"The Gospel According to Isaiah 53" Book Review

Isaiah 53 (or more technically Isaiah 52:13-53:12) has long been held up by Christians as the clearest picture of the suffering and penal atonement of Jesus Christ. However, this interpretation of Isaiah 53 has long been rejected by Jewish scholars and, more recently, modern-critical scholarship. In defense of the traditional Christian view of Isaiah 53, Kregel Academic has published a collection of essays from prominent Evangelical scholars and has entitled this collection The Gospel According to Isaiah 53: Encountering the Suffering Servant in Jewish and Christian Theology. While not quite flawless, The Gospel According to Isaiah 53 is the best recent articulation of what Christians believe concerning Isaiah 53.

The introduction by Mitch Glaser orients the reader about the recent discussion of Isaiah 53. Glaser makes plain that this book, "...was written to help readers to utilize the truths of this magnificent chapter in bringing the Good News to those who do not yet know Jesus. It is designed to enable pastors and lay leaders to deepen their understanding of Isaiah 53 and to better equip the saints for ministry among the Jewish people." [21]. This chapter is helpful in getting the reader up-to-date on the current discussion.

Richard Averbeck writes chapter one which deals with "Christian Interpretation of Isaiah 53". Averbeck notes the shift from the other "Servant Songs": in Isaiah 53, the prophet, who previously identified himself as the servant in 49:1-13 and 50:4-11, now includes himself with the people (the "we, us, our"). Averbeck argues that the prophet and the people are recipients of Suffering Servant's ministry and offering.

In chapter two, Michael L. Brown deals with "Jewish Interpretations of Isaiah 53". After outlining many Jewish interpreters who clearly did see the Messiah as a sufferer, he notes that there is a clear shift away from such an interpretation later, in light of Christian testimony. He notes that the common interpretation among the Jewish people now is that the Suffering Servant is Israel. Israel suffered through exile and mistreatment and Isaiah 53 deals specifically with that. However, as Brown clearly notes, "...Israel's sufferings in exile did not bring healing to the nations, while, conversely, it is impossible to read the text fairly while eliminating the concept of effectual, vicarious suffering." [77]. Thus, despite those who seek to reinterpret the text, Brown sees that the traditional Christian reading is the most fair to the actual meaning of Isaiah 53.

Chapter three, authored by Walter C. Kaiser Jr., seeks to identify the "The Identity and Mission of 'Servant of the Lord'". Kaiser argues that the clearest identification of the Servant is found in Isaiah 53 and that the success of the mission of the Servant was never in doubt--Yeshua would succeed in rescuing the lost of Israel AND subsequently, bring rescue the nations from their transgressions.

Michael J. Wilkins tackles "Isaiah 53 and The Message of Salvation in the Gospels" in chapter four. Wilkins helpfully traces various echoes and outright quotations of Isaiah 53 in the Gospels. He argues (against critical scholarship) that Jesus was self-aware of his mission and that the early church simply taught what Jesus himself knew. In this way, the early church did not foist Jesus' death upon Isaiah 53 but rather, Jesus himself handed such a teaching down to the disciples.

In chapter five, Darrell Bock deals specifically with Isaiah 53's use in Acts 8. Bock's summary is worth quoting: "Our text is significant because it highlights a point Luke loves to make about Jesus. Not only is Jesus a figure described and predicted centuries in advance, but even the seeming incongruity of his death is
a part of of that description. Juxtaposing Jesus' humiliation in an unjust crucifixion with God's vindication of Jesus in resurrection shows where God's vote lies in disputes about who Jesus is." [143]. Thus Bock argues that Isaiah 53 is Gospel driven and evangelistically centered, as can be seen in Acts 8.

