Daniel J. Treier

LT Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Elwell, Walter A. (editor), Baker-Paternoster Press (1995), Edition: New Ed, 1234 pages, dates I read/studied book
Recommended by [?], Where is hard copy? Home office

Theme:
Type:
Value:
Age:
Interest:
Objectionable:
Synopsis/Noteworthy:

EDT: Trinity. The term designating one God in three persons. Although not itself a biblical term, “the Trinity” has been found a convenient designation for the one God self-revealed in Scripture as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It signifies that within the one essence of the Godhead we have to distinguish three “persons” who are neither three gods on the one side, nor three parts or modes of God on the other, but coequally and coeternally God.

The main contribution of the OT to the doctrine is to emphasize the unity of God. God is not himself a plurality, nor is he one among many others. He is single and unique: “the Lord our God is one Lord” (Dt 6:4), and he demands the exclusion of all pretended rivals (Dt 5:7-11). Hence there can be no question of tritheism.

Yet even in the OT we have clear intimations of the Trinity. The frequent mention of the Spirit of God (Gen 1:2 and passim [to be found at various places throughout the text]) may be noted, as also perhaps, the angel of the Lord in Exo 23:23. Again, the plural in Gen 1:26 and 11:7 is to be noted, as also the plural form of the divine name and the nature of the divine appearance to Abraham in Gen 18. The importance of the word (Ps 33:6 [By the word of the LORD where the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth]), and especially the wisdom, of God (Prov 8:12ff [I wisdom dwell with prudence, and find out knowledge witty inventions].) is a further pointer, and in a mysterious verse like Isa 48:16 [Come ye near unto me, here you this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the LORD God, and his Spirit, hath sent me], in a strongly monotheistic context, we have a very close approach to Trinitarian formulation.

In the NT there is no explicit statement of the doctrine (apart from the rejected I Jn 5:7), but the Trinitarian evidence is overwhelming. God is still preached as the one God (Gal 3:20 [Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one]). Yet Jesus proclaims his own deity (Jn 8:58) and evokes and accepts the faith and worship of his disciples (Matt 16:16; Jn 20:28). As the Son or Word, he can thus be equated with God (Jn 1:1) and associated with the Father, e.g., in the Pauline salutations (I Cor 1:3, etc.) But the Spirit or Comforter is also brought into the same interrelationship (cf. Jn 14-16).

It is not surprising, therefore, that while we have no dogmatic statement, there are clear references to the three persons of the Godhead in the NT. All three are mentioned at the baptism of Jesus (Mt 3:16-17). The disciples are to baptize in the name of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost (Mt 28:19). The developed Pauline blessing includes the grace of the Son, the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost (II Cor 13:14). Reference is made to the election of the Father, the sanctification of the Spirit, and the sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ (I Pet 1:2) in relation to the salvation of believers.

…The implications of this confession, especially in the context of monotheism, naturally became one of the first concerns of patristic theology, the main aim being to secure the doctrine against tritheism on the one side and Monarchianism [emphasizes God as one indivisible being, in direct contrast to Trinitarianism] on the other.

…The individuality of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is also preserved against the notion that these are only modes of God for the various purposes of dealing with man in creation or salvation. God is one, yet in himself and from all eternity he is Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, the triune God.

…More pregnant is the suggestion of Augustine that without the Trinity there could be no fellowship or love in God, the divine Triunity involving an interrelationship in which the divine perfections find eternal exercise and expression independent of the creation of the world and man.

Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (Walter A. Elwell, 1984)

(Bible—R. H. Mounce) The expression ta biblia [Dan 9:2 (LXX)] passed into the vocabulary of the Western church and in the thirteenth century, by what Wescott calls a “happy solecism” [nonstandard usage], the neuter plural came to be regarded as a feminine singular, and in this form the term passed into the languages of modern Europe. This significant change from plural to singular reflected the growing conception of the Bible as one utterance of God rather than a multitude of voices speaking for him. [Dan 9:2 In the first year of his reign I Daniel understood by books the number of the years, whereof the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah the prophet, that he would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem.]

This revelatory literature, although not reaching a fixed form until late in the second century B.C., was nevertheless regarded from the very first as the revealed will of God and therefore binding upon the people. … Few will deny that Jesus regarded the OT as an inspired record of God’s self-revelation in history. … While the OT canon had been formally closed, the coming of Christ had, in a sense, opened it again.

