Book Review: New Testament Biblical Theology by G.K. Beale

A New Testament Biblical Theology was a book 22 years in the making. One could argue that Beale’s commentary on Revelation alone would be enough to cement his place of importance among the great exegetes (Reformed or otherwise) of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. The commentary is an excellent picture of how to read the New Testament and Old Testament faithfully in light of one another. If this is true of his Revelation commentary, his New Testament Biblical Theology is further confirmation of the exegetical prowess of a theologian who no longer needs to prove himself.

Even beginning with the subtitle of this book, G. K. Beale makes clear that he is no dispensationalist. Rather, Beale (like Ridderbos and Vos before him) sees the Old Testament as something that is not to be set in contrast to the New. It is to be seen as a continuation or “unfolding” of what was already there in seed form in the Old. Of central importance to Beale’s project is developing upon Vos’ own conviction that the message of new creation is the central focus of the Old and New Testaments. He says explicitly where this volume stands in relation to Vos: “The present volume is my attempt to develop further Vos’ program, since he never wrote a full biblical theology of the NT” (20).

Beale spends the first chapter buttressing his own conviction of how the Old Testament “storyline” (5) can be summarized:

The Old Testament is the story of God, who progressively reestablishes his new-creational kingdom out of chaos over a sinful people by his word and Spirit through promise, covenant, and redemption, resulting in worldwide commission to the faithful to advance his kingdom and judgment (defeat or exile) for the unfaithful, unto his glory (62).

This quote is crucial for comprehending the rest of the book. All parts of the OT, then, serve to move with and build upon this dominant, overarching metanarrative. Notice the eschatological tone that the Old Testament takes on when it is read in this light: the Old Testament storyline has direction, movement, and inertia, moving from creation, to fall, to new creation, and this tone dominates the rest of Beale’s work in NTBT.

This Old Testament metanarrative, of course, unfolds into the New Testament, which Beale summarizes as follows:

Jesus’ life, trials, death for sinners, and especially resurrection by the Spirit have launched the fulfillment of the eschatological already-not yet new-creational reign, bestowed by grace through faith and resulting in worldwide commission to the faithful to advance this new-creational reign and resulting in judgment for the unbelieving, unto the triune God’s glory (188).

The central theme of new creation isn’t replaced by this NT storyline, of course, but rather brought to fruit. The entire book is particularly interested in “trac[ing] out these major eschatological and biblical-theological notions” (188). The notion of “new creation” for the purposes of displaying God’s glory dominates the book, receiving special attention at the end in chapter 28.

Richard Gaffin, who was similarly building upon the work of Vos and Ridderbos, argued that “history has reached its eschatological realization in the death and especially the resurrection of Christ” (Resurrection and Redemption, 13). Beale is in agreement with this sentiment, and it shows in how he structures the remainder of the book. Out of the 10 parts into which the book is organized, the term “new Creation” appears in the title of 7, which are geared toward exposing God’s new creational purposes in different redemptive-historical areas. Beale doesn’t simply argue that new creation is central and then structure his work as though it were not so. Rather, for Beale the Old Testament, as well as the New, reveals the progressive outworking of God’s new creational purposes. In this schema, the death and resurrection of Christ become the inauguration of that new creational purpose, and the second coming of Christ becomes the consummation of that new creational movement. There is no downplaying the centrality of the resurrection to what Beale is arguing. Whenever the term “new creation” is used by Beale, it is nearly impossible to separate it from “resurrection,” although there may be redemptive-historical differences between them. There is not one without the other. If this all sounds familiar to you, you may already be a student of Beale’s predecessors.

If there is any misstep in the whole work, it may be in chapter 15, his chapter on the Inaugurated Latter-Day Justification. In one part of that chapter, Beale discusses the relationship of works to final justification. In the process, he makes an odd statement on page 518, where he says, speaking of Romans 2:3–10 :

It seems best to understand Paul’s statement in verse 13, “the doers of the Law will be justified,” to refer to the final judgment when those who have faith in Christ and possess good works, though not perfect, will be “justified” or “vindicated” on the basis of those works (italics added).

