Posts Tagged ‘biblical theology’

The biblical theologian who writes in the service of the church does so to elucidate the biblical worldview, not merely so that it can be studied but so that it can be adopted.

James Hamilton, God’s Glory in Salvation through Judgment, page 45.

Read Full Post »

Finally, the Bible shows us the perfect completion of God’s covenant with Abraham in the book of Revelation.  In fact, all the great Bible covenants are there in the book of Revelation.

  • Noah is there in the vision of a new creation, a new heaven and new earth after judgment.
  • Abraham is there in the ingathering and blessing of all nations from every tongue and language.
  • Moses is there in the covenantal assertion that ‘they will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God,’ and ‘the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them’ (Rev 21:3).
  • David is there in the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, and in the identity of Jesus as the Lion of Judah and Root of David.
  • The New Covenant is there in the fact that all of this will be accomplished by the blood of the Lamb who was slain.

Christopher J H Wright, Salvation Belongs to Our God, p95.

Read Full Post »

I’ve been staring at my computer screen for about 10 minutes, wondering how to start this book review.  So I’ll just jump to my conclusion- I loved it.  Christopher Wright is quickly emerging as one of my favorite authors, combining a biblical scholar’s precision, a theologian’s broad scope and a missiologist’s heart, not to mention an uncanny ability to say much in little space (the book is under 200 pages). 

The book, as you can surmise from the title, is about salvation- Salvation Belongs to Our God: Celebrating the Bible’s Central Story.  The “control text” (as he calls it) is Revelation 7:10:

Salvation belongs to our God, who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb.

He unpacks this little song, sung by the innumerable multitude from “every nation, tribe, people and language,” phrase by phrase, sometimes dealing with something as small as a word (“our”), to unpack “what the Bible means when it uses such phrases” (p16).  That may seem painstakingly slow, but what the reader is treated to is a whirlwind trip through the Bible.  This is not a classic, systematic theology-style treatment of soteriology.  Wright is much more concerned to unpack the story of salvation, from Eden through Abraham to Jesus all the way to Revelation.

Because of this, the reader learns more about the Bible than a few quick tips on “how to get saved.”  Wright covers the variety of ways God saves (sin, danger, sickness, enemies, etc).  He emphasizes the uniqueness of God’s identity as Savior (especially in Isaiah, if you’re studying Isaiah you should get this book), as well as the implications for understanding Christ as Savior.  The way he weaves the biblical covenants into the story line of the Bible was perhaps my favorite part of the book.  In most sections, he demonstrates from both OT and NT texts what he is emphasizing, showing the reader that there is far more continuity between the testaments regarding salvation than many think.

Wright does, of course, deal with some heavy theological issues.  How do other religions fit into the picture (though I should point out that he’s quick to affirm that Christianity itself does not save someone)?  What about the destiny of the unevangelized?  What is the relationship between Jew and Gentile, Israel and the nations, in the New Covenant?  Many readers will not agree with everything he states, but nonetheless he treats positions fairly and argues his case well.

It’s not that I learned something new in this book.  Wright’s conclusions and arguments are hardly novel.  Most evangelical readers can affirm the theological points he is making without reading the book, save for maybe one or two.  But it’s the way Wright goes about writing about salvation.   Having such a fully-orbed treatment of the subject, written in an engaging- one could even say “worshipful”- tone was refreshing to my soul. 

That isn’t to say I agreed with everything in the book.  No doubt in effort to keep the book short, Wright sometimes makes assertions without support (I, of course, notice these things on points of disagreement between him and me).  He is an Anglican (paedobaptist), so when he draws a strong connection between Old Covenant circumcision and New Covenant baptism, I (the credobaptist) automatically have my defenses up.  I’m also uncomfortable saying that salvation is “mediated” through the Scriptures and the sacraments.  I wonder why he chooses that word, since it hardly clarifies what he was trying to say.

I did have one disappointment regarding the holistic nature of salvation and eschatology.  Early in the book, and scattered throughout in smaller chunks, Wright notes that the Bible talks about salvation in a number of ways: salvation from enemies, poverty and so on.  He notes the danger is separating “theological” or “spiritual” salvation too far from “physical” salvation.  But, he argues, rightly in my mind, that salvation from sin and its consequences is given highest priority in the Bible.

