Nourishing the Root: A Review of "Putting Jesus in His Place"
American evangelicals have invested a great deal of effort in making the case for certain important doctrines in the past few decades. We have seen a tremendous amount of resources generated over biblical prophecy and end-times matters. Predictive prophecy is scattered throughout the Bible and the end-times is always a popular topic so the attention is understandable. In the 1980's, evangelicals spent much time and effort debating and discussing the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. Evangelicals have also focused heavily on church-growth philosophy and strategies for many years now. Every one of these issues is important and worthy of a large degree of the attention they have received (some more than others). However, these popular issues, important as they are, are secondary matters. In other words, good, faithful, orthodox believers can agree to disagree over these matters and the core of Christianity is not going to rise or fall either way. Christology, on the other hand, does get to the very root of all of Christianity.
Thankfully, several evangelical scholars and authors have in recent years begun to help us to avoid getting lost in secondary matters such as those noted above. Authors Robert M. Bowman, Jr. and J. Ed Komoszewski have written a book that will greatly assist us in nourishing the root of Christianity. Putting Jesus in His Place, The Case for the Deity of Christ answers the crucial question: Is Jesus God? The deity of Christ, a fact that is perpetually doubted in scholarly circles, has come under increased scrutiny at the more popular level recently. TV specials, magazine cover stories, novels and movies propose more accurate alternatives to the centuries-old doctrine of the deity of Jesus Christ. Christology is an area that has been in need of increased attention within evangelicalism anyway. These conflicting accounts of Jesus in the popular media have added to the need to strengthen our efforts in teaching and defending the deity of Christ. Putting Jesus in His Place makes a much-needed and timely case for a central, core doctrine of the faith: the deity of Jesus.
Readers will be pleased to know that Bowman and Komoszewski have crafted the book in such a way that it is a suitable resource for both the popular and scholarly level. The body of the work is written in an accessible manner with more critical notes provided in the endnotes. When theological insider lingo is used, the authors provide helpful explanations along the way. The authors have used the endnotes to provide further information and to point the reader to other valuable resources for further study. For those who are looking to extend their study beyond what is provided in this book, I would highly recommend acquiring the resources mentioned in endnotes #15-18 in the Introduction: Making Sense of the New Testament: Three Crucial Questions by Craig Blomberg, Reinventing Jesus by Komoszewski, Sawyer, and Wallace, 20 Compelling Evidences That God Exists by Boa and Bowman, The Resurrection of the Son of God by N.T. Wright, Making Sense of the Trinity: Three Crucial Questions by Millard J. Erickson, and "The Biblical Basis of the Doctrine of the Trinity: An Outline Study" by Robert M. Bowman Jr. This gives you an indication of the valuable nature of the material provided in the endnotes.
One of the problems I have when reading a book that is filled with so much useful information is the inevitable brain dump that occurs shortly after completing the book. Bowman and Komoszewski have provided a way to alleviate this problem by arranging the material around a creative and meaningful acronym: HANDS. As the authors explain, Jesus shares the Honors due to God, the Attributes of God, the Names of God, shares in the Deeds that God does, and shares the Seat of God's throne. Just as Thomas was persuaded that Jesus is his Lord and God upon seeing and feeling teh scars in His hands, the HANDS of the New Testament are powerfully persuasive to convince readers of the same.
The book is divided into five parts according to the acronym HANDS. Each part of the book contains three to five substantive and convincing chapters explaining how the New Testament serves as witness to the deity of Christ. The appendix is a tremendous resource in its own right as it summarizes the biblical evidence for the deity of Christ according to subject and biblical reference (book, chapter, and verse).
One of the things I most appreciate about the book is that the authors make it very clear that the intent of the book is not to merely add another book of abstract ideas to our libraries. The main motivation for the book is to help others to "respond to him [Jesus] as our God." We can make the case for the deity of Jesus but we cannot stop there as if we're just getting all our theological ducks in a row. We must respond to Jesus in accordance with who He truly is. He is God and we must know Him as such. This is how the authors of the New Testament know Him as Putting Jesus in His Place demonstrates.