"Isaiah 53 in the Letters of Peter, Paul, Hebrews and John" is the topic of chapter six and is taken up by scholar Craig A. Evans. Evans chapter is particularly helpful because he includes in his chapter an entire listing of echoes and outright quotations of Isaiah 53 in all of the epistles and John's Gospel. Evans concludes, after a lengthy discussion of the usage of Isaiah 53 in letters outside of the Gospels, "The suffering and death of Jesus do not prove that he was not the Messiah; they in fact prove it, for they fulfill the Scriptures, including the Scripture that spoke of the Suffering Servant Messiah." [170]. He believes that Isaiah 53 "makes a significant contribution to the theologies of Peter, Paul, Hebrews and John." Further, it "is especially intriguing [that] the famous Suffering Servant hymn apparently lay at the heart of an evangelism and apologetic primarily intended for the synagogue." [170]

Chapter seven, written by David L. Allen, focuses on "Substitutionary Atonement and Cultic terminology in Isaiah 53." Allen goes back to Leviticus to show how the NT authors are at pains to show how the old Levitical system was inadequate to deal with sins. However, by using Isaiah 53, the NT displays that a greater sacrifice has arrived.

Robert B. Chisholm Jr., handles "Forgiveness and Salvation in Isaiah 53" in chapter eight. He opens by stating to the reader that, "Isaiah's fourth so-called Servant Song is a rags-to-riches-story." [191] Chisholm outlines what exactly this means and concludes four things. First, those who benefit from the Servant's suffering are those who wittnessed the Servant's suffering--the nations and Israel. Second, the illness and pain listed in Isaiah 53 are the consequences of sin. Third, the reason for the consequences was a breach of covenant. Fourth, the Servant accomplishes a) release from exile and restoration to the Promised Land b) opens up the possibility of covenant renewal and c) bears the sins of the nation and so allows the nations to enter into a covenant with God.

The book then turns its attention from biblical theology to practical theology. In chapter nine, John S. Feinberg deals with "Postmodern Themes from Isaiah 53." Feinberg finds many themes that will resound with today's postmodern culture--a love for story, the possibility for open dialogue between Jews and Christians, a Creator who cares about genuine relationship. These themes can all be found in Isaiah 53, argues Feinberg, before drawing his very thoughtful chapter to a close.

Chapter ten, penned by Mitch Glaser, approaches how to use Isaiah 53 in Jewish Evangelism. This immensely practical chapter serves, not only as a primer for Jewish evangelism, but as a primer for evangelism in general. Essentially, Glaser boils down the entire discussion of the exegesis of Isaiah 53 into talking points. His essential point is clear--Isaiah 53 MUST be used in Jewish evangelism.

Finally, chapter eleven, written by Donald R. Sunukjian, applies Isaiah 53 to the realm of preaching. His chapter essentially asks, "How are you going to preach Isaiah 53?" He then provides another exegesis of Isaiah 53 as well as a structural breakdown of the passage and some practical tips on how to present the material. He also adds to appendices to the book which are two different sermons he personally preached on Isaiah 53.

Darrell Bock offers a summary of the book and reminds the reader, again, of the important of Isaiah 53.

The question remains: is The Gospel According to Isaiah 53 worth the hefty-almost-$20-pricetag. A few things would lead me to shy away from this book. First, as with almost any compilation of essays, you get some good ones and you get some bad ones. Most of the biblical theology chapters are good. Feinberg's chapter was pretty weak, however. Consider that you are paying about $2 per chapter and then consider if each essay is worth that. I will say, however, that Robert Chisholm's chapter was great--not just good. That, to me, might influence the purchase of this work.

Second, despite what the original purpose of the book states (to train pastors and informed laypersons), this book is technical. Seriously technical. I am talking that you need to know Greek and Hebrew (seldom is it transliterated) and the grammar of both languages to really appreciate this work. Having taken both languages, it was still tough to keep up. The entire time I thought to myself, "I can't think of too many churches where this would be on the docket for reading." This is not bedside reading. This is intense, ground-and-pound exegesis. It is good--just tough to wade through.

Third, because of the nature of the book (composed of essays), you get repetition. Further, since you are dealing with such a narrow slice of Scripture, you get A LOT of repetition. I think the point was made at least four times that Israel is NOT the Suffering Servant. While that is a helpful reminder, each chapter felt like it was rehashing the same basic thing after awhile. I almost wanted to scream when I saw that there would be yet another exegesis of the text in chapter eleven (on preaching Isaiah 53). Don't get me wrong, the essays are good, but you get essentially seven to eight expositions of the same text. I will say this to every pastor and teacher--if you can't exegete and interpret Isaiah 53 by the time you finish The Gospel According to Isaiah 53, you need to find a new profession.

