Book Review: Keith Mathison's "Given For You: Reclaiming Calvin's Doctrine of the Lord's Supper"

I just finished writing a longer review of Keith Mathison's book Given For You (P & R, 2002) on the doctrine of the Lord's Supper.  Here's how it starts:

There is a current revival of interest taking place in Reformed circles in the doctrine and practice of the Lord’s Supper. A friend and colleague in Reformed Baptist pastoral ministry recommended this book to me as an important resource in this ongoing conversation. The author works for Ligonier Ministries and as an editor for Tabletalk magazine. In his forward, R. C. Sproul says that after reading the manuscript he told Mathison, “You may die now” (p. x). He explained that even if Mathison wrote nothing else in his life this book would provide a lasting legacy for generations to come.

Mathison prefaces the book by noting that his purpose is “to introduce, explain, and defend a particular doctrine of the Lord’s Supper—the doctrine taught by John Calvin and most of the sixteenth century Reformed Confession” (p. xv). He adds, “This is not the doctrine taught in most Reformed churches today” (p. xv). Calvin’s view was usurped in Reformed circles by the memorialist view of Zwingli. Mathison argues that Calvin’s doctrine is the Biblical position and that it should, therefore, “be reclaimed and proclaimed in the Reformed church today” (p. xvi).

To read the whole thing go here.

For other reviews look here.

JTR

The Vision (1.30.14): A Very Brief Overview of Christian Views on Eschatology (Last Things)

 

 

Note:  Last week one of our members asked me if I would give him an overview of the various views on Christian eschatology and provide some suggested resources for study. I responded by writing him a rather lengthy email.  This week one of the students from Lynchburg emailed me, making an almost identical request.  So, I went back to the first email to edit and enlarge it.  The result is the brief essay below:

 

 

Eschatology refers to the doctrine of last things.  In general, orthodox, Bible-believing Christians hold that we are living between the first and second advents of the Lord Jesus Christ.  We live in this present evil age looking forward to the glorious new age in which Christ will finally triumph.

The doctrine of last things can be divided into two categories:  (1) personal eschatology and (2) cosmic eschatology.

Personal eschatology has to do with what awaits human beings at the end of their lives on earth.  The Biblical view of personal eschatology is succinctly stated in Questions 36-39 in Spurgeon’s Baptist Catechism.

Cosmic eschatology has to do with the end of history and creation on a cosmic scale.  When most people ask about the Christian view of eschatology, this is the category they are usually thinking about.

Basic Christian Affirmations on Eschatology:  Orthodox, Bible-believing Christians hold to the following basic teachings regarding last things:

·        There will be a final, glorious second coming (parousia or “advent”) of Christ.

·        At Christ’s coming there will be a general resurrection of the dead (of which Christ is the first fruit).

·        After the general resurrection, there will be a final judgment.

·        At the final judgment all men will be permanently assigned for eternity to heaven or hell.

·        God will create a new heavens and a new earth.

·        God will be all in all, gloriously ruling for eternity.

All these things constitute the Christian hope. They are described in chapter 31 and chapter 32 of the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith (1689).

Various views on the timeline of Christ’s coming:  As noted, all true Christians will generally agree in affirming the basic events sketched above.  There are differences among Christians, however, on when and how Christ’s parousia will take place.  Much of the difference relates to the proper interpretation of Revelation 20, a key passage where mention is made of a thousand year reign of Christ.  This thousand year period is referred to as “the millennium.”

 

In the history of Christian interpretation of the Bible, there have been three major views on the timing of Christ's second coming related to the millennium:

1.  Historic Premillennialism:  This view hold that Christ’s coming will take place before the millennium, reflecting the following general timeline:

(1) Christ's return;

(2) A literal thousand year rule of Christ on earth;

(3) A last rebellion and defeat of evil;

(4) The other events of the final consummation (general resurrection, judgment, assignment to heaven or hell, new creation, etc.).

2.  Amillennialism:  This view holds that there is not a literal millennium, but that this term is to be taken figuratively as referring to this present age, reflecting the following timeline:

(1) This present age is the millennium;

(2) Christ returns;

(3) The other events of the final consummation.

3.  Postmillennialism:  This view holds that Christ will return only after the establishment of the millennium.  Some take the millennium as literally lasting a thousand years and others as figuratively referring to a substantial and extended period of time. This view reflects the following timeline:

(1) The triumph of the Christian movement eventually results in a Christian "golden age” (the millennium);

(2) Christ returns;

(3) The other events of the final consummation.

