Monthly Archives: May 2017

Where Did the Antinomianism in Today’s Christianity Come From?

Pastor Jordan Cooper’s new book, just patiently chipping away at a small part of the larger problem.

What is an “antinomian,” a term which appears to have been in invented by the 16th century church reformer Martin Luther? According to Merriam-Webster, an antinomian is someone “who holds that under the gospel dispensation of grace the moral law is of no use or obligation because faith alone is necessary to salvation.”

Modern Christianity is full of such antinomians. These days, for example, it is not difficult to find people who identify as evangelical or non-denominational Christians but also think that:

  • Differences between men and woman are basically insignificant — perhaps not universal and stable at all — and there are no significant issues, for example, with woman being pastors.
  • Divorce can and perhaps should take place when one of the participants in a marriage does not feel happy or fulfilled.
  • Christians should not tell members of other religions that, when it comes to the significance of Jesus Christ, “there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.”
  • Homosexual behavior is acceptable so long as it takes place within “committed” relationships (even as “committed” is getting re-defined…)
  • All nations that want to identify with Christianity in some way must allow within their own borders all who claim refugee status because “Jesus was a refugee.”
  • Being sexually involved with another prior to marriage, previously derided as “living in sin,” and “shacking up,” is to be expected.
  • “’You don’t have to go to church to be a Christian,’… a fancy way of saying ‘I follow Christ except for where He goes.’” – Hans Fiene

Yeah, yeah, I know. Some of you think I am a total jerk (to say the least – that is being nice!). Being as civil as you can be, you want to respond with something like the following, which was said in a tweet by a couple pastors considered by many to be quite conservative:

“You may use your conscience to guide your behavior. You may not use your conscience to guide my behavior.”*

Huh. I guess some pastors need continuing education credits, but to whom shall they go?

Let’s be clear: by rejecting God’s law, today’s antinomians do not want to embrace the God, who, through the work of Christ, would once again recreate man in His image. And how did we get to this point? In one sense, the answer is quite simple: we have flat-out rejected God and his Word given to us, the Bible. In short, we really do not find Him—at least as we find Him in that book!—all that impressive or attractive anymore.

Evidently much more attractive to evangelicals of the “thoughtful” variety!

If that answer seems overly simplistic to you—or, yes, just something that an asshat like me would say–I urge you to read the paper on the issue that my pastor, Paul Strawn, recently presented at a theological conference.

According to him, it is completely understandable that antinomianism is running wild today. After all, among our elites, not only is the Christian faith unreasonable, but the notion that history itself can be known is unreasonable! He write that because of “the best of reason accepted today, history cannot truly be known, and the texts of history can only be a record of what was understood to have happened within history…” As such “God working in history through Jesus Christ, and the record of that working, i.e. the Bible, cease to be sources for our knowledge of God”. This means that modern Christian antinomians:

  • Have a god whose “existence certainly can be deduced from the human experience in one form or another, but he simply can never be known.”
  • Must exclude “the God who takes on definitive shape and form in nature, in history, in Jesus Christ.”
  • Ultimately reject the “law understood to be given by God within any context, and thus, of God defining human life and existence.”
  • Must reject “Christ fulfilling the law, and the crucifixion of Christ satisfying the demands of the law for mankind.”

So, unbelief in the Word of God—taking along with it the possibility of knowing human history!—is to blame, with figures like Caspar Schwenkfeld (16th c.), Immanuel Kant (18th c.), Friedrich Schleiermacher (19th c.) and Karl Barth (20th c.) all helping things along.

“…you don’t necessarily have the Word of God itself, but the fallible “witness” of man to God’s word” – Paul Strawn, on Karl Barth’s (pictured) view of the Bible

Some of you who know your church history might be thinking: “This is pure Gnosticism!” Indeed. As the Apostle John warned us years ago:

Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world. – I John 4:1-3

Today’s Gnostic Antinomians do not need to insist that Jesus has “not come in the flesh” – they simply say it doesn’t really matter whether he did or not. As I pointed out in a recent post on my own blog, even contemporary figures who speak well of the Bible and are largely embraced by “conservatives” in the West are clearly flirting with such Gnosticism.

But again, the roots of this monster, born from a Christian cradle, are ultimately to be found in a lack of faith in God’s word, pure and simple.  

“The law and gospel cannot coexist. They are mutually exclusive.” — Paul Strawn (pictured with a Nigerian theology student) on the view of contemporary Lutheran gnostic antimomianism

A few more quick words about my pastor and this paper of his. As a pastor in the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, his paper (here is the link again) gives a very short historical account of how this modern antinomian spirit, present in less overt forms since the days of the Reformation (no Roman Catholics – Luther himself is not to blame here!), has been embraced by many today who claim the Lutheran mantel. You will learn more about:

  • Martin Luther’s and the early Lutherans’ battles vs. their antinomian opponents.
  • How Werner Elert’s work was strategically used in the LC-MS by men like Ed Schroeder, Richard Baepler, and Robert Schultz to counter the doctrine of the Bible’s verbal inspiration (Jaroslav Pelikan recommended it be used for this reason!) and the third use of the law.
  • How C.F.W. Walther’s brilliant book on Law and Gospel was also hijacked and used as a relatively Barth-friendly wedge to counter Francis Peiper’s Christian Dogmatics and Walther’s own work on pastoral theology!
  • David Yeago’s 1993 paper in the journal Pro Ecclesia: Gnosticism, Antinomianism, and Reformation Theology: Reflections on the Costs of a Construal,” where he, among other things, says some teach that “The law oppresses because of the kind of word it is, not because of the situation in which we encounter it.”
  • The Evangelical Lutheran Church of America’s (ELCA) rejection of Yeago’s warning and full embrace of antinomianism at their 2009 convention via Timothy Wengert’s completely novel “bound conscience” doctrine (echoing the conscience quote from the Lutheran pastors quoted above).
  • interesting facts about the battle in the LC-MS from the last 15 or so years (including the burying of Kurt Marquart’s paper on the 3rd use of the law by Concordia Theological Seminary in Ft. Wayne).

