Peter H. Davids is Visiting Professor of Theology at Houston Baptist University and Visiting Professor of Bible and Applied Theology at Houston Graduate School of Theology. Davids has written commentaries on James (NIGTC), 1 Peter (NICNT), and 2 Peter & Jude (PNTC) in addition to numerous articles and a few special studies related to these books. Now, he builds on that extensive background to author A Theology of James, Peter, and Jude: Living in The Light of The Coming King in the Biblical Theology of The New Testament series (see also John’s Gospel and Letters and Luke and Acts).

The opening chapter introduces common themes and issues related to these four general epistles. Davids explains that his book is “primarily a theological readings of the texts,” but is also “a theological reading informed by a social-rhetorical understanding of the texts – that is, what the texts meant in the context of their original cultural settings, as best this can be determined” (23). Before getting to that, Davids rounds out the introductory chapter by highlighting common theological threads between the books.

Each of the remaining chapters tackles a book in turn. 1 Peter receives the longest treatment, but each book takes at least 50 pages of space (with Jude being the shortest chapter). Davids follows a common format chapter to chapter. He begins with a bibliography, then looks very briefly at recent scholarship on the book in question, before mapping out introductory issues. The heart of each chapter is a literary-theological reading of the book which is then followed by a section on the important theological themes that have emerged from this reading, as well as the book’s canonical contributions.

Readers may be curious to note how Davids handles the authorship question of the books. For James, he says, “It is therefore our conclusion that the best explanation of the data is that the letter of James was written shortly after the death of James, the brother of Jesus, making use of sermons and sayings stemming from James (and/or Jesus)” (41). In framing it this way, Davids is attributing the actual writing down of the letter to someone else, but attributing the substance to James. Because of this, throughout the commentary itself, he refers to James as if he were the actual writer of the letter.

Davids makes a similar move when it comes to 1 Peter. Here he says, “We are talking about something closer to an anonymous ghostwriter” He adds:

With our lack of a detailed biography of Peter and especially of the impression he made on educated people during his later ministry, we cannot prove or disprove that Peter could have written this work with the help of some type of amanuensis. The degree to which Peter was or was not involved becomes, then, a matter of faith that is either supported or not supported by the historical context of the letter; as we will discuss later, it is supported if the historical context of the letter could have taken place in Peter’s lifetime. (109)

Concerning this latter qualification, Davids lays out the evidence for the letter being written during Peter’s lifetime, in which case he would be the author but we are hearing his voice through a composer that is more ghostwriter than scribe. He contrasts this with the evidence for the letter originating in the Flavian period (late 1st century, after Peter’s death), in which case Peter would be the inspiration for the contents but not the dictator or directly involved in the writing. He concludes that noting in the letter demands either conclusion and therefore it is a matter of theological conviction and weighing of historical evidence.

In comparing 1 Peter and 2 Peter on the question of authorship, Davids states, “the one responsible for the style, the relationship to the Hebrew Scriptures, and the philosophical sophistication of 2 Peter is different from the one responsible for 1 Peter” (194). While Davids notes that the majority position in the “nonevangelical” world is that 2 Peter is a clearly pseudapigraphal letter, Davids suggests that another entirely reasonable option if one doubts Peter could have written the letters is that 2 Peter, as well as 1 Peter, could have been written after Peter’s death as a testament to what he would have said in the particular circumstances. This I suppose would be suggesting that the letter is in the spirit of Peter’s preaching and teaching and thus attached to his apostolic authority even if not directly authored by him. More conservative evangelicals will probably like neither of these options, but the latter at least preserves a clear connection to Peter and removes the hint of deception in the writing of the letter.

When it comes to Jude, Davids says, “There seems to be no good reason for someone writing under a pseudonym to choose Jude; there would be good reasons not to choose Jude, for the author of such a letter in any area where Jude was known as uneducated (assuming he was uneducated), and also good reasons for choosing a better known leader (even a deceased leader, such as James)” (256-257). In commenting later on the literary style of the book, Davids notes, “[The writer of Jude] has heard the Scriptures read; their reading has influenced the language of his community. As a result, Semitisms, creep into his style. He is probably unaware of it. Conscious quotation would mean that he would have to be aware, but linguistic influence often operates on the unconscious level” (263). From this vantage point, Jude, though he may uneducated in the classical sense, may very well have heard enough Scripture that it influenced his rhetorical style but did not allow conscious or direct quotations.It would seem that this opens the possibility that Jude stands in relation to the letter bearing his name in the same way Peter does with 1 Peter (as argued above).

