John Piper on T. H. L. Parker's "Portrait of Calvin"

No one recommends a book like Piper. His excitement is contagious.

Who Wrote the Book of Joshua?

This post on the authorship of the book of Joshua (part 1) by Robert Hubbard was an absolute delight to read. If commentaries were written like this they would be a whole lot more fun. Zondervan has just released one of the last remaining commentaries in the popular series The NIV Application Commentary. This is the entry on Joshua and is authored by Robert Hubbard who is professor of Biblical Literature at North Park Theological Seminary in Chicago. The question prompted me to return to a series that I’ve neglected for some time now—the comparison of notes in the major study Bibles.

If you had asked me when I first became a Christian "Who wrote the book of Joshua?" I would have gladly told you. “I know exactly who wrote it. Joshua did. And I know because C. I. Scofield told me he wrote it.” You’ll find no discussion on the authorship of Joshua in the Scofield Study Bible. Simply stated: "Author: Joshua." How do the newer study Bibles compare?

I started with what I knew would be the two most conservative—the Ryrie Study Bible and the MacArthur Study Bible. Ryrie said that while “some portions were not written by Joshua (15:13-17; 24:29-31)” he is “clearly the author” based on 24:1-26. MacArthur says the “author is not named” but that “the most probable candidate is Joshua.” He also notes that an assistant “could have finished the book by attaching circumstances as those concerning Joshua’s death.”

The Life Application Study Bible could be placed in this category. It notes “Author: Joshua, except for the ending which may have been written by the high priest Phinehas, an eyewitness to the events recounted there.”

The remaining study Bibles were more cautious in their conclusions (listed here in no particular order).

ESV Study Bible: The book is “named for its leading character” but the “book’s author, however, is not explicitly mentioned.” It continues, “While the book depicts Joshua writing (Josh 8:32; 24:26), it does not claim he wrote the book.”

TNIV Study Bible: It is “safe to conclude that the book draws on early sources. It may date from the beginning of the monarchy.” We are “unsure who the final author or editor was.”

NLT Study Bible: “No where does the book of Joshua claim that Joshua was its author. The author or authors remain anonymous.”

Spirit of the Reformation Bible: “Author: unknown.” “It is likely that its final form resulted from a compiler or compilers working with an earlier version of the book.”

The Apologetics Study Bible: The book is “anonymous in its final form.” It is “clear from Josh. 24:26 that Joshua wrote certain portions of it.” “Precisely when the book of Joshua came to exist in its present form is unknown.”

NKJV Study Bible: "The Book of Joshua does not state who wrote it. Joshua himself undoubtedly wrote portions of the book, since 24:26 states, 'Then Joshua wrote these words in the Book of the Law of God."

Archaeological Study Bible: “No one knows for certain who wrote/compiled the book of Joshua or when or where it was written. Scholars have proposed dates ranging from immediately after Joshua’s lifetime to the time of Samuel to the early monarchy and even to the postexilic period.”

It was interesting to note how various Bibles interpreted the role of Josh. 24:26 in the debate. Some like Ryrie said it "clearly" showed Joshua was the author. Others, like the ESV Study Bible said it could not be pressed that far. Most noted that the Jewish tradition attributes the book to Joshua. Of those listed I liked the layout and discussion of the Archaeological Study Bible best (I gave only a small portion of their actual entry.). Though brief (they were all brief) it did a nice job of encapsulating the issues and giving the various options of interpretation.

Our Blog is One Year Old!

It was one year ago today that we ventured into the blog world. Baker Book House is also celebrating its 70th birthday this year. Founded in 1939 by Herman Baker who started selling books from his own library. The company is still family owned and located in West Michigan.

The blog was the brain child of Andrew Rogers who has moved on to one of our favorite publishers, Zondervan, and is a regular contributor/producer to the Koinonia blog. For those who haven't noticed we actually have three blogs for the store: this one, one dedicated to fiction books and one for music. Since our beginning we have been delighted to have author interviews, blog tours and numerous book reviews as well as updates on news and the occasional commentary. This year we've done a number of posts on John Calvin in honor of his 500th birthday.

In a world where there are virtually 1,000s of blogs it is hard to find an identity and to contribute something meaningful. We hope as we continue to grow that we will help some along the way and be a true "church connection." I want to thank those of you who have stopped by and taken the time to comment. We do appreciate the input. What's to come in the future?