And while he does speak about the eschatological (future) nature of salvation, I kept wishing he would bring these points, the holistic and eschatological, together more definitely.  The clear implication of what he says throughout the book, in my opinion, is that in the new creation- the New Heavens and the New Earth- salvation in all its facets, spiritual and physical (if we can use these terms) are brought together.  Physical salvation (salvation from sickness, enemies and so on) which has been experienced by various portions of God’s people at various points in history, will be experienced fully (Rev 21:4, for example).  But the key to experiencing that eschatological salvation is to experience salvation from sin in this age.  Throughout the book I felt like Wright (though perhaps he wouldn’t agree with this) was leading the reader to this point, only to dance around it and never fully state it.  I felt like he was a football team, marching down the field with ease, only needing to punch the ball across the goal line for the winning touchdown, only to settle for a field goal (sorry, football season is right around the corner and I’m getting antsy).

But you know what?  I don’t care.  I liked this book too much to worry about it for too long. 

I have not had a book capture my attention like this one in quite some time.  I took, no exaggeration, 33 pages of typed notes on this book!  33 pages!  (Now you’ll understand why I’m having trouble keeping this review short).  There was so much to soak in, I didn’t want to miss anything.  Even my detractions demonstrate how engaging Wright’s book is, as I found myself thinking alongside him with my Bible open and pen in hand.  And I’m not ashamed to admit that my heart literally raced at points as I was so drawn into God’s plan of salvation and His identity as Savior.  A theology book that brings you to worship- now that’s a great book!

So go out and get Salvation Belongs to Our God.  Read it critically (in the good sense).  Read it carefully.  Read it reverently.  Because the God who saves is not merely a point on your statement of faith.  He is the God before whom we will stand and sing, “Salvation belongs to our God, who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb.”

Read Full Post »

Within a covenant structure, the Old Testament held out a programme of ideals for a perfected people of God.  But the Old age did not reach that goal.  Now [sic] did the New.  Neither has our own.  The kingship of God sought expression through a whole web of relationships which successive covenants both pointed towards and also exercised over the people of God and their world.  But this kingship presupposed a return within history to the beginning of history.  As we have repeatedly noted, nothing less than a new creation – and thus a new covenant – would achieve this goal.  In that sense, the notion of the kingdom of God, controlling as it does the whole of biblical thinking, was always a theological assertion pointing towards a future reality – the New Covenant.

-William J Dumbrell, Covenant and Creation, p206

Read Full Post »

God Unchanging

It’s biblical theology appreciation week!  That is, for me, at least.  What exactly is biblical theology, though?  To most Christians, it sounds redundant.  The discipline of biblical theology (as opposed to, for example, systematic theology) is actually tricky to define, but I found three good definitions here.  One of the main thrusts I find in any definition, is that biblical theology strives to connect the dots, as it were, and stress the Bible as a whole.  It highlights the big picture in various texts, and the unity of God’s revelation to humankind.  It uncovers the threads that run from Genesis to Revelation, and is perhaps (n.b., speculation!) the closest thing to the “lecture” Jesus gives on the road to Emmaus (see Lk. 24:27).

Two recent events have given me occasion to appreciate anew the discipline of biblical theology.  First, a recent lecture at our church’s training school by the excellent Garrett Smith stressed what he called a “holistic” approach to reading Scripture.  That is, observe similarities and make connections between texts to note how God works through history.  For example, seemingly random (weird?) feasts or genealogies often have much deeper meaning than meets the eye.  There are connections all over Scripture that shed light on God’s character, and how He relates to humankind.  This is essentially biblical theology.

Second, I recently read a transcript of a lecture given by Graeme Goldsworthy at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.  I first came to know of Goldsworthy through his great book, According to Plan: The Unfolding Revelation of God in the Bible.  Says Goldsworthy in his lecture,

Individual texts…are essentially books about God and his word-interpreted deeds.  It is this recognition that God is the central character of the Bible that makes biblical theology possible.

I love this quote, because it hits one of the more common interpretive fallacies I find in the church today (myself included).  The Bible is, first and foremost, about God.  It is His revelation of Himself to us.  It is not our set of “Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth.”  To approach Scripture with a narrow focus on what a text says about us, or what we should do, or what it means to us, is a dangerous endeavor if that’s all we seek.  A much better interpretive question would be, “What does this say about God?”  We do well to answer this question before moving elsewhere.  (N.b., “moving elsewhere” is fine, but we should start with what the text says about God; after, of course, we’ve done our exegesis!)

