ZECNT on Galatians

The Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament is a fairly recent series published, as you might guess, by Zondervan, and edited by Clinton E. Arnold.  The four volumes currently available are Matthew by Grant R. Osborne, Galatians by Thomas R. Schreiner, Ephesians by Clinton E. Arnold, and James by Craig L. Blomberg.  The goal of the series is to address the entire New Testament in twenty volumes, providing a conservative yet scholarly analysis of the original Greek, though at a level also accessible to those without extended formal instruction in Greek.

Recently, Zondervan gave the opportunity to participate in their blog tour to raise awareness of this new series.  They were kind enough to send me a review copy of Galatians by Schreiner.  I would like to touch on a few of the highlights of the volume for the rest of this post.

Layout and Format

Before even getting to the text itself, the format and layout were attention-getting.  The font is pleasingly sized and clear, with plenty of white space around the text for easy readability.  Each chapter begins with a section titled Literary Context, followed by a preview of the exegetical outline (with the verses under discussion bolded for emphasis), and then a summary of the main idea of the verses highlighted in the chapter.  Translation is provided next, laid out in an indented table structure with three columns: verse number, use (of the verb or participle, such as "assertion"), then the translation of the phrase itself.  After the translation, the structure is analyzed, complemented by an expanded exegetical outline.  Explanation of the text follows and serves as the largest segment of each chapter. At the conclusion, a Theology in Application section provides helpful analysis of themes and concepts addressed during the chapter and their relevance to daily Christian life; this final section should prove invaluable for pastors and teachers.

Exegesis

In order to give a good idea of the value of the approach of this commentary, I'll use Chapter 11 on Galatians 3:15-18 as an example.

Literary Context

Schreiner places these verses in the larger context of Galatians 3, as well as the entire book and its preceding arguments.

Main Idea

According to Schreiner, "The central point in these verses is that the Sinai covenant must be subordinated to the Abrahamic covenant" (p. 224).

Structure/Outline

The section on structure essentially explains Schreiner's exegetical outline, in conjunction with his translation.

Explanation of the Text

The explanation follows a verse by verse format.  Each subsection is headed by the verse or phrase, given in bold text (in English) as well as italic text (in Greek), then followed by multiple paragraphs of explanation, with extensive footnoting.  For example, this section has some forty-one footnotes, which indicate significant awareness of the work previously done by other commentators on these verses as well as explaining the relationship of Schreiner's interpretations to those found in preceding commentaries.  Schreiner's tone is polite yet firm regarding those with whom he disagrees; he lays out the various options before clearly stating his preferred view.

Schreiner's conclusion to the Explanation section admirably illustrates the rest of the section:

"Those who belong to the family of Abraham do not enter into his family by subscribing to the Mosaic law.  They are children of Abraham when they are united to Christ Jesus, the offspring of Abraham.  Hence, they receive the promise as a gift" (p. 232).

Theology in Application

The goal of this section is to provide contemporary relevance of the text, and Schreiner does an excellent job in this regard.  Here is one example:

"When we consider the Mosaic covenant, therefore, we must carefully consider elements of both continuity and discontinuity with the Abrahamic covenant.  Here Paul features the discontinuity, and hence those who fail to see such discontinuity between the covenants flatten out the differences in the redemptive-historical timeline and are even in danger of falling into the same error as the false teachers in Galatia, for the latter did not distinguish between the Mosaic and Abrahamic covenants.  Thus, they argued that circumcision was necessary for salvation!" (p. 233).

Conclusion

While the number of commentary series has grown exponentially in the past few decades, it is easy to question the value of one more commentary on a specific book of the Bible.  In this case, the easy readability of both layout and content, as well as the thoroughness of the scholarship, ensure a place for Schreiner's volume on Galatians in the ZECNT for any pastor or Bible teacher or even layman who wants to better understand Paul's epistle.

Never Satisfied

In light of Black Friday being last week and this week being declared "Cyber Week" by various retailers, Ecclesiastes 6:7 is a good reminder.  We work hard to get, but once we get, the thing gotten no longer holds our attention.

The Marginalized?

I was reading this the other day.  Normally, I find posts from the Gospel Coalition to be refreshing and helpful.  But not in this instance.

To begin, there is a significant difference between "things that are nice to do individually for people" and "things the church is supposed to be focused on doing".  If you as an individual Christian want to support an aspiring artist, do it (as long as that doesn't replace your support of the church). 

Confusion about the church's mission and relationship to culture will inevitably lead to these kinds of misplaced priorities.  The church is supposed to be witnessing and discipling, not painting pictures and making music in order to "take back culture."  The church shouldn't be focused on helping people feel better about themselves and their dreams.  If art happens along the way, great.  If someone finds encouragement for a legitimate goal, great.  But none of that is the main thing.

We have to remember that people in the Catholic church created quite a bit of great art throughout the Middle Ages.  Much money was poured out to ensure the creation of masterpieces like the Sistine Chapel. But spiritual life and personal holiness were in sad shape for centuries.  I wouldn't like to have to make the choice, but if I had to choose between a vibrant church and a beautiful painting or oratio, which is honestly more important?  Artistic abundance is not inherently connected to spirituality.

What about this?

Youngren, the son of church planters in Ecuador, began to see artists through a missiological lens, thinking of these “misfits” and “extras” as a lost tribe.