We will continue to provide forthcoming titles from various publishers. As a retailer we see a lot of forthcoming books and hopefully this feature will allow us to highlight just a few of them. For example, we just finished the sales conference for Baker Publishing Group so we will be featuring some of their Spring 2010 titles.

We also have two blog tours planned. One on June 30th with Latayne C. Scott (on her book The Mormon Mirage) and the other on July 14th with Fred VanKamecke (on his book Busted: Exposing Popular Myths about Christianity).

Finally, there will be the many tidbits of information, book reviews, links to other blogs and general commentary. If you have any suggestions that you think we could do to make this a better blog for you just let us know. We are a full service Christian retail store located in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Grand Rapids is home to some major Christian publishers: Baker Publishing Group, Zondervan, Eerdmans, Kregel Publications and Reformation Heritage Books. We have strong relations with all of them, and many more, and enjoy partnering with them in the Christian retail industry.

Thanks for making this a fun first year!

P.S. We've updated our photos of the store. Just click on the picture on the left sidebar to take a look.

World Magazine Crowns ESV Study Bible 2009 Book of the Year

Congratulations to Crossway publishers on the selection of the ESV Study Bible (hereafter ESVSB) as the recipient on World Magazine's 2009 Book of the Year. Marvin Olasky, editor in chief of World Magazine, says the ESVSB is "informative throughout and spectacular in parts." He cites the many articles which have been praised for their clarity and thoroughness. He also says he took it for a "road test" as he went through the book of Leviticus. He enjoys the various charts and illustrations and the occasional note acknowledging that "we just don't know." He concludes, "The Bible is the book for all years; this study Bible is a particular winner in the Year of Our Lord 2009."

In March of this year the ESVSB was selected as the Book of the Year and also won in the Bible category by the Evangelical Christian Publishers Association.

Inaugural Assembly of the Newly Formed Anglican Church in North America

This week a group of Anglicans is meeting in Bedford, Texas to formally inaugurate the Anglican Church in North America (ANCA). These are Anglicans who have been increasingly uncomfortable with the "the Episcopal Church in the United States and the Anglican Church of Canada [which] have increasingly accommodated and incorporated un-Biblical, un-Anglican practices and teaching." Now these Anglicans have found a formal expression through the ANCA. This is Anglican history in the making. Bishop Robert Duncan is the Archbishop designate for the ACNA.

To learn more visit their website. There you can find "fact sheets" explaining their "genesis", "who they are", and "what they stand for."

John Calvin, Sin and the Goodness of God

Before I actually read Calvin for myself the impression I was given from others was that when he wasn't talking about predestination he was talking about what sinners we all are. Granted, he talked about sin but he had a profound sense of the devastating effects it has in the life of the believer and what an offense it was in the sight of God. But he was a pastor and knew that we could go too far in thinking about our sin and how the enemy could use that to his advantage. I remember the first time I read this passage was to fulfill a reading obligation for my class on Calvin. That night I saw Calvin in a way I had never envisioned--I saw him with a pastor's heart. The quote from Bernard is especially good.

"Those who are really religious experience what sort of punishments and shame, confusion, groaning, displeasure with self, and other emotions that arise out of a lively recognition of sin. Yet we must remember to exercise restraint, lest sorrow engulf us. For nothing more readily happens to fearful consciences than falling into despair. And also by this stratagem, whomever Satan sees overwhelmed by the fear of God he more and more submerges in that deep whirlpool of sorrow that they may never rise again. That fear cannot, indeed, be too great which ends in humility, and does not depart from the hope of pardon. Nevertheless, in accordance with the apostle's injunction the sinner ought always to beware lest, while he worries himself into dissatisfaction weighed down by excessive fear, he become faint [Heb. 12:3]. For in this way we flee from God, who calls us to himself through repentance. On this matter Bernard's admonition is also useful: 'Sorrow for sins is necessary if it be not unremitting. I beg you to turn your steps back sometimes from troubled and anxious remembering of your ways, and to go forth to the tableland of serene remembrance of God's benefits. Let us mingle honey with wormwood that is wholesome bitterness may bring health when it is drunk tempered with sweetness. If you take thought upon yourselves in your humility, take thought likewise upon the Lord in his goodness.'" (Institutes 3.3.15)

Steve Lawson on John Calvin as a Preacher

The Lost World of Genesis One - A Review

In The Lost World of Genesis One John Walton offers a view of the first chapter of Genesis which is sure to spark debate. Those who have read Walton’s commentary on Genesis will recognize much of what is covered in this book. But few layman read commentaries and, unfortunately, too many pastors don’t either. So this popular level work will now bring the fruits of his scholarship to a whole new audience.

