacramental
u
aspectsso that faithful and diligent reading and reflection become acts
of praise and worship and not just mechanical sermon preparation
commentaries become preachers to the preachers. They minister the
Scriptures message to pastors in ways that will fortify them to proclaim
it clearly, winsomely, faithfully, and compellingly to listeners when the
hour of biblical exposition or meditation arrives. Some commentaries, or
commentary-like studies, take up the task of exposition with the declared
aim of edification. An example would be Raymond C. Ortlunds A Passion
for God: Prayers and Meditations on the Book of Romans.39 Adolf Schlatters
Do We Know Jesus? constitutes an exposition on Bible passages associated
with the chronological unfolding of Jesus life, death, and resurrection.40
To consult such helps in the course of sermon preparation may elevate
mind and heart in ways that greatly fortify the minister for pulpit service.
It then becomes possible for serious, dedicated, multifaceted sermon
preparation to become a profound spiritual discipline...It becomes a
time for growth in faith and understanding, a place for encounter with
the Holy One in whose grace our lives and ministry are grounded, though
we too easily forget.41
Such fortification does not require, of course, the consultation of works
aimed at edifying. Pastors trained in the lore of their calling will often find
their spirits soaring in the course of word studies, lexical work, and other
routine exegetical labors foundational to preparing a sermon. They will
want to stop their reading and talk to a colleague or spouse about what
they just discovered new or anew in the biblical passage under scrutiny.
It is precisely solid and scholarly commentaries that often provide such
insights. Tried and true commentaries become treasured in somewhat the
same way as, say, a family photo album which never fails to give rise to rich
recollections no matter how many times it has been opened over the years.
Personally, I seldom come away from a foray into commentaries by certain
authors without emerging much heartened and recharged by how they have
reopened the Scriptures to me: Luther, Calvin, F. F. Bruce, Peter OBrien,
Don Carson, Grant Osborne, Rudolf Schnackenburg, Howard Marshall,
L. T. Johnson, Anthony Thiselton, Doug Moo, C. E. B. Cranfield, C. K. Barrett,
39 Wheaton: Crossway, 1994.
40 Translated by A. Kstenberger and R. Yarbrough; Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2005.
41 Lawrence W. Farris, Ten Commandments for Pastors New to a Congregation (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 29.
230
robert w. yarbrough
231
232
robert w. yarbrough
But exactly what does work with it creatively mean? How will that help?
What will be the outcome? Nolland is undoubtedly correct, but the counsel does not take us very far. That fact is that he has placed his finger on a
long-standing problem: how to bring the then-and-there into connection
with the here-and-now. Walter Kaiser spoke of it a quarter-century ago:
The Reformers excelled in combining both of these features, and our generation must do the same if we are to be effective as they were.50 Kaiser
then quotes Robert Grant from an article published in 1948 and finding
direction in patristic practices. Neither Kaiser nor Grant offer much help
here in resolving the challenge they identify.
Pastors do well to bear in mind that all commentaries struggle to do
justice to this tension. Or, they give up and focus on either the historical
or the contemporary pole. The temptation here is inherent in the nature
of the sources (from another time and cultural setting) and then what is
being asked of them by pastorally inclined readers. This would be things
like truths about God and redemption, inspiration for worship, and practical guidance for dealing with the churchs mission and church members
daily lives. Pastors get frustrated with commentaries that are sterile relative to such concerns. Scholars get frustrated with definitions of commentary that are not confined to antiquarian and academic values. Frank H.
Gorman defines the biblical commentary as a site for scholarly discursive
practices associated with historical, exegetical, and interpretive analyses
of biblical books.51 Or again, The critical, scholarly, biblical commentary
is a genre that takes shape within the context of the professional and institutional world of scholars, publishers, professional organizations and the
academy.52 Notably absent is mention of any faith community. For all
kinds of reasons, it is easy for scholars to lose sight of what was probably
the beginning of New Testament commentarythe work of preaching.53
One courageous New Testament scholar reported recently that she
taught in seminary for a quarter century with mainly an antagonistic
50W. Kaiser, Appendix B: The Usefulness of Biblical Commentaries for Preaching and
Bible Study, in Malachi: Gods Unchanging Love (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984) 154.
51F. H. Gorman, Commenting on Commentary: Reflections on a Genre, in Relating
to the Text: Interdisciplinary and Form-Critical Insights on the Bible (eds. Timothy Sandoval
and Carleen Mandolfo; London: T&T Clark, 2003), 100.
52Ibid. 118.
53C. K. Barrett, Commentary (New Testament), in Dictionary of Biblical Criticism and
Interpretation (ed. Stanley E. Porter; London: Routledge, 2007), 59.
233
sense toward what she calls personal relationship with Jesus.54 Her essay
reports how, through contact with pastors she was leading, that relationship became real to her. For many pastors, this relationship is at the
core of what moves them to search the Scriptures and share them with
others. When professors and commentary writers proceed oblivious to this
dimension of awareness, or even hostile toward it, disconnect between
what is produced by commentary writer, on the one hand, and what is
sought by commentary user, on the other, is likely.
Probably all commentary users have felt a bit betrayed by commentaries that fail to deliver what users expect. Users should bear in mind that
commentary writers inevitably come to rue positions they have argued or
interpretations they have taken. As one author wrote to me after I sent
him editorial remarks on a commentary manuscript prior to publication,
Thank you for the miscues you flagged. Due to physical strain while writing the commentary, I had to get my eyes examined. Now that I have
read your comments, I wonder if I should get my head examined. He
wrote somewhat in jest, but there are few commentary authors who in
the course of time would not wish to change some of their stated views.
Author prefaces in many commentaries thank friends, spouses, associates, editors, and others for reading the work in advance of publication
so as to save the author from errors, ignorance, blind spots, and other
lapses or limitations. But they also apologize in advance for slips or errors
in judgment that are impossible to avoid in any extended exegesis of a
biblical text.
It is Nolland who again offers wisdom here.55 He notes that commentaries help readers engage more successfully with biblical texts. Commentaries are helpful companions for the journey as readers including
pastors wrestle with a passage. And yet:
We should not...expect too much of them. In the end it is each reader who
needs to make sense at the deepest level of the biblical text with which they
are engaged. The commentator provides a thoughtful and well-informed
instance of how, at a certain level, one person coming from one place, in
conversation with many others coming from various places, has traveled the
journey for themselves.
54Mary Schertz, Now its personal, Christian Century 128/2 (January 25, 2011): 1011.
55For all quotes in this paragraph see JSNT 29 (2007): 311.
234
robert w. yarbrough
Pastors who keep this counsel in mind will be less likely to abuse commentaries by placing more weight on them than they are designed to
carry. Yet they will also not fail to engage to the full in the gratifying hunt
for the meaning and construal of the inspired texts through which new
life flows from each studious pastor to the needy and eager recipients of
their services. For this enterprise few resources are more relevant than the
best commentaries used in the wisest ways.
236
walter l. liefeld
237
238
walter l. liefeld
two authors of the volume on Matthew, for example, inevitably meant the
inclusion of much data that, though important, might not directly edify
ones congregation. There are plenty of commentaries that do have sermonic ideas. It would be pathetic if in the search for sermon helps the
preacher neglects other benefits of a scholarly commentary. At this point
we will look at some contributions of commentaries that are not always
at the forefront.
A commentary can help the preacher close the gaps between biblical
times and today. John Stotts book Between Two Worlds addressed this
problem three decades ago.5 Opinions may differ as to which gaps are
the greatest hindrance in sermonic communication. The language gap is
less of a problem given the plethora of translations now available. In a
society so well informed by the Internet and the media, the gaps between
geographical settings and historical circumstances also constitute less of
a problem. The cultural gap is more difficult to handle.6
There is another goal, mentioned above, that can be pursued in almost
any kind of sermon, and to which a commentary can contribute. That
is to enable the hearers to pursue their own Bible study more competently. The pastor who desires to prepare Christians for works of service
(Eph 4:12), can contribute to that by thinking of opportunities in and
outside of the church members may have. Preaching sermons that demonstrate, among other things, wise use of commentaries can help. Preaching the sermon can be a model of accessible skill. My personal goal is to
make the Word so clear and accessible, even at the expense of homiletical merit, that the hearer would be able to say, I could do that myself.
The exposition should always be excellent and informative, and also a
model. This goal will naturally make the preacher alert to explanations
in commentaries that can be adapted in the sermon to the level of the
hearers experience.
Romans 12:2 speaks of the renewal of the mind. This, too, is a contribution that commentaries can make to preaching. The life of a pastor is
sometimes sparked by unexpected events that call for sermonic attention.
But otherwise there can exist a routine mentality: another week, another
sermon. The need for a spiritual and mental renewing can be met in part
239
240
walter l. liefeld
241
pompous preacher: Now chaos is from the Greek word chaos, meaning
chaos.7 For an earlier generation of preachers, Greek and Hebrew word
study was a frequent part of sermon preparation, a tedious burden for
some or, for the enlightened, a time-consuming pleasure. Now both the
onus and joy have been displaced by the click of a mouse. At the same
time addicts of, say, the Visual Thesaurus Word of the Day know that the
choice of appropriate vocabulary can be mentally stimulating and enjoyable. A commentator with the mind to do it can explore the reasons for
a biblical authors choice of one word over another and weave that into
the fabric of exposition.
6.Comparison of Commentaries on Philippians
This comparison is not simply to measure commentaries against the values mentioned above or against each other. Perhaps comparison is not
even the right word. The intent is to observe what is helpful for preachers
among selected commentaries on a particular passage. My purpose is not
to critique scholarship, but to explore a selected group of commentaries
with regard to what I perceive is their usefulness in preaching. There is
subjectivity in this procedure because my evaluation reflects my thoughts
regarding the purpose and nature of sermons.
I have selected Phil 2:1218 for this exploration, but not as though it
were a major section in Philippians. The immediately preceding Christ
hymn is far more significant, but this section is more difficult to preach
from. I want to see how well the commentary helps the preacher to understand the function of the passage in its context and with regard to the
needs of the congregation at Philippi. Of special importance, of course, is
the phrase work out your salvation, not only because of its theological
significance but also because of its relation to the larger context of the
book itself and because of the help the preacher will need to interpret
and apply it properly.
Like the interior designer of a building that contains a number of characteristic featuresperhaps repetition of color or of period accoutrementsthe Holy Spirit, through the literary brilliance of Paul, intersperses
a series of lexical features in Philippians. These are not immediately obvious, but should catch the commentators attention and then that of the
7The speaker was Paul Little, an InterVarsity Christian Fellowship staff member in the
1950s and 60s and a visiting instructor at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.
242
walter l. liefeld
243
8Peter T. OBrien, The Epistle to the Philippians (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991),
6667.
244
walter l. liefeld
With regard to such introductions and to the list of terms above, commentaries on Philippians tend to mention the genial relationship between
Paul and the believers at Philippi without going into detail. Hansen goes
a step beyond this. Although he does not deal with the attitude/feeling/
thinking semantic field as such, in his description of the Epistle as A Letter of Friendship, he lists the motifs of affection, partnership, unity of
soul and spirit, like-mindedness, yoke fellow, giving moral paradigm.
Earlier generations of biblical scholars and pastors referred frequently
to the commentaries on several Pauline Epistles by J. B. Lightfoot, the eminent English mid-nineteenth century professor, minister and bishop. The
style is terse (a feature welcomed by busy preachers) but the content is
sparse compared to the great commentaries of recent decades. This contrast is seen in the section on Phil 2:1218 and Lightfoots thin remarks on
work out your salvation, but his paraphrase of the latter part of v. 12 is
worth quoting:
With a nervous and trembling anxiety work out your salvation for yourselves.
For yourselves did I say? Nay, ye are not alone. It is God working in you from
first to last: God that inspires the earliest impulse, and God that directs the
final achievement: for such is his good pleasure.9
The comments that follow on this verse say nothing about the term salvation, only a brief note that work out is a common word in Paul, along
with a quotation from Xenophon. Todays preachers have more extensive
resources than those did in Lightfoots day, and we now proceed to consider some more recent commentaries. They are not listed in any particular order.
Gerald Hawthornes commentary is in the Word Biblical Commentary
series.10 Some have found this series difficult to use because of the inclusion of extensive bibliography and textual notes and because of its somewhat dense writing. However, although much of the information might
not be of much help to a congregation, it is ideal for those who desire to
explore the meaning of a text beyond what is necessary for a sermon.
A section in the Word series entitled Form/Structure/Setting provides,
when done well, the kind of information that is essential if the preacher
is to communicate accurately the meaning of a passage in its biblical and
historical context. An example is Hawthornes first sentence in this section:
9 J. B. Lightfoot, St. Pauls Epistle to the Philippians (1st ed.; 1868; repr. Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson, 1993).
10Gerald F. Hawthorne, Philippians (WBC; Waco, TX: Word, 1983).
245
The detailed attention just given to the Christ-hymn must not obscure
the fact that vv 12 to 18 are part of a larger parenetic section1:272:18.
He mentions that at Philippi the church was being torn apart because
Christians were motivated by party spirit11 and proceeds to explain the
connection between this section and the preceding Christ-hymn. He concludes: it is clear, too, that this section is bound to 2:14 and continues
the plea for unselfish action already begun there. Paul makes this plea not
only in words but also by revealing his own willingness to have his life
become a libation poured out in sacrifice (v. 17).12 I have quoted more
from this commentary than I will for most others to show the kind of
comments that might alert the preacher. At times, Hawthornes writing
is more grammatically technical than some might wish, but if the grammar is a hindrance, the remedy is not to discard the commentary but to
review ones Greek!
Work out your own salvation is bound to trouble a congregation
schooled on salvation as a gift of grace, and we shall briefly note how several commentators take differing positions on the solution. The preacher
will have to sort these out, reach a conclusion and present it in a sermon
in a way that will edify and motivate the congregation, not leave them in
confusion. Hawthorne leads the reader through the relevant issues, with
some dependence on unidentified and undated papyri. His conclusion (in
contrast with some others to be noted below) is that the phrase means
continual effort to accomplish corporate spiritual health. As his exegesis
continues through the passage he calls God The Great Energizer, thus
providing a possible sermon topic.
At v. 15 there is a pause to re-introduce vocabulary from earlier parts
of the Epistle to summarize the kind of spiritual character the Philippian
believers should demonstrate, another help for preachers. Not all commentaries tie these together. The commentary as a whole is rich in vocabulary analysis. A final observation of Hawthornes treatment is the way he
sensitively connects Pauls sufferings with the believers joy.
Among the characteristics of Walter Hansens commentary13 that make
it user friendly for the preacher is the section Nature of the Letter in
the Introduction. His analysis of it as a letter of friendship is illustrated
by the full quotation of a letter by one Chairus to his doctor friend.14
11 Hawthorne, Philippians, 97.
12 Hawthorne, Philippians, 97.
13 G. Walter Hansen, The Letter to the Philippians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009).
14 Hansen, Philippians, 7.
246
walter l. liefeld
Any pastor who is a true shepherd will appreciate this ancient letter that
embodies a warm relationship. Hansen points out that the letter refers to
a social custom of the time by explaining that friends need not express
their thanks to each other in words. He applies this to Philippians: This
insight helps us to understand why Paul does not explicitly verbalize his
thanks to the Philippians for their gifts. In this way the preacher is not
only introduced to facts about Philippians but is given an appreciation of
the Letter that can flow through the sermon to the congregation. Hansen
immediately follows this with ten aspects of the friendship language in
Philippians that run parallel to common motifs in Hellenistic letters and
essays on friendship.15 Thus, even before reading the commentary proper,
the preacher will have the background and motivation to express a mutually appreciative relationship with the congregation.
Moving to Hansens commentary on Phil 2:1218, we note that he connects this section with an important statement of purpose in 1:27, to live
in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ. This goes beyond the exhortations regarding unity in the church to the high motivation of glorifying
Christ himself. In v. 12, Hansen observes, Paul moves quickly and easily
from theological contemplation to practical implication.16 This would
encourage the preacher to do the same. Hansen includes unobtrusive
comments that can fit well into a sermon. (If quoted, one hopes proper
attribution would be made to the commentary). This commentary, more
than most I have seen on Philippians, connects with the contemporary
Christian world and thought. His reference to Petersons phrase, a long
obedience in the same direction is an example.17
Moving to the troublesome issue concerning the working out of our salvation, we see that Hansen provides one of the more helpful discussions
for the preacher to follow. There is not space to present here the carefully
researched and explained steps to his conclusion; what is important is
that he does so in a way that the student or teacher or, in our context
the preacher, can follow. Readers must make their own choice, and Hansen gives the means for doing that. His own conclusion is that Paul is
indeed addressing a social situation of disunity that needs resolution, but
247
248
walter l. liefeld
249
250
walter l. liefeld
Because of the splendor of the preceding passage, It is easy to forget its aim.
But Paul has not forgotten. At issue is the gospel in Philippi: first of all their
own salvation (v. 12), evidenced by continuing obediencelike that of
their Savior (v. 8)...Thus, he returns to his present concernobedience
expressed through a common mind set, for the sake of Christ and the
Gospelby applying to their situation what he has just written in 2:611.26
Although Fee is generous with his footnotes, he makes sure that the flow
of thought in the text is not thereby interrupted. The preacher is helped
along in his interaction with the text. The treatment of work out your
salvation is extensive. Fee thinks that there is truth on both sides and
further discussion is not needed.
The Expositors Bible Commentary (hereafter EBC) is, as the title indicates, of special interest to preachers.27 The preface to the original (1979)
edition included these words, Written primarily by expositors for expositors, it aims to provide preachers, teachers, and students of the Bible with
a new and comprehensive commentary on the books of the Old and New
Testaments. The revised edition changed the format somewhat, providing separate sections for Overview, Commentary, Reflections and Notes.
Prior to my evaluation I must offer a disclaimer, because I authored the
commentary on Luke in the first edition and co-authored it with David
Pao in the revised edition. Having said that, I will say that I felt somewhat
awkward in adapting the material to the several sections in the revised
edition. The benefit of this, however, was for the very persons I have
wanted to serve, the preachers.
In the revised edition of Philippians, David E. Garlands overview of
Phil 2:1218 elucidates the function of the passage more clearly than some
commentaries do: Paul draws out the logical consequences that Christs
acceptance of the role of a slave, his death on the cross, and his vindication by God have for his followers.28 The commentary clearly addresses
the need of the preacher. At one point Garland writes, As a good pastor, Paul accentuates the positive and writes to them from a strengths
perspective.29 One advantage of this commentary is that it quotes from
other recent commentaries. This gives the reader assurance that the author
is bringing together the wisdom of other respected scholars. At the same
26Fee, Philippians, 229.
27Quoted in each volume, in this case volume 12, of the revised edition of The Expositors Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006), 7.
28David E. Garland, Philippians, in The Expositors Bible Commentary, Vol. 12 (ed. D. E.
Garland and T. Longman III; rev. ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 224.
29Garland, Philippians, 224.
251
252
walter l. liefeld
critical exegetical discussion, discussing issues at every point, whereas Carson uses a conversational style that warmly engages the reader, occasionally even by story telling, in the exploration of meaning and significance.
Casual though it may seem, it presents biblical truth clearly and boldly
(one would expect nothing less from Carson). To refer one more time to
Phil 2:12, Carson lays out the alternative views we have already described
and affirms both Gods sovereign work, salvation, and our responsibility, obedience. He leaves it to the reader to see that this salvation is not
merely salvation as solution to a social problem.
Placing Carsons exposition at the end of this chapter allows me to quote
a paragraph from the back cover that presents an ideal picture of what
should characterize commentaries, large or small, relevant to preaching:
Those called upon to preach and teach regularly cannot help but benefit
from Basics for Believers. Not only does it provide a model of preaching that
melds solid exposition with relevant application, not only is it based on one
of Pauls best-loved epistles, but it also reflects the keen insight of an internationally recognized Bible expositor.
There is clearly no best commentary for the preacher. The number, variety
and quality of those now available will enrich the church and facilitate
the calling of sinners to salvation through properly informed sermons.
Perhaps the comments above will help in making appropriate choices.
Preachers differ, congregations differ, modes of communication differ.
Gods Word remains true.
1For an inventory of Wolfgang Musculuss literary corpus, including the printing history of his commentaries, see Paul Romane-Musculus, Catalogue des oeuvres imprimes
du thologien Wolfgang Musculus, Revue dhistoire et de philosophie religieuses 43 (1963):
26078. See also Reinhard Bodenmanns discussion of the publications of Musculus, Wolfgang Musculus (14971563). Destin dun autodidacte lorrain au sicle des Rformes (Geneva:
Librairie Droz, 2000), 55670. Musculus published commentaries on Matthew (1544),
John (1545), Psalms (1550), the Decalogue (1553), Genesis (1554), Romans (1555), Isaiah (1557),
1 and 2 Corinthians (1559), Galatians and Ephesians (1561), and Philippians, Colossians,
1 and 2 Thessalonians, and 1 Timothy (1564).
2John Calvin, Commentary on the Book of Psalms, vol. IV.2 (trans. James Anderson; repr.
ed.; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989), xxxv.
254
scott m. manetsch
be sufficient to restore completely this edifice that was destroyed by the
Antichrist.3
255
printed in 1559, that has never before received careful scholarly attention.8
It is not my purpose to describe in detail the particular method of interpretation employed by Musculus in this commentaryalthough my analysis supports the findings of Craig Farmer who has shown that Musculus,
in his exegetical approach, frequently appeals to moral and spiritual readings of the biblical text in order both to edify and promote the piety of
his audience.9 Rather, this study will demonstrate that one of Musculuss
chief concerns in his Commentary on 1 & 2 Corinthians is to describe and
defend a distinctively Protestant, indeed reformed, conception of the pastoral office. For Musculus, commentary-writing serves as a platform for
instructing ministers and ministerial candidates as to the duties, priorities, and difficulties that accompany the pastoral calling. In the conclusion of this essay, I will suggest that Musculus is not unique in this: many
other Protestant exegetes in the sixteenth century employed the literary
genre of biblical commentary to describe and defend a new model of the
office of the Christian minister.
Wolfgang Musculuss role as an interpreter of the Bible was significantly shaped by the religious controversies in Germany and Switzerland
during the middle decades of the sixteenth century. Musculus was born
on September 8, 1497, in the village of Dieuze, Lorraine.10 At the age of fifteen, he entered the Benedictine monastery in the nearby town of Lixheim,
where he remained for the next decade and a half. During these years,
Musculus was ordained to the priesthood and preached frequently in
8 I have consulted for this chapter the second printing of Musculuss commentary, In
Ambas Apostoli Pauli Ad Corinthios Epistolas Commentarii (Basel: Jean Herwagen, 1566),
available at The Digital Library of Classic Protestant Texts, http://solomon.tcpt.alexander
street.com, accessed on December 18, 2010. This edition of Musculuss commentary
includes two parts, with separate pagination: Commentarii Wolfgangi Musculi Dusani, In
Priorem Epistolam Pauli ad Corinthios, and In Posteriorem Epistolam Pauli ad Corinthios
Commentarii. For the remainder of this essay, I will abbreviate these texts as Comm. 1 Cor.
and Comm. 2 Cor.
9 Craig Farmer, The Gospel of John in the Sixteenth Century: The Johannine Exegesis of
Wolfgang Musculus (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), 8, 18082.
10 For essential biographical information on Wolfgang Musculus, see Bodenmann, Wolfgang Musculus. Bodenmann includes a richly annotated edition of the sixteenth-century
biography of Musculus (in Latin, with French translation), written by his son Abraham
Musculus in 1564. See Abraham Musculus, Historia de vita et obitu clarissimmi theologi D.
Wolfgangi Muscului, in Bodenmann, Wolfgang Musculus, 103287. For additional biographical information, see Rudolf Dellsperger, Rudolf Freudenberger, and Wolfgang Weber, eds.,
Wolfgang Musculus (15971563) und die oberdeutsche Reformation (Berlin: Akademie Verlag,
1997); J. Wayne Baker, Wolfgang Musculus, in Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation (ed.
Hans Hillerbrand; New York: Oxford University Press, 1996), 3:103104; Farmer, The Gospel
of John in the Sixteenth Century.
256
scott m. manetsch
257
258
scott m. manetsch
259
Gods Spirit, ministers of the gospel. Ministers are like spiritual farmers
who plant spiritual seed and cultivate and prune Gods garden.24 For Musculus, the importance of the pastoral office is derived from the glorious
gospel message that ministers proclaim. Commenting on Pauls statement
in 1 Corinthians 9:14 that those who proclaim the gospel should receive
their living from the gospel, Musculus notes:
The substance of Christian ministry is found in speaking the gospelnot in
reciting and singing Masses. The method by which ministers serve the Lord
is in proclaiming the Word. Notice here that Paul appropriately joins the
gospel to proclamation, rather than to making laws or issuing commands.
The gospel is the good news of salvation provided to the whole world
through Christ, and received by faith in Christ. The Lord wants this gospel
to be proclaimed to people throughout the whole world, with great joy and
gladness.25
As pastors announce the gospel message they impart spiritual life to Gods
people, providing them true happiness in this present life and eternal
happiness in the next.26
Owing to the dignity of the pastoral office, Musculus believes that Christian ministers should possess exemplary character and be committed to
the well-being of Christs church. Ministers must be persons of faith, moral
purity, wisdom, and humility.27 Theological training and extensive biblical
knowledge are important, but ultimately Christian ministers should find
their sufficiency in God alone, who equips them with the spiritual armor
of truth, zealous faith, burning love, and patience in affliction.28 Musculus
defends clerical marriage. Whether married or unmarried, pastors must
conduct themselves in moral purity, free from lust and fornication.29 In
his treatment of 2 Corinthians 6:3a passage where the apostle defends
the moral integrity of his ministryMusculus enumerates a laundry list
of vices that Catholic clergy regularly commit, and that evangelical pastors must scrupulously avoid: ministers must not drink at taverns, gamble,
engage in business deals, break their word, charge usury, or run after more
lucrative pastoral positions. Faithful Christian ministers must be above
260
scott m. manetsch
261
38 Musculus, Comm. 1 Cor. 14:31, 583. Elsewhere, Musculus identifies three aspects of
Christian proclamation: aedificatio, exhortatio, and consolatio. See Comm. 1 Cor. 14:3,
53738.
39 Musculus, Comm. 2 Cor. 3:11, 103; 2 Cor. 6:11, 207.
40 Musculus, Comm. 2 Cor. 11:6, 332.
41 Musculus, Comm. 1 Cor. 9:8, 27980.
42 Musculus, Comm. 1 Cor. 9:19, 29596.
262
scott m. manetsch
263
264
scott m. manetsch
265
parish priest as primarily sacramental and liturgicalperforming baptisms, celebrating the Mass, and hearing confessionsthe Protestant
reformers argued instead for a model of pastoral ministry that gave priority to preaching the gospel and providing pastoral supervision within
the church. This evangelical conception of the pastoral office was institutionalized through Protestant church ordinances, and then transmitted
to new generations of Protestant clergy and pastoral candidates through a
variety of pedagogical forms. Young men were trained in theology, homiletics, and biblical exegesis at Protestant universities and academies, and
through institutions such as Zurichs Prophezai.60 Many pastoral candidates learned their craft with the help of catechisms, pastoral handbooks,
and preaching manuals produced by scholars and practitioners such as
Martin Luther, Philip Melanchthon, Martin Bucer, Niels Hemmingsen,
and Andreas Hyperius.61 In rural parishes, Lutheran and reformed ministers may well have used printed sermon collections, written by popular
Protestant preachers, to glean practical pastoral advice and theological
instruction for their own ministries.62 Finally, as we have demonstrated
in this essay, Reformation commentaries also served as an important
resource for shaping pastoral identity and guiding Protestant ministers
in their work of preaching and pastoral care. The rich deposit of pastoral
material that we have mined out of Wolfgang Musculuss Commentary on
1 & 2 Corinthians, is also found in the published commentaries of other
60 See, for example, Amy Nelson Burnett, Teaching the Reformation: Ministers and Their
Message in Basel, 15291629 (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006) and Karin Maag,
Seminary or University? The Genevan Academy and Reformed Higher Education, 15601620
(Brookfield, VT: Ashgate, 1995).
61 Most of the major Protestant reformers wrote catechisms, many of which addressed
the nature and duties of the pastoral office. Additionally, several of the reformers published handbooks to instruct Christian ministers in their roles as preachers and spiritual
counselors. See, for example, Philip Melanchthon, De officiis concionatoris (1523), Martin
Bucer, Von der waren Seelsorge (1538), Andreas Hyperius, De formandis concionibus sacris
(1553) and De recte formando theologiae (1556), and Niels Hemmingsen, Ecclesiasten sive
methodum theologicam interpretandi, concionandique continent (1559).
62 Luther recommended that his postills be read aloud in parish churches that did not
have pastors competent to preach. See Martin Brecht, Martin Luther. Vol. 2. Shaping and
Defining the Reformation, 15211532 (trans. James L. Schaff, 3 vols.; Minneapolis: Fortress,
1990), 1517. Likewise, Beza reports in his preface to the Latin translation of Calvins sermons on the book of Job (1593), that the reformers sermons were greatly appreciated in
French reformed congregations. Indeed, in parishes that did not have their own shepherd
and teacher, these sermons were presented from the pulpit in regular meetings of the congregations. Hence, in these very difficult times in France, many people are wonderfully
encouraged by them both in the church and in their families (CO 33, cols. 1314).
266
scott m. manetsch
63The frequency with which Protestant commentators discuss the pastoral office and
its duties is illustrated in the first three volumes of the Reformation Commentary on Scripture that I have reviewed to date. See, for example, Gerald L. Bray, ed., Reformation Commentary on Scripture: Galatians, Ephesians (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2011).
Part three
270
kevin j. vanhoozer
specifically the allusions to Moses speaking with God on Mt. Sinai. Exodus 20:1821 refers to the peoples seeing the thunder and lightning that
accompanied Gods speaking to Moses and stresses their fear of hearing Gods voice: [The people] said to Moses, You speak to us, and we
will listen; but do not let God speak to us, lest we die (Exod 20:19). The
account in Deuteronomy does not mention fearing, but rather not seeing God: The Lord spoke to you out of the midst of the fire. You heard
the sound of words, but saw no form; there was only a voice (Deut 4:12).
What struck Michael was not simply the number of parallels between
Jesus Transfiguration and Sinai (scholars have noted these before) but
rather a significant contrast: while Deuteronomy insists that the people
saw no form, Matthew takes pains to note that the disciples, when they
recovered from their fear, saw no one but Jesus only (Matt 17:8). What is
the point of this detail? What kind of theological comment might one give
here? Michael confessed to being stuck: I want to say something about
Jesus divinity but I dont really know how. I dont know whether to call
what I am doing proof-texting, systematic theology (arguing that we can
deduce Jesus divinity from Matthew), theological interpretation (reading
Matthew 17 though the lens of Nicene Christology), biblical theology, or
something else!3 He is not alone: how to read the Biblelike any other
ancient text or uniquely as Christian Scripturehas become a bone of
hermeneutical contention between biblical scholars and systematic theologians. What types of observations are appropriate with regard to New
Testament texts? In particular, what is a theological comment?
Grant Osborne is everything a systematic theologian could wish for in a
dialogue partner about the nature of theological commentary: he has written one of the standard textbooks on biblical interpretation, four commentaries and, most recently, an important essay on hermeneutics and
theological interpretation.4 Moreover, it so happens that Michaels question concerned a paper he was writing on the transfiguration for a course
on the Gospel of Matthew taught by...Dr. Osborne!5 When I learned that
Grant himself had written his M.A. thesis on the Transfiguration, devoted
3Michael Kibbe, personal correspondence (March 17, 2011).
4G. R. Osborne, Hermeneutics and Theological Interpretation, in Understanding the
Times: New Testament Studies in the 21st Century. Essays in Honor of D. A. Carson on the
Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday (ed. A. J. Kstenberger and R. W. Yarbrough; Wheaton,
IL: Crossway, 2011) 6286.
5I am indebted to Michael for giving me permission to share this anecdote, and for
letting me see his completed paper, Who do you say that I am? Jesus, Moses, and God
at Sinai in Mt. 17:18.
271
s eparate sections to exegesis and theology, and opened with the claim
that Hardly a systematic theology has been written which discusses the
theological significance of the Transfiguration,6 the inter-textual connections proved too compelling to ignore. I immediately decided to
take up the challenge and focus the present essay on the ways in which
commentators have interpreted the voice from the cloud heard at Jesus
transfiguration. There are several reasons why the voice from heaven is a
particularly apt choice. In the first place, as to subject matter, the voice of
God clearly qualifies as theological. Second, the theme of divine speaking pervades the Scriptures, and the voice from heaven occurs at several
crucial junctions in both the Old and New Testaments. Yet, third, the
prominence of the theme seems to be in inverse proportion to the attention commentators typically give it. Fourth, the voice from heaven is a
subset of a much larger class of divine speech acts for which commentators must give a theological account. Finally, the voice from heaven raises
questions about the possible relationship between the voice coming from
the cloud at Jesus transfiguration, the voice that comes from the cloud of
canonical witnesses (i.e. the human authors of the biblical texts), and the
voice from out of the cloud of post-apostolic witnesses (i.e. the tradition
of biblical interpretation in the church).
2.Theological Commentary or Theological Interpretation of Scripture?
The State of the Question
What makes exegesis and commentary theological? One of the most
surprising developments in the genre of commentary writing over the
forty-year course of Osbornes career has been the resurgent interest in
theological interpretation of Scripture after a century of various kinds
of critical commentary. Miroslav Volf says, the return of biblical scholars
to the theological reading of the Scriptures, and the return of systematic
theologians to sustained engagement with the scriptural texts...is the
most significant theological development in the last two decades.7 While
significant, it is not entirely novel: some of the elements that make exegesis
theological are evident in the work of evangelical biblical scholars in
272
kevin j. vanhoozer
the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The purpose of the present essay
is therefore to strengthen the theological right arm of exegetes who are
already doing what this article recommends, and to encourage other
evangelical biblical scholars to make sure that their faith conviction in
the divine authorship of Scripture does not remain merely notional but
becomes fully operative. Just what operative means remains to be seen.
TIS has become the mantra for several new institutional and publishing ventures: ETS and SBL working groups, the Journal of Theological Interpretation, the Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible. It has
also generated new commentary series, including the Two Horizons Commentary (Eerdmans), the Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible
(Brazos), and the International Theological Commentary (T&T Clark).
Though the renewal movement is still in its early stages, evangelical biblical scholars have already begun to express serious concerns, leading
the observer to wonder whether TIS will fulfill its initial promise to be
a uniter rather than divider of the two disciplinary approaches that lay
claim to providing theological commentary, namely, biblical scholarship
and systematic theology.8
There are now a number of good introductions to theological
interpretation.9 What they present is not a single uniform approach so
much as a number of related theological interests. These include a concern (1) to read the Old and New Testaments together as the churchs
unique and unified Christian Scripture, (2) to read in continuity with the
church fathers, guided by the creeds, (3) to read Scripture for the sake of
the churchs edification and communion with God, and (4) to read with
interpretive virtues and with an aim to the interpreters spiritual formation. In sum, biblical interpretation is theological because it begins, proceeds, and ends with the reality of the triune Godthe author, subject
matter, and finisher of the word of faith (Rom 10:8).
8I try to mediate this strained marriage in Interpreting Scripture between the Rock of
Biblical Studies and the Hard Place of Systematic Theology: The State of the Evangelical
(Dis)union, in Renewing the Evangelical Mission (ed. Richard Lints; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, forthcoming). Frequently cited concerns include (1) its lack of definition, (2) its tendency to focus on Nicene rather than Reformation theology, (3) its openness to multiple
meanings in Scripture, (4) its lack of clarity, or consensus, on the nature of Scripture.
9See Daniel J. Treier, Introducing Theological Interpretation of Scripture: Recovering a
Christian Practice (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008); J. Todd Billings, The Word of God for the
People of God: An Entryway to the Theological Interpretation of Scripture (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2010); Stephen Fowl, Theological Interpretation of Scripture (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2009).