The result of this sort of thinking is excellently eviscerated by Carl Trueman here.  Marginalized artists are no more a lost tribe than any other group that feels left out because the church is about Christ and His priorities, not about them and their priorities.

How about this?

Despite many churches’ fear of artistic impression in a corporate context, impression is often how God works. At The Line, they look to Abraham for their theology of impression. When God called Abraham and first told him he was going to make him into a great nation, he didn’t sit him down and say, “Here are my promises 1-5, sign here.” Rather, God said, “Abraham, come outside. Look up.” Abraham gazed into the luminous Middle Eastern sky. As he was contemplating the stars, God continued, “See how amazing that is? That’s what I’m going to do with you.” God started with impression and then moved to propositions. He directed Abraham’s attention to his handiwork, and then asked him to imagine the impossible.

The biggest problem with that paragraph is that unless I'm missing something, the Bible says exactly the opposite of what is claimed.  The propositional statements precede the 'impression' of the stars in the sky as a picture of God multiplying Abraham's descendants.  God first told Abraham "Go" (Genesis 12:1-3), promising to bless him and make him a great nation (and Abraham did 'sign here' by going).  Later, God told Abraham "Look" to the sky (Genesis 15:1-6) as a reminder and illustration of his earlier promise.  So the precedent in this case is proposition then illustration, not illustration that results in springing a proposition on someone.

Another telling statement:

In most evangelical churches, many view artistic expression as being merely supplemental to other forms of revelation and understanding. Its centrality to worship is muted.

Exactly right.  We are to be emphasizing Christ crucified, resurrected, and returning as central in our services, not "artistic expression." Which is not to say we shouldn't sing, and sing well, and be led in singing well.  Or that we shouldn't preach in a way that is clear and careful and connected.  Or that our buildings have to look rundown. But it's God's power that works through us, not our skill or ability, not the beauty of our surroundings.

What is their goal?

The Line is on a mission to give back to the church a voice that has long been muffled, the voice of artists who lead in the church. “There is an undiscovered richness of the character of God that we will find when we are led by this particular tribe of serious makers and artists and when we submit to that,” Youngren said.

What are the biblical qualifications for leading in the church?  Not artistic ability but spiritual maturity.  Some have both.  The men who lead in worship at the church I attend are great examples in that regard.  But honestly, I'd take a godly man who's tone deaf over a recognized artist with a shallow testimony any day.  Hopefully it's not a choice that has to be made.  Admittedly, it seems the goal of the fellowship described in the article is both spiritual maturity and artistic ability.

“If we're not doing the hard work of studying Scripture and taking care of our own spiritual lives, why in the world would people listen to anything we put out?” Guerra asks. “There needs to be a well from which we are drawing, and that well needs to be rich in the truth so that we aren’t given to vagueness or heavy-handedness.”

But if their previous example of exegesis re: Abraham and impressions is any indication, more time in Bible study and less time in the studio would go a long way.

One final quote:

 Submitting yourself to this tribe is not limited to attendance at The Line, or churches with a similar elevation of artists. Anyone can submit to beauty and art by simply learning to appreciate it. Learn how to read a novel or a poem. Learn how to listen to music and experience a painting. Support the artists in your community not just spiritually but also financially. Seek out creative and unsolicited ways to do this. Attend a Milano concert or buy their new EP. Purchase a painting or attend a friend’s show. By supporting artists, you are co-collaborators with them in creativity and truth-searing. And remember that, as Fujimura pointed out, “the first people known to be filled with the Holy Spirit were not priests, kings, or generals, but artists named Bazelel and Oholiab, who built Moses’ Tabernacle.”

Don't pretend that supporting and appreciating art is somehow on the same level of spiritual obligation as preaching the gospel.  Can art communicate truth?  Yes.  Can art reflect beauty?  Yes.  Should we learn aesthetics?  Yes.

Still, God didn't pick a group of painters or a band of musicians to go spread His truth.  He picked ordinary people (1 Corinthians 1:26-29), with a simple verbal (e.g. Paul preaching) or written message (e.g. Luke writing Luke and Acts to Theophilus).  Let's not lose that simplicity because of enthusiasm for pet causes.

Can Rap Be Christianized? Part 2

This is about a week late, but I wanted to point out that Dr. Murray followed up on his previous post about rap with a new one here.  In it, he makes some crucial clarifications to his previous comments.

Two essential points involve the interconnectedness of the medium and the message, as well as the dangers of assuming stepping-stone evangelism is the best approach.

First, the medium is closely connected to the message.  Murray explains:

Would President Obama go to peace talks with Iran's President wearing combat fatigues and carrying a machine gun? Would he deliver the State of the Union address in Bermuda shorts and a beach boy T-shirt? Would you evangelize in Alabama wearing a Ku Klux Klan outfit? The medium may not be THE message, but it's usually a large and inseparable part of it. 

Second, the stepping stone approach to evangelism has significant implications:

The stepping-stone argument is powerful. Our inner cities are certainly not going to be won by be-suited, white men swooping in for a few minutes a week with soup, sandwiches, and a sermon. But where do we draw the line with the stepping-stone? How do we reach Islamic suicide bombers? How do we reach strippers? How do we reach callous Wall Street traders? We all draw the line somewhere, but why? and where?