AREVIEWOF:MARKHOWELL,EXALTINGJESUSIN1&2THESSALONIANS

Christ-CenteredExpositionCommentary(NT)Nashville:HolmanReference/B&HPublishingGroup,2015

–CarlS.Sweatman,PhD 1.INTRODUCTIONAs indicatedon itswebsite,1theChrist-CenteredExpositionSeries isdesigned toprovidepastors(primarily)andinterested/educatedchurchgoers(secondarily)withanexpositionoftheBiblethatis Christocentric, exegetically based—i.e., faithful to the text—and missional in its application.Moreover, given the specific target audience, this Series aims at (relative) conciseness,2relevantdiscussionsoftheargumentsinthetext,andaccessibilitywithoutburdeningthecommentarywithoverlydetailedortechnicaltreatmentsofthepassages.Orasthecreatorsassert:“It’snotacademic.Ouraimistopresentaneasy-reaching,practical,andfriendlycommentary.”3Fairenough. 2.SCOPEWith his commentary on the two Thessalonian letters, Mark Α. Howell, pastor of First BaptistChurch(Daytona,FL),isoneofthemorerecentcontributorstotheSeries.Ifwegobythepraiseforthebook,foundjustinsidethecoverandontheback,Howell’scontributionlookstobeawelcomedone.Andinmanyrespects,Iwouldagree:thisisatimelycommentary,giventhegrowingtrendsofculturalpressureuponthechurch—specificallyitsidentityandmission—andtheneedforfaithfulendurance insuchtimes.Paul’ssolidadvice,originallygiventoanancientchurchstrugglingwithsimilar issues, can and does speak to us today. Moreover, Howell’s commentary appears in themidstofpersistent fearsandconfusionaboutthe lastdaysandhowChristiansshouldrespondtosuchthings.LikePaul,Howellseekstomeetthesetypesofissuespastorallyand(theo)logically,sothatchurchleadersandmemberswillbeabletorespondinfaithfulandreasonedways. ThefollowingreviewwillexaminenotonlyHowell’streatmentoftheThessaloniansletters,intermsoftheircontents,butalsothedegreetowhichhefulfillstheaimsoftheSeriesaswellashisown.Admittedly,thisreviewwillbeconsiderablylongerthanusual,butforthatIamunapologetic.And I am unapologetic for two reasons. First, this review is not being submitted to a journal orsomeotherpublication,whichmeansIamnotconfinedtoword-count.Infact,thisis(todate)thelongest review Ihaveeverwritten.And second,while there are several commendable aspectsofHowell’s contribution, the nature of the contents and the sheer number of concerns foundthroughoutthecommentaryrequiredaprotractedtreatment. 1Seewww.christcenteredexposition.com(accessed10-May-2015).Thesite,however(atthetimeofaccess)appearsto be a touch behind; it’s still showing several commentaries as “Available in 2014”. (NB: since I originallywrote thisfootnote,thesitehasbeenupdatedandnowreflectsamoreaccuratepictureofavailability.FortheoriginalversionIsaw,go here: https://web.archive.org/web/20160214153909/http://www.christcenteredexposition.com/ [accessed 11-Jul-2016]). 2“Relative” is bracketed off simply because the commentaries in this series are roughly similar in length tomostothercommentariesonthesamebooks.Thus,whattheSeriesmeansbyconciseiscertainlyupfordiscussion. 3Seewww.christcenteredexposition.com/why/(accessed10-May-2015.NB:sincewritingthisfootnote,thesitehasveryrecentlyaddedanew“Why”section,whichisnowcalled“About”.Thisnewsectionisavideoandtheclaimbeneathis not nearly the same [or similar] towhat is cited above.Unfortunately, an archived version of the “Why” page is nolonger accessible).TheSeries introduction found in thebook tweaks this claima little: “This series isnot academic innature.Ouraimistopresentareadableandpastoralstyleofcommentaries”(xi).Eitherwayit’ssliced,thisisultimatelyadisturbingandsadadmission; it leavestoomuchroomforcontinuingthedividebetweenacademiaandthechurch(orscholarshipandfaith)—i.e.,theanti-intellectualmindset.Moreover,it’snotthebestapproachforwritingacommentary,especiallyoneclaimingtobeexegeticallyfaithful.

CSSweatman:“ReviewofM.Howell” 2

3.CRITIQUEAnyreviewmusttakeintoconsiderationabook’sstrengths,weaknesses,andoverallcontribution.This reviewwillbenodifferent.Thecontributionquestionwillbeanswered in the “Assessment”portionofthereview.Here,inthe“Critique”,IassessthepositiveandnegativeaspectsofHowell’scommentary,thoughIadmitnowthatthescalesaretippedtooneside. 3.1.Positive(i.e.,Strengths)Howell’sbasictreatmentofthetextiscommendableinseveralways,manyofwhichreflecttheaimsoftheSeriesaswellashisown.Thesepositiveelementscanbedividedintotwobasiccategories:1)the general or overall presentation and outcomes of the commentary, and 2) Howell’s specificcontributionsthatrepaycloseattentionbythereader. 3.1.1.GeneralPerksIntermsoflayoutandflowoftreatment,Howell’scommentaryisquiteuseful.Thisisthecasenotjust in reference to following the arguments throughout the commentary, but especially fordiscerning applications for the church’s life andmission. Eachmajor sectionof the two letters isprefaced with a helpful summary statement, and then the argument is divided generally, withusableheadings(andsubheadings)thatemphasizethekeythemesforeachsection.Thisallowsthereader thehave theabilitynotonly to follow the flowof the letter’sargumentbutalso to isolateworkabletopicsthatcouldbeusedforpersonalstudy—andevenmemorization.Also,eachsectioniscappedoffwithvaryingnumbersofquestionsforreflectionandcontinuedstudy.Thesequestionsnot only re-emphasize the key elements of the preceding treatment but also encourage theformulationofreal-lifeapplicationsforboththeindividualbelieverandthewiderchurch.Inallofthis, Howell’s pastoral background and interests are evident. He is able to work through thematerialanditsmessageinsuchawaythattheyareaccessibleandrelatabletothe(lay)reader. Aspreviouslystated,theSeriesasawholeseekstopresentthetextofPaul’stwolettersinan unburdened fashion—i.e., sidestepping the (potentially) lengthy discussions on exegeticaltechnicalitiesandnotweighingthebookdownwithaheavyloadoffootnotes.Andwhilethereareanumberofin-textquotationsofscholars—someofwhichareabitlengthy(seee.g.,6,13,16,37,44,62,72,76,103,151,158,170,204,206,210,221,232,256;cf.18,25,28-29,39-40,40-41,45-46,49,54,68,82,101,142,144,149,150-51,154,157,165,186,191-92,194-95,207-08,222,229,231,247,255)—theyare judiciouslyusedandthevastmajorityare indeedbeneficial toHowell’sarguments.Thus,inthemain,Howelldoesratherwellinthisregard—especiallywiththefootnotecount.4Admittedly,thereareahandfulofcaseswhereheiscompelledtotreatsomekeypointswithmore depth (see e.g., 107-24, 126-45, 215-33). But again, these are rare and he covers themreasonablyinasummary-likefashion. Alongwiththesetwobroadperks,wecouldaddathird—onethatisrelatedtotheprevioustwo.Inthemain,Howelldoeswellwithkeepingthediscussionofthetextmovinginapositiveway.In other words, he does his best not only to wrestle with the text but also to keep the readerinterested. One of the key ways in which he accomplishes this is his well-timed back-and-forthbetween elements of the text and real life illustrations.Moreover, this feature is not uniform oratomistic; he quite often varies how and when he engages the back-and-forth between the twosides.Attheveryleast,thisishelpfulbecauseitkeepsreadersalertandnotlulledintoapredicablepattern,thusinadvertentlycausingthemtomisssomethingvitaltoHowell’sargument.

4Intheentirecommentary,thereareonly18footnotes.Bycomparison,LeonMorris’commentary(whichisroughlythesamelengthasHowell’s)hasnearlythreetimesthatmanyjustfortheIntroduction,whichspans30pages—seeTheFirst and SecondEpistles of Paul to the Thessalonians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 1-30. But this is to beexpected,sinceMorris’treatmentwouldfallunderthecategoryofamore“academic”commentary.

CSSweatman:“ReviewofM.Howell” 3

Finally,HowelldoesacommendablejobatfulfillingtheoverarchingaimoftheSeries,whichistoshowhowthebiblicaltextsbeingstudiedexaltthepersonandsavingworkofJesus.Paul’stwoletterstothechurchinThessalonica,whilebrief,arecertainlytwowhoseaimistoglorifyandexaltthepersonandworkof Jesus. In fact, throughout thecommentaryHowell rightlyemphasizes thefact that exalting thepersonandworkof Jesusoccurs in explicit and implicitways.By explicit, Imeanthe focusof thetext/argument isspecificallyconcernedwith Jesus,whetherthatmeanshisperson, life,ministry,orpresent(andfuture)reignwithGod.Andby implicit, Imeanthefocusofthe text/argument is specifically concernedwith Jesus’ representatives—i.e., the church. In thesecases,thefocusissimilartoPaul’s(thoughnotexactlyparallel)inthatheisdealingwiththewaysinwhichthe“person”,life,ministry,andserviceofthechurchexaltsthenameofChrist.Thus,oneishardpressedtofindaportionofHowell’streatmentwheretheexaltationthemeisabsent. 3.1.2.SpecificBenefitsIn termsof specific strengthsof thecommentary, theseare limited to thosepointswhereHowellusestheessenceofPaul’sargumenttospeakintonotonlytheroleofthePastorbutalsothelifeofthebeliever. Isaytheseare“limited”becausetheyarenotalwaysovertoreventeasedout inthepagesofthecommentary;rathertheymakeabriefappearanceandthenbecomeakindofcurrentthatflowsthroughoutthecommentary,justbelowthesurface.Therearefivethatstoodouttome. First,Howell rightly emphasizes the fact that the gospel is not to be reduced to a simplemessagepreached;itisamessagethatGodusesforthepurposesofleadingonetosalvation(cf.4).Granted,andI’mconfidentHowellwouldagree,thegospelisthenotthemeansforleadingonetosalvation—that taskbelongstothepowerandworkof thetriuneGod;rather it isakeyvessel incarryingouthowsalvationismadeknown(orrevealed).Moreover,andHowelliswisetopointthisout, the gospel—as a revelatory tool—and its usefulness are not to be left to initial evangelisticpreaching.Thetruthofthegospelisrelevantfortheongoinglifeofthebelieverpost-salvation,andthatrelevancybecomespartofthetaskofpastoring—i.e.,showingbelieversthecontinuingeffectsofthegospelontheirdailylives(cf.238). Second,Howellhelpfully remindsus thatpastoring isnot aboast-inducingvocation—norshoulditeverbeturnedintoone;rather,itisalifehumblysubmittedtoGod’swork(cf.6,33).Ourtimeisnotonethathasmonopolyonpastorswhoapproachthingsfromtheotherwayround;thechoiceofusingchurchleadershiprolesforpersonaladvantageisnotnew—infact,it’sbeenaroundforaslongasthere’sbeenachurch(ifnotlonger).AndIwouldventuretosaythattheappealandeaseforsuchanoptionisalsonotanewphenomenon.Theonlydifferenceandwhywehearmoreaboutittodayissimplybecauseofthespeedandcoverageof“news.”ButasHowellremindsus,allof that does not excuse pastors from fulfilling their vocational calling in a way that honors Godratherthanself.AndPaul’sministry,not just inThessalonica,servesasan illustrationofapastorwhosubmitshumblytoGod’sservice. Third,Howell touchesona topic that isadmittedly tricky—especially in today’sclimate—and that is: our failure (or inability) to be Christ-like followers (and even pastors) is tied to ourresistance toward full surrender to God (cf. 76, 188). In some ways this topic is related to thepreviousoneinthattheoccasionalhighviewsofselfrelativizetheneedforadmittingweaknessesorfaultsandhowtoaddresstheminaChrist-honoringway.Moreover,whentroublesorfailuresordifficultiesarise,thishighviewofselfoftenrespondswiththeinappropriatequestion:“Whyisthishappening to me? What did I do to deserve this?”, which carries the (equally inappropriate)underlyingassumption:“I’mnotatfault.”Butthetruthofthematteris:moretimesthannot,wearetheonesatfault,andthecauseofthatisnotonlyourwrong-headedviewofself(andvocation)butalsoourrefusaltoadmitit,bringittothethroneofChrist,andbegforhisrescuefromit. Fourth,HowellstressestherealitythatalivingchurchisonefilledwithandfueledbyhopeinwhatGodisdoingandisyettodo(cf.132).WhileunlikePaul’streatmentonthesubject,HowellexpendssometimeonthedetailsconcerningthegloriousreturnofChristandhowthathopeisto

CSSweatman:“ReviewofM.Howell” 4

encourage faithfulness and steadfastness in the life of the church. Faithfulness and steadfastnessarevitalnotonlytothelivelihoodofthechurchinatumultuousworldbutalsotoitswitnesstotheworld,asitstrivestobearefugeinthestorm.Churchesthatfailtoliveaccordingtothathopearetheoneseasilyshaken,andtheyareeasilyshakenbecausetheyarenotsecurelyfixedtothesolidfoundationofChrist.Andbecausetheyarenotfixed,theslightestbreezejeopardizestheirstabilityandtheyfreakoutandreactinfearratherthanrespondinfaith.Butachurchanchoredtotherockisabletowithstandwhatevercomesitsway.Andthatisareminderthatistimelessandnecessary. Finally,Howellencouragesustorememberthatthetrialsoflifewillrevealthegenuinenessofourfaith(cf.185,189).Thisisrelatedtothepreviousoneexplicitlyandtheothersimplicitly.Inparticular,Howell observes: “Thepersonwhohas a genuine faith inGodwill view affliction andsufferingthroughthelensofanenduringhope—notthekindofendurancethatwaitstothankGodwhentrialspass,butthekindofendurancethatthanksGodevenifthetrialdoesnotpass”(189).Itis here that the Christ-centered perspective ismost influential in grasping Paul’smessage to theThessalonianbelievers—amessage(andperspective) thatstillapplies tous today.Whilehedoesnotrefertoit,I’msureHowellwouldagree,thatthisChrist-centeredgenuinefaithismodeledforusinJesus’prayerinthegarden:“Father,ifyouarewilling,removethiscupfromme;yetnotmywill,butyoursbedone”(Lk22.42).AnditisfromthismodelofgenuinefaithfulnessthatPaulconstructsthe beautiful picture of Christ’s humility: “although he existed in the form of God, [he] did notregardequalitywithGodsomethingtobestolen,butemptiedhimself,takingontheformofabond-servant,andbeingmadeinthelikenessofahuman,hehumbledhimselfbybecomingobedienttothepointofdeath—evendeathonacross”(Phil2.6-8—mytranslation). 3.2.Negative(i.e.,Weaknesses)The commentary, however, is notwithout its faults. A substantial number of these are relativelyminor(e.g.,typos,formatting,citationissues),oneisratherproblematic,andtheothersarefoundsomewhere in between. In this part of the review, I will focus my attention on the latter twocategories,beginningwiththemid-rangeconcerns.Foranextensive(andnearlyexhaustive)listoftheminorissues,seethe“Appendix”attheendofthisreview. 3.2.1.GeneralMid-rangeConcernsThis first section deals with the similar types of concerns or issues that appear throughout thecommentary. Some of these are more pressing than others. On the weaker side, the practice ofitalicizingblock-stylequotationsfromtheBiblewasbothunexplainedandunnecessary.5Whynotsimply quote them in plain text? It cannot simply be (though I’m open to a response fromhim)becauseHowellwantstodistinguishtheScripturalquotationsfromnon-Scripturalones—thelatterare always all in plain text, unless he is emphasizes something. If that were the case, then allScripturequotations—blockandnon-block—wouldbesoindicated.Butthey’renot.Though,tohiscredit,thismightbeadecisionmadebytheSerieseditorsandheissimplykeepingtoit.Evenso,thereisnoexplanationforthis(older)stylisticoddity. Also, there are occasional disruptions in the flow of the verse order when dealing withspecific passages.This is the casewithHowell’s treatments of 1Thess1.2-10; 2.1-12; 2.17–3.13;5.23-28;2Thess1.6-12;2.1-12;2.13–3.5;and3.6-18.Generallyspeaking,commentariesfollowtheargumentasitispresentedinthebiblicaltext,inaverse-by-versefashion,thusengagingwiththelogic(andstructure)ofthetextasitstands.Forthosewhoreadcommentariesonaregularbasis,theseoccasionaldisruptionsfoundinHowell’scommentarywillseemabitodd,sometimesjolting.Granted,Howell’sapproachmightbearhetoricaldecision—i.e.,hearrangesthetopicsdiscussedin

5It isworthmentioning thatHowell’s use of block quotation is neither stylistically correct nor consistent—i.e., itdoes not follow the guidelines for block-quotations,which requires five ormore line of text. Nearly half of his block-quotations(andthat’sbeinggenerous)arelessthanfivelines.