Beale’s affirmation here that the final eschatological judgment will be “on the basis of” the believer’s good works rather than “in accordance with” the believer’s good works is difficult to reconcile with his prior affirmation of the imputation of Christ’s active obedience to believers (see 471–477). When Richard Gaffin, who holds a similar view of final justification to Beale, speaks on the subject, he says what seems to be quite the opposite: “[I]n that future judgment, their good works will not be the ground or basis of their acquittal.” I will leave it to readers to make sense of how the rather odd statement in question fits into Beale’s overall perspective on justification; I am quite at a loss to discern the answer myself.

Even in light of the above-cited shortcoming, this book really is a treasure trove of biblical-theological and redemptive-historical insights. Reading this book during my first year of seminary was profoundly formative, and it increased my confidence that the Bible could be read as a whole elegant tapestry and not as a patchwork quilt. Even in light of the above-mentioned confusing statement regarding final justification, I would still recommend this work highly. The fact that this book is now available in a searchable format on Logos further increases its high value to both pastor and student. Even if one doesn’t plan to read it all the way through, it can be very helpful to use the Scripture index and see how Beale works with particular texts in their redemptive-historical context.

Being able to read the numerous Scripture references on the fly simply by hovering over them is a feature so exciting that I can hardly contain my enthusiasm. I own a physical copy of this text, with highlights all over the place and writing in the margins, but the truth is that—at 1,000 pages—it’s quite cumbersome for a bus trip or even a ride across town in a backpack or briefcase. Being able to put this on my iPad with Logos, and read the Scripture references immediately within the text, all in a searchable and digital format, is well worth the repurchase price tag. If you have this book and find yourself using it already, don’t hesitate to pick it up on Logos.

Doing Church Without God

Piggybacking on my last post, I wanted to note a few sporadic and yet related thoughts.

It is worth noting that Christianity does, in fact, have its own branches which wouldn't care or even notice if God didn't exist. Things would move along pretty much as they always have if it turned out He never existed or if He just up and disappeared. Christianity is infected with what often gets termed 'moralistic therapeutic deism.' These churches have given up worship of God in exchange for moralizing their members - making them good citizens who obey the golden rule and teach their kids that God will let them into heaven if they just follow God's rules and check all the marks on the list.

Many churches have such little belief in the sovereignty of God that they believe they must be the ones to make God come within their midst. Inspired by Charles Finney and his axiomatic belief that it is man and not God who decides when revival happens, much of Christendom has set to work doing religion when the show has already left the building. The sad reality is, many churches have gotten so used to 'making church happen' that it now bears no urgent dependency upon the Divine. If God were to depart, such churches would scarcely even notice.

Other experiments in fulfilling John Gray's supposedly 'novel' idea have been tried. Back in the 60s, Thomas Altizer and William Hamilton posited a 'Christian' denial of God's existence known as the "God is dead" movement. It is of course, a relic of the old liberalism which is long forgotten by most Christians today. Such men truly argued that God is dead and gone - most specifically that Christian theism is not true. And yet they insisted on calling themselves Christian. They may have made great elders in most churches in the PCUSA.

In truth, attempts throughout recent church history have been made to separate the existence of God from the practice of religion. One need only look at the demise of the mainline protestant denominations in the United States to see that a divorce of God from religion is not sustainable in the long-term for more than the obvious reasons. When experience of God and devotion to God is split off from liturgy and sacraments, one is left with a rank and odious procession which is more a funeral for the divine than worship or celebration.

In the end, it is sad to say that despite my own protestations, I'm afraid John Gray's arguments may have been unwittingly adopted by large portions of American Christianity without their conscious awareness. Is there help for such churches? Sure. But the changes needed are fundamental, and I'm not holding my breath waiting for them to turn around.

Giveaway: Last Day!

Just wanted to send out a reminder that today is the last day to be part of our giveaway. All you have to do to enter this giveaway is to "Like" Bring the Books on our all-new Facebook page.  Tomorrow, or soon thereafter, we will randomly draw two names from our followers on Facebook.

Grand Prize


The grand prize winner will receive A New Testament Biblical Theology: The Unfolding of the Old Testament in the New by G.K. Beale.  This highly anticipated volume is out now and we had a copy ready to give away.