273
274
kevin j. vanhoozer
Osborne and Carson want to make: that many evangelical biblical scholars who practice grammatical-historical interpretation approach the text
with theological concerns too. More pointedly: grammatical-historical
interpretation is theological interpretation of Scripture. Exegetes who
believe this to be so are understandably confused about the fuss over
theological interpretation. It is not as if the hermeneutical wheel was first
invented in the twenty-first century.
Towards an Ancient/Future Commentary: On Relocating the Theological
Theological interpreters tell the story differently. Once upon a time, the
commentary was one of the primary means of theological reflection.12
As the Bible became a document of the university, however, what was
once a living word turned into an object of critical historical reflection.
What previously housed the voice of God has become a den for source,
form, and tradition critics concerned with the world behind the text and
the history of its composition.
Osbornes and Carsons points are well taken: being historical is not
necessarily inimical to theology. Indeed, Christian theology is thoroughly
historical: He is risen! However, the ambiguity on the part of theological interpreters over the meaning of historical is matched by a similar
vagueness when biblical scholars employ the term theological. Hence
the urgent question: what exactly is the force of theological when we use
it to qualify exegesis and commentary?
The question is not new. Hans Windisch was already discussing the difference between historical and theological exegesis in the mid-twentieth
century.13 The former concerns the message in its original setting, while
theological exegesis has to do with the message itself.14 Specifically, theological exegesis looks for the authoritative Word of God in this literature...[and] endeavors to interpret the New Testament, its statements,
admonitions, warnings, threats, and promises, as directed to us in our
own situation.15 Theological exegesis builds on and respects the original
275
276
kevin j. vanhoozer
21See his chapter in the present volume. John C. Poirer complains that proponents of
TIS have illegitimately co-opted, and narrowed, the label theological in order to exclude
other approaches, such as the grammatical-historical, by definition (Theological Interpretation and its Contradistinctions, TynBul 61 [2010], 10518). In my view, both exegetes
and systematic theologians are obliged to say what they mean by theological, hence the
burden of the present essay.
22Note that this is not just a regional instance of the more general phenomenon of
being theory-laden. By theology-laden I mean that every element in the process of biblical interpretationauthors, texts, readersis caught up in the divine economy of communication (see below).
277
tittle; every context, past and presentis related to God: biblical interpretation involves Gods creatures interpreting Gods word in Gods world.
While this insight may not affect what happens on the more basic levels
of exegesis (an aorist is an aorist for Christians and non-Christian alike),
it will have a decisive effect on other levels (e.g. whether or not to read
in canonical context).23 It is therefore incumbent on would-be theological interpretation to use theological categories to understand the author,
subject matter, reader, and process of reading itself.24 I shall return to this
point below. Suffice it to say that theological interpretation goes beyond
(but not against!) typical grammatical-historical approaches by refusing to
accord pride of place to the original historical context. Better: theological
interpreters refuse to limit the notion of historical context to what modern historiography can ascertain. We must appropriate without capitulating. Historical method is a wonderful handmaid and a terrible master.25
The real problem is that biblical scholars are often not historical enough.
One reason why exegetes employ the two-step approach described above
is that they assume a thin conception of history that overlooks just how
theologically saturated eventsthe history behind, in, and in front of the
textactually are. By contrast, theological interpreters view historical
context itself in relation to God. This point requires further elaboration.
Theological interpretation of Scripture means attending not only to
the doctrinal content of the Bible (e.g., its message about God and Jesus
Christ) but also to the theological context of its interpretation. Historical
context we know, but who, theological context, are you?26 By theological
context I mean the redemptive-historical context of authors, texts, and
readers alike.27 What is theological about the redemptive-historical context is its reminder that history is the field for divine action (more on this
278
kevin j. vanhoozer
below)divine speech action in particular. Rightly conceived, the historical is theological.28 Theological commentary must not remain camped in
the plains of modern historiography, where events are explained in linear
fashion in terms of purely immanent forces; it must rather go up the holy
mountain, enter the cloud of Gods active presence, and listen for the
voice from heaven. The churchs great theological commentators were
not primarily interested in the history behind the text, or even in the history of the texts interpretation, valuable as they found the latter. No, their
chief aim was to hear the word of God in the text and to articulate it
freshly for their own time.29 Aye, theres the rub: how does one hear the
divine voice above or amidst the canonical cacophony of human authorial
voices? Answer: by attending to the thick redemptive-historical context
behind, in, and in front of the biblical text. Behind the text: the authors
of Scripture were part of redemptive-history. In the text: the Bible not
only recounts but counts as redemptive-history; the Old Testament plays
an important role in the history of Jesus Christ. In front of the text: interpreters too are caught up in the flow of redemptive-history, actors in the
drama of redemption. Indeed, the ultimate goal of theological commentary is not merely to provide objective knowledge about the text but to
give readers inside knowledge, or rather, to make them insiders who see
themselves and their own situations as caught up in the same drama of
redemption that unfolds in the Bible.
Theological commentary is ultimately a matter of bearing witness to
what we have seen and heard, in and through the text, of the history
of redemption and of the divine voice that propels it forward: one of
the aims of theological commentary must be to allow others to hear the
voice of God.30 William Lane eloquently expresses the vocation of the
theological interpreter: my primary task as a commentator was to listen to the text and to the discussion it has prompted over the course
of centuries as a child who needed to be made wise.31 Amen, with an
amendment: theological interpreters are not listening to the text per se
28So Matthew Levering: The integrity of linear-historical research does not require
bracketing the participatory reality of Gods presence and action in history (Participatory
Biblical Exegesis: A Theology of Biblical Interpretation [Notre Dame: University of Notre
Dame Press, 2008], 13).
29C. Kavin Rowe and Richard B. Hays, What is a Theological Commentary?, Pro Ecclesia 16 (2007) 32.
30Stephen Fowl, Philippians (THNTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 5.
31William L. Lane, The Gospel According to Mark: The English Text with Introduction,
Exposition, and Notes (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), xii.
279
but rather to the voice of God speaking in and through the texts human
authorial discourse. It is precisely because God speaks by means of these
human authors that theological interpreters must listen closely to what
the authors are saying.
3.Biblical Reasoning: From Grammatical-Historical to
Ontological Explication
What is theology but grammar applied to the text?
(Martin Luther)
Thus far I have argued that theological commentary involves reading the
biblical text in redemptive-historical context, in relation to Gods presence and activity in the world of authors and readers. We can further
specify what makes commentary theological by spelling out four ways in
which we think about things in relation to God: (1) how God relates to
what is not God; (2) how realities other than God are to be understood
in their God-relatedness; (3) who the God who relates is (and how God
relates to himself); (4) how we in our present circumstances may rightly
relate to God.32 To understand things in redemptive-historical context is
to understand them in terms of these relations. To understand the whole
system of these relationships is to grasp the grammar of theology.
Ontology: What Every Exegete Needs to Know
The Bible conceives life as a drama in which human
and divine actions create the dramatic whole. There
are ontological presuppositions for this drama, but
they are not spelled out.
(Reinhold Niebuhr)
Mastering the grammar of New Testament Greek takes one only so far
down the road of theological understanding. Ludwig Wittgenstein probably had a different kind of grammar in mind when he wrote: Essence
is expressed by grammar. Grammar tells what kind of object anything is.
(Theology as grammar).33 Implied in what we say about things is what we
think these things are. Theological interpreters believe that we understand
32These four ways are adapted from David H. Kelsey, Eccentric Existence: A Theological
Anthropology, 2 vols. (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2009), 1:459.
33Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations (3rd ed.; New York: Macmillan, 1968), 116.
280
kevin j. vanhoozer
things as they really and truly are only when we relate them to God, which
is to say, only when we interpret them in redemptive-historical context.
This, at least, is what I propose: that to examine things in redemptivehistorical (what I elsewhere term theodramatic) context is to explicate
their ontology.
For many exegetes, ontologythe study of being or the nature of
thingsis a dirty word that conjures up fears of an Athenian captivity of
the church and its interpretations. However, as C. F. D. Moule observed,
it is one thing to say the New Testament employs philosophical language,
quite another to claim that philosophical language is necessary if we are
to unpack and understand the implications of what the New Testament
does say.34 I am making the latter claim: our grammatical analysis of biblical discourse is theologically incomplete until we have spelled out its ontological implications. Historians cannot simply describe what Jesus said and
did without assuming something about his nature and identity. We therefore approach the borderlands of ontology every time we wrestle with
Jesus question Who do you say that I am?35 Moule concludes: However sparingly the New Testament borrows the [ontological] language of
that country beyond the frontier, students of the New Testament discover
themselves to be in some sense its citizens.36 The category of redemptivehistory is itself an attempt to unpack the ontological implications of what
the Bible says about our world. To limit history to the linear space-time
causal continuum is to be wedded to thin (i.e. reductionist) descriptions that fail to do justice to what history ultimately is: a staging area
for divine speech and action. Because God has acted in historyof Israel,
Jesus Christ, and the churchtheological interpretation requires thick
descriptions of the biblical narrative, descriptions that not only trace the
length of history (i.e. its horizontal linear sequence) but that also plumb
34C. F. D. Moule, The Borderlands of Ontology in the New Testament, in The Philosophical Frontiers of Christian Theology: Essays presented to D. M. MacKinnon (ed. B. Hebblethwaite and S. Sutherland; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), 111. Moule
notes that on occasion the New Testament authors employ explicitly ontological language
(e.g. Colossians 1; Heb 1:3) and that Jesus himself makes an ontological claim (John 8:58),
but for the most part the ontology is implicit.
35Why not include ontology too under what it meant? Isnt ontology simply another
aspect of the text that can be described from a historical angle? This is a subtle query
(thanks to Andrew Cowan for posing it) and I cannot do full justice to it here. Suffice it to
say that, while historians can indeed describe the world view of individual authors, they
cannot really explain how and why the biblical texts should be read together (only the
principle of divine authorship can do that) or how individual authors from different times
and culture can all be talking coherently about the same divine realities (i.e. Yahweh, God
the Father, God the Son).
36Moule, Borderlands, 10.
281
its breadth, height, and depth (i.e. its vertical, Godward dimension). What
is true of history is also true of human being, both individual and corporate. Every description of what humans say and do ultimately involves a
tacit understanding of what kind of beings we are.37
It was the Biblical Theology Movements failure to give an ontological
account of what it meant by divine action that led to its sudden and
utter demise. As such, it is an apt cautionary tale for the would-be theological interpreter. G. E. Wrights The God Who Acts was a heroic, though
tragically flawed, mid-twentieth century attempt to refocus biblical studies on God as opposed to where liberal theology had left it, stuck in
human religious experience. Yet Wright also sought to avoid the abstract
propositions of the systematic theologians in order to stick as close as
possible to the Bibles own grammar, hence his preference for a theology
of recital.38 Langdon Gilkeys celebrated essay Cosmology, Ontology, and
the Travail of Biblical Language exposed the fundamental (ontological)
incoherence of Wrights project: its world view or cosmology is modern,
while its theological language is biblical and orthodox.39 Gilkeys article
convincingly demonstrates the Biblical Theology Movements failure to
work out the ontological implications of Gods mighty acts. Indeed, it
tended to restrict divine action to a single mighty act, namely, the Exoduscovenant. Accounts of God speaking and acting before the Exodus were
viewed as expressions of post-Exodus Jewish faith: Thus the Bible is a
book descriptive not of the acts of God but of Hebrew religion.40 God
may be the grammatical subject of the verbs, but the Bible is really about
Hebrew religious faith.41 In the final analysis, the Biblical Theology Movement views all of Gods mighty acts, with the exception of the Exodus,
as projectionsparables expressive of Israels faith. Gilkeys verdict is
devastating: One can only conclude, therefore, that the mighty act of
God is not his objective activity in history but only his inward incitement of a religious response to an ordinary event within the space-time
continuum.42 Did God literally speak to Moses on Mt. Sinai, or from the
37For example, my former doctoral student Lisa Sung argues that exegetes err in
employing the category race because it lacks ontological validity and is therefore not
what the Bible means when it speaks of tribes, peoples, or nations (Race and Ethnicity Discourse and the Christian Doctrine of Humanity: A Systematic Sociological and
Theological Appraisal [Ph.D. Dissertation; Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 2011]).
38G. E. Wright, God Who Acts (London: SCM, 1952), 12.
39L. Gilkey, Cosmology, Ontology, and the Travail of Biblical Language, Journal of
Religion 41 (1961): 194.
40Ibid., 197.
41Ibid.
42Ibid., 201.
282
kevin j. vanhoozer
burning bush? If not, then how could Israel know that its interpretation of
the Exodus-covenant event was correct? While it appears pious to appeal
to faith for discerning Gods acts in history, the Biblical Theology Movement left unanswered the question of where this faith came from in the
first place. Gilkeys essay rightly called attention to the importance of the
originating revelation: In what way does this faith come from God and
from what he has done rather than from man and what he has discovered,
or even just poetically imagined?43 Gilkey was astonished at the cavalier
attitude taken by the Biblical Theological Movement towards this matter.
To say that the Exodus event was actually the result of Israels interpretive take on the East wind blowing over the Reed Sea is to evacuate
Christianity of all orthodox content. To say that God acts, but to refuse to
take any biblical depictions of Gods acts literally, is to consign oneself to
equivocal interpretations. Such interpreters are like the Athenians who
worship an unknown god; they follow an unknown meaning. What do we
mean when we say God speaks?44 Did God ever say? Everything depends
on how one answers this question, and thus on how one interprets the
Bibles depictions of Gods speech acts.
Theological Commentary As Biblical Reasoning
Evangelical exegetes must make every effort not to shipwreck their
interpretations on the same ontological shoals as the Biblical Theology
Movement. The way forward, I submit, is to engage in what we may term
biblical reasoning. Theological interpretation means examining not only
what the text says but also what it is about. It is the difference between
making the text itself as the primary subject matter and taking it as the
privileged means by which to think about something else (e.g. the reality
of God the Father, Son, and Spirit). Biblical reasoning thus demands both
exegetical and theological competence. Exegesis requires the linguistic,
literary, and historical sensibilities and skills that are part and parcel of
grammatical-historical understanding. Theology adds to these a broader
historical context (i.e. a unified redemptive history), a broader literary
context i.e. a unified canon), and a grammar of a higher order, namely,
43Ibid., 202.
44For a recent statement of the problem, see Gareth Moore, Hearing the Voice of
God: Two Conceptual Issues Concerning the Relationship between the Biblical World and
Ours, in Biblical Concepts and Our World (ed. D. Z. Phillips and M. von der Ruhr; London:
Palgrave Macmillan, 2004) 324.
283
the ability conceptually to elaborate the ontology implicit in biblical discourse. While historical-grammatical exegesis is integral and indispensable to answering ontological questions, these kinds of questions cannot
be answered in purely biblical language, because the questions are about
the meaning of biblical language itself.45 Theological interpretation eventually requires one conceptually to elaborate the ontology implicit in biblical discourse. It follows that we need thicker grammatical descriptions
of the language of the Bible. An analogy may help: just as ordinary language philosophy seeks to make explicit the wisdom implicit in ordinary
language (i.e. the sum total of the distinctions and relations that make
up our understanding of the real world), so theological interpretation of
Scripturebiblical language analysismakes explicit the wisdom hidden in the Bibles discourse, especially the deep wisdom behind the many
inner-biblical quotations, echoes, and allusions that point to Jesus Christ.46
Biblical reasoning is ultimately a matter of formulating the same judgments about God, the world, and humanity, which the Bible expresses
in conceptualities that may no longer be extant, in terms of present-day
conceptualities.47 It is a matter of elaborating the ontology presupposed,
implied, and entailed in the ordinary language and literature of the Bible.
Note well: biblical reasoning takes place in the middle of the interpretive
process. Theology is not simply a second step that follows exegesis, but a
partner in the process of explicating the text, a process that involves both
auditus fidei (the hearing or reception of the content of faith) and intellectus fidei (the understanding and articulating of this content).48 John
Webster, in a seminal article, offers a theological interpretation of biblical
reasoning itself.49 We only know what the Bible and reason really are when
we consider their natures (ontology) and ends (teleology) in relation to
God. We do this by understanding their place in the divine economy, that
is, the historical form of Gods presence to and action upon creatures.50
The divine economy (Websters term for what we have been calling the
45R. P. C. Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God (Grand Rapids: Baker,
2006), xxi.
46See Matthew Levering, Scripture and Metaphysics: Aquinas and the Renewal of Trinitarian Theology (Oxford: Blackwell, 2004), for an example of how one theological interpreter, Thomas Aquinas, uses ontology to explicate the Trinity and hence to understand
the key dramatis personae of the drama of redemption.
47For extended discussion of this point, see my Remythologizing Theology: Divine
Action, Passion, and Authorship (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 18890.
48The terminology comes from John Paul IIs encyclical Fides et Ratio.
49J. Webster, Biblical Reasoning, Anglican Theological Journal 90 (2008) 73351.
50Ibid., 736.
284
kevin j. vanhoozer
51Ibid., 740.
52Ibid., 749.
53Ibid., 750.
54D. A. Carson, Systematic theology and biblical theology, in New Dictionary of Biblical Theology (ed. T. D. Alexander and B. Rosner; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press,
2000), 103.
285
286
kevin j. vanhoozer
57Nils Alstrup Dahl, The Neglected Factor in New Testament Theology, in Jesus the
Christ: the Historical Origins of Christological Doctrine (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991), 154.
For a more recent assessment, and attempt to rectify matters, see Larry W. Hurtado, God
in New Testament Theology (Nashville: Abingdon, 2010). Interestingly, the voice of heaven
fails to figure significantly in Hurtados account.
58Ibid., 155.
59W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, The Gospel According to Saint Matthew (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 198897), 2:692.
287
the glory of the eschaton (or resurrection)? By and large, modern biblical scholars have spent more energy on determining the sources behind
the Transfiguration accounts and the way the Evangelists have put their
narratives together than they have on understanding what happened and
what it tells us about God. Those that focus on the event argue about its
status: was it an objective occurrence or a vision seen by one or all of
the three disciples present?60 Jesus himself calls it a vision (orama
Matt17:9), but the question is whether this refers to something actually
seen or an apocalyptic vision-report.61 It is worth pausing to consider
what is at stake in this debate. The notion of a voice from heaven is
familiar in rabbinic literature. There was even a technical term for it: the
bath qol (daughter of the voice). However, the rabbis understood it to
be only an echo of Gods voice, first, because the revelation at Sinai was
definitive and could never be superseded and, second, because the spirit
of prophecy had departed after the death of Malachi as a judgment on
Israels sin. The rabbis believed that God continued to speak but only
through the echo of his voice...a poor substitute.62 The daughter of the
voice lacks the authority of Gods prophetic word written; only inspired
prophets like Moses heard, and then spoke for, the voice of God himself.63
Yet most commentators are struck more by the discontinuities. Matthews
account clearly implies that the voice is the same as the one that spoke to
Moses on Mt. Sinai, as Calvin points out: The voice was uttered from the
cloud so that the disciples might know that it came from God.64 Indeed,
the voice provides us with the most unmediated access to Gods own
view of Jesus.65 On a literary level, Davies and Allison believe that Matthew 17:18 is structured as a chiasm, with the divine voice smack in the
middle: If this chiastic analysis is correct, it means that the voice from
60Arthur Michael Ramsey, The Glory of God and the Transfiguration of Christ (Eugene,
OR: Wipf & Stock, 2009), 106.
61On the latter, see Edith M. Humphrey, And I Turned to See the Voice: the Rhetoric
of Vision in the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007), esp. 13550 on the Trans
figuration.
62Joachim Jeremias, New Testament Theology (New York: Scribners, 1971), 81. For more
on the bath qol, see C. K. Barrett, The Holy Spirit & the Gospel Tradition (London: SPCK,
1966), 3941.
63The Talmud (Baba Metzia 59b) recounts a story of Rabbi Eliezer appealing to a voice
from heaven to prove a point, only to be told by the other rabbis that the prophetic word
is more sure.
64Calvin, A Harmony of the Gospels, 201.
65R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 123.
288
kevin j. vanhoozer
289
Jesus calming the winds and the sea. Or, as Richard Briggs has recently
suggested, perhaps the disciples saw or construed Gods will in verbal
form, and that they were divinely prompted to do so.68 In this case, we
could say that God communicated by causing the disciples to hear words
inside their heads. While this has certain advantages as an explication of
the ontology of divine speech, 2 Peter 1:1618 insists on the disciples actually having been eyewitnessesearwitnesses!of these events, including
the majestic voice: we ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven
(2 Peter 1:18). What ultimately matters is that we are able to ascribe this
speech act to God; how God accommodates it to human hearing is ultimately a secondary matter. The essential point, to repeat, is that God is
the communicating agent responsible for the determinate message and
the one who brings about understanding on the part of the disciples. The
voice from heaven is an instance of divine discourse, not the result of
human projection, whether sleeping or waking. Even if R. T. France is
right that We cannot, and need not, know what a cinecamera on the
mountain would have recorded,69 it is imperative that, minimally, we
understand the voice from heaven to be a genuine communicative act that
we can ascribe to God the Father. Given the emphasis on eyewitness testimony, the presumption should incline us to favor a literal (i.e., empirical)
interpretation.70 The Transfiguration is as much an audition as vision
report. The gospel is about that which from the beginning...we have
heard (1 John 1:1; cf. 2 Peter 1:18). The good news is that God has spoken
and acted to save sinners and renew creation in the history of Jesus Christ.
The Transfiguration is the gospel in microcosm because there we catch a
glimpse of God doing just that.
The Voice from Heaven in the Context of the Cloud: Why Multi-Level
Theological Commentary Matters
Because human beings take up a relatively finite amount of space and
time, determining the context in which to interpret their discourse is a
relatively straightforward matter. Not so with God. The very idea of one
68See Richard Briggs, On Seeing what God is Saying: Rereading Biblical Narrative
in Dialogue with Kevin Vanhoozers Remythologizing Theology, in Visions and Revisions:
The Word and the Text (ed. R. Kojeck and A. Tate; Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Press,
2012).
69Gospel of Matthew, 644.
70See the nuanced discussion in Stephen Williams, The Transfiguration of Jesus Christ
(Part 1), Themelios 28 (2002) 1719.
290
kevin j. vanhoozer
who transcends space and time, the creator of all things visible and invisible, having a context is an oxymoron: there is no context for infinity.
Nevertheless, Gods communicative accommodationsdivine speech
actsdo have contexts.71
To this point, we have been interested in establishing that the voice
is indeed from God. We turn now to the task of understanding what it is
saying. Craig Keeners point is apt: The fact of the voice is important, but
what the voice says is most important for this is what declares Jesus identity
to the reader.72 God speaks only twice in the Synoptic Gospels, and in
each case he says the same thing. This one thing is the single most important fact that God wants the church and the world to know.73 Bruners gloss
on this point is also worth noting: the creeds are not detours or distortions of the pure simplicity of the gospel but obedient conceptual articulations of Gods own confession of Jesus.74 Who, then, does God say that
he (Jesus) is?
Inasmuch as the voice from heaven is that of the divine author, we
may distinguish Gods speaking out of the cloud as described by a human
author, God speaking through the voice-text of the human author, and God
speaking through the whole canonical cloud of biblical authors. Interestingly, both Osborne and Carson acknowledge the importance of multiple
levels of exegetical-theological reflection. I agree: theological interpretation of Scripture is a many-leveled affair. These levels are arranged hierarchically, in terms of expanding contexts: the higher levels/contexts (e.g.,
canonical) depend upon the lower (e.g., philological) but are ultimately
irreducible to them.75 The task is to understand not only what Matthew
71Whether the contexts and intentions of these divine communicative acts coincide
without remainder with those of the biblical authors is a significant, and challenging,
question.
72Craig S. Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1999), 134, his emphasis. Bruner goes further, claiming that the voice from heaven performs a confessional speech act: the Transfiguration is the Fathers Confession of his Son,
the divine counterpart to Peters earlier confession (Matthew: A Commentary. Vol. 2 The
Christbook [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004], 166).
73Bruner, Matthew, 172 (italics his).
74Ibid.
75Osborne too distinguishes five levels: individual communicative utterances; the theology of an author in a book; the theology of the authors collected works (e.g., the Pauline
epistles); the theology of a whole testament; the theology of the Bible as a whole (Hermeneutics and Theological Interpretation, 77, 801). Each of these levels deals with what it
meant, namely the historical task of describing what the authors of Scripture believed.
While I too want to distinguish five levels, I am more interested in what God is saying at
each level than in trying to determine what Israel or the church believed. It is not clear
291
the human author is saying about the voice of heaven, but also what God
the divine author is saying by means of Matthew.
On the first, grammatical-historical level we have what appears to be a
declarative sentence with a simple sense and referent: This is my beloved
Son, with whom I am well pleased (Matt 17:5). We have already discussed
the importance of an anchoring divine speech act: without some divine
communicative initiative, there would be no promise, no covenant, no
knowledge of God in the land. Similarly, this rare instance of a voice from
heaven anchors, as it were, Gods identification of and relationship to
Jesus Christ. Apart from some broader context, however, it is difficult to
ascertain what is being said: the syntactical level is basic, but it gets us
only so far. Is the Father adopting Jesus as his Son, declaring that Jesus has
always been his Son, or something else? A second, literary level expands
the context by taking the literary co-text into consideration. There are a
number of textual clues in the immediate vicinity that allow us to give
a thicker description of what the voice of heaven is saying/doing: Jesus
face is shining like the sun and his clothes are as white as light (17:2); he is
talking to Moses and Elijah (17:3); the voice is speaking from a bright overshadowing cloud (17:5). These clues refer suggestively to Israels earlier
experience at Sinai, but by themselves they still do not go far enough; we
need not merely literary sensitivity but the ability to make good canonical judgments. In alluding to specific Old Testament passages, the voice
from heaven identifies Jesus not only by doing things with words, but also
with ideas, objects, and events from Israels history. The theological commentator must discern these rich typological associations; it is through
these that what Jesus is in Gods thinking is made unforgettably clear.76
Should we hear an echo of Ps 2:7 and view the Transfiguration as a preview of the Sons eschatological enthronementa prophetic apocalypse
of the final truth and reality of all things77or Isa 42:1 with its servant
of the Lord imagery, or perhaps both? This is not the place for a definitive answer. The point is that Matthews account of the Transfiguration is
to me whose historical meaning we are describing at the level of the Bible as a whole.
Graham Cole similarly invokes multiple levels when he proposes to use biblical evidence
in a way that is sensitive to the biblical text in its immediate context in its literary unit
in its book in the canon in the light of the flow of redemptive history (He Who Gives Life:
The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit [Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2007], 28).
76Bruner, Matthew, 2:166. The discontinuities are often theologically significant too.
For example, on Sinai Moses was the recipient of revelation, but here Jesus himself is the
revelation.
77Douglas Harink, 1 & 2 Peter (BTCT; Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2009) 156.
292
kevin j. vanhoozer
78I agree with Stephen Williams: There is no contradiction here. Reading the story of
transfiguration in terms, for example, of the manifestation of the messianic king does not
require reference to incarnation. However, it permits it, and if such a reference is justified,
the reading is enhanced (The Transfiguration of Jesus Christ (Part 2): Approaching Sonship, Themelios 28 [2003] 19).
79Ramsey, Glory of God and the Transfiguration of Christ, 144.
293
80The Blackwell Bible Commentaries series is the first to focus primarily on the reception history of the Bible.
81See Timothy George, Reading the Bible with the Reformers, First Things (March,
2011).
82Peter Chamberas, Transfiguration of Christ: A Study in the Patristic Exegesis of
Scripture, St. Vladimirs Theological Quarterly 14 (1970): 62.
83Venerable Bede, Homily, xxviii, cited in Ramsey, Glory of God and Transfiguration of
Christ, 132. Cf. Thomas Aquinas: the whole Trinity appearsthe Father in the voice, the
Son in the man, the Holy Ghost in the bright cloud (Summa Theologiae III, Q.45, art.4).
294
kevin j. vanhoozer
84St. John Damascene, Homily on the Transfiguration, cited in Chamberas, Transfiguration of Christ, 55. For a modern rebuttal, see Howard Clark Kee, The Transfiguration in
Mark: Epiphany or Apocalyptic Vision? in Understanding the Sacred Text (ed. J. Reumann;
Valley Forge: Judson Press, 1972), 13752.
85Bruner, Matthew, 2:173.
86Inst., IV.8.7.
295
296
kevin j. vanhoozer
says that the voice from heaven makes the prophetic word more or
very sure (2 Peter 1:19).90 Whereas Matthews account depicts the Old
Testament bearing witness to the Transfiguration, 2 Peter shows the
reverse: that the Transfiguration bears witness to the permanent validity
of the Old Testament.91 The inference is clear: the voice from heaven is
the same voice that spoke through the prophets (and vice versa). In the
words of Hilary of Arles: The light which shone on them was the light of
Scripture.92
And that of Jesus. Jesus is Gods first and last word, the word that was
with God in the beginning (John 1:1) and the triumphant victory shout
that will be heard on the future day of the Lord. It was the prophetic word
that the disciples saw shining brightly on Jesus face: the Old Testament
prophecies are caught up by and given new life in the revelation of the
coming glory and sovereignty of Jesus Christ.93 The voice from heaven
interprets the prophecies in relation to Jesus, his divine person (Son) and
work (Messiah): The transfiguration is Gods own exegesis of the prophetic
word.94 Stated differently: the Transfiguration is Gods own theological
interpretation of Scripture. For if God is indeed the author of Scripture,
then Scripture interprets Scripture means God interprets Scripture.
The task of the theological commentator is thus to think Gods interpretations after him. The transfiguration reveals to us the proper understanding of the origin and interpretation of holy scripture.95 Theological
interpretation is not a matter of bringing an extra-textual interest to the
text, but of reading the Bible for what it truly is: a creaturely medium for
what is ultimately a complex (i.e., canonical) triune communicative act.96
90Richard Bauckham thinks the words are used in a superlative rather than comparative sense (Jude, 2 Peter [WBC; Waco, TX: Word, 1983], 223).
91Ramsey, Glory of God and Transfiguration of Christ, 126. Bauckham argues that 2 Peter
presents the Transfiguration against the background of Ps 2 and the idea of eschatological
enthronement rather than Moses and Sinai as in Matthew (Jude, 2 Peter, 222).
92Hilary of Arles, Comm. on 2 Peter (cited in Ancient Christian Commentary, 140).
93Harink, 1 & 2 Peter, 159.
94Ibid. In context, Harink mentions Ps 2 in particular, but there is reason to think that
the voice from heaven alludes to Isa 42:1, Gen 22:2, and Exod 4:2223 as well. Though the
Fourth Gospel does not recount the Transfiguration, there is a sense in which its entire
narrative is an extended reflection on the event.
95Ibid., 160.
96See my Triune Discourse: Theological Reflections on the Claim that God Speaks,
in Trinitarian Theology for the Church: Scripture, Community, Worship (ed. D. Lauber and
D. Treier; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2009), 2578.
297
Theological interpretation of Scripture is a sustained reflection on the reality of divine authorial action. 2 Peters commentary on the Transfiguration
shows us the Spirit as the one who has spoken through the prophets, the Father
as the one exegetes Old Testament prophecies in his own voice, and the Son
as the Word of God to whom we must listen. Hence we do not read the Bible
like other books. The Bible is like other books because it involves authors,
discourse fixed in writing, and readers, yet this continuity is marked by an
even greater discontinuity for, unlike all other books, the Bibles ultimate
author is Godthe voice from heaven. The redemptive-historical context
not only unifies the Old Testament and New Testament but also embraces
authors and readers, bringing them together as a cloud of witnesses on the
mountain from which Gods voice speaks.
The glory of theological interpretation is spiritual understanding, a
comprehension not only of the words but also of the thingor rather,
the divine personthese words are ultimately about. The vocation of
the theological commentator, like that of the disciples with Jesus on the
mountain, is ultimately that of bearing faithful witness to the true identity
of Jesus. Stephen Williams acknowledges how recovering the Jewishness
of Jesus has enhanced our reading of the Gospels. At the same time, if we
know, thanks to Nicaea and Chalcedon, that Jesus was homoousios with
the Father, then we ought to read the Synoptic Gospels in that light.97
This is no alien imposition, but rather a thick description and faithful
conceptual exposition of the text in canonical-economic, redemptivehistorical context. What Williams says about Jesus applies equally to the
apostolic word about him: if we know that the Bible is theopneustos
the result of men speaking from God as they were carried along by the
Holy Spirit (2 Pet 1:21)we ought to read it in that light. Would Grant
Osborne agree? I am inclined to think so. The present essay extends theological interpretation of Scripture as the right hand of biblical fellowship,
and it would be a strange gift indeed that bites the hand to which it is
offered. My concern is to repair the partnership between biblical scholars
and theologians by reflecting again about the meaning of historical and
theological exegesis. I have argued that the work of biblical scholars and
theologians, though on different levels, is equally necessary for theological
commentary and understanding. Let us therefore not be like those who
heard only thunder but not the divine voice, or like those who see only
298
kevin j. vanhoozer
the pale form of a Palestinian Jew rather than the glory of the Son of God
who is light himself. For, as Calvin says, without the word nothing is left
for men but darkness.98 May we all, biblical and theological commentators, have the eyes to see and the ears to hear the voice of God shining in
the face of Scripture, dazzling in the canonical fabric of the text.
98Comment on 2 Peter 1:19, in Calvin, Commentaries on the Catholic Epistles (Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1855), 388.
1It is a great privilege to honor one such scholar, Grant Osborne, whose The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation (2nd ed.; Downers
Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2006]) shaped my exegetical practice right from the beginning of seminary training and provided my first responsible encounter with hermeneutical
theory. Grants graciousness to students and colleagues, service to the church, and wideranging excellence will leave a significant legacy.
300
daniel j. treier
301
8David S. Yeago, The New Testament and the Nicene Dogma: A Contribution to the
Recovery of Theological Exegesis, ProEccl 3 (1994): 15264.
9As republished in Stephen E. Fowl, ed., The Theological Interpretation of Scripture:
Classic and Contemporary Readings (Oxford: Blackwell, 1997), 87100, which is the edition
cited hereafter.
10Stephen E. Fowl, Philippians (THNTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005).
11Yeago, The New Testament and the Nicene Dogma, 88.
302
daniel j. treier
with the possibility of appeal to an early Christian hymn and explicit allusion to the Old Testament.
Much of Yeagos burden is to explore how Paul speaks of Christs exaltation using Isa 45:2124, one of Israels strongest monotheistic texts:
The text from Philippians identifies the prophesied turning of all the earth
to Yhwh as the only God with the universal acclamation of Jesus as Lord;
that Jesus is acclaimed as kurios to the glory of God the Father implies that
Yhwh comes to his rightful, exclusive sovereignty over the whole creation,
proclaimed in Isaiah, precisely through creations acknowledgement of the
lordship of the particular person Jesus. Within the thought-world of Israels
scriptures, no stronger affirmation of the bond between the risen Jesus and
the God of Israel is possible.12
303
304
daniel j. treier
17Gerald F. Hawthorne, Philippians (WBC 43; Waco, TX: Word, 1983), 7196; on p. 96
he even suggests that the Christological material is incidental.
18Wolfgang Schenk, Die Philipperbriefe des Paulus: Kommentar (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1984), 172213.
19Fred B. Craddock, Philippians (Interpretation; Atlanta: John Knox, 1985), 3543.
20Ralph P. Martin, The Epistle of Paul to the Philippians: An Introduction and Commentary (2nd ed.; TNTC 11; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1987), 99114.
21I. Howard Marshall, The Epistle to the Philippians (London: Epworth, 1991), 4759.
305
306
daniel j. treier
307
in sources referenced, with Hans Urs von Balthasar, John Milbank, John
Chrysostom, and Thomas Aquinas garnering citations. Regarding the relation of the text to metaphysics, Fowl asserts, The question is not whether
Paul thought this way himself. Rather, the question is whether one uses
historical-critical, sociological, philosophical, or Christian theological categories for ordering diverse concepts and perspectives.33 Interpretations
are ruled not by strictly formal considerations of grammar, syntax, and
semantics alone, which are underdetermined on key issues, but also by
the logic of salvation within and informing the passage.34
Silva (2005), without mentioning either Dunn or Yeago, finds the passage to be consonant with fourth-century Trinitarian formulas even if
its language is not philosophically loaded.35 Consonant with Reformed
sources, he allows for AdamChrist associations handled with restraint.