In addition to these three basic views of Christian eschatology, beginning in the mid-nineteenth century there developed a variation on the first view (“Historic Premillennialism”) that is called "Dispensational Premillennialism” which has had a significant impact within modern evangelicalism.

4.  Dispensational Premillennialism.  This view holds that Christ will return before a literal thousand year millennium.  It holds, however, that Christ’s coming will take place in two stages.  Christ will first come secretly to “rapture” the church. Then, after a seven year period of tribulation on earth during which some will be converted and, thus, become “tribulation saints,” Christ will return yet again, this time publically and universally.  This view reflects the following timeline:

(1) Christ’s secret coming and the rapture of Christians;

(2) A seven year period of tribulation;

(3) The second stage of Christ’s coming which is public and universal;

(4) A literal thousand year rule of Christ on earth which includes the building of a “third temple” in Jerusalem and the re-establishment of temple sacrifices;

(5) A last rebellion against Christ and the final defeat of evil;

(6) The final consummation (though some dispensational schemes also differentiate between various resurrections and judgments that do not correspond to the mainstream views).

Dispensational premillennialism also has some distinctive additional teachings, particularly with regard to its views on Biblical hermeneutics (interpretation), including its view that the Bible teaches that history can be divided into various “dispensations.”  This includes seeing the present “church age” as a “parenthesis” in holy history.  This view leads dispensationalists to reject “covenant theology” and to downplay the significance of the Old Testament for New Covenant believers.  It does not see continuity between Old Testament Israel and the New Testament church, and it differentiates between God’s plan of salvation for Jews and his plan of salvation for believers in the “church age.”

In recent years, there has developed another significant movement within the dispensational camp known as “Progressive Dispensationalism.”  This view has been put forward by various scholars in historically dispensational schools (most notably, Dallas Seminary). It has attempted to modify some of the interpretive difficulties and peculiarities of historic dispensationalism and to reconcile it with covenant theology.  It has done so by, among other things, affirming the value of the Old Testament for the Christian life and by stressing elements of continuity between God’s plan of salvation for Jewish saints in the Old Testament and in the church today.

Assessment:

Though all should agree on the basic affirmations regarding eschatology sketched above, we acknowledge that men of good will may take different interpretations regarding the timeline of Christ’s second coming.  The Second London Baptist Confession of Faith (1689), for example, does not take a position regarding Christ’s advent in relation to the millennium.  Thus, it might be affirmed by a Historic Premillennialist, an Amillennialist, or a Postmillennialist, and persons holding to any of those positions might well be part of a church holding to the confession.  There are, however significant hermeneutical and doctrinal problems with Dispensational Premillennialism that place it at irreconcilable odds with Reformed theology and the confession.  

 

Which ministers and theologians have held or currently hold the various views?:

1.  Historic premillennialism:  Advocates have included the church father Justin Martyr; maybe C. H. Spurgeon (his views are sometimes hard to nail down); and evangelical theologians like George Eldon Ladd and Wayne Grudem (reflected in his popular Systematic Theology).

2.  Amillennialism:  Advocates include most modern reformed theologians (e.g., Herman Hoeksema; William Hendriksen, R. C. Sproul, Michael Horton, etc.), as well as others like the Lutheran theologian Kim Riddlebarger. 

3.  Postmillenialism:  Advocates included Jonathan Edwards and most Puritan, evangelical, and Reformed theologians and missionaries of the 18th-19th centuries [the book to read here: Iain Murray’s The Puritan Hope].  The view has been revived in recent years by a number of Presbyterian and Reformed theologians including Keith Mathison and  John Jefferson Davis.

4.  Dispensational Premillennialism:  The Plymouth Brethren preacher John Nelson Darby is usually named as the founder of this view.  It was popularized by C. I. Schofield through the notes of his Schofield Reference Bible.  The view has also been popularly promoted in fundamentalistic and conservative evangelical circles by ministers and authors like Jerry Falwell (Thomas D. Ice directs the “The Pre-Trib Research Center” at Liberty University), Tim LaHaye (in the popular Left Behind books), and David Jeremiah.  Preacher and author John MacArthur is both a Calvinist and a dispensationalist!  The view has also been held by scholars like Lewis Sperry Chafer, John Walvoord, and Charles C. Ryrie, all connected with Dallas Seminary.

Here are a few books that might help get a handle on things:

General Orientation:

Sam Waldron, The End Times Made Simple

Keith Mathison, Dispensationalism:  Rightly Diving the People of God?