Runner-Up

The runner-up will receive The Federal Vision and Covenant Theology: A Comparative Analysis by Dr. Guy Waters.

We will contact the winner via Facebook to get shipping information.  Due to the costs of shipping, the giveaway is only for those living in the continental United States.

Nine Reasons Beale's NT Biblical Theology Is Unique

In his book A New Testament Biblical Theology, G.K. Beale offers nine ways in which his NT biblical theology differs from other NT biblical theologies:

1) "The approach of this book overlaps with that of a whole-Bible biblical theology in that it addresses more directly the theological storyline of the OT" (5).

2) "The main facets of the OT narrative story are then traced into and throughout the NT" (6).

3) "The bulk of discussion in this biblical theology of the NT consists of attempts to elaborate on the main plotline categories of thought through surveying the places in the NT where that thought is expressed." This is in contrast to the chronological/canonical approach offered by most NT biblical theologies.

4) "[This Biblical Theology] is concerned with how important components of the OT storyline are understood and developed in Judaism. This is significant because it is important to see how the major biblical-theological notions of the NT develop these same OT components and whether they do so in dependence on Judaism or in line with Judaism or in contrast to it" (8).

5) "This approach to NT biblical theology will focus more on the unity of the NT than on its diversity" (9).

6) "It is not usual to find a concise definition of what is a classic NT theology. On the other hand, my working definition of NT biblical theology is the following, in dependence on Geerhardus Vos' definition of a whole-Bible biblical theology: 'Biblical theology, rightly defined, is nothing else than the exhibition of the organic progress of the supernatural revelation in its historic continuity and multiformity.'... This project places the interpretation of NT texts in relation to the preceding epochs found in the OT, which often occurs through analyzing the use of particular OT passages in the NT" (9).

7) "The approach of this book is most in line with Stuhlmacher's and Dodd's theory of NT biblical theology...Nevertheless, this book sets out in a different direction in the way it executes how the two Testaments are related" (11-12).

8) "[Other biblical theologies] conduct their discussions generally corpus by corpus...Also, in contrast, as noted earlier, my approach is organized by the major components of my formulation of the NT storyline" (14).

9) "In light of what I have discussed thus far, I categorize my biblical-theological approach to be canonical, genetic-progressive (or oganically developmental, as a flower develops from a seed and bud), exegetical and intertextual. This approach could be summarized as a 'biblical-theological-oriented exegesis.'" (15)

If you want Beale's book, you can enter our drawing to win a free copy (the drawing will be on December 1st). If you don't have the patience, then you can order your copy from the Westminster Bookstore for 45% off, though that offer is about to expire.

This Just In: Everybody's Christian!

I've made a decision. It's a big one (and it's also sarcastic, so don't take it too seriously). Everyone who claims to be a Christian is now a Christian. As long as you use the specific word "Christian," and say that Jesus is important to you, you're in. At least that's what some would like us to think.

A few weeks ago, Rachel Held Evans lamented that she shouldn't have to keep defending her Christian credentials just because she has liberal theological tendencies.

But the problem is that after ten years, I’m getting tired of trying to convince fellow Christians that I am, in fact, a Christian, even though I may vote a little differently than they vote, interpret the Bible differently than they interpret it, engage with science a little differently than they engage with it, and understand sovereignty and choice a little differently than they understand those things.

And I think a lot of other young evangelicals are growing weary of those arguments too. We’re ready to rebuild in communities where a commitment to love and follow Jesus Christ is enough common ground from which to start.

Once again, she laments:

I haven’t lost hope in the future of evangelicalism, but I’ve lost the desire to fight for my place in it. I’m tired of trying to convince other Christians that I am a Christian.

There is a need on the part of Bell's supporters to - not defend themselves - but to remove the need to defend themselves. Rachel Held Evans is understandably tired - exhausted at the thought that she might need to "contend for the faith," as she sees it. Fellow critics like John MacArthur can't possibly be making it easier for her. In his more recent blog posts, MacArthur has been arguing quite vigorously that Bell is not a fellow sheep, but rather, a wolf within the fold.