CSSweatman:“ReviewofM.Howell” 5

the passages categorically or topically rather than sequentially—inwhich casemy criticism of itheremightbeslightlysubjective.But,ifhedidmakethatdecision,itisleftunexplainedandthatisabitunfortunate. Ontheweightierside,Howell’sattempttoengagewithorrelatetohisreaderswasbluntedbytherandom(and,let’sfaceit,ratherclumsy)bouncingbackandforthbetweenfirst-personandsecond-person references—usually in a single argument.6The flow and feel of the commentarywouldhavebeenbetterservedifHowellstucktoone“person”.GiventhatHowellseekstocreateasenseof relationand/orpartnershipwithhis readers, a consistentuseof first-person referenceswouldhavebeenthebetterchoice.Moreover,therewerequiteafewinstanceswheretheswitchingbetweenfirst-andsecond-persongavetheimpressionthatHowellwasremovedfromthesituationdescribed,or that theadvicegiventoreadersdidnotapplytohim. In thesecases, I foundmyselfasking:“Whyisthisdirectedatusandnotyou?Areyouimmunetothesethings?” Continuingwiththeweightierproblems,afewoftheanalogiesthatHowellusedtobolsterhis point (or to preface his discussion)were either ineffective or incongruous,while a fewweresimplynotgood.Specifically, theanalogiesseemedoutofplace(logicallyand/orcontextually)ortheycameacrossasabitforced.Toputitmoredirectly:theywerethekindofanalogiesthatwouldbe excused under preacher’s license, and such things would be accepted (if not tolerated) in achurchsetting.However,whiletheanalogiesmightworkinasermonorchurchnewsletter,theydonotneedtobefoundinanexaminationofabiblicaltext.AmIsuggestingthatanalogiesarenottobeusedincommentaries?Bynomeans.Iamsimplysaying:ifanalogiesareused,theyneedtobeeffective,congruent,good,and/ornotforced. On themoreproblematic side,Howell frequently skewsormisapplies the emphasis (andeventhepoint)ofagivenbiblicaltext(ortexts)tojustifytheargumenthe’smaking.Thisissueisonethatpervadesthecommentary(seee.g.,12,17,19,20,21,41,42,44-45,50,52,57,60,87,99,119,120n.13,121,129,141,165,175,177,185,195,199,200n.16,224,225,226,227,229,231).Someofthesearesimplyinstancesofproof-texting,whichisnotagood(exegetical)strategy,whileothers are obvious misinterpretations (and thus misapplications) of the text—also not a goodexegeticalpractice.TherewerenumerousoccasionswhereIfoundmyselfsaying,“Butthetextdoesnot say/mean that” or, “But the text is talking about something else.”A detailed look at someoftheseinstanceswillbegiveninthenextsection. Finally, the commentary contains a number of argumentative issues. On a few occasions,Howellmakesstatementsthataresimplytoocategoricaltobefairand/oraccurate(seee.g.,10,28,41,45,64,71,74,79,81,92,98,114,185,194,235,253).Also,therewereseveralinstanceswhereHowell either made a speculative claim or he allowed the assumed truth of the speculation todictatetheargument(seee.g.,4,19,20,41,47,51,55,57,64-65,98,101,110,128,218,221,239).Onasmallhandfulofoccasions,bothhappened.Thislatterproblemwasespeciallythecaseinhistreatmentof theeschatologicalportionsof thetwoletters.(Moreonthat inthe“MajorConcerns”section).Andlastly,therewereafewstatementsfromHowellthatweresimplyrandom,repetitive,andevenredundant(seee.g.,17,34,35,83,100,130-36,140-43,158-59,172n.15,189,231). 3.2.2.SpecificMid-rangeConcernsThissectiondealswiththeconcernsorissuesthatappearsporadicallythroughoutthecommentaryand differ in terms of type and effect. The issues addressed are also more specific and oftentechnical in nature. To some, the criticisms given here might appear pedantic, since thecommentary(afterall)isnotintendedtobe“academic.”However,eventhoughtheSeriesprotectsitself by claiming to be non-academic, the criticisms given are required because the Series

6Onat leastthreeoccasions,Howelldoesthis inasinglebreath.Forexample:“Ratherthanrunningsuchapersonover in an attempt to get the work done,wemust be willing to roll up your sleeves, get our hands dirty,…” (158—emphasisaddedcf.also161,255-56).Whilesomemightcallitbeingrelational,it’sreallyjustsloppywriting.

CSSweatman:“ReviewofM.Howell” 6

(paradoxically)alsoboastsofdesiring“todisplayexegeticalaccuracy”(xi),which,oddlyenough,isanacademicexercise.Thus,ifanykindofinaccuracyisdiscoveredinthecommentary,whetheritbe exegetical, logical, theological, textual, and even historical, it cannot be ignored, dismissed, orexcusedsimplybecausetheSeriesclaimstobenon-academic.Withthatinmind,letmebegin. Earlyoninthecommentary,whenhediscussesthelocationandvibrancyofThessalonica,Howell seems to get a little carried away when he states: “It was also the temporary home ofthousands of sailors, travelers, and immigrantswho visited its bustling port or traveled its busyhighways”(4—emphasisadded).Technically,therewasonlyonehighway—notmultiple—throughThessalonica:theViaEgnatia,whichHowelldoesmention(andonlythatone)inthenextsentence. Afewpageslater,Howellmakesthefollowingobservation:“Thewordtranslated‘church’isekklêsia coming from two Greek words (ek kaleõ) meaning ‘called out.’ The church then is the‘called-out-ones’” (10).This isnotonlyaperpetuationofa ratherchurchyandmisguided (not tomention incorrect) explanation;7it is also an example of what is known as the “root fallacy”.8Essentially,Howell puts toomuch trust andmeaning into the (supposed) individual parts of theterm rather than allowing thewhole term’s lexical, semantic, historical, and contextual usage todetermineitsmeaning.Thenormalrenderingordefaultmeaningofἐκκλησίαintheancientworldwassimply,a“gathering”or“assembly”ofpeople.AndasEverettFergusonhelpfullyobserves:“Theemphasiswasontheconcreteactofassembly,notaseparationfromothers.”9 Inoneofhis analogies (i.e., sin is a fog thatkeepsus fromseeingGod),Howell observes:“Wearelikethetravelersonthehighwaywantingsodesperatelytospeedonaheadbutunabletodosobecausewecan’tseebeyondthehoodsofourcars”(11—emphasisadded).Fairenough.Butaftergoingonaboutpeoplefeelinglostinthefogandunabletoescapeit,Howellthendeclares:“Sinhasblindedthemandtheycannotsee.Theprognosisisnotgood.Thereisacliffinthedistance,andit iscalled ‘judgment.’Theyspeeddown life’shighwayoblivious to the imminentdangerahead”(ibid.—emphasisadded).Sowhichisit?Peoplewantingtospeedbutcannot,orpeoplewhoareinfactspeeding?Itcannotbeboth. Whileaddressingthetopicofourworldviewbeingaltered(forthebetter)becauseofChrist,Howellobserves:“TheThessalonianslearnedfromPaulthattheChristian shouldviewpresentcircumstancesinthelightofeternalpromises”(19—emphasisoriginal).Wellsaid.OrtochannelmychildhoodBaptistroots:Amen,brother!ButthenthingsgetabitstrangewhenHowellstates:“During Paul’s short stay in Thessalonica, he taught the people extensively about the return ofChrist(2Thess2:5)”(ibid.—emphasisadded).Threebasicproblemshere:

1. Howell’s claim is nothing but pure speculation, despite the fact that he presents it as aknownoracceptedtruth.WesimplycannotknowhowmuchtimePaulspentteachingonagiventopic.Moreover,ifwefollowActs17.2-3,wegettheimpressionthatPaul’semphasiswas on the identity, person, andwork of Christ and that this Christwas the heart of thegospelmessage(cf.1Cor2.1-5—esp.2.2).

2. JustbecausePaul, in2Thess2.5,remindsthebelieversthathepreviouslysaidsomethingaboutthereturnofChrist,thatbyitselfdoesnotprovideanyindicationaboutthedepthorlength ofwhat he said. Further evidencewould be required in order tomake any claimsaboutdurationorextensiveness,butHowelldoesnotgivethatevidence.Hence,problem1.

3. While Howell’s treatment of the eschatological sections of both letterswill be dealtwithlater,itisworthpointingoutnowafundamentalconflict.SinceHowelladoptsthe(Classical

7Cf. Ferguson, who rightly observes: “The Greek word translated ‘church’ is ekklêsia. Its basic meaning was‘assembly,’ referring towhatwas doneandnotwhere itwas done. The popular etymology deriving theword from‘calledout’ (ek+kaleõ) isnot supportedby theactualusageof theword” (E.Ferguson,TheChurchofChrist:ABiblicalEcclesiologyforToday[GrandRapids:Eerdmans,1996],130—emphasisadded). 8Foranexplanationofthisfallacy,seeD.A.Carson,ExegeticalFallacies(GrandRapids:Baker,1996),28-33. 9Ferguson,ChurchofChrist,130.

CSSweatman:“ReviewofM.Howell” 7

andModified/Revised)Dispensationalistviewofeschatology(seebelow),itissurprisingtoseehimuse2Thess2.5assupport forhisclaimabout “the imminentreturnof theLord”(ibid.).IsaythatbecauseonaDispensationalistreading,theimminentreturn—i.e.,theso-called“rapture”—isthefocusof1Thess4.13-18,not2Thess2.1-12.

In his discussion on 1 Thess 2.12b, specifically the hope for the life to come, and afterquoting Heb 11.13-16, Howell declares: “This great host of Old Testament saints reveals amostsignificanttruthaboutthelifeoffaith—thisworldisnotourhome”(36—emphasisadded).10Thisdeclarationrevealsthreeverybasicproblems:

1. Theimpliedearth-heavendualisminHowell’sclaimisnotsimplyathrowbacktotheearlierforms of Dispensationalism, it also flirts with quasi-Gnostic views of creation. Neither isgoodorappropriateforafaithfulstudyoftwoNTtexts.

2. Howell has not onlymisunderstood—and thusmisapplied—theHebrews passage, but hehasalsomissedtherhetoricalforceofthatletterasawhole.

3. AndHowellhasfailedtotakeintoconsiderationthepromiseinRev21,whichspeaksofarenewed(andrejoined)heavenandearthasthefinal,eternaldwellingplaceofbelievers.Sotosaythat“thisworldisnotourhome”(ibid.)istoofferonlyahalf-truth.Thus,Howell’sconclusionandtheunderlyingassumptionsforitarenotsupportedbyScripture.

When dealing with the topic of the Bible as God’s word, specifically as it relates to thediscussionof1Thess2.13-16,Howellreferstothesong,“Revelation”fromtheband,ThirdDay.HedoesthisbecauseheisaddressingtheissueofChristiansseeminglyalwaysseekingnewinsightorwordsfromGod.Thus,Howellnotes:“ThelyricsofapopularChristiansong,forinstance,imploreGodtogiveusa‘revelation’toguideusthroughlife’sconfusion”(44).Fairenough.ButthenHowellsays:“WhileIrecognizetheintentofthesongistoseekGod’sguidancetonavigatelife’sdifficulties,tospeakofGodgivingusarevelationimpliesthatweneedGodtogiveusanewword”(ibid.).Twoproblemshere,andonepotentialconcern:

1. Howellacknowledgesthatheunderstands“theintentofthesong”,yethenotonlysidelinesthatintentandhisunderstandingofitbutalsocontinuestousethesongasexemplifyingthevery thingheseeks tocorrect—i.e., thebad tendencyof seekingnewrevelationorwordsfromGod.Intermsofstandardresearchpracticesandevenacademichonesty,thiskindoftreatmentfallsundertheissueofnottreatingone’ssourcesfairly—ornotrepresentingtheviewpointofone’ssourcesaccurately.

2. Becausehesidelinesthe(acknowledged)intentofthesong,Howellputstoomuchemphasisonnotonlytheassumedcorrelationbetween“revelation”anda“newword”fromGodbutalso the idea that revelationmeans thewordofGod—i.e., theBible.Thus, the implication(forHowell)is:seekingrevelationornewwordsfromGodmeansseekingsomethingmorethantheBible(orseekingmorerevelationthanhasbeenrevealed).SotheproblemhereisthatHowellproceedsonthebasisofthesetwothingsbeingtrue,yethehasnotdoneorsaidanythingthatwouldprovethattheyaretrue.

3. Thepotentialconcernhastodowiththefactthat,justtwopagespriortothisclaim,Howellopenlydeclared: “Paul’smessage inThessalonicawasnotcreative,but itwaspowerful. Itwasnothisown,itwasGod’s.WhenGodgivesyouaword,theonlyfittingresponseistoproclaimit”(42—emphasisadded).Inthelightofwhatwe’vejustsaidaboutHowellviewsonThirdDay’ssong,Icannothelpbutnoticeadouble-standardhere.MyonlyassumptionisthatHowellwouldvindicatePaul’ssituationasbeingundertheprotectionofinspirationorapostolicoffice—orboth.

10ThehymnthatHowellcitesinsupportofhisclaimisequallywrongandincomplete.

CSSweatman:“ReviewofM.Howell” 8

Howellgetsalittlecarriedawaywhenhesays:“Clearly,PauldidnothaveacopyoftheNewTestamenttosharewiththeThessalonians(hewaswritingit!)”(45—emphasisadded).Seriously?I know this commentary is “not academic” and that it’s aimed at pastors and interested churchmembers,but suchaparenthetical remark isnotnecessary.Notonly that, the implicationof it ismisleadingintwoways.First,wecannotsaythatPaulhadanyideathatwhathewaswritingwouldeitherbeseenasequalwithJewishScriptureorlaterbecompiledwithotherwritingsandformedintotheNT.Andsecond,Pauldidn’twritetheNT;hewasoneoftencontributors.11Infact,he’snoteventhelargestcontributor.ThathonorgoestoLuke. FollowinghisdiscussionaboutGod’swordandtheneedtorespondappropriately,Howellsays:“IftheBibleistheWordofGod,thenwemustacknowledgethreethings:…”(46—emphasisadded).Okay,fine(andverypreacher-like).Thetroublewiththis,however,isthatHowellproceedstolistfourthings(withpreacher-likealliteration):“it’s[1]trueand[2]timeless,it[3]transforms,anditcanbe[4]trusted”(ibid.).Howellmightsayhemeantforthefirsttwobeseenasone.Whilethepossibilityofthatlinkagecouldbedebated(sincethefirsttwotermsarenotnecessarilyorevenlogicallyrelated),thatintentiondoesnotplayitselfoutintherestoftheparagraph,whereHowellelaboratesonallfourpointsseparately. Whendiscussing1Thess2.14,Howell says this about theThessaloniansbelievers: “Jesuschanged their affections. Like Paul, they no longer counted their life [sic] to be of any value tothemselves(Acts20:24;Phil3:7-8).FollowersofChristdo‘notlovetheirlivesinthefaceofdeath’(Rev12:11)”(50).Someratherbasicproblemshere:

1. WecannotknowiftheThessaloniansreflectedPaul’sassessmentofhislife.Thetextneversays one way or the other. To assume and say that it did, though, is not based on anexegeticalconclusion;it’sbasedonpurespeculation.

2. Notonly isusing theActspassage tosupport theclaimabitofa stretch,butusingof thePhilippianstextisrathermisleading.Paul’spointinthatpassageisquitedifferentfromtheoneHowellattemptstomake:forPaul,whathecountsascrap(σκύβαλον)ishislife—andallthepursuitstodefinelifeinaparticularway—beforeChrist;Paul’sfocusin1Thess2.14istheThessalonians’lifeafterChrist.

3. And third, Paul is not encouraging theThessalonians to see their lives (now, inChrist) asvalueless;thatwouldbepatentlyabsurdandascriptural.

AfterdealingwithPaul’sremarksin1Thess2.17-20,Howelldriftsintoatangentaboutthecoming of Christ. Not only does he speculate (once again) that, “Paul had apparently spent aconsiderableamountoftimeteachingtheinfantchurchaboutChrist’scoming(2Thess2:5)”(57—emphasisadded;cf.19),butHowellboldlygoesontoclaim:“Christwillonedayremoveusfromour troubles and take us to be with Him (John 14:1-3)” (ibid.—emphasis added). Three basicconcernshere:

1. Asmentionedbefore, it is impossibletoknowjusthowmuchtimePaulspentteachingoneschatologicaltopics.Atbestguess,andgiventhetenorofbothletters,itwouldseemsafertosaythatPaul’stimeindealingwithsuchthingswasnot“considerable”,butbrief.

2. Howell’s decision to use John 14.1-3 in the service of his claim about our removal fromtrouble is unjustified—logically, exegetically, and theologically. This is partly because thetext does not say things in the way Howell portrays them; he is simply adding nuances(fromtheologicalpresuppositions)tothetexttosupporthisargument.That’seisegesis.

11Yes,IholdtotraditionalauthorshipfortheeachofthewritingsintheNT—i.e.,thenamesattributedtothetextsrefertotheoriginalauthors.Don’tlikeit?Sorry,dude.

CSSweatman:“ReviewofM.Howell” 9

3. Finally, theotherreasonfortheunjustifieduseisthatHowellallowshisDispensationalisteschatologytoguidehis interpretationofJohn14.1-3—i.e.,hereadsthistextasnotaboutthehopeofaplaceofeternalpresencewithGod(whichisthefocusofthepassage);rather,forHowell,it’saboutthechurchbeingrapturedoutoftheworldwhileallhellbreakslooseuponthenon-believingworld. Iknowthistobethecasebecausehesaysasmuchlaterinthe commentary (see120,121-22).Exegeticallyand theologically,he’swrong touse John14.1-3inthisway.

Whenspeakingon“Paul’sdeparturefromThessalonica”,Howellmakesaratherboldclaim:“Traveling by himself to Berea and then later to Athens” (55—emphasis added), and cites Acts17.10and1Thess2.17tosupporthispoint.Twoproblemshere:

1. The text inActsnever saysPaulwas alone inhis journey toBerea; and theThessalonianpassagedoesnotallowfortheconclusioneither.BothtextsstatethatothersaccompaniedPaulwhenheleftThessalonica.

2. Themoredetrimentalproblemisthat,afewpageslater,Howellcontradictshisownclaimwhenhesays: “WhenPaul,Silas,andTimothy leftThessalonica,theymadetheirway toBerea”(60—emphasisadded).EitherPaul traveledalone(per55),orhedidnot(per60).Hecannotdoboth.