R. C. Sproul, The Last Days According to Jesus

Historic Premillennialism:

George Eldon Ladd, The Blessed Hope

 

Amillennialism:

Kim Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism

Postmillenialism:

Keith Mathison, Postmillennialism:  An Eschatology of Hope

Dispensational Premillennialism:

Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism

Progressive Dispensationalism:

Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism

 

Audio:

I also recommend this podcast I did on Harold Camping and Rapture teaching.

Grace and peace, Pastor Jeff Riddle

Sola Scriptura versus "Solo" Scriptura

Last Sunday evening I did a message on "The Dangers of Private Interpretation" in which I shared some reflections from Keith Mathison's book The Shape of Sola Scriptura (Canon Press, 2001) in which he distinguishes the Reformation concept of sola scriptura from the modern evangelical view of "solo" scriptura.

A friend sent me a link to this article by Mathison in the March/April 2007 issue of Modern Reformation in which he summarizes the content of his book. Those interested in the topic will profit from reading the article.

JTR

Top Ten Books of 2010

Image:  View from a shelf in Lloyd Sprinkle's library which I visited this past year (see post)

Top ten books read in 2010 (in no particular order; you might also note that none of the books I read in full last year were even printed in 2010; compare lists from 2008 and 2009):

1. William Still, Dying to Live (Christian Focus, 1991). I was encouraged by reading this autobiography of the Scottish Pastor who was influential in reviving the method of systematic expositional preaching through books of the Bible. I also read his book The Work of the Pastor (Christian Focus, 1984, 2001). See my blog post here.

2. Keith Mathison, Given for You: Reclaiming Calvin’s Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper (P & R, 2002). This book challenged my “Zwinglian” views of the Lord’s Supper. See my blog post here. Though I did not agree with everything—like Mathison’s openness toward infant communion—this book (along with Calvin’s commentary on Acts 2:42; 20:7) did push me to reconsider the issue of frequency. We host the Lord’s Supper every Sunday at CRBC.

3. Thomas Watson, The Ten Commandments (original 1692; Banner revised ed. 1965). Brilliant exposition of the moral law of God. I read Watson’s commentary as I preached a Lord’s Day afternoon series at CRBC through the Ten Commandments. Watson is a master communicator and practitioner of “plain preaching” (using simple language and timeless illustrations to communicate truth). Spurgeon called him a “racy writer.” Nearly every paragraph has a quotable quote. If you want to read the Puritans, it is probably best to begin with Watson rather than John Owen. Watson became my “Puritan of the Year” (see below for other Watson books read in 2010).

4. Boon Sing Poh, The Keys of the Kingdom: A Study on the Biblical Form of Church Government (Good News Enterprises, 1995; revised ed. 2000). Groundbreaking work on ecclesiology from a Malaysian Reformed Baptist pioneer who has suffered persecution (including imprisonment) in his homeland for Christ. Poh puts forward a persuasive Biblical and historical-theological argument for an “Independent” form of Baptist church government including officer roles for the minister, ruling elders, and deacons. As I read this book, I kept thinking, “Wow, this man is saying so many of the things that I have intuitively come to see through Scripture study on the doctrine of ecclesiology.” This book was particularly helpful in planting a new church and writing its founding documents. CRBC’s ecclesiology reflects much I learned from Poh. I also read the critique of Poh by Samuel Waldron, et al in In Defense of Parity (Truth for Eternity Ministries, 1997) and Poh’s online rejoinders in his “Gospel Highway” magazine.

5. James M. Renihan, Edification and Beauty: The Practical Ecclesiology of the English Particular Baptists, 1675-1705 (Paternoster, 2008). A reprint of Renihan’s dissertation. This is an excellent historical-theological study of the early English Particular Baptists. If anyone doubts whether it is appropriate for Baptists to be called “Reformed,” he should read this book. Note: Renihan offers significant interaction with Poh (cited above). Though not in full agreement with Poh, he verifies the influence of Independency on Particular Baptists (e.g., the use by some early Baptists of the office of “Ruling Elder”).  Read a full review in the November 2010 issue of the RBT here.

6. William L. Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (Simon and Shuster, 1960). I had always wanted to read this massive and detailed account (1245 pp.) of Hitler’s Germany. Long homebound periods of winter snow provided the opportunity. What an illustration—as if we needed more evidence—of man’s depravity and his capacity for inhumanity to his fellow man.

7. Virgil, The Aeneid (verse translation by Allen Mandelbaum, Bantam, 1961). Arma virumque cano…. Over two years ago, I started reading a few pages of the classic epic poem on the mythical founding of ancient Rome to the children over lunch on Fridays (after we spent the morning doing Latin and Greek). We finally finished it up this Fall. Though the kids moaned and groaned at times, we were all gripped by the final struggle between Aeneas and Turnus which ends, “Relentless, he sinks his sword into the chest of Turnus. His limbs fell slack with chill; and with a moan his life, resentful, fled to Shades below.” It also gave us plenty of opportunities to compare and contrast the pagan and Christian views of life.

