Michael F. BirdRezensionen

This is the first book of the recently popular "N Views on Topic X" form that I've read, and I think it's a great format. Each author writes a chapter from a particular perspective, then the other authors write short responses. It's about as close to attending a seminar as you can get in book form, and is especially well suited to encouraging students and other readers to form their own opinions based on what they've read.

Of course, the selection of the N views is key to the quality of the book, and here editor Michael F. Bird has done a fine job. Resisting the temptation to include a broad array of perspectives and thus produce either a shallow survey or an unmanageable tome, his choice of four views allowed a substantive presentation of each perspective, plus responses, in 300 pages. Thomas R. Schreiner and Luke Timothy Johnson represent the Reformed Protestant and Roman Catholic views that characterize the basic Reformation-shaped discussions of Paul in Western Christianity. Douglas Campbell presents a view that has been developed in light of the New Perspective on Paul, as well as other Protestant influences. The surprising inclusion of Mark D. Nanos for a Jewish perspective of the "apostle to the Gentiles" fruitfully deepens the discussion of the Jewishness of Paul that has been raised by the New Perspective.

This selection of views is excellent, and bringing a Jewish voice to the table is important from a diversity standpoint: honestly, it's embarrassing to hear only Christians talking about whether and how Paul was a Jew. It is only unfortunate that Bird did not identify a woman scholar to represent one or more of the views, so that we did not hear only men talking about Paul's views on women. Such a scholar would likely have critiqued Campbell's exclusive use of "brothers" as language that adequately depicts Christians.

Bird structures the conversation by asking the authors to identify the theological framework that should be used to understand Paul, and to describe Paul's view of salvation, of the significance of Christ, and his vision for the churches. As he states in his introduction, these questions were selected in order to focus the discussion on areas in which there is significant disgreement. He also introduces the background of each contributor; in the conclusion, he helpfully summarizes the points of agreement and disagreement.

Although Johnson begins his essay with demurrals about how specifically Roman Catholic his position may be, it is clear to me that he and I operate out of the same tradition. His methodology and premises were at once familiar and persuasive to me, especially in comparison to Schreiner. Johnson's basic approach of identifying a few themes or concepts with broad attestation across many letters strikes me as more reliable than Schreiner's approach of constructing a systematic narrative that cites a verse or two as support for each statement and relies heavily on Romans and Galatians. Campbell takes an even narrower approach, concentrating on Romans 5-8 in order to identify and develop a single coherent theme; however, his discussion of freedom in the context of the communal, networked, social anthropology he sees in Paul was helpful and persuasive.

I read Nanos' chapter together with a Jewish friend with whom I've studied informally for several years on topics of Judaism, Christianity, and Jewish-Christian dialogue. She was very pleased by Nanos' ability to articulate several attitudes and concepts that she has struggled to express in our studies, and I found it edifying to understand how Paul has traditionally been perceived by the Jewish community. We both appreciated the careful verbal distinctions in this chapter between Jesus-believing Jews, non-Jesus-believing Jews, and Jesus-believing Gentiles: the language is cumbersome, but helpful in avoiding the unconscious translation of 1st-century terms to 21st-century categories.

Overall, this is a very good book, particularly well suited to ecumenical study and to the preparation of those who will minister and preach against an ecumenical background. (That would include pretty much all ministers in the Western church today.) It does require some basic familiarity with theological terms and Paul's letters, but does not require previous expertise in Pauline studies.

Dr. Bird kindly arranged for me to receive an advance copy of this book for use in my independent study course on Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant perspectives on Paul in the summer of 2012. It was extremely helpful for this work.

A very brief introduction to a complex subject. Bird describes his personal journey from Complementarism to somewhere in the miiddle with Egalitarianism. He deals with the relevant New Testament texts and relies heavily on explaining the cultural background an essential to understanding them in the 21st Century. Good but very brief.

In 2016, a major controversy erupted online when certain Reformed notables such as Liam Goligher, Todd Pruitt, and Carl Trueman leveled a polemical attack against certain evangelical all but accusing them of heresy concerning the doctrine of God. This is because certain evangelical have held to a certain variant of a doctrine termed as ESS (Eternal Submission of the Son), EFS (Eternal Functional Subordinationism), or ERAS (Eternal Relations of Authority and Submission). The charge was one of semi-Arianism and departure from Nicene orthodoxy. The ensuing firestorm produced lots of heat and little light.

In this book edited by Michael Bird and Scott Harrower, a bunch of theologians have come together to argue against ESS. Now properly in print, their arguments are more coherent and fixed. Those of us who remember the 2016 furrow can check out and see if anything has changed since then. Unfortunately, while increasing in erudition, nothing much has changed.

My key complaint back then in 2016 was that ESS was misrepresented by its critics. Reading the chapters in this book has shown me that the "pro-Nicene" crowd continue to refuse to listen to their critics, thus they continually misrepresent ESS. Unfortunately, for all its brilliance and erudition, this work fails at what it was written to do.½

Gordon Spykman in his superb Reformational Theology describes the eclipse of creation in theology. He writes that much of evangelical theology:
gives the impression of bypassing creation in a hasty move to take a shortcut to the cross.
Michael Bird in his evangelical theology doesn’t do that. This is refreshing in an evangelical systematic theology.

What is the single most important thing in evangelicalism? Bird maintains it is the gospel - so he has written a systematic theology that reflects that emphasis. What is the goal of theology? That we would be gospelised! But this raises the question what is the gospel? Is it the redemption of creation, the escape of Christians to heaven, or what? How does Bird view the gospel? He cites with approval Al Wolters who demonstrates that “creation regained” is an underlying theme of the gospel:
The gospel envisages a comprehensive restoration of the created order so that the relational disruption between God and creation caused by the intrusion of evil can be finally resolved. … The gospel is umbilically connected to the wider concepts of covenant and creation.
Such an approach alone would justify the purchase of this book.

Comparison with Grudem’s Systematic Theology is perhaps inevitable. For me Bird's is by far the superior book.

For Grudem the focus is on what does the Bible say, for Bird it is also the engagement with contemporary theological ideas. Though this is a strength of Bird’s approach it may prove to be its weakness as it may well date it.

A look at the contents shows marked differences: Bird starts with God, Grudem with the Bible. Grudem emphasises doctrine, Bird the gospel. In comparison Grudem is lame and pedestrian. This may be in part its age. Bird is a most welcome replacement for Grudem.