I've been asking myself a lot of questions after I read Evans' blog entry a few weeks ago, but perhaps the one that seems the most unfair - and at the same time relevant is this one (and it is a bit off topic, but I have to chase this rabbit for a moment): is there something about Arminianism that makes Arminians just more comfortable dancing/flirting with heretical doctrines? I don't mean this glibly or rhetorically. I mean this honestly. But I also mean it very generally, since I can think of many I would call Arminian whom this criticism does not apply to. However, in general, Calvinists tend to fall on the more conservative, old-school side of theological debates. To quote Spurgeon, "Calvinism has in it a conservative force which helps to hold men to vital truth."

But why is it that Bell's defenders themselves see this battle really falling along the old lines of the debate over Calvinism/Arminianism (Evans says it's between the New Calvinists and New Evangelicals, but it's really the same old debate). Read my review of Love Wins. See if I have had any interest in making this about election or predestination in my critique of the book. And yet Rachel Held Evans and many others see the whole debate as - ultimately - falling along the age-old lines of the evangelical debate over election and predestination. How interesting.

Allow me to use Bell as an example of the encroaching problem I see. Bell's only ground in claiming orthodoxy and historical pedigree for his views is words. He uses the same words that the old creeds do, and even that the Bible uses. These are words which he has clearly, blatantly, undeniably redefined from the way that they were previously understood through most of Christian history. His dissenters (including Ben Witherington, who is certainly not a Calvinist) have recognized this, while his supporters appear indifferent as to preserving the use of words. For Bell's supporters to remain supporters (and here I include Richard Mouw - a Calvinist), they must be indifferent as to whether historical words are used consistently from one generation to the next. And many of them are, to be sure. They argue that the meaning of words do change from one generation to the next. Certainly. But if someone bites their thumb at you, you won't be offended until you discover what this Shakespearean gesture actually means. The same is true of Biblical words. Hell sounds very unpleasant until you discover what Rob Bell means by it. Suddenly, it becomes a rosier destination for all of God's enemies.

So here we come back around full circle to Evans' complaint, once again. Look carefully at what she says near the end of the quote:

We’re ready to rebuild in communities where a commitment to love and follow Jesus Christ is enough common ground from which to start.

Now here is where we really must protest against Evans. She has requested that the lines be drawn so broadly that there is now room within the church for any and every cult/group out there. Who could argue that the Branch Dividians loved Jesus? Who can deny that Jehovah's Witnesses love Jesus? Who can deny that Mormons love and follow Jesus? If Evans had her way, they would be in the circle. Or look at it another way. If she wants to draw the circle that broadly, then consider what brought her to that place. The Jesus and Bible of Rob Bell and of the Emergents is so ill-defined that the cults now do have a legitimate place at the table. In opening the door wide enough for her own orthodoxy not to be called into question, she has flung open the doors and is letting the flies and the wolves, in.

Why Only One Nation? A Response to Bruce from Project: The King and I

Bruce over at Project: The King and I has been reading through the Bible. I've been following his blog just because I find it interesting to see what an atheist thinks about the Bible as he reads through it. Well, today's reading was from Genesis 34 and 35. He has a sense of humor because he titled the post "The One Where Rachel and Isaac Die" (a blatant Friends reference). He concluded today's post by asking an honest question:

My question, that I've wanted to ask since early on is:
Why is God only blessing one family, The linage of Abraham? He seems to be a personal god to the one family (Abraham, Jacob, Isaac, etc) and others must win favor with the family to benefit from God's power. To me this comes off not as a god that loves and provides for his creation so much as a personal mentor/bodyguard for a wealthy family.

I could have posted in his comments, but I'm very congnisant of trying not to put long responses in comment sections on other blogs, so I'm hoping he'll read my response that I will post here.

Bruce,

When you see God working so narrowly with only one man and one family, keep in mind that the first principle being exercised is God's freedom in choosing (election). The principle illustrated by God's choice of one family is his freedom. He could have presented himself to any family, but he chose to show himself to and link his glory with the destiny of this one man and his descendants, not out of obligation, but freely.