There are of course other points of interest, but I’ve always been curious about the authorship question and Davids’ arguments were stimulating. I’m not sure if I’m prepared to abandon the traditional attributions, but if I were, I would opt for Davids’ route that keeps the historical person closely connected to the written project. I would like to do more research on the nature of authorship in general in the ancient world, which from what I can tell, is significantly different than our understanding. There are also issues of apostolic authority, but the letters may not need to have come directly from an apostle’s hand so much as represent the apostles’s teaching which is authoritative. In any case, the issues here are far more complex than with the disputed Pauline letters and are worth looking into further.

If you are interested in studying these particular books further, or are interested in thematic biblical theological reading of New Testament letters, this book is for you. Davids has an easy to follow style when dissecting scholarly arguments and is an able guide through these four books. Especially since they tend to get neglected in New Testament studies, this book can fill in a missing gap in your understanding if you’ve spent most of your time vacillating between Paul and the Gospels.

Peter H. Davids, A Theology of James, Peter, and Jude: Living in The Light of The Coming King (Biblical Theology of The New Testament)Grand Rapids: Zondervan, October 2014. 352  pp. Hardcover, $39.99.

Buy itAmazon | Westminster

Visit the publisher’s page

Read an excerpt

Thanks to Zondervan for the review copy!

While there are many commentaries series that focus on the New Testament only, there are not an equal number that do so for the Old. A few years back, Zondervan introduced its Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament series. Now, they’ve added a new series for the Old Testament: Hearing The Message of Scripture. Rather than simply being a cloned version for the Old Testament, this series has a slightly different layout and purpose.

First, each section of the book being commented upon follows this outline:

  • The Main Idea of The Passage
  • Literary Context
  • Translation and Outline
  • Structure and Literary Form
  • Explanation of the Text
  • Canonical and Practical Significance

Attentive readers will notice that this looks very similar, except for maybe the latter section which is not exactly synonymous with Theology in Application like ZECNT uses. However, in the Series Introduction, series editor Daniel Block explains:

The way in which this series treats biblical books will be uneven. Commentators on smaller books will have sufficient scope to answer fully each of the issues listed above on each unit of the text. However, limitations of space preclude full treatment of every text for the larger books. Instead, commentators will guide readers through ## 1-4 and 6 for every literary unit, but “Full Explanation of the Text” (#5) will be selective, generally limited to twelve to fifteen literary units deemed most critical for hearing the message of the book (11).

As you can see then, the focus is not necessarily on exegeting each and every individual verse in the book. Rather, the focus is on grasping the general big picture message of the book through selective detailed analysis of the particulars.

One of the ways this plays out is that unlike the ZECNT series which generally breaks up the Explanation section verse by verse with English then Greek, there is no Hebrew in the print edition (there is in the electronic). There are select transliterations, but you do not see verse by verse laid out in the original Hebrew in the explanation sections.


Another way this plays out, and this is seen in the inaugural volume written by Daniel Block himself, is that a book like Obadiah gets a very detailed treatment. Other than I think the Anchor Bible commentary series, I don’t know of an Old Testament commentary series with a single volume on Obadiah. Instead, he always gets bundled with adjacent books in the minor prophets, or in a kind of miscellaneous collection of leftovers (e.g. the NIVAC volume). Here, Obadiah gets full treatment with a rather extensive introduction (20+ pages) highlighting the background to the book, the rhetorical aims and strategy of Obadiah, and a detailed look at the structure of the book. Then for the next 60 or so pages, the commentary proper on Obadiah follows.

In many ways, it was an excellent strategy to introduce this commentary series with a single volume on the shortest book in the Old Testament. It helps to immediately set it apart from other traditional series, and in addition, the format chosen works particularly well for a detailed study of a minor prophet. Considering how neglected the minor prophets can be in Christian preaching and teaching (besides Jonah, see below), with a commentary like this on your shelf, it would be easy to put together a fairly significant small group Bible study for 6 weeks that just focused on Obadiah. I say 6 weeks because Block divides the book into 5 key sections and then concludes the commentary as a whole with the aforementioned section on canonical and practical significance (instead of making it a section at the end of each chapter). If I happen to try that, I’ll let you know how it goes.