Why is “what does this say about God” a better question?  Simply put, it’s better because while our culture changes, God does not change.  I don’t have to balk at the prohibitions against tattoos in Leviticus 19 and write off the Bible as irrelevant because the culture into which those laws were given is different from ours.  But the One who gave them, God, is the same; by extension, the  principle that underlies the prohibition (which I’ll leave as an exercise for the reader), is the same.  Our very study of the Bible is predicated on the fact that God does not change.  If He did, why would we read ancient texts about God and assume that they were valid today?  If the god of the Old Testament is different from the one in the New Testament, why not think that he’s different in “our testament”?  Why should we think that we can have a relationship with Jesus as did the writers of the New Testament?  Because “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever” (Heb. 13:8).  So also for the Holy Spirit (another exercise for the reader).

I believe that biblical theology highlights the unchanging nature of God to the student, which in turn leads to greater appreciation and understanding of the Scriptures.  Leviticus isn’t so boring after all, once you can see it in terms of the whole.   I do not, of course, in any way disparage systematic or historical theology; they are all very helpful disciplines in the theological project, for sure, and contribute in their own way.  Nor would I claim that one flavor of theology is better than another.  But for this week at least, I’m thankful for the contribution of biblical theology to Christian thought, and would encourage readers to explore “big picture” ideas as you read the Bible.  You will be blessed.

Read Full Post »

Special thanks again to Adrianna of IVP for a review copy of this book.  See also Part I, Part II, Part III.

This portion of the review covers Beale’s chapters on Paul’s epistles and Revelation.  As we work through these chapters, keep in mind that Beale’s thesis statement is: “What people revere, they resemble, either for ruin or restoration.”

Beale takes on Paul’s letters, specifically Romans 1:20-28 and 1 Corinthians 10.  There are no real surprises here; he sees Psalm 106:19-20 and Jeremiah 2:5-11 in the background of the Romans passage, as well as allusions to Genesis 1-3 (important texts for Beale, as we saw in part II of this review).  The language of worshipping and serving the creature rather than the Creator, exchanging their glory and becoming vain are all seen in idolatrous contexts of the OT, all of which is also seen in 2 Kings 17:15-16.  The idolater is “punished by means of its own idolatry (p216).  While he argues, fairly persuasively, that these idolatry texts are in the background, how does it fit his thesis statement?  Beale says, “the punishment is that the idol worshipers’ unnatural relationships with others resemble their unnatural relationship with God” (p204).

He gives a little portion of this chapter to Romans 12:1-2 to show the flip side of his thesis statement.  Here, when someone gives themself to worship God, they are transformed and conformed to His image (see also Romans 8:29).  I actually wish he would have spent more time  here, but I understand this is a book about idolatry.

Beale explores the quotations and allusions to the OT in 1 Corinthians 10:14-22.  Paul doesn’t want the Corinthians to partake in sacrificing to demons because “I do not want you to become sharers in demons” (v20).  On the phrase “sharers of demons,” Beale states, “the idea in 1 Corinthians 10: 18,20 is that of sharing in or reflecting the nature or attributes of the demons in contrast to those who share in Christ and are identified with him and reflect his spiritual character” (p229).  We see similar uses of “sharer” in 1 Peter 5:1, 2 Peter 1:4, 2 Corinthians 13:4, and other places.  This, of course, fits Beale’s thesis very well.  I found his analysis of idolatry in Paul to be quite helpful.

Beale has written extensively on the book of Revelation, including what I have called elsewhere the best commentary on Revelation.  This chapter contains a wealth of insight into the problem of idolatry in Revelation: the “Jezebel” of chapters 2-3, the harlot of chapters 17-18, the Beast of chapter 13, etc.  While he does go into 9:20-21 a bit, I think he probably could have done more here.  Let me explain.

As much as I enjoyed this chapter on Revelation, I didn’t find much support for his thesis: “What people revere, they resemble, either for ruin or restoration.”  Idolatry is prevalent in Revelation, and Beale offers many helpful suggestions throughout his discussion.  But I fail to see where Revelation talks about someone becoming like the idol they revere (with the possible allusion in 9:20-21).  Beale states, “They [the Beast worshippers] have devoted themselves to the beast and so have themselves become beastly, which is part of the consequence of being identified with the name of the beast” (p258).  But where in Revelation are idol worshippers portrayed as beasts?  Beale doesn’t demonstrate this.  To be sure, those who worship the Beast suffer the same fate as the beast, but that is not saying the same thing.  Nor is noting that idol worshippers identifiy themselves with the Beast (they receive “the mark”) saying the same thing as them coming to resemble the Beast.