So is it a buy, check-out, or pass? It is definitely not a pass. There are a handful of essays in here that are worth reading (such as almost everything in the biblical theology section). For pastors on a budget, the price of the book is steep for what you get so I think that that makes it a check-out. If you are insistent on buying, I would recommend waiting till you find a good used copy. Overall, though, it is a solid work and I think it is one that you will go back to again and again for help in exegeting the text.

*Following FTC guidlines, I received this copy from Kregel Academics in exchange for a fair, unbiased review.*

Wait...This Conversation Isn't Over?: A Review of Changing Signs of Truth by Crystal L. Downing

Ever have one of those awkward phone conversations where you think everything that needs to be said has been said. You then try to get off the phone, only to have the person start talking again...about the same thing...

My first thought? "Oh no."

I feel the same way about Crystal L. Downing's book Changing Signs of Truth: A Christian Introduction to the Semiotics of Communication. This is a book that strikes me as 7 years too late to the scene. It would have fit in perfectly with the tremendous amount of Emergent (capital E) literature that was being written during that time. Instead, it is half-way to 2013 and we get a book that reminds us, yet again, that we need to rethink the way we communicate the truths of the Bible.

Let's run through the obligatory checklist of cliched concepts and ideas presented in this book:

• A disregard of inerrancy? Check.
• A reminder that we are indebted to the past while also needing to think anew for the future? Check.
• A call to cultivate Spirit-led community? Check.
• A reminder that political power is overrated and culture change comes from "the margins"? Check.
• A call to delight in the pluralism found within Christianity? Check.
• A declaration that terms like "conservative" and "liberal" are unhelpful? Check.

I could go on but...honestly, if you in any way were connected with the Emergent church movement or read any of the literature during that time, you've read this all before. Sure, it is dressed up with some really entertaining illustrations and with some pretty solid discussion on semiotics. But we have been here. We have done that.

My critique of the book (besides it being a rehashing of what has already been said) is basically the same critique many "conservative" (oops, sorry) Christians have had of most Postmodern scholars and those within the Emergent movement. Crystal basically guts her own argument by assuming the Bible isn't inerrant. I provide a few quotes for you to get a taste of her view:

"However, like any map, the Bible is a network of signs that offers multiple intersecting routes to the final destination [Jesus]: law and grace, free will and determinism, faith and works, mercy and justice, tradition and change." (21)

I am not exactly sure what she means here, to be honest. Is she stating that the Bible offers all of these as valid ways to Christ? Is she saying that the Bible is contradictory in what it proposes? Obviously, it should be said that law is not a route to Christ. Further, free will and determinism are not routes to Jesus. Maybe I am just not hip enough to get it.

Further, while stating many Biblical scholars have abandoned inerrancy in light of their studies (particularly Bart Ehrman), she writes,

"How should we respond to Ehrman's thoroughly erudite scholarship? After all, he has educated himself in the original languages of the Bible and has studied and compared numerous ancient documents in order to pinpoint not only the hundreds of changes made to biblical manuscripts but also contradictions within the biblical text. To argue for biblical inerrancy in response makes Christianity seem intellectually untenable to scholars familiar with the most ancient texts. Isn't the point of the Bible to do the opposite: to draw people into relationship with God? Ehrman himself, a one-time evangelical committed to inerrancy, responded to his discoveries by becoming a self-proclaimed agnostic. For him God's Word had become reduced to mere human words." (73)

Her conclusion based upon this paragraph? "Christians on the edge [that is, attempting to deal with contemporary contexts] I would suggest, respond neither with inerrancy nor with agnosticism. Following the Word of God, they offer, instead, the (re)signing of truth." (73)

This is an absolutely disastrous paragraph and was (and is) so befuddling to me that I had to re-read it five times to see if I was getting what she was saying. First, I am wondering if Ms. Downing is aware of the plentiful and valuable critiques of Ehrman's "erudite scholarship"? If not, then she should check into it. If she is, then it seems incredibly disingenuous to say that we should basically abandon inerrancy because of his scholarship. In fact, I have on my shelf at least four solid books by authors who also know the original languages and disagree with Ehrman.So essentially, we should abandon inerrancy because, "To argue for biblical inerrancy in response makes Christianity seem intellectually untenable to scholars familiar with he most ancient texts." This seems to be a basic dismissal of current Evangelical scholarship and somewhat short-sighted.