8. Robert L. Dabney, Discussions: Evangelical and Theological, Volume I (original 1890; Sprinkle reprint, 1982). I must admit that I still have a few more articles to read before I can say I have read the book from cover to cover, but readings from this volume brought great enjoyment and edification in 2010. If Piper can claim Edwards as his “life theologian” I am tempted to pursue Dabney. What a mind! His “The Influence of the German University System on Theological Literature” is a devastating critique of the historical-critical method. “The Christian Sabbath: Its Nature, Design, and Proper Observance” is a forceful argument for the abiding validity of the fourth commandment on the Christian conscience, and “The Doctrinal Various Readings of the New Testament Greek” along with his review “The Revised Version of the New Testament” provides a winsome defense of the traditional text of the Bible. I have already purchased volume 2 from Sprinkle and hope to begin it in 2011.

9. John Bunyan, The Holy War (original 1682, Baker reprint 1977). Though overshadowed by Pilgrim’s Progress, Bunyan’s “other” allegory richly rewards the reader who discovers it. Bunyan tells the story of how Prince Emmanuel frees “the famous town of Mansoul” from the tyranny of Diabolus and his henchmen.

10. C. H. Spurgeon’s Autobiography: Volume 2: The Full Harvest (Banner revised ed. 1973). Though not a true “autobiography,” since it was compiled by Spurgeon’s wife and secretary after his death, this book is a gem. I read the first volume in 2009 and followed up with the second this year (the Banner two volume edition is an abridgement; the full four volume original can still be attained from Pilgrim’s Press). This book is a compelling look at the life of this pulpit giant. It is a treasure trove for Spurgeon quotations and anecdotes (which I made use of in this blog throughout the year and in The Reformed Baptist Trumpet, and you’ll likely see more in 2011!).

Other books read in 2010 and honorable mentions:

Thomas Watson: All Things For Good (first published in 1663 as “A Divine Cordial”; Banner ed. 1996); The Lord’s Supper (original 1665; Banner ed. 2004); The Lord’s Prayer (original 1692; Banner ed. 1965).

Other Puritan authors: Mathew Mead, The Almost Discovered Christian (original 1661; SDG ed. 1993); Thomas Boston, The Art of Man-Fishing (Old Paths, n.d.) [see blog post].

Worship: Malcolm Watts and David Silversides, The Worship of God (Marpet Press, 1998); D. G. Hart and John R. Muether, With Reverence and Awe: Returning to the Basics of Reformed Worship (P & R, 2002); David J. Engelsma, et al, Reformed Worship (Reformed Free Publishing Association, 2004).

Biblical studies: Terry A. Chrisope, Toward a Sure Faith: J. Gresham Machen and the Dilemma of Biblical Criticism, 1881-1915 (Christian Focus, 2000); D. Edmund Hiebert, 1 Peter (BMH, 1984, 1992); Alan J. MacGregor, Three Modern Versions: A Critical Assessment of the NIV, ESV, and NKJV (The Bible League, 2004); Michael Bentley, Living for Christ in a Pagan World: 1 & 2 Peter Simply Explained (Evangelical Press, 1990); Thomas R. Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude (Broadman & Holman, 2003) [on Petrine commentaries, see my blog post].

Systematic Theology: In 2010 I completed a re-read of John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Volume I (Westminster John Know, 1960).

Biography and Church History: Frances Bevan, The Life of William Farel (Bible Truth, 1975); Scott and Kimberly Hahn, Rome Sweet Rome: Our Journey to Catholicism (Ignatius, 1993); Eric H. Sigmund, From Harvard to Hell and Back (Scribe, 2001); Nathan Hatch, The Democratization of American Christianity (Yale, 1989) [see blog post]; Iain Murray, The Old Evangelicalism: Old Truths for a New Awakening (Banner, 2005); Hannah Rosin, God’s Harvard: A Christian College on a Mission to Save America (Harcourt, 2007) [see blog post].

Children’s devotional books: John Tallach, God Made Them Great (Banner, 1974); Idem., They Shall Be Mine (Banner, 1981).

Preaching and Ministry topics: Horatius Bonar, Words to Winners of Souls (original 1860, P & R ed., 1995); Idem., The Sin Bearer (Pietan Publications, 2005); E. S. Williams, The Dark Side of Christian Counseling (Wakeman Trust, 2009) [see blog post]; “Stuff” No One Told Me About Church Planting (unpublished manuscript, n. d.).