Viewed as a historical process, the formation of the NT canon occupied some 350 years. In the first century the various books were written and began to be circulated through the churches. The rise of heresy in the second century—especially in the form of Gnosticism with its outstanding spokesman Marcion—was a powerful impulse toward the formation of a definite canon. A sifting process began in which valid Scripture distinguished itself from Christian literature in general on the basis of such criteria as apostolic authorship, reception by the church, and consistency of doctrine with what the church already possessed. The canon was ultimately certified at the Council of Carthage (397).

(Bible, Canon of—J. R. McRay) The process by which these books came to be generally regarded as exclusively authoritative is not known for either the Hebrew or Christian canon. That it transpired under the influence of the Spirit of God is commonly accepted among Christian people.

The earliest list of NT books containing only our twenty-seven appeared in A.D. 367 in a letter of Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria.

The formation of the NT canon was not a conciliar decision. The earliest ecumenical council, Nicaea in 325, did not discuss the canon. … The formation of the NT canon must, therefore, be regarded as a process rather than an event, and a historical rather than a biblical matter.

(Bible, Inerrancy and Infallibility of—P. D. Feinberg) The Reformation passed onto its heirs the belief that ultimate authority rests not in reason or a pope, but in an inspired Scripture.

Moreover, a key hermeneutical principle taught by the Reformers is the analogy of faith, which demands that apparent contradictions be harmonized if possible.

(Bible, Inspiration—C. F. H. Henry) The theological idea of inspiration, like its correlative revelation, presupposes a personal mind and will—in Hebrew terminology, the “living God”—acting to communicate with other spirits. The Christian belief in inspiration, not alone in revelation, rests both on explicit biblical assertions and on the pervading mood of the scriptural record.

EDT Kingdom of God, Christ, Heaven
“The kingdom of God” and “the kingdom of the heavens” are linguistic variations of the same idea.
The Abstract Meaning. In Luke 19:12, 15 a nobleman went into a far country to receive a “kingdom,” i.e., authority to rule.
The Concrete Meaning. The Kingdom is also a realm over which a reign is exercised.
The Kingdom Is God’s Reign. The Kingdom of God means primarily the rule of God, the divine kingly authority.
In the NT. The kingdom is the divine authority and rule given by the Father to the Son (Luke 22:29). When he has put all enemies under His feet, He will return the kingdom—His messianic authority—to the Father (I Cor 15:24-28).
The Kingdom Is Soteriological. The object of the divine rule is the redemption of men and their deliverance from the powers of evil. I Cor 15:23-28 is definitive.
The Mystery of the Kingdom. The coming of the Kingdom of God in humility instead of glory was an utterly new and amazing revelation. Yet, said Jesus, men should not be deceived. Although the present manifestation of the Kingdom is in humility—indeed, it’s bearer was put to death as a condemned criminal—it is nevertheless the Kingdom of God, and like buried treasure or priceless pearl, its acquisition merits any cost or sacrifice (Matt 13:44-46).
The Kingdom and the Church. However, the offer of the Kingdom in Christ was made on an individual basis in terms of personal acceptance. (Mark 3:31-35: Matt 10:35-37) rather than in terms of the family or nation.… (mais)

A nice introduction to Theological interpretation of the Bible, mapping out the various approaches. Theological interpretation is essentially a critique of the sort of critical approaches which have dominated much of the exegetical approach of those in Biblical studies. Treier posits (uncontroversially) that Barth paved the way for a recovery of reading the text within a theological framework.

In Part I of his book he examines the various approaches: the recovery of pre-critical strategies of interpretation (chap. 1), reading with (a) rule(s) of faith (chap. 2) and reading within the church community (chap. 3). In Part II he presents further challenges and necessary points of contact for those who would engage in Theological Interpretation. Chapter 4 reviews and discusses the contribution of the Biblical Theology movement. Chapter 5 discusses the insights of general hermeneutics in interpretation. Chapter 6 discusses the post-colonial challenges to Western interpretation.

The ultimate goal of the sort of theological interpretation that Treier is arguing for is to encounter God in the text of scripture. This book does a good job of surveying the contributions of various advocates and practioners. It does well at pointing at 'who' is doing theological interpretation and a fairly decent job of 'how' they are attempting to do it. I came away from reading this book with a list of theologians I would like to read more on this topic.
… (mais)