Inhisdiscussingof1Thess3.1-2a,HowellmakestherepeatedandratherdefinitiveclaimthatTimothywasaskedtomeetPaulinAthensandthathedidinfactdoso,onlytobesentbacktoThessalonicaatPaul’srequest(see60-61).WhilePaulmayhaverequestedTimothytojoinhiminAthensassoonaspossible(seeActs17.15;though,thetextisnotclearorunambiguous),LukeinActs never says Timothy did so—contrary toHowell’s definitive portrayal.12In fact, according toLuke(seeesp.Acts18.5), thenexttimeTimothyandPaularetogether is inCorinth—notAthens.Moreover, Howell’s argument seems to overlook the historical details implicit in the syntacticalnuances of 1Thess 3—i.e., Paul iswriting to theThessalonians fromCorinth,after Timothy andSilasrejoinhiminCorinth.13 Moreover,Howell’sargumentengagesinneedlessspeculationaboutPaul’sresponsibilitiesin Athens and the tiresome effects such things had on him, thus enhancing Paul’s decision to“[sacrifice] the companionshipofTimothy” (62)and tobe left “to engage theenemyalone” (61).Seriously?Thissortofreadingisnotonlyquitespeculative,butitalsounnecessarilypsychologizesanddramatizesthetext.Anditdoessowithoutjustification.ThereissimplynoevidencetosupportHowell’s reading. Thus, the reading ismore eisegesis than exegesis. The advice of E.J. Richard isappropriate in this case: “One must avoid an overly dramatic and even romantic view of PaultragicallylanguishingaloneinAthens.”14 Inhisdiscussionof1Thess4.1-2,specificallytheideaoffaithfullywalkingwithGod,Howellsays:“Knowingthetruthisonething;doingitisanother.TheThessaloniansweretaughtbyoneofthegreatestpreacherswhoever lived.Theirspiritualdepthwasasdeepas itwaswide”(78—emphasisadded).NotonlydoesHowelloverplayhishand,butthisveryclaimalsoconflictswithhisearlierandsubsequentdescriptionsoftheThessalonians’spiritualmaturity—i.e.,“babyChristians”(55),“infantchurch”(57,67,148,184),“infantcongregation”(65,69),“infantThessalonianchurch”(157).IamatalossastohowHowellcanreconcilethetwodescriptions.I’mopentohisreply. WhenspeakingaboutthesignificanceoftheSpiritinthelifeofthebeliever,Howellasserts:“TheSpirittakesuppermanentresidenceinyourlife.HemakesyourheartHishome(John14:15-

12Foranequallyunconvincingcase,seeMorris,FirstandSecondEpistles,92-93. 13Cf.J.A.Weatherly,1&2Thessalonians(CPNIVC;Joplin:CollegePress,1996),102. 14E.J.Richard,FirstandSecondThessalonians(SP11;Collegeville:LiturgicalPress,2007),147.

CSSweatman:“ReviewofM.Howell” 10

26;Rom8:9).GodgivesyouallofHisSpirit (1Cor12:13)” (87—emphasisadded).15Leaving tooneside the “permanent residence” idea,which isnothingmore thanHowell’sBaptist/Reformedcontextinfluencingtheargument,therearetwoproblemshere:

1. The Johnpassage cited in supportof theheart-is-the-home-of-the-Spirit idea isnot aboutthat.Whilesuchanideamightbeanimplication,it’smoreofapersonalinference.Notonlythat,butHowell’s readingremoves thespecificityof thepassage inorder tomakeamoregeneralorwiderapplication.Inshort:Howelldoesnotfollowtheintentofthepassage.

2. The 1 Corinthians passage says absolutely nothing about God giving “all of His Spirit” toanyone.That’ssimplynotthefocusoreventhepointofthetext.

Inhis treatmentof1Thess4.9, especially the “taughtbyGod”phrase,Howell says: “ThisunusualexpressionisusedonlyhereintheNewTestament”(93).Thisissomewhattrue,butitisalso a tadmisleading. If Howell is referring to the specific Greek term, θεοδίδακτος, which getstranslatedas“taughtbyGod”,thenhe’scorrect.ButhedoesnotindicatethattheGreektermisinmind;hisclaimreadsasthoughhe’sreferringtotheEnglishphrase/expression“taughtbyGod”(Iamopentocorrectiononthis).Onthatbasis,hisclaimismisleading,for,asMorrispointsout,16thatEnglishexpressionisfoundinJohn6.45whenquotingIsa54.13.Moreover,thereareotherparallelvariationsof theexpression in theNT(cf.1Cor2.13;Eph4.21), thecombinationofwhichmightprovideaTrinitarianreadingoftheentireconcept. Whenbeginninghistreatmentontheeschatologicalsectionof1Thess4.13-18,Howellliststheusualhottopics(andhang-ups)peopletendtoemphasize.Inparticular,hehasinmindtheso-calledrapture,aboutwhichhesays:“Indeed,thetopicoftherapturehasservedasthestorylinefordozensofbooksandmoviesandhasalsobeenthetopicofmuchspeculation,debate,andfanaticismthrough the centuries” (107—emphasis added). Here, specifically the second half of the point,Howelloverstateshiscase.Itissimplynottruethat“speculation,debate,andfanaticism”havebeengoing on “through the centuries”. The speculation, debate, and fanaticism began alongside, inconjunctionwith,and/orasaresultoftheriseofDispensationalism,whichbeganinthemid-19thcentury. Accordingly, at best, such things are not even two centuries old. To describe things hastakingplace“throughthecenturies”istogivetheimpressionthatthishasbeenanissuethroughoutthe history of Christendom (which iswhat someClassicalDispensationalist contend); but that issimplynotthecase.Anyhonestandobjectivestudyofthediscussionwouldrevealthelimitedtimeandeffortgiventothetopic—nottomentionitsflaws.Moreonthatlater. While introducing the basic contents of 1 Thess 4.13-18, specifically the occasion for theargument given, Howell says of the Thessalonians: “They feared that those who died prior toChrist’sdeathwouldsomehowmissoutonthegreatgatheringofGod’speoplethatwouldoccuratthe end of human history” (108). While I would quibble with a couple of points here, the realproblem iswithwhat Howell says next: “Tomakemattersworse, false teacherswere adding totheir confusionby circulating a letter, purportedly fromPaul, suggesting that the day of theLord’s judgment had already come (2 Thess 2:1-2)” (ibid.—emphasis added). This is patentlyfalse.ThereasonforPaul’sargumentin1Thess4.13-18hasnothingtodowiththecirculationofapseudonymousletter.Evenacursoryreadingof1Thessalonianswouldprovethat.Moreover,thereisabsolutelynoreasonorjustificationforusingthesituationspecificallyrelatedtooccasionfor2Thessalonians as the occasion for1Thessalonians. YetHowell has done precisely that. And hedoesitfivemoretimesinhistreatmentof1Thessalonians(see112,119,135,156,165). In an effort todealwith the topic of theThessalonians’ fears anddoubts, as intimated intheirquestionstoPaul,Howell(randomly)prefacesthingsbysaying:“Anyonefamiliarwiththeart 15Thisisoneofthe(many)placeswhereHowellswitchestothesecond-personpluralandgivestheimpressionthatthefollowingadvicedoesnotapplytohim. 16SeeMorris,FirstandSecondEpistles,128(cf.n.42).

CSSweatman:“ReviewofM.Howell” 11

ofrhetorichasheardofSocraticreasoning”(113).Andby“Socraticreasoning”,IamassumingthatHowellmeansthemethodicalprocessofquestionsanddialoguetoarriveattruth.Asmallhandfulofproblemshere:

1. Anyone familiar with the art of rhetoric—especially as a defined discipline—would notdefault to Socrates; ratheronewould thinkofAristotle, Cicero,Quintilian, or anyoneelseotherthanSocrates.

2. Anyone familiar with Socrates would know that he was not one to see his reasoning aseitherrhetoricaloranart;forhim,hismethodsweresimplyreasonable,logical,andfaithfultoandintheserviceofwisdom.Moreover,Socrateswasrathercriticaloftheuseofrhetoricasanarttomakeapointoroffersomethingasacceptableortrue.17

3. Andanyonefamiliarwithrhetoricwouldknownottoreducetheentiretyofthedisciplinetooneofitsmorebasicelements—i.e.,questionsordiatribe.

During a tangent, Howell recalls the story of the crippled man who was lowered into acrowdedroomandthensubsequentlyforgivenandhealedbyJesus—theformeractcausingquitethestir for thereligiouselite in theroom. Inhisretelling,Howellboldlydeclares: “Hearing Jesus’words,thescribesaccusedHimofblasphemyforclaimingtohavetheabilitytoforgivesin.Sensingtheircontempt,Jesustoldthemantogetupandwalk.Hisresponseisclassic.Ignoringthescribes,Hesaidtotheman,‘SoyoumayknowthattheSonofManhasauthorityonearthtoforgivesins…Itell you: get up, pick up your mat, and go home’ (Mark 2:10-11)” (115—emphasis added, butellipsesoriginal).Therearethreeissueshere:

1. Howell leaves off the initial “But” and begins the statement with “So.”While subtle, thischange is crucial forHowell so thathecankeephispointwherehewants to take it—i.e.,Jesusisspeakingamessageoffulfilledpromisestothecrippledmanandnottothescribes.Butthisintroducesthesecondproblem.

2. Howell’s insistence that Jesus is speakingonly to thecrippledman isbothmisguidedandfalse.TheGreekisquiteclear:ἳναδὲεἰδῆτε[plural]ὅτιἐξουσίανἔχειὁυἱὸςτοῦἀνθρώπουἀφιέναιἁμαρτίαςἐπὶτῆςγῆς–λέγειτῷπαραλυτικῷ·σοὶ[singular]λέγωἔγειρεἆροντὸνκράβαττόν σου καὶ ὕπαγε εἰς τὸν οἶκόν σου (emphasis added). The opening remark isdirectedspecificallyatthescribes(contraHowell’sversion)—hencetheuseofthesecond-person plural suffix. It is onlywhen Jesus commands the crippledman to rise up and gohome thathe speaksdirectly tohim—asMarkmakesabundantly clear,notonlywith theswitchtothefirst-personsingularpronoun18butalsowiththeprefatorydescription,λέγειτῷπαραλυτικῷ.Funnilyenough,thisdescriptionisthebitthatHowellconvenientlyleftoutof the quotation, as indicated by his ellipses. But again, this alteration is necessary forHowelltokeephispointgoingwherehewantstotakeit,ratherthanfollowingwhatthetextinfactsays.

3. Since the Greek clearly shows that Jesus’ opening remark is aimed right at the scribes’disbeliefandcriticisms,andsincethemiraclethatfollowsismeanttoproveamuchlarger(theological)point,Howell’sdramaticclaim,“Ignoringthescribes” isbothover-statedanddemonstrablyfalse.

Acarefulreadingandhandlingof theGreektext(i.e.,exegesis)wouldhavepreventedall threeoftheseissues.Instead,wehaveaninterpretationbasedoneisegesis. Inthe(ratherprotracted)prefacetohisdiscussionon1Thess5.1-11,Howellstates:“Asweturnourattentiontothetext,rememberthatPaulhadjustinformedtheThessaloniansthatChrist 17Seeesp.Protagoras;Gorgias. 18HowellisnotunawareofsuchshiftstakingplaceintheGreektext(see177).

CSSweatman:“ReviewofM.Howell” 12

could comeat anymoment.Thisobviously triggeredaquestion…. Inaddition to their curiosityaboutsignsandseasons,theThessalonianshadamoresignificantquestion….Toaddresstheirquestions,Paulhasthreeobjectivesinmindashepens…”(130—emphasisadded).SoletmeseeifIgetthisstraight:Paul(whileinCorinth)writeswhathedoesin1Thess4.13-18,andthesubstanceofwhathewrites(stillinCorinth)raisesquestionsfortheThessalonians(whoaremorethan300milesawayandhavenotyetreadwhathejustwrote,whichtheycouldn’tdobecausehehasnotyetsentthelettertothem),andsoPaulspecificallyaddressesthoseraisedquestions(from300milesaway)ashemovesfromtheargumentfoundin4.13-18tothatof5.1-11.DidIgetthatright?…Givemeabreak.Thisreading,whichattemptstobedramaticandengagingformereeffect,crashesontherocksofhistoryandlogic. WhendealingwithPaul’sopeningencouragementforperseverancein2Thessalonians,andapplyingittomodernreaders,19Howelldeclares:“Youwoulddowelltorememberthatyourenemyisnotseekingwaystogiveyouabadday;heisonanall-outmissiontogiveyouabadlife(1Pet5:8)”(185).Oddlyenough,notonlydoesHowellreadtoomuchintothepassage,healsoreadstoolittle from thepassage. Ineffect,Howelldownplaysthe fullweightof thetextby ignoringwhat itsaysandmeanssothathecanmakethepointhewantstomake.Buttheimageryinthetextisnotthedevilseekingtogivepeopleabadlife;he’sseekingtodestroy/killthem. Furtherin,Howelladdressesthedelicatetopicofsuffering,butheseekstoshowhowGodoften uses it tomake believersmore Christ-like,which is a reflection of the redemptivework ofJesus.TothisHowellstates:“Fromthemomentofyourconversion,GodbeginstheworkofshapingandpruningyoutobemoreandmorelikeJesus(Rom8:29)”(195).Ihavenoissueswiththeclaim;I do, however, have issueswith using a passage that has very little (if anything) to dowith thatclaim.Buttheproblemdoesnotstopthere.Neartheendofthesameparagraph,aftermentioningthepossibilityofGod’sdisciplineuponthosewhoresisttheshapingandpruning,Howellsays:“AndthereisnoquestionthatGod’sdisciplinewillalwaysachieveitsintendedpurposebothinthislifeand in the life to come (Rom8:30-39)” (ibid.).Onceagain: like the claim,but stronglydislike theproof-texting.TheRomanspassagehasnothingtodowiththepointHowellseekstomake. In the introductoryremarks to2Thess1.6-12,Howellcites threepassages tosupporthisemphasisonthefaithfulpeopleofGodseekingandcryingoutforanendtotheirsuffering(see198-99).ThefirstcomesfromHab1.2-3,whichisapropos.However,thenexttwoarenot.Thefirstofthese is fromPs13.1-4.Theproblem is that this text isnotdealingwith strugglesofuncertaintyand/orwantingtoknowwhensufferingbroughtonbypersecutionwillend;thefocus/emphasisofthepassage ismuchdeeper—i.e., thepsalmist’s fearofbeing forgottenbyGod.Moreover,Howellleavesofftheendofthetext,whichspeaksofthepsalmist’shopeofrescueorsalvation(see13.5-6)—i.e.,notbeingforgotten.Thesecondnon-apropostextcomesfromLuke18.2-8.HowellusesthispassagetojustifyhisclaimthatGodisnotonly“notoffended”byourquestionsaboutreliefbuthealso encourages us to ask for such things. The problem is that the parable in Luke 18makes acompletely different point and its true force (i.e., meaning, effect) undermines the point Howellseekstomake. In a footnote, Howell attempts to differentiate the (supposed) various stages of Christ’sreturn (see 200 n.16). This is apparently necessary because in the body of the text, when he isexplaining2Thess1.7,HowellspeaksaboutthefinalreturnofJesus,whichheseesasaseparateeventfromChrist’sinitial(second)coming,as(supposedly)describedin1Thess4.13-18.Tojustifythisdistinction,Howell refers to thedifference in terminology in the two texts:παρουσία for the(initial but not final) second “coming” and ἀποκάλυψις for the true final coming. Howell thenproceedstodelineateotherkeyfeaturesaboutthetwo(supposedly)separateevents.NotonlydoesHowellhavezerolexicalsupportformakingthedistinction—e.g.,heignoresthefactthatPauluses

19This is another place where Howell switches to the second-person plural and gives the impression that thefollowingadvicedoesnotapplytohim.

CSSweatman:“ReviewofM.Howell” 13

thetermsinsynonymousandoverlappingways20—butalsothelogicoftherespectivetexts(alongwith their surrounding contexts)doesnotpermit such adistinction.Andwewill bypass the factthat the only people emphasizing this supposed distinction are either Dispensationalists of theClassicalandRevised/Modifiedvarietyorpeoplewhohaveinfluencedbysuchthings. Whendealingwithoneofthemorenotorioussectionsof2Thess(i.e.,2.6-7),Howellrightlydeclares: “To be honest, Paul’s reference to the restrainer has perplexed even most able Biblecommentators”(228).However,ashecontinues,wegetthesensethatsuchperplexitiesdonotstallhisownattemptsatreadingthetextsuccessfully.Thus,heasserts:“Whileidentifyingtherestraineris no easy task, a careful reading of the passage does provide some clues” (ibid). Howell thensummarizes the usual options (i.e., Rome, Israel, gospel-preaching, Satan), yet he implicitlydismissesthem,beforepresentingwhatheseesasthe“obvious”candidate:“Godisultimatelytheoneresponsibleforholdingbacktheantichrist”(229).Notonlydoesthisclaimrequireasignificantamount of nuancing thatHowell does not provide, but he also ropes inG.K. Beale’s argument tosupporttheideathattheHolySpiritistheonewhorestrains.Threekeyproblems:

1. Theentireargumentaboutidentifyingthe(so-called)“restrainer”ispredicatedonasingleinterpretativedecision—i.e., translatingκατέχωas “restrain(er)”.Moreover,whileHowellreferstoMarshall’ssummaryofthediscussion,whichisslightlydated,hedoesnotinteractwith Wannamaker’s summary of the same discussion—a summary that reveals theproblems with the interpretative decision noted above.21Wannamaker advocates for areadingof“prevail”forκατέχω,whichnotonlyismoreinlinewiththegrammarandsyntaxbut alsomakes better sense of the whole of Paul’s argument. But Howell does not evenengagewiththispossibility;hemerelyadoptstheotherreadingwithoutquestion.

2. Howell,withoutexplanationorjustification,hasinterpolatedtheideaofantichristintothepassage.“Antichrist”isnotaPaulinetermorconcept;thatbelongssolelytoJohn.ForPaul,andasthetextclearly,plainly,andobviouslystates, thepersoninquestion is the“manoflawlessness”.IfHowellwantstomakeacaseforthetwobeingone-in-the-same,heshouldhavedonethat.Buthedoesn’t.Hejustsaysit,andinaratherdefinitiveorconclusiveway.