Walton says we have lost our way in understanding Genesis 1 because we have lost its cultural context. The only interpretation of Genesis 1 that we have understood has to do with the material creation of the universe. But what if the chapter is not describing a material creation at all? What if it is describing creation as it would have been understood in its ancient Near Eastern context? In that context Genesis 1 is describing not the material creation of the universe but its functional creation. That is to say for those in the ancient Near East the universe did not “exist” in any meaningful way until its parts had been assigned a purpose or role. Walton explains, “[T]he actual creative act is to assign something its functioning role in the ordered system. That is what brings it into existence. Of course something must have physical properties before it can be given its function, but the critical question is, what stage is defined as ‘creation.’” (27) For those in the ancient world to create something “means to give it a function, not material properties.” (35) It would be hard to overestimate the importance of this distinction in order to properly understand Genesis 1.

Walton illustrates this distinction with that of “creating” a computer. First there is the assembly of its physical components, that is, its physical creation. Then someone has to write the programs but until they are installed its “’existence’ is meaningless—it cannot function.” (27) Someone still has to install the software and then we need to find a power source. Finally he concludes, “But what if no one sits at the keyboard or knows how to use or even desires to use it? It remains nonfunctional, and, for all intents and purposes, as if it did not exist. We can see that different observers might be inclined to attribute ‘existence’ to the computer at different stages in the process.” (27) To the modern mindset “existence” is entirely related to the physical composition of something—it is an ontological focus rather than a functional one. But as Walton demonstrates, “[i]n the ancient world, what was most crucial and significant to their understanding of existence was the way that the parts of the cosmos functioned, not their material status.” The problem seems to revolve around the word “create.” To the modern mind the word refers almost exclusively to the material composition of something. The functional sense of the word is better seen when we say something like we “created a committee.” The people already existed but the committee did not exist until roles were assigned to certain individuals and a purpose was given for them to meet. This is what God is doing in Genesis 1. He is assigning roles and purpose to a chaotic system. He is creating order with a purpose. That purpose brings us to Walton’s next point which hinges on day seven.

What’s the point of God resting on the seventh day? Simple. God rests in a temple and only a temple. Walton explains this is not just a siesta on a Sunday afternoon. “For deity this means that the normal operations of the cosmos can be undertaken. This is more a matter of engagement without obstacles rather than disengagement without responsibilities.” (73) The temple is not primarily a place of worship but a home or more importantly his “headquarters—the control room.” (75) From here, the temple, God assumes his rightful place. Genesis 1 is “describing the creation of the cosmic temple with all of its functions and with God dwelling in its midst. This is what makes day seven so significant, because without God taking up his dwelling in its midst, the (cosmic) temple does not exist. The most central truth to the creation account is that this world is a place for God’s presence.” (84-85) Walton supports this thesis with important connections between the cosmos and the tabernacle and the temple. (pp. 81-84) This leads to my final point.

Walton suggests “the seven days may be understood in relation to some aspect of temple inauguration.” (87) The parallels of Genesis 1 to other ancient Near Eastern inauguration ceremonies are striking. The Bible itself records temple inauguration ceremonies (see p. 89 for discussion). Also, these inauguration ceremonies could be reenacted on a yearly basis. No evidence has been found that Israel engaged in this kind of yearly festival but it should not be surprising if we found they did and Walton says it “would be theologically and culturally appropriate.” (91) This also relieves the problem of whether the Hebrew word for day (yom) is a twenty-four hour day or a long period of time. Since Genesis 1 is not describing the physical creation of the universe the problem dissolves. An inauguration ceremony which is seven twenty-four hour days poses no problem. Walton says understanding yom as a twenty-four hour day “has always been the best reading of the Hebrew text.”