He is one of relatively few commentators directly resisting false dichotomies between ethical and non-ethical interpretative elements. Acknowledging the stunning implications of the application of Isaiah 45, still
Silva proceeds without discussing its legitimacy.
Thurston and Ryan (2005) seem unconvinced about AdamChrist parallels, basically seeing that discussion as too far afield.36 Appealing to the
hymnic genre rendering the text outside the purview of systematic theology, they make only passing reference to the major issue and no explicit
reference to Dunn. Isaiah 45 is parenthetically acknowledged with no real
explanation. Discussion of preexistence is counted pastorally relevant for
feminist and liberationist concerns, as surely it is; but one could get the
impression that questions about whom Christians are to worship have
escaped this category.
308
daniel j. treier
309
310
daniel j. treier
Despite surface rhetoric, though, Yeagos essay need not entail dismissing historical-critical (or, if preferred, grammatical-historical) concerns.
Yeago borrows from Wright and makes multiple historical appeals. The
strengths of modern commentaries on this front are obvious. To provide
one illustration from a theologians standpoint, the emerging consensus
over harpagmos is an exegetical gift to theology, while much of Wrights
other work is also theologically engaged. And, to the degree that Yeago
highlights weaknesses of modern exegesis in Dunn and the commentaries
engaging him, those limitations do not primarily concern subject-matter:
most commentaries ponder substantially the question of Incarnation. The
limitations, summarized below under three headings, lie rather in conceptual starting points and corresponding uses of evidence.
(1) Theological sophistication. The concepts-judgments distinction,
however expressed, suggests that biblical scholars are sometimes hermeneutically and even logically underdeveloped. Of course we could all name
theologians that are hermeneutically overdeveloped, so preoccupied with
theory as to neglect the biblical text itself, whereas to a degree the biblical
scholars besetting sin is preferable. Nevertheless, the first lesson here is
that everyone needs at least a basic hermeneutical toolkit; such a conceptual framework is operative, at the level of interpretative expectations,
whether one knows it or not. Beyond hermeneutical weaknesses, some
technical commentaries reflect poor definitions, theological stereotypes,
historical flaws, and false dichotomies, as in the frequent polarization
between ethical and Christological interpretations, which at a basic level
fails to acknowledge the theological nature of ethics. Put simply, theological sophistication helps biblical scholars to accomplish even their historical tasks better. Over time, biblical scholarship often weeds out problems
in these realms, as illustrated above in evaluations of Dunns work, while
sometimes reflecting the progress of a self-correcting academic guild moving toward small-scale consensus. But, at other points, considerable need
for theological growth remains.
(2) Admission of evidence. Yeagos critique of Dunn is also revealing
about the point at which an alien text or theological construct counts as
exegetical evidence. On the one hand, Dunn distances Philippians 2 from
other New Testament texts such as John 1 and from the Nicene dogma.
On the other hand, Dunn simultaneously imports his own construct, an
Adam-Christology, based on relatively thin strands of overt textual evidence. Theologians ought not say, or be taken to imply, that different
biblical texts or dogmatic tradition(s) can simply be read into a particular passageor, conversely, that theology must be read straight off the
311
312
daniel j. treier
45For historical treatments of the Bibles creation as a cultural artifact eliciting university study and commentary, see Jonathan Sheehan, The Enlightenment Bible: Translation, Scholarship, Culture (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005); Michael C. Legaspi,
The Death of Scripture and the Rise of Biblical Studies (OSHT; Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2010). For a vigorous argument regarding the increasing disciplinary fragmentation
of New Testament studies, see Markus Bockmuehl, Seeing the Word: Refocusing New Testament Study (STI; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006).
46For an overview see Daniel J. Treier, Introducing Theological Interpretation of Scripture: Recovering a Christian Practice (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008). For further theological
perspective, see idem, What Is Theological Interpretation? An Ecclesiological Reduction,
IJST 12 (2010): 14461.
313
anticipating the grace of the Holy Spirit working in and through natural
talents and labors, this is an aspect of theological exegesis. When these
scholars direct their service to churchly endspreaching, teaching, translating, and so forth; when they sometimes address pastoral and lay readers instead of solely pursuing academic notoriety; and when the exegesis
addresses canonical biblical theology, the orienting vocation could be
called theological interpretation.
Such language could not only support biblical scholars in their work
but also obtain a wider audience for its results. Meanwhile, as a leavening
influence, theological exegesis might make space in academic culture for
theologians to engage Scripture and pursue the riches of biblical studies
more robustly. Furthermore, theological interpretation might embolden
biblical scholars to engage canon, creed, and culture more centrally and
creatively in the exegetical process. In short, the goal would be iron sharpening iron between biblical studies and theology (Prov 27:17).
Yet the jury remains out: will appeals for theological exegesis ultimately
prove to be wise, unhelpfully divisive, or both? Many biblical scholars
need not quibble with the beginning presupposition of scriptural unity,
or with creedal integrity as the end result in such an enterprise. The
sticking point, then, concerns the middle of interpretation.
Often biblical scholars seem committed to a largely historical conception of their discipline and, accordingly, to commentaries offering
author- or original context-oriented exegesis. Thus modern commentaries typically distinguish between the meaning of the text and its significance in the here and now. The historical dimension orients the scholarly
task on which commentary material is grounded.
Given claims above regarding the beginning and ends of interpretation, it is misleading for theologians to accuse all biblical scholars of
lacking theological interests and merely doing history. But, in return,
biblical scholars routinely accuse theologians of ignoring scriptural particulars, so both guilds perceive that we have differences, and need to
admit that faithful are the wounds of a friend (Prov 27:6). What then
is at stake? Most modern, scholarly commentaries do not substantially
engage ancient or contemporary theological texts in the middle of what
they call exegesis, tending instead to reflect a two-stage model that distinguishes interpretation from theological reflection. Such application of
the text to doctrine and life transpires once the exegesis is basically done.
This two-stage model could simply reflect contingencies of writing within
a historically-oriented guild, but often it goes farther, setting boundaries
on what counts as evidence in exegetical argument.
314
daniel j. treier
315
unwise. Of course, the church may fail to recognize its need for any of
our gifts, in which case scholars must respond with both humility and
courage.
Churchly teaching is the ongoing ministry of God the Sons prophetic
self-revelation within the royal priesthood being created by God the Spirit.
Commentators are accountable to the church for their exercises of teaching
authority, but even more so to the churchs Lord. Christology is a stimulus
to theological commentary writing not only because Jesus is so integral to
Scriptures subject matter, but also because prudential gift-giving within
the body of Christ is the basic form that constitutes commentary-writing
as churchly service, and the threefold office of Christespecially the
propheticunfolds the basic content of such a teaching ministry: confronting and blessing Gods people with the divine Word. Beyond secular
reasons for commenting on biblical texts christological significance, then,
attention to Christology should be natural for commentators committed
to the Rule of Faithin other words, to canon and creed. Attention to
Christology might also bring contemporary context(s)culturemore
effectively into relation with the text. Having labored over a theological
commentary myself,47 I would suggest that Christology is in play even
when Scripture seemingly addresses everything else under the sunfor
in Christ all things hold together (Colossians 1), even biblical texts.
To be sure, theological commentaries sometimes fail to bring the text
into meaningful relation with the cotext(s) and contemporary context(s).
But it remains unclear, in principle, why all commentaries should have
to excel equally in historical and literary detailor why engaging the
texts message would always entail dwelling at primary length on ancient
context(s). Modern scholarly commentaries are a great gift. But why must
they preclude substantial theological engagement in the middle of exegesis, or appreciation for other commentaries focusing on textual relations
with additional contexts? What kind or extent of historical and literary
responsibility is required for a commentary somehow to be about the
text, addressing questions it evokes? Must a scholarly commentary primarily analyze textual language, or might specialized learning also help
with addressing the subject matter...and addressing its inner logic to us,
in a closer parallel with ancient sermons that might not deserve the dismissive label devotional?
47Daniel J. Treier, Proverbs and Ecclesiastes (BTCB; Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2011).
316
daniel j. treier
1See, for example, C. K. Barrett, The Pastoral Epistles (New Clarendon Bible; Oxford:
Clarendon, 1963), 9; Raymond Collins, 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus: A Commentary (NTL; Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2002), 114; Donald Guthrie, The Pastoral Epistles:
An Introduction and Commentary (TNTC; 2nd ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990); Luke
Timothy Johnson, The First and Second Letters to Timothy (AB 35A; New York: Doubleday,
2001), 14754; Joachim Jeremias, Die Briefe an Timotheus und Titus (NTD 9; Vandenhoeck
& Ruprecht, 1954); J. N. D. Kelly, A Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles: 1 Timothy, II Timothy, Titus (HNTC; New York: Harper & Row, 1963; repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1987);
Thomas Lea and Hayne Griffin, 1, 2 Timothy, Titus (NAC; Nashville: Broadman & Holman,
1992); Walter Liefeld, 1 and 2 Timothy/Titus (NIVAC; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999);
Jerome Quinn and William Wacker, The First and Second Letters to Timothy (ECC; Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000); John Stott, Guard the Truth: The Message of 1 Timothy and Titus
(BST; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1997).
2William Mounce, Pastoral Epistles (WBC 46; Nashville: Nelson, 2000), 46130.
3George Knight, The Pastoral Epistles: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand
Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1992), 1352; Ben Witherington, A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on
Titus, 12 Timothy and 13 John (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2006), 4974.
4I. Howard Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles. (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999),
5792.
5Martin Dibelius and Hans Conzelmann, The Pastoral Epistles: A Commentary on
the Pastoral Epistles (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972); B. S. Easton, The Pastoral
Epistles (London: SCM, 1947); Anthony T. Hanson, The Pastoral Epistles (NCBC; London:
318
linda l. belleville
traditions and not Pauline theology.6 The church of the Pastoral Epistles
is a social organization, whose main theological concern is Christology
as codified in ecclesial tradition rather than Christology in the making.7
Anthony Hanson, who understands the Pastorals as letters instructing the
church on how to be a good citizen, is representative.8 Luke Johnson similarly identifies (understood as church administration) as
the Pastorals central motif.9 Ben Fiore speaks of the Pastorals as church
order letters, resembling the official duty-roster memorandum given to
subordinate officials on assuming a new position.10 Roman Catholic scholarship tends to view the Pastorals as a collection of baptismal and liturgical homilies, notes, and formulas pertaining to the order of worship.11
It is the rare commentary that treats the Christology of the Pastorals
as substantive. On occasion, Christology finds its way into an appendix or
excursus. For example, although Howard Marshall does not treat Christology among the introductory matters, he does do so in a lengthy excursus.12
Locks ICC introduction has it in brief.13 Erdmanss NICNT and Tyndales
Cornerstone Biblical Commentary series are two of the few commentaries
to-date that treat the theology of the Pastorals at length and include Christology. In the NICNT volume, Towner states that he seeks to introduce
the PEs theological emphases in a way that does some justice to the unity
of the PE and the diversity of the individual letters.14 Even so, for Towner,
Marshall Pickering, 1982); Thomas Oden, First and Second Timothy and Titus (Louisville,
KY: Westminster John Knox, 1989); E. F. Scott The Pastoral Epistles (MNTC; London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1936).
6J. Roloff, Der erste Brief an Timotheus (EKK 15; Zrich: Benziger, 1988); L. Oberlinner,
Die Pastoralbriefe: Kommentar zum ersten Timotheusbrief (HTKNT XI/2; Freiburg: Herder,
1994); N. Brox, Die Pastoralbriefe (RNT 7; Regensburg: Pustet, 1969). Less detailed commentaries such as V. Hasler, Die Briefe an Timotheus und Titus (ZBNT; Zrich: Theologi
scher Verlag, 1978), and H. Merkel, Die Pastoralbriefe (NTD 9/1; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1991), confirm the consensus that the PE are second-century or late first-century
documents which can only be understood with this in mind.
7Eduard Schweitzer, Church Order in the New Testament (London: SCM, 1961), 18;
Roloff, Der Erste Brief an Timotheus.
8Hanson, Pastoral Epistles, 13.
9Johnson, First and Second Letters to Timothy, 14754.
10Benjamin Fiore, The Pastoral Epistle (SP 12; Collegeville, Minn: Liturgical Press, 2007),
912.
11See, e.g., Quinn and Wacker, The First and Second Letters to Timothy, 1822; Quinn,
Titus.
12Marshall, Pastoral Epistles, 287326.
13Walter Lock, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles (ICC; New
York: Scribners, 1924), xxixxii.
14Phil Towner, 12 Timothy and Titus (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 5370.
319
15Phil Towner, Pauline Theology or Pauline Tradition in the Pastoral Epistles: The
Question of Method, TynBul 46 (1995): 287314.
16Gordon Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus (NIBC 13; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1988);
William Barclay, The Letters to Timothy, Titus and Philemon (rev. ed.; Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox 1975).
17Towner, 12 Timothy and Titus; cf. idem, Pauline Theology or Pauline, TynBul 46
(1995): 306, 31314.
18James Dunn, Preface, in Francis Young, The Theology of the Pastoral Letters (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), ix.
19I. Howard Marshall, New Testament Theology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press),
397419.
20Ferdinand C. Baur, Die sogenannten Pastoralbriefe des Apostels Paulus (Stuttgart:
Cotta, 1835); Martin Dibelius, Die Pastoralbriefe (2nd ed.; Tbingen: Mohr, 1931). See
Brox, Pastoralbriefe, 15759; Hans Brki, Der erste Brief des Paulus an Timotheus (Wuppertaler Studienbibel Neues Testament 14; Wuppertal: R. Brockhaus, 1994); Fritz Grnzweig, Erster Timotheus-Brief (Bibel-Kommentare 18; Neuhausen-Stuttgart: Hnssler, 1990);
Merkel, Pastoralbriefe; Heinz-Werner Neudorfer, Der erste Brief des Paulus an Timotheus
320
linda l. belleville
(Historisch-Theologische Auslegung; Wuppertal: R. Brockhaus, 2004); Oberlinner, Titusbrief, xliil; Roloff, Der erste Brief an Timotheus, 2339.
21Francis Young, The Theology of the Pastoral Letters (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 123.
22James Aageson, Paul, the Pastoral Epistles, and the Early Church (Peabody, MA: Hendricksen, 2008).
231 Tim 1:1 (twice), 2, 12, 14, 15, 16; 2:5; 3:13; 4:6; 5:11, 21; 6:3, 13, 14; 2 Tim 1:1 (twice), 2, 9,
10, 13; 2:1, 3, 8, 10; 3:12, 15; 4:1; Titus 1:1, 4; 2:13; 3:6.
24This has been capably refuted by Andrew Y. Laus Manifest in Flesh: The Epiphany:
Christology of the Pastoral Epistles (WUNT 86; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996) and George M.
Wielands The Significance of Salvation: A Study of Salvation Language in the Pastoral Epistles (Paternoster Biblical Monographs; Carlisle: Paternoster, 2006).
25Hans Windisch, Zur Christologie der Pastoralbriefe, ZNW 34 (1935): 213214.
321
26Martin Dibelius, Die Pastoralbriefe (2nd ed.; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1931). For further discussion, see Oden, First and Second Timothy and Titus, 16.
27See Dibelius and Conzelmann, Pastoral Epistles, 810. Compare Brox, Pastoralbriefe;
Brki, Timotheus; Grnzweig, Erster Timotheus-Brief; Jeremias, Timotheus und Titus; Merkel,
Pastoralbriefe; Neudorfer, Der erste Brief des Paulus an Timotheus; Oberlinner, Titusbrief;
Roloff, Der erste Brief an Timotheus.
28See, for example, J. H. Houlden, Pastoral Epistles. I and II Timothy, Titus (TPI New
Testament Commentaries; London: SCM, 1989), 6465; Robert Karris, The Pastoral Epistles
(Wilmington: Glazier, 1979), 64. There has been a recent call to consider 1 and 2 Timothy
and Titus individually rather than as a Corpus, given what some argue to be theological
differences especially between 1 TimothyTitus and 2 Timothy. See, for example, William
Richards, who concludes that a detailed analysis of grammatical features shows that they
were not written by the same person (Difference and Distance in Post-Pauline Christianity:
An Epistolary Analysis of the Pastorals (Studies in Biblical Literature 44; New York: Peter
Lang, 2002). Compare Raymond Collins, 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2002); Karl Donfried, Rethinking Scholarly Approaches to 1 Timothy, in 1
Timothy Reconsidered (ed. K. Donfried; Louvain: Peeters, 2008), 15382; Michale Gourgues,
tude critique: La recherche sur les pastorales un tournant? Science et Esprit 61 (2009):
7386. Raymond Collinss commentary is representative of this opinion, arguing that 2
Timothy (unlike 1 Timothy and Titus) is typical of the ancient testamentary genrea farewell discourse composed by authors writing about their heroes (1 & 2 Timothy and Titus,
18186).
29Linda L. Belleville, Introduction to the Pastoral Epistles, in 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy,
Titus (CBC 17; Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 2009), 1617. See the detailed treatments by
Lau, Manifest in Flesh and Wieland, The Significance of Salvation.
30P. Trummer, Die Paulustradition der Pastoralbriefe (BET 8; Frankfurt: Peter Lang,
1978), 19394, 204.
311 Tim 1:2, 12, 14; 6:3, 14, 15; 2 Tim 1:2, 8, 16, 18 (twice); 2:7, 19 (twice), 22, 24; 3:11; 4:8,
14, 17, 18, 22.
321 Tim 1:2, 12; 6:3, 14; 2 Tim 1:2, 8, 24.
322
linda l. belleville
of Christ only in 2 Timothy and Titus.33 Towner correctly notes that the
Pastorals place the saving activity of God and Christ in a conspicuous juxtaposition that is unique to these letters.34 God is the initiator and Christ
the mediator of salvation. God our Savior (1 Tim 1:1; 2:3; Titus 1:3; 2:10;
3:4) desires that all people be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth
(1 Tim 2:4; 4:10 2 Tim 2:10). This desire becomes effective through Jesus
whose mission was to save sinners; that is why he came into the world
(1 Tim 1:15).
What both Trummer and Towner fail to observe, however, is that
and are not independent titles. In each instance they are descriptive of the primary title found twenty-four times in the
Pastorals. The word order is significant. is descriptiveChrist the Saving One, rather than the usual
Jesus the Anointed One or Messiah. It is Christ Jesus who came into
the world to save sinners (1 Tim 1:15) and who gave himself as a ransom
for all (1Tim2:5). Salvation is an expression of Gods grace (Titus 2:11) and
is found in Christ Jesus and him alone (2 Tim 2:10). As such, he is the
Savior Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession (Titus
2:1314). Those who believe, believe in him (Jesus Christ) for eternal life
(1 Tim 1:16). Christ Jesus is singularly said to have made a good confession
when he testified before Pontius Pilate (1 Tim 6:13). The title Our Savior
Christ Jesus captures the divine salvific purpose. Grace and peace come
from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior (Titus 1:4). It is a grace
poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior (Titus 3:6) and
manifested in the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, whose coming
abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the
Gospel (2 Tim 1:10). Now we await our blessed hope, the appearing of the
glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ (Titus 2:13).
A cosmic, eschatological purpose is caught in the title Christ Jesus our
Lord. Grace, mercy, and peace in the letters to Timothy come from God
the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord (1 Tim 1:2; 2 Tim 1:2). It is Christ
Jesus our Lord who judged the apostle Paul faithful by appointing him
to his service (1 Tim 1:12). Orthodox teaching is that which agrees with
the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ (1 Tim 6:3). When Christ Jesus
33God as Savior: 1 Tim 1:1; 2:3; 4:10; Titus 1:3; 2:10; 3:4; Christ as Savior: 2 Tim 1:10; Titus
1:4; 2:13; 3:6.
34Towner, Timothy and Titus, 54.
323
our Lord appears again (1 Tim 6:14), it will be as the righteous judge
of the living and the dead (2 Tim 4:1, 8). He will repay us in accordance
with our deeds (2 Tim 4:14). Those who disown him, he will also disown
(2 Tim2:12b). But for those who remain faithful, there is the promise of
enjoying life with Christ forever and of reigning with him in his kingdom
(2 Tim 2:12a, 13; 4:1). If we are faithless, he will remain faithful (2 Tim 2:13).
His return is something we should long for (2 Tim 4:8). Until then Timothy
is not to be ashamed of testifying to our Lord or shrink from suffering for
the Gospel in the power of God (2 Tim 1:8).
2.Preformed Christological Materials
It is commonly acknowledged that the Pastorals contain preformed Christological materials.35 William Conybeare and John Howsons 1852 The
Life and Epistles of Paul is recognized as the first to acknowledge such
materials.36 Alfred Seeberg continued the discussion in his 1903 work Der
Katechismus der Urchristenheit, where he maintained that the Pastorals
contain several fixed catechetical units (1 Tim 3:16; 2 Tim 2:8; 4:1).37 More
recently Joachim Jeremias (1954) and Ceslas Spicq (1969) argue that the
Pastorals cite a large number of established sayings and formulas, including 1 Timothy 1:15; 2:5; 3:16, and 2 Tim 2:8.38 Earle Ellis (1987) contends
that traditional materials make up at least forty-one percent of 1 Timothy, sixteen percent of 2 Timothy, and forty-six percent of Titus.39 James
Miller goes even further to propose that the Pastorals are a collection of
preformed traditions compiled and stitched together by the author.40
35Most recently, Mark Yarbrough identifies eight criteria by which to discern units of
preformed material and identifies twelve passages in 1 Timothy that meet his criteria; see
his Pauls Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy: An Evaluation of the Apostles
Literary, Rhetorical, and Theological Tactics (LNTS; London: T&T Clark, 2009).
36William Conybeare and John Howson, The Life and Epistles of Paul (London: Longmans, Green, 1852).
37Alfred Seeberg, Der Katechismus der Urchristenheit (TB 26; Munich: Kaiser, 1905).
38Jeremias, Timotheus und Titus; Ceslas Spicq, Les Eptres Pastorales (EB; 4th ed.; Paris:
Gabalda, 1969).
39Earle E. Ellis, Traditions in the Pastoral Epistles, in Early Jewish and Christian
Exegesis: Studies in Memory of William Hugh Brownlee (ed. C. A. Evans and W. F. Stinespring; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987), 23753; compare idem, Die Pastoralbriefe und Paulus: Beobachtungen zu Jrgen Roloffs Kommentar ber 1. Timotheus, ThBeitr 22 (1991):
20812.
40James D. Miller, The Pastoral Letters as Composite Documents (SNTSMS 93; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 1718. For a critical analysis of Millers work,
324
linda l. belleville
Specialized studies on pre-formed traditional materials in the Pastorals can be readily found. First Timothy 3:16 has especially received
much consideration.41 Yet analyses have largely focused on matters of
source and form, while little attention has been given to their substantive
Christological contribution. This has especially been the case regarding
1 Tim 1:15; 2:5, and 3:16the three distinctly Christological pericopes in
the Pastorals.
a. : 1 Timothy 1:1542
The majority of discussion regarding 1 Timothy 1:15 revolves around the
source of the phrase .
Since there is no exact parallel, suggestions are wide-ranging. Oden argues
for a dependence on Matt 9:13: I desire mercy, and not sacrifice. For
I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.43 Roloff suggests an allusion to Mark 2:17: Those who are well have no need of a physician, but
those who are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.44 Guthrie
opts for sayings of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel, such as, For this purpose
I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world (John 18:37).45
Collins thinks more broadly in terms of the whole Johannine Corpus.46
Marshall correctly notes that and are reminiscent of Lukes
(Luke 19:10).47
Hanson and Dibelius-Conzelmann posit a creedal formula taken from the
see Ray Van Neste, Cohesion and Structure in the Pastoral Epistles (JSNTSup 280; London:
Continuum, 2005).
41See especially Werner Stenger, Der Christushymnus 1 Tim. 3:16: Eine strukturanalytische Untersuchung (Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1977); Martin Hengel, Hymnus und Christologie, in Wort in der Zeit. Festgabe fr Karl Heinrich Rengstorf zum 75. Geburtstag (ed.
W. Haubeck and M. Bachmann; Leiden: Brill, 1980), 123 (reprinted in idem, Studien zur
Christologie: Kleine Schriften IV [WUNT 201; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck 2006], 185204); Witmar Metzger, Der Christushymnus 1 Timotheus 3,16 (AzTh 62; Stuttgart: Calwer, 1982); Klaus
Wengst, Christologische Formeln und Lieder des Urchristentums (SNT 7; Gtersloh: Mohn,
1972); WilliamH. Gloer, Homologies and Hymns in the New Testament: Form, Content,
and Criteria for Identification, Perspectives in Religious Studies 11 (1984): 11532; Robert
Gundry, The Form, Meaning and Background of the Hymn Quoted in 1 Timothy 3:16,
in Apostolic History and the Gospel (ed. Ward Gasque and Ralph Martin; Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1970), 20322.
42For a recent excursus on , see Collins, 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus, 4145.
43Oden, First and Second Timothy and Titus, 42.
44Roloff, Der Erste Brief an Timotheus, 9091.
45Guthrie, Pastoral Epistles, 15.
46Collins, 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus, 3940.
47Marshall, Pastoral Epistles, 397.
325
communitys tradition.48 Lock and Towner think that 1 Tim 1:15 implies
knowledge of the Gospels,49 while commentators such as Knight and
Johnson speak of Gospel echoes.50 Others such as Michel, Brox, Kelly,
and Oberlinner treat 1 Tim 1:15 as a reworking of Luke 19:10.51
There is a division of opinion regarding the theological purpose of
1 Timothy 1:15. One opinion is that v. 15 emphasizes current relevance
rather than historical fact. According to Towner it is not that Christ came
(past tense) but that Christ comes (gnomic aorist) to save each generation of unbelievers; he comes to the community of humankind in need of
salvation.52 Another opinion is that v. 15 affirms the central point of the
Gospel; the offer of salvation is the result of Christs entrance into human
history.53 There are also differing views regarding the emphasis in v. 15.
Some say the verse emphasizes Christs preexistence54 or incarnation.55
Others think the verse has to do with salvation being present and
future.56 Still others say the focus is on salvation as universal rather than
exclusive.57
First Timothy 1:15 is conspicuous in connecting redemption to the Incarnation and making a profound Christological statement thereby. Towner
accurately observes that verse 15 telescopes the whole earthly experience
of Jesus into the event of his coming.58 But he appears to miss the fact
that v. 15 echoes the central point of the kerygma: salvation is the result
of Christs entrance into history. This makes Christology and soteriology
inseparable both here in 1:15 and throughout the Pastorals. Also overlooked is the connection between theology and Christology throughout
the Pastorals. God our Savior (1 Tim 1:1; 2:3; Titus 1:3; 2:10; 3:4) desires that
all people be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth (1 Tim 2:4; 4:10;
48Hanson, Pastoral Letters, 61; Dibelius & Conzelman, Pastoral Epistles, 29.
49Lock, Pastoral Epistles, 15; Towner, 12 Timothy and Titus, 145.
50Knight, Pastoral Epistles, 1012; Johnson, Pastoral Epistles, 180.
51O. Michel, Grundfragen der Pastoralbriefe, in Auf dem Grunde der Apostel und
Propheten. Festgabe fr Theophil Wurm (ed. M. Loeser; Stuttgart: Quell, 1948), 86; Brox,
Pastoralbriefe, 111; Kelly, Pastoral Epistles, 54; Oberlinner, Die Pastoralbriefe, 43.
52Towner, 12 Timothy and Titus, 146; cf. Liefeld, 1 and 2 Timothy/Titus, 72; Hasler, Timotheus und Titus, 16.
53Marshall, Pastoral Epistles, 398; Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 55.
54Knight, Pastoral Epistles, 102; Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, 53.
55Kelly, Pastoral Epistles, 54.
56Stott, 1 Timothy and Titus, 53; Marshall, Pastoral Epistles, 398; Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy,
Titus, 53.
57Quinn and Wacker, The First and Second Letters to Timothy, 134; Mounce, Pastoral
Epistles, 57.
58Towner, 12 Timothy and Titus, 146.
326
linda l. belleville
There are few today who dispute the creeds antiquity. There are Pauline and non-Pauline features. The idea of Jesus as a mediator is Pauline.
Christs role in Pauls view is a mediatory one. Through him God created
everything in the heavenly realms and on earth (Col 1:16) and then reconciled it all to himself through Christ (2 Cor 5:18). The term is
Pauline, but its usage in 1 Tim 2:5 is unprecedented. M is found in
Gal 3:19, but it is used differently. In Galatians, Moses is , recalling
59For further discussion, see Miller, Pastoral Letters, 69; Kelly, Pastoral Epistles, 64;
Ellis, Traditions in the Pastoral Epistles, 346.
327
the giving of the Law to Israel on Mt. Sinai. Here it is Jesus whose incarnation qualifies him to be between God and humanity. The phraseology of as is not found
elsewhere in Paul. The idea of ransom (or possibly redemption),
, is thoroughly Pauline, but the term finds no parallel in
the Pauline corpus.
Discussion in the commentaries revolves around questions of source,
parallels, and probable background. Fee supposes that the creed is a hellenized form of (Mark 10:45).60
Barrett suggests a conscious echo of the creedal one Lord...one God and
Father of all of Eph 4:56.61 Quinn and Wacker think in terms of a congregational acclamation similar to one God, the Father...one Lord, Jesus
Christ found in 1 Cor 8:6.62 Johnson is singular in thinking that there is
no reason to consider these verses as other than one of Pauls typically
compressed christological-soteriological statements.63
The creed begins with . recalls the central theological tenet of Judaism: ,
(Deut 6:4 LXX). The Shema stands in stark opposition to the polytheism
of Israels neighbors and interjects a note of absolute exclusivity. Gods
utter distinctiveness is the basis for the demands, You must not have any
other god but me (Deut 5:7) and you must love the Lord your God with
all your heart, all your soul, and all your strength (Deut 6:5). Yet, as Kelly
notes, in 1 Tim 2:56 does not stress Judaic exclusivity but global
inclusivity.64 Gods oneness is the foundation that guarantees universal
access to salvation. Belief in the one, living God is the the pillar and foundation of the truth of an inclusive salvation (1 Tim 3:15).
While God was the Father of Israel alone (Israel is my son, my firstborn, Exod 4:2223), as he is the creator of all human beings. The
implication is important: since there is only one God, he is the God of
both Jews and non-Jews, slave and free, and male and female (Gal 3:28;
cf. Rom 3:2930). The net result is that he is God of all humanity. This first
appears in Gods covenantal promise to Abraham that all the peoples of
328
linda l. belleville
the earth would be blessed through him (Gen 12:3) and that he would be
the father of all nations (Gen 17:4).
While the creed begins on a monotheistic note, Christology is primary
in the rest of the strophe. Christology is once again tied to the Incarnation
(cf. 1 Tim 1:15). The key term is , repeated three times in verses 45:
God desires that be saved, which is accomplished through
(who serves as ). Mounce
takes as referring to the one person-two
natures of Christ.65 However, the lack of an article with the noun
places the stress not on a definite person (the man) but on the humanity
of Christhimself human. As Lock notes, it is as that Christ fully
identifies with all people.66 Also, the emphasis is on Christs mediatory work
and not on his divine-human makeup. It is as a human being that Jesus is
uniquely positioned to represent all human beings. Christ does not reconcile
God and humanity (singular) but God and human beings (plural ).
Kelly, Fee, and Towner see in the term a representational role
parallel to Pauls Adam Christology. Christ as the second Adam inaugurated
a new, redeemed humanity.67 Jeremias and Quinn-Wacker think in terms
of Jesus self-designation as Son of Man and his representative function
on behalf of all human beings.68 As Johnson notes, it is through a shared
humanity that God seeks to save all people.69
It is also that allows Christ to fulfill the role as between
God and humankind. The idea is Greco-Roman, where the brought
about a mutually accepted agreement between two or more business parties and provided the surety or guarantee of an agreement or arrangement.70 The target audience for mediation is all embracing:
. He gave his life to purchase freedom for everyone.
But the route to redemption is wholly exclusive. It is as the one mediator ( ) that Christ redeems everyone ( ). Salvation
comes solely through this mediator and none other. As Marshall notes,
since there is only one God (and not many), there can only be one way of
329
s alvation. If there were many gods, there could be different ways of salvation, but since there is only one, the possibility is excluded.71
As a human being, Christ is uniquely positioned as
. Redemption is rooted in the teaching of Jesus.
The Son of Man came...to give his life as a ransom for many (Mark10:45).
Although the compound does not appear in Mark 10:45,
occurs nineteen times in the LXX and twice in the New Testament. The
backdrop is Greco-Roman economics: understood as ransom
was the stipulated price to set captives freebe they prisoners of war or
slaves. The theological milieu is the OT sacrificial system and the legal
principle of life for life. (Exod 21:2324; Lev 24:19; Deut 19:21). The idea
of Christ as a ransom in our place appears as well in Titus:
, (Tit 2:14). The contrast between
and shows that all should be understood in its broadest
sense. Yet, as Fee states, in the Pastorals the scope of salvation is universal,
but effectual only for those who believe (1 Tim 1:16; 4:10).72 And as Johnson
notes, the confession of one God and one mediator provides the theological warrant for a Gospel of universal access to salvation.73
The polemical thrust of these verses is commonly overlooked. The opening connects the creed to what precedes and provides the support for the
claim in verse 4 that God wants all people to be saved (
). Salvation for all is intimately tied to the one Mediator who can
reconcile God and humanityChrist Jesus, himself human (2:56). God
also wants all to come to know the truth ( ,
v. 4). The creed of verses 56 is immediately followed by an exclamation,
asserting the truth regarding the universal call and character of Pauls ministry as a teacher and apostle of the non-Jews (v. 7).
c.Hymn/Confession: 1 Timothy 3:16
,
,
,
,
,
71Marshall, Pastoral Epistles, 429.
72Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, 17.
73Johnson, Letters to Timothy, 197.
330
linda l. belleville
331
83See, for example, Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, 93; Dibelius and Conzelmann, Pastoral
Epistles, 61; Lock, Pastoral Epistles, 45, Oden, Timothy and Titus, 44.
84Guthrie, Pastoral Epistles, 1012.
85Lock, Pastoral Epistles, 45.
86See, for example, Dibelius and Conzelmann, Pastoral Epistles, 61; Stott, 1 Timothy and
Titus, 1078; Kelly, Pastoral Epistles, 8893; Hanson, Pastoral Epistles, 85; Jeremias, Timotheus und Titus, 2734; Spicq, Pastorales, 6063; Collins, 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus, 107.
332
linda l. belleville
333
334
linda l. belleville
335
336
linda l. belleville
Part four
340
darrell l. bock
1W. D. Davies and Dale Allison, The Gospel according to Saint Matthew (3 vols.; ICC;
Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 19881997).
2Davies and Allison, Matthew, 1:33, 58.
3Davies and Allison, Matthew, 1:129, 13338.
341
342
darrell l. bock
that time Jesus began to (Matt 4:17; 16:21), Blomberg speaks of three key
sections to the Gospel with these points as the breaks. The bulk of the Gospel from 4:17 on alternates between discourses (five of them: Chaps.57,
10, 13, 18, 2325) and action. Key theological issues involve Israel and the
Gentiles, Christology, the fulfillment of Scripture, and discipleship and the
church. The setting is an engagement with Jews and the synagogue from
which this community has recently become severed, either in Antioch of
Syria or somewhere in Palestine. He proposes a revision of earlier notes
by Matthew into a Gospel, so that the testimony of Papias about Matthew being involved in a Hebrew version of the accounts of Jesus still has
value (Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 3.39.1416). The Gospels date is tied to the writing of Mark, which is itself debated. He prefers a date in a window from
A.D. 5869, arguing that claims that Matthew writes with knowledge of
Jerusalems destruction are not compelling. He sees the apostle Levi (Matthew) as the main source for the material. The commentary proper has
a fresh translation and then proceeds unit by unit through the book. The
handling of the text is not as detailed as other commentaries, but the key
flow of Matthews argument is kept before the reader as a result.