I have attempted to summarise some of the differences between Grudem and Bird in the table below.

Other than Spykman’s sadly out of print Reformational Theology I can think of no better summary of theology.

Summary: Engaging the American theologians who argue for eternal and functional relationships of authority and subordination in the Trinity, the contributors uphold a traditional, Nicean orthodoxy of recognizing the oneness of God, who is three equal and distinct Persons without hierarchy or subordination.

In recent years, a group of American evangelical theologians have burst on the scene contending for what some term "eternal functional subordination" (EFS) of the Son to the Father, or "eternal relationships of authority and submission" (ERAS) within the Trinity. The theologians making this contention are what is known as "complementarians," rooting their understanding of authority and submission in male and female relationships in what they see are similar relationships within the Trinity.

This proposal has been challenged as problematic in terms of Trinitarian orthodoxy, and while not intending any of these things, opens the door to tritheism or forms of Arianism and semi-Arianism. [As one who has worked in multi-faith contexts, I believe this perspective also offers ample fodder for Muslim apologists.] While it is true that in the economic out-working of the Triune God in our salvation, the Incarnate Son obeys the Father, it is another move altogether to assert that this reflects the essence of the relationships within the immanent Trinity. There is also the problem of analogs between human relationships and the intra-trinitarian relationships.

The contributors of this book argue for what they understand is the orthodox articulation of the nature and relationships of the Triune God, as formulated in the Nicean-Constantinopolitan councils. Editor Michael Bird writes:

The central thesis of this book is that the evangelical consensus, in keeping with its catholic and orthodox heritage, affirms that the Trinity consists of one God who is three distinct and equal persons, and the distinctions do not entail subordination or hierarchy. As such, this volume tries to do two things. First it constitutes a robust restatement of Trinitarian orthodoxy with special attention paid to a non-subordinationist and non-hierarchical account of the relationships within the Godhead. Second, it attempts to wrestle the doctrine of the Trinity away from the trenches of American evangelical debates about gender and authority.

One fact that is important to note in this work is that contributors differ on gender and authority roles, with some being egalitarians and some complementarians. Both argue for a Trinity without hierarchy.

The sixteen chapters in this work divide into three parts. The first part of the work considers biblical perspectives on the Trinity, particularly in engaging in close exegesis of contended passages in John, 1 Corinthians 11, Hebrews, and Revelation. Beginning with chapter 5, contributors write on the insights to be gained from historical theology for the present discussion with Peter Leithart considering Athanasius, Amy Brown Hughes focusing on Gregory of Nyssa, Tyler Wittman considering Aquinas and the subsequent Reformer: Turretin, Polanus, and Owen, and what their work delineated as to what could and could not be said about the inner life of the Trinity. Other writers focus more deeply on John Owen, the work of Protestant "scholastics," and Wolfhart Pannenberg. Chapters 12 to 16 then engage the current debate more directly, including a lengthy critique of Bruce Ware's methodology by co-editor Scott Harrower.

The final chapter, also by Harrower, was a succinct summary of why all this matters. He notes that semi-Arian tendencies in the 18th century church led to anti-Trinitarian and unitarian formulations over the next two centuries. His contention is that theological cultures have intergenerational impacts that the framers of subordinationist theologies must also consider.

I was impressed with the consistent careful scholarship, the fine-grained discussion pressing against the limits of human grasp of the nature of the Triune God. Nearly every chapter concluded with two to three pages of bibliography, evidence of a resurgence of trinitarian theology. The discussion also both gave me a deep appreciation of the importance of the Nicean-Constantinopolitan formulations regarding the Trinity and yet raised the question of whether this must, or will always be the church's reference point. At very least, any new formulations must avoid the errors these formulations address. And here it seems, according to these authors, subordinationist theologies of the Trinity are not a step forward, building on the councils, but a step back.

________________________________

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received a complimentary review copy of this book from the publisher. The opinions I have expressed are my own.

I have noticed, recently, that there is some sort of proposition going around (particularly in relation to man/woman husband/wife relationships) that the Trinity does not have any authoritative order, especially, that there is no subordination among the Persons of the Trinity. When I received a notice that I could get a review copy of this book: Trinity Without Hierarchy: Reclaiming Nicene Orthodoxy in Evangelical Theology edited by Michael F. Bird and Scott Harrower, my dad wanted me to get it and look into the topic.

I did not know that there was controversy over this particular topic, and I don't believe I've ever really considered it before. I unconsciously have always assumed that God the Son does the will of God the Father, and that that is something that has always been the case, as that is what a basic reading of the Scriptures teaching on the Godhead seems to indicate. After going through this book, I don't see any Scripturally compelling reason to change that viewpoint. If you do not understand exactly what this viewpoint entails, you'll get the gist in my critique.

It seems that the main reason all this argument has come on the scene is because some evangelicals have been using the relationship of the Trinity to argue for complementarianism among the sexes. I agree, for the most part, with the authors of these articles that that is not a hermeneutically valid argument. The Trinity's relationship to each other does not necessitate human beings relating to each other in the same way.

TRINITY NOT EQUAL IF THERE IS AUTHORITY AND SUBMISSION

I think the most compelling argument they offer is that the Trinity is One and therefore there can be no significant differences among the Persons of the Godhead. But, when looking at their arguments, I see some of the logic of it but I don't see it as overwhelmingly compelling biblically.

Let me give you some quotations from the book to demonstrate some of their arguments and I'll comment on them:

"…To assert relations of authority and submission within a single divine will is similarly impossible: authority and submission require a diversity of volitional faculties. Where there is one single will, there can necessarily be no authority or submission."
In other Words, we know that God the Father and the Son are one, have the exact same will and therefore there cannot be said to be authority or submission in that divine relationship. Now for my commentary: I'm not sure that that is actually the case. Let me give you an illustration to demonstrate how that type of argument sounds to me: If a wife always agrees with every decision her husband makes, because he is her husband, and wants to do whatever his will is in everything, it isn't actually submission because she never disagrees with him? If she agrees with him in what he wants to do and submits to it, her husband doesn't actually have authority and she isn't actually submitting? I don't think that one can say that the husband has no authority and the wife is not submissive simply because the wife always obeys the husband and wants to do the same thing He does.

I don't see how it is biblically inaccurate to say that God the Son willingly submits to God the Father because He is God the Father. I don't see that Christ's complete willingness to do the Father's will indicates that Christ is not obeying the Father and that the Father is not authoritative.