In short, Strawn speaks of a “gradual, almost imperceptible, adaptation of the usage of the law/gospel distinction” as a “foundational dialectic epistemology” in the LC-MS where there is a “rejection of the law — of God working through creation, even shaping and molding creation[,… this being] a fundamental epistemological assumption”. He even notes that more conservative ELCA folks located the origins of some of their own problems as coming from the LC-MS (i.e. Concordia Theological Seminary in St. Louis and “Seminex” in the 1970s)! Don’t let terminology like “foundational dialectic epistemology” frighten you away. My pastor takes the time to unpack it more in the paper.

Thankfully, a lot of LC-MS Lutherans have not embraced this “hard antinomianism.” At the same time, I have heard another relatively conservative Lutheran pastor tell me that he taught his young children to cover their ears and scream whenever they heard a pastor try to tell them what they should be doing after hearing the message that Jesus had put away their sins.

In that case folks, I guess you might as well close your Bibles as well. Do you think that kind of thinking might just possibly be related to the problems described above?

A popularized summation of Martin Luther’s Antinomian Theses, from Lutheran Press



*For a more nuanced critique of that quote, see here.


Posted by on May 31, 2017 in Uncategorized


Tags: , ,

If you follow this blog….

…via email or through a blog reader, you might be interested to know that I started a blog that deals with the issues of reliable resources and sources as well. I launched it during the beginnings of the fake news craze and right around the time I got papers published in The Christian Librarian and Reference Services Review.

Check it out and consider subscribing. Many of the posts deal with topics of interest to Christians, as the philosophical arguments bleed into theological issues. This morning’s post (also linked to above) is a really good example of that, and it is the most theologically explicit post I have done on the blog so far.

Leave a comment

Posted by on May 24, 2017 in Uncategorized


Top Ten Law Sections of the New Testament Epistles That Can Encourage the Christian

God’s law can encourage the Christian?


“And his commandments are not burdensome. For everyone who has been born of God overcomes the world.” — I John 5:3,4

I do not say this to condemn you.” II Cor. 7:3

Prefatory note: If you are an antinomian, I’m guessing you won’t appreciate this post. That said, I encourage you to read this brand new paper from my pastor, Antinomianism as a Theological Method, and then consider giving this post a chance.


Christian brothers and sisters who want to talk all the time about “radical grace”… now please don’t get me wrong.

I think I understand pretty well why you want to do what you do. Therefore, let me make some things very clear from the get-go:

  • There are passages in the New Testament Epistles that almost always[i] encourage the Christian because they are about what God, in His great love, has done for us in the life of Jesus Christ. They are specifically constructed to give us this gift, help us remember and reflect on this gift, and tell us who we are by this gift, and we find ourselves, first and foremost, receiving or passively consenting to these truths in joy. I’m not going to deal with these “pure Gospel” passages.
  • There are passages in the New Testament Epistles, even outside of Romans 1-3[ii], that tend to condemn us. They tell us as Christians to avoid sinful thoughts, words, and deeds, that we, since we remain sinners until we die (that’s why we die!), always continue to entertain at some level. As they tell us what not to do, they deal with God’s law. I’m also not dealing with these below.
  • Regarding what I do deal with below, these passages tell us what to do (therefore they are also rightly called “law”). Please note that I am not saying that I am empowered by these words that follow. They, in fact, also at times bring a very strong sense of condemnation in me!

But you see, I do know the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which does empower me. Which does motivate me. Which – since it has, thanks be to God, been driven into me like a nail – does change me from the inside out (Eph. 3:16, 2 Cor. 4:16).

This makes all the difference.

(speaking of exclamation points, in what follows, I removed lots of explanation points from my original draft. Feel free to add them yourselves!).

And I know that many of you “radical grace” persons also know this Gospel — this breath-taking-ly amazing good news. Jesus Christ has rescued us from this “passing-away” world, this “present age”, death, the devil, ourselves…. He has died for the sins of the whole world – even ours. Even mine. Through Him, we have been adopted into the family of God and are His own precious child.

Amazing! (I left that explanation point in)

And insofar as we are new in Christ, we are a new man. And qua new man, we know that these commands are exactly the kinds of word our flesh, our old man, our “old Adam,” needs.

We need to put that self that is dying, that false self — that being who clings to what Peter calls “the empty way of life” – down (see Gal. 5:16-17).

Me to – as an individual part of that body. It’s like Paul said in Gal. 2:20: “I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.”

Mystery of mysteries. Grace of graces. I, like Paul, want to live in Christ to!

In His way.

As a new creation raised to new life who delights in His holy will! His lex aeterna.

Paul in Rom. 3: The law speaks “so that every mouth may be stopped… through the law comes knowledge of sin.” Yes. And in Christ….


For He is good and holy, and I want to be this to! Not so that I can be accepted before Him, but because He, through Christ’s blood and righteousness, has accepted me! As Christ was and is, so shall we be.[iii]

Therefore, that we may be His hands for the sake of all our neighbors whom He dearly loves, I give you these fine words that remind us who we are in Him – and who we are becoming… are to become.

And – of course – what He desires for our neighbor to become in Christ by faith as well.

(I’ve also italicized some of the parts that either explicitly or implicitly refer back to the Gospel which grounds all such exhortations)

10.      II Thesalonians 3:7-10

For you yourselves know how you ought to imitate us, because we were not idle when we were with you, nor did we eat anyone’s bread without paying for it, but with toil and labor we worked night and day, that we might not be a burden to any of you. It was not because we do not have that right, but to give you in ourselves an example to imitate. 10 For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat.

Comment: OK, I’ll admit it. This comment encourages me because that last sentence gives me some “teeth” when it comes to dealing with my sometimes ungrateful and lazy children. Oh, and that describes me to sometimes, doesn’t it?

9.      Philippians 2:14-16

14 Do all things without grumbling or disputing, 15 that you may be blameless and innocent, children of God without blemish in the midst of a crooked and twisted generation, among whom you shine as lights in the world, 16 holding fast to the word of life, so that in the day of Christ I may be proud that I did not run in vain or labor in vain.

Comment: That first phrase really smacked me down the other day. Sometimes, I complain and grumble a lot, and that is clearly not an attractive quality. I like the idea of being able to leave that behind completely, and evidently, the watching world likes that idea as well. It’s encouraging to think that God knows this is hard for us, wants us to be honest, and yet will give us the hope and strength in Christ to make progress even now. Down old Adam! Shut up with your whining! The neighbor depends on your fearing and trembling! (see previous verse) I have all things in Christ!