Notable booklets, tracts, and pamphlets: By Robert G. Spinney and published by TULIP Press: Peeking Into the Devil’s Playbook: Satan’s Strategies for Tempting Christians to Sin (2000); Looking for God in All the Wrong Places: An Appeal for Word-Based Corporate Worship (2006); Did God Create Sports Also? Thinking Christianly About Sports (2006); Monkeying Around with Dangerous Ideas: Four Reasons Outside the Field of Science Why Christians Should Reject Evolutionary Theory (2006); Are You Legalistic? Grace, Obedience, and Antinomianism (2007); A. W. Pink, The Ten Commandments (1941; Chapel Library ed.); Marguerite Couturier Steedman, A Short History of the French Protestant Huguenot Church of Charleston, South Carolina (Lectour Ltd., 1970); John Thackway, Worldliness (Bible League Trust, 2004); Words of Truth # 1: Maurice Roberts, “The Higher Critical Movement” and John Thackway, “Reopening the Wells” (Bible League Trust, n. d.).

JTR

Is "sola Scriptura" a Reformation slogan?

I’m still working my way through Robert Letham’s Through Western Eyes: Eastern Orthodoxy: A Reformed Perspective (Mentor, 2007). It includes an intriguing chapter comparing Orthodox and Reformed views on Scripture and tradition (pp. 173-198), in which Letham notes confusion, on both sides, about the term sola Scriptura.

Letham’s point is that the popular modern concept of sola Scriptura as a “right of private interpretation” was not a Reformation principle (see pp. 194-195). He adds: “To categorize Reformed theology as individualistic, with no doctrine of the church, is an error of monumental proportions” (p. 195). See similar reflections in Keith Mathison’s The Shape of Sola Scriptura on the difference between the Reformers’ view of sola Scriptura and modern individualistic evangelical view of what he calls “solo” Scriptura.

In this year of the 500^th anniversary of the Reformation, many discussions on various points of Reformed theology and practice are surfacing. I noticed that the May 26, 2017 issue of Christianity Today has an interview with church historian Mark Noll titled, “The Freedom and Chaos of Sola Scriptura” (BTW, I do not, in fact, subscribe to “Christianity Yesterday,” as some derisively call it, but take a look at it, as well as the mainline The Christian Century, from time to time when I visit the central library, and I just happened to thumb through this issue last week). That article begins its discussion of the slogan by noting, “It has been a hallmark of Protestantism for 500 years….” That may be true of the concept but Letham suggests that the actual slogan does not go back that far.

Letham comments:

In fact, this slogan cannot be traced back to the sixteenth century; it was a much later concoction. Its intention was not to suggest that only the text of the Bible was acceptable. Indeed, the Reformers produced a wide range of new catechisms and confessions….  What they taught was that the Bible is the supreme authority, and sits in judgement on the teaching of the church, not vice versa (p. 175).

He later adds, regarding the term:

This is often taken to mean that the Bible is to be the only source for theology. It is almost universally claimed that it is one of the central pillars of the Reformation. However, there is not evidence of such a slogan in the entire sixteenth century. It is probable that it did not put in an appearance until the eighteenth century at the earliest. Contrary to so much hot air, it is not a Reformation slogan. When it was coined it was held to affirm that the Bible is the highest court of appeal in all matters of religious controversy, which is what the Reformers and their successors actually held.

So, Letham makes two interesting points:

First, historically, the exact term or slogan sola Scriptura was not, in fact, coined in the sixteenth century but in the eighteenth century (though Letham does not suggest who first coined the term—that would be interesting to know).

Second, theologically, the Reformed concept of sola Scriptura does not champion “private interpretation.” It also does not suggest that the Bible is the only source for theology but that it is the standard by which theology is rightly understood and evaluated.

JTR

John Owen: "for all translation is, of necessity, interpretation"

Have you ever met some more-pious-than-thou brother who claims he gets all of his theology directly from the Bible itself and never from the interpretations of men?  This type of person will sometimes make the claim, for example, of being neither an Arminian nor a Calvinist but simply a Biblicist.  Perhaps these are of the same sort about whom Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 1:12, those who claimed to follow neither Paul nor Cephas nor Apollos but only Christ.  Such a person is often little aware of the fact that he is shaped more by modern American individualism and religious privatism than primitive Christian piety.  In his book The Shape of Sola Scriptura (Canon Press, 2001), Keith Mathison calls this approach “solo scriptura” rather than the Reformation concept of “sola scriptura.”  This type of person is also prone to decry academic learning in favor of his experience (as if the two have to be mutually exclusive).  Thus, he criticizes those who commit time and effort to study, whether learning Biblical languages or reading the great past and present interpreters of the Christian tradition, as being filled with “head knowledge” rather than “heart knowledge” (something he naturally assumes that he has in spades).