For instance, in passages in Isaiah and Psalms (115, for example), there is a clear teaching that idol worshippers become like their idols.  Beale demonstrates this clearly back in the earlier chapters of the book.  So, if someone worships an idol of stone which cannot see or hear, they themselves will be unable to see or hear what the Lord is doing and saying.  They take on the characteristics of the idol.

This is different from saying they will someday be destroyed like that idol.  That is what we have in Revelation.  The worshippers of the Beast do not become like the Beast.  The descriptions of the Beast are not applied to those who worship it.  Thus, while I think Beale offers some wonderful insight in this chapter, he does not support his actual thesis statement.

As I look back on this chapter and go back through Revelation, I wonder if one would be better trying to make the case that those who worship the Beast do so because they were already idolaters.  In other words, because they came to resemble the idols they worship (i.e., they cannot see or hear what is really going on), they were unable to spot the deception of the beast.  So, worshipping the Beast is actually a consequence of their idolatry, as well as a continuation of it.  This wouldn’t be hard to demonstrate, since we know that pretty much all pagans in John’s day were idolaters.  John’s call for the church not to participate in idolatry in chapters 2-3 are all that much more important considering they need to be able to discern what is really the driving force behind the Beast.  So, I do think Beale’s thesis can be found in Revelation, just not where he thinks it is.

With all that said, I don’t want to come across as if one can simply discard all that Beale has written here.  On the contrary, I find myself being driven back to the Bible to see what Scripture is saying.  I look forward to reviewing the final chapters of this book soon.

Read Full Post »

Thanks once again to Adrianna at IVP for a review copy of this book.  See also Part I, Part II.

We Become What We WorshipI’m picking up this review with Beale’s chapters on the Gospels and Acts.  I’m skipping his chapter on Intertestamental Judaism, not because it wasn’t helpful or interesting, but because this review is ridiculously long already.  Remember, Beale’s thesis is: what people revere, they resemble, either for ruin or restoration.

Beale’s main text, Isaiah 6, appears clearly in the Gospels, usually quoted along with Jesus’ parable of the sower (Matthew 13:10-15, Mark 4:12, etc).  It does not, however, seem explicitly connected to idolatry.  Beale admits this is a potential problem for his thesis.  In fact, idolatry doesn’t seem present in the Gospels at all.

Beale, however, appeals to the use of Isaiah 29 in Mark 7:6-13 (and Matthew 15:7-9).  The Isaiah passages use sensory-malfuncation language, which Beale has argued all along is due to idolatry (becoming like what you worship).  In the case of the Gospel passages, however, the worship is not of physical idols but of tradition itself.  Thus, Beale reads this use of Isaiah 29 back into the use of Isaiah 6.  Tradition has become the new idol, particularly of the Pharisees.  “Jesus’ application of Isaiah 6:9-10 and Isaiah 29:13 to his Israelite contemporaries indicated that what had happened in Isaiah’s day was happening again: Israel was being judged for idolatry–committing itself to something besides God” (p176).

I’m not entirely sure what to make of this.  It makes sense, but I still can’t help but think that he is, at points, making connections that are tenuous at best.  Here’s how I see it working in Beale’s scheme: we see the context of idolatry in the use of Isaiah 6 in Mark 4 via the use of Isaiah 29 in Mark 7.  I have to be honest, I find myself scratching my head on this one.  It makes sense, to be sure, but I’m wary of needing multiple steps to come to such a strong conclusion.  It’s not that I think he’s wrong, it’s just that I feel like more work would need to be done here.  I can accept Beale’s statement at the end of the chapter that “adequate interpretation necessitates that the interpreter retrieve unmentioned correspondences between two passages” (p183).  I’m just not sure he’s done so convincingly here.

Beale admits that while idolatry shows up in a number of places in Acts, “the notion of idol worshippers becoming like their idols is difficult to discern in the book” (p200).  It’s interesting that the one place in Acts (28:25-28) that quotes Beale’s central passage of Isaiah 6 is discussed only briefly, since even Beale admits idolatry is not central here.  He does try to show how it might fit, but one wonders if he’s trying too hard to make it all work together.

This chapter does include an extremely helpful discussion on Stephen’s speech in Acts 7, which Beale summarizes, “For Jews to continue to believe that God’s unique revelatory presence was in their physical temple and not in Christ was idolatry–the same as believing that God’s unique presence was in some wooden idol or ancient tree (p195).  He appeals to the references of the golden calf incident and Stephen calling the Jewish leaders “stiff-necked” (see part II of this review for more on that) as evidence of his central thesis that people resemble what they revere.  I found this section illuminating; I’ll probably not read Stephen’s speech quite the same way again.