And my second quotation from the book, which is actually a quotation of a quotation that the author of this particular chapter makes about the Trinity, "neither with regard to nature nor activity is any distinction beheld".
Let me list some questions I have in regard to this statement which really make me reluctant to agree with it:

When the Son said, "My God, My God, Why have you forsaken Me?" (Matt 27:46), Did God the Father say the same thing to the Son? Say the Same thing to the Holy Spirit? Did Christ and the Holy Spirit also separate from the Father? Forsake Him? Did the Father and Christ forsake the Holy Spirit?

When the Son says, "Not My will but Thine, be done"(Luke 22:42), does the Father at any point also say, "Not My Will but the Son's be done?"

At the end of time, God the Father puts everything under God the Son's feet (1 Cor 15:27). Does God the Father ever put everything under the Holy Spirit? We also find that the Son Himself is then subjected to God the Father and the Bible makes it very clear that it is not a vice-versa thing. God the Father is NOT subjected to God the Son: "Then comes the end, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father, when he has brought to an end all rule and all authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be eliminated is death. For he has put everything in subjection under his feet. But when it says 'everything' has been put in subjection, it is clear that this does not include the one who put everything in subjection to him. And when all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will be subjected to the one who subjected everything to him, so that God may be all in all."(1 Corinthians 15:27-28 NET)

Some of the writers, to varying degrees, seem to concede some sort of submission but only as a part of the Trinity's plan to save people did Christ submit to the Father. But they seem to think that it wasn't quite God the Son who submitted. At least that's what they seem to be saying. It is posited that Jesus had a human will and a divine will and that "the human will of the Son is subordinate to the divine will." But can we actually separate His human will from His divine will? Where are we ever told that there was a discrepancy between Christ's human will and His divine one? Where are we ever given an indication that Christ ever had a Romans 7-like scenario? I know, I know, people will say, "in the Garden of Gethsemane!" (Luke 22:42). But I see no Biblical reason to believe that that was actually God the Son in His humanity speaking separately from His Divinity. Why would we assume that Jesus' flesh EVER 'took over' or 'manifested itself' over against His Divinity? Don't we believe that Christ's humanity was completely untainted by sin? That even His human nature, his flesh, did not include a tendency to sin?

To show how the book carries the thought further let me give you another quote: "It is Christ's humanity that will submit to the Father, not Christ's divinity." Jesus submitted His human will to the Father but not His divine will? I am very, very nervous about that statement. I see what they are trying to do, but I don't know that they have a biblical right to say that. Why would we assume that when God the Son, embodied in flesh, ever speaks of Himself He isn't necessarily speaking of His WHOLE self, His 'real' Self, but merely of His physicality? It seems almost a direct contradiction to the texts about the Son talking about His submission to the Father to assert or think that He Himself wasn't actually submissive, that it was just His flesh that was subordinate. Besides, wouldn't that make God the Son not 'wholly man', so His divinity is not actually joined with flesh? Couldn't it be used to say also that, when people are worshiping Christ, they are worshiping His humanity, not His divinity? That only God the Son, DISEMBODIED, is truly God?

"Eternal submission is to misunderstand the Son, and therefore diminish his glory, power and will…" Who says? Where does the Bible say this? How does submitting to the Father diminish Christ's glory? It was veiled during the incarnation, but He always had it, right? How does it diminish His power? His power over God the Father? Does it diminish the Son's will because the Father's will is done and not His in particular(even though the Scripture indicates that He wants the Father's will done)?

ETERNAL BEGOTTENNESS OF THE SON BY THE FATHER

Another concept that is propounded throughout the book is the eternal 'generating' of the Son by the Father. It's a proposition of what we are actually supposed to be deducing from the terms "Father" and "Son" in the Godhead. The writers of this book seem to think that, though God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit have always been God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, those terms specifically have reference to origin, not hierarchy. That the Father eternally generates, or begets, the Son. "For the pro-Nicenes, the Father was 'first' among the three persons of the Trinity. He is the one who generates the Son and who spirates 'the Spirit'."The Son was always eternally generated, eternally begotten by the Father before He was physically begotten in the flesh. This is pretty much, solely, according to this book, the only thing we are to glean from the terms "Father" and "Son" in the Trinity. As one of the essay writers puts it: ""…there is nothing other than eternal generation that we can say of the Father-Son relation."

I don't understand how that is so definitive. Why is it that they can dogmatically say that the terms "Father" and "Son" only have reference to 'generation' and that they absolutely, positively, CANNOT possibly have reference to a hierarchy? What if they actually do? What if that's EXACTLY what we are to understand about the Father, Son and Holy Spirit? What if they really do mean that, though the Son is of the same essence as the Father, He is subordinate to the Father? And that both can be true at the same time? The New Testament presents that viewpoint, it indicates that God the Son submits to God the Father.

IS SUBMISSION GLORIOUS?
That leads me to another question, several questions, actually: Is submission glorious? Can we say that it is not? Seeing that the Son humbled Himself and yet did not need to 'grasp' glory, as it were, because it was already His? Is submission to the Father not a natural part of the divine Son's character? Why do we assume the Son is lesser if He eternally obeys the will of the Father? Isn't the Son doing a glorious thing in submitting to the Father? The Bible seems to plainly indicate that the Son's submission to the Father is a glorious, not a demeaning, thing.

Do we actually believe that there should be NO paradoxes in our understanding of God? That we should be able to completely understand everything about Him? That nothing about Him will go beyond our comprehension? The Bible seems to indicate that all the Persons of the Trinity are One and yet that having authority and submission among the Godhead does not negate that equality.

Can we take everything the Bible says about God in simple faith, not having to understand everything about Him but simply believing that what God says about Himself is true? And that everything God the Son, even in His incarnate state, says about Himself, is also true, and true about His whole Self, not merely about His physical self, even if it boggles our minds? Shouldn't we take Him at His Word?

When Christ says, "I and the Father are One" (John 10:30) and, "The Father is Greater than I" (John 14:28), Shouldn't our first response be to assume that both statements are wholly true of Him and not merely of His physical body but of His Divine nature as well? And shouldn't we assume that, without our having to fully understand it, the Father being greater than the Son does not diminish the Son's glory or take away from His Oneness with the Father?

CREEDS: THE AUTHORITY FOR OUR FAITH?