End-times speculations, biblical inerrancy battles, and church growth formulas have generated a lot of books, videos, and more in recent decades. Each of these areas are important and cannot be neglected but it is time to nourish the root in evangelicalism. I hope that Putting Jesus in His Place enjoys tremendous success and is read by thousands. Now that we know what will happen to those who are Left Behind, let us turn our attention to a subject that I believe have been neglected in favor of lesser things: the deity of Christ. The Bible says so much more about the deity of Jesus than the one or two verses we may have memorized. What good are our attractional church strategies if we are not ready to teach the fullness of the root of Christianity when the people come? How can we demonstrate a proper response to Jesus as God if we are not nourishing this root? I am encouraged by the increase in efforts dealing with this subject. Putting Jesus in His Place, The Case for the Deity of Christ is one of the top resources in this area and the best book you could buy this year. Read it, study it, buy one for your friends and family and may we all be better equipped to know and respond to Jesus as God.
For more information about the book, visit http://www.deityofchrist.com/
Stay tuned to CRMafia for further posts on this subject.
![O DEATH, WHERE IS YOUR VICTORY? O DEATH, WHERE IS YOUR STING? 1 Corinthians 15:55 [Hosea 13:14]](http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a240/Pursuing_Truth/death2.jpg)
11 comments:
Amen. Very good post indeed.
The Deity of Christ is indeed the root of Christianity.
Not to hijack this post, but you do believe that inerrancy is a secondary matter?
"Amen. Very good post indeed."
Thanks. Get a copy of the book when you get a chance. Its worth the read.
"Not to hijack this post, but you do believe that inerrancy is a secondary matter?"
Yes. I believe the doctrine of biblical inerrancy is secondary but I'm not trying to imply much more beyond that. I figured that one would raise red flags. If inerrancy falls, the rest of Christianity does not fall with it.
If inerrancy falls, the rest of Christianity does not fall with it.
An interesting and thought provoking statement.
I think this whole issue often throws into us the perpetual chicken-or-the-egg conundrum with the two sides of the issue exchanging lots of meaningless rhetorical volleys and manure and very little else.
"Why do you have such a low view of God's Word? That means you have a low view of God and a high view of man."
"You worship the Bible instead of God."
"exchanging lots of meaningless rhetorical volleys and manure and very little else."
Yes. Labeling inerrancy as a secondary issue opens me up to responses like that but I'm not going down that dead end.
I hold to a form of biblical inerrancy (what I mean by that is I do not necessarily follow the Chicago Statement on inerrancy) but I also think infallibility is a very strong position as well.
I think you can still have what God has revealed to us in Scripture as a "core" element of Christianity without inerrancy needing to be a core element.
I'll stop my comments about it there in order to avoid hijacking the thread (I know that's not what you were trying to do, David).
Thanks for posting this Jeff. Glad I had a second to actually jump on here to catch this (we have no internet at our new office yet, and I'm under a self-imposed internet moratorium at home). We are about to begin a study on the life of Christ, and one of the questions that has been persistently coming up from my people before we even get into it are those relating to the deity of Christ. No one denies the doctrine, but they all want a satisfactory explanation that clears up any questions on the issue. I know that even this book won't give that, but I'm really looking forward to getting the perspective of some guys far more qualified to address this issue than myself.
" No one denies the doctrine, but they all want a satisfactory explanation that clears up any questions on the issue. I know that even this book won't give that, but I'm really looking forward to getting the perspective of some guys far more qualified to address this issue than myself."
I think you'll be pleasantly surprised by how far the book goes to provide "a satisfactory explanation that clears up any questions on the issue." It is very thorough, especially if you read the endnotes as you go along.
Inerrancy is a critical issue upon which orthodox Christian theology stands and fall. I agree fully that Christ's deity is a foundational truth. I disagree that inerrancy is any less foundational.