3. Whileheisconfidentinhis“carefulreadingofthepassage”,Howell’suseofBealebetraysalack of a careful reading of Beale. This is indicated in two interrelated ways. First, andcontrarytohowHowellpresentsit,Beale’sargumentdoesnotsupporttheconclusionthatthe“restrainer”istheHolySpirit.TheclaimHowellquotesisonlyaportionofwhatBealesaysinanefforttomakeadifferentpoint.(Thisiscalled:notbeingfairwithone’ssource,ortreating the source’s arguments fairly). And second, two pages before the quote Howelluses,BealemakesitquiteclearthathedoesnotthinktheHolySpirit isthebest(oronly)candidate for the restrainer.22Thus, Howell is giving readers the impression of Beale’ssupportforhisargument,butBeale(inreality)disagreeswithHowell’sconclusion.Tosaythisdifferently:HowellhasmadeBealesaysomethinghedidnotsay.

Neartheendofhistreatmenton2Thess2.13–3.5,HowellisspeakingabouttheassurancetheThessaloniansaretohaveconcerningtheirsalvation—inparticular,theirrescuefromthedayof wrath. (The nuances of this particular theological conclusion will be dealt with in the nextsection).HereHowellboldlystates:“BecausetheirnameswereetchedindeliblyintheLamb’sBookofLife (Rev13:8), theywere innodangerof experiencingGod’swrath” (236—emphasisadded).Threeproblems: 20Specifically, Howell overlooks the fact that both παρουσία and ἀποκάλυψις are used in 2 Thess 2 when PaulspeaksofChrist’sfinalcoming. 21See C.Wannamaker,TheEpistles to theThessalonians: A Commentary on theGreekText (NICNT; Grand Rapids:Eerdmans,1990),250-57.HowellisnotignorantofWannamaker’scommentary,forhecitesitonp.170. 22SeeG.K.Beale,1-2Thessalonians(DownersGrove:InterVarsityPress,2010),215-16.

CSSweatman:“ReviewofM.Howell” 14

1. The Revelation text that Howell uses never says anything about names being indeliblywritten,oretched.ThesamegoesforotherkeyplacesinRevelationwherethebookoflifeismentioned(cf.Rev17.8;20.12,15;21.27).

2. HowellignoresakeytextinRevelationthatindicatesthatnamesarenotonlynotindeliblywrittenbutcanalsoberemoved(seeRev3.5).

3. And two OT texts not only support the non-indelible idea expressed in Rev 3.5 but alsoundermine Howell’s claim, since both state the possibility of names being removed—seeExod32.32-33;Ps69.28.

Thus,Howellhasimposedhisowntheologicalperspectiveontothetextandinterpreteditsclaimsaccordingtothatperspective.That’snotexegesis;that’seisegesis. When referring to Paul’s teaching in Thessalonica, Howell rightly alludes to the fact thatPaulcalledsuchteaching“traditions”.ButthenHowellsays:“Thewordtraditionsreferstoabodyoftruth‘handeddown’(Mark7:13;Acts6:14)”(238—emphasisoriginal).Whatstrikesmeasoddisthe scriptural support provided. Why these two? The Mark passage, in context, is categoricallynegativeintone,andtheActspassage,alsoincontext, is implicitlynegative.Infact,theMarktextwould clearly demonstrate that Jesus does not see traditions as “a body of truth.”Howellwouldhavedonewelltostatethedefinitionandleaveoffthereferences,orfindbetterreferences. Near the end of the commentary, Howell off-handedly denounces the pursuit of churchgrowthgimmickswhenhesays:“TheproclivityofmanyChristiansistobeconstantlyonthelookout forsomenewthingtobreathe life intothechurch.ButaccordingtoPaul, theanswerwillnotcome by finding something new” (239). Yet, at the start of the commentary, Howell declares:“Duringmy25yearsofministry Ihavewitnesseddozensofprograms,campaigns,and initiativesthathavepromised tobringnewlife to thechurch.Manyof thesehavebeencommendableandhave provided valuable resources and offered helpful insights…” (9—emphasis added).23Does“some new thing” include Batterson’s lamentable contribution to Christian spirituality—i.e., thecirclemaker?24Andwould “25years”ofdoing thissortof thingqualifyas “constantly”?AndwhywasPaul’s“answer”onlytrueandrelevantattheendofthecommentaryandnotthestart? The last item/concern tomention in this sectionof the review isadmittedlyminor,but itreflectsalargerandmoresignificantissuethathaswitnessedthroughoutthecommentary.On249,Howell says, “Aristotle described the preacher’s trustworthiness…” (emphasis added). That is 23Tobe fair,Howelldoessay: “Manyof thesehavebeencommendableandhaveprovidedvaluableresourcesandofferedhelpful insightstoandforpastors likemeasIhavesoughtto leadthechurch.Yetevenacursorysurveyoftheecclesiasticallandscaperevealsthatdespitetheimplementationofnewprogramsandstrategies,analarmingnumberofchurchesareplateauedordeclining….Newlifedoesnotalwaysaccompanynewprograms.Perhapsthemosthelpfulthingthatapastorcandotobreathnewlifeintohischurchisnottointroduceanewchurchgrowthmodelortoimplementthelatestchurchgrowthstrategy.Rather,themostimportantthingapastorcandomaybetorecallwhatthechurchreallyisandrefocushisenergyintowhatthegospelreallydoes”(9-10).WhileImightquibblewithafewthingsinthisclaim(esp.theideasofthechurchbelongtothepastor[sorrydude:thechurchbelongstoChrist]),Howellisgenerallycorrectinthis.However,whereIhaveproblemsisthepotentialdouble-standard.Ontheonehand:Howellseemstorejectimplementingchurchgrowthmodelsandstrategies.Ontheotherhand:Howelladmitsto25yearsofsurveyingandadoptingvariouschurchgrowthmodelsandstrategies.Iguesshis“out”wouldbe:well,after25yearsofdoingthat,I’velearnedmylessonandthelessonlearnediswhatI’vewrittenhereinthiscommentary.Ifthat’sthecase,thenI’llbackoffmycriticism.Butitmustbesaid:thepotentialdouble-standarddoesnotendwithwhathewritesinthiscommentary.Itveryeasilyextendstohisownecclesiasticallandscape—i.e.,hisownchurchandhowhedoeschurch.AcursoryreadthroughFirstBaptist’swebsiterevealsthathehasinfactadopted(andrelieson)aparticularmodelorstrategyforhowtodochurchandthusbringaboutgrowth.AndalotofthelanguageusedtodescribethingsatFirstBaptistisrathergimmicky-sounding,nottomentioncatchymerelyforeffect(ratherthanfact)—e.g.,“It’sDIFFERENT…AWorshipServiceWithoutWalls.It’sChurchUnusual”(www.firstbaptist.org/churchoutside[accessed3-Nov-16]).Yeah,itmight“different”and“unusual”forisolatedsuburbanAmericans,but it’snotdifferentorunusualeither intermsofChristianhistoryorforthosein lessdevelopedcountriesaroundtheworld.Forthem,“church”intheopen(i.e.,withoutwalls)isnormal. 24Afterall,Battersonisquotedapprovinglyacoupleoftimesinthecommentary(see144,161).

CSSweatman:“ReviewofM.Howell” 15

beingtoospecific(andlexicallyincorrect)withAristotle’sfocusandmeaning,forhesimplyusesthegenericterms,“speaker”or“orators”.TheonlytimeAristotleusestheGreektermfor“preacher”(asusedintheNT)isfoundinRhetoric3.8.1.ButitshouldbenotedthatAristotle’susageisnotentirelysynonymouswiththeNTuse. 3.2.3.MajorConcernsWecomenow to the final areaof concern.With all due respect toHowell, themostproblematicfeatureofthecommentaryistheinsistenceandadvocacyofaparticularDispensationalreadingofkey eschatological texts inboth letters—i.e., 1Thess4.13-18; 5.1-11; and2Thess2.1-12.On thesurface,theproblemisnotsomuchthatHowell’spresentationoverlooksthewealthandinsightofmorerecentscholarship(thoughhedoesoverlook/ignoreit),presumablybecausesuchinsighthasoverturnedmuchofwhatisarguedinthiscommentary.TheproblemisalsothatHowell’sargumentcontendsforaDispensationalreadingthatisnolongertheconsensusviewamongDispensationalistscholars. The eschatological views espoused by Howell read like the (old) Dispensationalism ofDarby,Scofield,Chafer,andRyrie,thoughwithsomemodificationsofhisown. Buttheproblemsdonotstopthere.It’snotsimplythatHowellgivesusathrowbacktoold-schoolDispensationalism,andit’snotsimplythatHowellmakesafewmodificationstoitalongtheway (presumably trying to repackage the older views in new garb);25there is the problemwithHowell’scaseinparticular.Inotherwords,therearesomeseriousconcernswiththewaysinwhichhe argues for the particular Dispensationalist view he holds, and these concerns range from thelogical,totheexegetical,andtothetheological—allofwhichwillbeexaminedinwhatfollows. Insomecases,Howellwillskewthefocusandoverlook(ordownplay)thecontextofagiventext so thathe canmake the argumenthewants tomake. For example,Howell declares that theThessalonians“wereconvincedthattheyhadmissedtheraptureandwerenowexperiencingtheDayoftheLord”(108—emphasisadded).Threeproblemswiththisclaim:

1. Withoutofferingany justificationorsupport,Howellparrots the(older)Dispensationalistview that “the rapture” and “Day of the Lord” are two distinct events, separated by theseven-yearperiodofgreattribulation.Thus,inthisclaim,Howellimplicitlyendorsesatwo-stage return of Christ, and that in itself is logically and theologically problematic. To beblunt:noexegesiswillyieldsuchareading,buteisegesiswill(andhas,regrettably).

2. We encounter the same problem as mentioned earlier: the specific “issue” that HowellstatesasbotheringtheThessaloniansistheoccasionforthesecondletter(cf.2Thess2.1-2),not the first.Yet the focusofHowell’sdiscussion,at thispoint in thecommentary, is1Thess 4.13-18! Thus, and for reasons not given, Howell has (wrongly) conflated theotherwiseuniqueoccasionsforthetwodistinctletters.

3. There is nothing in the text—let alone nascent Christianity—that would lead to theconclusionthattheThessalonians“wereconvincedtheyhadmissedtherapture”.Notonlyis“therapture”alatertheologicalnotionthrownbackontothetextand(historical)context,but also it is simply not the stated concern of the believers in Thessalonica. On a plain,literal, straightforward reading of the text (i.e., one of the core tenets of Dispensationalhermeneutics), itisclearthattheThessaloniansareconcernedabouttheirdeceasedlovedones remaining dead when Christ returns. Thus, their concern is not with any so-calledrapture;theirconcernisrelatedtothequestionofresurrection.

This above example points to another problem in Howell’s argument: hewill sometimesconfuse the (presupposed) timetable and/or sequence of eschatological events as understoodwithin(older)Dispensationalism.Tostaywiththesameexample,Howellstates:inthelightofthe 25I’m quite tempted to ask: would this repackaging also be exempt from the tendency of churches (and churchleaders)being“onthelookoutforsomenewthingtobreathelifeintothechurch”(239)?

CSSweatman:“ReviewofM.Howell” 16

Thessalonians’fearaboutmissingtheraptureandenduringtheDayofLord,Pauldoestwothings:“ontheonehand,he[points]thembacktothehistoricalfactofthecrossandtheresurrection;ontheotherhand,he[points]themforwardtothepromiseofthegloriousreturnofChrist”(108—emphasisadded).ThenHowellcontends:“Paul[seeks]toquelltheirdoubtsbyunveilingoneofthegreatestpromisesof theChristian faith—thereturnofChrist forHischurch” (108-09).Therearesomebasicproblemshere:

1. OntheDispensationalisttimeline,theso-calledraptureisdistinctfromthe“gloriousreturnofChrist”—theformerreferstoChrist’sinitial,non-terrestrial-touchdown-snatch-believers-away coming while the latter refers to Christ’s final, terrestrial-establish-the-millennial-kingdomcoming.ThisisobviouslyathrowbacktoClassicalDispensationalism,especiallyitsemphasisonatwofoldnotionofChrist’sreturn,forwhichthereisnoscripturalbasis.

2. ThecontextofHowell’sargumentis1Thess4.13-18,which,accordingtohim(andnearlyallDispensationalists),isprimarilyabouttheraptureofthechurch.Yethespecificallystatesthat Paul seeks to direct the Thessalonians’ attention to “the glorious return of Christ”,which,again,isadifferenteschatologicaleventintheDispensationalistscheme.Thus,eitherHowellconfusesthetwoeventsorhe(inexplicably)conflatesthemintoone—amovethatDispensationalistsoftheClassicalandRevised/Modifiedvarietywouldvociferouslyreject.26

3. Butthen,Howellfallsbackintothe(older)Dispensationalistrutbymakingthedistinctionnotonlybetweenthetypesofcomings(i.e.,thetwo-stagereturn)butalsotherecipientsorparticipantsinvolved.BythisImean:theotherwisebenignphrase,“thereturnofChristforHischurch”, in theolderDispensationalist reading, servesasareference toChrist’s initialreturnandraptureofonlythesaints—hence,“forHischurch”(emphasisadded).Thisthenisdistinguishedfromtheso-calledtruefinalreturnwhen,aftertheseven-yeartribulation,Christcomesinfullglory“withthesaints”(see122)—anotionthatisalsotiedtoparticularreadingsofRev19-20,27andsometimeswithJude14.28

Notonlyistheback-and-forth(orpossibleconflation)problematic;soisHowell’srelianceonandadvocacyofthesupposedtwo-stagereturnofChrist.Suchaviewofeschatologicaleventsisbuiltonthenotions of a particular theological system (i.e., ClassicalDispensationalism), fatheredby JohnNelsonDarby,andnotthefoundationsofScripture.Orsaidmoredirectly:despitewhatsomemight

26ForDispensationalistswhomaintain the categorical distinction between the rapture and the glorious return ofChrist, separated by the seven-year tribulation period, see e.g., Lewis S. Chafer, “Dispensationalism,”BibliothecaSacra93.372(1936):405;LewisS.ChaferandJohnF.Walvoord,MajorBibleThemes(GrandRapids:Zondervan,1974),77,83,259, 333, (though cf. 81,where they seem to conflate the two events for theChristian); Tim LaHaye and Thomas Ice,ChartingtheEndTimes(Eugene:HarvestHouse,2001),37-38,43,46,57,65-66,107(cf.esp.112);StanleyD.Toussaint,“IsraelandtheChurchofaTraditionalDispensationalist,” inDarrellL.Bock,etal,ThreeCentralIssuesinContemporaryDispensationalism:AComparisonofTraditionalandProgressiveViews(GrandRapids:Kregal,1999),249;cf.RobertSaucy,ACaseforProgressiveDispensationalism(GrandRapids:Zondervan,1993),272;GordonR.LewisandBruceA.Demarest,Integrative Theology (3 vols. in 1; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 1354; Warren Wiersbe, The Bible ExpositionCommentary:OldTestament.TheProphets:Isaiah–Malachi(ColoradoSprings:DavidC.Cook,2008),313. 27Forabriefsummary(andcritique)ofthisdistinction,seeG.E.Ladd,TheBlessedHope(GrandRapids:Eerdmans,1956),89-92.Someof thekeyproponentsof the idea include: J.N.Darby,CollectedWritingsofJ.N.Darby(ed.W.Kelly;Sunbury:Believer’sBookshelf,1971-72),11:115;L.S.Chafer,MajorBibleThemes(GrandRapids:Zondervan,1974),76-86;W.Kelly,Pamphlets (Sunbury: Believer’s Bookshelf, 1971), 413;G.N.H. Peters,TheTheocraticKingdomofOurLordJesus, theChrist,asCovenanted in theOldTestamentandPresented in theNewTestament(GrandRapids: Kregal, 1952),318;H.A. Ironside,NotWrathButRapture:Or,Will theChurchParticipate in theGreatTribulation?(Neptune: LoizeauxBros,1941),43;J.F.Walvoord,TheRaptureQuestion(GrandRapids:Zondervan,1994),93-95(cf.also193-94). 28H.A.Ironside,TheEpistlesofJohnandJude(GrandRapids:KregalAcademic,1949),175.J.MacArthur,TheSecondComing:SignsofChrist’sReturnandtheEndoftheAge(Wheaton:Crossway,2003),87.