The book seems to make the case that Ancient 'Christian' Creeds and traditions are a part of forming our faith. That we ought not to depart from the writings and traditions of the early Christians who lived after the time of the Apostles. I'll give you an example of what I am talking about by quoting the book again:
"I am aware that some involved in defending EFS have also denied eternal generation; I do not have much to say about that except that to deny eternal generation is certainly to deny the doctrine of the Trinity, and, given that 'eternally begotten of the Father' is a confession of the Nicene Creed, is in grave danger of departing from what can meaningfully be called Christianity - it is, once again, to side with Unitarians and Jehovah's Witnesses in claiming that the Christian doctrine of God is unbiblical."

So if we depart from the conclusions and interpretations of ancient professing Christian writers we are departing from Christianity? We can't just use the Bible, we have to agree with the interpretations of the Bible written by ancient professing Christians? This might sound horrible to say, but the Nicene Creed is not something that I hold to. I don't think I even knew what it said before I read this book, and even then I don't remember a lot of it (don't think I could quote any of what I read verbatim), and I don't know what the whole thing says, but I don't feel guilty about that. The Nicene Creed, the Westminster Confession, the London Baptist Confession…etc. are not, and never have been the Biblical measurement of faith. And I think that's rather obvious as they do not form a part of the canon of Scripture.

The writers of this compilation of essays seem dangerously close to canonizing the Nicene Creed. I know that they would deny it, but, as saw from the above quotation, they really seem to exalt it's authority. I think that L. S. Chafer warned us well when he said: "It is a bad indication when, in any period, men will so exalt their confessions that they force the Scriptures to a secondary importance, illustrated in one era, when as Tulloch remarks: 'Scripture as a witness, disappeared behind the Augsburg Confession' ...No decrees of councils; no ordinances of synods; no 'standard' of doctrines; no creed or confession, is to be urged as authority in forming the opinions of men. They may be valuable for some purposes, but not for this; they may be referred to as interesting parts of history, but not to form the faith of Christians; they may be used in the church to express its belief, not to form it."

I must admit, this argument about the Trinity is a topic I'm nervous about as it seems too easy to come to a wrong conclusion about God, to be dogmatic where the Scripture is silent, going beyond the bounds of revelation. But I’m really scared of where these people are going with their argument as their foundation seems to be the Nicene Creed. In the book, one of the writers states: "It may be that EFS/ERAS is biblical and correct, but if it is, the classical Christian tradition of orthodox Trinitarians must inevitably be unbiblical and wrong." But that shouldn't drastically shake us up because our faith shouldn't be based in the "classical Christian tradition" anyway, but in God's written Word.

Many thanks to the folks at Kregel Academic for providing me with a free review copy of this book (My review did not have to be favorable)

Summary: A collection of papers assessing N. T. Wright's Paul and the Faithfulness of God by scholars from a number of fields of theological study, with a concluding response from N. T. Wright.

In 2013, N. T. Wright published his 1700 page masterwork on Pauline theology, Paul and the Faithfulness of God (hereafter PFG). Since this time, the work has spawned numerous reviews, other scholarly works, and an extended response from N. T. Wright, Paul and His Recent Interpreters, (reviewed here). What distinguishes this work, which comes to half the length of Wright's, is that it represents assessments of scholars who are specialists in a number of the fields upon which Wright draws in his work, from Jewish studies, to exegesis, to biblical and systematic theology. Furthermore, noting that gap between English and German scholarship on Paul, this work brings together scholars from both.

The work is broken into five parts with a concluding epilogue in which Wright responds (in a mere 57 pages!) to the contributors. An online version of the Table of Contents may be found here. I will not try to discuss all thirty essays as well as Wright's response but rather what were for me some of the most salient essays, realizing this does not do justice to the high quality of others.

Part One consists of a single chapter by Benjamin Schliesser that situates PFG in the scholarly landscape, noting it as a negative reaction to the work of Rudolf Bultmann, and setting it alongside the works of Dunn, Schreiner, Wolter, and Schnelle. Part Two consider a number of methodological issues from hermeneutics to history in six chapters. I found the discussion of Wright's "critical realism" and its particular association with Ian Barbour of interest, as well as the critique in a couple of the essays of Wright's exclusive focus on Pauline material on Paul to the exclusion of Lukan material.

Part Three focuses on contextual issues ranging from the Jewish context which plays such an important part in Wright's work, particularly in a somewhat biting essay by James Charlesworth to a more irenic discussion of Wright's lack of engagement with middle Platonism by Gregory Sterling. Wright conceded this latter critique in his response. Two other essays concern the cultic context and a significant essay by Seyoon Kim on Paul and the Roman empire.

Part Four is the longest section of the book, comprising twelve essays, on exegetical issues. I thought Gregory Tatum got Wright wrong in his chapter on law and covenant, attributing a forensic perspective to Wright more characteristic of his opponents. James D. G. Dunn takes Wright to task for how little he addresses the New Perspective. Peter Stuhlmacher's chapter on Wright's understanding of justification and redemption is particularly outstanding for its discussion and critique of the ideas of exile and the role of Abraham in PFG. There is also an essay on apocalyptic by Jorg Frey, highly critical of Wright's account of apocalyptic in Paul, the one essay to which Wright responds at length in the epilogue.

Part Five concerns implications. Sven Ensminger's work on Barth and Wright seemed to be mostly about his hero, Barth, with little engagement with Wright or Paul. More positively, Frank Macchia's essay (and several others in this volume including Levison's in Part Four) drew attention to Paul's Pneumatology in Wright. Edith Humphrey extends Wright's ideas about sacramentality and the sacraments. The final essay by Schnabel concerns both mission and the discussion of whether Paul's experience on the Damascus road was one of conversion or call.

The concluding epilogue (Part Six) is devoted to Wright's responses to the various essays in twelve sections. For the most part, the responses are gracious, acknowledging where the writer has challenged his thought helpfully, and sometimes, where the writer has misunderstood him, notably Frey, who gets ten pages of response. Often Wright's response is to cite the length of his work and to go into matters further as some would have him would have resulted in a much longer, and perhaps more tedious work.

There are several strengths to this work, particularly the assessments from specialists of a number of claims Wright makes in his broad sweeping work. Also, one who has been around academics in scholarly conference will recognize the cut and thrust of serious scholarly work, where the function of critique is to refine and sharpen thinking.