If I read your thoughts accurately, Jeff, you're suggesting that there is not four or five doctrines fundamental to Christianity but only one--the deity of Christ. Am I correct?
Sorry for the hijack, but your post caused me to wonder, "Is it really all that bad to be dogmatic about secondary issues?" The reason I ask that is because this tends to be the sentiment coming from several of the men we've recently interviewed for our Pastor/Elder of Student Ministries position.
I think it's important to define what makes primary matters primary, not secondary.
Is it a set of beliefs one must abide by to be saved? If so, the deity of Christ is definitely a primary matter since one must come to know him as his Savior. His substitutionary death on the cross is another. The same goes for his Resurrection.
I have never known anyone who confessed to the doctrine of biblical errancy at the time of salvation. And neither have I known anyone who confessed to the doctrine of pre-millennialism at the time of salvation. These were doctrines I came to learn and examine years after I was saved, and that is probably the case with most Christians.
So again, what makes a primary matter primary? How would you define primary?
"Is it really all that bad to be dogmatic about secondary issues?"
Not necessarily. I'm dogmatic about some secondary issues. My larger point in this post was that American evangelicals have been more or less neglecting doctrines such as the deity and uniqueness of Jesus while investing ridiculous amounts of resources into things such as end times issues.
"Inerrancy is a critical issue upon which orthodox Christian theology stands and fall."
Does orthodox Christian theology fall if one holds to infallibility rather than inerrancy?
Jeff, thanks for the replies.
We often separate various doctrines for the sake of definition. Infallibility and inerrancy are an example. But in reality the two, as with justification and sanctification, inseparable. The one does not exist without the other.
Dave's question about determining what issues are and are not primary is significant. Are the primacy of doctrines determined by their salvific force or their doxological. I would argue the latter.
It is true, that saving faith includes a belief in both the person and work of Jesus Christ. It is also accurate to say that the doctrine of inerrancy is learned and submission to the authority of Scripture is a matter of sanctification, but I contend that the determinitive factor in what is and isn't foundational to Christian theology is first doxological and second soteriological.
It may seem to be minutae but a seminary chooses the order in which it will teach systematic theologies on the basis of this distinction.
My rambling point: What is foundational to conversion and what is foundational to sound doctrine are different questions. My personal salvation is not dependent upon my Bibliology, but much changes about Christian Theology should inerrancy be devalued.
Jeff, I was frustrated by your original post because I felt disappointment that you would list inerrancy along with specific eschatological schemes and church growth techniques as being less important secondary issues.
The deity of Christ is a precious doctrine for which we must be willing to give our all. I suggest to you that the inerrancy, infallibility, sufficiency, and authority of the Bible is as well. And, to be fair, the majority of us who hold a classic view of inspiration (i.e. Lindsell, Warfield, etc.) have been among the most outspoken critics of church growth-isms. To a lessor degree, and admittedly to our discredit, we have been less than vocal against the sensationalism of hyper-dispensationalists.
I think you'll be pleasantly surprised by how far the book goes to provide "a satisfactory explanation that clears up any questions on the issue." It is very thorough, especially if you read the endnotes as you go along.
Sorry to drudge up an old post when there are so many new good ones, but I'm a slow reader. ; )
Got the book, and am thoroughly enjoying it. It is clearly one of the most, if not the most, thorough and readable works I've seen on Christology. Yet, even it is unable to provide the answers some of my people are seeking, primarily because those answers are not accessible to the human mind:
"Think about it this way: suppose the infinite Creator of the universe assumed finite, human nature, grew from infancy to adulthood, and shared in our normal human experiences of working and playing, waking and sleeping, eating and drinking, learning and growing. Would we expect to understand how he could experience our humanity to the full and still be God? Of course not. We would expect paradoxes or mysteries, all down the line, with respect to his attributes. And that is exactly what we find." (p. 123)
And good call in drawing attention to the endnotes, which are both voluminous and insightful! Overall, this is a masterful work that does much to exalt and explain the person of Christ.
Post a Comment