Another evangelical commentary on Matthew comes from Leon
Morris.9 The commentary section moves through the Gospel rather
briskly, highlighting the key issues and themes. Often a paragraph covers
a few verses at a time. Particularly valuable in this commentary is its short
but judicious introduction of eighteen pages. Morris says a lot in a short
space here. He notes how Matthew was the most popular of the Gospels
in the early church but has tended to be superseded by the other Gospels
more recently. Yet it is still a central source. The themes he notes are the
Gospels Jewishness, its focus on fulfillment, its awareness of the church
as an emerging institution (but not yet developed beyond what one sees
in Pauls epistles), an anti-Pharisaism, a focus on Gentiles, Jesus teaching
in general, and the kingdom. He notes one could make a case for seven
discourses, not five as is commonly held (chs. 57, 10, 11, 13, 18, 23, 2425).
On the date, he suggests a case can be made for the period in the late fifties to early sixties, but acknowledges the date is disputed. For an early
date, he notes the mention of paying the temple tax and the reference
to Sadducees do not reflect a post-70 perspective. He notes that the late
date is tied to the date of Mark and belief about evidence in Matthew that
Jerusalem has been destroyed. He challenges the latter claim, but never
9Leon Morris, The Gospel according to Matthew (PNTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992).
343
10R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew (NICNT; Grand Rapids; Eerdmans, 2007).
11France, Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher.
344
darrell l. bock
fit anywhere in the latter half of the first century. He prefers a pre-70 date
for Matthew in the sixties. The best argument for a later than A.D. 70 date
is Matthews dependence on Mark, but even this is not decisive for France,
since he places Mark at A.D. 62. He sees Matthew aware of Mark but not
a slavish copier of him. France is comfortable with use of a Q tradition in
the most general sense, not necessarily as a specific document.
John Nollands commentary is another full treatment of the Gospel,
covering over twelve hundred pages.12 It is a verse by verse treatment and
is full of background discussion, reference to secondary literature, and
almost one hundred pages of bibliography. The core introduction is fortythree pages. Nolland argues that Papias refers to a sayings collection Matthew is responsible for and notes that the sayings collection was in either
Hebrew or Aramaic. This he distinguishes from reference to the Gospel
and then discusses authorship without engaging where the authorship
connection to the Gospel came from in any direct detail. Matthew used
a combination of Mark, Q material, and a mix of other oral and written
materials, including possibly a second Passion account. Matthew is a
conservative editor of his sources, often abbreviating or rearranging the
materials, but also using almost all he has. He rejects a later date for the
Gospel, arguing the evidence brought forward about the Gospel being post
A.D. 70 is not persuasive. He also regards the evidence of hostility to Judaism or the use of the term rabbi, or the sense of separation from Judaism
as not distinctive enough to be able to argue for a late date. Rather Matthew 24:1324 still reads as if the destruction of Jerusalem is yet to come
and precludes a post 70 date. The lack of discussion of Jewish nationalism
also fits this time frame. The Gospel promotes the presence of Gentiles to
Jewish Christians. The provenance is unknown, though either Palestine or
Syria are likely. The Gospel is like ancient biography and Old Testament
accounts of the lives of great figures. It is a reflection of early Christian
proclamation and serves as a manual for discipleship.
Donald Hagner sees Matthew as part of a community that is in the
process of leaving Judaism but has not made it there yet.13 This full commentary follows the Word commentary series format. This means there
is some overlap in coverage but issues, bibliography and interaction with
secondary literature is full. The introduction covers issues we have become
familiar with in our survey. His introduction is thirty-nine pages. Hagner
12John Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005).
13Donald Hagner, Matthew (2 vols.; WBC 33AB; Dallas: Word, 19931995).
345
writes an unapologetically historical commentary, as opposed to a narrative reading. He sees Papias as referring to a collection of Jesus sayings and
not the Gospel in the term logia. However, the word is also used clearly of
Marks Gospel according to Eusebius, so that Hagners conclusion is less
than clear. Matthews sources are primarily Mark, Q, and some oral tradition, which often exhibits strong parallelism and rhythm in form. He sees
an alteration of discourse and narrative in the Gospel as well as presenting
a detailed section discussing Old Testament fulfillment formulae. He sees
the genre as paralleling several forms: ancient biography, catechetical,
corrective, and missionary concerns. Key themes include the fulfillment
in the kingdom of Heaven, Christology, righteousness-discipleship, lawgrace, the community of the church, eschatology, and salvation history.
Written for Jewish Christians, Matthew has a tension between the focus
on Israel in Jesus ministry and his respect for the Law. The tension exists
in light of a transfer of blessing to a new community and heightened hostility against many Jewish groups, especially the Pharisees. Not quite broken away from Judaism, but clearly in a new community, Matthew tries to
keep Jewish Christians relating to both their past and the new members
of their community from outside their ethnic roots. The polemic against
Jews is not anti-Semitism, but a reflection of an intense inner dispute, an
intramural Jewish polemic. One should not be dogmatic about the date
of this Gospel, pre or post A.D. 70. The evidence usually brought forward
for a late date is not so impressive and passages that seem to refer to the
temple still being around do exist in the book (5:2324; 17:2427; 23:1622;
24:20). The provenance is not clear, with Galilee and Syria, possibly Antioch, as candidates. On authorship, it is hard to know how Matthews name
became so firmly attached to this book, although one explanation might
be that the core of the Gospel goes back to Matthews material that was
reworked by one of his disciples, likely a Hellenistic Jewish Christian.
An evangelical commentary that undertakes a full defense of the historicity of Matthew is from Donald Carson.14 Issues tied to historical
questions are discussed in the commentary proper. Over a third of his
thirty-eight page introduction deals with issues tied to critical method and
historicity tied to the Gospels as a whole. Carson challenges the common
take that Matthew did not write this Gospel because he would not use a
non-eyewitnesss Gospel (Mark) or that the tension in Matthew reflects a
14D. A. Carson, Matthew, in The Expositors Bible Commentary, Vol. 8 (ed. Frank E.
Gaebelein; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984).
346
darrell l. bock
15Robert Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981), 60922.
16David Turner, Matthew (BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008).
17Craig Keener, The Gospel of Matthew: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (new ed.; Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009).
347
to rejudaize the Jesus tradition from Mark (e.g., more Semitic traces in
Jesus speech), even as Matthew sets forth a work that looks like ancient
biography. This means virtues are highlighted, as are events over persons
with a real focus on Jesus teaching. Keener stresses the care of Jewish oral
tradition and the core accuracy of the narrative. On authorship, Keener
notes that the fact that Papias may get the language and order of the
Gospels wrong may mean he does not know the identity of the author.
On the other hand, the unanimous presence of the name Matthew in the
tradition, which has early roots, is for his authorship. Matthew is not an
obvious choice for an author selected out of a list of apostles. The possibility that Matthew is at the core of the Gospel with a disciple responsible
for its final release is also possible. An apostolic connection is likely to
explain the quick reception of this Gospel. Whatever one says about specific authorship, the writer of this Gospel was a Jewish believer. Evidence
from Ignatius and the Didache favor a setting in Antioch. Other options
are the Galilee or the Decapolis region. Keener favors a post A.D. 70 date.
The focus on Pharisaism, a more rabbinic-like worldview, dependence on
Mark, and Matthews clear distinction between temple destruction and
the return of Jesus point to this timing. Matthew defends Gentiles and a
mission to them despite Jewish bitterness to them because of the fall of
Jerusalem. Keener opts for the second half of the seventies as the date.
Matthew writes in polemic with those who founded the rabbinic movement, but writes with an identity still contending to fit within Judaism
as its rightful representative. The Gospel is a handbook of Jesus basic
life and teaching, while being relevant to a Jewish-Christian community
engaged in Gentile mission and deadlocked in scriptural polemic with
their local synagogue communities.18
A commentary more focused on the combination of application and
exegesis comes from Michael Wilkins.19 This is a full treatment of the Gospel, despite the fact that a large portion of it is dedicated to the move
into application. The introduction is short, since this is not a technical
commentary series. Wilkins argues the church traditions unanimity for
Matthew should be taken seriously since these earliest writers knew people close to the apostles or those close to them. He prefers a date in the
sixties and sees Antioch as the likely setting. Discipleship and the varied
348
darrell l. bock
20Dale Bruner, Matthew: A Commentary. Vol 1: The Christbook, Matthew 112 (rev. ed.;
2 vols.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004).
21Vincent Taylor, The Gospel according to St Mark: The Greek Text with Introduction,
Notes and Indexes (2nd ed.; London: Macmillan, 1966). The first edition was published in
1952.
349
350
darrell l. bock
historical roots and adaptation to the setting. Hooker argues that there is
not creation of material ex nihilo, but there is adaptation of materials in
arrangement, wording, and presentation. Both commentators stress the
writing of the Gospel to present and defend the suffering of Jesus and the
mystery of his messiahship as roots for a call to followers to be prepared
to suffer in the journey of discipleship.
Two very full commentaries going different ways on the setting are by
Rudolf Pesch and Robert Gundry.25 Peschs sixty-nine page introduction
makes a case against accepting the traditional ascription of authorship to
John Mark. As Hooker does, Pesch sees the connection as informed by an
awareness of the 1 Peter link of Mark and Peter and uncertainty that John
the elder (noted by Eusebius of Papias) knew of a relationship between
Peter and Mark. A desire for apologetic strengthening of the Gospel has
forged the link. The author may have been named Mark, but cannot be
tied to John Mark and to Peter. The locale is likely not Rome, but a Gentile
oriented community in the East (Galilee, Syria or the Decapolis). The date,
because of the Olivet discourse and the dates of the Gospels that used
Mark, is post A.D. 70. Gundry saves his introduction for the end of his
commentary. It runs twenty nine detailed pages. He argues that the traditional ascription to Mark is old, reaching back to ca. A.D. 100, not 130 as
many claim, and the conversation being passed on seems to belong to the
late first century and involves only three steps (apostles, those who heard
the apostles, Papias). The chronological order of discussion in Eusebiuss
Chronicon is for this conclusion. John the elder and John the apostle are
not distinct figures as some argue, nor is Mark distinct from John Mark.
This tradition is as early and authoritative as one could wish.26 Details
against this Markan connection to authorship on claims of community
forming (versus a singular author background), supposed errors in Palestinian and Syrian geography (especially as it relates to issues in the north),
ignorance of Jewish customs, the Gospels handling of Peter, and appeals
to 1 Peter 5:13 are not substantive objections, as Gundry works through
each category one at a time. His responses are to the point with perhaps
the one exception tied to issues of geography, which if they were to have
come through Peter would not involve someone unconnected to the
north, as Gundry claims for Mark by seeing the evangelist as a Jerusalemite
25R. Pesch, Das Markusevanglium (HTKNT; 2nd ed.; Freiburg: Herder, 1984); R. Gundry,
Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993).
26Gundry, Mark, 1034.
351
responsible for these discrepancies. Gundry dates the Gospel pre-70, likely
before Peter died in the early sixties. He also contends for Rome as the
locale as extensive Latinisms in the book suggest. Mark is an apologetic,
defending the cross and Jesus suffering as part of Gods plan where the
cross is a cause of glory. Such a theme would be very appropriate for this
locale where Christians were facing rising persecution.
The Word commentary for Mark has been shared by two authors, Robert Guelich and Craig Evans, with the latter currently engaged in revising
the work on Mark 1:18:26 so his treatment of the Gospel can be full.27
This commentary is a very full treatment of issues and exegesis tied to
Mark and follows the Word commentary format. Guelichs introduction is
a mere twenty-four pages, but covers the key issues well. He defends the
age of the authorship tradition and its roots. He argues there is no hard
evidence for making a distinction between Mark and John Mark, calling
it special pleading. He notes that Papias explanation of Petrine roots for
the material is oversimplified, given the evidence of the tradition in Mark
being similar in form to what we see about Jesus elsewhere in the tradition. A question remaining for Guelich is the influence of someone like
Peter on the traditions about Jesus that circulated broadly in the church.
Guelich sees the remarks of Papias about Marks lack of order as having
less to do with chronology and more to do with rhetoric as fits a GrecoRoman context. He responds to geographical issues as Gundry did, noting
the references are not as improbable as some claim. The locale of the Gospel is uncertain with Latinisms slightly favoring the traditional locale of
Rome. He sees it as more likely the Gospel was written at the beginning of
Romes War with the Jews than after Jerusalems fall, so A.D. 6769. What
this commentary on Mark shares between its two authors are full references to potential background from the Second Temple context, something Evans especially brings to his treatment of Mark.
Similar in approach to the setting is the work by Ben Witherington and
his sixty-two page introduction.28 For him, the Latinisms are the key evidence the work is rooted in Rome and not from a setting further east. Order
is about rhetoric, not chronology, as the remarks of Papais are full of rhetorical technical terminology that Witherington traces in some detail. It
27Robert A. Guelich, Mark 1:18:26 (WBC 34A; Dallas, Word, 1989); Craig Evans, Mark
8:2716:20 (WBC 34B; Nashville: Nelson, 2001). Evans hopes to have the volume out in a
few more years.
28Ben Witherington III, The Gospel of Mark: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001).
352
darrell l. bock
29William Lane, The Gospel according to Mark (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1974).
30Lane, Mark, 15.
31Eugene Boring, Mark: A Commentary (NTL; Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox,
2006).
32Boring, Mark, 16.
353
What Boring later calls a two-level story with the contemporary needs
of Marks audience almost always trumping any historical concerns is a
consistent theme of his treatment of Mark. Twenty-five pages of introduction introduce the setting. The Gospel was written somewhere between
A.D. 6575. The author is a Christian teacher who writes not as a charismatic individual but as a member of the community.33 He seeks to curb
the irresponsible excesses of the Christian prophets. Marks tie to Peter
is part of a later theological legitimization by the second century church,
given that the tradition is not consistent and is aimed at theological validity. The claim in defense of the tradition that the church would not make
such a connection, given Marks otherwise obscure role, is met with Borings reply that such an argument is not used for non-canonical Gospels
where apostolic names appear. However, the issue here involves both
claimed authorship and reception, as well as a date that makes such an
association even plausible. Mark has that combination, while the other
Gospels Boring names (Thomas, Judas, Matthias, Bartholomew) do not, in
part because there was doubt about the source of these other Gospels
materials. For Boring, the author may have been named Mark, but the
material comes to him through community tradition versus through contact with eye-witnesses such as Peter. The Gospel lacks accuracy about
Palestine or Palestinian Judaism in references we have noted elsewhere in
our discussion of Mark. Mark likely wrote for Syria or Galilee. The message
encourages discipleship in a threatening, confused and conflicted situation. It is a work designed to edify his readers in faith.
Another full presentation of the Gospel comes from Joel Marcus.34 His
introduction is sixty-two pages. Someone named Mark is the likely author,
since the adoption of this name as a pseudonym is unlikely. More than
that, the obscurity of this figure makes it likely that the name was attached
for a reason. Against such a connection are the Gentile orientation of the
Gospel and supposed issues tied to Jewish customs and Palestinian geography. Marcus argues the Gentile orientation does not make the author
a non-Jew (e.g., Paul) but does see issues in the way what is said about
handwashing in Mark 7, how the beginning of the day is reckoned in 14:12,
and how the Law is handled in a kind of yes but not the details manner (1:4045; 2:2328; 7:123). In the end, Marcus has responses to each
354
darrell l. bock
of these concerns, while noting positive evidence for John Mark is not
overwhelming since Marcus regards the strong apologetic tone in Papias
as rendering the testimony suspect. So in the end, Marcus argues we are
likely dealing with a Mark, but not one with Petrine connections, although
that connection cannot be entirely excluded. The case is not proven.35
My own view is in contrast to Marcus here. It seems difficult to accept the
initial reception of this Gospel, if the Mark in question is an unknown or
random Mark. Marcus argues that the setting more likely supposes a Syrian community and the Jewish War over a Roman context, even though
there is no direct evidence of persecution of Christians in that war. Marcus argues such evidence does exist for the A.D. 13235 war and that the
same might have taken place earlier. The Gospel is written in the shadow
of the Temples destruction, between A.D. 6974.
Adela Collins has produced a full commentary that carefully examines
the social background to Marks Gospel and is especially rich in Hellenistic sources.36 Also full is her introduction, which comprises one hundred twenty-five pages. Mark is an eschatological sacred history written
with an eye on Hellenistic historiography and biography. It is most like
the didactic type of ancient biography, as well as the historical type of
ancient biography. It also has parallels with how Jews related history
about her key leaders like Moses, Elijah, Elisha and David, but with an
eschatological focus that serves as a counterpoint to these biblical foundational histories. She notes the importance of giving titles to works when
they go public in the ancient world on the model of Galens testimony in
De libris propriis liber. This is a way to argue that the tradition tying the
Gospel to Mark would likely have been old once it circulated. Papias is
critical of Marks lack of order, but has come to terms with it in the end.
She argues that had 1 Peter 5 driven the identification, Silvanus would
have likely been named as the Gospels author. She sees the author as
Jewish, not a Gentile, challenging claims in this direction that argue that
the handling of Passover, handwashing, and the reckoning of the day by
sunrise cannot come from a Jewish author. In the end, she appears to
hold to the author as John Mark, but never says so explicitly. Although
the external evidence favors Rome as the setting, the internal evidence
points to Syria. She notes the geographical description of the Decapolis
region, often challenged, has parallels in Pliny the Elders work in that
355
the area of Damascus is included (Natural History 5.16.74). The way coins
are referenced also points to this setting.37 She makes a plausible case for
this setting, although Rome remains a possibility as well. A careful walk
through Mark 13 leads her to conclude the Gospel is written in a window
from A.D. 66 to 74. The slight differences between what is said and what
took place in A.D. 70 cause her to prefer a date in A.D. 6869. The Gospel
is a historical work on the ancient model, articulated by Aristotle (Rhetoric 1.4.13 1360A), Quintilian (Institutio Oratorio 2.4.2), and Polybius (39.1.4
and 1.2.8) where memorable deeds are recorded. She also traces how the
Messiah for Mark is tied to the revelation of the hidden Son of Man at
the end of Jesus ministry, a theme that has conceptual parallels in the
Similitudes of 1 Enoch. This suffering is a model for the discipleship Mark
also highlights.
Two commentaries focused on application are by David Garland and
Darrell Bock.38 Both accept John Mark as the author. Garland prefers
a date that is pre-70 during the period of the War, an option Bock also
regards as quite possible, while noting that an earlier date in the late fifties to early sixties is possible if one accepts a strand of tradition from
Clement of Alexandria that argues Mark wrote before Peter died. Both
accept a Roman setting for the Gospel. Garlands treatment spends much
time in the movement toward application as do all the NIV Application
commentaries. Bocks treatment of Mark is more concise moving quickly
between notes on key points in the Gospel and commentary that summarizes the units argument in a brief space.
Robert Stein treats this Gospel for the Baker series.39 His introduction is
thirty-five pages. He also notes how the tradition surrounding Mark as the
author is early. Stein notes how inventing a name for a Gospel involving a
non-apostle would be unusual. He cites all the major witnesses to authorship from the tradition up to Jerome, thereby showing the early and widespread affirmation that Mark is the author. Stein argues for a Roman setting
as he notes that the author knew Jewish practice and Aramaic but his
audience did not, a point more likely for Rome than the Decapolis or Syria.
He also deals with claims about supposed geographical, chronological and
37She follows the work of Gerd Theissen, Gospels in Context: Social and Political History
in the Synoptic Tradition (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991), for this position.
38David Garland, Mark (NIVAC; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996); Darrell Bock, The
Gospel of Mark, in The Cornerstone Biblical Commentary: The Gospel of Matthew, The Gospel of Mark, Vol. 11 (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House, 2005).
39Robert Stein, Mark (BECNT; Grand Rapids; Baker Academic, 2008).
356
darrell l. bock
customs discrepancies along the lines already noted above. He argues that
traces of perspective from within Syria and Palestine point to the roots of
the Gospel tradition Mark works with rather than being an indication of
Marks setting. The reference to a Syrophoenician makes more sense for
a Roman audience than a Syrian one, where Phoenician would have sufficed. Latinisms and the right of women to divorce also fit here. He rejects
the attempt to date Mark early by appealing to the end of Acts as setting
a limit to where Mark must fit. He argues that Luke has not given the
Pauline imprisonment outcome because he writes before its resolution
but because it rounds out the goal of Acts, to show how the message got
to Rome. He traces the lack of evidence for a post A.D. 70 perspective in
Mark 13 and prefers a date of A.D. 6869. Marks Christology points to a
more than human status for Jesus. He challenges the idea that the motif
of the messianic secret is a Marcan theological construction by noting
its presence in primitive materials and the fact that a resurrection would
not push one to make someone a messiah who was not already regarded
as such. The secret makes historical sense because it averts direct challenge of Rome and was required to prevent misunderstanding about the
type of suffering Jesus foresaw the Messiah possessing that the crowds
did not anticipate. Stein also challenges the idea that Mark writes against
the twelve when he depicts them as so slow to respond to Jesus. He notes
especially how positively they are portrayed at the start and the end of the
Gospel, where they are even commissioned to take the message out (16:7).
I might add that Peter gives the key confession of the book at Caesarea
Philippi, a point that hardly shows the apostles as rejected figures. In the
end, Mark wrote to encourage disciples in the face of persecution, appealing to the example of Jesus own suffering.
R. T. France has written a forty five-page introduction that spends more
time setting up his commentary than engaging in detailed introductory
discussion.40 France says his commentary is about the exegesis of Mark
and not a commentary on commentaries that gets lost in discussing theories of textual or tradition origin. Mark is modeled on Greco-Roman biography. France defends the external tradition about Mark, relying heavily
on the work by Martin Hengel on the second Gospel.41 Hengel argues the
Gospels would not have circulated anonymously once there was more than
one circulating in the church. This would make authorship identification
40R. T. France, The Gospel of Mark (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002).
41Martin Hengel, Studies in the Gospel of Mark (ET; London: SCM, 1985).
357
a very early activity for the church. A setting in Rome also seems to fit
far better than a Syrian context. Translation of Aramaic, the explanation
of terms like two lepta or the aul and the naming of the Syrophoenician
woman point in this direction. France never explicitly discusses the date,
but questions the tradition that argues Mark wrote after Peters death
while also noting Hengels preference for a date in A.D. 69. He argues
the fact that these Gospels were intended to circulate widely means that
determining a specific setting is not so important. For this emphasis, he
appeals to work by Richard Bauckham who argues the Gospels were composed for a broad audience.42
3.Luke
In many ways, Luke is the most wide-ranging of the Gospels. Fully half
of his material is unique to his Gospel, including many parables that are
at the core of what Jesus taught. For a long time it lacked good detailed
commentary treatment. However, when Luke-Acts became a new source
of attention for New Testament scholars in the middle of the twentieth
century, that changed with many solid commentaries giving detailed
treatment.
The first of these full treatments comes from Heinz Schrmann.43 This
is a full critical treatment of Luke with great detail on the many historical
and critical discussions that swirl around the book. It is full of the various
theories on how Luke came together and discussions on the roots of various passagesa traditional historical commentary. It is not for the faint
of heart. Schrmann lacks a separate introduction so he does not treat the
standard questions in the common way. He sees the Gospel as presenting
the tradition of the church as something that can give certainty in the face
of Hellenistic syncretism and the threat of false teaching as Luke attempts
to unify the teaching of Jewish Christian and Hellenistic Christian tradition. This makes Luke not so much a historian as a theologian of salvation
history. Beyond this, Schrmann says little about the circumstances in
which the third evangelist writes.
42R. J. Bauckham, ed., The Gospel for All Christians: Rethinking the Gospels Audiences
(Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998).
43Heinz Schrmann, Das Lukasevanglium (4th ed.; 2 vols.; HTKNT; Freiburg: Herder,
19901993). The original commentary was published in 1966.
358
darrell l. bock
359
J ewish customs, omission of many Jewish issues, extending the genealogy to Adam, reference to Jews in the third person, and the concern for
Gentile mission. There is no clear setting in terms of to whom the Gospel
is sent.
Another solid modest commentary comes from Craig Evans.46 The
sixteen page introduction notes how Luke wrote over a quarter of the
New Testament. He also appeals to the depth of external evidence for
authorship. He notes Luke was a Gentile but may also have attended synagogue, possibly from Syrian Antioch. Luke wrote to explain in part the
significance of the fall of Jerusalem (Luke 19:4145) to a Gentile audience,
explaining how they belonged in Gods program.
Luke Timothy Johnson has another crisp introduction to the Gospel,
running twenty-five pages.47 This commentarys strength is its engagement with Greco-Roman background. His treatment of the setting is especially brief, but accepts the traditional attribution of authorship and dates
the book in the A.D. 8085 region. The specific setting for the Gospel is
unclear. Luke-Acts is a form of Hellenistic history, placing Jesus in the
context of world history. Luke is reasonably accurate by ancient standards
but not without problems in spots. There are elements of ancient biography in the Gospel as well, but it is best considered the first piece of Christian apologetic literature, arguing the new movement is philosophically
enlightened, politically harmless, socially benevolent, and philanthropic
fellowship.48 In the main, it treats the uncertainty Gentiles Christians
may have had about the movement and the Jewish rejection of it.
Michael Wolter has produced a full German commentary.49 The introduction is thirty-three pages. Wolter walks through the dispute over
authorship in some detail, noting the unified external tradition, but also
noting how those who challenge this identification argue that both the
theology and chronology of Acts do not fit with Paul and his letters. Wolter
also notes the counter arguments to this challenge that argue Lukes theology is not as different from Pauls as some claim. In his summary, Wolter
argues that a reference to Luke has more questions than answers and that
each side has not made its case. The author grew up Jewish as his interest
46Craig Evans, Luke (New International Biblical Commentary; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1990).
47Luke Timothy Johnson, The Gospel of Luke (SP; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1991).
48Johnson, Luke, 9.
49Michael Wolter, Das Lukasevangelium (HNT; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008).
360
darrell l. bock
in Israel shows. The Gospel was likely written in the eighties. We do not
know the locale for the Gospel, although Rome is possible.
I. Howard Marshall produced a detailed commentary on Luke that features careful attention to the Greek text and to critical issues.50 As full as
the commentary is the introduction is short, comprising only seven pages.
He appeals to the fact that a real introduction would need to appeal to
Acts as well, that E. Earle Ellis has written a full introduction to the Gospels, and that his own monograph, Luke: Historian and Theologian,51 took
up these issues in detail. Marshall argues the external tradition is old and
solid. He notes two challenges to this tradition: the work does not betray
the work of a companion to Paul and appeal is made to an early Catholic
perspective in the church that is said to reflect a later post-Pauline period.
Marshall questions that the view of eschatology Luke has is really different from the rest of the early church. Luke has a hope of imminence but
also sees that return may not be as soon as some hope (Luke 12:3540;
17:2037; 18:8; 21:536). The date, as he sees it, is tied ultimately to that of
Mark and Acts. Either the early sixties or the eighties are possible. Since
the fall of Jerusalem is not prominent, a date not far off of A.D. 70 is likely.
The locale is unknown with Rome, Antioch, and Caesarea all possible.
Joel Green has produced the most thorough commentary asking questions dealing with Luke as a narrative.52 His introduction is twenty-five
pages, with much of it dealing with how to read Luke in this way. Luke is a
piece of ancient historiography with the activity of God and the fulfillment
of divine promises as key. Authorship is covered in a mere paragraph, stating that identifying the author is not so crucial to understanding the book.
Nonetheless, Green sees the tradition that Luke is a companion of Paul as
likely. So the author is important only to the extent he is the voice of the
narrator of the narrative. Given this approach there is no focused discussion on date or locale.
On the other end of the introduction spectrum is the full two-volume
commentary by Joseph Fitzmyer.53 His introduction runs over two hundred pages including massive bibliographies. Fitzmyer details the external
50I. Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978).
51I. Howard Marshall, Luke: Historian and Theologian (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1970).
52Joel Green, The Gospel of Luke (NICNT; Grand Rapids; Eerdmans, 1997).
53Joseph Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke (2 vols.; AB; New York; Doubleday,
19811985).
361
362
darrell l. bock
363
the front of the sequence of the Gospels. Given Mark could fall anywhere
in the sixties given its focus on persecution, it is hard to know if the other
Gospels were written before or after the Fall of Jerusalem.57
When it comes to the locations of these Gospels, we generally know
even less. Rome seems likely for Mark, but knowing the setting of Matthew and Luke is less clear, though Antioch (or northern Galilee) for
Matthew seems likely.
One thing we can say. The array of commentaries on the Synoptics
shows they are well served. Quality commentaries exist for each Gospel
and from a variety of perspectives. The student of the Synoptics has a solid
spectrum to choose from to get access to what these Gospels teach, as well
as to the discussion these texts generate among interpreters. Commentaries make for good conversation partners. The student of the Synoptics can
expect a rich and varied conversation to help one grasp what each Gospel
teaches.
57My view on dating has changed since writing on Luke in that I am much less certain about Marks date and therefore what the dating sequence is. Placement just before
or somewhat after the fall of Jerusalem seem almost equally likely, since I do not think
Acts 28 tells us when Acts was written. I argued in my commentary on Acts that this ending was dictated by the gospel reaching Rome and not by the date of when Luke wrote
(Acts [BECNT; Grand Rapids; Baker Academic, 2007], 2527, 75758). Mark can fit anywhere in the sixties once persecution comes. What no one knows is how quickly Mark
came to be used by the other Gospels. It is also strange that if any of the Gospels were
written in A.D. 70 or just after, how little is actually made of the fall given how traumatic
an event it was. To me, this means the Synoptics either predate the fall or come several
years after its impact.
366
stanley e. porter
a commentary on Romans, which, rather than offering a full-scale commentary that (unrealistically) attempts to give adequate treatment of all
issues, focuses upon a major interpretive dimension of Romans, its dialogical nature. In the course of doing all of this research and writing, I
have had the tremendous, yet also frustrating, opportunity to make use
of a range of secondary literature on Romans, including commentaries in
a number of languages, various reference tools, and monographs on interpretive issues in Romans, such as language, epistolary form, and rhetoric, among others. There is a wealth of material on the book of Romans,
with some of the most important thinkers in the history of the Christian
Church having written serious work on it. The amount of material continues to grow yearly, especially as commentary series continue to be
produced and sold by publishers. Not all of the work that is produced
is of equal merit, however, with an apparently (at least to me) increasing amount of work being produced at the lower level that adds nothing
significant to interpretation of Romans. Within the scope of this array of
literature about Romans, in this chapter I attempt to evaluate the nature
of commentary writing on Romans. My goal is to review the history of
commentary writing on Romans, especially commentaries written within
the last one-hundred or so years, examine how they relate to the major
interpretive issues that have arisen over this time, and then evaluate the
contributions these commentaries make in relation to when they were
written. I define a commentary on Romans as a work that uses the Greek
text of the book of Romanseven if it does this through presentation
of an English translationas pertinent basis of contemporarily informed
observations on the language, structure, and meaning, theological and
otherwise, of the book.
2.Issues Surrounding Writing and Evaluating a Commentary on Romans
There are many issues that can be covered in the writing and evaluating of
a commentary. The history of writing commentaries goes back to Origen,
probably the earliest commentator on the book. Since then, there have
been many important interpreters of Romans, coinciding with various
periods in the history of interpretation and commentary writing. Richard Longenecker has provided a very useful survey of commentaries3 on
3Richard N. Longenecker, On the Writing of Biblical Commentaries, with Particular
Reference to Commentaries on Romans, in From Biblical Criticism to Biblical Faith: Essays
367
in Honor of Lee Martin McDonald (ed. William H. Brackney and Craig A. Evans; Macon, GA:
Mercer University Press, 2007), 7492. A somewhat similar, though not finally as useful
and detailed, survey of Gospel commentaries is found in Markus Bockmuehl, The Making
of Gospel Commentaries, in The Written Gospel (ed. Markus Bockmuehl and Donald A.
Hagner; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 27495.
4For a contrasting approach, see Mark Reasoner, Romans in Full Circle: A History of
Interpretation (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2005), who chooses to summarize
major commentators on twelve loci within the book. He surveys such pre-modern commentators as Origen, Augustine, Pelagius, Abelard, and Aquinas, such Reformation-era
commentators as Luther, Erasmus, and Calvin, and the moderns Barth and post-Barthians under either the category of the New Perspective or narrative-based commentators.
Clearly Reasoner has chosen a theologically driven approach to Romans (and in the course
of things has missed some important viewpoints and treatments).
5Longenecker, On the Writing of Biblical Commentaries, 2.
368
stanley e. porter
expositions, not counting those that are primarily geared toward preaching. Another is based solely upon (the authors perception of ) quality (such
as highly recommended or also significant), while others are harder to
follow.6 There have also been various discussions of what it is that a commentary should focus upon as its major emphasis.7 Most of these works
take a synchronic view of commentary writing. That is, they evaluate all
commentaries in relation to each other, as if they were all written for and
available today. That is the way that most people probably look at commentaries. For example, John Glynn, referring to commentaries on Thessalonians says that Newer isnt always better, but it usually is. After all,
youre drawing on all of the wealth that came before you, including what
used to be new!8 Unfortunately, as we shall see, this is far from true in
commentaries on Romans. Some of the ideas that are presented in commentaries are statements about its language, the history of interpretation,
the theology of the book, the relationship of the book to its surrounding
world, and various minority viewpoints. One thing that is often missing
from the set of expectations and the results regarding commentaries is
new ideas. As Margaret MacDonald states about the commentary-writing
processafter having written one[l]ike most biblical scholars, I do not
generally turn to biblical commentaries for new ideas related to my own
area of expertise...because the comments are usually too general and
basic to address my specialized research needs.9
As a result, what I have chosen to do is to review many technical or
semi-technical, and a select few expositional, commentaries on Romans
by means of a diachronic perspective, tracing the development (or lack of
it!) of commentaries on Romans as they especially treat Rom 5:111. I have
chosen to review a number of the key features of these commentaries,
6For example, see John Glynn, Commentary and Reference Survey: A Comprehensive
Guide to Biblical and Theological Resources (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2003); David R. Bauer,
An Annotated Guide to Biblical Resources for Ministry (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003);
D. A. Carson, New Testament Commentary Survey (5th ed.; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity
Press, 2001). I am sure there are others, and that these have been further updated, but the
approaches remain.
7See, for example, John Nolland, The Purpose and Value of Commentaries, JSNT 29
(2007): 30511; Margaret Y. MacDonald, The Art of Commentary Writing: Reflections from
Experience, JSNT 29 (2007): 31321; and John Riches, Why Write a Reception-Historical
Commentary, JSNT 29 (2007): 32332. Nollands essay is essentially reprinted as part of
R. T. France and John Nolland, Reflections on the Writing of a Commentary on the Gospel
of Matthew, in Built upon the Rock: Studies in the Gospel of Matthew (ed. Daniel M. Gurtner
and John Nolland; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 27089, esp. 27082.
8Glynn, Commentary and Reference Survey, 161 note *.
9MacDonald, Art of Commentary Writing, 316.
369
10See Adele Reinhartz, Why Comment? Reflections on Bible Commentaries in General and Andrew Lincolns The Gospel According to Saint John in Particular, JSNT 29 (2007):
33342, esp. 334, 335.
11Those interested in tracing major figures in this development should examine my
chapter on linguistic competence of commentaries. Though various grammatical features
may be profitably discussed, and I include comments on a variety of features, I concentrate
on the major grammatical topic of the last thirty years, verbal aspect. I believe that verbal
aspect theory is incommensurable (see my paper on linguistic competence) with previous
verbal analyses.
12The major work to note here is Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort,
The New Testament in the Original Greek (2 vols.; London: Macmillan, 1881), one of the first
so-called eclectic texts.
13The turning points are Karl Barths commentary on Romans (see below) and E. P.
Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion (Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1977). I realize that Reasoner treats the post-Barthian period with reference to
the New Perspective and narrative-based approaches. To my mind the narrative-based
approaches have offered little of significance. Richard Hayss effort is based upon an analytical foundation he now disavows (The Faith of Jesus Christ: The Narrative Substructure of
Galatians 3:14:11 [2nd ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002], xxvixxvii) and N. T. Wrights
has clearly not caught on, to his frustration (see review of his commentary below).
370
stanley e. porter
then, beginning with the work of Hans Dieter Betz and George Kennedy,
treating the letters as forms of rhetoric.14 Audience-related issues move
through the Greco-Roman period up until World War II, then the Jewish
period, and at least since the 1980s the social-scientific period.15 History of
interpretation is less about tracing the course of research, but noting how
commentaries view Romans in relation to the history of interpretation.