My plan is to review his chapters on Paul’s epistles and Revelation in Part IV, then Part V will discuss his concluding chapters as well as summarize my final thoughts on the book.

Read Full Post »

Thanks again to Adrianna of IVP for a review copy of this book.

We pick up from part 1 of this review, starting with chapter 3, which covers “evidence elsewhere in the Old Testament.” As a reminder, Beale’s thesis statement is “what people revere, they resemble, either for ruin or restoration.”  The first review dealt with his introductory chapter (covering assumptions and methodology) and the chapter on idolatry and Isaiah 6.  In this review, we summarize Beale’s treatment of the story of Israelites worshipping the golden calf and idolatry in the Garden of Eden.

Beale shows the verbal connections between Deuteronomy 4:27-28, 29:4- dealing with the earliest history of the Israelite people- and Isaiah 6:9-10 and Psalm 115:4-7.  “Thus the roots of the irony of idolatry are to be found as early as Israel’s first generation that emerged out of Egypt.  And so the wilderness generation and Isaiah’s generation are people who are becoming like the idols they are worshiping, and that likenss mortally injures them” (p76).

Beale demonstrates this in the “golden calf incident” (Exodus 32).  “The point of the comparison between the first generation’s idolatry and that of future generations is that the golden calf idolatry was seen to be paradigmatic of Israel’s future idolatry, so that the latter was patterened about the former” (p77).  We see this in Psalm 106:19-20, in the “stiff-necked” Israelites of 1 Kings 12:25-33 and 2 Kings 17:7-18 (notice in the latter passage “they followed vanity and became vain”), the idolatrous Israelites condemned in Hosea (4:7-17, 8:4-7, 10:5, 10:11, 13:2-3), and in Jeremiah (2:5-11, 7:22-27 among others).  Along with these texts, we see other places where “sensory-malfunction” language is used, the vast majority of which is connected to idolotary (see Ezekiel 12:2).

Even though there are places in this chapter where you have to wonder if Beale is seeing more than what’s there, there’s no doubt that he successfully makes his case that (1) idolatry is prevalent throughout the OT, (2) that the golden calf incident of the wilderness generation is the paradigmatic incident of idolatry and (3) the consequence of this idolatry is becoming like the object worshipped (stiff-necked and stubborn like cattle, “following vanity and becoming vain,” etc).

Beale then turns in chapter 4 to the narrative of Adam and Eve in the garden to discuss the idolatry of the first humans.  He acknowledges that idolatry is not specifically mentioned, but argues that this is precisely what happens.  “Adam’s allegiance shifted from God to himself and probably also to Satan” (p133).  The tree of the knowledge of good and evil is the place where judgment occurs (“knowing good and evil” frequently occurs in contexts of kings exacting judgment, and trees are often places where judgments are rendered), and is precisely where Adam failed to judge the serpent and guard the garden (again, Beale admits that “guard/protect” is never explicitly stated).

Keeping in mind that his thesis is “what people revere, they resemble,” Beale notes that Adam “comes to resemble the serpent’s character in some ways.  The serpent was a liar (Gen 3:4) and a deceiver (Gen 3:1, 13)” (p133).  Technically, I’m not sure the logical connection must be what Beale says it is.  In other words, Beale’s thesis is “a leads to b” but that doesn’t necessarily mean “b must be the result of a.”  With that said, it’s not hard to see the connection when you assume his thesis (which is easily demonstrable from elsewhere in the OT).

Interestingly, Beale appeals to Ezekiel 28 to show how the later prophet understood Adam’s sin.  Ezekiel 28:1-10 and 11-19 are successive judgments on the King of Tyre.  The second is often seen as a judgment on Satan (which I disagree with) or Adam, the stance that Beale takes.  So, the King of Tyre, who is judged because he promotes himself to the level of God (vv 2, 5, 9) is judged like Adam, whose heart is also “lifted up” (v17, see vv 2, 5).  “[T]he king of Tyre’s sin and judgment is seen primarily through the lens of the sin and judgment of the figure of Eden instead of his own particular sin, and the latter’s sin and judgment is viewed as a kind of recapitulation of the primeval sin” (p137).

