Daniel Kirk, author of Unlocking Romans, shared a few thoughts on his blog about J. Richard Middleton’s book The Liberating Image: The Imago Dei in Genesis 1.
You can read his thoughts in Image as Function in Gen 1, Liberating Image: Imago Dei in ANE Context, and Liberating Image: Some concluding remarks. Although I have not read the book yet, it looks like the type of book I would enjoy reading.

Here is what Peter Enns has to say about it:

“The Liberating Image is a balanced yet challenging articulation of the Imago Dei in Genesis, its ancient Near Eastern context, and its present-day theological implications. By locating himself in his postmodern context, Middleton brings a refreshing hermeneutical self-consciousness to the scholarly task, which is aimed at providing a substantive and compelling argument without posing as the last word. His analysis of Imago Dei in Genesis in the context of ancient Near Eastern religions leads Middleton to the conclusion that the Israelite theological traditions of Genesis 1-11 are recontextualized in conscious opposition to ideological categories of Mesopotamia. That Israel’s story promotes the dignity of all humans, not just of the royal or priestly classes, should have vital ethical implications for today.”

I accidentally ran across a few lectures by Dr. Middleton, and, although at first I had not recognized his name, I immediately recognized the title of his book. There is one lecture entitled In the Beginning God Created the Heavens and the Earth: Responsible Interpretation of Genesis 1 in Ancient and Contemporary Contexts where Dr. Middleton talks about how one goes about interpreting Genesis 1 responsibly (i. e. you should read it “literally,” but you have to listen to the lecture to find out what he means by “literal”). Those familiar with John Walton and G. K. Beale’s works will find some similarities in his approach in terms of Genesis’ function and temple imagery. The Q and A was interesting with some provocative answers. There are also two Chapel talks at Greenville College that are somewhat short but well worth listening. In the first he talks about creation and in the second about redemption. The second lecture pretty much covers the content of his essay A New Heaven and a New Earth: The Case for a Holistic Reading of the Biblical Story of Redemption (Journal for Christian Theological Research 11 [2006] 73-97). This lecture and essay will resonate with those who liked N. T. Wright’s Surprised by Hope. I really enjoyed reading the essay and it is a great way for those who have not read Wright’s book to become familiar with the premise that what the bible envisages for the eschaton is not heaven as the final destination but new heavens and a new earth (i. e. new creation).
Read more »

G. K. Beale’s book The Erosion of Inerrancy in Evangelicalism: Responding to New Challenges to Biblical Authority is a response to what he believes is a challenge to biblical authority that has arisen recently in evangelicalism. The book contains a response to Peter Enns’ book Inspiration and Incarnation, a defense for the single authorship of Isaiah, and a discussion of Old Testament cosmology as opposed to its modern scientific understanding.

It was somewhat frustrating to read the first part of the book because I had already read Beale’s articles (and rejoinders) along with Enns’ responses. What you get in the first few chapters is basically this exchange (Enns’ responses are summarized) with some modifications. I do not understand why Beale chose this format having the benefit of Enns’ responses. His critique is extensive and Enns’ original responses are short (as responses should be) so, at the end, you do not get a balanced exchange (plus most people will probably not bother to read Enns’ articles although Beale encourages us to do so). I do not mean to imply that Beale isn’t asking good questions or doesn’t have some valid points (this back-and-forth is what should be happening). What I did not appreciate was the format and the fact that Beale seems to put Enns in the worst possible light. This part of the book will satisfy those who didn’t like Enns’ book and irritate those who did.

The chapter on Isaiah’s authorship basically repeats traditional arguments and, from what I could see, does not advance the discussion. This will probably be of interest to people who would like to have a summary of the arguments for the single authorship of Isaiah and why Beale believes they are important. In the end, he concludes that a different view can not be said to hold a high view of Scripture.

Perhaps, the best chapter in the entire book in my opinion is chapter 6 entitled “‘Can Old Testament Cosmology be Reconciled with Modern Scientific Cosmology? Part 1.” Read more »

I am almost at the end of G. K. Beale’s (rather frustrating) book The Erosion of Inerrancy in Evangelicalism. In his chapter on Isaiah’s authorship (in which he takes the traditional view), he says something that sort of jumped out at me. This is in the section where he tries to answer the question of whether or not the single authorship of Isaiah is nullified by minor updating or editing. Here is what he says,

“It is certainly possible that there were scribes of Isaiah who wrote down some of his discourses, so literary style may vary within the book. Furthermore, later inspired editors could have done some minor editing of Isaiah’s prophecies. But the conceptual essence of each prophecy should be seen as stemming from what the historical Isaiah said or wrote in his lifetime; each prophecy is like a footprint left by Isaiah, even if later scribes or editors may have filled in a little tread here and there” (2008, p. 157, my emphasis)

He goes on to say that this is not very different from what happens in the Gospels. Here are a few questions:

• What does it mean that an unknown editor is inspired?
• Is talk of inspired editors only possible because now we have a canon and, in hindsight, we know they were inspired?
• Is “editorial inspiration” a bona fide argument in Evangelical views of inspiration or is this just Beale’s notion?

I raise these questions because at some point you will need to start talking about textual variants and the LXX (e. g. Jeremiah). How then does one decide what is inspired and what is not?

Beale, G. K. The Right Doctrine from the Wrong Texts: Essays in the Use of the Old Testament in the New. Grand Rapids Michigan: BakerBooks,1994.

This is a collection of 22 essays on the NT use of the OT. The authors have different perspectives on whether or not the NT writers respected the context of the OT passages they used. I especially liked the essays of Paul’s use of Exodus 34 in 2 Corinthians 3 because you could clearly see how the way one views this issue will change the interpretation of certain texts. I thought Morna D. Hooker’s essay was much better. I wish there were more essays of this type showing how authors with different perspective approach the same passage.

This collection is unbalanced as G. K. Beale felt that the position that sees the NT writers honoring the OT context has been outnumbered and this is a way to attempt to even the playing field. But I also think that the collection is unbalanced by the choice of essays of the opposition. The writing style of some of the writers will be off-putting to some people. For example, Morna D. Hooker, when referring to Paul’s use of Exodus 34, says that “there are blatant contradictions and non sequiturs in Paul’s argument” (290). Of course, this is qualified later as the point is to show that, according to Paul’s method of exegesis, these apparent contradictions are “due to the peculiarities of the text” (290) and not Paul’s inability as an interpreter. I think that another book like this should be edited which contained papers by writers like Peter Enns who will be a much better representative. Read more »

Harold H. P Dressler begins his discussion on the Sabbath by looking at the different theories about its origin. One of those theories is the Babylonian Origin which states that the Israelites learned about the concept of a seven-day week from the Canaanites who, in turn, learned it from the Babylonians. Other theories are the Lunar, Kenite, Socioeconomic and Calendar Origin. However, Dressler does not see why the Sabbath could not have originated with the Israelites specially since there is not a lot of evidence to refute it. Even the etymology of the word shabbat is not helpful since some scholars don’t see any interdependence of this word and the verb shabat (to cease, stop). Dressler summarizes: “since all available sources have failed to produce conclusive evidence for an alternative origin of the Sabbath, we suggest that the Sabbath originated with Israel and that with the Sabbath came the seven-day week” (24). Read more »