3.An Evaluation of Commentaries on Romans
In order to treat the commentaries fairly and without overburdening the
reader with endless repetition, I will categorize commentaries together
roughly by decade. However, I wish to begin with John Albert Bengels
commentary (1742), or notes on the New Testament, including Romans
a landmark in New Testament commentary writing.16 Based upon the
Textus Receptus, Bengel treats commentating as akin to writing a classical commentary, so he is restricted to brief notes on the text. As a result,
he takes a time-based view of the tense-forms, as when he describes
as Praeteritum, in antitheto ad habemus, as one would expect
of the rationalist period (549, ET 3:62), but knows nothing of the text-critical issue with the indicative () or subjunctive () in Rom 5:1.
Bengel recognizes the similarities and differences between classical Greek
and Roman letters and Pauls letters (523, ET 3:1), and spends time with
the style of the Greek text (note that he includes an index of technical,
mostly rhetorical/stylistic, terms at the end of the commentary). Theology is confined to only that which immediately emerges from the Greek
text (see comment on Rom 5:311 being summarized in not only this, but
indeed we boast in tribulations; 550, ET 366), with definition of reconciliation confined to a single sentence as freedom from wrath (551; ET 367).
This commentarybecause of its textually-oriented approachprovides
a suitable starting point for examining commentators on Romans, especially as it is in some ways quite different from those that follow.
14See Stanley E. Porter and Sean A. Adams, eds., Paul and the Ancient Letter Form (Pauline Studies 6; Leiden: Brill, 2010); Hans Dieter Betz, Galatians (Hermeneia; Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1979); and George A. Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical
Criticism (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1984).
15See Wayne A. Meeks, The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul
(New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983).
16John Albert Bengel, Gnomon Novi Testamenti (1742; ed. M. Ernest Bengel and John
Steudel; Stuttgart: J. F. Steinkopf, 1864); ET Gnomon of the New Testament (ed. M. Ernest
Bengel and J. C. F. Steudel; 5 vols.; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 18571858).
371
372
stanley e. porter
21C. J. Vaughn, St Pauls Epistle to the Romans (1859; 5th ed.; London: Macmillan, 1880), v.
22Joseph Agar Beet, Commentary on St. Pauls Epistle to the Romans (1877; 7th ed.; London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1890).
373
This includes his treatment of the aorist participle, , in relation to the main verb, : The participle implies only that the act of
justification precedes the state of peace with God; and leaves the context
to determine whether justification is looked upon as actual and as a reason for having peace with God, or is mentioned as the means by which
we must have peace with God. The latter is the use of the aorist participle
in all the other innumerable passages in the New Testament in which it
precedes a subjunctive or imperative (150).
In some ways, it is unfair to cite Lightfoots commentary, as he never
actually finished it.23 Nevertheless, Lightfoot pays attention to the Greek
text, still taking a rationalist approach that equates tense-form and time
(288). He calls the subjunctive in Rom 5:1 unquestionably the right reading on the basis of external evidence, and explicates that understanding,
though he later calls it an imperative (284). He also knows of the
phrase in Rom 5:3, though he does not appear to think this is a problem
for the readings in Rom 5:2 (where he reads the participle, , over
the indicative, ) (28485). Lightfoot also provides an outline of
Romans based upon epistolary form, seeing the doctrinal section extend
from 1:1611:36, before beginning the practical exhortation (12:115:13);
this reflects a four-part epistolary form (23943). Lightfoots theological
statements, though brief, are to the point, especially regarding reconciliation, where he appreciates the use of rather than ,
because the latter indicates mutual concession after mutual hostility,
an idea foreign to the New Testament and Paul (288).24 The commentary
by Sanday and Headlam excels in most areas, including their provision of
an extensive introduction that still rewards reading.25 They are the first
in their treatment of Greek to reflect the newly emergent comparativehistorical analysis, when they characterize the perfect tense-form in Rom
5:2, , as aor. and perf. in one (121; see also the same page on
). They accept the subjunctive in Rom 5:1, with the best
explanation of both internal and external evidence to date, concluding that the subjunctive means keep or enjoy peace (120). They also
treat the conjunction , along with the non-indicative readings
374
stanley e. porter
26Karl Barth published a shorter commentary in 1956, based upon lectures delivered in
19401941, when he was (strangely) determined to continue as if nothing had happened
(7). Barth refers the reader to his earlier commentary or his Church Dogmatics (5 vols.;
19321970; trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley et al.; repr. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2010) if
desiring more on Romans. I think that says sufficient about the type of commentary this
is. See Karl Barth, Kurze Erklrung des Rmerbriefes (Munich: Kaiser, 1956); ET A Shorter
Commentary on Romans (trans. D. H. van Daalen; London: SCM, 1959).
27James Denney, St. Pauls Epistle to the Romans, in The Expositors Greek Testament
(ed. W. Robertson Nicoll; 1901; vol. 2; repr. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 555725.
28Ernest DeWitt Burton, Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in New Testament Greek (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1892).
29Contra Verlyn D. Verbrugge, The Grammatical Internal Evidence for in
Romans 5:1, JETS 54.3 (2011): 55972, who fails completely to note Denneys discussion of
the bearing of on the issue, as well as my discussion, first found in The Argument of Romans 5: Can a Rhetorical Question Make a Difference? JBL 110.4 (1991): 65577,
esp. 66264; and reprinted in my Studies in the Greek New Testament (SBG 6; New York:
Lang, 1996), 22223.
375
376
stanley e. porter
377
attempts to ground his theology in the Greek text and its argument. His
commentary lacks an introduction but places Romans in relation to the
other Pauline letters.38 His Greek comments seem to reflect both the rationalist (German 175, ET 119, where he refers to the future tense and future
time, and apparently the aorist and past time; and 183, ET 125) and the
Aktionsart of the comparative historical approach (176, ET 120, where the
perfect represents ein einmaliges Erlebnis, aber ein bleibend
wirksames), although at times he appears simply to be confused (176, ET
120, on ). Schlatter accepts the indicative over the subjunctive
in Rom 5:1 on the basis of the sequence of ideas, but he does not discuss
the textual evidence at all (176, ET 119).
The 1940s also produced three commentaries worth noting, by Otto
Kuss (1940), Anders Nygren (1944), and R. C. H. Lenski (1945). Kusss commentary appears in the Regensburger Neues Testament, and hence is
brief.39 Nevertheless, he provides an introduction to Pauls letters (1114)
and to Romans (1520), as well as an outline that combines epistolary
and theological features (78). Kuss seems to accept a time-oriented
view of the Greek tense-forms (51, 52), although this is difficult to determine as there is no reference to the Greek text. His translation accepts
the indicative reading in Rom 5:1, but he parenthetically admits that the
manuscripts endorse the subjunctive and it has the preferred sense of
lasst uns Frieden halten (51). Lenskis lengthy commentary40 provides
a relatively short introduction, and notes that most divide the letter into
two parts, doctrinal and hortatory, which he calls merely formal (22).
Taking Romans 5 with 68, Lenski accepts the subjunctive reading in Rom
5:1 on the basis of external and internal evidence. Lenski rightly responds
to those who argue for the indicative on the basis of the sense of the
mann; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995); Schlatter also had an earlier more expositional
commentary: Der Brief an die Rmer (Erluterungen zum Neuen Testament 5; Stuttgart:
Calwer, 1921; 9th ed. 1936).
38The English translation has confused the structure of the book, so that chapter/section I in the translation includes both the relationship of Romans to the Corinthian letters and the first section of commentary on 1:117. In the German edition, these are two
distinctly separate chapters.
39Otto Kuss, Die Briefe an die Rmer, Korinther und Galater (Das Neue Testament;
Regensburg: Pustet, 1940), 11111. Kuss also produced a larger commentary but never finished it: Der Rmerbrief (3 vols. [Rom 1:111:36]; Regensburg: Pustet, 19571978). So far as I
can tell, he (sadly) did not have a significantly different perspective in the later commentary in so far as the issues treated here are concerned.
40R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Pauls Epistle to the Romans (Columbus, OH:
Wartburg, 1945).
378
stanley e. porter
e pistle that the letter [omicron or omega] alone conveys the sense, and
we change the sense when we alter the letter (333). He finds the subjunctive entirely appropriate: hortation is fully in place at this point because
these verses introduce the entire section regarding the great effects of justification by faith (334). Lenskis comments on the Greek text are detailed
and serial, although he accepts the rationalist perspective that equates
time and tense-form for the verbs (aorist, hence by a past, 332; 334),
despite his citing of Blass and Debrunners and Robertsons grammars in
his abbreviations,41 while also making use of comparative-historical information on such topics as prepositions (345) and other syntactical issues
(355). His theological discussion of reconciliation emphasizes that it is not
God who changes but humans who are required to be changed through
the death of Christ. Nygren,42 after a theological introduction to the letter,
including discussion of the two aeons of death and life and a theologically oriented outline of the letter (somewhat reflecting four-part epistolary structure), engages in theological exegesis of the letter. Even though
he takes Romans 5 with 68, his emphasis is so clearly upon justification
by faith as reflecting the aeon of life (as one might expect a Lutheran, or
evangelical as it is called in the translation) that he is perhaps affected in
his other judgments. He rejects a subjective theory of the atonement,
in which God remains unchanged, and seems to equate the subjective
with the subjunctive in Rom 5:1 (193). He admits the manuscript evidence
favors the subjunctive, but the context the indicative. He goes further,
however, introducing an apparently new (and questionable) argument:
even if we overlook the difficulty of fitting such a translation [let us have
peace with God, etc.] into the context (quite meaningless, in this context, says Lietzmann), grammar itself excludes it. For is quite
another thing from . But even if it could be shown that
the letter originally said , that would not prove that Paul meant it
this way (19394). Here he simply recites Lietzmanns argument regarding confusing omicron and omega by Tertius, cited above. It is difficult
to know what to do with such a gross misunderstanding of the Greek
text and linguistic evidence, and it casts light on all of the authors later
379
theological statements based upon such reasoning. The 1930s and 1940s
were not a high point in Romans commentary writing.
In the 1950s and 1960s, seven commentaries were produced that I
treat here, even if some of them quite briefly. They are by John Knox
(1954), Otto Michel (1955), C. K. Barrett (1957), Franz Leenhardt (1957),
John Murray (19591965), F. F. Bruce (1963/1985), and Ernest Best (1967).
Knoxs commentary in the Interpreters Bible43 (see below on the New
Interpreters Bible) is the exegesis, whereas the exposition is by Gerald
Cragg. Knoxs introduction, with its biggest section on text, reflects Knoxs
particular views of Pauline chronology.44 More importantly, however, as
already seen in some of the previous commentaries, but now especially
in Knox, we have reached a stage where, in the interplay of language and
thought, language is now subordinated to thought, a trend that I fear has
persisted in many if not most commentaries since. Knox works from the
standpoint of the rationalist and comparative-historical approaches to
language, for the most part equating time and tense-form (e.g. 451, 459).
Such a perspective becomes a clear scheme for (illegitimate) theology:
we are now justified; it is now that we are reconciled; but salvation is
still in the future: we shall be saved by him from the wrath of God
(459). However, Knox also reflects an Aktionsart perspective (452, 453).
The culmination of this comes in his discussion of the variant in Rom
5:1. Knox realizes that the better manuscript evidence is for the subjunctive, but notes and discusses how commentators have been divided. He
concludes from this analysis that there is universal [!] recognition that
the sense is indicative, whether Paul wrote it so or not (452), and then he
invokes his form of Lietzmanns now tired argument about early confusion (45152). Of course, there is no such universal recognition, besides
Knoxs confusion of the issue of form and meaning in the Greek moods.
Similar theologically driven understanding is seen in his discussion of reconciliation. He notes that Sanday and Headlam identify peace and reconciliation in Rom 5:111, in the sense in which the term is used in this
passage. Speaking generally [but with no evidence, of course], it is fair to
say that peace is the richer, more inclusive term (461). Such a statement
makes one wonder what it means for Knox to exegete Romans. Michels
43John Knox, The Epistle to the Romans (Introduction and Exegesis), in The Interpreters Bible (ed. George Arthur Buttrick; vol. 11 of 12 vols.; New York: Abingdon, 1954),
355668.
44See John Knox, Chapters in a Life of Paul (New York: Abingdon, 1950), 1388.
380
stanley e. porter
45Otto Michel, Der Brief an die Rmer (1955; KEKNT; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1957).
46I have not treated an earlier successor, Bernhard Weiss, Der Brief an die Rmer
(KEKNT; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1881), nor do I treat a later successor, Eduard
Lohse, Der Brief an die Rmer (KEKNT; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2003).
47C. K. Barrett, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (London: A.&C. Black,
1957).
48C. F. D. Moule, An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek (1953; 2nd ed.; Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1959), 15, with italics in Moule, but not in Barretts citation of
it. Moule also cites Moulton, Prolegomena, 110, as does Barrett.
381
49Franz J. Leenhardt, Lptre de Saint Paul aux Romains (1957; 3rd ed.; Geneva: Labor
et Fides, 1995); ET The Epistle to the Romans: A Commentary (trans. Harold Knight; London:
Lutterworth, 1961).
50John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans (2 vols.; NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
19591965).
382
stanley e. porter
383
384
stanley e. porter
mix of epistolary and content analysis). This is supplemented by two further essays in the second volume on Pauls purpose and the theology of
Romans. Cranfield has more language and structure comments than most
recent commentators, such as observing that Rom 5:111 is in the first person plural (1:257), although fewer than the earliest commentators. Unfortunately, he still seems to be closely tied to the time and tense-form model
of the rationalists (1:265). He also knows of more recent Aktionsart theory
when he states of that it is perhaps to be explained as a perfect
used for the aorist, but can be taken as a true perfect (see BDF, 43 [2])
(1:259)although it is not entirely clear what he means by this. As for the
textual variant in Rom 5:1, Cranfield opts for the indicative, though far less
well attested, on the ground of intrinsic probability (1.257). He thinks the
subjunctive can be made sense of but is unlikely in such a carefully
argued writing as this (1:257 n. 1), at which point he devolves into the
endless cycle of positing whether the indicative or subjunctive came first,
especially in light of pronunciation possibilities. Cranfields understanding of reconciliation seems to be driven by his theological understanding
of justification, which is influenced by major thinkers like Calvin and
Barth (1:260 and elsewhere), so that Gods justification involves reconciliation because God is what He is (1:258), a very Barthian nonsensical kind
of statement (whether it is Pauline is another question). Harrisons commentary59 is fairly slight in several ways, including its introduction, attention to previous scholarship, and Greek language and argument. However,
he is the earliest of the commentaries I have found to introduce the significance of manuscript 0220 for the text-critical reading in Rom 5:1
(58 n. 1perhaps also because he is one of the first in some time to actually cite the manuscript evidence in a thorough way). He notes that this
late third-century fragment, first published in 1952,60 follows the text of
the fourth-century codex Vaticanus for thirty verses, except in Rom 5:1,
where it reads the indicative, rather than the subjunctive. W. H. P. Hatch
attributes the indicative to being a pre-Hesychian reading, thus strengthen
ing the support for the indicative, which Harrison also accepts based upon
context (although he also uses the arguments regarding pronunciation,
59Everett F. Harrison, Romans, in The Expositors Bible Commentary (vol. 10; ed.
Frank E. Gaebelein; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976), 1171. This commentary has now
been updated by Donald A. Hagner, The Expositors Bible Commentary (rev. ed.; vol. 11; ed.
Tremper Longman III and David E. Garland; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008), 19237.
60W. H. P. Hatch, A Recently Discovered Fragment of the Epistle to the Romans, HTR
45 (1952): 8185.
385
386
stanley e. porter
387
388
stanley e. porter
The New Perspective is one of the five sections of his otherwise fairly traditional introduction (although I see no discussion of language or style).
The outline of the letter is content driven, not epistolary. Whereas Dunn
may be on the cutting edge theologically and sociologically with his treatment of the New Perspective, the same cannot be said of his treatment of
the Greek language. Dunn does not know of developments in Greek language theory, clearly endorsing a time and tense-form analysis. His treatment of states: The tense here certainly indicates an act of
God in the past, although he follows this with a perplexing statement:
but that should not be allowed to dominate the doctrine of justification
drawn from Paul to the extent that it has, or to overwhelm the force of the
other tenses (1:246). We have not witnessed such a domination or overwhelmingbut the solution may well rest readily with another theory of
tense-form meaning, such as aspectual theory (K. L. McKays work was
available).71 Further, Dunn recognizes as a perfect tense, but
says it could be a stylistic variation, but probably is intended to denote
both the initial entrance into Gods presence (having been justified) and
its continuing availability and outworking (we have peace with God)
(1:248). This is asking a lot of a single tense-form. Again, he says that the
addition of the to the aorist [in Rom 5:9], followed by the future,
heightens the eschatological tension of the whole train of thought (1:257).
Finally, in Rom 5:11, Dunn says the use of the participle has the force of
the indicative (BDF 468:1...), the present tense indicating that this boasting is a continuous feature for the believer, even in the period between
reconciliation and salvation, characterized by suffering (1:261), an overly
theologized assessment of the present tense-form. However, it is also evident, as one of the statements above makes clear, that theology can override grammar when convenient. On Rom 5:9, Dunn writes of the aorist,
present and future forms of and , what is in view is the
establishment and development of a relationship which ends in final vindication. And since the process of salvation is yet incomplete, it also
means that the believer is not yet delivered from the outworking of wrath
in the present...or from the necessity of being judged in the last day
(1:258). On the textual variant in Rom 5:1, Dunn introduces some new considerations. He claims that, against the greater weight of MS evidence,
71Among many works, those that could have been used with profit include: K. L.
McKay, Syntax in Exegesis, TynBul 23 (1972): 3957; Aspect in Imperatival Constructions
in New Testament Greek, NovT 27 (1985): 20126; On the Perfect and Other Aspects in
New Testament Greek, NovT 23 (1981): 289329.
389
72I. Howard Marshall, The Meaning of Reconciliation, in Unity and Diversity in New
Testament Theology: Essays in Honor of George E. Ladd (ed. Robert A. Guelich; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 11732.
73Leon Morris, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988).
74The article is J. D. G. Dunn, Works of the Law and the Curse of the Law (Gal. 3.10
14), NTS 31 (1985): 52342, here 528. The issue is not the disagreementas Morris is, to my
mind, no doubt correct and Dunn wrong, not only on this particular point, but his entire
focus, in which theology becomes simply sociology.
75L. L. Morris, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross (3rd ed.; London: Tyndale, 1965). See
also Ralph P. Martin, Reconciliation: A Study of Pauls Theology (Atlanta: John Knox, 1981).
390
stanley e. porter
Deutsch,76 is bold and to the point. Even though he quickly surveys previous commentaries on Romans, he does not address the New Perspective.
In fact, he argues diametrically against it, contending that the major problem confronted in Romans is Judaistic doctrine, against which Romans
is a polemic, as Carl Weizscker so ably stated.77 Instead of focusing upon
the Greek of Romans, Stuhlmacher addresses such issues as the rhetorical
chain of syllogisms and the we style (78, 79), although he does fall victim to equating peace with shalom (79). On the text-critical issue of Rom
5:1, Stuhlmacher takes an independent line, arguing against the manuscript evidence that the indicative is closer in content to Pauls thought
and at the same time is the bolder version (79). He concentrates upon the
Greek background of reconciliation, noting that it is primarily treaty language between warring peoples. He concludes with a short discussion on
justification and reconciliation (8283). At the end of a wearying decade
of Roman commentaries, Zieslers commentary is the first to incorporate
the New Perspective by someone who is not necessarily a supporter of it.78
He notes his appreciation for the insights it has supposedly brought (2),
but feels free in the introduction on law (3951) and throughout the commentary to go his own way, as the citations of Sanders, Dunn, and others
indicate. Zieslers introduction has other valuable elements as well, including his discussion of the typical Greco-Roman letter form and how Romans
conforms to it (3336) and a section on power language (5152). The commentary itself, however, seems to retreat to the early twentieth century.
The author equates time with tense-form (e.g. We were reconciled; we
are now in a state of having been reconciled; we shall be saved, 142; cf.
also 143), and does not have a linguistically informed view of the Koine
language when he states that the preposition had become so flexible
that arguments on the basis of its usage cannot be made (141). Ziesler also
appears to follow the biblical theology movement, when he theologizes
the Hebrew concept of peace (he refers to shalom and its many connotations, including reconciliation, 136).
Even as the century came to a close, the book of Romans continued
to invigorate writers of commentaries. The 1990s produced a number of
76Peter Stuhlmacher, Der Brief an die Rmer (Das Neue Testament Deutsch; Gttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989); ET Pauls Letter to the Romans: A Commentary (trans.
Scott J. Hafemann; Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1994).
77Carl Weizscker, The Apostolic Age of the Christian Church (trans. James Millar;
2 vols.; London: Williams & Norgate, 19071912 [1886]), 2:99.
78John Ziesler, Pauls Letter to the Romans (London: SCM; Philadelphia: Trinity Press
International, 1989).
391
392
stanley e. porter
attune to recent (or even otherwise) study of the moods in Greek. However, he then seems to opt for the subjunctive in Rom 5:3, let us boast...
(397). Concerning reconciliation, Fitzmyer discounts reference to either
death or blood as indicating anything sacrificial or cultic, but instead
death connotes the giving up of ones life, and blood refers to that (401).
He concludes that Paul sees justification as a step toward reconciliation,
which is a social concept, not sacrificial or cultic (401), although he does
not say where he gets the idea that reconciliation is distinctly social (it is
not). Byrnes commentary84 appropriates a mix of three methods: literary analysis of the implied author and reader; the New Rhetorics concern for exigence, audience, and constraints on situation; and sociology
of knowledge (as opposed to theology) (38). He also uses the ancient
three-part letter form to outline Romans (2728). Even though he adopts a
social-scientific and rhetorical approach, Byrne is guarded about the New
Perspective on Paul (12021). In several areas, Byrne shows an appreciation for modern advances in New Testament scholarship. However, such
is not the case in Greek language study (I can find no reference to a major
figure in the index). His comment that the two perfect tense-form verbs in
Rom 5:2 indicate an abiding state of affairs (170) reflects the Aktionsart
terminology of the comparative-historical period. His statement on Rom
5:5 that is a future tense-form reflects an equation of tenseform with time, especially when he accents the verb that way so that It
is only the future...that will show whether or not the present hope has
been well grounded (170; cf. also 171). His lexical study is also dubious,
when he notes that the Greek can have the connotation of the
propitious or eschatological moment (171), the very claim disputed by
James Barr in his Biblical Words for Time.85 On reconciliation, Byrne recognizes that the term was not widely used in a religious sense, but that
it is a usage from diplomacy, even though he does not appear to know of
the most thorough study of .86 Moos commentary,87 which
replaces Murrays, begins with a shortish standard introduction, although
it does not include any discussion of the language or style of Romans,
including rhetoric (a treatment of style would perhaps have saved him
84Brendan Byrne, Romans (SP; Minneapolis: Liturgical, 1996).
85James Barr, Biblical Words for Time (1962; SBT 33; rev. ed.; London: SCM, 1969), 2185,
arguing against, among others, Oscar Cullmann, Christ and Time: The Primitive Christian
Conception of Time and History (trans. Floyd V. Filson; London: SCM, 1951).
86Porter, K. But he does know Cilliers Breytenbach, Vershnung: Ein Studie
zur paulinischen Soteriologie (WMANT 60; Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1989).
87Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996).
393
88Stephen Westerholm, Israels Law and the Churchs Faith: Paul and His Recent Interpreters (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), revised and expanded as Perspectives Old and New
on Paul: The Lutheran Paul and His Critics (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004).
89Douglas Moo, Romans 18 (Chicago: Moody, 1991), 318.
394
stanley e. porter
of this section, the latest work on reconciliation is not cited, which would
have added strength to Moos comments on its nature and means.
Johnsons commentary90 is deemed a literary and theological one, by
which he means to emphasize theological interpretation, a recent trend
in New Testament studies (even if difficult to define), with Romans being
a real letter, diatribal in nature, and midrashic (1114). The commentary
itself is clearly outdated, reflecting a number of linguistic shortcomings.
These include reference to the aorist participle as being in the aorist tense,
which signifies that the action has already happened (78) to the fallacy of
including the Hebrew background of shalom in understanding peace (79).
Johnson fairs little better with the text-critical issue of Rom 5:1, where he
claims the manuscript evidence itself is evenly divided (79), which will
come as a surprise to virtually all textual critics (even Lietzmann!). On reconciliation, Johnson sees the image as shifting from judicial (justification)
to diplomatic language (85), although his most recent source for discussion is the article by Friedrich Bchsel in TDNT (85).91 This attempt at a
commentary in recent methodological garb cannot be sustained. Grayston
has little to offer,92 apart from an introduction that pronounces (much
like this chapter!) on the best commentaries (I wont give his conclusions,
but you can compare his and mine if you wish) and, surprisingly in light
of all that has been cited above, states that let us be at peace with God,
instead of being resentful and hostile is what Paul means (33). Whereas
Moo was more exegetical than theological (though still theological!),
Schreiners commentary is just the opposite.93 Schreiner, like Moo, confuses subject with theme, and asserts that the glory of God is the central
theme of the letter (xiii). His introduction is short, focusing mostly on
the purpose of the letter, and he outlines the letter completely according
to theological topics (2527), without reference to epistolary or rhetorical structure. Discussion of the New Perspective on Paul is concentrated
on Rom 3:20, where Schreiner rejects it and endorses a more traditional
Reformed view (16974). The entire commentary is organized as theological comments on passages of text, rather than on individual verses, which
helps the flow of the argument. Linguistically, Schreiner still reflects the
395
396
stanley e. porter
what God has done for us in Christ (263). The 1990s were clearly a mixed
era for commentaries on Romans as the century came to an end, and in
fact did not end nearly as well as it seems to have begun.
The new century continued the production of commentaries on
Romans, although many were not serious improvements over those that
had gone before and, in fact, seemed to revert to an earlier, less wellinformed era. Writers include N. T. Wright (2002), Ben Witherington III
with Darlene Hyatt (2004), Robert Jewett (2007), Craig Keener (2009),
Arland Hultgren (2011), and Herman Waetjen (2011), along with an extensive introduction by Richard Longenecker (2011). Wrights commentary,94
a replacement for Knoxs, has a brief introduction as one might expect. He
identifies a clear theme for the book: Gods gospel unveils Gods righteousness (397), which indeed is a theme (whether it is the theme of
Romans is immaterial here). Wright identifies four commentaries as his
major conversation partners: Fitzmyer, Byrne, Dunn, and Moo (396),
which (see comments above) may account for some of the major problems of Wrights commentary, although he manages some unaccountable
problems on his own. Wrights outline is completely theological (41012),
not reflecting either epistolary or rhetorical categories. As readers of
Wright have come to expect, he argues that although the Babylonian
exile had obviously come to a literal end some centuries before, the promises made at the timepromises of a glorious restoration of the nation,
the Temple, and the whole Jewish way of lifewere widely regarded as
still awaiting complete fulfillment (398). Then Wright includes a strange
footnote, in which he states of the above: This is still controversial, in my
view needlessly, but he then provides perhaps the clearest explanation of
why this is: Even if it is not accepted that most of his contemporaries
would have agreed, I would still contend that this is demonstrably Pauls
own point of view (398 n. 3). Wright returns to another of his grand narratives in the preliminary comments to Romans 58 (New Exodus), where
he gets defensive about his finding this theme, offers an unnecessary lesson in reasoning, and recognizes that he is protesting too much (510, all
in one page). Wrights linguistic abilities are disappointing. Not since
Lightfoot have we seen someone identify the subjunctive in Rom
5:1 as an imperative (515), as does Wright, never apparently recognizing
or calling it a subjunctive. He equates tense-form with time when he says
94N. T. Wright, The Letter to the Romans, in The New Interpreters Bible (vol. 10; ed.
Leander E. Keck; Nashville: Abingdon, 2002), 393770.
397
that the result of past justification and the present status of grace is the
future hope (516; cf. the enigmatic statement on the future on 519). Wright
also gives an example of the root fallacy,95 when he explains the use of the
word access in Rom 5:2, even noting his interpretation is based upon the
root (516). Wrights argumentative powers sometimes elude me. On Rom
5:6 he argues for the phrase the love of God to be the so-called objective
genitive, our love for God, using this as one reason: Why would Paul
suggest that Gods love for us was poured out into, and thus thereafter
located in, our hearts? (517). He offers a footnote with further perplexing
reasoning: This was first put to me by the late G. B. Caird, and was the
point that convinced him to change his mind to the objective genitive
(517 n. 188). Besides the note not providing anything but a happy memory,
I am unclear what Wrights question proves. Would it make better sense
if our love for God were poured out in our own hearts? Where else would
Gods love for us be poured out, except in our hearts? Perhaps I have
missed something, or Wright has. On the text-critical issue in Rom 5:1,
Wright opts for the indicative over the subjunctive (his so-called imperative), on the basis of confusion of vowels, the contextual argument regarding peace and reconciliation, and a third confusing argument: the two
main verbs of the second verse are in the indicative (the second could be
either, but the first seems determinative) (515). According to both translations that Wright cites (NIV and NRSV, as well as the Greek text), there
is only one main verb in the verse (or there are three), and it is the ambiguous . Reconciliation is essentially subsumed to justification
and salvation. Witherington,96 one of the primary applicants of a sociorhetorical method of interpretation, in his short introduction argues for
Romans as a form of ambassadorial letter that is deliberative in nature
(16). He outlines the letter as an ancient Greek oration, with an epistolary
opening/greeting/wish-prayer and epistolary closing elements (2122). He
includes a section on Pauls language, style, and intertextuality, but does
not cite a single grammarian (no modern linguist is cited in the index,
either), instead arguing for Pauline orality (23). Witherington equates
tense-form and time, as in Rom 5:9 when he says Salvation is viewed here
as future and Both the tense of will be saved and the eschatological
context here make evident Paul is not talking about some spiritual
398
stanley e. porter
experience in the present (138). On Rom 5:1 and its text-critical issue,
Witherington admits the subjunctive has superior external support, but
opts for the indicative since Paul is stating facts rather than exhorting
here (133 n. 7). He also says the indicative has good manuscript support,
but without stating what that is. Witherington also notes that the hortatory section of this discourse does not begin until 12.1 (133 n. 7), but his
rhetorical outline of the letter (the only one he provides) does not indicate hortatory material, but another refutatio. He also cites the confusion
of vowel pronunciation. Reconciliation is subsumed under justification,
with anticipation of salvation. Jewett97 provides the largest rhetorical
commentary on Romans to date, within the confines of the historicalcritical method (1), thus a socio-historical and rhetorical commentary (3).
The introduction contains major discussions of textual criticism, rhetoric,
style (mostly rhetorical tropes), social issues, along with standard issues.
The outline of the letter is virtually entirely rhetorical. Despite his attention to rhetoric, Jewett still exegetes using now questionable language
models. In Rom 5:2, he cites the two perfect tense-form verbs as indicating
a status gained by believers in the past and continued in the present
(350, with a note to the commentaries by Godet, Schlier, and Murray!). He
seems to equate tense-form and time when he refers to the unqualified
future verb and its modifying phrase in Rom 5:9, and that the future
tense is all the more heightened by the emphatic position of (now)
(363, although I do not understand his statement regarding the function
of the adverb here; see also 364). In discussing Rom 5:2 and ,
Jewett wishes to stress the uniqueness of this admonition, citing the fact
that a search of the TLG database revealed that the first person plural
imperative form of is unparalleled in Greek literature until
patristic writers cite this verse (352 n. 70). This is a strange statement, as
the form is a first person plural subjunctive. If such a search were conducted (for the first person plural imperative), the results would be few
indeed, making it difficult to account even for the patristic citations! Jewett also relies upon the supposed origins of the Greek article in the demonstrative pronoun (354 n. 88), a theory that demands re-examination. On
the text-critical issue in Rom 5:1, Jewett cites the evidence extensively (he
cites Hatchs article on 0220 as providing [a]dditional support, even
97Robert Jewett, Romans (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007). See also his
Romans, in The Cambridge Companion to St Paul (ed. James D. G. Dunn; Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2003), 91104, for a similar rhetorical analysis.
399
though he has already cited 0220, 344), and finds Stanley Porter has made
a compelling case for the subjunctive (344). This is despite the argument
by some that the context favors the indicative, particularly with the
indicative in the second half of the sentence (5:2) (344, see
comments above). He also notes those who have referred to confusion of
vowel sounds. After citing the major works on reconciliation, Jewett
evaluates its theological significance within the shame and boasting context of Rom 5:111, finding support from especially Martin. Keeners
commentary98 is in what is supposed to be a text-based series. His brief
introduction includes recognition of a popular form of rhetoric in Pauls
letters and a more substantial section on the New Perspective. Keener is
clearly given to hyperbole (and, I think, unfortunate error) when he states
that Sanderss primary thesis, the prevalence of grace in Judaism (and
perhaps especially rabbinic Judaism, where it was often least appreciated), won the day, and there is little likelihood, barring a nuclear holocaust or other cataclysmic event that wipes out the current generation of
scholars and our work, that the bulk of NT scholarship will backtrack on
that point (6). A potential problem is that Keener says he has, with a few
exceptions (Barrett, Cranfield, and Ksemann), omitted some older [!]
works (17). Keeners outline includes a greeting and thanksgiving (and in
this sense is close to the five-part epistolary form), but otherwise follows
a content analysis (ixx). Comments on the actual language of the text are
virtually non-existent. On Rom 5:2, Keener states that the perfect tense of
stand suggests that believers remain in this grace (70), probably a use of
Aktionsart theory (abiding results of an action, though this is not entirely
clear). On Rom 5:5, unlike Wright, Keener finds the phrase Gods love for
them (subjective genitive) entirely appropriate (71). There are very few
other grammatical comments (and no grammarians that I can determine
recent or otherwiselisted for their work in the author index). On Rom
5:1, Keener goes with the majority of commentators over manuscript evidence, citing the confusion over vowels (70). Keener is known for his mining extra-biblical literature for resources, so it comes as a complete shock
that he seems almost completely unaware of the rich examples in various
authors, including papyri and inscriptions, on .
98Craig S. Keener, Romans (New Covenant Commentary Series; Eugene, OR: Cascade,
2009).
400
stanley e. porter
99Arland J. Hultgren, Pauls Letter to the Romans: A Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011).
401
calls upon his readers: let us have peace in reference to God or let us be
at peace with God. The problem is not with God (who is at peace with
us), but with us! Since we are justified by faith (and have nothing to fear
from God), let us be at peace with God. The hortatory subjunctive calls
upon the hearer or reader to possess what is; it does not call into question what is (679).100 Hultgren rejects the idea that there is a center to
Pauls theology, especially justification, but also wishes strongly to affirm
that its place in his theology is another matter (204), even if it is not at
the center. He sees symmetry in Rom 5:910, on the basis of which justification and reconciliation are very similar, even if reconciliation is more
appropriate to this context (21314). Waetjens commentary101 purports to
be a postmodern venture grounded in the work of the Continental philosophers Jacques Derrida, Slavoj iek, and Alain Badiou.102 After a conventional introduction, Waetjen follows a rough five-part epistolary form for
his commentary. At many places, there is certainly nothing postmodern
about this commentary. On Rom 5:1, Waetjen correctly analyzes the syntax of the aorist participle preceding the main verb to argue that the participles action is relative to the main verb...and expresses an action that
is antecedent to that of the main verb (134), even though he cites Blass
and Debrunner and Moule in support of this. He also interprets the aorist
passive participle as indicating a present ongoing reality
(140), even if he takes salvation as realized into the future (141), though
not specifically stating that this is on the basis of the tense-form. However,
he does fall victim to seeing as the divinely appointed season (139),
100He is citing Porter, Argument of Romans 5, 664. I find it intriguingif not outright distressingthat Hultgren clearly finds my argument regarding the subjunctive
convincingwhich is based upon my linguistic approach to the moods and tenses in
Greekbut he shows otherwise no knowledge of such a linguistic approach elsewhere
in his treatment of Greek. Hultgren also includes a lengthy appendix on the Pistis Christou debate, ultimately concluding for the objective genitive (62361). His argument would
have been helped by reference to Stanley E. Porter and Andrew W. Pitts, with a
Preposition and Genitive Modifier: Lexical, Semantic, and Syntactic Considerations in the
Discussion, in The Faith of Jesus Christ: Exegetical, Biblical, and Theological
Studies (ed. Michael F. Bird and Preston M. Sprinkle; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson; Carlisle:
Paternoster, 2009), 3353.