But what is astounding is that the reason Ehrman left Christianity is because he couldn't justify any of his beliefs because he thought the Bible contained errors. The solution proposed by Ms. Downing solves nothing! If the Bible has errors, then how can we trust any of what it says? If you knew I lied a lot and had a predisposition for creating myth, then it would stand to reason that you wouldn't trust my messages very often. To say, "Well, let's just trust you, even though we know you are a liar" is foolish. That is, basically, what is encouraged here.

She cites approvingly of Peter Enns, who has championed the "Incarnational" model of the Bible. The Bible is both inspired by God but since it is written by men in a particular culture, it must contain errors. Quoting C.S. Lewis, Crystal states, "For [Lewis], 'the right spirit' is not one that seeks to either prove or disprove the Bible's scientific and historical accuracy: opposite sides of the same coin. For him, the right spirit is on the edge; it is a spirit that believes in the resurrection of Jesus while aware that the Bible has certain inconsistencies in the way it points to the same ultimate reality. The right spirit opens itself to the Holy Spirit, seeking in the Bible truths for life lived in relationship with our creation and redeemer." (79)

Apparently, if the Bible is unhistorical (or a-historical), it really doesn't matter because we can get great life lessons. Unfortunately, if the Bible isn't historically accurate, we have a problem. The problem is, we can't trust it. An illustration here might help:

I love the wild west and I try to read a lot about the wild west. Now, what is the measure of a good history book? The fact that it can paint a true picture of the events that happened while minimizing or eliminating error. There is a reason a book like Empire of the Summer Moon gets nominated for a Pulitzer Prize while The Frontiersman, though claiming to be true, did not. The one is extremely accurate and based on many historical sources. The other incorporates facts that are known to be incorrect. While both books are entertaining to read, only one really is right. Guess which one I am trusting?

In the same way the Bible is either historical or it is not. It is either trustworthy, or just a good fictional read. I admit, this sounds a lot like the whole "either/or" thing that is mocked within this book. But I am either/or because both/and simply doesn't work. It will lead to a doctrinal disaster. (As a quick aside, with Ms. Downing's confidence in the Spirit leading people, why is she so convinced the Spirit couldn't have created an inerrant Bible?)

An example of this is how Ms. Downing insists that the three non-negotiable truths Christians must communicate are God's triunity, the incarnation and the free gift of salvation. First, I must confess that her list is utterly anemic and the logic behind picking these three things strikes me as incredibly arbitrary. Norman Geisler has written on this topic and has done a far, far better job discussing the essentials. But second, because she has gutted the trustworthiness of God's revelation, what makes us think (or be led by the Spirit) these three essentials are true? What if there is no Spirit? What if this whole thing is arbitrary?

Her final statement is perhaps the most absurd of all: "In other words, recognizing something as 'a sign,' even without fully understanding what it means, is far preferable to worshiping the sign as holy in and of itself." (80) I'll admit, I am at a loss to figure this statement out. First, I know of no one that claims we know the Bible ("the sign") fully and no one that worships the Bible. That strikes me as a straw-man. She states a bit before this, "...some Christians seem more passionate about protecting the holiness of an inerrant sign (the Bible) than about humbly considering how to be transformed by what the sign points to (God's holy character and loving acts)." (80)

Hogwash. Every major defender of inerrancy I know also has a deep, abiding passion for seeing God's truth and transformation. Norman Geisler is a  great example of this as are many of the SBC theologians. Further, I would argue that if we cannot understand the sign (or can't trust the sign) then the sign doesn't even serve a purpose. Her opinion: Maybe the sign is right. Maybe the sign is wrong.

My thoughts? Get a new stinking sign you can trust! Otherwise you might end up in the lake. The trustworthiness of signs matter. That is why I recommend you stay far, far away from Changing Signs of Truth. With Ms. Downing's changing signs, the road ends quickly and the lake comes up mighty fast.