Readers may be concerned that Walton is buying into the theory that the Israelites simply borrowed from other pagan cultures. He is not. He clearly says, “I am not suggesting that the Israelites are borrowing from these ancient literatures. Instead the literatures show how people thought in the ancient world, and as we examine Genesis, we can see that Israelites thought in similar ways.” (79 see also his discussion on pp.13-15) This is an important distinction. Walton also notes that it was not his reading of the ancient Near Eastern texts that changed his mind on Genesis 1 but rather questions he had in the text of Genesis itself. (54)

Other readers may wonder if Walton believes that God did create the material universe. Rest assured he does. He says, “If we conclude that Genesis 1 is not an account of material origins, we are not thereby suggesting that God is not responsible for material origins. I firmly believe that God is fully responsible for material origins, and that, in fact, material origins do involve at some point creation out of nothing. But that theological question is not one we are asking. We are asking a textual question: What sort of origins account do we find in Genesis 1?” (44)

The last part of the book Walton engages with how his view affects issues like evolution, intelligent design and public science education. I had more qualms with this part of the book than I did with the first part. But they are minor points of disagreement which do not affect his major premise.

Walton’s book is a five-star example of exegesis which is culturally informed without compromising Biblical authority. Highly recommended. I think it would make a great choice for a small group study.

You can hear a lecture that Walton gave during a science symposium to a group of physicists on Genesis 1 here. It is extremely helpful and includes power point slides he used in the presentation. In several places he expands and clarifies what he covers in the book. The presentation is 52 minutes long with about 10 minutes of Q & A following.

For further reading:

Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament: Introducing the Conceptual World of the Hebrew Bible by John Walton from Baker Academic.

Israel: Ancient Kingdom or Late Invention? edited by Daniel I. Block. Walton has an essay in this volume called “Interpreting the Bible as an Ancient Near Eastern Document.”

"Do We Need Background Studies?" an article for the Koinonia blog

See especially the forthcoming 5-volume work from Zondervan called the Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary: Old Testament. Walton is the general editor. It should be released this fall.

Walton mentions a forthcoming full scale scholarly work on Genesis 1 from Eisenbrauns. The title is Genesis One as Ancient Cosmology (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns). I have been unable to get any details on its release date.

See also the publisher's (IVP) blog, Addenda & Errata, on the book as well.

N. T. Wright and Justification

No better summary than that offered by the author himself. Wright summarizes a couple of the major points of importance in his latest book.

Paul Helm and Calvin's Definitions

Philosopher Paul Helm has provided a nice summary of Calvin's definitions of important terms as found in the Institutes. He offers first a complete survey of the definitions and then takes a "closer look" at a few of them. True to Calvin, Helm is careful not to leave the discussion as one more thing to "flit in the brain." He concludes his discussion with these two paragraphs:

"There is one final characteristic of definitions that is surprising but which ought not to be. The prominence given to definitions in the Institutes is not merely testimony to the Calvinian love of order. Calvin shows that he thinks we ought to be moved by these definitions, not moved to admiration for the cleverness of the definer, but moved by the divine reality defined. For he notes more than once that an apt definition reveals the ‘force’ of an idea. These realities, once defined, are not meant to be filed away, or argued over – they are not to ‘flit in the brain’ but to move us."

"There is one more thing. A survey of these discussions is in fact a run-down of the main themes of the Reformation – original sin, free will, faith, repentance, justification. For Calvin the Reformation was about the recovering of biblical realities, or their rediscovery, and one main way in which this recovering takes place is in the defining of those realities. It is additionally interesting that the emphasis falls upon anthropological themes rather than the doctrine of God, theology in a narrower sense. In fact apart from the definition given in the course of his discussion of the Trinity, Calvin does not, as far as I can discover, ever approach the reality of God by first searching for a definition of God. (And even his Trinitarian discussion is about the meaning of ‘person’, though here again there might be a definition without using the word, as when he states ‘Father and Son and Spirit are one God, yet the Son is not the Father, nor the Spirit the Son, but that they are differentiated by a peculiar quality’ (Inst. I.13.5) No doubt this disinclination to define ‘God’ is fully consistent with Calvin’s restrained approach to the being of God, testimony to the importance for him of the contrast he draws throughout the Institutes and elsewhere between God ‘as he is in himself’ and God ‘as he is towards us’. He repeatedly disdains the search for what God is as against what he is to us. " (emphasis mine)

John Piper is Bad?

Piper says when he heard this he laughed. You can't say Calvinists don't have a sense of humor.