101Herman C. Waetjen, The Letter to the Romans: Salvation as Justice and the Deconstruction of Law (NTM 32; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2011).
102Jacques Derrida, The Gift of Death (trans. Davis Wills; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995) (or at least Theodore W. Jennings, Jr., Reading Derrida/Thinking Paul: On
Justice [Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2006]), Slavoj iek, The Fragile Absoluteor,
Why is the Christian Legacy Worth Fighting For? (London: Verso, 2000), and Alain Badiou,
Saint Paul: The Foundation of Universalism (trans. Ray Brassier; Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2003).
402
stanley e. porter
403
this introduction, not least Greek grammar and linguistics for a commentary that purports to be on the Greek text, even if it were to be treated
under what the author might contend are uncontested matters. Overall,
the introduction seems to represent scholarship of about thirty years ago,
apart from a few areas that are perhaps somewhat more recent.
4.Conclusion
This review of commentariesand a number of commentaries have not
been treatedclearly shows that newer is certainly not necessarily better. What I have tried to do is to evaluate each commentary in light of its
context of writing and the issues current at the time. As a result, I believe
it is possible to identify some commentaries that stand outboth good
and badin respect to their time period. It is unnecessary to identify the
particularly bad commentaries, but my evaluations above should provide
sufficient evidence for such judgment. They are typified by an unreflective invocation of previous modes of thought regarding such things as the
Greek language, the invocation of tired arguments regarding the meaning
and understanding of the text, the utilization of often outdated and even
unhelpful secondary sources, and the failure to engage the text and its
theology. Rather than dwell upon these commentaries, however, I wish
instead to note those commentaries that I believe stand out for their particular strengths, both at the time of their writing and in their (potential) enduring value. These commentaries include Sanday and Headlam,
to this day still a more important and reliable guide to the Greek text of
Romans than many if not most commentaries written since (especially
if such commentaries reflect the same linguistic framework), including
the supposed replacement volume in the ICC series by Cranfield, which
unfortunately falls short by not availing itself of the latest in research and
by following some unnecessary theological tangents (such as Barth). Only
slightly behind Sanday and Headlam is the commentary of Beet, surprising
as that may seem (and unknown as it now is).107 Even though he writes as
a systematic theologian, without focusing primarily on the Greek text, he
does a commendable job of providing a theological interpretation of the
text of Romans and an astonishingly adept view of its language. Schliers
107Beet is not cited, so far as I can tell, in the major reference commentaries by Dunn,
Moo, Schreiner, Jewett, Hultgren, or in Longeneckers introduction. It is cited by Fitzmyer
in his bibliography.
404
stanley e. porter
406
scot mcknight
This text illustrates what might be called the problem of James, namely
his evidently non-Pauline (some would say anti-Pauline) focus on works
(cf. 2:1426), a focus that irritated Martin Luther and the many Protestants
and evangelicals who have held high sola fidei,2 while James has more or
less been defended as a straight and honest arrow by Roman Catholics,
some Anabaptists and some Wesleyans, who have sought to hold together
and in balance salvation by faith and the necessity of works.3 This discussion of the relation of James has both garnered too much attention and
distracted from the many other texts in James that simply are not part of
that discussion, which is why it is important to work through the entire
text and not just sort out that difficult matter.
Birger Pearson, more than two decades ago, summarized the various
consensuses around James in the following categories: it has a JewishChristian character; its literary genre is paraenesis; its intention was to
call Christians to live the Christian life; its language is good Koine Greek;
its relation to Paul was not against Paul but against an extreme form of
Paulinism; it is dependent on the Jesus traditions, especially Matthew;
it probably stems from a postapostolic author and date, but there is no
consensus on the place of origin.4 To be sure, while each of these can
be contestedand Dale Allisons forthcoming ICC commentary on James
will for instance challenge the Christian nature of this letterthat set of
1For the larger context, see Eldon J. Epp and George W. MacRae, eds., The New Testament and Its Modern Interpreters (The Bible and its Modern Interpreters 3; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989), 37176 (Birger Pearson); Scot McKnight and Grant R. Osborne, eds., The
Face of New Testament Studies: A Survey of Recent Research (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004),
251262 (B. D. Chilton).
2P. Stuhlmacher, Gerechtigkeit Gottes bei Paulus (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1966), 19194.
3I have myself ventured into a commentary on James, and so should the reader care
what I have said about the matters under discussion, here is the reference: S. McKnight,
The Letter of James (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011).
4Epp and MacRae, eds., New Testament, 376.
407
conclusions is not far off from todays state of play, as long as one permits
the newer and fresher concerns, not the least of which is the use of rhetorical criticism to examine various moves made by James.5
1.Historical-Critical Commentaries
Commentaries on James in the historical-critical sense became full-blown
with the work of Martin Dibelius,6 who, on Jas 1:2527, accurately observed
that many would see this text in one of two ways:
In the mouth of a Jew it [v. 27] would mean: to keep the Jewish laws or ritual
purity; in the mouth of a strict Jewish-Christian: to observe them precisely
in dealings with Gentile-Christians.
But Dibelius contended these two options were inadequate; the text
breathes a moral generality instead of a Jewish particularity, and neither
does this text support what we know about James from Gal 2:12. So, Dibelius contends this text reflects a kind of Christianity already free from the
Jewish Law. As such, and on this Dibelius has the lions share of the
argument, it is a perfect commentary on the law of freedom in Jas 1:25.
This law-free approach to the Christian life, Dibelius further contended,
connects easily and traditionally to Jesus own teachings and praxis by a
kinship in intuition, a moral intuition shared in James day with other
philosophers that James absorbed through the Jewish tradition, and
through the tradition of Jesus sayings (and here Dibelius assumes James
the Just is not the author of the paraenesis). So Dibelius can give us a summary for which his commentary became both a landmark and famous:
And so precisely upon the basis of this unpretentious saying in 1:27 can one
delineate the characteristics of the peculiar position of Jas within the history
of religions: his words breathe the spirit of the gospel as well as of Jewish
didactic Wisdom. They betray nothing of the break with Judaism, and nevertheless they stand so far outside of Jewish ritualism that in terms of content
they are in accord with practical slogans such as those which the popular
philosophy of the period was able to coin.
5An example of which is B. Witherington, III, Letters and Homilies for Jewish Christians:
A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on Hebrews, James and Jude (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2007).
6M. Dibelius, A Commentary on the Epistle of James (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1996), 12123. Pagination in the notes for the commentaries is from pages quoted
or referred to.
408
scot mcknight
409
The scholar or pastor who does not read German will not be privy to
the treasures of German scholarship, which in this authors estimation,
often provides, if not the best commentary, at least one or two of the
best. When Dibeliuss 1964 edition appeared, so also did the (routinely
updated) commentary of the Roman Catholic scholar Franz Mussner
surely one of the finest commentaries ever written on James, not the least
because it necessarily undertakes interaction with the Lutheran tradition
that struggled so mightily with how this books theology challenges that
original reaction of Martin Luther.9 So Mussner opens with this: Fr Jak
ist wahre Frmmigkeit ein Christentum der Tat (For James true piety
is a Christianity of deed). In contrast to some scholars who favor either
a form-critical speculation about supposed early Christian issues or a
mirror-reading approach, Mussner thinks there is no polemic against the
Jerusalem cultus in pure and undefiled because the context of Jas 1:27 is
the alltgliche Umsetzung des Wortes in die Tat (the daily realization of
the Word in the deed). Furthermore, Mussners fine-tooth comb reading
of Jas 1:27s focus is the antithesis of the wordiness of 1:26. Thus, Mussner
confirms Dibeliuss essential approach: this is about a Torah-free Christianity. James, thus, offers here an Old Testament rooted set of exhortations
that deal with the moral life, particularly care for the distressed (he sees
widows and orphans as types and not simply a specific set of two) and
distance from the world. The exhortations emerge from the besten Traditionen des Judentums (the best traditions of Judaism) and the spirit of
the Sermon on the Mount.
Following the exceptional studies of Mussner and Dibelius, it was in
the 1970s when James commentaries were given a notable boost from
years of less than serious interest on the part of English-writing scholarly
works. Dibelius and Mussner were more or less it, until the quiet but
continual publication of more on James. I begin with perhaps the least
known, that of James Adamson.10 His commentarys focus on the exposition of the message of James makes it perhaps more fit for the section
below on ecclesial commentaries. The oddity of the commentary is its
mixture of solid historical information, some Greek exegesis, theological
9F. Mussner, Der Jakobusbrief (HTKNT XIII/1; 5th ed.; Freiburg: Herder, 1987), 4247,
11014. I have chosen to translate Christentum with Christianity instead of Christendom, since I am unpersuaded that the German implicates the Christendom of modern
scholarship.
10J. B. Adamson, The Epistle of James (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976). In some
ways, his later work rectified the commentary: J. B. Adamson, James: The Man and His
Message (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989).
410
scot mcknight
411
text in its diverse historical contexts and he plays this game wellso well
that finding the historical insights for the text requires wading through
innumerable intra-textual references.
Building on the finest commentaries and a wide-ranging use of both
the ancient evidence and scholarship, in 1988 Ralph Martin,13 in the
Word Biblical Commentary series, laid on the table a fresh detailed commentary that remains one of the finest commentaries to date on James.
The Word commentaries are meant to be academic, detailed, and interactive with scholarship, and Martin is a master of nuance. For instance,
in Martin finds a particular, refined sense: the use of the
tongue when it utters merely formal religious platitudes that have no
substance evidenced by practical deeds (p. 52). This nuance is at odds
with many who think the bridling of the tongue has to do with violence
and anger at least as much, if not more, than the lack of practical deeds
for the one making confessions. Martin, of course, is banking on Jas 2:15,
18. He sides with Mussner that pure and undefiled are moral and not
cultic. A development in both New Testament scholarship, and in James
studies as well, was the intensified interest in all things eschatological,
but not understood in the sense of Christian theology. Instead, the focus
has been to probe what early Jewish and non-Jewish Christians believed
and how much of their emerging eschatology was shaped by imminency,
a focus that owes its origins in the nineteenth-century German scholarship of Johannes Weiss and Albert Schweitzer. The Greek term () of
James 1:27, where it seems to suggest common and ordinary distress, has
been given a work over in James scholarship, and Martin represents the
trend: it may anticipate the eschatological woes preceding the endtime
(p. 53).
When it comes to New Testament scholars, one of the bright lights is
surely Luke Timothy Johnson, so James scholars were more than pleased
to receive a new contribution to the Anchor Bible series by Johnson.14
I have to admit that this commentary at times reads as if he opened up
the classical dictionary of Greek by Liddell and Scott and sorted out the
13R. P. Martin, James (WBC 48; Waco, TX: Word, 1988), 5155. The Word Biblical Commentary has a final section that focuses on explaining the texts significance, and Martins
approach is not the more common approach of simply summarizing what one has already
said. Instead, Martin here explores what the term religion might meanand pushes
against the Barthian diatribe against the term. Then he creatively explores four features of
the body in James: tongue, ears, eyes, and the helping hand.
14L. T. Johnson, The Letter of James: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 37A; New York: Doubleday, 1995), 21014.
412
scot mcknight
413
17W. Popkes, Der Brief des Jakobus (THKNT 14; Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt,
2001), 14651. See also his earlier W. Popkes, Adressaten, Situation und Form des Jakobusbriefes (SBS 125/126; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1986). I am skipping comments on
Hubert Frankemlles two-volume commentary: Der Brief des Jakobus (Gtersloh / Wrzburg: Gtersloher Verlag / Echter, 1994), a supposedly brief commentary that transcended
the limits of the typical commentary in the series, no doubt in part because it explores the
tradition-critical themes of scholarship at length.
18As I write this, Dale Allison is finishing the ICC commentary on James, and I suspect
it will be indeed the most complete and detailed critical study ever on James. He will do
for us on James what he (and W. D. Davies) did on Matthew.
19P. J. Hartin, James (SP 14; Collegeville, MN.: Liturgical, 2003), 10810; cf. P. J. Hartin,
James and the Q Sayings of Jesus (JSNTSup 47; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), P. J. Hartin, A
Spirituality of Perfection: Faith in Action in the Letter of James (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical,
1999).
414
scot mcknight
415
416
scot mcknight
As such they often use exacting scholarship and exegesis in helping the
preacher expound the text. One such commentary, sometimes neglected,
is that of the Methodist C. L. Mitton, a former editor of Expository Times.
He overtly observes for his readers that his commentary is aimed at helping Christians see the value of the letter for the Christian life and to show
how the letter fits into New Testament theology.22 Thus, he observes, 1:27
moves from James having rebuked one grave fault to two positive qualities which should mark the life of a truly religious man. Like Dibelius,
Mitton saw the word pure to be pointing at love of God and love of
neighbor, and he is not alone in pointing to the use of the term Father
for God to be a distinctive (though not uniquely so) feature of Jesus and
the Christian understanding of God. His concern is to show that care for
orphans and widows, or those who suffer distress, is part of the Christian
calling.
It has been said that commentaries today are gobbled up more by evangelical scholars and pastors than among any other branch of the Christian
world, in part because the expository sermon is highly valued, and this
sola scriptura tradition, while it has always favored those most committed to Scripture as the source for preaching, has led to a number of fine
evangelical commentaries on James. One of the notable ones of the last
century was the slender but packed volume of the former University of
London professor R. V. G. Tasker,23 an early contribution to the Tyndale
Commentary series, a pocket-size set of commentaries eminently useful
to university study groups as well as to pastors preparing sermons. Echoing Ropess well-known comment cited above, Tasker also argues that the
ritual element of the faith is to be tied to the compassionate. As a schoolboy who had recently lost his father, Tasker heard a sermon on James 1:27
and from that date he was captured by the letter and the need for Christians to care for the fatherless. Tasker sought to get beyond the theological
debates about Paul and James and the Reformation to show, as was the
concern of Mitton, how significant the letter was for the Christian life. In
particular, Tasker believed the letter was valuable for the second stage in
the pilgrims progress, the stage concerned with becoming holy.
That evangelical tradition was sustained when Douglas Moo replaced
Taskers volume, but Moos replacement volume was then updated when
22C. L. Mitton, The Epistle of James (NCB; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1966), 7, 7779.
23R. V. G. Tasker, The General Epistle of James: An Introduction and Commentary (TNTC
16; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957), 9, 11, 5455.
417
he wrote yet another exposition of James for the Pillar series.24 Moos second volume successfully expounds the Letter of James through the category of spiritual wholeness, his translation of the Greek term teleioi.
His is a solid exposition, rooted in careful attention to the Greek syntax,
to theological concerns as well as to scholarly debates. But mostly Moo
provides for preachers and serious Bible readers a clear exposition of
what he thinks the text says in its world. Instead of quoting Ropes (or
Tasker), Moo takes us back to Calvins original comment that James is not
defining religion. Notice the shift from historical description to personal
inclusion: One test of pure religion, therefore, is the degree to which we
extend aid to the helpless in our worldwhether they be widows and
orphans, immigrants trying to adjust to a new life, impoverished thirdworld dwellers, the handicapped, or the homeless. Moos exegesis is not
without its own theological approach, and in this he joins the Reformations emphasis on grace and regeneration as the center from which all
obedience emerges: Christians who have ended that estrangement [from
the creator] by accepting the reconciling work of God in Christ must constantly work to distance themselves from the way of life that surrounds
us on every side.
With a broader lens and more in touch with the Greco-Roman tradition and one of the few commentaries sensitive to gender issues, but
still directly focused on how the text of James can flourish in the pulpit
and personal settings, David Nystroms commentary on James is perhaps the most complete commentary today available for the expositor
of Scripture.25 Nystrom observes what many observe, namely that care
for the marginalized has a deep scriptural resonance, but Nystroms In
short, we are to be like God is both stunning and insightful for both
personal and pastoral concerns. Nystrom belongs to a series of commentaries noted for moving from the text to the modern world, and so he
explores, more than any other modern commentary series, how to bridge
the contexts (to echo words used often in hermeneutics) in order to sort
out how to apply the text to modern life before God. His wide-ranging
exploration provides an exceptional example of how to do such things.
Similar to Nystrom in drawing with a wider net than many, William F.
Brosends commentary on James is pastorally sensitive and at the same
24D. J. Moo, The Letter of James: An Introduction and Commentary (TNTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985); D. J. Moo, The Letter of James (PNTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
2000), 97.
25D. P. Nystrom, James (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997), 97.
418
scot mcknight
26W. F. Brosend, James and Jude (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004),
5255.
27D. M. Doriani, James (Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian & Reformed, 2007), 5859.
28C. L. Blomberg and M. J. Kamell, James (ZECNT 16; Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
2008).
419
29E. Tamez, The Scandalous Message of James: Faith Without Works Is Dead (New York:
Crossroad, 2002).
Commentaries on Revelation
Lois K. Fuller Dow
1.History of Writing Revelation Commentaries
Christianity inherited a belief in the end of the age from first-century Judaism, a belief that was confirmed by sayings of Jesus (e.g., Matt 24, 25) and
the understandings of the New Testament writers that the last days had
come (e.g., Acts 2:1617; 1 Cor 10:11; 2 Tim 3:1; Heb 1:2). As Weinrich comments, It is not surprising, therefore, that the Revelation of John...was
from a very early time one of the most systematically read and used books
of the New Testament.1
The book of Revelation has many characteristics of the apocalyptic
genre. Bernard McGinn points out that apocalyptic is an attempt to understand the meaning of history and especially of the present moment,2 and
as such, must be related to the contemporary situation again and again.
McGinn lists three great shifts of circumstances that affected apocalyptic
ideas in the first fifteen centuries of Christianity. They were the conversion of the Roman Empire, the rise of Islam, and the exaltation of the
papacy.3 The last, of course, largely contributed to the Reformation. These
shifts are reflected in commentaries written on the book of Revelation.4
The earliest references we have to Revelation in Christian writing are
not commentaries per se, but interpretations of certain parts of it in the
writings of the Church Fathers. Justin Martyr (ca. 100165),5 Irenaeus
1William C. Weinrich, Introduction to the Revelation of John, in Revelation (ed. William C. Weinrich; Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament 12; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2005), xviixxxi (xvii). For a good technical history of the
interpretation of Revelation, see Gerhard Maier, Die Johannesoffenbarung und die Kirche
(WUNT 25; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1981).
2Bernard McGinn, Visions of the End: Apocalyptic Traditions in the Middle Ages (New
York: Columbia University Press, 1971), 2932.
3Ibid., 33, 41.
4As John M. Court, Myth and History in the Book of Revelation (Atlanta: John Knox
Press, 1979), 1, notes, Some methods of interpretation [of Revelation]...have moved in
and out of fashion in a way that is not unrelated to the history and internal politics of the
Christian Church.
5Justin Martyr, Dial. 8081.
422
(ca. 130200),6 Tertullian (ca. 160225),7 Hippolytus (ca. 170230),8 Lactantius (ca. 240320),9 Methodius of Olympus (d. 311),10 and Commodianus
(third to fifth century?),11 among others, penned opinions on the book or
its contents. All appear to have been chiliasts, i.e. they believed in a future
literal one thousand year reign of Christ on the earth after his return. This
was part of an understanding of Revelation that saw Babylon as imperial
Rome12 and expected Jesus to return soon, destroy the power of Rome,
and set up his capital at Jerusalem where the saints would reign with him
over a peaceful and prosperous earth for one thousand years. After this
would come the general resurrection, the last judgment and the eternal
state.
Victorinus of Pettau (d. 303/304) is the first writer from whom we
have a full commentary on the book of Revelation.13 He is the only preConstantine writer whose commentary on the book has survived.14 He too
was a chiliast, but he believed that events in Revelation are typological.
Things that happened in the Old Testament would happen again in his
time, and again in the future, and finally at the end of the age.15 He is the
first we know of to use the Nero redivivus legend to say that Nero was a
manifestation of the antichrist.16
6Irenaeus, Haer. 45.
7Tertullian, Marc. 3:24.
8Hippolytus, On the Apocalypse, now lost, is mentioned by Jerome, Vir. ill. 61. Fragments of the commentary have been preserved in commentaries of the seventh, twelfth,
and thirteenth centuries. Hippolytus also wrote other works featuring eschatology, including On the Antichrist and On the Resurrection.
9Lactantius, Inst. 7:1526.
10Jerome, Vir. ill. 83, says one of Methodiuss works was On the Resurrection.
11Commodianus, Instructiones, 42, 44, 45.
12E.g., Hippolytus, Antichr. 36 cf. 32.
13Victorinuss commentary is available in English in the Ante-Nicene Fathers series,
vol. 7.
14We have some notes by Origen (d. 253) on Revelation, but not a full commentary.
Origen apparently intended to write a Revelation commentary (Comm. Matt. 49) but probably never did. Jerome says Victorinus imitated Origen and paraphrased him (Weinrich,
Introduction, xxi). For details of publications of Origens notes, see Francis X. Gumerlock,
Ancient Commentaries on the Book of Revelation: A Bibliographical Guide, (a paper
presented at the Southeastern Regional meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society,
March 2003), p. 7. Online http://www.tren.com, and Weinrich, Introduction, xxi. Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 4:26.2) says that Melito of Sardis (d. 180) wrote a Revelation commentary,
but nothing of it survives.
15Victorinuss view is described in C. Rowland, The Book of Revelation, in New Interpreters Bible (Nashville: Abingdon, 1998), 12:533; and Charles Kannengiesser, Handbook of
Patristic Exegesis: The Bible in Ancient Christianity (2 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 2004), 1:36970.
Court, Myth and History, 6, argues that Irenaeus was the real originator of this recapitulation theory.
16Weinrich, Introduction, xxii.
commentaries on revelation
423
424
commentaries on revelation
425
2122, includes in his list the earliest Georgian commentary on Revelation (Euthymus the
Athonite, tenth century) and earliest Syriac (unknown author, ninth to tenth century) as
well as a Nestorian commentary that was probably first written in Greek, then translated
into Latin, thence to Arabic, thence to Syriac. He indicates that at least one early Coptic
commentary, and many in Latin and Arabic, exist today in manuscript collections but have
not been read or analyzed (ibid. 23).
31Wainwright, Mysterious Apocalypse, 41, 43.
32Beckwith, Apocalypse, 329, quotes Bousset approvingly in a similar opinion.
33Ibid., 327; see also R. H. Charles, Studies in the Apocalypse (Edinburgh: T & T Clark,
1913), 1415, 2526. This is probably too simple an explanation of a long process, but was
likely a contributing factor.
34The following account of Joachims work is taken from McGinn, Visions, 12630, and
excerpts from Joachims writings in the same book, 13041. Marjorie Reeves, The Development of Apocalyptic Thought: Medieval Attitudes, in The Apocalypse in English Renaissance Thought and Literature: Patterns, Antecedents and Repercussions (ed. C. A. Patrides
and Joseph Wittreich; Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1984), 5152, states that
Joachim, like many of his contemporaries, expected two antichrists, one secular and one
ecclesial. Swete, Apocalypse, ccxii, says that for Joachim Babylon is Rome, no longer pagan
but worldly and vice-ridden nevertheless, and of Joachims personal loyalty to the Roman
Church there can be no doubt. Rome here appears to mean the political city, not the
Catholic Church.
35Joachim of Fiore, Expositio in Apocalypsim (Exposition of the Apocalypse), Liber concordiae novi ac veteris Testamenti (Book of the Concord of the New and Old Testaments)
and Liber Psalterii decem chordarum (Book of the Ten-stringed Psaltry).
426
seventh head) who would be Antichrist and join forces with the Muslims.
After his destruction, there would be a period of peace, the Jews would be
converted and millennium-type conditions prevail. Satan would be bound
until his release, and a final Antichrist manifestation would persecute the
church before the end of the world.
Joachims views caused much interest. The Dominicans and especially
the Franciscans, which were founded soon after his death, believed they
were the two orders he had predicted. After the Fourth Lateran Council
in 1215 condemned Joachims views on the Trinity, a number of new writings appeared, purportedly written by Joachim, identifying the Emperor
Frederick II as the Antichrist, predicting the arrival of the third age in
1260 and condemning the Roman Church as siding with evil. Peter Olivi
(124898) wrote a Revelation commentary identifying the Church with
the whore Babylon.36 Beguins, Waldensians, Hus, Wycliffe, and other dissidents thought likewise. Beckwith says, With the followers of Joachim
and with all who set themselves against the corruption of the Church and
the hierarchy it became an axiom that the Pope was the Beast, the Antichrist, and that papal Rome, or the Roman Church, was the woman sitting
on the scarlet-coloured beast.37 Luther, Calvin, and the other reformers
continued this identification.38 Luther espoused an interpretation of Revelation that saw all church history down to his own day depicted in the
book. This affected a number of Lutheran commentators, some of whom
even identified Luther as the angel with the eternal gospel in Rev 14:6.39
The view that Babylon is the Roman Catholic Church was first popularized in English by the commentary of John Bale, published 154160.
commentaries on revelation
427
In Bale, Augustines doctrine of the two cities became the doctrine of two
churches (false and true).40 This became the standard interpretation in
English Protestantism. Anglicans used it to justify their break with Rome41
and separatists their exit from the Anglican Church. Many Protestant
commentators up into the 1800s continued to make this identification.42
J. N. Darby, the father of the dispensational interpretation, believed that
Babylon as whore is the Roman or Papal system.43 Some popular interpreters today still say that the Roman Catholic Church is identical with or
at least closely linked to Babylon in the book of Revelation.44
As the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries progressed, there were a
number of tensions in this interpretation of Revelation. Treating it as a
book predicting the history of the church had been fruitful for reform
movements both inside and outside the Catholic Church. But it was difficult to make all Revelations details fit the history of Europe and the
church up to the Reformation. As Michael Murrin, commenting on the
labors of two seventeenth-century exegetes, says, The seeming evident
equation of the Whore and Beast with Papal Rome made it difficult to
understand the rest.45
The second problem was continuing disappointment of millennial
expectations. If the millennium was already over, as Luther thought, where
was the New Jerusalem?46 If the millennium was imminent, people had
40Paul Christianson, Reformers and Babylon (Toronto: University of Toronto Press,
1978), 15.
41Ibid., 13.
42E.g., John Cumming, Apocalyptic Sketches or Lectures on the Book of Revelation (London: Arthur Hall, Virtue, 1853), who sees Babylon as established state churches, especially
the Roman Catholic Church, and T. W. Christie, The Book of Revelation (London: Simpkin,
Marshall, 1892), to whom Babylon is the Roman Catholic Church.
43J. N. Darby, Synopsis of the Books of the Bible. V. ColossiansThe Revelation (new ed.
rev.; London: Morrish, n.d.), 549. Darby probably started writing his notes on Revelation
in the 1840s.
44E.g., Paul B. Smith, The Revelation: The Story of the Antichrists War against the People
of God (Burlington: Welch, 1986) 184, speculates that the Roman Catholic Church may be
the Babylon that some people need to leave, though he sees it as wider than that. Robert
E. D. Clark, Tomorrows World: A Scientist Looks at the Book of Revelation (Croydon, UK:
Victoria Institute, 1989), 23238, sees Babylon as corrupt religion of which the present
day manifestation is the Roman Catholic Church. These are popular rather than scholarly
treatments.
45Michael Murrin, Revelation and Two Seventeenth Century Commentators, in The
Apocalypse in English Renaissance Thought and Literature: Patterns, Antecedents and Repercussions (ed. C. A. Patrides and J. Wittreich; Manchester: Manchester University Press,
1984), 129.
46Wainwright, Mysterious Apocalypse, 13, says, many early Protestants...argued that
the millennium ended at a time of papal corruption and the rise of the Turks.
428
been hailing its advent for years in reforms that turned out to be illusory.47
The pope, the supposed Antichrist, showed no signs of being overthrown.
The third problem, felt most acutely by the Catholics, was the indignity of
having the pope called the Antichrist.48 The fourth factor was the ascendancy of enlightenment ideas, with scientific research of ancient texts creating an interest in taking a new approach to the study of the Bible. This
new method, combined with the pressures toward change, contributed to
the rise of the historical-critical method of interpreting Revelation.
The historical-critical method looks for the meaning of an ancient text
in the context of its original composition.49 The Catholic scholar John
Hentennuis (1547) was the pioneer of this method for the book of Revelation, and Luis de Alcasar (15541613) developed it more fully. Alcasar saw
in Revelation 411 Jewish persecution of Christians followed by the overthrow of Jerusalem, and in Revelation 1219 the start of the church, fall of
paganism, and conversion of the Roman Empire.50
Another sixteenth-century Catholic solution to the problem was to
interpret almost all of Revelation as referring to the future. This approach
was adopted by Francisco Ribera (153791). He said that the first five seals
happened up to the time of Trajan, but everything else in Revelation is
reserved for the last days. He predicted a future Roman secular power to
be the Beast.51 Ribera and the Jesuit scholars who followed him saw themselves as returning to the interpretation of the early fathers.52
The historical-critical method was soon adopted by some Protestant
interpreters as well. The Dutchman Hugo Grotius (15831645) was followed by the Englishman Henry Hammond (160560), each of whom
wrote biblical annotations that paid attention to matters of textual criticism and New Testament background.53 They agreed that Revelation was
47Not only that, Charles, Studies, 3031, notes that both the Augsburg and Helvetic Confessions called chiliasm a heresy, which meant that Lutheran and Reformed scholars were
forbidden to take this view if they wished to stay in communion with their churches.
48Charles, Studies, 33, and Court, Myth and History, 9, note that the Jesuits were the
ones to take up this challenge on behalf of the Roman church.
49Charles, Studies, 56, explains, in seeking to interpret the Apocalypse we are seeking
to discover what the Apocalypse meant to its writer and its earliest readers, who were in
touch with him.
50Wainwright, Mysterious Apocalypse, 63; Court, Myth and History, 1112.
51Wainwright, Mysterious Apocalypse, 6162.
52Beckwith, Apocalypse, 33132; Swete, Apocalypse, ccxiiiccxiv. This is how Charles,
Studies, 34, also sees them.
53Grotius, Annotations in Vetus et Novum Testamentum (1642); Hammond, A Paraphrase and Annotations upon all the Books of the New Testament (1653). See discussion in
commentaries on revelation
429
primarily about events surrounding the early church. Grotius was the first
Protestant writer to deny that the pope figured among Revelations evil
characters.54
With the invention of printing, Revelation commentaries multiplied
exponentially. Swete listed 73 he thought were important that appeared
between 1500 and 1908, including those mentioned above and others
by such notables as Erasmus, J. Foxe, Isaac Newton, J. A. Bengel, Henry
Alford, Theodore Zahn, and F. J. A. Hort, and one by R. H. Charles soon
expected (the ICC volume).55
A number of interpreters worked with the historical interpretation, trying to fit world events from the time of John to their own day into the
visions of Revelation (e.g., Mede, Newton, Whiston, Vitringa, Bengel).56
But as new and momentous events (such as the French revolution) continued to unfold in history, their systems had to be continually revised.57
This led others to look more to either a futurist or preterist (i.e., primarily first-century reference) interpretation,58 and others to view Revelation
as an apocalypse of only antiquarian interest.59 By the beginning of the
twentieth century, Swete proclaimed his interest in an interpretation that
recognized first-century apocalyptic conventions and the first-century historical setting but also expected the book to contain illustrations of things
that happen throughout history and to be a prophecy of future events
John William Packer, The Transformation of Anglicanism 16431660 with special Reference to
Henry Hammond (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1969), 8889.
54Charles, Studies, 4042; Beckwith, Apocalypse, 333.
55D. A. Carson, New Testament Commentary Survey (6th ed.; Grand Rapids: Baker,
2007), 145, notes the Puritans...produced far more commentaries on Revelation than on
any other book, most of them eminently forgettable and mercifully forgotten.
56Bengels work was translated into English at the request of John Wesley, giving this
type of view ascendancy on a popular level in Britain at the time (Charles, Studies, 43).
57Grant R. Osborne, Revelation (BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002), 19, notes that few
scholars (perhaps as opposed to popular interpreters) today use an approach that finds
world or historical events in Revelation because of its identification only with Western
church history, the inherent speculation involved in the parallels with world history,
the fact that it must be reworked with each new period in world history, [and] the total
absence of any relevance for John or his original readers. See also G. K. Beale, The Book of
Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 46.
58Charles, Studies, 45, names a number of commentators from 17321840 who kept the
contents of Revelation so entirely in the past as to see the prophecies as entirely about the
destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Others applied them to both the overthrow of Judaism
and of the Roman Empire (ibid. 46).
59Swete, Apocalypse, ccxivccxv.
430
60Ibid., ccxviccxix
61Osborne, Revelation, 21, lists Morris, Johnson, Giesen, Mounce, and Beale, along with
himself, as adopting this solution, although Osborne sees more prophecy of future events
than some of these do. See Beale, Revelation, 4849, who says his commentary is most like
those of Caird, Johnson, Sweet, Hendriksen, and Wilcox.
62Academically oriented commentaries aimed at exegetes such as scholars, students,
and well-educated preachers are usually longer, with extensive bibliographies, interact
with the Greek text, and have substantial introduction followed by verse-by-verse exposition of the text. More popular commentaries are usually briefer and give section-bysection exposition and less interaction with the literature and the Greek. The focus of this
essay is on scholarly commentaries.
63Swete, Apocalypse, x.
64For example, the NIGTC has: The supreme aim of this series is to serve those who are
engaged in the ministry of the Word of God (I. Howard Marshall and Donald A. Hagner,
Foreword in Beale, Revelation, xviixviii [xviii]); BECNT: a major purpose is to address the
needs of pastors and others involved in the preaching and exposition of the Scriptures as
the uniquely inspired Word of God (Moiss Silva, Series Preface in Osborne, Revelation,
ixx [ix]); Word Biblical Commentary, useful to the fledgling student, the working minister, and colleagues in the guild of professional scholars and teachers (David Hubbard
et al., Editorial Preface in Aune, Revelation 15, x).
65Some commentaries have Application in the title of the commentary or series, such
as the NIV Application Commentary (Keener on Revelation). Osbornes Revelation commentary has at the end of each section a Summary and Contextualization that includes
application, and John R. Yeatts, Revelation (Believers Church Bible Commentary; Scottdale:
Herald, 2003), focuses on themes of martyrdom, suffering, service, hope, triumph in Christ,
and the churchs witness.
commentaries on revelation
431
means giving attention to the first-century historical, literary, and linguistic background, and expecting the meaning to be found in the intention
of the author and the likely understandings of the first readers.66 As Caird
puts it, The purpose of this commentary is to carry the reader back to the
end of the first century A.D. to hear what the Spirit was then saying to the
churches, so that, returning to the present, he may be the better able to
hear what the Spirit is saying to the churches of our own day.67
Some resistance to the historical-critical method for understanding
Revelation has always existed. Some commentators, fearing that too much
attention to the historical background produces commentaries that give
little spiritual nurture to the church, have written commentaries that go
more directly to theology and application. For example, the Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible has this aim, and its Revelation volume
by Joseph Mangina addresses issues of ecclesiology and geo-politics arising
from the text.68 Other commentators find the historical-critical approach
too dry for the evocative artistic effects in Revelation. A recent example
is James Resseguies narrative commentary, which aims to help the reader
experience Revelation as a work of art and to feel the triumph of God by
watching the drama of the story.69
When commentators write for the church, there is often the assumption that the book of Revelation, as part of the churchs canon, is authoritative Scripture. Swete made it one of his principles of interpretation that
the author of Revelation was an inspired prophet like the Old Testament
prophets.70 Commentators who see the same divine mind inspiring all
the canonical writings tend to look for theological links and consistency
between Revelation and other parts of the canon. This puts some boundaries on what could be considered valid interpretations. For example,
66Many commentaries and introductions still start by outlining the four major interpretive approaches: church-historical, preterist, futurist, and idealist. See, for example, the
discussion in Wainwright, Mysterious Apocalypse, 14; Osborne, Revelation, 1822; Beale,
Revelation, 4449, and so on.