   

In John Owen’s Adversus Fanaticos (translated by Stephen P. Westcott as “A Defense of Sacred Scripture Against Modern Fanaticism” in Biblical Theology:  The History of Theology from Adam to Christ [Soli Deo Gloria, 1994]:  pp. 769-854) he offers a masterful critique of the Quakers, the charismatics of his day, who apparently held to a similar supposedly “interpretation-free” fantasy.  At one point Owen points out the self-contradiction inherent in those who claim not to be dependent on the interpretations of men but who cannot read the Bible in the original languages and so must be dependent on the interpretations offered in translations:

On one hand they desire to be self-consistent (which thing they seem to greatly desire) and so reject all interpretation, yet, on the other, they can hardly claim to utilize the words of Scripture alone for, after all, they only have that in translation (being as they are for the most part unlearned and having no language but our vernacular).  To reject all interpretation would thus be to deprive themselves of the Scriptures entirely, for all translation is, of necessity, interpretation.  Yet to reject our English version on those grounds would be an unheard of example of folly and wickedness (p. 806).  

Book Review: Nathan Hatch, "The Democratization of American Christianity"

Nathan O. Hatch, The Democratization of American Christianity (Yale University Press, 1989): 312 pp.

I finally got around to reading Nathan Hatch’s book The Democratization of American Christianity. Aside: Hatch is now President of my alma mater, Wake Forest. I had heard the book praised by the likes of D. J. Hart for its cogent historical explanation of the rise of egalitarian views and the decline of Calvinism in early American evangelicalism and wanted to read it for myself.

From the start, Hatch argues “both that the theme of democratization is central to understanding the development of American Christianity, and that the years of the early republic are the most crucial in revealing that process” (p. 3). He concludes that the “central force” in American Christianity has been “its democratic or populist orientation” (p. 213). Hatch traces three ways in which popular religious movements in the early republic articulated a “democratic spirit”: (1) They denied “the age old distinction that set clergy apart as a separate order of men, and they refused to defer to learned theologians and traditional orthodoxies” (pp. 9-10); (2) They “empowered ordinary people by taking their deepest spiritual influences at face value rather than subjecting them to the scrutiny of orthodox doctrine and the frowns of respectable clergy” (p. 10); and (3) These “religious outsiders” had “little sense of their limitations” (p. 10).

Hatch traces the influence of populist preachers like the Methodists Lorenzo Dow and Francis Asbury, the Baptist John Leland, the Restorationist Alexander Campbell, and the Mormon Joseph Smith.

Of the Campbellites, for example, Hatch notes, “People were expected to discover the self-evident message of the Bible without any mediation from creeds, theologians, or clergymen not of their own choosing. This explicit faith that biblical authority could emerge from below, from the will of the people, was the most enduring legacy of the Christian movement” (p. 81).

At one point, in his discussion of Baptists, Hatch contrasts the views of early American Baptist leader Isaac Backus with that of firebrand John Leland:

“While Backus never doubted the right of all to worship as they pleased, he was unconvinced that laymen could articulate their own theology. He defended the primacy of Calvinism and reminisced about ‘the imminent fathers of New England.’ Leland, on the other hand, rejected the idea of natural inequality in society—as if some were set apart to lead and others to follow. He depicted the typical clergyman as venal and conniving, rather than capable of rising above self-interest” (p. 99).

Hatch notes, in particular, how religious populism led to a revolt against Calvinism. There were at least four major complaints, he says, against “Reformed orthodoxy: its implicit endorsement of the status quo, its tyranny over personal religious experience, its preoccupation with complicated and arcane dogma, and its clerical pretension and quest for control” (p. 171). Of interest here is the book’s Appendix (pp. 227-43) which offers an amusing “sampling of anticlerical and anti-calvinistic verse.”

The revolt against Calvinistic orthodoxy included a new interpretation of the Reformation concept of sola scriptura. Hatch notes: “For the Reformers, popular translations of the Bible did not imply that people were to understand the Scriptures apart from ministerial guidance” (p. 179). Likewise, Hatch continues, “It is equally clear that the eighteenth-century evangelicals John Wesley, George Whitefield, Jonathan Edwards, Isaac Backus, and others, did not think of viewing the Bible as a source of authority independent of theology and the mediations of clergymen” (p. 180). It was the egalitarian populists of the mid-18th century who began to set private interpretation of the Bible over against theology, history, and tradition. Hatch’s line of argument here anticipates Keith Mathison’s The Shape of Sola Scriptura (Canon Press, 2001).