The second principle in God's choosing one family through whom to reveal himself (which is what Abraham and his descendants were) is that there is a universalistic end to this choosing. Recall God's statement to Abraham: "all the families of the earth shall be blessed" (Gen. 12:3). As Biblical theologian Geerhardus Vos once said, "The election of Abraham..was meant as a particularistic means towards a universalistic end."



Picture God's revelation of himself as sort of a tree. When creation was young (early in Genesis) God's revelation was very wide, like the roots of a tree - it extended to all mankind through Adam and his children. Everyone knew God through His revelation to Adam and Eve. Eventually, humanity became unrepentant and lived in open rebellion against God and forgot their Creator (Now picture the tree narrowing into a trunk). When God again reveals himself, it is to one man (Abraham). It is at this point that the spectrum of revelation and divine favor narrows to Abraham and his family.

However, the end of this narrowing of divine favor/revelation in Abraham and his family is not meant to stay that way. Eventually, in Jesus (yes, this is where all of this is leading - just keep reading the book) the branches of the tree broaden once again when the Gentiles are allowed to be ingrafted into the tree. (Now picture the branches of the tree extending as broadly as possible.) So the end goal is not as particularistic as things look right now, in Genesis 35 and 36. You will have to wait several thousand years, but the end game is much broader than one simple family or nation. Until then, everything that is happening is setting the stage for the Messiah who is to come, under the law, so that he could live in perfect obedience to that law and die for his people. All of this is setting the stage for the One who eventually is to come.

I hope this is helpful, Bruce.

Geerhardus Vos Breaks Down Eve's Temptation

"Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die" (Genesis 2:16).

In his Biblical Theology, Geerhardus Vos ventures into an area where I as a rookie theologian have never seen dealt with in a detailed fashion. The first thing of interest which Vos touches on is the distinction between Adam's being "tempted" and Adam's being on "probation." As Vos says, the reason why it is not proper to say that "God tempted" Adam (aside from the impossibility, viz. James 1:13) is because the situation in Eden before the fall was "probation." What is the difference between "temptation" and "probation" is that "behind the probation lies a good, behind the temptation an evil." Whereas confirmation in grace for Adam was the good design by God in Adam's probation, the Devil is said to have tempted Adam and Eve because he had evil designs in his proposition to our Federal Head, Adam.

For me, this was a helpful discussion, as I have often wondered in the back of my mind if the situation with the tree and God's prohibition of the tree to our parents was not itself a temptation. Or more correctly, I have often wondered why this was not a temptation.

By Vos' estimate, Satan chose to tempt Eve based on the only consideration which distinguished her from Adam: "that the woman had not personally received the prohibition from God, as Adam had." This is a clever insight, because as Vos points out in a moment, Eve herself may have faced an epistimological dilemma revolving around the question of what God really said.

Vos divides the temptation into two stages:

-The first stage was inducement of serious doubt in Eve.
-The second stage was when doubt gave way to an all-out charge by the serpent against the honesty of God.

In the first stage, as Vos observes, the serpent purposely mis-states God's command. "Has God said you may not eat of any tree?" Eve perceived this error and corrected it.

He further points out that Eve inaccurately quotes the divine prohibition: "You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die." Of this Vos says, "[I]n the more or less indignant form of this denial there already shines through that the woman had begun to entertain the possibility of God's restricting her too severely." So we see the craftiness of the serpent already at work. At this point, the salesman has his foot in the door.

Here, then, comes the second stage of the temptation where Eve is now open to hearing an all-out denial of the truthfulness of God. The serpent says, "You will not surely die." Vos points out that if the serpent had led off with this blasphemous thought, Eve would have repudiated the serpent and sent him away. All of the work in stage one was done by the serpent to prepare Eve for his monstrous charge.

The serpent further deepened the lie by putting forth the half truth: "For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." As Vos restates the serpent's charge: "God is one whose motives make His word unreliable. He lies from selfishness."

After these two stages of the serpent's temptation, his work is now done. The rest of the events took place within Eve's heart.