*Thanks to IVP Academic for providing a free review copy of this book in exchange for a fair review.*

Review of "Historical Reliability of John's Gospel"

John's Gospel has come under attack for years. When one compares it to the synoptics, it is obvious to see the differences. John seems to write with a more theological than historical bent. John records many unique stories, only found in his gospel. The end result is that the fourth gospel is often discarded in scholarly discussions. For instance, the Jesus Seminar has largely rejected John, stating that it is made up of false stories.

Craig Blomberg seeks to establish the historical reliability of the Gospel of John in his book, The Historical Reliability of John's Gospel. Blomberg is well qualified to do this, being an expert in gospel literature and having also penned, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels. Blomberg's work here is unique because it functions as a commentary that focuses almost exclusively on defending the reliability of what John has written. One will not find an in-depth exegesis of any one given passage. Rather, one will find a series of tight, logical arguments that favor trusting what John has written.

The work itself is somewhat tedious after awhile--not because Blomberg is a bad author but because most of the attacks on John from liberal scholarship follow the same basic arguments. For instance, many liberal scholars reject the possibility of miracles a priori because it goes against a naturalistic worldview. Blomberg has to continually refute that very idea throughout the entire Gospel. In essence, whenever a miracle occurs, Blomberg addresses the critics in virtually the same way. Again, this isn't a shortcoming on Blomberg's part. Rather, it is a testament to how shallow much of the recent criticism of John's Gospel actually is.

At times it feels as if Blomberg sacrifices too much for the sake of scholarship. For instance, when dealing with the arrest of Jesus in John 18, he argues that when Jesus said, "I am," the shock of the statement caused the soldiers to stumble on the uneven ground and since they were likely walking close together, many fell. Blomberg then argues that John saw the irony in this and interpreted it as such. While I understand he is attempting to defend the Bible from historical critics, I think that his argument here does more to discredit his own position. If John has interpreted natural causes as being divine here, what prevents us from using that same argument throughout the rest of John's Gospel. Perhaps John was over-interpreting purely naturalistic events. Again, I don't think Blomberg's position here is totally discredited; it just seems to be undermined a bit. It also makes one wonder if it is always helpful to try to defend an event based on purely naturalistic causes. I think it is wiser to simply state John records that when Jesus spoke, the men fell at his power. Whether it is historical cannot be discerned. It seems disingenuous to John, however, to try to interpret the event as caused by a purely naturalistic sequence of events.

Overall, however, this book is excellent. It deals effectively with major and minor criticisms of John's Gospel. The bibliography is exhaustive and Blomberg clearly knows his stuff. Pastors and seminary students will likely find in this work reassurance and joy that the Gospel of John can still stand strong after the smoke from the attacks has cleared.

*Thanks to IVP for providing a review copy of this work in exchange for a fair review.*

"Canon Revisted" Review

Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books by Michael J. Kruger is one of my frontrunners for the best book I have read in 2012. Let me give you a few reasons why:
1) Kruger's book is uncompromisingly conservative and unique. It is in vogue to argue that the New Testament cannot be authoritative and inerrant because the canon itself was established until later in church history. However, Kruger argues persuasively that the canon, rather than be authoritative because of the community (the Church and the history of the acceptance of the letter) or history (if the letters are authentic or not), is authoritative because it is self-authenticating.

The argument is odd, but devastatingly effective. He states that, "God has created the proper epistemic environment wherein belief in the New Testament canon can be reliably formed." [94] There are three components to this epistemic environment which are providential exposure, attributes of canonicity, and internal testimony of the Holy Spirit.

What this means is that God providentially exposed the church to the books which make up the canon. The attributes of canonicity means that the books possess divine qualities, are corporately received and are of apostolic origin. Finally, the Holy Spirit testifies to these books within the believer's life.

Kruger essentially argues that Christians have warranted belief for accepting the Bible as canon. Obviously, the question is why should anyone accept these premises and Kruger spends the second half of the book arguing why. I found his overall argument persuasive. But it was also refreshing to find someone argue some forcefully in favor of the canon.

2) Kruger's book is modest in what it attempts to prove and, as a result, is effective. In other words, he doesn't try to say "the canon is 100% divinely inspired." Rather, he argues that "we can have rational confidence that the canon is 100% divinely inspired." This, to me, was the smart move to make. In a day and age when our epistemological confidence is constantly being eroded, Kruger starts by humbly building our foundation of what we can know. Further, he rightly reminds the reader the importance of faith in constructing our confidence.