67G. B. Caird, The Revelation of St. John the Divine (Harpers New Testament Commentaries; New York: Harper & Row, 1966), v.
68See longer description below.
69See longer description below.
70Swete, Apocalypse, ccxvi. Swete says that his work maintains, against the majority of
recent continental scholars, the essential unity of the book and its prophetic inspiration
(p. ccxviii). He maintains that Old Testament prophesy does not predict persons and actions
in the remote future, give visions in chronological order, or accurately depict the length of
time before fulfillment, but rather reveals the secrets of Gods general purpose...greater
forces which are at work in human life...issues towards which history tends.
432
commentaries on revelation
433
vindicating postscript to what was accomplished at the cross, namely its spiritual destruction, the last judgment, and the descent of the New Jerusalem.
76For example, Alan J. P. Garrow, Revelation (London: Routledge, 1997).
77D. A. Carson, New Testament Commentary Survey (3d ed.; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1986),
7579.
78Carson, Commentary Survey (1986), 76. He was referring to Caird, Revelation;
G. R. Beasley-Murray, The Book of Revelation (NBC; rev. ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970);
Leon Morris, The Revelation of St. John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969); George Eldon
Ladd, A Commentary on the Revelation of John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972); Robert H.
Mounce, The Book of Revelation (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977); J. P. M. Sweet,
Revelation (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1979); Swete, Apocalypse; William Barclay,
The Revelation of John (2 vols.; Daily Study Bible; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1959); James
Moffatt, The Revelation of St. John the Divine, in The Expositors Greek Testament (ed.
W. R. Nicoll; London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1910), 5:297494; Alan F. Johnson, Revelation,
in Expositors Bible Commentary (ed. Frank E. Gabaelein; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981),
12:397603; Paul Minear, I Saw a New Earth: An Introduction to the Visions of the Apocalypse (Washington: Corpus, 1968); Michael Wilcock, I Saw Heaven Opened: The Message of
Revelation (London: Inter-Varsity Press, 1975); R. H. Charles, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Revelation to St. John (2 vols.; ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1920).
79Carson, Commentary Survey (1986), 78, comments, There are scores of slim or popular expositions, some of them reliable but too thin to be useful to the preacher, many
of them fanciful. Carsons book is aimed at advising theological students and ministers
on the best commentaries to buy and use (ibid. 7). Other notable evaluations of Revelation commentaries include A. Feuillet, LApocalypse: tat de la question (Paris: Descle de
Brouwer, 1963); Apocalypse (trans. Thomas E. Crane; Staten Island, NY: Alba House, 1964)
434
Much has been written on Revelation since 1986. In the sixth edition
(2007) of his commentary survey, Carson says, Of the writing of books
on Revelation there is no end: most generations produce far too many.80
In the 2007 edition, he discusses 69 works, most of them commentaries.
He is still recommending those he liked in 1986, including revisions of
Mounce (1997), Caird (1993), and Morris (1987) but adds Witherington and
Keener.81 For those with more scholarly training, he recommends Beale
and Aunes works for background depth, though he thinks Aunes source
theory (see below) improbable, and Beales exposition of Johns intentions better.82 He also recommends Smalley as competent, and Osborne
for laying out what the options are of various interpretations.83
John Glynns commentary survey (2007)84 prefers Beale, Osborne, and
Mounce in the line of technical commentaries and also recommends
Smalley, Keener, and A. Johnson, and for laypeople, D. Johnson. Glynns
work is aimed at pastors so he recommends most highly works of use to
the preacher. He categorizes many commentaries by their eschatological
stance, labeling Aune, Beale, Boxall, D. Johnson, Kistemaker, and Morris
as amillennial, Mounce as posttribulational, Walvoord and Thomas as dispensational, and Beasley-Murray, Keener, A. Johnson, Ladd, and Wilcock
as premillennial.
I recently compiled a list of Revelation commentaries published in English from 1986 to 2010 (the past 25 years),85 and came up with a (certainly
incomplete) list of over eighty books. More are being written in other
(a survey of mainly French and German works from 1920 to 1963), and E. Lohmeyer, Die
Offenbarung des Johannes 19201934, ThR 6 (1934): 269314; 7 (1935): 262.
80Carson, Commentary Survey (2007), 145.
81Ibid. Carson is referring to Ben Witherington III, Revelation (NCBC; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003). See below for more on Keener.
82In the 2007 edition (pp. 14551), Carson also favorably discusses Richard Bauckham,
The Climax of Prophecy: Studies in the Book of Revelation (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1993);
idem, The Theology of the Book of Revelation (New Testament Theology; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993); L. Thompson, Revelation (Abingdon New Testament Commentaries; Nashville: Abingdon, 1988); J. R. Michaels, Revelation (IVPNTC; Downers Grove,
IL: InterVarsity, 1997); R. L. Thomas, Revelation 17: An Exegetical Commentary; Revelation
822: An Exegetical Commentary (Chicago: Moody, 1992, 1995); Simon J. Kistemaker, Revelation (New Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001); and D. Johnson, Triumph
of the Lamb: A Commentary on Revelation (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2001).
83Carson, Commentary Survey (2007), 146.
84John Glynn, Commentary and Reference Survey: A Comprehensive Guide to Biblical
and Theological Resources (10th ed.; Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2007). The section on Revelation
commentaries is on pp. 197201.
85To make the list I consulted bibliographies in recent commentaries and Amazon
listings.
commentaries on revelation
435
languages, mainly German and French. An essay like this cannot review
them all. But there are a number of things to consider in any Revelation
commentary. These would include (1) commentary size: How long and
detailed a treatment is given? (2) Its evaluation of Revelations genre: Part
of what goes into deciding how the events in the books visions relate to
history is a commentators view of the books genre. Proposed genres have
included prophecy and apocalyptic, or prophetic-apocalyptic, with an
epistolary frame,86 as well as drama, though some have suggested astrological analysis. (3) The date of Revelations composition: For most interpreters who see Revelation as referring largely to events and persons in
the historical context of its writing, the date of composition is important.
(4) How to interpret the symbolism: What guides interpretation of the
many visionary images in Revelation?87 (5) Revelations outline: There is
no clear consensus on how Revelation should be outlined. (6) Commentators ideological stance: Does the author see Revelation as normative and
divinely inspired? A positive answer leads to theological discussions and
produces a work that might be considered more useful by the church. Or
does the author take a primarily historical interest in Revelation, doing
a study in the history of religions and ideas? This stance may produce a
work more useful to historians.88 Some writers take a particular viewpoint,
such as evangelical, dispensational, liberation, feminist, post-colonial, narrative-critical, or social science as their most important consideration in
interpreting the book. (7) The commentarys application strategy: How
much application is made to the church and to life today?
86Bauckham begins Climax with an essay entitled Reading the Book of Revelation. He
defends Revelations affinities to all three genres and explains how this affects interpretation. He also argues that the images in Revelation are not timeless symbols, but symbols
that are contextually relevant to the readers in Roman Asia.
87Wainwright, Mysterious Apocalypse, 14, gives a list of symbols that divide commentators, such as the four horsemen, the 144,000, the multitude in heaven, the army of 200
million, the various angels, the two witnesses, the beasts, Babylon, Armageddon, and the
location of the New Jerusalem (and he has not named them all). Two important images
are the Great Tribulation (Rev 7:14) and the Millennium (Rev 20:110). The interpretation
of these has traditionally divided interpreters into pre-, mid- and post-tribulation rapture
and pre-, post- and amillennial camps.
88Of course, good commentaries for the church take historical research into account,
and good historians include a study of the theology reflected in the text. But Court, Myth
and History, 12, cites Ernest Renan, LAntchrist (Paris: Claye, 1871) as an example of a
rationalistic commentator who uses a historical-critical method to exclude from consideration supernatural and prophetic elements.
436
commentaries on revelation
437
438
98Ibid., 6869.
99Ibid., 43335. Beale concludes that the Great Tribulation began with the sufferings
of Jesus and goes on throughout the church age, increasing in intensity at the very end.
100Ibid., 101721. Beale interacts with the views of Walvoord and Buchanan, and concludes that the thousand years is symbolic of the church age.
101Series Introduction in Keener, Revelation, 9.
102Keener, Revelation, 16. Keener notes, Due to space constraints, I had to omit some
of my material and much of my documentation.
103Ibid., 1516.
104Ibid., 21.
commentaries on revelation
439
interpreted in a way that would make sense in the first century.105 Interpreters must then re-contextualize the message for the contemporary
generation.106
To Keener, the prophetic-apocalyptic genre means that the images in
Revelation should be taken as symbolic, not literal, and interpreted by
their previous use in the Old Testament and the surrounding culture, but
adapted for the Christian message. Keener takes the 144,000 as the endtime army of remnant Israel, which turns out to be the same thing as
the countless multitude from all nations who have washed their robes
in the blood of the Lamb.107 The millennium of Revelation 20 is after the
tribulation of this age, an intermediate messianic kingdom between the
two ages.108 But he admits that he may have not fully understood how
the end will be.
Keener defends the view that the book was written around Domitians
time. His applications include global social/political and economic issues,
as well as issues of personal integrity, courage, and faith.
Grant R. Osborne, Revelation (BECNT; Grand Rapids, Baker 2002).
At 889 pages, Osbornes is one of the larger Revelation commentaries.
Although the series aims to provide everything from meat for the scholar
to milk for the interested layperson,109 Osborne reveals one of his interests when he states that he often gives long lists of names of scholars who
take various sides on many of the debated issues in Revelation to guide
students.110
Osborne says that his primary approach is futurist (Revelation predicts
what will happen at the end of the age) with preterist interpretation being
used secondarily (the meaning of the symbols and initial typological fulfillments come from the first century). He says, My study of ancient apocalyptic and of the Book of Revelation has led me to believe that Johns
visions (esp. chs. 422) were primarily intended to describe the events
105Ibid., 2127, takes on those who misinterpret the sensus literalis of the reformers,
and Jehovahs Witnesses and all who try to date the end-time with precision.
106Ibid., 29. Keener states that the modern contexts with which he is familiar are some
parts of North American Evangelicalism, African-American churches, messianic Jewish
circles, and elsewhere and recognizes that this does not cover all that exist. He hopes
that readers will find useful models for drawing analogies between issues the biblical text
addresses and todays issues (p. 40).
107Ibid., 23032.
108Ibid., 46465.
109Silva, Series Preface, ix.
110Osborne, Revelation, xi.
440
that will end world history.111 This is relevant to Johns first readers (and
modern ones) because they are asked to identify with the people at the
end of history and gain perspective for their present suffering.112 Though
Osborne thinks the events described in Revelations visions are symbolic
of real future events (foreshadowed by events taking place in the first
century and successive events right up into our own time), this does not
mean that he believes they can be identified precisely with events taking
place in our world today. He says, It is likely that God has chosen esoteric
symbols from the common store of apocalyptic symbols in the first century in order to turn the reader away from exactly what he is going to do
and toward the theological meaning of how he is going to do it.113
Osborne thinks that the reign of Domitian is the most likely setting for
the writing of Revelation. The crisis for the churches was real because of
the strong social pressure to participate in the imperial cult and other
forms of idolatry, even if there was not much official persecution. He gives
an outline of Revelation, but realizes that it is not definitive. He says, no
single structural scheme for the book will suffice because the sections
relate at more than one level.114 The main theological themes of Revelation are summarized in the commentary introduction: God, Satan, Christ,
cosmic war, theodicy, the perseverance of the saints, and worship. Each
section of commentary ends with a Summary and Contextualization
that shows how the section fits into Revelations overall argument, points
out the theology, and makes applications.
In Revelation 7, Osborne sees the 144,000 as all the persevering saints,
where both the original readers and believers today may find themselves.
The countless multitude is the same group, now seen in heaven.115 The
great tribulation includes all tribulation the church is called upon to go
through, but especially that final war against the saints waged by the
dragon.116 Of the millennium of Revelation 20, Osborne takes a premillennial view (there will be a reign of Christ and his saints on earth after
Christs return but before the final consummation) but he says, I...recognize the viability of the other two [amillennial, postmillennial] positions. The issue will not be solved until the events take place.117 More
111Ibid., 22.
112Ibid.
113Ibid., 16.
114Ibid., 29.
115Ibid., 31516.
116Ibid., 324.
117Ibid., 697.
commentaries on revelation
441
important, that passage functions to highlight that the saints will be vindicated, Satan will be defeated, and the final rebellion of the earth-dwellers
will demonstrate that eternal punishment is necessary and just. The millennium functions as a counter to the Roman imperial doctrine of the
Roman golden age.118
Stephen S. Smalley, The Revelation to John: A Commentary on the Greek Text
of the Apocalypse (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2005).
Smalley (650 pages, 9 of them bibliography) states his contribution
to be his perception of the nature of Johns community, which caused
the publication of the Johannine corpus, beginning with Revelation and
his sensitivity to the literary shape of the Apocalypse, which he views
as a creative and coherent drama.119 He believes the book was written
just before the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, and that it was the first of
Johns writings, coming before the Gospel and Epistles. Johns community
(intended readers) lived in Asia Minor, and included Jewish Christians
tempted to go back to Judaism and deny the divinity of Jesus, Hellenistic Christians tempted to go into a docetic view of Jesus that denied his
humanity, and balanced Christians who saw Jesus as equally divine and
human. Friction was rising between the Judaistic and Hellenistic groups,
and came to a head in the open hostilities evident in the Epistles. The
churches were also struggling with idolatry...social, political, ecclesiastical or economic.120
Smalley attempts a literary and theological as well as critical and historical commentary. Each section includes comments on the theology
and the literary setting. Revelation is a drama about Gods salvation
through his judgment.121 The two acts of the drama are Creation, and
Salvation through Judgment (1:911:19) and Salvation through Judgment, and New Creation (12:122:17).122 These acts are literary creations
(requiring the comments on the Literary Setting). The reality of judgment depicted in the drama is meant to be an encouragement to those
who stay true to God.
Smalley believes it is a mistake to take the symbols of Revelation literally, but it is also wrong to see them as purely spiritual with no earthly or
118Ibid., 698.
119Smalley, Revelation, ix.
120Ibid., 6.
121Ibid.
122Ibid., 11, 2122.
442
physical counterparts. They refer to both present and future realities, yet
none can be identified with only one earthly referent.123 He says, Revelation is a symbolic portrayal of the timeless conflict between the forces
of good and evil, God and Satan. But this involves a final consummation
in judgement and salvation, even if that finality is not depicted in terms
which are precisely chronological.124
Smalley believes that an important part of commenting on Revelation is
finding application and relevance for the church. The book was obviously
meant to be of practical relevance to the first readers, but also addresses
all Gods servants (Rev 1:12). The topics Smalley expounds for relevancy
are: a balanced and high Christology as an antidote to idolatrous tendencies; eschatological realities in the present as a call to obedience in the
realms of church, society, nation, and globe; the corporate nature of the
church as a call to church unity and ecumenicism; the value of creation
as a call to enjoy and care for it; a theology of power as encouragement
to the oppressed and a call to use power with justice and love; and the
hope of resurrection as encouragement to persevere, giving hope for the
human race as a whole.125
In Revelation 7, both the 144,000 and the countless multitude represent
the entire church, as seen from earth and heaven.126 The great tribulation is both the ongoing trials of believers in this world, and their culmination in great tribulation at the end of the age.127 In Revelation 20, the
millennium is a symbol for the timeless reign of God in Christ, in heaven
and on earth.128
Joseph L. Mangina, Revelation (Brazos Theological Commentary on the
Bible; Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2009).
The introduction to the BTC series says, what makes modern study
of the Bible modern is the consensus that classical Christian doctrine
distorts interpretative understanding.129 The series editor turns away
from this consensus, claiming, This series of biblical commentaries was
born out of the conviction that dogma clarifies rather than obscures....
[It] advances upon the assumption that the Nicene tradition, in all its
123Ibid., 1415.
124Ibid., 16.
125Ibid., 1619.
126Ibid., 18488.
127Ibid., 196.
128Ibid., 504.
129R. R. Reno, Series Preface, in Mangina, Revelation, 10.
commentaries on revelation
443
diversity and controversy, provides the proper basis of the interpretation of the Bible as Christian Scripture.130 As a result, the editors chose
theologians rather than conventional biblical scholars as authors of the
series volumes.
Manginas commentary is a slim 271 pages, and his bibliography contains only 13 items. He says in his introduction: In my own reading I try
to take seriously the idea that the Apocalypse is actually about the God of
the gospel, the God who is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and
that just so it seeks to transform our lives in unpredictable and uncomfortable ways.131 The commentary, like the book of Revelation, should be
read in sequence since Revelation is a remarkable organic unity, and how
we respond to images in the later portions may well depend on the way
in which earlier episodes have affected us.132 He says, As a theologian,
the particular lens I bring to reading Revelation is the desire to clarify
what the Christian community confesses concerning God and to uncover
the practical implications involved in living the Christian lifein short,
doctrine and ethics.133 Solving the puzzles of the referents of the various
images is not very important compared to recognizing the Apocalypse as
a witness to Gods action on behalf of his world, as the revelation of Jesus
Christ, and as an instrument of the Holy Spirit in opening our minds and
hearts to the things that God has done and is doing in our midst.134 We
also need to read Revelation as sharing the apostolic tradition of the early
church found in the rest of the New Testament, with hearts prepared to
submit to the authority of Revelations teaching.
Mangina sees a structure of recapitulation in Revelation, but in a spiral
shape, and, following David Barr, proceeding in three stories: John receiving letters on Patmos, the worship of the Lamb in heaven (including the
seals), and the cosmic battle between the Lamb and evil. Mangina likes
this organization because each story has a distinct picture of Jesus Christ.
He is depicted first as prophet, then as priest, and finally as king.135 Mangina adds a fourth story and image: Jesus as bridegroom in the coming of
the New Jerusalem. Mangina makes brief comments about the common
130Ibid., 1112. See a critique of this approach in Mark J. Boda, Theological Commentary: A Review and Reflective Essay, McMaster Journal of Theology and Ministry 11 (2009
2010): 13950.
131Mangina, Revelation, 22.
132Ibid., 22.
133Ibid.
134Ibid., 29, italics original.
135Ibid., 30.
444
views of authorship and date, but concludes, the books concern is not
with the circumstances of its own composition but with the sovereign,
life-giving action of God.136
Manginas treatment of Revelation 7 identifies the tribulation as the
distress of Gods people...their passage from death into life. The 144,000
represent the church on earth sealed by God, and the great multitude is
a picture of members of the church of all ages that have passed through
death and are in heaven. All are martyrs whether by being killed for
their faith or by participating in the martyr death of Jesus Christ. This
leads to exhortation for Christians today to stand in solidarity with those
being martyred in our own time.137 In Revelation 20, Mangina recounts
the views of Irenaeus (chiliast), Origen and Augustine (church age as millennium), and Jonathan Edwards (postmillennial), and notes that each
view emphasizes some truth, and in all of these, the millennium is a time
when binding Satan creates a space where human life may flourish.138
However, the real focus of the passage is that the martyrs will somehow
be publicly vindicated and Gods justice will prevail. This gives us great
courage and hope in suffering and struggle now.
James L. Resseguie, The Revelation of John: A Narrative Commentary (Grand
Rapids: Baker, 2009).
This is a shorter commentary at 287 pages, but with eleven pages of bibliography. Treating Revelation as a narrative, the work comments particularly on the rhetorical devices (e.g., chiasm, inclusio, two-step progression,
verbal threads), character development, use of images, narrators viewpoint, and plot development. It also notes the style, use of Greek grammar
and syntax, cultural and historical assumptions, and intertextual allusions.
Resseguie has tried to make his commentary read like a novel, and to make
the Introduction a primer in narrative analysis.139 His intended audience
includes upper-level undergraduate students, entry-level seminary and
graduate students, and pastors and lay persons who want to read Revelation once again as a compelling story of intrigue.140 Part of his approach
to the text is revealed in his statement, Johns bizarre characters are not
thin disguises for historical personages of the first century; they are char-
136Ibid., 34.
137Ibid., 10916.
138Ibid., 22831.
139Resseguie, Revelation, 11.
140Ibid., 12.
commentaries on revelation
445
acters in their own right with archetypical characteristics that reveal the
nature of good and evil in our world.141
Resseguies commentary does not begin with the customary discussions of date and author. Instead, he treats the authors point of view and
identity as a character within the story/text.142 As regards the structure,
Resseguie discusses the attractiveness of the recapitulation theory in some
detail, but opts in the end for a linear progression of events. There are partial judgments as a warning before the final ones. This is a literary rather
than a literal progression, developing the plot up to the denouement.143
In Revelation 7, Resseguie sees the 144,000 and the uncountable multitude as being the same group, represented by two images. Theologically, they are the complete number of Gods Israel, literally they are all
believers from every nation. All believers pass through the great ordeal
of the church age.144 The millennium in Revelation 20 is part of the storys
denouement, where everyone and everything is put into their proper
place.145 Satan goes to the lake of fire, the dead are judged and assigned
their fate. The millennium is a feature of Johns narrative world where it
occurs after the return of Christ, and shows the saints victory and vindication, but the release of Satan shows the resilience of evil until the end.146
Resseguie does not speculate about the existence of a millennium outside the narrative world created by the author for the purposes of the
story. The story finishes with total resolution: Gods people happy forever
with him in the New Jerusalem.
Brian K. Blount, Revelation: A Commentary (New Testament Library; Westminster John Knox, 2009).
Blount reads as an African American, and sees the book of Revelation as
a call to witness to the Lordship of Jesus Christ as resistance in an oppressive situation. He believes that Revelations message that Jesus Christ is
Lord has powerful implications for the construction and maintenance of
social and political life.147
Blount holds to a late date for Revelation, and agrees there was no
systematic persecution of Christians at that time. However, Christians
141Ibid.
142Ibid., 4244, 7174.
143Ibid., 59.
144Ibid., 13639.
145Ibid., 243.
146Ibid., 24447.
147Blount, Revelation, x.
446
commentaries on revelation
447
will vindicate his persecuted people even within history. However, the
millennium is not a big issue in Revelation. Blount speculates, Many contemporary churches probably spin their interpretive wheels on millennial
definitions and strategies because social and political resistance too often
is still too dangerous a course to undertake.155
Throughout his exegesis, Blount is sensitive to liberation themes. For
example, when talking about Babylon (Rome) as harlot, he tackles what
he perceives as misogyny in the text: In Revelation the patriarchal mean
streak implicit in ancient Israelite and Johns contemporary Christian
whore metaphors becomes a misogynistic fault line capable of devouring
the self-image of any woman thrown up against it.156 According to Blount,
the metaphor has been erroneously used to justify violence against women
perceived as evil, and is regrettable. Blounts solution is, If I were preaching from this text, I would struggle to find another image that...does not
disparage the feminine.157 The point of the image, however, is to deter
Gods people from compromising their faith and witness due to social
fear or economic lust.158 Blount displays sensitivity to contemporary concerns about the image, but does not go into application to the level of
saying how Christians today could avoid compromise with Babylon.
4.Conclusion
The historical survey at the beginning of this essay revealed how much
influence the historical context of the interpreter has had on interpretations of the book of Revelation. This is so for the interpretation of any
piece of literature, but especially for a work like Revelation that is full of
symbolism and believed to be normative for readers of every era. Constant
re-interpretation to uncover the relevance of the book to ever-changing
circumstances has resulted in a wide spectrum of interpretive streams.
The main controlling factor for much comment on Revelation through
the centuries, however, has been the belief that it is part of the Christian
canon, and thus must have a message compatible with the message of the
Old Testament and the rest of the New Testament.
155Ibid., 367.
156Ibid., 309.
157Ibid., 310.
158Ibid., 309.
448
The recent commentators described above are not any more immune
to the influence of their own age than the commentators of previous centuries. Most are sensitive to the scientific orientation of the modern age
(which continues still on many fronts) that fostered the historical-critical
movement. But some have also launched into the post-modern age, with
greater concern for more subjective sensitivities to art, emotion, and relationships. The post-modern trend to give a high value to diversity is likely
to lead to the appearance of more comment that diverges from the scholarly consensus of the twentieth century.159 The lesson to be learned is that
understanding the context of a commentator is always appropriate for
users of commentaries on Revelation.
159It will be interesting to see whether the apparent increase in the magnitude of natural disasters in the world today will lead to more attempts to relate them to the plagues
described in the book of Revelation.
Part five
Kierkegaard (who also had harsh words for editors and publishers) points
to a deep irony in the Protestant claim of the perspicuity, or clarity, of
1Johnny Cash, Man in White (New York: Harper and Row, 1986), xvi.
2Sren Kierkegaard, Sren Kierkegaards Journals and Papers (ed. and trans. Howard V.
Hong and Edna H. Hong; Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1967), Vol. 1, AE: 85.
452
daniel g. reid
Scripture, for there is much in the Bible that compels interpreters to take
up the pen to illuminate, clarify and debate its meaning. In the Christian
tradition one of the significant ways of doing so is to write and publish
commentaries. Within the church commentaries fulfill a need to teach
and to learn, to express our discoveries and to enter into the discoveries
of others, to inscribe our voice into a textual legacy and to listen to those
who have gone before us.
Historically speaking, the commentary has been the traditional vehicle
for clarifying the meaning of the text. In the West it follows on the ancient
tradition of commentaries on classical texts, such as Homer. And it did
not take the church long to begin commenting on the text of Scripture
in a deliberate manner. Viewing the history of biblical commentary in its
broadest terms, it is surely one of the great uncelebrated undertakings of
Western intellectual history. And publishers of one sort or another have
been involved from the beginning.
Ministers in early America held commentaries in high regard. Harry S.
Stout describes the place of the ministers study and library in the highly
literate butapart from the Biblenearly bookless society of early New
England:
No matter how rustic the settlement, here were found most of the relevant
texts bearing on the great and significant questions raised by the printed
Word. On the ministers shelves lay the Greek and Hebrew texts of the Bible,
commentaries in Latin and English indexed by chapter and verse, concordances of key words and metaphors in the original languages and in English,
comprehensive systems of divinity from the church fathers to the English
Puritans....As the inhabitants struggled to carve out a living from rockstrewn soil, the ministers were called to the equally arduous task of tilling
the pages of Holy Writ and sacred commentary so that on sabbath day they
could plant in the hearts of their listeners seeds of eternity that would transform the untamed wilderness of the soul into the Lords garden.3
We gain further perspective on the place of commentaries in these libraries from the inventory of the young Puritan minister John Harvards
(16071638) library, which formed the foundation of the original library
of Harvard College. Of the 400 volumes (representing 329 titles) of his
library, nearly three-quarters of the collection is theological. About half
3Harry S. Stout, The New England Soul: Preaching and Religious Culture in Colonial New
England (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986), 3233.
454
daniel g. reid
publishers. The front list refers to what is new in any given season or year.
The business model of a front-list publisher counts on new books that
make a big splash, the high-profile author backed by a heavy marketing
campaign. A back-list publisher does not expect to have stellar sales on
any given new book, but it does expect its new books to have a long and
steady sales history as they move into the back list (i.e., the back of the
publishers catalog).
Academic publishing, and certainly commentary publishing, is all
about the back list. The profitability of these books lies in their longevity.
The back list is like the deep keel of a sailboat, not apparent at the water
line but designed to keep the boat upright during the seasonal storms of
publishing. If an appropriately priced academic book is only selling a few
hundred copies a yearand does so steadilyit is regarded as money in
the bank for a back-list publisher (as it should be for the author).
Commentaries are classic backlist books. While the publisher hopes for,
and will likely see, the strongest sales in the initial year or two, their true
economic value for the publisher lies in their slow but steady sales, year
after year, and their requiring only modest care and upkeep. Perhaps in
ten or fifteen years they will receive new covers, and there might be a
revision program twenty years out.
But the mentality and business model of a front-list publisher is just not
geared to this reality. It is dominated by the hottest new thing, the present
publishing opportunities that must be seized. So it is generally inadvisable
for someone with a new idea for a serious commentary series to approach
a front-list publisher. And if a front-list publisher declares a new found
interest in starting a commentary series and approaches a prospective
series editor, it is prudent to ask probing questions. It is not an impossible
proposition, but it is entirely likely that the publisher does not understand
the enterprise and the amount of time and effort required to develop a
commentary series. There is a risk that they will cancel the series when
the wave of reality breaks on themor a new CEO is in place.
Even among publishers that have a track record of producing commentaries, there are at least two distinctions that can be made. There are
those that publish for a broader constituency, who expect to market their
commentaries to individuals, and there are those who publish primarily
for the library market and a handful of specialists. The distinction is easily
observed in their pricing structures. The former sells its commentaries at
a price reasonably afforded by an individual, whereas the latter prices its
books much higher and has a much shorter print run. It is not the cost
of paper or printing or binding that is driving the distinction, it is the
456
daniel g. reid
8John A. H. Dempster, The T. & T. Clark Story: A Victorian Publisher and the New Theology (Durham: Pentland Press, 1992), 139.
9Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament (Downers
Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993); John H. Walton, Victor H. Matthews and Mark W. Chavalas, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament (Downers Grove, IL: Inter
Varsity Press, 2000).
10John Walton, ed., Zondervan Illustrated Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011); Clinton Arnold, Zondervan Illustrated Bible Background
Commentary: New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002).
458
daniel g. reid
o thers. When new volumes are released and advertised, there is opportunity to promote the other volumes in the series. The marketing channels
and promotional efforts that are developed for the sale of the series profits
each individual volume in a natural synergy.
Continuity programsmarketing directly to customers on a subscription basisis particularly effective for a series, and it is a marketing
specialty in itself. But a continuity program puts pressure back on the
in-house editor and the series editor to produce volumes in a timely manner. For in order to keep the program going, ideally four volumes a year,
or one a quarter, will be required. Consequently, for the launch of a series
it is best to have at least a couple of volumes ready for publication and
the assurance of more to follow in timely succession. Thus a publisher
will often not release early submitted manuscripts until an even flow of
publication can be assured.
In recent years publishers have used the term platform to speak of that
metaphorical place where an author stands to be seen by a large crowd
their name recognition, their associated institutions, their networks of
influential people, the opinion shapers who will endorse and promote
their book. Outside the academy, the need for an author to have platform
has become an assumed condition for successful trade publishing. At the
end of the first decade of the twenty-first century, it is now influencing
perceptions of academic authors who seek to reach an audience beyond
a small circle of experts. An academic teaching in an institution of higher
learning already has a certain degree of platform. But publishers like to
see authors who are leveraging that platform into broader exposure. But
it should be recalled that in the late nineteenth century T&T Clark, in
developing the ICC, maintained that contributors having a name carrying weight, and confidence was imperative for this Series.11 So platform
is not new.
For commentators, the invitation to write for a commentary series
enhances their platform far above publishing an isolated commentary. In
addition, the prestige of the general editor, the publisher and fellow contributors adds further luster to the platform. The publisher brings part of
that platform. The series editor brings their part. The individual contributors offer their timber. With enough leading names, lesser knownoften
youngcommentators can profit from the platform of others. In fact,
12The story of the ACCS is told in Andrew T. Le Peau and Linda Doll, Heart. Soul.
Mind. Strength: An Anecdotal History of InterVarsity Press, 19472007 (Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity Press, 2007), 138.
13Thomas C. Oden, ed., The Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, 29 volumes
(Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 19982010).
460
daniel g. reid
lines of the ancient catena tradition, with brief extracts keyed to pericopes
of Scripture, and Wilken believed that more extensive texts would be necessary. When it no longer seemed that they could reconcile their ideals
in one series, they peacefully parted ways and the world of commentaries is richer for it, with Wilken editing The Churchs Bible (Eerdmans).14
Ironically, the ACCS later gave birth to the Ancient Christian Texts series,
which now presents full patristic commentaries that were not previously
available in English translation (some of which were translated in preparing the ACCS).
A series that has made a significant contribution over its life constitutes
a legacy, and prudent publishers regard it as a trust. This often means
timely revisions. European publishers seem to have a culture of calling
successive printings, with perhaps minor corrections, editions. In North
America a new edition is expected to have some discernible value added,
that is, updated or enlarged or significantly revised. (Purchasers of a new
edition are rightly annoyed when they discover that the new edition they
bought is 99% the same as the one they already have.)
A quirk of publishing commentary series is that over time they can
leave one publisher and migrate to another. Perhaps most commonly
one publishing company is acquired by another, and so the Word Biblical Commentary comes under the care of Thomas Nelson. Or the Anchor
Bible is originally published by Doubleday, which then takes up residence
under the roof of Random House (1998), and subsequently the series is
acquired by Yale University Press (2007).
6.Following the Trends
From a publishers perspective there are many considerations to negotiate in publishing a commentary series. For instance, a publisher wants to
be reasonably confident that the prolonged commitment to expending
editorial, production and marketing talent, time and capital is going to be
worthwhile as compared with other publishing opportunities that beckon
for attention. And the commissioning editor can feel like his or her credibility is on the line. A commentary series is a very big project that often
extends over many years. The pressure to succeed is great. The publisher
14The first volume was Robert C. Wilken, trans. and ed., Isaiah: Interpreted by Early
Christian and Medieval Commentators (The Churchs Bible; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,
2007).
462
daniel g. reid
464
daniel g. reid
a cademic editor can offer helpful advice and guidance to the general
editors of a series and negotiate between editorial ideals and publishing
realities. Some ideals wildly overestimate the capacities of most readers.
Some ideals underestimate the amount of work and financial investment
required. And some ideas are based on misunderstanding of how commentaries are most effectively marketed.
Every general editor of a series comes with a different set of skills and
abilities. But presumably they each bring something outstanding to the
project, otherwise they would not be chosen or accepted as an editor.
An experienced in-house editor recognizes that the general editors skill
set must be discerned and any deficiencies compensated for. The general editor most likely brings prestige and a network of connections
and probably a visionto the task, but he or she may be an abominable
administrator and little inclined to enforce the schedule and ride herd
on the details. A good in-house editor is flexible enough to adapt to reality, developing strategies for augmenting out-of-house weaknesses with
in-house strengths.
But even within the publishing house there is often a low-grade fear
that something might be going wrong even while everything appears
to be going right. This is founded on experience. By nature editors hate
error, but by vocation they are called to deal with it daily. And painfully
enough, it is sometimes their own. It is no surprise to find that the kinds of
incidents that have plagued publishing over the centuries were cropping
up in Estiennes Genevan enterprise. Calvins second and expanded edition of his commentary on Romans (1556) contains numerous errors, and
apparently they were not all the fault of the publisher. As T. H. L. Parker
tells us, The blame must probably be laid on careless handwriting by the
author and on his manner of revising. It would seem that for this edition
he adopted the method that caused his brother Antoine and Nocolas Colladon so much trouble with the 1560 edition of the French Institution; that
is, he wrote (or scribbled!) corrections and additions in the margin of a
copy of the 1551 edition and also on detached sheets of paper.20 In fact,
some of Calvins corrections were made by hand after publication, and
Parker offers the opinion that if someone in Robert Estiennes office had
the dull job of correcting all the copies by hand, it would seem that he
20T. H. L. Parker, Calvins New Testament Commentaries (2nd ed.; Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1993), 3738.
21Ibid.
466
daniel g. reid
a simpler format would require less toil, frustration and cost, and yet be
sufficiently attractive. Its tempting to envision a commentary series that
reflects the fine book craft of the Steinsaltz edition of the Talmud, but
who is going to pay for such a series?22 Publishing is where ideas and
ideals meet the marketplace, where real money is exchanged and real
business must be transacted for profit (as thin as it may be) or loss. And
if the interior includes layout complexitiesperhaps text boxes or sidebars, care will need to be exercised regarding length of these features.
These strictures of design will work their way back into the writing of
the commentary itself, perhaps curbing the commentators penchant for
being thorough. In other words, a layout that employs more features than
running text and footnotes inevitably imposes further restrictions back
onto the commentator (e.g., perhaps the text box must not exceed one
page, so it must be restricted to 350 words regardless of the complexity
of the topic). Features that seem attractive in the abstract may be unwelcome encumbrances in practice. And it is important for both publisher
and series editor to understand what is entailed in these decisions.
