Great review. I plan to read Carsons compilation on the subject soon. I am currently reading a Genesis commentary by Walton. I’m still not entirely clear as to what the different views held by Carson, Beale and others. But I think I’m getting there.

Clever often carries the sense, and I quote, “Good-natured, obliging. In Great Britain, a clever na is an able man who performs a deed well with skill or address.” In the north, you might hear a response to “How are you doing?” as “I am cleverly.” This would mean “I am in good spirits and doing well.”

I don’t think that Dr. Mohler is picking up the right Brittish meaning. THat doesn’t flow well with his thoughts. On the other hand, he may have heard the phrase, “He’s a clever clog” or a “clever Dick”. this carries a negative connotation. This means someone is behaving in a way that is a put on. Clever Dick or Clever clog means “an intellectual who is ostentatiously and irritatingly knowledgeable.” He is more show that substance.

One would need to ask Dr. Mohler what he meant, but it sounds like it is far from a compliment.
JJ

I think your questions are valid, but they also bring out the issue addressed in this post–in other words, who is God? People have struggled with this question, and many have tried to systematize the attributes of God as a way to find an answer. What this post is trying to address is the fact that whatever we say about God has to make sense of the text we have today—as it is, not as it should be. That’s what Peter Enns is trying to engage with. Have you read his book? I am just trying to determine where you are coming from in this debate.

I apologize if I am not able to engage with your comments right away. I haven’t posted in a while for personal reasons, but I hope to resume posting soon.

I inserted לא where I did because, based on what Hebrew I know, or think I know, it is needed. I could be wrong about that.

One way to balance second temple hermeneutics and theological grids is to see how authors handle themes within their own writing. That is precisely what my proposal did in going to Romans 9. In Romans 9 we see how Paul thinks directly without having to posit a point that may or may not be present. As I said, I am not sure these positions A to B or B to A are so different. but I do think we can see Paul thinks corporately and individually about the seed, while Wright’s empahsis is built on his larger thesis and is less explicitly present.

dlb