Hatch concludes the book with an epilogue in which he discusses “the recurring populist impulse in American Christianity” (pp. 210-219). The last line: “American Christianity continues to be powered by ordinary people and by the contagious spirit of their efforts to storm heaven by the back door” (p. 219).

After a lifetime in conservative Baptist circles and 20 years in public ministry there is much with which I found to resonate in Hatch’s book. It helps explain how Baptists in America drifted from their Calvinistic roots. It also explains how moderate Baptists came to focus on “empowering the laity” and how even conservative Baptists continue down this track with egalitarian views of “every member ministry,” “democratic” views of church government, anticlericalism, and egalitarian views of church leadership.

Jeffrey T. Riddle, Pastor, Christ Reformed Baptist Church, Charlottesville, Virginia 22901

WM # 44: Hendriksen and the Ending of Mark

I sat down today and recorded WM # 44:  Hendriksen and the Ending of Mark.  Here are some notes I used for this episode:

A friend in Hong Kong recently emailed me to say that he had been reading William Hendriksen’s commentary on Mark and was puzzled by his comments on the ending of the Gospel.  He wrote:  “Since Hendricksen is a much respected commentator for reformed Christians, do you think you could comment on his writing concerning Mark's ending soon?”  This WM is in response to his request.

Who is William Hendriksen?

See his bio from the Banner of Truth website.  Hendriksen (1900-1982) was a Christian Reformed minister and Bible scholar, born in the Netherlands, whose family immigrated to the US when he was 11 years of age.  He went to Calvin College, Calvin Seminary, and got a ThD from Princeton.

His book More than Conquerors on the interpretation of Revelation was the first book published by Baker Books in 1940.

Hendriksen is perhaps best known for his New Testament Commentary series.  He wrote the commentaries covering Matthew through Titus, and the remainder was completed by Simon Kistemaker.  These commentaries have become a favorite of Reformed ministers and laymen for their generally conservative and Reformed perspective on the NT.

The issue:  If such a respected scholar did not accept the traditional ending of Mark, why should we?

Hendriksen on the Ending of Mark:

The Mark commentary was completed in 1975.  After 16:8 we find an excursus titled, “The Problem with Respect to Mark 16:9-20” (pp. 682-687), which begins with the question, “Did Mark write verses 9-20?”

After this discussion, the author provides notes on Mark 16:9-20 (pp. 687-693).

We will focus on his comments in the excurses (pp. 682-687).  After an initial survey of opinions, he notes two key points.  First, did Mark write Mark 16:9-20?  Second, if the answer to the first question is NO, does this mean that Mark was meant to end at Mark 16:8?

The answer to the first question is NO, as WH states, “I do not believe that Mark wrote Mark 16:9-20” (p. 682).

He provides two reasons, based on (1) External Evidence; and (2) Internal Evidence.

Let’s look at each and provide a brief response:

 (1) WH on External Evidence:

WH notes that Mark 16:9-20 is missing in Codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.  It is also missing in the Old Latin Codex k, the Sinaitic Syriac, “and other very early manuscripts” (p. 683).

He adds that Clement of Alexandria and Origen “seem not to have known these verses” (p. 683).

He also cited Eusebius and Jerome as saying that the traditional ending was missing in early manuscripts.

Response:

WH fails to discuss positive evidence for the traditional ending.  It appears in codices A, C, D, and the vast majority.

It is also cited by the church Father Justin and Irenaeus.  The latter explicitly cites Mark 16:19 and identifies it as coming from the end of Mark.

Another respected Reformed Dutch scholar reached a very different conclusion given the same evidence:

Jakob Van Bruggen, The Future of the Bible (Thomas Nelson, 1978):  p. 131:

There are only three known Greek manuscripts that end at 16:8, and one of them has a large open space after verse 8.  All the remaining Greek manuscripts contain verses 9-20 after Mark 16:1-8, and most of them do not have a single note or insertion of other data.  Mark 16:1-20 has both the authority of the Majority Text, as well as the authority of oldest text.  If it still remains uncertain whether Mark 16:9-20 is well attested textually, then very little of any of the text of the New Testament is well attested.

As for the Eusebius and Jerome comments, see Dean John Burgon’s book The Last Twelve Verses of Mark (reprinted by Sovereign Grace Printers, 2000), chapter five “The Alleged hostile witness of certain early Church Fathers proved to be an imagination of the critics” (pp. 116-147).