CSSweatman:“ReviewofM.Howell” 17

think,29careful exegesis of the biblical texts will not yield the two-stage return of Christ—asdescribed by either Classical andRevised/ModifiedDispensationalists (points 1 and 3 above) orHowell(points1–3).Onlyeisegesiswilldothat. Another example30where we find confusion in the (assumed) eschatological timetable isHowell’sfurtherdiscussionontheso-calledrapture.In1Thess4.13-18,headheres(inthemain)tothe usual Dispensationalist line concerning the so-called rapture of the church (see 116-24).Specifically, as noted before, he follows the view as espoused by Classical andRevised/ModifiedDispensationalism:Christreturns—butnevertouchesdownontheearth(soit'snottherealsecondcoming;thathappenslater)—rapturesthechurch(i.e., truebelievers), theyallheadofftoheavenforsevenyearswhileallhellbreakslooseupontheworldandtheunluckysodsleftbehind. However,inhisdiscussionon2Thess1.6-12and2.1-12,HowellappearstodepartfromtheusualDispensationalist linewhenhespeaksabout thosewhowillbothexperienceorwitness therevelationofthe“manoflawlessness”andbepresentatthefinal(real)comingofChrist(see198-206and216-32).Howellsaysitwillbethechurch,thebelievers,thefaithful,etc.whoexperiencethis. Insomecases,Howellmakescertainweunderstand thatPaul issaying these thingsdirectlyandspecificallytotheThessalonianbelievers—i.e.,thechurch.But“thechurch”istheaudiencewhowasearlierpromisedaraptureawayfromthisworldatChrist's(not-really-the-)secondcoming. ThisisoddnotonlybecausemostDispensationalistsseethedescriptionof2Thess2.1-12as thatwhichoccursat theendof the tribulationperiod (i.e., sevenyearspost-rapture)and thusinvolvingonlythosenot raptured(i.e.,notthechurch),butalsobecauseHowellhasalreadysaidthechurchwillberapturedprior tothetribulation—àla1Thess4.13-18.Butnowheappearstoarguethatthechurchwillbepresentonearthpost-tribulation.Howarewetoaccountforthis? Moreover,itshouldbenoted,HowelldoesrevertbacktotheusualDispensationalistlinebyseeingthe“restrainer”in2Thess2.6-7astheHolySpirit(see228-29),whichisoccasionallytakenas justification for situating the rapture of 1 Thess 4.13-18 in 2 Thess 2. I'm thinking of DavidDean'sargument inparticular,whomakesasimilarclaim.31Theproblemremains,however:howcantherebebelievers,faithfulfollowersofJesus(ora“church”)post-rapturewhentheHolySpiritis out of theway32—since, theologically speaking, the Spirit ismeans bywhich one is sanctifiedbeforeGod(i.e.,astatusgiventothepeopleofGod)—andthechurch(i.e.,thatwhichiscomprisedofthepeopleofGod)isalreadyinheavenwaitingforthesevenyearsofhell-on-earthtoend? Howellattemptstoaccountforthisbydroppinginarandomandunsubstantiatedassertion:“SincetheHolySpirit isGod,Hisremoval fromthescenedoesnot indicateHiscompleteabsence.Rather, it points to a deliberate lessening of His suppression of evil” (229). From this, I get theimpression that Howell is not only explicitly engaging in interpretative gymnastics but alsoimplicitlyfollowingalineofreasoningsimilartowhatGleasonArcherusesforhismid-tribulationraptureview.33Specifically,Archerdeclares:

29Seee.g.,J.MacArthur,whoseargumentinfavorofatwo-stagereturnisnotonlycircularbutalsoafeebleattemptatprovingthecase:“ScripturesuggeststhattheSecondComingoccursintwostages—firsttheRapture,whenHecomesforthesaintsandtheyarecaughtuptomeetHimintheair(1Thess.4:14-17),andsecond,Hisreturntoearth,whenHecomeswithHis saints (Jude 14) to execute judgment againstHis enemies. Daniel’s seventiethweekmust fallbetweenthosetwoevents.ThatistheonlyscenariothatreconcilestheimminencyofChrist’scomingforHissaintswiththeyet-unfulfilledsingsthatsignalHisfinalgloriousreturnwiththesaints”(SecondComing,87—emphasisoriginal). 30WhatfollowsisaslightadaptionofablogpostIwroteinMay2015—seehttp://wp.me/pgP5B-zQ. 31See"Does2Thessalonians2.1-3ExcludethePretribulationRapture?,"BibliothecaSacra168.670(2011):196-216. 32ThisisallthemoreproblematicwhenwetakeintoconsiderationthenotionoftheblasphemyoftheHolySpirit,wherethepossibilityofreceivingforgiveness(e.g.,salvation)hasadefinitiveend-point—eitherattheperson'slifeortheendoftheage. 33SeeGleasonL.Archer, “TheCase for theMid-SeventiethWeekRapturePosition,” inThreeViewsontheRapture:Pre-,Mid-,orPost-Tribulation(ed.StanleyN.Gundry;GrandRapids:Zondervan,1996),115-45.Isay“implicitly”becauseHowelldoesnotindicateanyknowledgeofArcher’sessay.

CSSweatman:“ReviewofM.Howell” 18

Itisarguedbymostadvocatesofthepre-seventieth-weekRapturetheorythatthereferencein2Thessalonians2:6-7totherestrainingpoweroftheHolySpiritasbeingremovedfromtheworldempireoftheBeastpointstoatotalremovalofthechurchaswell.Thatistosay,theHolySpiritresideswithinthechurchasthespiritualtempleoftheLord(1Peter2:5),astatus thatpertains to each individualbeliever aswell (1Cor6:19). If therefore theHolySpirit is removed from the earthly scene, it necessarily follows that the church will beremovedlikewise.Butamorecarefulexaminationofthetextandofrelatedpassagesmakeit clear that thiswasnot themeaning intendedby thebiblicalauthor. In the firstplace,2Thessalonians2:7-8doesnotsaythattheHolySpiritwillberemovedfromtheworldsceneduring the seventieth week. What it does say is that His restraining influence will beremoved.34

NoticehowArchermakessurethatthisdistinction(i.e.,removalof“restraininginfluence”butnotremovalof[divine]presence)istheexplanationforhowthoseleftbehindareabletoacceptthe gospel during the tribulation period (seeArcher, 127). In the light ofwhatHowell argues, itmight be (something like)35Archer’s distinction that allows him to speak of faithful believers onearthduringapost-rapturebutpre-Millennialreign(i.e.,periodbeforetherealsecondcomingofChrist).WhilethereareamultitudeofissueswithArcher'sargumentandthepossibilityofHowellfollowingorrelyingonit,letmepointoutfourofthemoreproblematic:

1. The arguments of bothArcher andHowell are predicatedon the assumption (one that isneverproven,bytheway)that“restrain”istheappropriatetranslationoftheGreekterm,κατέχω; the failure to acknowledge—let alone interactwith—themore likely translation,“prevail”isunfortunateandunfair.36Orsaidbluntly:it’snotindicativeofcarefulexegesis.

2. ContrarytobothArcherandHowell,itisnever(norcanitbe)proventhattheHolySpiritisthe(so-called)“restrainer” in2Thess2.6-7; toclaimthat it is isnothingbutconjecture—andprotecting such conjecturewith phrases like, “But amore careful examination of thetextandofrelatedpassagesmake itclear”,whentheevidencedoesnotsupporttheclaimmade,isirresponsibleandtransparent.

3. Moreover, a careful examination of the textmakes one thing abundantly clear: Paul, in 2Thess 2.6-7, never names the Holy Spirit and never says anything about a “restraininginfluence”(contraArcher);toreadthetextasthoughitdidisnothingbutaninterpretativetranslationalglossthatsmacksofeisegesis.AllPaulsaysis:καὶνῦντὸκατέχονοἴδατεεἰςτὸἀποκαλυφθῆναιαὐτὸνἐντῷἑαυτοῦκαιρῷ.τὸγὰρμυστήριονἤδηἐνεργεῖταιτῆςἀνομίας·μόνον ὁ κατέχων ἄρτι ἕως ἐκ μέσου γένηται (emphasis added). Even if we accept“restrainer”asthesubject,thefocusofthefinalclauseisontheremovalofhimasanentity(orperson)andnotsomeabstractionassociatedwithhim(i.e.,“restraininginfluence”).

4. But the most glaring problem with the arguments of Archer and Howell is this: from acareful examination of the claims made, it becomes quite clear that the argumentspresentedarenotgiveninservice(letaloneobedience)tothetext;theyareexpressionsofanadvocacyforaparticular(andratheridiosyncratic)theologicalposition.Inotherwords:theyareletting(orallowing)theirtheologytoinfluence—ifnotdetermine—theirexegesis.Andthat'sneveragoodthing.

A final example of Howell’s problematic advocacy of certain Dispensational ideas is the(typically) twinned conceptof the so-called “great tribulation” and the church’s “rescue from the

34Ibid.,126-27. 35Again:Isay“somethinglike”becauseHowelldoesnotindicateanyawarenessofArcher’sessay. 36Seetheearliermentionofthisissue(p.13),aswellasmybriefcritiquehere:http://wp.me/pgP5B-yp.

CSSweatman:“ReviewofM.Howell” 19

dayoftheLord”or“thedayofwrath”andhowthisappliestoChristians,Jews,andtherestoftheworld (i.e., Gentiles, unbelievers). To call these things “twinned” is done on purpose, for, whenreadingtheclaimsofDispensationalists,oneishard-pressedtofindthesetwotopicsdiscussedinisolation. They are intimately joined, and they are joined for one simple reason: their combinedexistence isdependentuponthevalidityof their interrelationship,whichisthenusedasameansforformulatingatheologicalhypothesis(thatotherwisedoesnotexist),whichis itselfdependentupon a separate and unsubstantiated assumption—i.e., there is a clear distinction in how Godunfoldshis salvationplanwith regard to Jews,Christians, andGentiles.But thingsareoftenabitmoreinvolvedthanthissimpleexplanation.Letmeaddresstwopointsrelatedtothisinvolvement,thefirstrequiringalittletimetounfold. Asalreadymentioned,Dispensationalismoperatesontheassumptionthat thechurchwillberapturedawayfromtheearthpriortotheso-called“greattribulation”—aperiodalsoreferredtoas“thedayoftheLord”or“thedayofwrath.”Oneofthe(many)keyproblemswiththisassumptionis thatnowhere intheNTaretheseconceptsheldtogetherasasingleclaimorteaching. Inotherwords:whenPaultalksabouttheso-called“rapture”(onlyonce,bytheway),oneishard-pressedtofind anydiscussion about a so-called “great tribulation” that follows.Moreover,whenboth Jesusand John speak about the so-called “great tribulation” (cf. Mt 24.21-28; Rev 7.9-17), not once isthere anymention of a so-called “rapture” of believers that precedes it.While not substantial ordefinitiveonitsown,thatfactraisesratherbasicconcernsaboutthedecisiontojointhetopicsinanecessarilysequentialmannerandpresentitasabiblicaltruth(asdoDispensationalists—Howellincluded). Wheretheconcernbecomesmorepronouncedisnotonlywhenthetwotopicsare joinedbut also when the underlying assumption about them is given legitimacy. And the underlyingassumptionis:thechurch(i.e.,[true]believers)willbeexemptfromthe“greattribulation”,“thedayof the Lord”, or “the day of wrath” while the rest (i.e., Jews, Gentiles, unbelievers) will be “leftbehind”(toborrowLaHaye’sridiculousnotion)toenduresuchthings.Thisassumptionoperatesonanotherassumption,whichstates: thiswillhappenbecauseGodhaspromisedtokeephischurchfromsuchthings,andGodalwayskeepshispromises.Andwhenoneasks:WhereexactlydoesGodpromise that keeping?Where does it explicitly state that the church will not endure the “greattribulation?”,thetypicalresponseistheversethatusesthosewordsandideas:Rev3.10.37Thistextdeclares:“Becauseyouhavekeptthewordofmyperseverance,Ialsowillkeepyoufromthehouroftrial—thathourwhich isabouttocomeuponthewholeworld, totest thosewhodwellontheearth” (emphasis added). AndDispensationalist, especially of the Classical andRevised/Modifiedvariety, categorically see this promise for (only) Christians as exemption from the “greattribulation”,whichheregetsanewvariant:“thehouroftrial”.Andbybeing“keptfrom”itismeant:takenaway,notinvolved,removedfrom,etc.Raptured. In an attempt to substantiate this understanding of Rev 3.10, appeal is oftenmade to Jn17.15whichissaidtousetheexactsameterminology—i.e.,tobe“keptfrom”.Theproblemswiththissortofconclusionaremany,butthechiefissueistheusualmishandlingofwhatisexactlysaidinboth textswhen theyuse the specific terminology. Inotherwords: ifweaccept the readingofDispensationalistforRev3.10(takenaway,notinvolved,removedfrom,etc.)andapplyittowhatJesus says in Jn17.15,we run into aproblem.And thatproblem is this:when Jesusprays to theFather, “keepthemfrom theevilone”(17.15b—emphasisadded),he isnotasking thatbelieverswillberemovedfromtheworld(or,“theevilone”),andweknowthatbecausethat’showheclearlybeginshisrequest—i.e.,“Idonotaskyou[Father]totakethemoutoftheworld”(17.15a).ButifweapplytheDispensationalistreadingofRev3.10tothisentireverseinJohn,wenotonlymisconstrue

37And,itisworthmentioning,Howellusesthispassageinthiswayseveraltimesinhiscommentary—see121,129,141,224.

CSSweatman:“ReviewofM.Howell” 20

itsmeaningbutalsoignore(ifnotsubvert)theveryclaimsofJesus.38NothinginwhatJesussaysinJn17indicatesthataremovalisinstoreforbelieverswhenallhellbreakslooseontheworldatthe“greattribulation”,“thedayoftheLord”,“thedayofwrath”,“thehouroftrial”,etc.Instead,whathedesires/praysforistheFather’sprotectionforbelieversduringsuchtimes—aprotectionimplicitlydesiredandpromisedinJn17andexplicitlypromisedinRev3.Inotherwords:thehopeisnotforadivineremoval(i.e.,a“rapture”)butadivineshieldorfortification. Moreover,notonlyisthereafailuretorecognizeadisconnectinthelogicwhendealingwithJohn17andRev3,Howell too fails to seehowhis readingultimatelycreatesproblems forothertruthsheadvocates.Orsaiddifferently:Howellfailstoseehowthetruthsheproclaimselsewheremake better sense (exegetically and theological speaking) of the texts that he seeks to use in anefforttoupholdhiscommitmenttoDispensationalistreadings.Tobelessvague,andtosightabasicexample:earlier itwasnotedthatHowellstated,“ThepersonwhohasagenuinefaithinGodwillviewafflictionandsufferingthroughthelensofanenduringhope—notthekindofendurancethatwaitstothankGodwhentrialspass,butthekindofendurancethatthanksGodevenifthetrialdoesnotpass”(189).ItshouldbeobviousthatclaimisincompleteharmonywiththebetterreadingofJn17.15(i.e.,thepromiseofdivineprotection,notdivineremoval).ButwhatHowelldoeswithRev3.10(i.e.,seeingitasatextthatpromisesdivineremoval)notonlyundermineswhathesaysaboutapersonwithgenuinefaithbutalsoquestionsthelegitimacyofGod’spromiseofprotectionduringtryingtimes.39Anotherexample:Howellboldlystates:“BecausetheirnameswereetchedindeliblyintheLamb’sBookofLife(Rev13:8),theywereinnodangerofexperiencingGod’swrath”(236).Ifthereisnodanger,thenthereisnoneedforadivineremoval. Andthatbringsmetothesecondpointneedingtobeaddressed,andthatis:weencounterthesekindsofreadingsandconflictingideasbecausethecommitmentisnottoafairexegesisofthekeypassagesbuttoatheologicalframeworkthatisusedforinterpretingthosepassages.Andthattheologicalframeworkoperatesonthebasisofacommitmenttocertain(unprovenandunjustified)theological presuppositions. This latter commitment is playedwhenwe consider the underlyingassumptionconcerningtheso-called“greattribulation”andwhotakespartinit—aswellaswhois(supposedly)exempt.BythatImean:theneedformakingthekindsofargumentsaboutthe“greattribulation”ispredicatedonanpre-existingbeliefthatassertstwothings:1)thechurchisseparatefromtheJewsandGentilesandwillnotendurethetimeofGod’swrath,aspouredoutontheearthforsevenyearsduringthe“greattribulation”—theJewsandGentilesaretheonewhomustendurethese things, and 2) Christ’s return comes in two stages—i.e., once to remove the church, thus“keepingthemfromthedayofwrath”,andonceatthestartoftheso-called“millennialkingdom.”

38Thomas Ice tries (but fails) toweasel out of this by seeing Jesus prayer in John 17 as having twoparts: “EventhoughthefirsthalfoftheversesaysthatChristwillnottakebelieversoutoftheworld,thesecondhalfsaysthattheywillbetotallyprotectedfromtheevilone(Satan).Themeaningoftereoekisthat‘ChristisprayingthatHisdiscipleswouldbekeptawayfromandoutofthepoweroftheeviloneanditisnotimplyingthat‘theeviloncehadpoweroverthem’(whichisaself-evidenttruth),’notesJohnSproule.SuchastatementbyourLordisinconcertwithwhatJohnsaysinRevelation3:10”(“KeptfromtheHour”,http://www.pre-trib.org/data/pdf/Ice-KeptFromTheHour.pdf[accessed14-Dec-16]).Sorry,butthistypeofreasoningremindsmeoftheexchangebetweenLtDanielKaffeeandColNathanJessupinthefilm,“AFewGoodMen”. Jessup,ontheonehand, issuesanorderforoneMarine(Santiago)nottobetouchedbytheotherMarines,whowouldlovetobeatSantiagobecauseoftheirfeelingsofbetrayalbyhim.But,ontheotherhand,JessupissuesanotherorderforSantiagotobetransferredbecausehislifewillbeindangeroncetheotherMarinesknowthattheyhaveinfactbeenbetrayed.ButifJessup’sordersarealwaysfollowed,ashevehementlydeclares,then(asKaffeepointsout)thereisnoneedfortwoseparateorders—especiallywhenthefirstwouldalleviatetheneedforthesecond. 39What’satouchoddisthatwhenHowellquotesJohn17.14-15,heusesatranslationthatemphasizestheideaof“protection” rather than removal and then states: “There are two very sobering revelations in His request: that JesusknowshowmuchtheworldhatesHisdisciples,andthatJesuswoulddesireforhisdisciplestoremaininanantagonisticworld”(241—emphasisadded).SoifitisJesus’desirethatthedisciplesremain intheworld,andthatGodwillprotectthemduringthatremaining,whywouldtherebeaneedtoremovethemwhenGodpoursouthiswrathontheworld?