The work demands close reading and one benefits greatly by having a copy of PFG at hand and having read it. I have to confess that I have only read summaries and reviews and so I honestly felt I was, for the most part, listening to one side of a nuanced conversation. What this collection underscored for me was what a singular work PFG is to evoke so much rigorous discussion from so many perspectives. Now to figure out when I can give a few months of careful attention to this work!

____________________________

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the publisher through Edelweiss. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own.

Summary: A collection of studies on the life and ministry of Paul that explores this unusual Jew who is comfortable moving among Greeks and Romans as he proclaims the Christ he encountered on the way to Damascus.

About the only thing scholars can agree upon concerning the Apostle Paul is that he was born a Jew. In an introductory chapter, Michael F. Bird surveys the options most commonly chosen to explain this apostle who claims on one hand that everything from his former life as a Jew is "crap" compared to the surpassing worth of Christ, and yet "becomes a Jew, in order to win the Jews." Is he really a former Jew who has abandoned Judaism? A transformed Jew, an Israelite in Christ? A faithful Jew? Or a radical Jew? There is something to be said for each of these views and significant scholars associated with each one. Bird proposes an alternative--Paul is an anomalous Jew because he tries "to create a social space for a unified body of Jewish and Gentile Christ-believers worshiping God" (p. 28).

In succeeding chapters, Bird presents five "studies" (most individually published elsewhere) that underscore the anomalous character of Paul's Jewishness, shaped by his mission to Gentiles and Jews. He begins by exploring Paul's ideas of salvation, which both comes from the Jews and is for the Jews, but is also for the Gentiles and found in Christ, and not Torah. Chapter 2 shows how Paul is indeed apostle both to Gentiles and to Jews and how much the latter occupied his attention. Chapter 3 addresses the debate between apocalypticism and salvation history in Paul through a study of Galatians showing both elements reaching their height in the revelation of Christ to the Gentiles. Chapter 4 focuses in on the incident at Antioch described in Galatians 2:11-14 as the beginning of Paulinism "understood as the antithesis between Christ and Torah when the salvation and equal status of Gentiles is on the line" (p. 203). It also marks a parting in the ways between Paul and the Jerusalem church, not absolute as evident in Paul's efforts for the relief of that church. Finally, chapter 5 explores the "anti-imperial" undertones of Paul's letter to the Romans. On its face it presents no civil or military challenge to Roman order. Yet its assertions of the kingdom of the Messiah and the new sociopolitical entity of the church in fact was a profound challenge to Rome which would ultimately supplant empire.

Bird writes:

"In sum, Paul was a religious anomaly. He appeared on the scene of the Greco-Roman world like a sudden yet small ripple moving upon the waters of a still river. He goes mostly unnoticed in his own time, and yet by the time the ripple reaches the shore of the modern age, it has become a tsunami. Paul's anomaly, offensive as it was to the Jews and odd as it was to Greeks, became the Gentile Christianity that eventually swallowed up the Roman Empire and that, even to this day, two millenia later, casts its shadow upon the religious landscape of the world. Not bad for a Jewish tentmaker from Tarsus!" (p. 30)

Of the writing of books on Paul, there seems no end! What makes this one distinctive is that it provides a reading of Paul's life and mission that reconciles seemingly disparate threads of scripture and explains them by Paul's vision of the new people, Jew and Gentile together, formed by Messiah Jesus. It explains both the consonant and dissonant elements in his Jewishness, his reaction at Antioch, and the content of his letter to the Roman church.

Michael Bird represents a younger generation of theological scholars from "down under" who are beginning to make their mark in biblical and theological studies. I look forward to hearing more from him and others like him!

____________________________

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the publisher. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own.

Gordon Spykman in his superb Reformational Theology describes the eclipse of creation in theology. He writes that much of evangelical theology:
gives the impression of bypassing creation in a hasty move to take a shortcut to the cross.
Michael Bird in his evangelical theology doesn’t do that. This is refreshing in an evangelical systematic theology.

What is the single most important thing in evangelicalism? Bird maintains it is the gospel - so he has written a systematic theology that reflects that emphasis. What is the goal of theology? That we would be gospelised! But this raises the question what is the gospel? Is it the redemption of creation, the escape of Christians to heaven, or what? How does Bird view the gospel? He cites with approval Al Wolters who demonstrates that “creation regained” is an underlying theme of the gospel:
The gospel envisages a comprehensive restoration of the created order so that the relational disruption between God and creation caused by the intrusion of evil can be finally resolved. … The gospel is umbilically connected to the wider concepts of covenant and creation.
Such an approach alone would justify the purchase of this book.

Comparison with Grudem’s Systematic Theology is perhaps inevitable. For me Bird's is by far the superior book.

For Grudem the focus is on what does the Bible say, for Bird it is also the engagement with contemporary theological ideas. Though this is a strength of Bird’s approach it may prove to be its weakness as it may well date it.

A look at the contents shows marked differences: Bird starts with God, Grudem with the Bible. Grudem emphasises doctrine, Bird the gospel. In comparison Grudem is lame and pedestrian. This may be in part its age. Bird is a most welcome replacement for Grudem.

I have attempted to summarise some of the differences between Grudem and Bird in the table below.

Other than Spykman’s sadly out of print Reformational Theology I can think of no better summary of theology.

A fantastic analysis into the pistou Christou debate! The terrain covers everything from linguistics, phenomenology, theological implications, and grammar analysis. Loved it! Though it does not come out on one side or another, it gives a great picture of the debate and helps the reader arrive at their own conclusion. My personal highlight of the book was the introduction of a third view beyond object genitive and subject genitive. They dont really have a name for the third view but two essays explore the structure as an event and origin of faith as opposed to the common two. Among the proponents of this third view is Karl Barth. Its not an easy read and takes time and patience but well worth the effort. Enjoy!

This short work is an overview of M. F. Bird's position on Gender Equality in the Church. Michael Bird has a position, which is neither complementarian nor egalitarian, but somewhere in the middle. HIs even-handed dealings with Scripture, and with others engaged in this subject area are excellent. My only criticism is his lack of detail, but that is the nature of this publication.½

Evangelical Theology by Michael Bird is a book that will grab readers early on and will not let them go for 800 , rich pages of theology, humor and worship. Bird hooked me early. From the outset, he cannot help but show his love for the church catholic and historic, freely citing authors from all walks of the Christian faith, from throughout two millennia of Christian history. His implicit focus on the fellowship of the saints in studying theology made it feel like, and really become, a worshipful and communal event.