10.Of Marketing and Selling
Marketing concerns intersect with editorial concerns. Publishers (at least
those that are not subsidized) need to operate as a business. They must
consider whether there is a clearly defined market for their commentaries, whether they can capitalize on their already existing marketing channels or whether they can develop the marketing channels that will reach
that market.
As we have already mentioned, direct marketing continuity programs
can be a significant means of taking a commentary series to its readers.23
Direct marketing programs are increasingly an important means for publishers to outflank large online booksellers that exercise their power over
publishers by demanding larger discounts. From the consumers end,
this is seen in the packaged brochure that arrives in the mailbox with an
introductory letter, an illustrated description of the commentary series
extolling its features and benefits, an introductory offer (usually including
468
daniel g. reid
25John Updike, Remarks Upon Receiving the National Book Foundations Medal for
Distinguished Contribution to American Letters Award, 1998, National Book Foundation,
National Book Awards Acceptance Speeches, accessed January 1, 2011, http://www.national
book.org/nbaacceptspeech_jupdike_dcal.html.
143, 154
154
18285
23
136
328
182, 184, 185
185
141
328
185
185
Exodus
3:722
3:1315
3:1415
3:14
4:2223
1415
15
20:12
20:1821
21:17
21:2324
24
24:911
24:1516
29:67
33:19
34:5
34:67
178
182, 192
189
178, 182
327
120
138
122
270
122
329
141
142
285
124
182, 184
182
182, 184, 189
Leviticus
19
24:19
412
329
Deuteronomy
1:4
4:1116
4:1
4:28
4:2931
5:7
5:16
145
294
270, 294
92
185
327
122
6:3
6:4
6:5
6:19
8
16
16:29
16:31
16:32
18:15
19:21
20:9
26:4045
27:3
30:110
32
33:2
33:29
185
327
327
185
145
145
139
139
124
294
329
122
185
185
185
248
138
188
Joshua
13:16
189
Judges
5
138
1 Samuel
15:1
16:13
124
124
2 Samuel
6
6:1819
141142
142
1 Kings
8:43
16:6
18:2426
19:1516
184
182
182, 184
12
2 Kings
5:11
182
1 Chronicles
1:5
5:4
7:14
23
23
186
472
16:8
16:22
29:10
29:22
2 Chronicles
6:33
184
Nehemiah
8:45
8:78
17
17
Psalms
2:2
2:7
8:6
27:7
27:14
29
34:7 [ET 6]
37:34
56:10 [ET 9]
68
68:18
69:4 [ET 3]
79:6
80:19 [LXX 79:19]
86:5
96:68 [LXX 98:68]
96:6 [LXX 98:6]
102:3 [ET 2]
103
105:1 [LXX 104:1]
105:15
106:8 [LXX 105:8]
106:10 [LXX 105:10]
106:21 [LXX 105:21]
110:1
115:57
116:2 [LXX 114:2]
116:13 [LXX115:4]
116:17
130:5
124
291
179
184
136
286
184
136
184
133, 138, 140
14042
184
184, 185
184
184
185
184, 185
184
137
184
124
188
188
188
179
192
184
184
184
136
Proverbs
14:31
15:1
17:5
19:17
20:22
22:2
27:6
27:17
139
316
139
137, 139140
136
139
313
313
Isaiah
5:26
12:4
26:20
27:5
28:16
29:13
4055
41:5
42:1
43:1
43:7
44:5
45
45:234
45:23
48:1
48:11
58:3
58:5
58:67
58:910
61:1
61:12
63:16
63:19
64:67 [ET 78]
64:6
64:8
65
65:15
65:1
65:4
23
184
136
389
187
122
302
184
291
184
186
182, 184, 186
302, 304, 3068, 311
302
300
184
307
139
139
139
139
124
6
136
186
185
184
136
120
120
186
120
Jeremiah
1:1315
3:18
4:6
6:1
10:25
22
25:32
29:7
31:3140
44:26 [LXX 51:26]
50:41
23
23
23
23
184, 185
23
23
197
187
182, 185
23
Lamentations
3:55
184
Ezekiel
3839
38:23
38:6
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
138
138
23
473
Daniel
4:2931
4:33
4:36
6:10
7
7:1314
7:13
18:1518
292
292
292
136
11517, 138
115, 117
189
124
Joel
2
2:115
2:1217
2:17
2:2832 [Heb 3:15]
186
187
184
186
175
Hosea
6:2
155
Micah
6:68
137
Habakkuk
2:23
2:4
3
134
13234
138
Zephaniah
3:9
185
Zechariah
13:9
14:5
14:25
184185
138
23
Malachi
4:56
124
Apocrypha
4 Ezra
13:4
13:3334
23
23
Sirach
28
137
Baruch
1:11
197
1 Maccabees
7:33
197
2 Maccabees
15:27
336
23
Jubilees
7:19
8:25
23
23
Sib. Or.
3:319
3:512
23
23
474
Josephus
Ant.
14
1:17
1:123
4:73
57
6:131133
10
Philo
Cherubim
114
Spec.
1:36
Names
126
19
19
23
2425
25
Qumran Manuscripts
1QpHab
8:13
135
19
19
19
xi
New Testament
Matthew
1:2125
189
3:17
285, 288
5:2324
345
57
342
6
132, 136
6:8
135
6:913
135
6:9
136
7:28
343
9:13
324
10
342
11
342
11:1
343
11:19
50
12:24
117
12:2526
117
12:2728
117
12:29
117
12:30
117
12:3132
117
12:4650
117
13
342, 356
13:53
343
15
123
15:5
12
16:1819
45
16:19
45
16:21
342
17:18
287, 294
17:2
291
17:2427
345
17:3
291
17:5 285, 288, 291292,
294
17:8
17:9
18
18:3
18:18
19:1
19:1314
21:9
23:1622
23:39
2325
2425
24:1324
24:17
24:20
25
25:31
25:3146
25:3233
25:3546
25:40
26:1
28:17
28:19
Mark
18
1:18:26
1:11
1:13
1:4045
1:41
2:112
2:12
2:10
270, 294
287
342
217
45
343
217
180
345
180
342
342
344
342
345
132
138
137
138
139
139
343
45
331, 340
117
351
285
333
353
70
115, 117
116
116
Luke
1:1
121
324
118
1179
117
117
117
117
121
119
119
119
123
124
124
124
124
28
123
353
121
121
349
121
122
122
122
122
122
122, 123
123
1246
124
124
124
126
285
117
327, 329
180
201, 204, 208
415
355
29
182
207
124. 126
124, 126
349
356
331, 333
343
475
1:1920
2:13
3:22
4:1630
8:1921
9:32
9:35
9:51
11:15
11:1718
11:21
11:23
12:10
12:3040
13:35
17:2037
18:8
18:1516
19:10
19:38
19:4145
21:536
23:612
23:34
24:9
24:34
24:47
117
333
285
6
117
286
285
331
117
117
117
117
117
360
180
360
360
217
324325
180
359
360
207
137
333
334
332
John
1
1:1
1:12
1:14
1:51
5:18
6:5354
7:144
10:33
11:52
12:13
12:2830
13:3
18:56
18:37
19:811
20:23
20:28
21:5
302, 310
296
217
332
333
190
28
28
190
217
181
288
217
182
324
207
45
181
217
Acts
1:2
1:8
1:11
1:22
331, 334
331
331
331, 334
476
2:1421
2:1617
2:16
4:122
4:27
5:111
5:1742
7:5460
8:16
9
9:34
9:14
9:21
9:28
10:16
12:13
13:15
13:31
15:26
16:1017
17:1632
17:27
19:5
19:13
19:17
20:521:18
21:13
2226
22:69
22:16
27:128:16
Romans
1:111:36
377
18
365
1:34
333
1:3
333
1:4
190, 333
1:5
213
1:16
187, 400
1:17
1324
1:184:25
134
1:18
376
2
196
2:13
385
3:20
385, 393, 394
3:2126
46
3:27
xii
3:2930
189, 327
4:24
190
58 377378, 380, 393,
396
5:18:39
134
5
207, 365, 401
14
14:9
14:20
16:1720
16:2527
477
123
190
123
197
197
1 Corinthians
1:2
1:10
1:13
1:17
1:18
1:31
2:616
2:78
2:16
5:4
5:5
5:19
6:11
8
8:56
8:6
9:14
10:11
12
12:3
15:58
15:2527
16:22
2 Corinthians
113
17
2:15
2:17
4:14
5:2f.
5:18
5:20
6:2
6:3
6:5
89
10:17
11:2225
11:25
11:3233
82
82
400
260
82
46
326
375
400
259
206
82
174
206
198
206
Galatians
12
1:15
1:16
2:1114
102
326
326
159
478
2:12
3:14:11
3:2
3:5
3:614
3:19
3:27
3:28
4
4:2226
Ephesians
1:20
3:10
4:56
4:8
4:910
4:10
4:12
5:14
5:20
6:12
Philippians
1:4
242
1:6
242
1:7
242
1:8
242
1:9
242
1:10
242
1:12
242
1:14
242
1:15
242
1:16
242
1:17
242
1:18
242
1:23
242
1:25
242
1:26
242
1:272:18
245
1:27
246
2
3002, 30810
2:14
245
2:1
242
2:211
188
2:2
242
2:3
242
2:511 190, 300301,
303304, 316
2:5
242
2:611
243, 250
2:6
242, 305
2:7
300
2:8
250
2:911
177178, 300, 306, 311
2:1011
174
2:1218
241, 2436, 24951
2:1215
248
2:12 244, 246, 247, 249,
250, 252
2:15
245
2:16
242
2:17
245
2:18
242
2:19
242
2:20
242
2:22
242
2:24
242
2:25
242
2:26
242
2:27
242
2:28
242
3:1
242
3:3
242
3:4
242
3:7
242
3:8
181, 242
3:10
242
3:13
242
3:15
242
3:19
242
4:1
242
4:2
242
4:4
242
4:5
242
4:6
242
4:7
242
4:8
242
4:10
242
4:12
242
4:15
242
Colossians
1:16
2:11
2:15
2:20
3:17
326
71
333
71
181
1 Thessalonians
5:3
5:9
199
400
2 Thessalonians
1:12
3:6
180181
181
1 Timothy
1:1
320, 322, 325
1:2
3202
1:3
319
1:12
32022
1:14
32021
1:15
320, 3225, 328, 332
1:16
320, 322, 326, 329
2:3
322, 325
2:45
328
2:4
322, 325, 329, 332
2:56
32627, 329
2:5 320, 32224, 326,
332, 335336
2:7
329
3:13
320
3:15
327
3:16 323324, 329330,
332, 334, 336
4:6
320
4:10
322, 325, 329
5:316
410
5:11
320
5:21
320
6:3
3202, 326
6:13
320, 322
6:14
320, 321, 323
6:15
321
2 Timothy
1:1
1:2
1:8
1:9
1:10
1:13
1:16
1:18
1:24
2:1
2:3
2:7
2:8
2:10
2:12
2:13
2:19
2:22
2:24
3:1
3:11
3:12
3:15
320
3202
321, 323
320
320, 322, 326, 336
320
321
321
321
320
320
321
320, 323
320, 322, 326
323
323
180, 321
178, 191, 321
321
421
321
320
320, 326
4:1
4:8
4:14
4:17
4:18
4:22
479
320, 323
321, 323
321, 323
321, 326
321, 326
321
Titus
1:1
1:3
1:4
2:10
2:11
2:1314
2:13
2:14
3:4
3:6
320
322, 325
320, 322, 326
322, 325
322, 326
322
320, 322, 326
329
322, 325
320, 322, 326
Hebrews
1:2
13:22
421
86
James
1
1:1011
1:12
1:19
1:2527
1:25
1:2627
1:26
1:27
2:810
2:1426
2:15
2:18
3:10
5:14
410, 412
50
415
414
407, 414
407
41214
409, 412
405, 40712, 416, 419
415
406, 412
411
411
181
181
1 Peter
1:12
2:1317
2:1415
5
5:13
333
208
205
354
349, 350
2 Peter
1:1621
1:1618
1:19
1:21
295
289
296
297
480
1 John
1:1
5:13
Revelation
1:15:7
424
1:12
442
1:911:19
441
1:9
437, 438
23
89
422
439
4:122:9
436, 446
411
428, 446
5:3
143
5:13
143
7 436437, 440, 442,
444446
7:1
143
7:14
435
10:6
143
12:122:17
441
1219
428
1214
446
12:1012
285
12:12
143
13:118
208
14:6
426
14:7
143
1522
446
18:622:21
424
19:1121
23
20 436437, 439440,
442, 444446
20:110
435
20:16
424
20:8
23
21:1
142
151
151
424
219
349
342
422
422
422
421
201
Jerome
Vir. ill.
36.3
61
61.2
83
7
422
7
422
Justin Martyr
Dial.
8081
421
Lactantius
Inst.
7:1526
422
Origen
Comm. Matt.
49
7
422
Philoponus
Eternity
911
Tertullian
Marc. 3:24
422
481
354355
84
Plutarch
Them.
30
336
Polybius
1.1.1
1.2.8
1.54.2
3.94.3
39.1.4
4
355
336
336
355
Cicero
Sen.
1520
3538
4950
8485
xi
xi
xi
xi
Corp. Herm.
5.2
25
Dio Chrysostom
12.60
25
Ps.-Longinus
Subl.
44.12
Diogenes Laertius
4.4
8.10
4
xi
Ptolemy
Geog.
1.6.2
Quintilian
Ins. Ora.
2.4.2
355
Gellius
Noctes Atticae
4.18.45
6.1
13.29
14
14
14
Herodotos
1.103
1.107
4.1
23
23
23
Homer
Iliad
6.201
14
Jason
Heroides
12
16
Plato
Resp.
8
Seneca
Brev. vit.
20.4
Clem.
1.14
xi
Suetonius
Claud.
25.4
Nero
10
199
Tacitus
Ann.
13.50
1416
197
200
200
13
482
Mishna
Abod. Zar.
3b
Ber.
7b
Ed.
2:10
Sanh.
97b
Midrashim
Sipre Deut.
343
23
23
23
23
23
Pesiq. R.
17:8
23
Targumim
Neof. Numbers
7:4
23
Talmud
b. Mak.
24a
Baba Metzia
59b
Papyri
P.Oxy. XV 1808
134
287
Bammel, E.125
Barclay, J. M. G.19
Barclay, W.105, 319, 333, 433
Barker, M.432
Barr, B. A.95
Barr, D.443
Barr, J.40, 4243, 458, 392393, 397, 402
Barrett, C. K.1113, 68, 175, 208, 229, 232,
287, 317, 327, 330, 37981, 385, 393, 399
Bart, M.256
Barth, G.xiii
Barth, K.31, 162, 209, 211, 221, 274,
303304, 311, 365, 367, 369, 374375, 380,
384, 403
Barth, M.84, 220
Bartholomew, C.106
Bartlett, D. L.208
Bauckham, R.88, 160, 180, 189, 296, 302,
308, 357, 434435
Bauer, D. R.368
Bauer, G. L.160
Bauer, W.xi, xviii, 20, 40, 43, 45, 4748
Baum, A. D.7
Baum, W.155
Baur, F. C.9293, 158159, 319, 367
Bayer, H.227
Bayle, P.254
Beale, G. K.6, 21, 36, 47, 5556, 132, 135,
142, 167, 175, 311, 42932, 434, 437-438
Beard, M.16, 22
Beasley-Murray, G. R.89, 219, 433434
Beckwith, I. T.46, 423, 425426, 428, 429
Beet, J. A.176, 372, 374, 403
Begg, C. T.19
Bekker, I.13
Bell, R. H.180
Belleville, L. L.321
Bengel, J. A.370, 429
Benz, E.7
Bernard, J. H.332
Bernheim, P.-A.196
Beroaldo, F.15
Best, E.913, 99100, 110, 141, 379, 382
Betz, H. D.14, 27, 82, 167, 365, 370
Beveridge, H.153, 207
Beyerhaus, P.226
Binder, G.xi, xviii
Bird, M. F.401
484
Black, C. C.219
Black, D. A.xiv, 103
Black, M.48, 62, 197198, 382383
Black, S. L.50
Blanc, C.7
Blanke, H.84
Blass, F.39, 418, 5051, 53, 378, 385, 401
Blaurer, A.257
Blevins, J. L.89
Block, D. I.138, 184, 186187
Blomberg, Craig L.87, 131, 137, 341342,
418
Blomqvist, J.49
Blount, B. K.44547
Bock, D. L.79, 115, 355, 361
Bockmuehl, M.91, 247, 306, 312, 367
Boda, M. J.443
Bodenmann, R.25357, 262263
Boesak, A. A.210
Boice, J. M.236, 247, 248
Boismard, M.-.26
Boobyer, G. H.116
Borg, M.199, 200
Borgen, P.7, 150
Boring, M. E.74, 117118, 121, 1235, 217,
352353
Brner-Klein, D.39
Bornkamm, G.xiii, xviii
Botha, J.200, 213
Bousset, W.425
Bovon, F.77
Bowman, A. K.198
Bowman, G.211
Boxall, I.434
Brackney, W. H.91, 367
Brassier, R.401
Braswell, B.24
Bray, G. L.175176
Breytenbach, C.392
Bridges, L. M.85
Briggs, R.289
Broderson, K.16
Brodie, T. L.78
Bromiley, G. W.205, 374, 383
Brooks, J.47
Brosend, W. F.417418
Brown, C.20
Brown, D.236
Brown, R. E.14, 160, 218219
Brox, N.318319, 321, 325, 330
Bruce, F. F.102, 78, 61, 69, 160, 170, 174,
198, 219, 229, 275, 379, 382
Brueggemann, W.221
Brugmann, K.39
485
Dewey, J.117
Dibelius, M.117, 120, 317, 31921, 324, 331,
4079, 416, 419
Dickey, E.5
Dihle, A.14, 30
Dik, S.49
Dittenberger, W.41
Dockery, D. S.103
Dodd, C. H.167, 178, 376
Donfried, K.321
Doriani, D.418
Doudna, J. C.48
Douglas, M.143, 412
Dowd, S.74
Draper, J. A.202, 210
Dufour, A.254
Dunn, J. D. G.11, 36, 4344, 5556, 65, 81,
133, 134, 179, 180, 197, 200, 202, 299308,
310, 319, 38791, 393, 396, 398, 403
Dyer, G.29
Ebeling, G.31
Eckey, W.74
Edmundson, M.29
Edwards, J. R.62, 70, 444
Edwards, M. J.309
Ehrensperger, K.207
Eichler, B. L.91
Eldredge, L.157
Elliott, J. H.412
Elliott, N.199, 205, 210
Ellis, E. E.6, 323, 326, 360
Ellis, P. F. 78
Elwell, W. A.275
Engberg-Pedersen, T.197
Epp, E. J.406
Esler, P.27
Estienne, R.453, 464
Evans, C. A.6, 91, 323, 351, 359, 367
Evans, C. S.66
Evans, J. F.218, 231
Exell, J. S.176
Fanning, B. M.40, 4647, 4950
Fantham, E.22
Farmer, C.254255
Farris, L. W.229
Fausset, A. R.236
Fee, G. D.83, 222, 230, 249250, 305, 306,
319, 32729, 331, 333
Feldman, L.19
Feldmeier, R.88
Feneberg, R.73
Feuillet, A.433
486
Field, F.385
Fiore, B.317, 318
Fishbane, M.7
Fitzmyer, J. A.11, 64, 79, 82, 122, 134, 182,
197, 211, 391392, 360, 361, 396, 403
Fladerer, L.39
Flemming, D.84
Foakes-Jackson, F. J.10, 26, 159
Foerster, W.180
Ford, J. M.432
Fowl, S. E.190, 301, 306, 307
Fowler, R. M.116
Foxe, J.429
France, R. T.xiv, xviii, 70, 86, 9596,
99, 104, 107, 116, 118, 123, 1357, 289, 341,
3435, 356357, 368
Frankemlle, H.413
Freedman, D. N.12
Friedrich, G.20, 158, 200
Frhwald, W.17
Fuhrmann, M.18
Fuller, R. C.177
Fullerton, K.155
Fung, R.223
Funk , R.39, 42, 448, 5051
Gabler, J. P.156, 160161
Gaebelein, F. E.384
Gannag, E.9
Garland, D. E.75, 132, 143, 250, 355, 384
Gasque, W. W.159, 324
Gtje, H.13
Gaventa, B. R.85
Geisler, N. L.xiv, xviii
Gempf, C.160
Gennette, G.49
Gentry, K. L.432
Georgi, D.197
Gerth, B.48, 371
Giaro, T.6
Gibson, R. K.25, 30
Giesen, H.430
Gignac, F. T.45, 49
Gilkey, L.281282, 286
Gill, D. W. J.160
Gingrich, F. W.20
Girod, R.7
Gloer, W. H.324
Glynn, J.9798, 368, 434
Gnilka, J.73, 76, 8384
Godet, F. L.371372, 398
Goldberg, A.8
Goldhill, S.19, 24
Goldingay, J.141
Goodwin, W. W.50
Goodyear, F. R. D.20
Goppelt, L.168
Gorman, F. H.232
Gottschalk, H. B.5
Gttsche, D.12
Gourgues, M.321
Grant, R.232
Grsser, E.87
Graves, M.173
Grayson, K.44, 88, 391, 394
Green, D. E.31, 197, 201
Green, G. L.85
Green, J.27, 360
Greenberg, M.91
Greer, R. A.148
Grelot, P.198
Greschat, M.211
Griffin, H.317
Grogan, G. W.141
Grossfeld, B.8
Grosvenor, M.44, 46, 48, 50
Grotius, H.428429
Grnzweig, F.319
Guelich, R. A.70, 116, 123, 351
Gumbrecht, H. U.22
Gumerlock, F. X.422, 424
Gundry, R. H.xiv, xv, xviii, 75, 116, 119,
12021, 123, 125, 324, 35051
Gurtner, D. M.95, 368
Guthmller, B.15
Guthrie, D.317, 324, 33133
Gttgemanns, E.46
Haenchen, E.160
Hafemann, S. J.205
Hagner, D. A.21, 36, 4445, 5556, 75, 81,
91, 13538, 320, 341, 367, 384, 430, 437
Hammond, H.428
Hansen, C.183
Hansen, G. W.83, 24547, 308
Hanson, A. T.31718, 32425, 33133
Hare, D. R. A.175
Harris, M. J.69, 70, 82
Harrison, E. F.81, 177, 382, 384
Harrisville, R. A.62, 197, 211
Hartin, P.41314
Harvard, J.45253
Harvey, R.88
Hasler, V.318, 325
Hastings, J.309
Hatch, E.41, 48, 398
Hatch, V. P. H.384
Hawley, W. C.60
487
Hus, J.426
Hyatt, D.396
Hyperius, A. G.265
Instone-Brewer, D.7
Israelstam, J.8
Jamieson, R.236
Janzen, W.184
Jenkins, P.225
Jennings, T. W., Jr.401
Jepsen, A.135
Jeremias, J.86, 317, 321, 323, 328, 33031,
334, 391
Jervell, J.11, 80
Jewett, R.65, 81, 134, 17879, 191, 200,
209, 39697, 399
Johnson, A. F.430, 43334
Johnson, D.434
Johnson, L. T.8, 27, 31, 81, 85, 229, 31718,
325, 32730, 359, 391, 394, 411, 412, 414
Johnston, W. G.xv, xviii
Juel, D. H.6, 25
Jlicher, A.166
Kahle, P. E.182
Kaiser, W.232
Kallas, J.196
Kamell, M. J.87, 41819
Kannengiesser, C.7, 42224
Karavidopoulos, J.14
Karris, R.321
Ksemann, E.205, 382,83, 399
Kaster, R. A.5
Katter, C.218
Keck, L. E.61, 176, 208, 217, 396
Keener, C. S.61, 65, 79, 137, 138, 199, 211,
213, 229, 238, 34647, 396, 399, 430, 434,
43839, 456
Kelly, J. N. D.317, 32528, 33031, 33334
Kennedy, G. A.27, 370
Kidner, D.221, 462
Kierkegaard, S.37576, 410, 451
Kistemaker, S. J.434
Kittel, G.20
Kitzberger, I. R.212
Klauber, M.207, 224
Klauck, H.-J.88
Klaus, B.217
Klausner, T.3
Klein, H.77
Klein, W. W.131
Klement, H. H.226
Klostermann, E.7, 13
Knight, G.317, 325, 333, 335
488
Knight, H.381
Knowles, R.163
Knox, J.379, 396
Koch, D.-A.6
Koester, H.21
Koestermann, E.13
Kohl, M.185
Kojeck, R.289
Kstenberger, A. J.220, 229, 270
Kraabel, A. T.25
Kramer, W.180
Kraus, C. S.1718, 202, 246, 30
Krauter, S.194, 208
Kreinecker, C. M.28
Kremer, J.77
Krodel, G.198
Kroger, D.210
Kuhn, T.52
Khner, R.48, 371
Kuss, O.36, 377, 383
Kysar, R.106
Lachmann, K.72, 371
Ladd, G. E.43334
Laetsch, T.135
Lagrange, M.-J.3637, 367, 37476
Lake, K.10, 26, 159
Lamouille, A.26
Landfester, M.35
Lane, W. L.70, 86, 115, 118, 120, 123, 125,
278, 352
Langenburg, H.191
Lapide, P.37
Lau, A. Y.32021
Lauber, D.296
Lauterbach, J. Z.8
Laws, S.410, 418
Le Daut, R.8
Lea, T.317, 33033
Lee, J. A. L.49, 64
Lee, P.203
Leenhardt, F. J.203, 379, 381
Legaspi, M. C.312
Lgasse, S. 73, 198, 202
Leidl, C.16
Leitch, J. W.311
Leithart, P. J.169
Lenski, R. C. H.66, 332, 37778
Levinskaya, I.160
Liddell, H. G.43, 48
Liefeld, W. L.77, 317, 334
Lietzmann, H.367, 37475, 380, 383, 385,
39394
Martens, G.18
Martin, D. M.85
Martin, E. D.84
Martin, R. P.36, 44, 5556, 251, 304, 324,
395, 399, 41112, 461
Martini, C. M.14
Marxsen, W.xiii, xviii
Matera, F. J.61
Mather, C.46162, 467
Mathijsen, M.20, 26
Mayor, J. B.408
Mayser, E.48
McBride, S. D.184
McCant, J. W.82
McCartney, D. G.37, 50, 55, 87, 41415
McConville, J. G.138
McDonald, J. I. H.212
McDonald, L. M.91, 367
McDonough, C. M.6
McGinn, B.421, 425
McGinn, S. E.194
McKay, K. L.40, 446, 4850, 388
McKeown, James C.22
McKim, D. K.254, 288
McKnight, S.63, 101, 406, 415
McNamee, K.4, 10
Meeks, W. A.197, 370
Melanchthon, P.1513, 265
Melick, R. R.305
Merkel, H.31819
Merklein, H.82
Metzger, B. M.14, 218
Metzger, P. L.28
Metzger, W.324
Meyer, H. A. W.371, 380
Michaels, J. R.434
Michel, O.36, 325, 37980
Milbank, J.307
Millar, J.323, 326, 330, 390
Milligan, G.39, 43, 47, 328
Minear, P.433
Mirkin, M.8
Mitton, C. L.220, 416
Moffatt, J.433
Mller, C.226
Monera, A. T.210
Montagnini, F.83
Montanari, F.4, 5
Montefiore, C. G.120
Montgomery, J. W.xiv, xviii
Moo, D. J.xiv, xviii, 36, 37, 45, 5556,
62, 65, 71, 134, 168, 177, 182, 195, 200, 213,
39295, 229, 391, 396, 403, 41617
489
Moore, J. C.371
Moore, S.28, 29
Morris, J. B.175
Morris, L. L.62, 177, 34243, 386, 389,
430, 43334
Most, G. W.6, 30
Moule, C. F. D.424, 39, 46, 48, 50, 125,
280, 380, 385, 401, 462
Moulton, J. H.39, 418, 50, 375, 380
Moulton, W. F.371
Mounce, R. H.12, 62, 142, 175, 317, 325,
328, 430, 43334
Moxnes, H.27
Mueller, J. T.201
Mller, I.9
Muller, R. A.207
Mller, U. B.305
Muenchow, C. A.184
Mullins, M.75
Munro, W.196, 210
Muraoka, T.49
Murgia, C.20
Murray, J.61, 17778, 199, 208, 379,
38182, 392, 398
Murrin, M.427
Musculus, A.255
Musculus, W.ix, 25366
Mussies, G.47, 48
Mussner, F.37, 80, 409, 411
Nanos, M. D.201
Nelson, J.200, 236
Neste, R. Van323
Neudorfer, H.-W.227, 319, 321
Newsom, C. A.28
Newton, I.429
Nicoll, W. R.374
Nida, E. A.40, 47, 49, 50, 387
Niebuhr, R.210, 279
Noll, M.225
Nolland, J.36, 50, 5556, 75, 77, 9596,
99, 102, 104, 10708, 11011, 13537,
23133, 344, 361, 368
Norden, E.391
Norris, K.221
Nygren, A.37778
Nystrom, D.41718
OBrien, P. T.86, 229, 243, 305
ONeill, J. C.196, 38283, 402
Oberlinner, L.86, 31819, 321, 325
Ocker, C.257
Oden, T. C.318, 321, 324, 331, 333, 45960
490
Ogle, A. B.201
Olivi, P.426
Olree, A. G.196
Ortlund, R. C.229
Osborne, G. R.xii, xivxx, 37, 47, 52,
55, 5962, 64, 69, 71, 73, 76, 89, 914,
98, 10102, 108, 115, 13132, 14243, 147,
173, 175, 193, 205, 209, 21516, 222, 229,
235, 270, 27374, 285, 290, 299, 309, 312,
40506, 415, 419, 42931, 434,
43941
Osiek, C.84, 306
Overstreet, L.xi, xx
Owen, J.175
Owens, D.173
Packer, J. W.429
Page, H. R., Jr.225
Painter, J.74
Pak, G. S.207
Palls, A.196
Pao, D.77, 22223, 250
Park, S.143
Parker, T. H. L.152, 307, 464
Parsons, M. C.79
Patte, D.436, 212
Pauck, W.175
Payne, P. B.xiv, xx
Pearson, B.406
Pearson, B. R. W.29
Pelikan, J.426
Pervo, R. I.11, 21, 25
Pesch, R.79, 121, 199, 350
Peterson, D. G.11, 80
Peterson, E.246
Pfitzmann, F.200
Pfitzner, V. C.217, 225
Phillips, D. Z.282
Pietersma, A.17, 182
Pilch, J. J.90, 432
Pilgrim, W. E.207
Piper, J.228
Pitts, A. W.40, 401
Plantinga, A.106
Poffet, J.-M.7
Pohle, L.194
Phlmann, W.200
Pola, T.xiv, xx
Popkes, W.413
Porter, J. M.195
Porter, S. E.39, 40, 4450, 50, 202, 232,
365, 370, 374, 392, 399, 401
Powery, E. B.6
Praechter, K.5
Preuschen, E.7
Prior, R. E.6
Printy, M.257
Puckett, D. L.154
Pschel, U.5
Pusey, E. B.135
Quell, G.180
Quinn, J.31718, 325, 32729
Radermacher, L.41, 42, 48, 375
Radl, W.77
Raible, W.9, 13
Rambach, J. J.330
Ramm, B.163
Rapske, B.160
Rasmussen, C. C.378
Reasoner, M.367
Reed, J. T.39, 47, 50
Reeves, M.425
Rehkopf, F.39, 43, 46, 48
Reinhartz, A.369
Renan, E.435
Rendtorff, R.185
Reno, R. R.442
Rensberger, D.106
Resseguie, J.431, 44445
Reumann, J. H. P.308
Reuss, E.155
Reventlow, H. G.7
Rhodes, E. F.402
Ribera, F.428
Richards, W.321
Richardson, K. A. 87
Richardson, N.180
Riches, J.935, 368
Ricklefs, U.17
Ridderbos, H. N.79
Riekkinen, V.194
Rijksbaron, A. J.49
Ringe, S. H.28
Ritschl, A.374
Robertson, A. T.39, 424, 468, 378
Robertson, O. P.196
Robinson, J. A. T.219, 382, 386
Roloff, J.11, 89, 31819, 321, 324
Roney, J. B.207
Ropes, J. H.26, 35, 4041, 56, 159, 408,
41617
Rsel, M.182
Rosner, B. S.52, 284
Ross, A.184
Rowe, C. K.180, 192
Rowland, A.176
Scott, J. M.82
Searle, J.163
Seeberg, A.323
Segovia, F. F.28
Seifrid, M. A.135, 175
Seitz, M.226
Sellin, G.83
Selwyn, E. G.87
Share, M.5
Shaw, F. E.182
Sheehan, J.312
Siegert, F.7
Silva, M.46, 47, 24849, 307, 311, 414,
430, 439
Sim, D. C.123
Simon, R.254
Simonetti, M.7
Singgih, E. G.209, 210
Skehan, P. W.182
Slotki, J. J.8
Smalley, S. S.88, 434, 44142
Smith, P. B.427
Smith, R. L.135
Smith, W. M.236
Smyth, H. W.48, 50
Snodgrass, K.141
Snyder, G. F.194
Snyder, J.xii, xx
Soderlund, S. K.205
Sorabji, R.5
Spence, H. D. M.176
Spencer, A. B.391
Spencer, F. S.79
Spicq, C.20, 323, 331
Spilsbury, P.19
Sprinkle, P. M.401
Spurgeon, C. H.236
Staden, H. von30
Stagg, F.47, 50, 391
Stanley, C. D.6
Stansbury, M.6
Starenko, P.257
Stegemann, H.182
Stein, Robert H.70, 74
Stein, R.35556, 35859
Steinmetz, D. C.291
Steinkopf, J. F.370
Steinmetz, D. C.207
Stemberger, G.8, 9
Stenger, W.324
Stenning, H. J.31
Steudel, J.370
Stinespring, W. F.323
Stock, St.G.48
491
492
Tuckett, C. M.123
Tuominen, M.5
Turner, N.3940, 438, 50
Turner, D. L.37, 55, 1358, 346
Updike, J.469
Van Harn, R. E.219
VanGemeren, W. A.141
Vanhoozer, K. J.92, 96, 102, 103, 277
Vaughan, C. J.372
Verbrugge, V. D.374
Viard, A.199
Villa-Vicencio, C.210
Vives, J. L.15
Voelz, J. W.212
Vgtle, A.88
Volf, M.271
Wacker, W.31718, 325, 3279
Waetjen, H. C.383, 396, 40103
Wainwright, A. W.423, 4258, 431, 435
Walafrid S.424
Walbank, F.16
Wall, R. W.412, 413
Wallace, D.40, 4647, 50
Wallace, P.257
Waltke, B. K.140
Walvoord, J. F.434, 438
Wanamaker, C. A.85
Watson, E. W.175
Webb, R. L.115
Webster, J. B.28384, 308
Wedderburn, A. J. M.200
Weeden, J. T.118
Weems, M. L.467
Weidl, E.21
Weinrich, W. C.4214
Weiser, A.86
Weiss, B.10, 35, 380
Wei, J.411
Weizscker, C.290
Wellum, S.295
Wengst, K.78, 324
Werner, D.222
Wesley, J.429
Westcott, B. F.166, 367, 369, 372
Westerholm, S.393
Whitford, D. M.210
Wiedemann, T. E. J.198
Wieland, G. M.32021
Wiesehfer, J.xi, xx
Wifstrand, A.48
Wigram, C. E. M.224
493
Wood, J.29
Wright, B. G.17
Wright, G. E.281
Wright, N. T.62, 20405, 213, 299302,
305, 308, 310, 369, 372, 39697, 399
Wucherpfennig, A.7
Yamauchi, E.101
Yarbrough, M.323
Yarbrough, R. W.229, 270
Yeago, D. S.190, 192, 299303, 305, 307,
30910
Yeatts, J. R.430
Young, F.319
Young, R.40
Yuan, L. X.210
Zahn, T.3536, 429
Zell, M.256
Zeller, D.191
Zerwick, M.448, 50, 333
Ziesler, J.386, 390
iek, S.40102
Zwingli, U.262