CSSweatman:“ReviewofM.Howell” 21

Withregardtothefirstthing:oneflawintheassumptionisthatifGod’swrathispouredoutontheworld(JewsandGentiles)andthechurchhasnotbeenraptured,thenitwillnecessarilybetherecipientsofGod’swrath—butthatdoesn’tmaketheologicalsense(sosayDispensationalists).No, what doesn’tmake theological sense is the (very bad) assumption itself. If God promises toprotecthispeople(i.e.,believers)duringhistimeofjudgment,andifhiswrathispouredoutontheworld(i.e.,non-believers),thenbelievers—byvirtueoftheiridentity(i.e.,nottheworld)anddivineprotection(perJn17.15andRev3.10)—arenottherecipientsofthatwrath;thus,thereisnoneedtoremovethem.Withregardtothesecondthing:thereisnotoneshredoftextualsupportthattellsorevensupportstheideaofatwo-foldreturnofChrist.Theonlyreasonsuchanideaexists—andispromoted—istosustainthebeliefthatChristiansareexemptfromthe“greattribulation”,whichisto last sevenyearsupon theearth, and theonlyway to sustain that belief is to say: inorder forChristianstobeexemptfromthe“greattribulation”,theymustbe“raptured”offtheearth,andthat“rapture” iswhathappenswhenChristcomes forhissaints,butdoesnotcomefully toearth; thefullandfinalcominghappenswhenhecomeswiththesaintatthesecondstageofhisreturn.That’snotexegesis;that’seisegesisandcircular. 3.2.4.EnoughforNowBecauseacritiqueoftheeschatologicalperspectivesespousedinthiscommentarycouldcontinueforquite some time,andbecause this review is longenoughalready, Iwill end thecritiquehere.Sufficeittosay:Howell’seschatologicalconclusionsarenotrootedinafairandhonestexegesisofthe relevant texts (and that’s not referring only to theThessalonian letters); they are contingentuponandultimatelydevotedtoaparticulartheologicalapproachorsystemof interpretation(i.e.,Dispensationalism)thatisconcernedwithsustainingitself,andthenboastinginitsabilitytodoso. 4.ASSESSMENTOne of the commendations inside the cover applauds Howell for “bring[ing] fresh insight andapplication to” the Thessalonians letters. However, and with all due respect, after reading thiscommentary (twice), I struggled to findwhere the accolade “fresh insight” would apply. By andlarge, thebulkofHowellpresentation is fairly standardmaterial andarguments—i.e., it, in somerespects, reflects the general consensus of scholarship on these letters from the past century.Moreover, as indicated above, Howell’s discussions on the eschatological portions of the letterswere hardly newor even groundbreaking. In fact, they are theories and theological speculationsthatcomefromapastDispensationaleraandonethatisnolongerconsidered(theologically)viableamongNTscholars—evenDispensational.Thus,inthesecases,theargumentsarenot“fresh”;theyareinfactratherstale. Sothatbringsmetothefinalquestion(orsetofquestions),onerelatedtotheusefulnessorvalueofthecommentaryasaresourceforbiblicalstudy—eitherforthestudent,thepastor,ortheinterested/educated church-goer. A way to answer this question (or set of questions) is to runthroughthespecificitemsidentifiedastheaimsoftheSeriesingeneralaswellasHowell’saimsinparticular.

• Does the commentary provide pastors and interested/educated churchgoers with anexpositionoftheThessalonianlettersthatis:

o Christocentric:forthemostpart,yes.o Exegeticallybased—i.e.,faithfultothetext:hardly(despite,orcontrarytothepraise

givenbytheendorsersofthebook—e.g.,“powerfullyexegeted”,“stellarexpositions”and“tightexegeticalwork”).

o Missionalinitsapplication:notexplicitly(butthenagain,“missional”isnotclearlydefined—especiallybyHowell).

• Doesthecommentaryachieve:

CSSweatman:“ReviewofM.Howell” 22

o (Relative) conciseness: not comparably so. NTWright’s commentary on the sameletters achieves a better relative conciseness, as do the commentaries ofWilliamBarclay,VincentSmiles,BeverlyGaventa,andespeciallyRobertGundry.

o Relevant discussions of the arguments in the text: for pastors and interested/educatedchurchgoers,possibly;foranyoneelse,sketchyatbest.

o Accessibilitywithout burdening the commentarywith overly detailed or technicaltreatmentsofthepassages:ingeneral,yes;whenentertainingoccasionaltheologicalidiosyncrasies(i.e.,Dispensationalism),no.

• Isthecommentary:o “notacademic”:yes(butthat’snotagoodthing).o Presentedinaneasy-reaching,practical,andfriendlyway:forthemostpart,yes.

• DoesHowell:o ShowtherelevancyoftheThessalonianslettersforthechurchinitscurrentcontext:

forthemostpart,yes.o Givesoundpastoralandlogicaladvice:“pastoral”,yes;“logical”,notalways.o Provide reasonable interpretations of the text related to key topics, such as “end

times”:forthemostpart,yes;foreschatologicaldiscussions,no.• Would I recommend this particular commentary to pastors and interested/educated

churchgoers:notwithoutadisclaimer.

CSSweatman:“ReviewofM.Howell” 23

APPENDIX:LISTOFMINORISSUESAnearlierattemptatcompilingthefollowinglisttriedtoseparatetheissuesintovarioustypesorcategories. Itquicklybecameclearthatsuchanattemptwouldencountertoomanyobstaclesandtoomuchoverlapintheproposedtypes.Thus,Ioptedforasequentialapproach,wherebyInotetheissuesastheyappearfromcovertocover.

• On6,Howell incorrectlyendsa sentence inhisquotationofBonhoeffer.Howell’s versionreads:“Theyturntheirlivingintodying….WheneverChristcallsus…”.Bonhoeffer’sversionreads: “They turn their living into dying;” (emphasis added). Howell should have used anormalellipsis,whichhedoescorrectlyinotherplaces(seee.g.,17,31,78,95,164,248),orsimplyquotedtherestofBonhoeffer’sremarks.

• On12 (cf. also257),Howell namesDavid as the authorof Psalm121, but that particularPsalm is not one normally attributed to David. In fact, it is classified as one of theanonymousPsalms.Howellappearstobeawareofthistypeofclassification,becausewhenhe later quotes from Ps 1, which is also anonymous, he prefaces it with: “The psalmistwrites…”(86).40

• On13,HowellmissesapunctuationmarkwhenquotingfromMacArthur.Howell’sversionreads:“backtoThessalonicainpersonhecouldwrite…”.MacArthur’sversionreads:“backtoThessalonicainperson,hecouldwrite…”(emphasisadded).

• On13,Howell’squotationofMacArthurbegins:“TheHolySpiritshowedPaul…”.However,inMacArthur, it reads: “Shortly afterwards, the Holy Spirit showed Paul…”. Two optionswereavailablehere,neitherofwhichwastaken.First,Howellcould(andshould)haveusedsquarebracketstoindicatethechangehemadetothetext—i.e.,either“[T]heHolySpirit”oreven “[The] Holy Spirit”. It is clear that Howell is aware of the practice of using squarebracketswhenchangesaremade,becausehecorrectlyusestheminotherplaces—seee.g.,17 (x2), 45, 59, 65, 69, 133, 135, 143, 157, 159, 165, 172, 219, 238, 240. Second,Howellcould(andshould)haveleftthecapitalizationalone.It’salsoclearthatHowellisawareofthisbecauseinotherplaceshebeginsthequotationwithoutcapitalizingtheinitialword—seee.g.,42,86,91,103,189.

• On17,HowellinsertsawordinhisquotationofMacArthurbutdoesnotindicatethathehasdone so.Howell’s version reads: “Faithdoesnot comebymerely hearing thosewords oftruth…” (emphasis added). MacArthur’s version simply reads, “Faith does not come byhearingthosewordsoftruth…”.Again,HowellshouldhaveusedsquarebracketstoindicatethechangeorquotedMacArthurexactly.

• On18,whenquotingMacArthur,Howell(strangely)omits threewordswithout indicatingthathehasdoneso.Howell’sversionreads:“wasmuchmorethananreligiousdesignation.”MacArthur’s version reads: “was much more than just a general religious designation”(emphasisadded).Howellshouldhaveeitherusedellipsestosignaltheomissionorquoteditexactly.

• On 20-21, when quoting 1 Cor 13.1-3, Howell removes the formatting found in thetranslationheuses(i.e.,theHCSB).BythisImean:theHCSBhas,forwhateverreason,decidedtoarrangethepassageinpoetic(orhymnic)lines41—twelveinall—yetHowell’squotationreadslikeanordinarytext.This isoddbecause, inotherplaces,wherepoetic(orhymnic)linesareusedintheHCSB,Howellretainstheformatting—seee.g.,86,109-10,cf.132,198-

40HowelldoesthesamewhenhequotesfromPs119—i.e.,“Thepsalmistsays…”(46). 41Fortherecord,IthinktheHCSBisincorrectinthiscaseforstructuringthepassageinthisway.Paul’sargumentinthispassageisneitherpoeticnorhymnic;it’slogical.

CSSweatman:“ReviewofM.Howell” 24

99, 199,42201, 212, 213, 257. Thus, the question is:why the unexplained alteration herewith1Cor13.1-3?

• On21,HowellsuppliesanincorrectpagenumberforhisBarclayquotation.Hegives“218”,butitneedstobe215—butonlyifHowellisusingthe2003editionofBarclay,whichwouldbeodd(andabitofasurprise)sincehedoesnotlistthateditioninhisWorksCitedpage.If,however,heisusingthe1975edition(cf.noteon261below),page218isthefinalportionofBarclay’sanalysisof2Thess3.6-18.Thus,ifusingthe1975edition,thecitationneedstobe186-87.

• On25,Howellmisses a letter/wordwhenquoting fromMarshall.Howell’s version reads:“Weshallneverbuildutopia…”Marshall’sversionreads:“Weshallneverbuildautopia…”(emphasisadded).

• On25,Howell’squotationofStottbegins:“‘Serving’and‘waiting’gotogether…”.However,inStott, it reads: “It is immediatelynoteworthy that ‘serving’and ‘waiting’go together…”.Again, Howell should have used square brackets to indicate the change or left thecapitalizationalone.

• On25,Howellalters theoriginalwordingofStott.Howell’sversionreads: “Thus,workingand waiting go together” (emphasis added). Stott’s version reads: “Thus working andwaitingbelong together” (emphasis added).Once again,Howell shouldhaveused squarebracketstoindicatethechangeorquoteditcorrectly.

• On25,thesecondellipsesindicateanomissionfromStott’soriginalargument.Notonlyistheomissionasinglesentence(i.e.,notlengthy)butalsotheomittedsentencewouldhavehelpedHowell’sfocusabitmore.Thus,itsabsenceisstrange.

• On 25, Howell strangely (and inconsistently) retains the paragraph break found in theoriginal source he quotes. It is strange and inconsistent because he does not always dothis—seee.g.,39,40,46,154.

• On28,whenquotingPhil2.5-8,Howellremovestheformattingfoundinthetranslationheuses(i.e., theHCSB).By this Imean: theHCSBhas, forwhateverreason,decidedtoarrangethepassageinpoetic(orhymnic)lines43—twelveinall—yetHowell’squotationreadslikeanordinarytext.Samequestionasbefore:whytheunexplainedalterationtoPhil2.5-8?

• On30,whenquotinganOTtext,Howellwrites:“hefearlesslydeclared,‘AstheLordlives,Iwill saywhatever the Lord says tome’ (1 Kgs 22:1-14).” Since the quotedmaterial onlycomes from a single verse, andnot the entirepassage (as Howell’s citation indicates), hewouldhavebeenbetter served to cite thingsmoreappropriately—i.e., “(1Kgs22:14)”oreven“(1Kgs22:14;cf.22:1-14)”.

• On32,Howell’squotationofStottreads:“andmercifuljudgethatanyhuman…”(emphasisadded).Stott’sversionreads:“andmercifuljudgethananyhuman…”(emphasisadded).

• On35,HowellaltersthequotationofMark10.45,butdoesnotindicatethathehasdoneso.Howell’sversionreads: “TheSonofMandidnotcome…”Mark’sversionreads: “ForeventheSonofMandidnotcome…”(emphasisadded).

• On37,sinceHowellremovestheemphasisplacedonkeyphrasesfoundinFinzel’sbook,heshouldhaveindicatedthathedidso—i.e.,“emphasisremoved”.

• On37,HowellremovestwowordsfromFinzel’sremarks.Howell’sversionreads:“mustbewillingtolivewithsubmission…”.Finzel’sversionreads:“mustbewillingtolivelivesfilledwithsubmission…”(emphasisadded).Howelleitherneeds to insertanellipsis to indicatethealterationorheneedstoquoteitaccurately.

42Thisseeminglyrepeatedreferencereferstoasecondpassagefoundon199—i.e.,Ps13.1-4. 43Again,IthinktheHCSBisincorrectinthiscaseforstructuringthepassageinthisway,especiallyinthiscase.

CSSweatman:“ReviewofM.Howell” 25

• On39,followingthefirstellipses,Howell’squotationofCarsonreads:“Evensomeofus…”.In Carson, it reads: “Worse, even some of us…” (108). Again, Howell should have usedsquarebracketstoindicatethechangeorleftthecapitalizationalone.

• On39,Carson’spointbeginswith, “Worse,evensomeofus…”,which ispredicatedonhisargumentsprecedingthatpoint,yetHowelloddlyomitsthatprecedinginformation.

• On39-41,HowellcitestwochunksofmaterialfromCarson:thefirstcontaining14linesoftext and the second having 30 lines. But forwhatever reason, Howell provides the exactsamepage-references forbothchunks—i.e., “106-9”.However, the firstquotation ismadeupofdetails fromonly106and108ofCarson,and thesecond is takenonly from108-09.Nothingcomesfrom107.

• On40,Howellalters thecapitalizationof twowords inCarson’squote: “Evangelicals”and“theFall”—bothofwhicharenotcapitalizedinCarson.ThisiseitheratypoonHowell’spartorheneedstousesquarebracketstoindicatethechangehemade,orheneedstoquoteitcorrectly.

• On43,HowellcitesHeb2.1-3,but,technically,hisquotationendswiththefirstpartofverse3. Thus, the reference should be: 2.1-3a. Howell is certainly familiar with this type ofspecificityinquotingfromScripturebecauseheusesitinotherplaces—seee.g.,5,6,10,96,99,100,101,116,159,160,170,205(x2),222,224,44228;cf.31,69,153,184.

• On45,HowellcitesHeb1.1-3,but,technically,hisquotationonlyusesmaterialfrom1.1-2aand3c.Thus,heneedstociteitappropriately.

• On45,whenquotingChapell,Howell’sversionreads:“Thequestiontoaskis:…”.HoweverChapell’s version is: “That is the macro approach. I think the micro approach is toidentify:…”. Either Howell should have used square brackets to indicate the (substantial)changeor,giventhesubstantialdifference,notbotheredwithputtingtheinitialportioninquotationmarks.

• On 49, Howell capitalizes a pronoun incorrectly when quoting from Phillips. Howell’sversion reads: “WhenHe spoke, theyheard…”.This gives the impression that Jesus is theantecedent. However, Phillips’ version reads: “When he spoke, they heard…”, and thecontextclearlyindicatesthattheantecedentisPaul,notJesus.

• On 50, Howell’s syntax is inconsistent when he says: “Like Paul, they no longer countedtheir life to be of any value to themselves…” (50—emphasis added). It should read:“…countedtheirlives…”(unlesshe’sseeingthereferenceasacollective).

• On54,HowellmissesapunctuationmarkwhenquotingfromMacDonald.Howell’sversionreads: “eachweekunsatisfied, even frustratedor grievedby their church…”.MacDonald’sversion reads: “each week unsatisfied, even frustrated or grieved, by their church…”(emphasisadded).

• On 54 (cf. 102), when quoting 1 Peter 2.9, Howell removes the formatting found in thetranslationheuses(i.e.,theHCSB).BythisImean:theHCSBhas,forwhateverreason,decidedto arrange the passage in poetic (or hymnic) lines45—five in all—yet Howell’s quotationreadslikeanordinarytext.Again,thequestionis:whytheunexplainedalterationto1Peter2.9?

• On61,Howellcites1Thess3.1-3,but,technically,hisquotationendswiththefirstpartofverse3.Thus,thereferenceshouldbe:3.1-3a.

44This instance is emphasized because it shows that Howell quotes a span of verses (i.e., 2 Thess 2.9-10a) andindicatesthatheisonlyusingthefirstpartofthefinalversequoted.Inotherwords,itsuggeststhatthemisstepwiththeHebrewsreferenceon43shouldnothavehappened.Although,forwhateverreason,Howell,on227,quotes2Thess2.9-10aexactlyashedoeson224butonlyidentifiesitas“2:9-10”. 45Onceagain,IthinktheHCSBisincorrectinthiscaseforstructuringthepassageinthisway.

CSSweatman:“ReviewofM.Howell” 26

• On63,HowellcitesJohn15.18-20,but,technically,hisquotationendswiththethirdpartofverse20.Thus,thereferenceshouldbe:15.18-20c.

• On68,HowellmisquotesBoundsbyoneword.Howell’sversionreads:“mustbeinthebody,andformthebloodandbones”(emphasisadded).Bounds’versionreads: “mustbe in thebody,andformandbloodandbones”(emphasisadded).

• On 72, Howell’s quotation of Fee begins: “Only the Lord himself…”. Fee’s version begins:“But only the Lord himself…”. Once again, Howell should have used square brackets toindicatethechange,leftthecapitalizationalone,orquotedFeeexactly.

• On74,Howell’s(terrible)analogyofPaulbeing“amasteratputtingthetheologicalcookieson thebottomshelf so that everyone could reach them” is surprisingly close to a remarkmade by Jerry Jenkins when reviewing a book by John Koessler. Jenkins says: “Koesslercomes at it with his remarkable ability to put the theological cookies on the lower shelfwherelaypeoplelikemecanreachthem”.ButnomentionofJenkinsisgiven.

• On76,Howell’squotationofLambertbegins:“Pornographyhasnowchewed…”.Lambert’sversion reads: “Regardless, pornography has now chewed…”. Again, square brackets areneeded,leftthecapitalizationalone,orquotedLambertexactly.

• On79,HowellnamesDavidastheauthorofPsalm42,butthatparticularPsalmisnotonenormally attributed to David. In fact, not only is it traditionally linked with the Sons ofKorah,itisalsoplainlyandclearlyidentifiedassuchintheHCSB.

• On 79, Howell declares: “Thessalonica was a sex-saturated city.” This phrase does notappear to be original with Howell—Paul Felix used almost the exact same wording in200846—yetnoattributionisgivenbyHowell.

• On86,HowellcitesPs1.1-2,but,technically,hisquotationendswiththefirstpartofverse2.Thus,thereferenceshouldbe:1.1-2a.(AndwhyHowellwouldleaveoff2bisratherodd).

