Andy Naselli

Thoughts on Theology

Doug Moo

Framing Christian Ethics: Doug Moo Reviews John Frame

by

I was present when Doug Moo reviewed this book at ETS in 2009:

John M. Frame. The Doctrine of the Christian Life. A Theology of Lordship. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 2008.

You can view the contents of Frame’s book in a 29-page PDF here.

After recently reading Frame’s book, I asked Doug if his review has been published. It hasn’t, and he gave me permission to upload it here:

Douglas J. Moo. Review of John M. Frame, The Doctrine of the Christian Life. 61st Annual Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society. New Orleans, November 2009.

Moo’s conclusion:

The book is an admirable, biblically rich, and very satisfying exploration of the meaning, implications, and practical contemporary outworking of biblical law through the lens of the Decalogue. I learned a lot from it. I was challenged in my own too often superficial level of Christian obedience. And it is an important counterbalance to those who err on the side of turning Christian ethics into a vacuous and undefined call to love one another. But at the end of the day, by not focusing enough attention on the grand New Testament themes of Christ’s lordship, the work of the Holy Spirit, and the transformation of mind and heart in conformity with Christ, the book did not satisfy me as a whole and balanced description of the Christian life.

Mirror Reading

by

Several years ago I took a class from an expert in Second Temple Judaism who made this argument on the first day of class:

The biblical text is always reacting against a certain set of assumptions, beliefs, or presuppositions, so when interpreting any biblical text, you must always ask, “What is this reacting against in its context?”

I raised my hand and asked follow-up questions to make sure I understood the argument correctly.

I wasn’t convinced then, and I’m not convinced now.

Here’s what three other New Testament scholars have written about this:

1. Bob Stein

Robert H. Stein, A Basic Guide to Interpreting the Bible: Playing by the Rules (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2011), 205–6:

The Danger of a Mirror Reading of the Epistles

It is immediately apparent in reading the Epistles that their occasional nature assists the reader in reconstructing the situation in life for which they were written. [Read more…] about Mirror Reading

Introducing the New Testament

by

This book should be available in about one month (click the image to enlarge the back cover, spine, and front cover):

Introducing the New Testament

Introducing the New Testament: A Short Guide to Its History and Message. By D. A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo. Edited by Andrew David Naselli. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010.

Doug Moo on Romans

by

Romans is consuming the majority of my time and thoughts these days since I’m writing a dissertation on the use of the OT in Romans 11:34–35. I recently read and s-l-o-w-l-y reread everything that Douglas J. Moo has written on (1) the theme and structure of Romans and (2) Romans 9–11, and I couldn’t give his outstanding work higher praise. His publications are first-class: the content is superb. I thank God for this man!

Here’s a chronological list of most of Moo’s publications on Romans, which I’ve ranked as introductory, intermediate, and advanced. The most valuable are the NICNT and NIVAC volumes. [Read more…] about Doug Moo on Romans

Doug Moo on Theological Humility

by

This is convicting. Maintaining the kind of theological humility that Moo describes below is no easy task. It’s like walking on an extremely narrow path with steep drop-offs on both sides.

  1. On the one hand, theologians can be overly confident about their positions. They can even become pugnacious and arrogantly close-minded.
  2. On the other hand, they can be insufficiently confident about their positions (e.g., epistemological pseudo-humility). They can be noncommittal and even become compromisingly ecumenical.

What follows is from the “contemporary significance” section of Doug Moo’s comments on Romans 11:33–36 in Romans (NIVAC; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), pp. 391–92:

Theological humility. To my mortification and my family’s delight, I received in the mail just this week an invitation to join the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP). [Moo was born in 1950.] I have reached a point of life in which I find myself prefacing many things I say with “at my age.” Undoubtedly, as my children insist, some of the sentences that follow reflect hardening of the arteries or irrational fear of anything new. But a few of these statements, I trust, reflect some wisdom that the perspective of age has inculcated. [Read more…] about Doug Moo on Theological Humility

