Book Review
[by Raymond F. Surburg, continued]
“Angel of the Lord”
For example, both the 1927 and 1954 cyclopedia identified “The Angel of the Lord” with the preincarnate Christ, while [Walter] Wegner in his [1975] article lists this only as one option which he does not favor and omits the book which has an excellent chapter on this matter, namely, Hengstenberg, Christology of the Old Testament [Vol. 1].
“Archaeology”
The article on Archaeology [, Biblical] [2000 ed.; 1954 ed.] assumes that the thirteenth century date of the Exodus is the correct one, which does not meet the requirements of the Biblical chronology and other data given in the Bible, as the fifteenth century date does.
The article on the Canon [, Bible] [2000 ed.], originally written by William Arndt [1954 ed.], is quite different in the revision. In it Fred Danker subscribes to the critical approach to the Bible and describes the Pentateuch as first completed around 400 B.C. (The Documentary Hypothesis [JEDP] underlies this view). He also speaks about two Old Testament canons, a limited Palestinian canon and a wider Alexandrian canon, and propounds the theory that it was the Synod of Jamnia which finally decided what books belonged in the Old Testament canon. This view is completely contrary to the facts, as well as opposed to the position of historic Protestantism and historic Lutheranism and represents a radical change from its two predecessors.
“Covenant”
The article on “the Covenant” [p. 206-207; 2000 ed., by HEH - Herbert E. Hohenstein; not in 1954 or 1927] fails even to hint at the fact that the most important element of the Abrahamic covenant was the promise that through one of Abraham’s descendants, namely Christ (according to Paul in Gal. 3) all the nations of the earth would be blessed. The whole presentation is from the critical viewpoint. An excellent article written for the Concordia Theological Monthly by Dr. W. Roehrs is omitted from the bibliography, but it disagrees, of course, with the author’s presentation.
A number of articles in the 1954 edition were shortened and condensed ; sometimes articles were rewritten in the interest of an ecumenical [read as unionistic] approach.
“Messiah” (inconsistency: vs. “Prophecy” and “Christ as Prophet”)
In the 1975 revision the term “Messiah” [2000 ed.] is defined as follows:
“(Heb. mashiach, ‘anointed.’) Word used in various forms in reference to anointing with holy oil (e.g. Ex. 2:41; I Sam. 9:16; I Kings 19:16). The New Testament word is Christ (Gk. christos e.g., Mt. 16:16; Jn. 1:41” (p. 531).
In the 1954 edition [not in 1927 edition] Messiah is defined as follows:
“One of the most significant names of the Savior on the basis of the prophetic sayings of the Old Testament, which pictured Him as the “Anointed of the Lord,” one who should be endowed with the Holy Ghost without measure to be our Prophet, Priest, and King. The prototypes of the Messiah were the Old Testament patriarchs, prophets, priests, and kings, some of whom were designed as anointed, others being inducted into their office by means of anointing. Jesus repeatedly stated that He was the Messiah as foretold by the Prophets of old. John 4:26; 10:24, 25; Matt. 26:64. The corresponding Greek name is Christ” (p. 671).
The revision reflects the critical bias against Messianic prophecy so characteristic of current Old Testament criticism. However, other articles, like the one on “Prophecy” (p. 640 [not in 1927]) and “Christ as Prophet” (p. 641 [not in 1927]), emphasize the Biblical and traditional position of predictive Messianic prophecy. The article on “Prophecy” correctly emphasizes the truth, that a prophet is a forth-teller as well as a fore-teller.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments only accepted when directly related to the post.