• On92,Howell cites Phil 2.14, but, technically, his quotation also includes all of verse 15.Thus,thereferenceshouldbe:2.14-15.(AndHowellisapparentlyawareofthisbecausehequotesaportionofverse15earlieronpages54and82,andcitesitappropriately).

• On94,Howellcites1John3.14,16-19,but,technically,hisquotationendswiththefirsthalfoftheclausethatmakesupverse19.Thus,thereferenceshouldbe:3.14,16-19a.

• On95,HowellreferstoWarrenWiersbetwice,but inthesecond instance(six linesdownfromthefirst)thenameismisspelled:“Weirsbe”.

• On95,Howellcouldhaveavoidedtwoproblemsifhestucktobasiccitationpractices.WhenquotingWiersbe,Howell’sversionreads:“to learnhowtoswim….Andbirdsbynature…”.Problem 1: the period before the ellipsis is unnecessary—not tomention not original toWiersbe.Problem2: the “and” following theellipsis iswronglycapitalized.Howell shouldhavewritten,“tolearnhowtoswim…andbirdsbynature…”.

• On95,HowellremovesanemphasisfoundinWiersbe,buthedoesnotindicatethathehasdoneso.

• On95,Howell’sreferenceforWiersbeistechnicallyincorrect(cf.noteon264below).• On98,HowelltruncatesBruce’swordsbutdoesnotindicatethathehasdoneso.Howell’s

version reads: “adorned the gospelwith their lives aswell as their lips.” Bruce’s versionreads: “adorned the gospel with their lives as well as proclaiming it with their lips”(emphasisadded).

46Felixsays:“Paul’slettertotheyoungbelieverswholivedinthesex-saturatedcityofThessalonicaprovidestheancientbattleplanforhowabrothercanbepureinadirtyworld”—see“LivingAccordingtotheWillofGod:AnAncientBattle Plan for Purity,” in Secret SexWars: A Battle Cry for Purity (ed. Robert Scott Sr.; Chicago: Moody, 2008), 66—emphasisadded.

CSSweatman:“ReviewofM.Howell” 27

• On101,HowellaltersKeller’swordswhenquotinghim.Howell’sversionreads:“Workwasabarrier…”.Keller’sversionreads:“Work,then,wasabarrier…”(emphasisadded).Howellneedstoindicatethathehasmadethechange,orsimplyretainKeller’swording.

• On103,whileHowellattributestheobservationsinthefinalblockquotationtoMarshall,hefailstorecognizethatMarshall—inthatparticularcase—issummarizingErnestBest.

• On112,when quotingMorris,Howell alters the capitalization of a pronounbut does notindicatethathehasdoneso.Howell’sversionreads:“…forthosewhoareinHim.”Morris’versionreads:“…forthosewhoareinhim.”IamassumingthatHowellmistypedbecauseinotherinstanceswherethelower-casespellingisusedbythequotedsource,heretainsit—seee.g.,6,10,31,72,162,186,206,229.

• On 118, when quoting 1 Cor 15.51-52, Howell removes the formatting found in thetranslationheuses(i.e.,theHCSB).BythisImean:theHCSBhas,forwhateverreason,decidedto arrange thepassage inpoetic (orhymnic) lines47—eight in all—yetHowell’squotationreads likeanordinary text. Samequestionasbefore:why theunexplainedalteration to1Cor15.51-52?

• On120n.14,HowellaltersMorris’quotewithout indicating thathehasdoneso.Howell’sversionreads:“theBiblewasnotwrittentosatisfyourcuriosity”(emphasisadded).Morris’versionreads:“theBiblewasnotwrittentogratifyourcuriosity”(emphasisadded).

• On 123, Howell forgets to capitalize the start of a new sentence. It reads: “…and noteschatological.wemaywish…”(emphasisadded).

• On131,andsimilartotheWiersbeexample,HowellreferstoJohnMacArthurtwice,butinthesecondinstance(fivelinesdownfromthefirst)thenamereads:“Macarthur”.IneveryotheruseofMacArthur’sname,Howellspellsitcorrectly.

• On131,whenquotingfromMacArthur,Howelloverlooksahyphen.Howell’sversionreads:“date setting, clock watching, or sign seeking.” MacArthur’s version reads: “date setting,clock-watching,orsignseeking”(emphasisadded).

• On132,Howellmistakenly capitalizes a pronoun intended to refer toPaul, notGod—i.e.,“quitesimilartowhatwesayinchapter4whereHetoldthem…”needstobe“wherehetoldthem”(emphasisadded).PaulisnotGod.

• On132,whenquotingAmos5.18-20,Howellappearstousehisownformattingvis-à-vistheone found in the translationheuses (i.e., theHCSB).By this Imean: theHCSBarranges thepassageastenpoeticlines,yetHowell’squotationseemstobearrangedaccordingtoverse-numbers and it reads like an ordinary text. In otherwords: the poetic structuring of theoriginalisskewedinHowell’squotationofit.

• On 137,when quotingMatt 25.37-39, Howell alters the final punctuation of verse 39, asgiven intheHCSB.Hisversionreads:“Sothis is thewaythecomingof theSonofManwillbe.”However,by includingverse40,Matthew’sversion(intheHCSB)reads:“Sothis istheway the comingof theSonofManwillbe:Then twomenwillbe in the field:onewillbetaken and one left.” While I side with Howell’s decision to make the alteration (mainlybecauseitfollowstheGreekbetterinthiscase),hestillshouldhaveindicatedthechange,oratleastquotedtherestofthepassage.

• On138,whenquotingRom13.11-14,Howellmakes changes to thepassagebutdoesnotindicate that he has done so. Howell’s version reads: “Knowing the time,…”. The originalversionreads:“Besidesthis,knowingthetime,…”(emphasisadded).

• On139,HowellbeginshisquotationofCalvinwith:“Castingoffthecares…”.Calvin’sversionreads:“Thatis,castingoffthecares…”.Howellshouldhaveusedsquarebracketstoindicatethechangehemadeorleftthecapitalizationalone.

47Again,IthinktheHCSBisincorrectinthiscaseforstructuringthepassageinthisway.

CSSweatman:“ReviewofM.Howell” 28

• On148,Howellcites1Cor6.9-11,but,technically,hisquotationbeginswiththesecondpartofverse9.Thus,thereferenceshouldbe:6.9b-11.

• On148,“flounder”needtobechangedto“founder”.• On150,Howellcites1Peter5.1-3,but,technically,hisquotationbeginswiththefinalpart

ofverse1.Thus,thereferenceshouldbe:5.1c-3.• On 150, following the ellipses, Howell’s quotation of Beale reads: “Church leaders…”. In

Beale, it reads: “Similarly, church leaders…”(emphasisadded).Thus,Howellshouldhaveusedsquarebracketstoindicatethechangehemadeorleftthecapitalizationalone.

• On150,intheoriginal,Bealesuppliesemphasistokeywords,yetHowellremovesit.Thattooshouldhavebeennotedasachange—i.e.,“emphasisremoved”.

• On 150, similar to the Carson issue noted above, Howell cites 7 lines from Beale andidentifiesitascomingfrompage“160”.However,inBeale,thematerialthatHowellquotesspans160-61.

• On151,HowellstrangelyusesBruce’sinitialsinthein-textcitation—i.e.,“F.F.Bruce”.Thisisdonerightafterthementionof“F.F.Bruce”precedingthequotation.Innearlyeveryothercase(thoughcf.noteson154,231below),Howellonlyuseslastnamesintheparentheses.Theissueisnotsimplyoneofconsistency,butwhytheinconsistency?

• On153,HowellalterstwothingsfromBarnes’remarks,butdidnotindicatethathedidso.Following the ellipsis, Howell’s version reads: “They are to ‘know’ and regard him…”.Barnes’versionreads:“Andtheyareto‘know’orregardhim…”(emphasisadded).

• On 154, Howell again uses first and last names in the in-text citation—i.e., “RichardDeHaan”—ratherthansimplythelastname.

• On161,HowellincorrectlyendsasentenceinhisquotationofBatterson—i.e.,“Wehavenotbecause we ask not. . . . The greatest tragedy…”. In the original, it reads: “We have notbecause we ask not,…” (emphasis added). Howell should have used a normal ellipsis orsimplyquotedtherestofBatterson’sremarks.48

• On162,Howell cites “Calvin,1and2Thessalonians, 297” for the source of his quotation.However, the specific source hementions—i.e., the one edited byMcGrath and Packer—doesnotcontainpage297.Infact,thateditionisbarelyover110pages.However,theothercommentary for Thessalonians that Howell cites—i.e., the one edited by Pringle—isconsiderablylonger.Thus,itwouldseemthatHowellmistakenlycitedtheMcGrath-Packeredition,whenhemeanttocitetheeditionbyPringle.

• On164(cf. also262),Howellmissesanemphasis inKaiser’s (first) title.Howell’sversionreads:TheChristianandtheOldTestament.Kaiser’sversionofthetitlereads:TheChristianandthe“Old”Testament(emphasisadded).

• On 165, Howell (oddly) provides an unnecessary alteration to his quotation of Calvin.Howell’sversionreads: “firstexamining it…[and]headmonishes them…”.Calvin’sversionreads:“firstexamining it;and,ontheotherhand,headmonishes…”. In fact,HowellwouldhavebeenbetterservedtoquotetheentireargumentfromCalvin,whichisreallynotthatlong,ratherthantruncateitandprovidingunnecessaryalterations.

• On172,whenquotingMorris,Howellaltersthecapitalizationofoneword.Howell’sversionreads: “stand before the eternal judge.” Morris’ version reads: “stand before the eternalJudge” (emphasis added). Either Howellmistyped or he needs to use square brackets toindicatethechange.

48Personally,IwouldhaveleftBatterson’sidiosyncraticviewsoutoftheequationalltogetherandsimplyreferredto(orquoted)James4.2,whichisclearlyBatterson’sinspiration(eventhoughhedoesn’tsayso).However,itmightbegoodthatHowellchosenottoquotetherestofBatterson’swords,becausewhatBattersonsaysnext—i.e.,“ormaybeIshouldsay,wehavenotbecausewecirclenot”—isbothridiculousandself-promoting.

CSSweatman:“ReviewofM.Howell” 29

• On174,HowellcitesPhil3.20-21,but,technically,hisquotationendswiththefirstpartofverse21.Thus,thereferenceshouldbe:3.20-21a.

• On174,whenquotingPolhill,Howelloddlyaltersthecapitalizationof the first twooutoffivepronounsforGod—i.e.,hemakesthemupper-case.InPolhill’sversion,allofthemarelower-case.However,Howellgivesnoindicationthathemadesuchchanges.

• On 178-79, when quoting Rom 8.35-39, Howell removes the formatting found in thetranslationheuses(i.e.,theHCSB).BythisImean:theHCSBhas,forwhateverreason,decidedtoarrangethepassageinpoetic(orhymnic)lines49—fifteeninall—yetHowell’squotationreadslikeanordinarytext.Samequestionasbefore:whytheunexplainedalterationtoRom8.35-39?

• On187,HowellsuppliesanincorrectpagenumberforhisBarclayquotation.Hegives“243”,butitneedstobe244—butonlyifHowellisusingthe2003editionofBarclay,whichwouldbeodd(andabitofasurprise)sincehedoesnothavethateditionlistedinhisWorksCitedpage.If,however,heisusingthe1975edition(cf.noteon261below),thereisnopage244,for thecommentary in thateditionendsonpage219.Thus, ifusing the1975edition, thecitationneedstobe209.

• On 187, Howell quotation of Barclay is poorly done. Here are the two together, withHowell’sversiongivenfirst(withhighlightedpointstonotice)andBarclay’s(1975version)comingsecond(withdifferencesemphasized):

o “Paul’sanswerwasnot topush them into thesloughofdespondbyagreeingwiththem; itwas to pick out their virtues and their achievements in such away, thatthesedespondent,frightenedChristianswouldsquaretheirshouldersandflingbacktheirheadsandsay,‘WellifPaulthinksthatofus,we’llmakeafightofit.’”

o “Paul’s answer was not to push them further into the slough of despond bypessimisticallyagreeingwiththembuttopickouttheirvirtuesandachievementsin such a way that these despondent, frightened Christiansmight square theirshouldersandsay,‘Well,ifPaulthinksthatofuswe’llmakeafightofityet.’”50

• On187-88,whenquoting James2.14-18, forwhateverreason,Howelldoesnot retain theparagraphbreaksas assignedby the translationheuses (i.e., HCSB).Up to thispoint (andexcluding thepoetic [orhymnic] instancesalreadynoted),hehas followed theparagraphdivisionsoftheHCSBwithoutfail—seee.g.,58,75,84-85,94,127.Whythechangenow?

• On189,HowellagainsuppliesanincorrectpagenumberforhisBarclayquotation.Hegives“244”,butitneedstobe245—butonlyifHowellisusingthe2003editionofBarclay,whichwouldbeodd(andabitofasurprise)sincehedoesnothavethateditionlistedinhisWorksCitedpage.If,however,heisusingthe1975edition(cf.noteon261below),thereisnopage244,forthecommentaryinthateditionendsonpage219.Thus,ifusingthe1975edition,thecitationneedstobe210.

• On189,HowellonceagainquotesBarclayinapoorfashion.Herearethetwotogether,withHowell’sversiongivenfirst(withhighlightedpointstonotice)andBarclay’s(1975version)comingsecond(withdifferencesemphasized):

o “describesthespiritwhichdoesnotonlypatientlyendure[sic]thecircumstancesinwhich it finds itself;butwhichmasters themanduses themtostrengthen itsown

49Again,IthinktheHCSBisincorrectinthiscaseforstructuringthepassageinthisway. 50The2003editionisonlyslightlydifferentfromthe1975version:“Paul’sanswerwasnottopushthemfurtherintoastateofdespairbypessimisticallyagreeingwiththembuttohighlighttheirvirtuesandachievementsinsuchawaythatthesedespondent,frightenedChristiansmightsquaretheirshouldersandsay:‘Well,ifPaulthinksthatofus,we’llmakeafightof it yet.’ ” (244—emphasisadded).WhereHowell gothisversion,with itsparticular (andpeculiar)wording is amystery.

CSSweatman:“ReviewofM.Howell” 30

nerve and sinew. It accepts the blows of life, but in accepting them it transformsthemintosteppingstonestonewachievement.”

o “describes the spirit which not only endures the circumstances in which it findsitselfbutmastersthem.Itacceptstheblowsoflifebutinacceptingthemtransformsthemintosteppingstonestonewachievement.”51

• On190,Howellcites2Cor12.9-10,but,technically,hebeginsthequotationwiththefourthpartofverse9.Thus,thereferenceshouldbe:12.9d-10.

• On 191, Howell alters Stott’s words when quoting him. Howell’s version reads: “It takesspiritualdiscernment…”.Stott’sversionreads:“Ofcourseittakesspiritualdiscernment…”.Howell should have either used square brackets to indicate the change or retained thecapitalizationoftheoriginal.

• On192,HowellremovesawordfromStott’sremarks,buthedoesnotindicatethathehasdone so. Howell’s version reads: “inveigh against God and the miscarriage of justice…”.Stott’s version reads: “inveigh against God and against the miscarriage of justice…”(emphasisadded).

• On192,whenquoting Stott, on line 6Howell (oddly) alters the capitalization of the firstpronounforGod—i.e.,hemakesitupper-case—butdoesnotindicatethathehasdoneso.InStott,andtherestofHowell’squotationofhim,allofthepronounsarelower-case.

• On 192-93, when quoting from Philippians, Howell cites it as “Phil 1:27-29”. However,technically,Howellbarelyusesverse27—i.e.,onlytheopeningclause.52Thus, thepassageneedstobecitedas:“Phil1.27a,28-29”.

• On193,whenquotingMorris,Howellaltersthewording.Howell’sversionreads:“…livesofHis people as He ‘uses tribulations to bring His own people to perfection’ ” (emphasisadded).Morris’versionreads:“ItispartofGod’srighteousjudgmenttousetribulationstobringHisownpeopletoperfection”(firstemphasisoriginal;secondemphasisadded).

• On 193, Howell (oddly) inserts a hard return after “Grant” and before “1 and 2Thessalonians”.Theredoesnotappeartobeanyreasonorneedforthis.Howellmightsaythiswasdonetokeepthetitleofthebookononelineratherthanseparatingit.Ifthatisthecase, then Howell is inconsistent in following this practice, for he separates similarreferencestoasimilartitleinotherplaces—seee.g.,16,158,206,210,231(x2),254;cf.24,62,82,91,142,204,209,231,237,252.

• On 194, when quoting Keller, Howell removes the quotation marks original to Keller.Howell’sversionreads:“somesufferingisgivennottocorrectpastwrongsbuttopreventfutureones(asinthecase…)”.Keller’sversionreads:“somesufferingisgiven‘nottocorrectpastwrongsbuttopreventfutureones’(asinthecase…)”(emphasisadded).

• On198-99,whenquotingHab1.2-3,Howellappearstousehisownformattingvis-à-vistheone found in the translationheuses (i.e., theHCSB).By this Imean: theHCSBarranges thepassage as eight poetic lines, yet Howell’s quotation seems to be arranged according toverse-numbers(butnotentirelyso)anditreadslikeanordinarytext.Inotherwords:thepoetic structuring of the original is skewed in Howell’s quotation of it. Oddly enough:HowellfollowstheHCSBstructuringforPs13.1-4,whichcomesrightafterHab1.2-3.

51The2003editionisonlymarginallydifferentfromthe1975version:“describesthespiritwhichnotonlyenduresthe circumstances in which it finds itself over overcomes them. It accepts the blows of life but in accepting themtransformsthemintosteppingstonestonewachievement.”Fromfurtherresearch,itappearsasthoughHowellobtainedhisrenditionofBarclay’squotationfromMarkDunagan’sonlinecommentary,forbothhisandDunagan’sversionofthequote contain the exact same words and errors—see www.studylight.org/commentaries/dun/view.cgi?bk=2th&ch=1(accessed27-May-2015). 52Thankfully,andrightly,HowellleavesofftheHCSB’soddintroductoryphrase:“Justonething:”.