Hearing a bit of who Michael Bird is encouraged me even more to dive into this text. He lays his “ecclesial and theological cards on the table” and shares a bit about himself early on.

"On the church side of things, I did not grow up in a Christian home, but I came to Christ through a Baptist church in Sydney, Australia. I also attended a Baptist seminary (Malyon College) and have been a pastoral intern and itinerant preacher in Baptist churches. I taught for five years in an interdenominational theological college committed to the Reformed tradition in Scotland (Highland Theological College); more recently I spent three years teaching at an interdenominational college in Brisbane while being on the preaching team of a Presbyterian church (Crossway College). I am now a lecturer in theology at an Anglican College (Ridley Melbourne). Strange as it sounds, I would describe myself as an ex-Baptist postPresbyterian Anglican."

Bird considers himself a “mere evangelical” and attempts to write his systematic from that perspective.

One of the things you will note in Evangelical Theology is the tone. Bird writes deeply and lightly, using humor freely to make points and disarm the reader. Is his use of humor good or bad? It is hard for me to say, but I am sure that some readers will be put off by it and some readers will benefit from it and enjoy it greatly. His tone makes this immense volume immensely readable but may leave it with a short shelf life due to pop culture references and whatnot. Will it stand the test of time? Who knows. But, it does allow a broader range of believers to access his work and be ministered to by it here and now, so for that reason I tend to view his tone and humor as a benefit of the book.

Bird starts his text off, after a proper prolegomena, with the Trinity. He makes some valid points as to why the Trinity should be the launching point for theological study rather than Scripture.

"Whereas the medieval theological tradition began with the Triune God as the starting point for theology, it was the Second Helvetic Confession (followed by the Irish Articles and Westminster Confession) that broke the mold by putting the doctrine of Scripture first in the order of topics covered in theology. This Protestant move is understandable, opposing as it does the medieval Roman Catholic view of authority; yet it was a misstep that ultimately led to a shift from theology beginning with God-in-himself to theology beginning with human reception/perception of revelation. It was inevitably that Protestant theology, in some quarters, would move from theology to anthropology as the measure of religious truth."

Bird rejects the Bibliolatry that many Evangelicals can, and do, slip into and labors the supremacy of the incarnation as God’s ultimate revelation. In his section on revelation as Bird argues for the “extra extra special revelation” of the incarnation, he writes:

"I am not denying the supremacy of Scripture as our witness to Jesus. Jesus himself said that the Scriptures testify to him (e.g., John 5:36 – 39; 7:38). Nor do I want to minimize the necessity of Scripture for knowing Jesus. Yet the Bible does not have a monopoly for giving us access to knowledge about the incarnation and the salvation that it brings. You can apprehend knowledge of Jesus Christ through the proclamation of the gospel, by the experience of him in baptism and Eucharist, and through catechisms and creeds that summarize the teaching of Scripture."

Bird writes to his current audience. He knows the culture and mindset that we, as Evangelicals, live in and writes a systematic theology to address our current age. Bird addresses possible positions fairly and fully and then expounds on the position he holds to be true. He does not come to the task with a back full of straw and mean names, ready to engage in a battle of fallacies in hopes of being shown to be smarter, righter, holier, or better than those who would propose a different position than he. Rather, he engages arguments at their strongest point and even allows room for his own error or possibility of differing, yet correct, interpretations and positions.
Bird spends time looking especially at doctrines that are being shaped and debated currently in our Evangelical world, and does so with his typical humor and relevance.

As he discusses the differing views on the atonement he summarizes the Christus Victor position with a line from Getty and Townend. “Perhaps the best way to summarize the Christus Victor view is with a line from the wonderful modern hymn “In Christ Alone” by Stuart Townshend and Keith Getty: 'And as he stands in victory, Sin’s curse has lost its grip on me.'” That is simple enough, even for me!

When speaking of penal substitutionary atonement and our quickness to bypass the Gospels for Paul’s writings, he says:

“Routinely students run to Paul’s letters or to Hebrews in search of proof texts for penal substitution. They completely bypass the Gospels like tourists from Florida detouring around Philadelphia on their way to New York. How much I enjoy the surprise when students learn that the gospel of the cross actually begins with the gospel according to the Evangelists. Even more gobsmacking is when they learn that you actually can preach the gospel from the Gospels! Who would have imagined!”

When speaking about the atonement being about both penal substitution and Christus Victor Bird writes,

"I do not wish to disparage Jesus’ death as an atoning, vicarious, substitutionary, and penal sacrifice for sin. May I be anathematized — or even worse, may I be tied to a chair, have my eyelids taped open, and be forced to watch Rob Bell Nooma clips — should I ever downplay the cruciality of Jesus’ sacrifice for sinners. However, I am convinced that Jesus’ death for sinners on the cross is part of a bigger picture that is laid out in redemptive history, visible in the very shape of our canon, apparent in biblical theology, ubiquitous in historical theology, and explicit in Pauline theology. The doctrines of penal substitution and Christus Victor do not compete against each other, for the former is clearly the grounds for the latter. What binds together new exodus, new creation, Jesus’ ministry, the cross, and the mission of God’s people in the world is the victory of God in the substitutionary death of Jesus."

I cannot express how many “aha” moments I enjoyed in this book. Bird allowed me to understand how a Lutheran could legitimately hold to consubstantiation in his discussion of the communication of divine attributes.(I still do not hold to the view, but it is real nice knowing that my Lutheran brothers and sisters did not just pull the idea out of nowhere!)

Bird also allowed me to gain some insight on Karl Barth. To this point I had not progressed much in my understanding of Barth other than “Barth=bad”. Bird spends some time addressing Barth; his theology, his legacy, his infamy, how to pronounce his name…and left me with a more sympathetic view of the man and a curiosity to learn more about his thought and life.

Bird’s leaning towards Biblical Theology shows up in section 5.2, Redemptive History: The Plan for the Gospel. If you want a beautiful text on the Gospel from cover to cover of Scripture, a section to study and enjoy, this is for you. I will personally be returning there over and over because to see the Gospel throughout all of Scripture is a wonderful thing.

His section on ecclesiology was especially interesting. Bird discusses the eclectic and often-anemic nature of Evangelical ecclesiology.