8.       I Thessalonians 4:10-12

…we urge you, brothers, to [love one another] more and more, 11 and to aspire to live quietly, and to mind your own affairs, and to work with your hands, as we instructed you, 12 so that you may walk properly before outsiders and be dependent on no one.

Comment: The idea of living quietly and working with one’s hands – to the end that one need not [overly] depend on others but rather give to others, no doubt helping them to do the same – is very appealing, is it not?

7.      Philippians 4:4-8

Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, rejoice. Let your reasonableness[a] be known to everyone. The Lord is at hand; do not be anxious about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. And the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.

Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.

Comment: I love that we are exhorted to not be anxious. Also that we are to think about all these good things that are worthy of praise – even in a fallen, sin-infected world! The Apostle Paul is someone who was clearly familiar with great and praiseworthy things in the Greco-Roman world, and we to can be encouraged to think about God’s goodness and providential working in our own cultural contexts.

6.      2 Timothy 2:24-26

24 And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, 25 correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, 26 and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.

Comment: How would I want others who are concerned that I am ignorant, blind, and misled to treat me? Like this. Hard words are more readily accepted in a relationship where you are convinced that the other person is not trying to “win” or use you – or worse – but to really help you.

5.      1 Peter 3:15-16

15 .…but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, 16 having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame.

Comment: I am glad that we are told to share the hope that we have in Christ with gentleness and respect. Thank God Jesus is God. I am also glad that we are told to defend our faith, because this implies that good reasons can be given to others, which in turn implies that God values the rational intellect in service to Him.

4.      Ephesians 4:1-4

I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call— one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

Comment: We are told here to maintain, or keep, or treasure that unity that we are given by Christ and His Spirit (through His word). Contra the impressions given by many “ecumenical” Christians, we are not told to create unity in the church. It is a gift given to us in Christ, and Paul urges us to walk both from this gift and in this gift.

3.      Romans 12:1-2

I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship.Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.

Comment: In truth, the whole of what follows in Romans 12 is rather exhilarating. Check it out. Certainly, painting the picture it does, it gives us a glimpse of the kind of love and attitudes we will know in a perfect way in heaven. It sounds quite wonderful. That said, through the blood-bought forgiveness of Christ, we are blessed to receive – and live – a taste of this even now.

2.     1 Thessalonians 5:16-18:

16 Rejoice always, 17 pray without ceasing, 18 give thanks in all circumstances; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you.

Comment: Correct me if I am wrong, but this verse tells me, in part, that God actually enjoys listening to me – constantly. I get the impression He is even eager to hear from me – all the time. I am just not an annoyance to Him, like I might be with others. To say the least, I am not like that with my own kids.

1.      Ephesians 4:32-5:1,2:

32 Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you. Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children. And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.

Comment: If Matthew 18 is weighing you down, read it alongside this passage. We should forgive as He forgave and continues to forgive us, out of a kind and tender heart of compassion and loyalty – love!

“Blessed is the man
who walks not in the counsel of the wicked,
nor stands in the way of sinners,
nor sits in the seat of scoffers;
but his delight is in the law of the Lord,
and on his law he meditates day and night.” — David, in Psalm 1:1,2.


And yes, there are many others that I wanted to include (passages like I Thes. 2:11-13, 5:15; Colossians 4:5-6; Philippians 2:1-2)…. But this is already long enough.

As Christians we don’t live by God’s law — we live by grace through faith in Christ. That said, it’s alright for you to highlight these beautiful commands in your Bibles! In fact, given their rich understanding of the pure Gospel, I submit that Lutheran Christians in particular have a lot to offer fellow believers when it comes to a deeper understanding of Bible passages like these.

What are your top ten encouraging law-sections from the epistles? Feel free to list them below.



[i] As Martin Luther points out in his Antinomian Disputations, sometimes even the good news that Jesus died for our sins can condemn us. Why? Because we recognize that if it were not for our sinfulness – and the actual sins that result from it – Jesus would not have needed to die on the cross. Some might even despair, thinking that their own sins are so great or grievous that they could not be forgiven by God. This to, of course, is the result of a sinful pride, and this is one reason why it is important to speak both of God’s law and His gospel – so the “gospel” doesn’t get “used up” as law so that it can’t serve as real good news.

[ii] Romans 1-3 is constructed specifically with the intent to condemn us by God’s law and “shut us up.” See in particular Romans 3:19-20.

[iii] See all of the passages about perfection/completion referred to in the first footnote of this post.

Leave a comment

Posted by on May 18, 2017 in Uncategorized



Why I Can’t Not Love the Noble Pagan Jordan Peterson – and Be Concerned

“I’m trying to resurrect the dormant Logos” (2:04:30 in Rogan show)


When it comes to political matters, a person who identifies as a “social conservative” could not ask for a better ally than the Canadian psychology professor Jordan Peterson.

He arguably has all of the clarity and courage of someone like Milo Yiannopolous, but without the self-proclaimed “dangerous faggot’s” liabilities. If those who are opposed to you are absolutely determined to call you, for example, a racist, bigoted, homophobic, transphobic misogynist, you want them applying the label to Jordan Peterson.

Why? Because they will discredit themselves almost immediately. Anyone who listens to Peterson will discover that he is not only a fighter and a brilliant communicator, but a passionate lover of humanity and life itself. A person like Yiannopolous certainly claims to be the same, but his behavior and tactics, as he himself admits, are going to turn many people off.

But as is evident, Jordan Peterson has the ear of many. Just a few days ago, he was interviewed on the Joe Rogan Experience, and this 3-hour interview already has more than 800,000 views. I’ll bet that his star is only going to rise.

Now, why do I call Peterson a “Noble Pagan”? This is a phrase that Christians have used for centuries to identify those who, while not believing in Christ, are clearly more honest and sincere than their fellow men, and who tend in their words and actions to uphold the moral law of God. Peterson is certainly sympathetic to this, as we will see below.

Resisting the gender unicorn

So where did he come from? He rose to prominence this past fall when he defied the University of Toronto’s demand to use the panoply of preferred gender neutral pronouns that students might feel apply to them (he also made known his objection to Canada’s Bill C-16 which deals with this issue). Writing in November in the conservative Canadian publication the National Post, he said the following:

I will never use words I hate, like the trendy and artificially constructed words “zhe” and “zher.” These words are at the vanguard of a post-modern, radical leftist ideology that I detest, and which is, in my professional opinion, frighteningly similar to the Marxist doctrines that killed at least 100 million people in the 20th century.