In part at least, the pivotal motive of the act was identical with the pivotal motive that gave strength to the temptation. It has been strikingly observed that the woman in yielding to this thought virtually put the tempter in the place of God. It was God who had beneficent purposes for man, the serpent had malicious designs. The woman acts on the supposition that God's intent is unfriendly, whilst Satan is animated with the desire to promote her well-being. [My emphasis]

What strikes me most deeply about all of this is the profoundly personal nature of Eve's sin. By taking the fruit, Eve was calling God a selfish liar who had deceived her. It is not only that Eve disobeyed God, but that she dishonored him by calling the serpent good and the Most Holy evil. The taking of the fruit was a profoundly blasphemous act; not merely a "mistake" or an "error." This blasphemy is present in every one of us still. What a pity that so much of the church tends to think of the fall and of original sin (if they believe in it at all) in terms of disease, as though sin was simply a parasite which God is trying desperately to kill. Sin lies in the inclination of the heart; it is blasphemy, sin is hatred of God, sin is calling God a liar every time it manifests itself. It is a deeply personal attack on the honor, the truthfulness, and the holiness of God. God's just response to this must be wrath and anger, or else He does not value His name, and if He does not value His own name then He is an idolator, and if God is an idolator, then Satan was right.

'Been Thinkin' About the Blues: Blind Willie Johnson

I don't understand the blues. The blues come from a world I don't live in. I've never been discriminated against because of my color; I've never lived in abject poverty; my kids don't cry all the time, and I have never felt in danger of my wife leaving me. These are tremendously common themes in the blues, especially the delta blues from the early 20th century. Singer after singer, from Robert Johnson to Lonnie Johnson belted out heartfelt songs bemoaning their unfaithful lovers (see Lonnie Johnson's song "She's Makin' Whoopee In Hell Tonight" for a good example). Nowadays, these themes have become somewhat of a cliche, but there was a time when these ideas were fresh, untried topics for musical exploration.

When I peruse the Mississippi Delta Blues singers, one bluesman who bucked these thematic trends in particular stands out to me. My first exposure to Blind Willie Johnson was his song "It's Nobody's Fault But Mine," which is a cautionary song/sermon about reading the Bible that's in your house before it's too late. (Technically Willie isn't a Delta singer because he was from Texas, but his music had a strong influence on the Delta bluesmen, and he is often, therefore, grouped in with the Delta bluesmen.) The two things which struck me were his sorrowful, shaky, deep, gravelly voice and his simple yet extraordinarily insightful lyrics:

I have a bible in my home,
I have a bible in my home
If I don't read it my soul be lost

And sister she taught me how to read,
sister she taught me how to read
If I don't read it my soul be lost, nobody's fault but mine

The biggest obstacle to listening to Blind Willie is simply one of linguistics; the man mumbles and roars, he growls and he whispers. He seemingly does everything he can to keep from being clearly heard by doing his best Tom Waits meets late-career Bob Dylan impression. For those who turn up the volume and listen closely, they will be richly rewarded by a dearth of God-glorifying lyrics and tremendous bottleneck guitar playing. Many consider him one of the greatest bottleneck guitarists of all time.

This man recorded only 30 songs between 1927 and 1929, but each and every one was unique and stood on its own as a testament to awesome theology and amazing, world-shaking musicianship. His songs have been covered by the White Stripes, Led Zeppelin, the Rolling Stones, Dave Matthews, Nick Cave, Bruce Springsteen, Bob Dylan, and many others. Ry Cooder described Willie's song "Dark Was the Night (Cold Was the Ground)" as "The most soulful, transcendent piece in all American music." And yet for all of the acclaim Blind Willie now enjoys, in life things were not so great for Blind Willie. Legend has it, Willie was blinded at a young age when his stepmother threw lye in his face as revenge against Willie's father who beat her when he caught her cheating on him. Subsequently, Willie's father would leave him on street corners, begging for food and money in exchange for his songs.

Not a lot is known about Blind Willie, but what is known is that he was a preacher who operated The House of Prayer in Beaumont, Texas. In addition to preaching on street corners to whoever would listen, Willie would play his music for passersby, and it was in his songs that listeners could find some of the greatest sermons.

One song, in particular, recorded in 1929, is called "God Moves On The Water." In the song, Willie tells of the sailing and sinking of the Titanic in 1912. The continual refrain in the song is, "God moves, God moves, ah, and the people had to run and pray."