Thus, what we have here is a development from the theme of worshipping an idol of stone or metal.  The specific form of idolatry here is idolatry of self.  “[W]hen we try to enlarge ourselves and try to bring glory to ourselves, then we are actually reflecting our ego in a greater and greater way.  If this is so, then it fits with the particular idea of idolatry that we have noted earlier: The idol that we revere, we reflect, which leads ultimately to ruin” (p140).

In the next portion of this review, we’ll dive into Beale’s treatment of the relevant NT texts.

Read Full Post »

Special thanks to Adrianna of IVP for a review copy of this book.

I mentioned at the end of last year that I had received a copy of Greg Beale’s book We Become What We Worship: A Biblical Theology of Idolatry and that I was genuinely excited to get a chance to read it.  In fact, I’m so excited that this will end up being a multi-part review, probably 4, if I had to guess.  This first review covers the first 2 chapters.

The first chapter helpfully sets out Beale’s thesis and approach.  His thesis: “What people revere, they resemble, either for ruin or restoration” (p16).  Not surprisingly, Beale starts with the assumption that Scripture coheres, and that biblical writers intentionally pick up passages and themes from previous contexts (sometimes in quotations, sometimes in allusions), and still respect the original context (intertextuality).  He considers himself a “maximalist” in regards to intertextuality, a refreshingly honest admission in a day when spaghetti-spined scholars want to paint themselves as “middle of the road” and “best of all worlds” kinds of guys.

He also openly admits to doing “hyperegesis,” which is “going beyond the Old Testament authors’ conscious original intention, not violating it but trascending it by creatively developing it in the ongoing light of progressive revelation and consistently within the parameters of the willed type of the original utterance” (p32).  Undoubtedly, some will not be convinced by this approach and wonder about its validity.

Two aspects of Beale’s approach are somewhat (though not entirely unique).  First, he tries to see where later OT writers used earlier OT writers.  Since most of the focus has been on the NT writers’ use of the OT, it’s interesting to see someone pick a slightly different path (though Beale isn’t the only one doing this, Douglas Stuart does this is in prophet commentaries).  Second, instead of arbitrarily picking a theme to study in Scripture, Beale opts for a text (in this case, Isaiah 6) and shows how it is developed.

Occasionally, you’ll find annoying caveats like, “I suspect there will be moments in the remainder of this chapter that some readers will have to exercise patience in following my discussion” (p22).  This, to me, is akin to a preacher starting his sermon, “Just a heads-up, this will be long and boring, but if you pay attention, you’ll get something good out of it.”

In one sense, it is odd that Beale opts for Isaiah 6 as his base text.  After all, Psalm 115 (and 135, with almost the exact wording) states his thesis clearly.  But, his point isn’t simply to prove the truth of his statement, but to show its importance for the biblical understanding of idolatry.

More than that, as noted above, Beale isn’t simply trying to trace a theme, but to trace a text (Isaiah 6) and its use in the rest of the Bible.  And Beale’s reading of Isaiah 6 is that it is a judgment of Israelite idolatry, and the punishment is becoming blind, deaf and unable to understand.  Take a second and read this chapter, especially vv9-13, in your English translation and you’ll probably wonder how he gets this reading from these verses.  Well, that’s what chapter 2 is for.

Beale notes that the “sensory-organ malfunction” language in Isaiah is applied to idols and those who worship them (42:17-20; 43:8,10; 44:17-18), as in Psalm 115.  Thus, the similar language in Isaiah 6 shows that the problem is idolatry, and the punishment is becoming like the idols being worshipped in place of God.  Beale also argues that the language in v13 (“subject to burning,” “terebinth,” “stump”) are words linked to idolatry elsewhere (see “terebinth” in Isaiah 1:29-31).  Thus, what we have here in Isaiah 6 is a denouncement and necessary punishment of Israel’s idolatry, becoming like the idols they revere.  I’m leaving out a lot of the discussion, largely because it’s rather dense.  Instead, I’m simply laying out Beale’s thesis and understanding of this passage.

I’ll admit, I was skeptical at first of this take on Isaiah 6.  But after reading this passage, I really feel that Beale may be on to something.  I would like to see an evaluation of a more established OT scholar, though endorsements on the back cover from Douglas Stuart, Bruce Waltke and T Desmond Alexander do count for something (though we all know endorsements don’t mean wholesale agreement, either).  There are enough connections with other passages on idolatry, both conceptual and lexical, that make his reading plausible, if not probable.

The next portion of the review will cover the next 2 chapters on other portions of the OT.

Read Full Post »