I have been studying authoritarianism on the right and the left for 35 years. I wrote a book, Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief, on the topic, which explores how ideologies hijack language and belief. As a result of my studies, I have come to believe that Marxism is a murderous ideology. I believe its practitioners in modern universities should be ashamed of themselves for continuing to promote such vicious, untenable and anti-human ideas, and for indoctrinating their students with these beliefs. I am therefore not going to mouth Marxist words. That would make me a puppet of the radical left, and that is not going to happen. Period.[13]

Wikipedia shares this helpful appraisal of Peterson’s 1999 book “Maps of Meaning”:

“Harvey Shepard, writing in the Religion column in the Montreal Gazette in 2003, states “To me, the book reflects its author’s profound moral sense and vast erudition in areas ranging from clinical psychology to scripture and a good deal of personal soul searching…” He goes on to note that “Peterson’s vision is both fully informed by current scientific and pragmatic methods, and in important ways deeply conservative and traditional.”

I take it many of you will agree with me when I say that Peterson is definitely the kind of person that social conservatives – and, importantly, today’s political conservatives of all stripes — are going to appreciate and want in their corner.

Peterson’s 1999 magnum opus.

That said…

At the same time, there is a lot more about Jordan Peterson that we orthodox Christians need to think very hard about and be aware of. For I suspect that perhaps what many have called the “religious right” – with Peterson’s helping hand – could be in for a revival of sorts. But not the kind of revival that you might be thinking about.

Peterson is currently gearing up to teach some classes on the Bible, particularly the first few books. As anyone who has listened to him speak knows, Peterson thinks very highly of the Bible and firmly believes that “Western civilization” is based on it and must continue to be so. As he stated on a recent appearance with Dave Rubin, we need the Bible not only because it reveals truths about humanity, but, crucially, to hold us together, because “weak people do not survive in this world”.


And, also interestingly, Peterson does not think that the Bible is really about real history. It’s true like Shakespeare is true. So, in his class, Peterson is not going to be teaching the Bible even if he will be teaching about it. Actually though, that is not even really correct — he is going to be teaching Platonic philosophy by using the Bible.

Why do I say this? Because Peterson is basically a disciple of Carl Jung, which means that Platonism is at the heart of his philosophy. As Wikipedia notes: “Jung’s idea of archetypes was based on Immanuel Kant‘s categories, Plato‘s Ideas, and Arthur Schopenhauer‘s prototypes.”*

Note this extended comment from Joe Rogan’s show (starting at 2:12:15):

What do you have to contend with in life?… You have to contend with yourself and the adversary that’s inside you, that seems to oppose your every movement. The fact that… you can’t just move smoothly through life without being in conflict with yourself. So there is the hero and the adversary on the individual level. And then on the social level there is the wise king and the tyrant. You’re always going to run into that – I don’t care if you’re a Bantu tribesman or a New York lawyer. All those things you are going to run into. And then in the natural world you are going to run into the destructive element of nature – that’s the Gorgan – if you let that thing get a glance at you you’re one… frozen puppy. [And also] there’s the benevolent element of nature that’s feminine – that’s mother nature – [there’s] both those extremes. So, and that’s the world. That’s the archetypal world. And it’s because it’s eternal – as far as human beings are concerned those things are always there. That’s our true environment. It’s not these things we see around us. They’re lasting no time. These other things last forever. And that’s what were adapted to. We’re adapted to the things that last forever (italics mine).

Peterson – no doubt due to his evolutionary philosophy (“…we were chimps for Christ’s sake” – about 1:12:00 on Rogan), not only denies the ongoing permanence of the things that we experience in the world, but he also has other ideas that get close to the truth while ultimately missing the mark. Concerned about the overweening powers of the totalitarian state (he has devoted much of his life’s study to both Nazism and Communism), Peterson is eager to say that “[t]he state isn’t salvation. The individual is salvation…. The truthful individual.” (see around the 2:01:00 mark in the Rogan show). Peterson says that in the West Jesus Christ is the ultimate expression of this, and we need this. Which, of course, sounds really good on one level.

Plato: How large is his influence in Christianity? See, e.g. here.

At the same time, is Jesus Christ who the church says he is in the Apostle’s or Nicene Creed? I have not heard him talk about this (if you have, let me know in the comments), but my educated guess is that he would simply say “Maybe yes or maybe no.”

You see, that is not what really matters. What actually matters is that, in some sense at least, evolutionary fitness is truth. Some, like Peterson, are simply more honest — as regards themselves, about the facts they know, and about what they think is ultimately true about the world — and what the implications of these things are.

They are also likely those who are more willing than others to think about the intellectual possibility and even practical necessity of transcendent** realities and values (God may or may not be just a — the most important! — useful fiction).

But — and this is key — all from within this very secure evolutionary framework, in which I suggest folks like Plato (and hence Kant, Kierkegaard, Barth, et. all) eventually get dissolved in Epicurean acid (more on this here).

Obviously, I think and argue with all my might that this is a big problem. Prominent and influential theologians like N.T. Wright however, do not think so in the least. They essentially want to take Peterson’s expression “we were chimps for Christ’s sake” and change its meaning — putting the emphasis on “for Christ’s sake” like a Reformation “sola” — to help save Christianity from its intellectual irrelevance. Wright is now actually arguing that if creation is through Christ, evolution is, in fact, what one would expect:


It’s all coming together, and not in a way that is good for the church. “When the Son of Man comes will he find faith on earth?” indeed. Get ready for the antiLogos.



Images: Plato from Wikipedia ; Peterson from

*Some might be under the impression that Jung was nevertheless a materialist (philosophical naturalist). This does not appear to be the case at all. See here and here and here, for example.

**Why not say metaphysical? This word does not always necessarily imply “religion” or the theistic notion of “transcendence”. For example, the literary scholar Hans Gumbrecht talks about how he uses the word “metaphysics”. It “refers to an attitude, both an everyday attitude and an academic perspective, that gives a higher value to the meaning of phenomena than to their material presence; the word thus points to a worldview that always wants to go “beyond” (or “below”) that which is ‘physical’” (p. xiv, Production of Presence)



Posted by on May 12, 2017 in Uncategorized


Tags: , ,

Is Jesus Christ the Anti-Social Justice Warrior Social Justice Warrior?