A.G. Smith, mighty man, built a boat that he couldn't understand
Named it a name of God in a tin, without a "c", Lord, he pulled it in
God moves, ah, God moves, God moves, ah, and the people had to run and pray

Willie seems to be saying that God caused the sinking of the great ship as judgment on mankind's hubris. But even if he is not saying that the sinking of the Titanic was a form of judgment, he is at least acknowledging that it happened by the will of God. A very haunting and sad song whose theme is betrayed by a furiously upbeat guitar part.

Willie's life ended almost as sadly as it began. In 1945, Willie's house burned to the ground. With no other place to live, he returned to the burned out ruins of his home, sleeping on his wet mattress until he died several weeks later from pneumonia. He was subsequently buried in an unmarked grave.

Willie committed his most deeply held hopes to his recordings. On one song, "Lord, I Just Can't Keep From Cryin' Sometimes," Willie recounts the source of many of his sorrows in life, but then he remembers the one hope he has in Jesus:

My mother, she's in glory, thank God I'm on my way
Father, he's gone too, and sister she could not stay
I'm trusting Him everyday, to bear my burdens away

'Cause I just can't keep from crying sometimes
Well, I just can't keep from crying sometimes
When my heart's full of sorrow and my eyes are filled with tears
Lord, I just can't keep from crying sometimes

Rather than denying the reality or importance of sorrow in the Christian life, Willie acquiesces to the pain, accepting it and then turning it towards the creator, seeking his solace with God since he could find no comfort in this life.

Lord, in my time of dyin', don't want nobody to cry
All I want you to do, is take me when I die
Well, well, well, so I can die easy
Well, well, well, well, well, well, so I can die easy
Jesus goin' make up
Jesus goin' make up
Jesus goin' make my dyin' bed

Christ the Center with Gamble

Once again, I have the privilege to be on Christ the Center. We interview Dr. Richard C. Gamble on his new book, volume one, of his theology book, The Whole Counsel of God v.1: God’s Mighty Acts in the Old Testament. We discussed the influences and aims of this substantial new volume. This book is a great attempt at a theology text that blends the best of biblical theology with systematic theology. I would highly recommend it. You can find the audio for the interview here.

Thoughts on the Mosaic Law: Part One

First Principles for Discussing the Mosaic Covenant and its Relationship to the Law and Gospel Issues

1. God’s law is perpetual, because it’s based on the holiness of God. This is the right understanding of the relationship between section 1 and section 2 of chapter 19 in the WCF. Thus the reference to “this law” in section 2 is referring to the moral law established by God’s holiness as principle/rule not as the covenant of works reduplicated in the Mosaic Law.

2. Man has always been obligated to obey God’s law in its fullness; whether in the Garden of Eden or in the heavenly Jerusalem. Thus, both believers and unbelievers are called to be holy as God is holy (see point 1).

3. Without this perfect holiness no man will see God. Thus, anyone who can be perfect as God is perfect can be in the presence of God. Alternatively, anyone who is not perfect will not be able to be in God’s presence.

4. Consequently, there is always a sense of the covenant of works principle operating in all dispensations of redemptive history. That is, if man can be perfect they would inherit for themselves eternal life. In this sense, one can argue that there is a covenant of works principle in the Mosaic Law, although this is no different in the Abrahamic or New Covenant.

5. Man is unable, because of his sin, to obtain eternal life by fulfilling the law’s demands. Thus the covenant of works principle was only able to be filled by Adam in the garden and the Son of God, Jesus. This is why some have called it a “hypothetical” principle.

Van Pelt on Canon and Covenant

As most of our readers know, I was in Washington D.C. last week for a class on exegesis taught by Dr. Miles Van Pelt. During part of this class Dr. Van Pelt gave his lectures on the Canon and the Covenants. These lectures are fantastic. You can hear him give this lecture at Biblical Training.org. Pay particular attention to the Old Testament section to hear him on this topic. You have to register before you can download the lectures, but it is fast and, best of all, free. I highly recommend these lectures. They give a great framework for understanding the overall theme and structure of the Bible.