3) Canon Revisited flows extremely well and yet is scholarly. In my opinion, Kruger's writing style is enjoyable. Don't get me wrong: Canon Revisited doesn't read like Harry Potter. But as far as scholarly works go, this is a very interesting and enjoyable work. It is heavily footnoted and exhaustive in its bibliography. This makes Canon Revisited a virtual wall that every person dealing with canon in the future must scale.

So much more could be said in favor of Kruger's book. However, I will leave it at this: this is perhaps the best recent apologetics offering released. Any student of scripture needs to read this. I would also suggest that any student in college who is struggling with some of the common charges against Scripture at a secular university read this book. This is an excellent book, through and through.

*Thanks to Crossway for providing a free review copy of this book. I was not obligated to offer a favorable review.*

Chick-Fil-Jesus?: My Thoughts

I will keep this simple. Colossians 3:17 tells us, "And whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him."

1 Corinthians 10:31 reminds us, "So whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God."

Similarly Romans 14 constantly reminds us that food could destroy the work of God if eaten in a way that is not humble or driven by the love of Christ.

These verses collectively lay out some really good principles of Christian living.

1) All things we do are spiritual and therefore should reflect the gospel.

2) This means that what we eat is ultimately a gospel issue if done properly or improperly.

3) If you ate at Chick-Fil-A (CFA) today, then fine. How did you eat there? Did you eat with a spirit of humility? Did you eat with a vindictive spirit? Was your goal to "take a stand for Jesus" (how does eating a chicken sandwich do that again?) or was it to glorify God (which by the way, you should be seeking to do tomorrow as well)? Did you eat there because you are against others or did you eat there out of a spirit of compassion and love? Did you cause any fellow brothers or sisters in Christ (maybe those struggling with homosexuality) to stumble in their faith by eating there? Did you eat in a self-righteous manner and attitude? Did you give thanks to God as you ate there? Did you overeat while you were and so disobey God by being a glutton? Just some questions to think about....

4) If you didn't eat there today, did you refuse to do so because you felt other Christians were being immature? Did you pass judgment on your brother or sister in Christ for doing that (and so violate God's Word)? Did you act in a self-righteous manner because you felt you were somehow being a "cool Christian"? Did you show love to those who differed in opinion from you or did you try to shame them? Did you love Christ and glorify Christ in whatever you did choose to eat instead today? Did you bring glory to Christ in NOT eating there today? By not eating there, did you cause any fellow brothers or sisters in your church to stumble in their faith?


Here is how it worked out in my own life: I wasn't going to eat there simply because I didn't care and I didn't see how it was going to legitimately advance the Kingdom. However, Sunday, one of the members of my youth volunteer team asked if we could order CFA for our ConXion night this Wednesday.

I love CFA. I appreciate the stance the CEO has taken on this issue. I love my church and I know several people from my church were wondering what stance I would take. Since I knew that I could eat at CFA or not eat at CFA and still glorify God either way, I opted to eat there. I used this time to teach our youth that it is more important about what we are for than what we are against. I think we also should encourage people (even CEOs) when they take a stand for what we approve of.

I had to confess to God though that I had a very self-righteous attitude when I saw how many people were in CFA. I thought to myself, "Most of these people are probably here for the wrong reasons." Then I realized I was being self-righteous and judgmental. I realized that ultimately, it is by God's grace that I can eat and that I should give thanks for CFA and the opportunity I had to eat there today.

So I ate at CFA and enjoyed the gospel...not because buying a chicken sandwich made me holy or righteous (something I by virtue of being united with Christ), but because I strove to eat for the glory of God.

A Break From Book Reviews

This post is coming when I am a) sick b) tired and c) introspective. This means it will be disconnected, possibly incoherent and swing wildly from sadness to joy. Let's begin...