Is Jesus Christ a bona fide, Progressive-approved, Social Justice Warrior (SJW)?

Or, to go to the opposite extreme, does Jesus, in Matthew 15:21-28 display abject prejudice and chauvinism — or worse! — to the Canaanite woman?

“Playing hard to get”? “Frankly my dear….”? What?


You decide.

Fascinated by this account and its message for us today, I have done a good deal of digging and invite you to examine the fruit of my – and others’! – labor.

To say the least, whatever one decides about Jesus’ actions in this story, He definitely appears to have not checked his privilege, nor has he been informed about the importance of “virtue signaling.”

That said, don’t think for a minute that Jesus can’t be a social justice warrior. This may well be an apt description of sorts!

False, as sjws — and everyone else — will face the True SJW, the Truth, Jesus Christ. “Let God be true and every man a liar.”


At the same time, He doesn’t submit to the world’s definitions of what that means. For instance, the world also has its own ideas about what constitutes “equality,” but God, like a few in classical antiquity, alludes to “equality under the law” — His law, of course. As regards His own demanding, punishing, rewarding, etc. He insists, quite firmly and repeatedly, that He doesn’t “play favorites” (see Acts 10:34-35, Rom. 2:9-11, I Pet. 1:17, Eph. 6:8-9, Col. 3:25).

So what is true “social justice”? Again, the point is that He makes the definition (added note: there is a Christ-less social justice which largely conforms to God’s law and may do some good ; and also a ”social justice” that does more harm than good!).

In fact, being that Jesus Christ is God in human flesh we can say that He fully embodies God’s justice, broadly understood. Therefore, we can learn a lot from him by examining the whole of His mission as revealed in the Bible.

Gnostic elitist Steven Pinker, picking a fight with the Almighty: As regards bioethics, the technological and moral imperative means that “dignity”, “sacredness”, and “social justice” must get out of the way…


So let’s start by looking very closely at — and reflecting hard on — this very difficult text. You might want to read Matthew 15:21-28 first.

1. How does the text indicate that the Lord answered the woman? The disciples?

Answer: The Lord first responds only with silence. Next, he says that He was sent only to the “lost sheep of Israel”. Finally, he seems to imply that the woman is a “little dog.” Why the hesitation and strong response from Jesus? MacLaren gives us a hint when he says that “The meaning of the whole is simply the necessary restriction of His personal activity to the chosen nation. It is not meant to wound nor to insult, though, no doubt, it is cast in a form which might have been offensive, and would have repelled a less determined or less sorrowful heart” (italics mine). Going along with this, MacLaren also asserts “the King of men is first the King of Israel”.

As Walter R. Roehrs and Martin Franzmann write:

“Jesus remains faithful to Israel even when Israel proves unfaithful to God by rejecting the Christ (cf. Ro 15:8). He upholds Israel’s prerogative over against the Gentiles ([15:] 24, 26). He oversteps the limitations of His mission only in response to faith. His help and healing is available ‘to everyone who has faith,’ whether Jew or Gentile (Ro 1:16). Such incidents as these point forward to the command to make disciples of all nations (28:19) and to the universal church” (Franzmann, 31, Con. Self-Study Commentary).

Christ, of course, only “oversteps the limitations” of His earthly mission. For, as can be seen in earlier passages in the book of Matthew, God’s light coming to the Gentiles for their salvation was always in view, in fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies hearkening of the Messianic Age to Come.[i]

The time for the full number of Gentiles to come in certainly was to come—because of the formal invitation (here we think of the Wedding Feast parable in Matthew 22:1-14)—but not yet.  Given what is known about Jewish proselytism from ancient sources[ii], France is much too strong when he says the Canaanite woman “refus[es] to accept the traditional Jewish exclusion of Gentiles from the grace of God” (590). Likewise, when he makes the inflammatory comment that this account shows that in the “new perspective of the Kingdom of Heaven” salvation is to be on the “basis of faith rather than [the Jewish] racial identity” (590). Nevertheless, for the time being, the woman, like Jewish proselytes, was indeed an exception to the rule. Not a rule to fully exclude Gentiles[iii]—for one thinks immediately of the book of Jonah, as well as Rahab and Ruth in Jesus’ genealogy!—but a rule to focus first on the “natural family” selected by God (see, e.g. Is 1:2, Ex. 4:22, Hos. 11:1). Even as, ultimately, faith alone granted real eternal life in God’s visible church both now and in the life to come.

On the one hand, any Jew may have rightly said “We are Abraham’s offspring,” but on the other hand, ultimately it is faith which proves more critical than matters of blood. “[T]he unreceptive Jews,” Epiphanus the Latin says, “were made into loathsome dogs out of children, as the Lord himself said in his Passion through the prophet: ‘Many dogs surround me; a company of evildoers encircle me.’” (Sionetti, 29) And with the Jewish rejection of Christ, the invitation to the Gentiles was formally extended. Even as Paul writes in Romans 15:8, “…I tell you that Christ has become a servant of the Jews on behalf of God’s truth, so that the promises made to the patriarchs might be confirmed,” those promises, of course, blessed the Gentiles as well – through Abraham’s Seed (ultimately singular in Christ).

For Jesus’ “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel” comment, there is disagreement to whom Jesus speaks. Nolland contends that Jesus speaks it to the woman (633). Gibbs says that he speaks to the disciples (786). Various other commentators say he may be speaking to crowds as well.