CSSweatman:“ReviewofM.Howell” 31

• On201,HowellcitesIsa46.9-10,but,technically,hisquotationbeginswiththesecondpartofverse9.Thus,thereferenceshouldbe:46.9b-10.

• On203,whenquotingRev21.3-4,Howellremovestheformattingfoundinthetranslationheuses(i.e.,theHCSB).BythisImean:theHCSBhas,forwhateverreason,decidedtoarrangethepassageinpoetic(orhymnic)lines53—nineinall—yetHowell’squotationreadslikeanordinarytext.Samequestionasbefore:whytheunexplainedalterationtoRev21.3-4?

• On203,HowellcitesRev21.3-4,but,technically,hisquotationbeginswiththesecondpartofverse3.Thus,thereferenceshouldbe:21.3a-4.

• On204,whenquoting Stott, on line 3Howell (oddly) alters the capitalization of the firstpronounforGod—i.e.,hemakesitupper-case—butdoesnotindicatethathehasdoneso.InStott,andtherestofHowell’squotationofhim,allofthepronounsarelower-case.

• On 204, Howell incorrectly ends a sentence when quoting Stott. Howell’s version reads:“whichglowstemporarily….Wewillbe…”.Stott’sversionreads:“whichglowstemporarily,onlytobecomedark…”(emphasisadded).

• On 204, Howell alters and truncates Stott’s words when quoting him. Howell’s versionreads:“intohislikeness….Wewillglowforever…”(emphasisadded).Stott’sversionreads:“intohis likeness.Andinourtransformationhisglorywillbeseeninus,forwewillglowforever…”(emphasisadded).

• On 204, Howell overlooks a punctuation mark found in Calvin. Howell’s version reads:“gloryforhimselfalonebutitwill…”.Calvin’sversionreads:“gloryforhimselfalone,butitwill…”(emphasisadded).

• On 204, Howell alters Calvin’s quote without indicating that he has done so. Howell’sversion reads: “all the saints…. When the Son of God…”. Calvin’s version reads: “all thesaints….willbethatwhentheSonofGod…”(emphasisadded).

• On 204, when quoting Calvin, on line 3 Howell (oddly) alters the capitalization of firstpronounforGod—i.e.,hemakesitupper-case—butdoesnotindicatethathehasmadethechange.InCalvin,andtherestofHowell’squotationofhim,allofthepronounsarelower-case.

• On210,HowellwronglypunctuatedPhillips’ final sentence.Howell (oddly)usesaperiodwhenit(clearly)shouldbeaquestionmark.

• On 212, when quoting 1 Peter 2.21-23, Howell removes the formatting found in thetranslationheuses(i.e.,theHCSB).BythisImean:theHCSBhas,forwhateverreason,decidedtoarrangethepassageinpoetic(orhymnic)lines54—eleveninall—yetHowell’squotationreads likeanordinary text. Samequestionasbefore:why theunexplainedalteration to1Peter2.21-23?

• On 213, when quoting Ps 16.9-11, for whatever reason, Howell adds paragraph breakswheretheydonotexistintheHCSBrendering.

• On216,Howellcites2Thess2.4,9-10,but,technically,hisquotationendswiththefirstpartofverse10.Thus,thereferenceshouldbe:2.4,9-10a.

• On218,Howellcites2Thess2.1-3,but,technically,hisquotationendswiththefirstpartofverse3.Thus,thereferenceshouldbe:2.1-3a.

• On229,HowellaltersBeale’squotewithoutindicatingthathehasdoneso.Howell’sversionbegins:“ItisclearthatGod…”.Beale’sversionbegins:“Additionally,itisclearthatGod…”.

• On 229, Howell removes two points of emphasis in Beale’s quotations, but he does notindicatethathehasdoneso.

53Again,IthinktheHCSBisincorrectinthiscaseforstructuringthepassageinthisway. 54Again,IthinktheHCSBisincorrectinthiscaseforstructuringthepassageinthisway,especiallyinthiscase.

CSSweatman:“ReviewofM.Howell” 32

• On231,HowellstrangelyusesMayhue’s firstname in the in-textcitation—thisrightafterthementionofthefirstnameprecedingthequotation.Innearlyeveryothercase(sans151and154,asnotedabove),Howellonlyuseslastnames.

• On232,whenquotingMorris,Howell (oddly)alters thecapitalizationofall thepronounsfor God—i.e., he makes them upper-case—and does not indicate that he has made thatchange. InMorris, all of them are lower-case. (This is not counting the one that begins asentence).

• On237,whenquotingStott,Howellaltersthecapitalizationof“antichrist”—i.e.,hemakesitlower-case—but he does not indicate that he has made that change. In Stott, it reads,“Antichrist.”ThisseemstobedoneoutofHowell’spreferencetouselower-casespellingforthistitle,becausethatishowheconsistentlydoesit—seee.g.,215,227,228,229,230(sansthe heading), 235, 256. Although, for whatever reason, Howell retains the upper-casespellingwhenhequotesfromMacArthuron227.

• On 241, when quoting John 17.14-15, Howell removes the formatting found in thetranslationheuses(i.e.,theHCSB).BythisImean:theHCSBhas,forwhateverreason,decidedtoarrangethepassage inpoetic(orhymnic) lines55—seveninall—yetHowell’squotationreads likeanordinary text.Again, thequestion is:whytheunexplainedalteration to John17.14-15?

• On241,“anubiquitousfoe”needstobe“aubiquitousfoe”(emphasisadded)• On244-45,Howellcites2Cor1.8-11,but,technically,hisquotationendswiththefirstpart

ofverse11.Thus,thereferenceshouldbe:1.8-11a.• On247,whenquotingFee,Howellmissestwopunctuationmarks.Howell’sversionreads:

“the casewith the letter as awhole and therewouldbe…”. Fee’s version reads: “the casewiththeletter,asawhole,andtherewouldbe…”(emphasisadded).

• On248,Howellcites1Thess4.10-12,but,technically,hisquotationbeginswiththesecondpartofverse10.Thus,thereferenceshouldbe:4.10b-12.

• On 249, Howell alters theMorris quotewithout indicating that he has done so. Howell’sversionbegins:“Nopreachingofthegospel…”.Morris’versionreads:“yet itremainstruethatnopreachingofthegospel…”(emphasisadded).

• On252,whencitingWills’article,Howellsuppliesthewrongpagereference.Hegives“270”,butthequotationcomesfromp.155.(Page270isrightneartheendoftheScriptureIndexinthebook).Howellisawareoftheoriginalpage-rangebecausehe(correctly)suppliesitintheWorksCitedpage.

• On253,asimilaroccurrencehappenswhenHowellcitesSchreiner’sarticle—whichappearsin the same book asWills’ article. For Schreiner’s, Howell supplies the page reference as“225” (which, in the book, is the start of the Name Index). It needs to be “129.” Howellknows this because, in the Works Cited page, he supplies the correct page-range forSchreiner’sarticle.

• On 254, Howell incorrectly cites his reference as “Green, Letters, 355”. The quotation heusesbeginsonpage354.

• On 255, same problem as the Schreiner reference on 253. Howell cites “220-21” as hisreference,butitneedstobe“126-27”.

• On256,whenquotingFee,Howell(incorrectly)altersthecapitalizationofaword,butdoesnotindicatethathehasmadethechange.Howell’sversionreads:“theoverallChristologicalfocus…”. Fee’s version reads: “the overall christological focus…”. When used adjectively,“christological”islower-case.

55Onceagain,IthinktheHCSBisincorrectinthiscaseforstructuringthepassageinthisway.

CSSweatman:“ReviewofM.Howell” 33

• On261,Howell ismissingakeybibliographicdetail for theAristotleentry.OnlyW.RhysRobertsislistedasthetranslator.However,thespecificbookHowellcitesistranslatedbyboth Roberts and “IngramBywater” (with an introduction byEdwardP.J. Corbett). SinceHowellisreferencingtheentirebook,andnotjusttheRhetoricportion(whichistranslatedbyRoberts),fulldetailsneedtobesupplied.

• On 261, Howell supplies incorrect information about Barclay’s book. Howell lists it as,“Barclay, William. The Letters to the Philippians, Colossians, and Philemon.” Instead of“Philemon”itneedstobe“Thessalonians.”(PhilemonwaslinkedwiththePastoralEpistles).Moreover,Howellsuppliesanincorrectpublicationdateforthecommentary.IntheLibraryofCongresscatalogue,therearefiveentriesforBarclayin1957;notoneofthemistheworkHowellcites.TheBritishLibrarycatalogueliststhreebookspublishedin1957;onceagain,not one of them is what Howell cites. There is, however, a revised 1975 edition of TheLetters to the Philippians, Colossians, and Thessalonians. But that revision is the result ofpulling threeotherwise separatelypublishedvolumes together andmaking thema singlevolume.

• On 261, Howell needs to supply better (andmore accurate) bibliographic details for theBarnesentry—e.g.,specifictitle,volume,edition.

• On 261, Howell needs to supply better (andmore accurate) bibliographic details for theBeale entry. It lacks: “The IVP New Testament Commentary Series. Book 13.” In similarentries (e.g., Bruce, Fee,Grant,Green,MacArthur,Martin,Mayhue,Morris [x2], Patterson,Phillips,Ryrie,Wiersbe),whereseriesdetailsareneeded,Howellsuppliesthem.

• On 261, Howell needs to supply better (andmore accurate) bibliographic details for theBonhoefferentry.Followingthetitle,itlacks:“Vol.4ofDietrichBonhoefferWorks.”Howellisnot unaware of this, for his supplies similar information in other places—see e.g., theentriesforPhillips(thesecondone)andWiersbe.

• On 261, Howell needs to supply better (andmore accurate) bibliographic details for theBoundsentry—e.g.,edition/reprint(sincethebookwasoriginallypublishedin1906!).

• On261, forwhateverreasonHowellswitchestheorderof thetwoentries forCalvin—i.e.,he places the older book second. In every other instance (sans Kaiser, Phillips) wheremultiple entries appear for a given author, Howell (rightly) arranges them in ascendingorder—seetheentriesforBarclay,Keller,Lewis,MacArthur,Morris.

• On262,HowellneedtoprovidecorrectpublisheridentificationfortheFinzelentry.Howellcitesitas:“ThomasNelson”,butthefrontmatterinFinzel’sbookclearlysays,“WPublishingGroup”(whichis“aDivisionofThomasNelson,Inc”).

• On262,forwhateverreasonHowellusestheinformal“Stan”forthe(second)Gundryentry,whereas the book clearly identifies him as, “Stanley N.” Rules of citation specify that anauthor’snameneedstobequotedasitappearsonthebook.

• On 262, Howell needs to supply better (andmore accurate) bibliographic details for theHiebertentry—i.e.,hefailstoindicatethatthebookisasecondrevisededitionofthe1971edition. Howell is not unaware of this need, for his supplies similar information in otherplaces—seee.g.,theentriesforEricksonandRyrie.

• On262,Howell(strangely)leavesoffthe“Jr.”inKaiser’sname,whichisordinarilyfoundonKaiser’sbooks.ThisisstrangebecauseHowellincludesitwhenhereferstoJamesH.Grant,Jr.

• On 262, Howell misses an emphasis in Kaiser’s (first) title. Howell’s version reads: TheChristian and the Old Testament. Kaiser’s version reads: The Christian and the “Old”Testament(emphasisadded).

• On 262, Howell needs to supply better (andmore accurate) bibliographic details for thesecondKaiserentry—i.e.,hefailstoindicatethatthebookinquestionisareprint.

CSSweatman:“ReviewofM.Howell” 34

• On262, forwhateverreasonHowellswitchestheorderofthetwoentriesforKaiser—i.e.,he places the older book second. In every other instance (sans Calvin, Phillips) wheremultiple entries appear for a given author, Howell (rightly) arranges them in ascendingorder—seetheentriesforBarclay,Keller,Lewis,MacArthur,Morris.

• On262,HowelloddlysuppliesthemiddleinitialforKeller’sname.Thisisoddbecausenotonly is the initialmissingon thebook (though it is supplied in the frontmatter)but alsobecauseKelleralmostalwaysdoesnotincludeitonhisbooks.

• On262,HowellstrangelyabbreviatesthepublisherfortheLawlorentry—i.e.,hegivesitas,“P&R”—when the book clearly states it as, “Presbyterian and Reformed PublishingCompany”. Howell also fails to supply the series details for this book, which are: “AnInternationalLibraryofPhilosophyandTheology:BiblicalandTheologicalStudies.”

• On263,Howellleavesoffthesecondhalfofthetitleforthe(first)Lewisentry.Itneedstosay:GodintheDock:EssaysonTheologyandEthics.Inotherplaceswhereataglineisusedinthe title, Howell retains it—see e.g., the entries for Barclay (the second one), Batterson,Finzel,Grant,R.Gundry,S.Gundry,Kaiser(thesecondone),Keller(thefirsttwo),Lambert,MacArthur (the third one), MacDonald, Mayhue, Morris (the first one), Paton, Phillips,Schreiner,Stott,Swindoll,Tozer,Wiersbe,Wills.

• On 263, Howell needs to supply better (andmore accurate) bibliographic details for the(second)Lewisentry—i.e.,hefailstoindicatewhichedition/reprintheisusing,seeingthattheoriginalwaspublishedin1944.

• On263,Howell punctuates the tagline toMacDonald’s book incorrectly.Howell’s versionreads:WhatEveryHeartLongsFor,WhatEveryChurchNeeds.MacDonald’s version reads:WhatEveryHeartLongsFor.WhatEveryChurchNeeds(emphasisadded).

• On263,HowellleavesoffthesecondhalfofthetitlefortheMartinentry.Itneedstosay:AnExegeticalandTheologicalExpositionofHolyScripture.

• On 263, Howell needs to supply better (andmore accurate) bibliographic details for theMayhueentry—i.e.,hefailstoindicatethebookisareprintofthe1999edition.

• On263,HowellstrangelydecidestospelloutMoreland’sfirstandmiddlename—i.e.,“JamesPorter”. Not only is this at odds with how his name is cited on the book that Howellmentions,itisalsoinconsistentwithhowMorelandpreferstocitehisownname.

• On 263, Howell needs to supply better (andmore accurate) bibliographic details for the(first)Morrisentry—i.e.,hefailstoindicatethebookisanewprinting/editionofthe1956edition.

• On 263, Howell needs to supply better (andmore accurate) bibliographic details for the(second)Morris entry—i.e., he fails to indicate the book is a revised edition of the 1959edition.

• On 263, Howell needs to supply better (andmore accurate) bibliographic details for thePatonentry—i.e.,hefailstoindicatethatheisusingthe12thedition.

• On264,forwhateverreasonHowellswitchestheorderofthetwoentriesforPhillips—i.e.,he places the older book second. In every other instance (sans Calvin, Kaiser) wheremultiple entries appear for a given author, Howell (rightly) arranges them in ascendingorder—seetheentriesforBarclay,Keller,Lewis,MacArthur,Morris.

• On 264, Howell needs to supply better (andmore accurate) bibliographic details for theRieneckerandRogersentry—e.g.,numberofvolumes(orwhichoneused),translationandeditorialmention,theadditionof“Jr.”toRogers’name.

CSSweatman:“ReviewofM.Howell” 35

• On 264, for the Schreiner entry:while the back cover of theHemmett-Merkle book says,B&HAcademic (though not specifically),56the frontmatter indicates that the publisher is“B&HPublishingGroup.”Thus,Howellneedstocitethingsappropriatelyandcorrectly.

• On 264, Howell punctuates Tozer’s book title incorrectly. Howell’s version reads: TheKnowledgeoftheHoly:TheAttributesofGod,TheirMeaningintheChristianLife (emphasisadded). Tozer’s version reads: The Knowledge of the Holy: The Attributes of God: TheirMeaningintheChristianLife(emphasisadded).

• On264,HowellprovidesnomentionofWannamaker’scommentaryintheWorksCited,yethiscommentaryiscitedon170.

• On 264, Howell’s formatting for the Wiersbe entry is incorrect. The title that Howellprovides—i.e., Be Ready: Living in Light of Christ’s Return—is not found in the 2-volumework he cites. That specific title is used only when Wiersbe commentary on 1-2Thessappearsasitsownpublication.Inthe2-volumeworkthatHowellmentions,thattitleisnon-existent.Thus,ifhe’sgoingtousethe2-volumeworkashissource,theentryneedstoread:“1, 2 Thessalonians.” Pages 155–208 in volume 2 of The Bible Exposition Commentary.Wheaton:Victor,1989.

• On264,fortheWillsentry,HowelldoesthesamethingaswiththeSchreinerentry.• On266,thepagenumberforPs24:4-5isnotitalicized.• On271,thepagenumberfor1Thess1:9-10isnotitalicized.• On272,thepagenumberfor1Thess3:2-5isnotitalicized.

FinalThoughtIntheopeningpagesofthecommentary,whereasamplingofpraiseforitcanbefound,onepersonwrites: “I am confident that after reading this exposition you, like theThessalonians themselves,willwelcomeit‘notasahumanmessage,butasittrulyis,themessageofGod’(1Thess2:13).”Withallduerespect,notonly is thisunnecessary flattery, it isalsoapoorcomparisonandanuntruth.ThegospelmessagethatPaulproclaimedtotheThessalonianswasdivinelyinspiredandrevealed;Howell’streatmentisneither.ThelettersthatPaulwrotewerealsodivinelyinspiredandrevealed,and most certainly inerrant; Howell’s commentary is none of those. Moreover, both the gospelmessage and Paul’s letters are free from the amount, kind, and degree of speculation,inconsistences,anderrorsthatoneeasilyfindsinthiscommentary.Thus,oncecannotwelcomethiscommentaryas “themessageofGod”; it ismerely themessageofaman.Tosuggestotherwise ispatentlyabsurd.So,O.S.Hawkins:shameonyou.

56In fact, theonlymentionofB&HAcademic is thewebsiteprovided,which,oddlyenough,appears insmallprintbelowtheconsiderablylargerB&HPublishingGrouplogo.