Among other things, Burgon notes that Clement of Alexandria also never quotes from the ending of Matthew but no one has argued that Matthew 28 is not original to the first Gospel (p. 117).

He challenges both the Eusebius reference (pp. 119-129) and the Jerome citation (pp. 129-135).

(2) WH on Internal Evidence:

He gives three arguments:

1.  Diction:

He compares vv. 1-8 with vv. 9-20 and notes:

vv. 1-8           4 unique words

vv. 9-20        14 unique words

2.  Style:

He focuses on the conjunction kai:

vv. 1-8           8 times (once per verse)

vv. 9-20        6-7 times (c. once per two verses)

3.  Content:

He focuses on the fact that in v. 7 the young man tells the women to tell the disciples Jesus will appear to them in Galilee and in vv. 9-20 there is no explicit mention of an appearance in Galilee.

Response:

Arguments based on style are notoriously difficult because they usually involve subjective judgments based on limited evidence.

WH’s arguments are particularly weak because he only compares vv. 1-8 and vv. 9-20.  He makes no comparison with passages of similar length in other sections of Mark.

1.  Diction.

Mark 16:9-20 exhibits the normal variety found in other passages of similar length in Mark.

See especially Maurice Robinson’s analysis in “The Long Ending of Mark as Canonical Verity” in David Alan Black, Ed. Perspectives on the Ending of Mark (B & H, 2008):  pp. 40-79 (especially pp. 65-66).

2.  Style.

For the use of the conjunction kai and the conjunction de in Mark 16:9-20, see the discussion in Lunn, The Original Ending of Mark (Pickwick, 2014):  159-160.

3.  Content.

The Galilee argument is weak.  No reference to Galilee does not mean that this was not the setting for some of the appearances recorded in vv. 9-20.

Hendriksen’s conclusions:

Having rejected the authenticity of Mark 16:9-20, Hendriksen turns to his second question.  If 16:9-20 is not original, does this mean Mark was meant to end at 16:8?

Unlike many modern interpreters (like John MacArthur or Dan Wallace) Hendriksen concludes an original ending at 16:8 as improbable, but he offers no explanation for how Mark ended or what happened to the “real” ending, noting instead, “I have no desire to add to the confusion” (p. 687).

He concludes that “no sermon, doctrine, or practice should be based solely upon its contents” (p. 687).

For a response to this kind of viewpoint see past Word Magazines:

WM # 4         MacArthur and Mark’s Ending

WM # 35      Can we preach the ending of Mark?

WM # 36      Ending of Mark, Cessationism, and Apologetics

Final Thoughts:

Return to the original issue:  If such a respected scholar did not accept the traditional ending of Mark, why should we?

I would respectfully say that WH was wrong on the matter of text.  This does not mean that his commentaries are not useful, but they should be read with discernment and caution.

Hendriksen, like many other Reformed and conversative evangelicals, was deeply influenced by the currents of the modern historical critical method.

For the influence of the academy on conservative scholars, see especially Ian H. Murray’s Evangelicalism Divided:  A Record of Crucial Change in the Years 1950-2000 (Banner of Truth, 2000), particularly chapter seven “‘Intellectual Respectability’ and Scripture” (pp. 173-214).  Look here for my review of the book.  Note:  Murray does not critique Hendriksen but he does review men like F. F. Bruce, Alistair McGrath, and others.  But his comments in this chapter are relevant to this discussion, as when he observes:

The academic approach to Scripture treats the divine element—for all practical purposes—as non-existent.  History shows that when evangelicals allow that approach their teaching will sooner or later begin to look little different from that of liberals (p. 185).

In general, we might conclude it is safer to rely on older commentators (like Calvin, Henry, Poole, Spurgeon, etc.).

We should not be dispirited. Quite the contrary, it is clear that many are beginning to question the embrace of the modern critical text.  As one example of that see Keith Mathison’s recent blog post on Nicholas Lunn’s book defending the traditional ending of Mark:

This may have been the most surprising book I read in 2015. My thoughts on the ending of Mark have been basically settled for over 20 years. I have long been convinced that the original ending of Mark was at 16:8. Lunn’s book has caused me to go back and take another look at the evidence and seriously reconsider my position. He provides a very thorough and helpful examination of the external and internal evidence. His consideration of the linguistic argument is particularly good. In my opinion, Lunn’s book demonstrates that the case for the longer ending of Mark is a lot stronger than many of us have been led to believe, and he certainly demonstrates that the case for the shorter ending is a lot weaker. It will be interesting to see whether his work re-opens the debate and changes any minds.

We can only hope that this trend will continue.

JTR