"Evangelical ecclesiology has always been a bit of a conundrum. That is because there is no standard 'evangelical ecclesiology,' nor can there be in the strict sense. You can have an Anglican, Catholic, Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist, or Presbyterian ecclesiology. Such ecclesiologies prescribe the confession, order, structure, discipline, governance, worship, sacraments, and ministries of these respective denominations. But there is no prescriptive evangelical equivalent because evangelicalism is a theological ethos, not a denominational entity. While evangelicals might agree on certain ecclesiological principles, like Jesus Christ is the head of the church and the church is the body of Christ, the general agreements largely break down when it comes to the specific ordering and structures of the church. Yet this has not always been a negative thing. Precisely because evangelicalism has no prescriptive ecclesiology, it can accommodate itself to virtually any form of church order. Evangelicals have implied an ecclesiology more than worked one out."

Bird maintains that Evangelicals have an ecclesiology, but the emphasis on it is well short of where it should be.

“(S)omething seems to be lacking in evangelical ecclesiology. I do not see anywhere near the same excitement, emotion, resolve, and passion for debates about ecclesiology as, for example, soteriology. I doubt that many American Presbyterians get riled over Tom Wright’s ecclesiology as they do over his soteriology. “

Bird sees a few culprits, all valid, but I intensely agree with him on the culpability of hyperindividualism as a reason for Evangelicals poor and self-centered ecclesiology.

"For some folks the gospel is an iGod app that enables a person to get a wifi connection with heaven (where the one mediator between God and Man is Apple Inc.). To use another metaphor, the church is reduced to the weekly meeting of Jesus’ Facebook friends. The locus of Christianity becomes God and me rather than God and us. One could contrast two slogans: 'I believe, therefore I am saved' with “We believe, therefore we are God’s people.” Evangelicals tend to prefer the former rather than the latter as the default setting for their ecclesiology."

Bird’s discussion on “The shape of the church” edifying and challenging. Bird shows the church to be a community that is eschatological, Trinitarian, diacanol, holistic, and fellowshipping. The importance of these truths is spelled out nicely by Bird and I echo his sentiments on their importance.

The “What to take home” sections are immensely helpful and flashcard worthy. Bird does well in summarizing large chunks of information and leaving the reader with a page to take away from each chapter.

Bird takes positions I am not comfortable with, he quotes people I am not comfortable with, he approaches things in a way that sometimes leave me scratching my head…and this is why I love this book. He challenges me. He attacks, like a surgeon attacking a tumor, my small-town, American, evangelical, YRR, Puritans Piper=perfect mentality on things. He does not do so maliciously or self-righteously. He does so in a manner that makes me want to grab hands with people I differ with on secondary issues and live out our common faith together, as brothers and sisters bonded together in Christ.

This book was challenging and encouraging and just a fun read. I recommend this to anyone with a love of the Gospel and an interest in Theology. I encourage you to read and re-read…as I will be doing.

I couldn’t figure out how to work this quote in to the review, but I loved it and just thought I would tag it on the end. Bird writes beautifully and God used him to lead me in worship throughout this book.

"The gospel declares the victory of the Lord Jesus over death by deposing death of its power (i.e., evil) through the cross and by robbing death of its prize (i.e., human lives) through the resurrection. As a famous Greek hymn says: “Christ has risen, trampling down death by death, and giving life to those in the grave.” Death, armed with evil and law, was no match for the Prince of Life. The gospel is not simply about how God deals with the individual’s personal sins, a transaction of sin and righteous ness to clean the slate; yes, that is true, but the gospel declares so much more, namely, God’s victory over the personal and impersonal forces of evil: the world, the flesh, and Satan. The gospel is an invitation to live in fellowship with Christ rather than to suffer under the tyranny of evil. The gospel means emancipation from the slavery of evil to the freedom of a new and authentic humanity. The gospel of Christ blesses us with the news that a world ravaged with evil is not how it ought to be, nor how it can be, nor how it will be. The gospel whispers to us that Jesus means freedom."


**I received a review copy of this book to provide an honest review. I purchased my own copy when it came out because I thoroughly enjoyed it.

In Evangelical Theology: A Biblical and Systematic Introduction, author Michael F. Bird gives the church another single volume systematic theology, one explicitly rooted in the gospel. Bird describes the purpose of writing this book, saying "my goal has been to construct a theology of the gospel for people who identify themselves as gospel people, namely, the evangelical churches" (11). His desired broad evangelical audience is reflected in his own theological journey, as he calls himself an "ex-Baptist post-Presbyterian Anglican" (23).

**Structure**

Unlike most systematic theologies--which place discussions on eschatology near the end--Bird places this nearer the beginning of the book; a reader finds Part Three between the theologies of God (Part Two) and Jesus (Part Four). Bird lays out his reasoning for placing eschatology so early in the book, saying the theme of kingdom and redemption is central in understanding the Bible, and even understanding God and Christ Jesus. We understand history and how God works in it through the lens of eschatology: "the whole sweep of redemptive history is driven by the conception of God as both king and yet becoming king" (235). Essentially he is suggesting we keep the end in mind as we read; all other doctrines are rooted in the hope that God will redeem and restore all things.

In Section 3.1 Bird introduces the reader to the kingdom of God, noting both its importance and role in the gospel message. He highlights the already/not yet tension we find ourselves in today: "God is king and becoming king in the reign of the Lord Jesus Christ" (236). As Christians we find our hope in the victory of Christ over sin and death, a victory which will be consummated in the end. So we study eschatology so we can encourage the church, passing on this future redemptive hope to both the church and the world.

Section 3.2 discusses several eschatological views held by those throughout history. Bird notes the basic human struggle with Christ's coming kingdom: Jesus never set a timetable! Some have viewed Christ's promise to have failed because the kingdom didn't appear in his lifetime; others view Christ's kingdom as a reality today, but without the hope of future consummation. Bird, in turning to the New Testament, sees the kingdom of God as starting with the life, death, and resurrection of Christ and the start of the church. In describing how the implementation of the kingdom is so transformative, Bird writes: "The final pages in a story of rebellion and death have been torn up and replaced with a different ending written by the Father, who is the author; Jesus is the protagonist, who saves his bride in the tale, and the Holy Spirit is the ink on the page. We read the story, and yet we are the story." (256)

After showing that the kingdom of God has a future reality, in Section 3.3 Bird turns his attention to the return of Christ (or parousia), which will "consummate what he began at his first coming" (258-259). He is correct in stating the Old Testament does not contribute much to the discussion of Christ's return; thanks to progressive revelation, the relevant passages are found in the New Testament. But Bird holds that not all the passages traditionally viewed as referring to the parousia--specifically those in the Gospels--are actually related to Christ's pending second coming. Instead, Bird argues that some passages--like the Olivet Discourse--are referring to the events surrounding the destruction of Herod's temple in 70 AD by the Romans. Since Jesus makes these prophecies, their fulfillment would prove Jesus was a real prophet; moreover, his followers--now gathered into the early church--would be the new temple of the Holy Spirit. Bird acknowledges this is a controversial view, and that it even might come across as preterist; fortunately, he does see sufficient evidence in both Christ's teachings and the rest of the New Testament for a second coming of Christ.