Quoting to Borrow Language and Ethos: An Illustration of How the NT Sometimes Uses the OT

by

Here’s an easy-to-understand illustration from Douglas J. Moo‘s Encountering the Book of Romans: A Theological Survey (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002). It’s entitled “The Many Uses of Quotations” (p. 161):

We have encountered several places in Romans where Paul does not seem to apply the Old Testament in quite the way the original Old Testament context would seem to validate. This creates a theological problem. How can a New Testament writer use the Old Testament to claim that something is true when the Old Testament does not even teach what he claims it does? Such a procedure would be like our trying to prove a doctrine from a text that we have misunderstood. Understandably, we would convince few people. Answers to this problem, which theologians have discussed for years, are not simple. In fact, each of the texts has to be taken on its own, because they present different kinds of problems. But one part of the solution is to recognize that New Testament writers sometimes use the Old Testament not to prove a point but to borrow its language and ethos. An illustration will make the point.

When I was young, and my sons were even younger, we often played basketball out on the driveway together. Then I, and they, grew. I became weaker and slower; they became bigger, stronger, and faster. Foolishly, I kept trying to compete. One day, I was playing one-on-one with my third son, Lukas. He had grown to about six feet six inches and 240 pounds, and was a very strong, highly skilled basketball player. I warned him, “Watch out, Luke, I’m going to take the ball to the basket on you!” He shot back, “Go ahead, Dad, make my day.” He was “quoting” the lines of the character Dirty Harry from the movie starring Clint Eastwood. Eastwood, portraying a cop, uses these words to dare a criminal to draw his gun on him. Luke did not have a gun; he was not threatening to shoot me. He did not intend to quote the author’s “original intention,” nor did I think that he was doing so. The language was a striking way of making a point: if I was foolish enough to try to take the ball to the basket on Luke, I could very well suffer the violence that Dirty Harry’s bad guy suffered in the movie. The quotation worked because we both knew the movie; it therefore communicated the point very well. So Paul and other New Testament writers often use Old Testament language. They know that their readers will understand it, and the application of the language often helps them to perceive a situation in a new light. Thus, in Romans 10:18, for instance, Paul quotes Psalm 19:4 not because he thinks that this text speaks directly about the preaching of the gospel to Israel; rather, he quotes it because the words would awaken echoes in his readers’ minds that would lend force to his assertion.

Related: See G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson, eds., “Introduction,” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007), pp. xxiv–xxvi. (Cf. my post on this volume.)

Carson and Moo’s Dates for the NT Books

by

The below list does not reproduce a particular chart from D. A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo’s Introduction to the New Testament (2d ed.; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), but it is based on the text. They roughly date the twenty-seven New Testament books as follows (though the exact order of the twenty-seven books is fuzzy, e.g., re the prison epistles):

  1. James: around 46–48 (just before the Jerusalem Council)
  2. Galatians: 48 (just prior to the Jerusalem Council)
  3. 1 Thessalonians: 50
  4. 2 Thessalonians: either in late 50 or early 51
  5. 1 Corinthians: probably early in 55
  6. 2 Corinthians: 56 (i.e., within the next year or so of 1 Corinthians)
  7. Romans: 57
  8. Philippians: mid–50s to early 60s if written from Ephesus (61–62 if written from Rome)
  9. Mark: sometime in the late 50s or the 60s
  10. Philemon: probably Rome in the early 60s
  11. Colossians: early 60s, probably 61
  12. Ephesians: the early 60s
  13. 1 Peter: almost surely in 62–63
  14. Titus: probably not later than the mid-60s
  15. 1 Timothy: early to mid-60s
  16. 2 Timothy: early or mid-60s (about 64 or 65)
  17. 2 Peter: likely shortly before 65
  18. Acts: mid-60s
  19. Jude: middle-to-late 60s
  20. Luke: mid or late 60s
  21. Hebrews: before 70
  22. Matthew: not long before 70
  23. John: tentatively 80–85
  24. 1 John: early 90s
  25. 2 John: early 90s
  26. 3 John: early 90s
  27. Revelation: 95–96 (at the end of the Emperor Domitian’s reign)