The Son of Man came to seek and save the lost (Jesus’ words to Zacchaeus)


2. What is the driving force of Jesus’ words in verse 24?

Answer: Gibbs says the genitive verb tense in verse 24, like in Matthew 10:6, is probably epexegetical: “the lost sheep that are the house of Israel” (787). Regarding his calling his own people “sheep,” Lenski states: “all his love and kindness toward his nation is revealed. He thus also denominates himself as their true Shepherd” (597). “House of Israel,” he goes on to say, is a “stereotyped title of high honor for the chosen nation” (597). In addition, Gibbs favorably quotes Davies and Allison in a footnote (2:557): “Quite simply, the verse makes it abundantly plain that the biblical doctrine of Israel’s election must be taken seriously” (787) (he also notes Romans 9:4-5 in this regard [786]). Also commenting on this phrase, Hillary of Poitiers writes “Not that salvation was not to be imparted also to the Gentiles, but the Lord had come to his own and among his own, awaiting the first fruits of faith from those people he took his roots from. The others subsequently had to be saved by the preaching of the Apostles” (28, Simonetti, italics mine). And what might passages like I Timothy 5:8, and Romans 9-11 (in particular, see, e.g. Romans 9:4a, 9:7b, 11:18b, 11: 24, 11:28-29) have to do with this? Here, we are reminded that God’s people were the Jewish nation, or ethnos[iv], and that such a concept cannot – and therefore should not – be separated from realities of heritage, ethnicity, and blood. There is a good reason the Apostle Paul speaks so strongly about his “kinsmen according to the flesh, (see Rom. 9:1-5)” and even pagan authors like Cicero and Epictetus can see that “Nature produces a special love of offspring,” and “Natural affection is a thing right according to Nature,” respectively (Lewis, 96, 99).[v] We might say this: God loves the world in this way, that He becomes one of us, biologically, first as regards the Jew, and then as regards the Gentile (i.e. the “nations,” the other members of humanity).

He called her a what?


3. What are some of the interpretations of “dogs” in verse 26?

Answer: The medieval commentator Theophylact bluntly says that “Christ speaks of her as a dog, because the Gentiles led an unclean life and were involved with the meat sacrificed to idols, while the Jews He speaks of as children” (133). MacLaren catches a wiff of the potential power of such words when he forthrightly states “From the lips accustomed to drop oil and wine into every wound, came words like swords, cold, unfeeling, keen-edged, fitted and meant to lacerate… His refusal was a real refusal, founded on the divine decree, which He was bound to obey.” Luther, intriguingly, suggests that in not directly calling the woman a dog, Jesus is “leaving it undecided whether she is a dog or not” (152). But, whatever the case indeed may be, what could potentially be behind this term? Beare says the phrase κυναρίοις, or “little dogs” is “[b]rutal,” a “violent rebuff,” and that “these words exhibit the worst kind of chauvinism” (342, Matthew, quoted in 599, Osborne). Osborne says the major debate is whether or not the diminutives had “lost their force by the first century”. He notes that in 15:34b the diminutive does retain its force (the “small fish”), so it might here as well (599). In any case, in the next verse, he says he agrees with Dufton, that “here the woman switches to the household pet” (since “the image switches to the master’s table”) (599-600). Lenski also sees a vital significance in the “pet dogs,” saying the Gentiles, like the scavenger dogs of “the Orient,” were “ownerless, unclean in every way, always to be avoided.” “Little pet dogs” on the other hand, have owners who keep them in the house and feed them. He says that this “does not refer to all the Gentiles in the world but only to such as lived among the Jews or came into contact with them and could thus in a way obtain some of their blessings” (598). Going along with this, Basser cites rabbinical sayings about dogs from Jesus’ time that are not negative, saying Matthew’s account shows “the genius of his ostensible simplicity, which is complex upon detailed examination” (399) (this also adds another layer of complexity to Luther’s contention that Jesus is “leaving it undecided whether she is a dog or not” [152]!) Hilary of Poitiers really diminishes and relativizes the scandal, saying that “next to Israel the pagans received the name dog!,” meaning only that they received less affection from Him (172). Schaeffer also decidedly does the same, and reads much into the text: “doubtless the tender tones of the Saviour’s voice, the winning expression of his countenance, and the softened Greek word for dogs…all combined, like the colors of the rainbow while dark clouds still spread their gloom over portions of the sky, to teach the woman still longer to hope and to believe” (372). Decidedly on the other hand, France simply notes that “[a] ‘little dog’ is no less unclean that a big one!” (594-595)[vi] Likewise for Gibbs, softening Jesus’ comments by highlighting the fact that Jesus uses the diminutive form of dog is “uncertain at best”. He notes that “Jesus states the salvation-historical primacy of Israel in extremely blunt terms” (see Ex 22:30, Deut 23:19, 1 Sam 24:15, 2 Sam 16:19, and Rev. 22:15) (783). There is no doubt that this is in some sense the case. Is there nevertheless room to posit, as Luther does, that he opens up the door for the woman to decide whether she is indeed a dog – or perhaps, given the information above, decide what kind of a dog she is?

Christ acts “backward” here… — 4th century commentator St. John Chrysostom


4. What are some ways that commentators have blunted the sharpness of Jesus’ words?

Answer: Chrysostom, noting that “the more the woman urged her petition, the more [Jesus] strengthened His denial,” bluntly states that Christ acts “backward” here (Aquinas). Modern liberal scholars, even including some more conservative ones (France, 590-591, 595), make the case that the woman helped Jesus to expand his boundaries or counter his prejudices about things like race and ethnicity. Case-Winters, for example, talks about how Jesus’ humanness is on display here, as he is “caught with His compassion down,” but that the woman “teaches Jesus about a wider divine embrace” (202). Some also suggest that Jesus here may have his tongue firmly in his cheek, be giving “a wink and a nod”, playing “hard to get”, etc. (see, e.g. France, 590-591)[vii]. Regarding early church (e.g. Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopuestia [Simonetti, 30]), medieval (e.g. Theophylact [p. 132], Thomas), and Reformation-era commentators (e.g. Luther, Calvin, Matthew Henry), it is common to read that Jesus does what He does in order to test or reveal the persevering faith of the woman. Against this flow, Lenski perhaps overstates his own case a bit when he says that because Jesus really was focused on his mission to Israel (“I was not commissioned save to the sheep that have been lost of Israel’s house”), we need to give up the idea, which is also “so offensive to moral feeling,” that Jesus “pretended to be hard and tortured the woman with uncertainty for the purpose of testing her faith in order then to praise her” (596, italics mine). Jerome says that Jesus, “unwilling to give his detractors an opportunity to accuse him,” does not want to contradict what he said to his disciples in 10:5: “Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans” (Simonetti, 29). More specifically, he adds that Jesus says He is sent first to Israel so that “where they would not receive the Gospel, the passing over to the Gentiles might have just cause” (Thomas). Although Gibbs says it is “useless to conjecture” why Jesus is at first silent (785)[viii], commenting on the phrase “it is not good” in verse 24, he nevertheless seems to suggest curiosity as a possible element later on: “Now Jesus wants to know this: does the Canaanite woman really know who he is, or are the things that have come out of her mouth (“have mercy on me, Lord, Son of David”) just words and no more?” (787). Jeannine K. Brown, commenting on Jesus’ remaining silent at first, has the following wisdom to share:

“Commentators and other readers are prone to rescue Jesus at this point by attributing altruistic intentions (e.g., he is testing the woman to draw out her faith). Yet unless we provide motives for the characters, the story reads as if Jesus expresses hesitation in granting healing to a Gentile (15:24, 26), as in 8:5-7 (see comments there [she says 8:7 should read: “Shall I [namely, me, a Jew] come and heal him?”]). The problem with importing such motives is that the text gives no particular clues for doing so. This fits the practices of ancient characterization, which tended to avoid providing the thoughts and motives of its characters” (179).

5. In what ways is the woman an “exception” to Jesus’ rule?

Answer: According to Lenski, “Jesus never hesitated to heal Gentiles as long as no wrong deductions could be drawn from these acts” (see Matthew 4:24 and 8:28) (596). Jesus granted this woman’s request, but no other teaching or healing took place in “this pagan land”. In general, Jesus did not do this because of “the divine plan of redemption” (597). Rather, it was critical that it be understood that the blessings of Jesus’ mission “be set before the Jews alone” (599). In like fashion, Anselm says “The bread is the Gospel, its miracles and other things which pertain to our salvation. It is not then meet that these should be taken from the children and given to the Gentiles, who are dogs, till the Jews refuse them.” (Gloss., ap. Anselm, in Thomas) In other words, the woman is an exception to the general rule. Nolland makes the same point: “[t]hough occasionally construed so, this is not a story of Jesus reaching out to the marginalized” (635).

A nuanced view of pre-Christian Jewish missionary activity.


6. In the book Not by Birth Alone: Conversion to Judaism, Rabbi Alexander M. Schindler argues that [even in Jesus’ day], “Jewish ‘chosenness’” is defined “not as exclusive but as exemplary; not as separatist but as representative; not as closed but as open; not as rejecting but as all-embracing and compassionate” (8) Is this compatible with the view of the Gentile mission presented in the book of Matthew? Why or why not?

Answer: Speaking of exceptions to the rule (see preceding question), Nolland also has a powerful summary worth quoting in full:

“The woman accepts that she has no claim to be put on a par with the Jewish people in benefiting from God’s present intervention for the sake of his people, but even the dog get scraps, and that is all she asks for. This is likely to seem very demeaning to present sensibilities, but not to Matthew and not to the Jewish tradition more broadly. In the biblicamaterials they saw Gentiles, when beneficiaries of God’s activity, as fringe beneficiaries (footnote: “E.g., Is. 2:2-4; 14:1-2; 45:14; 60:10-14; Je. 16:19; Mi 4:1-4; Zc 2:11; 8:0-23; 14:16-19. There is a wider vision in Is. 19:18-25; 49:6; 56:3-8, etc) Mt. 28:19 breaks through, not the sense of Jewish privilege, but the marginality of Gentile involvement. The existence of such Gentiles as this woman prepares the way, but despite the popularity of the view that this is a story about how Jesus changes his mind, the present episode can in no way be represented as a breakthrough. Jesus does not change his mind at all (vv. 24, 26 are in no way retracted, even by implication); what becomes clear to him is what is appropriate in the case of this particular woman” (635-636 ; For more comments regarding Nolland’s take, see my previous post on Matthew 15:21-28).

However, having pointed this out, we must go further. For we can gather that following Christ’s resurrection we should not necessarily talk about how the Gentiles are raised up — or, perhaps — how the Jews are brought down to their level. Rather, faith in Jesus Christ — who makes us all one — is now the consideration that challenges us, in some ways at least, to reflect critically on issues of earthly heritage, identity (including “self-determination”), privilege and status (the book of Philemon should challenge us in spades here).

Even as we are also always reminded, for example, of the fundamental responsibility to care for one’s relatives (I Tim. 5:8) and to “especially…do good to… the family of believers” (Gal. 6:10).

Take some time to read what Paul has to say in Colossians 3:1-17 about what the life of Christians should look like, particularly reflecting on verse 12: Here[, as the new man,] there is not Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free; but Christ is all, and in all.”

Christians are now a “Third Race,” set apart from both [unbelieving] Jews and Greeks… – Aristides

There is clearly great profundity and mystery here! Positively, just what does this mean for our life together? In order for any of our families, churches or nations to joyfully “live and move and have their being” (see Acts 17) why should we think anyone else’s must “lose”? And, negatively, how should we respond to anemic — and even utopian — ideas of “social justice” clearly not in line with God’s will in Christ?

No doubt, these are questions with which Christians will need to seriously wrestle until Christ’s return.



(the full paper/Bible study I did on Matthew 15:21-28 can be downloaded here)


Dog pic by Kae Yen Wong, Some rights reserved


[i] From the wise men visiting Jesus, to the Roman Centurion (“many will come from east and west and recline at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven”), to the healing of the Gentile sick and demoniacs (see 4:24 and 8:28, respectively) – it is clear that Jesus is the primary way God’s promise to Abraham — that his children would be a “blessing to the nations” (see 10:18, 24:14 and 28:19 as well) — was to be fulfilled (even as the Jews themselves reject the Kingdom – see 21:43). Just two chapters before in Matthew 12:19-21, we hear about the salvation He is bringing to the Gentiles.

Therefore, Frannzman goes on to say:

“Her faith is great, for she submits holy to God and assents wholly to His way (through Israel to the world, 27), sees that the table which God set for Israel is rich enough to supply all nations (27), and is willing to accept God’s grace on the lowest terms of beggary – she can pray from under the table” (31).

Augustine calls this woman a type, or figure of the church, and goes on to connect the events in this event with what Paul describes in Romans 11:

“….the apostle says that the wild shoot was grafted in because of humility. The woman manifested this humility, saying, ‘Yes, Lord, I am a dog. I desire crumbs.’ Jesus found favor also with the centurion, who had this humility” (Simonetti, 31) (note: here, of course, Augustine, like Luther in his earlier years, might give the impression that salvation is by humility).