Lately, I have been missing Michigan. I miss Portage. I want to go up and see all of my favorite landmarks. I want to eat at Sweetwater Doughnuts. I want to walk behind the public library and see the snow falling. I want to be around people that have similar accents and don't make fun of how I say "egg" and "leg" because they all say it weird too. I miss hanging out with people who enunciate every syllable in a word. I miss the Michigan sarcasm. I miss the way people let you into their hearts up there...even if it took a long time. I miss the awesome syrup. I miss the strong Dutch influences. Heck, I miss wooden shoes and clogging. I miss Plainwell ice cream. I miss feeling like it was really Fall and it was really Thanksgiving. I miss the Detroit Lions (I still don't know why).

I think honestly, I miss the memories. I miss being a kid sometimes. I miss the walks to the park with my mom. I miss going on nature hikes with my dad. I miss running around First Baptist Church of Portage with my church friends, thinking we were warriors and explorers. I miss the safety I felt during the holiday season. I miss the feel of fresh snow beneath my feet and my nose getting cold. I miss feeling suave and cool eating at Big Apple Bagels (because it had the word "deli" in the name). I miss waking up early and watching Saturday morning cartoons. I remember when the most epic event in my life consisted of Superman and Batman teaming up on Saturday morning to fight the Joker. There was nothing greater in my mind. I miss the innocence of collecting Archie comics and baseball cards and the excitement of going to Scott's Comics and Cards with my dad on Saturday morning. I miss the drive we used to have to take to get to a Wal-Mart in Otsego. I always knew I would be getting a Hot Wheels car from my dad. The most serious choice I had to make was which one to pick out.

As much as I miss those memories though, I know one thing: memories can become an idol. It is so easy to long for simpler times. It is so easy to think back and live in the past. But God has placed me in a particular topos, a place, for a specific purpose. For the past year or so, God has really been breaking me of my two biggest areas of personal struggle--focusing too much on the future and dwelling too much on the past. God has had to rip away virtually every single idol (like education) and has forced me to focus on the now. He has redirected my focus to my original calling of being a pastor.

He has really done this by refocusing my eyes upon the cross and the gospel. I have been exploring this concept of "preaching the gospel to yourself" for the past year and I can honestly say, it has revolutionized my life. It has opened my eyes anew to the wonders of the gospel. It has forced me to stop being so caught up in the past or focused too much on the future. God has forced me to look at him and just enjoy the grace of being where I am, who I am and who I am with. God has told me to stop with the "self-improvement" techniques and just delight in Him. I have been trying to explore the depth of the riches of God.

So while I still miss the things of my past, I am learning to realize my security back then was a grace God provided for a time. But my ultimate security and my ultimate joy should be found in Christ. I find security because of his death and resurrection. I am united with him and secure in him.

Theology of Luke and Acts Book Review

For years now there have been three major staples on my bookshelf: Darrell Bock's two-volume commentary on Luke and and his one volume commentary on Acts from the BECNT series. Bock has established himself as an expert on Lukan-source material. So I eagerly was anticipating his synthesis of Luke's theology in his Gospels and in Acts in A Theology of Luke and Acts: God's Promised Program, For All Nations which is a part of Zondervan's Biblical Theology of the New Testament series. I was not disappointed.

The first four chapters of this 500+ page resource are devoted to introductory matters and take up less than 1/5 of the book. The real meat and potatoes are found in 19 chapters where he absolutely breaks down the theology of Luke. I spent my time with chapter 5 in Bock's work which was devoted to a narrative development of the "Plan, Activity and Character of God." Bock walks the reader through virtually every chapter tracing how God's plan of introducing the "already not-yet of the kingdom" works itself out.

As Bock so eloquently displays in his narrative approach to the chapter, often the acts of God are placed out in the open and later are explained by the characters themselves. These sort of helpful insights are scattered throughout Bock's text and shed helpful light upon the text as a whole.

As a youth pastor, I am constantly looking for the application for my teens and for myself. Some commentaries leave me with a lot of research and a breathtaking amount of information, but with little I can really nail down and make practical. However, each of Bock's chapters is just loaded with application. I will fully admit that as I read through his book, I found myself praise God and his infinite wisdom.

That is the kind of writer Darrell Bock is--he is a theologian in love with God. I highly commend A Theology of Luke and Acts: God's Promised Program, For All Nations.

*Thanks to Zondervan for providing me a review copy of the book in exchange for a fair and balanced review.*