Editorial -- By: Douglas Moo
TrinJ 10:2 (Fall 1989) p. 129
Producing a journal like this one requires the labor of many people. Especially important are those faculty members and students who serve on the editorial board. They evaluate every article that is submitted to the journal, help establish editorial policies and directions, and proofread galleys and page proofs. With this fascicle, we bid goodbye to one of our student members of the board, Tim Beougher. Tim is the first graduate in Trinity’s recently instituted Ph.D. program, having successfully defended a fine dissertation on the Puritan divine Richard Baxter. We are happy to be able to publish in this fascicle an “offshoot” of that study, a fascinating study of the correlation between Baxter’s views on marriage and his actual practice of the marriage relationship.
Our second piece, Trinity professor John Feinberg’s review of Theology and -the Justification of Faith, by Wentzel van Huysteen, tackles an issue central to the theological enterprise: what kind of conclusions can we draw from the Bible? How does the Bible communicate to us, and what are the appropriate ways to translate its various forms into abiding theological truths? Van Huysteen joins many other contemporary theologians who question whether we can “do theology” by distilling from the various biblical genres authoritative, propositional truth statements. But Feinberg warns that superficially attractive alternatives such as van Huysteen’s bring with them some disturbing implications.
Students of the apostle Paul spend a lot of time debating his teaching about the Mosaic law. E. P. Sanders’s 1977 monograph Paul and Palestinian Judaism set the agenda for the contemporary discussion. His work was a catalyst of what is being called the “new perspective on Paul,” a perspective that modifies in crucial ways the common reformed understanding of works, justification,
TrinJ 10:2 (Fall 1989) p. 130
and judgment. Ardel Caneday, another student in Trinity’s Ph.D. program, sets his careful exegetical-theological study of Gal 3:13 in the context of the debate over this “new perspective.”
Our final offering comes from Ronald Pierce, of the Talbot School of Theology. He counts himself among a number of evangelicals who are dissatisfied with the exegetical basis for the “standard” eschatological interpretation of the “seventy weeks” of Dan 9:24–27. His new interpretation should stimulate renewed thinking about this critical text and its place within biblical eschatology.
I hope that you have been pleased with the pace at which we are now producing fascicles;...
Click here to subscribe