In Section 3.4 Bird deals with three different views of the millennium. First, however, he notes that debates on the millennium are of secondary importance and should not divide believers. Then he provides a concise, fair summary of the postmillennial, amillennial, and premillennial views. For each view Bird offers a helpful illustration diagramming the belief; he also quotes generously from proponents, allowing them to defend their views. But, based on his readings of the relevant passages, Bird explains that he rejects the first two views in favor of premillennialism.

In the second half of this section, Bird dives further into premillennialism so he can properly place the parousia: either before the tribulation (dispensational view) or after the tribulation (historic premillennial view). Again he provides a fair presentation of both views, quoting from proponents of each. In the end he defends the historic premillennial view. His handling of the rapture is brief, occupying a sidebar not even two pages long; he provides alternative interpretations for the relevant passages, and maintains a posttribulation return of Christ.

Section 3.5 looks at the final judgment of both believers and unbelievers. This final judgment is an "extension of the judgment of God executed at the cross" (301). It brings glory to God by showing the victory of Christ at the cross, and it provides consolation for suffering believers. Bird notes the modern theological trends to describe God's justice as restorative instead of retributive; he convincingly argues that both words are necessary in accurately describing God's justice (305). He ends this section by giving a (too) brief pastoral plea to the church: in light these future truths, Christians are to demonstrate justice by supporting the oppressed.

With Section 3.6 Bird continues into individual eschatology, describing what happens to humans between the physical death and judgment. He walks readers through all the various biblical terms for the intermediate state. Through all of this, he notes the inherent challenge in charting the details and nature of the intermediate state. He concludes by reinforcing the promise to believers: "Whatever life is ahead in the eschatological future, interim and final, it can only be a "life in Christ"" (325).

In the concluding section (Section 3.7), Bird provides a biblical description of heaven, hell, and new creation. He correctly distinguishes between heaven and the new creation. Heaven--the throneroom of God--he describes as a "glorious interlude, not the final destination" (328), whereas the new creation is when heaven comes down and the dwelling place of God is with man. The temple and garden imagery of the new creation is described in detail, showing how this future glory is the fulfillment of these important biblical themes. Hell is briefly mentioned, as Bird defends its everlasting nature against the view of Rob Bell.

**My Thoughts**

Michael Bird has written an accessible systematic theology that will be of great benefit to the local church. He writes in a conversational, easy to read tone, causing the reader to often forget he is reading a systematic theology! He is careful in using technical theological terms, even providing readers with a list of defined key terms pertaining to the discussion (257). Also aiding in the usefulness of this book is the continual gospel-driven applications scattered among the text; he writes as a scholar, but with a pastoral heart for encouraging the church and reaching the lost. As a bonus, he includes illustrations rooted in popular culture; I mean, how many systematic theologies include references to a zombie apocalypse (274) or Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure (310)?

I appreciate that Bird seemed to represent all opposing views fairly and accurately. I am especially encouraged by his statement about almost changing his view on the millennium while writing this book (280). To me, it means he came to research with an open mind, not seeking to support his personal view. It also shows that, while he would have preferred to move to the simpler amillennial view, his view of Scripture (namely Revelation 20) prevented him from doing so. That type of openness is rarely seen in scholastic writing.

While I agree with Bird as to the centrality of the kingdom in Christianity, it seemed out of place to debate the various views on the millennium, the intermediate state, and hell prior to studies on Christ, man, sin, and salvation. In other systematic theologies there is a logical progression: Trinity, Man, Sin, Salvation, Eschatology; this sequence mirrors redemptive history. In Evangelical Theology, readers have to deal with the consummation of the kingdom--and the victory of Christ--before dealing with the life and works of Christ. In a sense, the rule and reign of God is intimately connected to the gospel--a point Bird acknowledges (47)--so the kingdom discussion will move beyond Part Three and permeate all other topics. But the consummation of the kingdom, the final victory of God and the particulars of how that happens, is best left to a later position.

In Evangelical Theology, Michael Bird has offered the church a great tool for training gospel-centered theologians. This will likely become the first systematic theology book I refer to in my studies. I can see this being used by seminaries, pastors, and even small groups in the local church looking to root themselves in the truths of God. I thank God for this tool, and pray that he will use it to further his kingdom.

I received a complementary copy from the publisher through the Zondervan Koinonia blog, in exchange for an honest review.

So when did Jesus’ followers begin to proclaim him the Messiah? Michael Bird argues that Jesus deliberately acted out a messianic role, and that his followers would hardly have proclaimed Jesus to be the Messiah against Jesus’ own self-understanding. I needed no convincing on this topic, but if I did, the introduction to Bird’s book alone provides evidence enough. Indeed, I found the long introduction to be the most thought-provoking part of the book!

After the introduction the book settles down to a methodical look at each of the four gospels and their unique contribution in portraying Jesus as the Judaic Messiah. I found Bird’s examination of the gospels less bold, but no less interesting and informative. The question to be answered seems to shift from When did Jesus become known as Messiah? to How clearly is Jesus portrayed as Messiah? Bird describes the gospels as “stained-glass windows offering different shapes and colors about a figure they all regard in their own unique way as the long-promised Messiah.” He reads them this way:



Mark: The Crucified Messiah

Matthew: The Davidic Messiah

Luke/Acts: The Prophetic Messiah

John: The Elusive Messiah



The three main titles that Bird examines are Son of Man, Son of God, and Son of David. Each, he argues, is a messianic expression. The Gospel Christology thus is a form of messianism and must be understood in that light.

Bird’s writing is scholarly, precise, and well-argued, with lots of references and endnotes. I’ll definitely be picking up more books from this author.

Christianity, N.T.

Doctrinal Theology