[ii] See, e.g., Not by Birth Alone: Conversion to Judaism (ed. Homolka, 1997), particularly the essay by Rabbi Alexander M. Schindler, and Crossing Over Sea and Land, Michael Bird (2010). In his conclusion, Bird says “I do not doubt that virtually every Jewish group thought that being initiated into the commonwealth of Israel and living under the Torah was good and desirable for Gentiles, whether it was politically expedient was another matter” (151).

[iii] Epiphanius the Latin says that the woman, in responding to Jesus’ comments about dogs, is saying that “you came to the Jews and manifested yourself to them, and they didn’t want you to make exceptions” (ACC, 29). This seems uncharitable on Epiphanius’s part.

[iv] Biblically, earthly nations are inseparable from the concept of “ethnos,” from which we get “ethnicity”. In like fashion “genos”, from where we get “genes,” can be translated as offspring, family, race, nation, kind, or even sex. We see that these terms involve notions of blood and parentage, even if “ethnos” is more closely connected than “genos” with our notions of culture.

Christians are first and foremost citizens of heaven, not earth. In, but not of the world, their “dual ethnicity” means that they belong first to the kingdom of heaven, and are members of “God’s chosen ethnos” (I Peter 2:9). Though all are one “in Adam,” God has, post-fall, also ordained a diversity of nations (see Acts 17:26), from whom He will obtain worship (Rev. 7:9). Ultimately, the Church is a new Nation that re-unites, by faith in Christ, persons not just from this or that race, tribe, or nation, but from the entire human family – making one Nation, or more accurately, Kingdom.

[v] Generally speaking, the natural family offers or should offer provision and protection, an echo of eternal salvation. Human beings are certainly less inclined to abuse our own children, and, speaking governmentally of modern civil society, the unavoidable truth (which people nevertheless attempt to avoid) is that those who take the time to have children and to raise them well will end up subsidizing those who do not do these things.

[vi] “References to dogs in biblical literature are overwhelming negative, and when the term is used metaphorically for human beings it is abusive and derogatory… Keener’s survey of attitudes to dogs in Greco-Roman culture… confirms the negative implications of the term in those cultures too…” (595, France)

[vii] France:

“It is only when the periscope is read as a whole that it is properly understood, and the harsh racial language of the earlier part is put in its true context, not as independent propositions but as thrusts in a verbal fencing match” (591)

France goes on to argue that the rest of chapter 15 features Jesus ministering among the Gentiles, saying Jesus “puts into practice the message of [chapter 15’s] first half, the relaxation of the Jewish ‘purity’ culture which had hitherto kept Jew and Gentile apart” (591). Franzmann’s discussion of this story also notes the “fall[ing] aside” of the “cultic purity of the law” (130-131). Still, Gibbs says that “it is not possible to conclude from the information in Matthew [or Mark] where the feeding of the four thousand took place” (795-796).

[viii] Buttrick here waxes eloquent about silence: “In silence Jesus searches our hearts…in silence he searches his own heart….In silence he watches our world…In silence he forgives…In silence he despairs…With which silence does Jesus look on us?” (443)


Works cited or consulted

Albrecht, G. Jerome, and Michael J. Albrecht. Matthew. St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House, 2005.

Basser, Herbert W. The Gospel of Matthew and Judaic Traditions: A Relevance-Based Commentary. Boston: Brill, 2015.

Benson, Joseph. The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ: According to the Present Authorized Version… New York: Nelson & Phillips, 1884. Online:

Bird, Michael F. Crossing Over Sea and Land: Jewish Missionary Activity in the Second Temple Period. Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson Publishers, 2010.

Brown, Jeannine K. Matthew. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 2015.

Buttrick, George Arthur (ed.) The Interpreter’s Bible: The Holy Scriptures in the King James and Revised Standard Versions with General Articles and Introduction, Exegesis, Exposition for Each Book of the Bible in Twelve Volumes. Vol. 7. New York: Abingdon-Cokesbury, 1990.

Case-Winters, Anna. Matthew. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2015.

Franzmann, Martin H. Follow Me; Discipleship According to Saint Matthew. St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House, 1961.

Gibbs, Jeffrey A. Matthew 11:2-20:34. St. Louis, Mo.: Concordia Publishing House, 2010.

Hagner, Donald Alfred. Matthew 14-28. Vol. 33B. Dallas, Tex: Word Books, 1995.

Hauerwas, Stanley. Matthew. Grand Rapids MI: Brazos Press, 2015.

Hilary, and Daniel H. Williams. Commentary on Matthew. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2013.

Homolka, Walter, Walter Jacob, and Esther Seidel. Not by Birth Alone: Conversion to Judaism. Herndon, VA: Cassell, 1997.

McCarren, Paul J. A Simple Guide to Matthew. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2013.

Lenski, R. C. H. Interpretation of St. Matthew’s Gospel. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1961.

Lewis, C. S. The Abolition of Man. New York: Touchstone, 1996.

Luther, Martin. Luther’s Church Postil Gospels. Vol. 11. Minneapolis: Lutherans in All Lands Co, 1906.

MacLaren, A. Expositions of Holy Scripture. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1905. Online:

Nolland, John. The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text. Bletchley, Milton Keynes: Paternoster Press, 2008.

Osborne, Grant R., and Clinton E. Arnold. Matthew: Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Vol. 1. Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan, 2010.

Schaeffer, Charles F. (Jacobs, Henry Eyster, ed.) The Lutheran Commentary: A Plain Exposition of the Holy Scriptures of the New Testament. Part I. Matthew I.-XV. New York: Christian Literature, 1895.

Thomas, and John Henry Newman. Catena Aurea: Commentary on the Four Gospels Collected Out of the Works of the Fathers: St. Matthew. Vol. 1. Southampton [England]: Saint Austin Press, 1997 (citations in paper from online:

Theophylactus, and Christopher Stade. The Explanation of the Holy Gospel According to Matthew. House Springs, Mo: Chrysostom Press, 1992.

Simonetti, Manlio, and Thomas C. Oden. Matthew 14-28. Vol. 1. Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press, 2002.


Posted by on May 5, 2017 in Uncategorized