A review of Ben Witherington III, Biblical Theology: The Convergence of the Canon, Cambridge University Press, 2019, 495 pages, paperback.
Ben Witherington is a well known and respected NT scholar who has written commentaries on about every book of the NT, as well as a few in the OT. Additionally, he has written works of historical fiction, NT Introduction and NT Theology. Witherington is an engaging writer who is not afraid to stand apart from the scholarly crowd on occasion. So when a scholar of this caliber releases a Biblical Theology of the whole Bible it is wise to take notice.
Biblical Theology: The Convergence of the Canon is a large format book of nearly five hundred pages, which would be considerably fatter if it were the normal size, is the kind of book only a mature writer would produce. It’s method of arrangement betrays a seasoned scholar who has thought carefully how to relate the Testaments together. The author utilizes studies of some of the great crisis moments in biblical history to cause the reader to ponder. He does not read the Bible from the perspective of redemptive history (4), understanding that the separate theologies of the biblical writers find “convergence” as God’s Word unfolds (5). I appreciate reading a well known writer saying bluntly that “Jesus, in short, cannot be found under every rock in the OT” (20). Avoidance of the redemptive-historical hermeneutic prevents the error occurring.
In his chapter describing his method Witherington, as all writers of biblical theology, myself included, says that he wants to let the text speak for itself (8). I think he manages to do this a lot of the time, although I part company with the author on some occasions. This is true especially with Witherington’s embracing of critical scholarship, which pops up quite frequently throughout the work. For example, on page 73 he asserts, “Without question, what we have in John is a sapiential reformulation of various aspects of the Jesus tradition, in the Beloved Disciple’s own diction and for a later audience.” While none will deny that John frames Jesus’s sayings in a certain way, it is going too far to say that the Apostle set those sayings within a framework foreign to how they were originally intended.
The first passage he investigates is the calling of Moses at the burning bush in Exodus 3 where the relationship is between God and a nation (Israel), with Moses as the human leader. Then he goes to Exodus 34 where he spends most of his time determining the meaning of hesed as “compassionate” and “merciful” and not “covenant love” (28, 57. cf. 290-291, 309), which is a helpful corrective, even if the covenantal meaning is present in certain passages.
In examining the shema of Deuteronomy 6:4-5 Witherington observes that the idea of loving God is a unique feature of OT covenants among the covenants and treaties of the Ancient Near East (34-35). This is brought out further in his comments on Psalm 23 where the author states the truth, difficult to accept in a material world, that God is “the only absolute necessity in life” (38). Witherington examines many OT texts to mine what they have to say about the God of Israel, but although useful, I did not find the studies particularly enlightening in filling out the Divine portrait. And this impression continues for much of the book, even though one picks up useful information along the way.
After treating God the Father the chapters which follow study the Son and the Spirit. There is good material here. Witherington bluntly tells us that “Jesus did not see himself as Israel” (61 cf. 80 n. 34); he makes a strong link between Jesus’s Son of Man sayings and Daniel 7:13-14 (66), and he helpfully suggests that the reason we read of baptism in Jesus’ name in early Acts is because Jews already believed in God the Father and the addition of Jesus was the point under discussion (70 n. 22). I found the author’s chapter on the Spirit to be one of his best. I especially liked his clarity on the matter of the reception of the Spirit and claims by some to receive more of the Spirit subsequent to salvation; a teaching he pointedly repudiates (92-93).
But we must move along. There follows two long chapters about the thought-world of the Bible (chs. 5 and 6). I rather trudged through these pages, not finding much stimulation in them. Within chapter 5 on the OT Witherington articulates his disagreement with those who believe God’s covenants to be unconditional (132-133). This is something he returns to in chapters 8 and 9 (see 289, 296). The big problem with his assertions is that he totally fails to isolate the oaths from the rest of the covenantal material. It is simply a matter of fact that the oaths of the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants (to mention just two) are unilateral and unconditional. Are there conditions appended to the setting of these covenants which, if not obeyed will hinder the fulfillment of the central oaths until God acts? Absolutely! But the oath-taker is God, and He must and will do what He has sworn to do, even if it means that He must change the human heart to insure obedience comes about (see the fine remarks about the New covenant and this subject on page 309, 315). The author’s realized eschatology is evident when he says that the Abrahamic covenant is fulfilled in Christ (298). It is on fuller display in chapter 13.
As the book nears its conclusion we get some of its best chapters. I thought chapter 12 on “Where the Reformation Went Wrong” was very good. Not that I concur with everything in it, but I appreciate a seasoned scholar who is unafraid to challenge some of the Reformers formulations. They were not infallible. Witherington is a classical Arminian, meaning that he holds to a robust view of depravity, but is more in line with pre-Augustinian Fathers than with Luther and Calvin. It is important for Calvinist readers not to skip this chapter. See also Appendix 2 on Atonement Theology.
The penultimate chapter on “Theology, Ethics, and Praxis” was also a high point. I liked the concern for the fusion of Christian knowledge with Christian life here. This is something the writer has stressed many times before in his works.
Ben Witherington’s Biblical Theology: The Convergence of the Canon is a notable work. I intend to revisit it in the future. It is that kind of a book. I do not agree with his critical stances on some subjects, nor his egalitarianism (which thankfully doesn’t show up a lot), nor his approach to God’s covenants. But he is a scholar who thinks through the biblical text, and this book is a solid contribution to the increasing volume of literature on the subject.