Daniel I. Block, Obadiah: The Kingship Belongs to YHWH (Hearing The Message of Scripture: A Commentary on The Old Testament). Grand Rapids: Zondervan, January 2014. 128 pp. Hardcover, $19.99.

Buy itAmazon

Visit the publisher’s page

Thanks to Zondervan for the review copy!


In addition to the volume on Obadiah, Zondervan also released the volume on Jonah at the outset. It would have been to nice to have a book from a different section of the Old Testament, but Jonah is sufficiently different from the rest of the minor prophets to stand out. Rather than a string of oracles, the book is a short narrative, and a commentary like this is perfect for the kind of analysis it needs, as Kevin Youngblood, associate professor of Biblical Studies at Harding University explains:

Jonah was selected as the subject of one of the first volumes for the series because it contains a relatively brief narrative in the style of classical Hebrew, a genre in which many of the greatest advances and the most assured results of text linguistic analysis have been achieved. In addition, the book contains a psalm suitable for piloting a text linguistic approach to the exegesis of Hebrew poetry (13).

So, by releasing these two volumes early, we are able to see how the series handles prophecy, narrative, and poetry. In his introduction proper, Youngblood digs into the canonical and historical context of Jonah, as well as the book’s rich literary context. One of my biggest surprises in seminary was during Hebrew II when I learned that Jonah wasn’t really a kid’s story about a big fish but was a tightly structured literary masterpiece full of irony, wordplay, and intense theological wrestling.

I have tried with varying success to pass these insights along to 9th graders. If I were going to spend more focused time on the book of Jonah in the course of my class, this is the commentary I’d go to. Youngblood divides the book up into 7 subsections, and each follows the above outlined format. Unlike Block’s book, Youngblood offers extended canonical and practical reflections at the end of each subsection rather than the book as a whole. This makes more sense given the content of Jonah, and also makes the study more usable in preaching and teaching contexts.

On the whole, though I’ve been brief about Jonah in particular, I’d highly recommend picking up this volume specifically if you want to check out this commentary series. Not to say there isn’t that much below the surface in Obadiah, but much of the wordplay and nuance in Jonah is inaccessible if you don’t know Hebrew. This volume helps you out and ties Jonah into a broader theological context for many of the issues the book raises. In addition, it has the advantages of honing Youngblood’s text linguistic approach in on the fine literary work that Jonah is. If this volume is any indication, you’ll want to keep an eye out for future releases as they become available.

Kevin J. Youngblood, Jonah: God’s Scandalous Mercy (Hearing The Message of Scripture: A Commentary on The Old Testament). Grand Rapids: Zondervan, January 2014. 192 pp. Hardcover, $29.99.

Buy itAmazon

Visit the publisher’s page

Thanks to Zondervan for the review copy!

1, 2, & 3 John (ZECNT)

December 16, 2014 — Leave a comment


At this point, I think I’ve commented on every volume in the Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament series:

Except of course for the two most recent volumes on 1, 2, 3 John and Mark. I’ll get to Mark later on down the road, but today we’ll look at the volume on John’s letters. This contribution comes from Karen Jobes, who is the Gerald F. Hawthorne Professor of New Testament Greek and Exegesis at Wheaton College and Graduate School. In addition to this volume, she has also written commentaries on Esther (NIVAC) and 1 Peter (BECNT).

To get a feel for the general flow of this commentary series, you should read this post as well as my review of James (linked above). Jobes volume sticks to the standard form, only altering it slightly because of the books she is commenting upon. She provides an introduction to the 3 letters as a whole before starting into the commentary on 1 John. Then, she offers specific short introductions to 2 John before its commentary, and then the same for 3 John. Then she offers a section summarizing the theology of John’s letters as a whole.

In her preface (13-14), Jobes gives 4 distinctives of her particular work on John’s letters:

  • It works under the assumption that the author of these letters was either the same as the Fourth Gospel, or a close associate
  • It understands the metaphors, images, and theology in the letters by using the Gospel of John as an interpretive framework
  • It does not assume an extended compositional history for John’s Gospel and so does not lean on sources whose interpretations rely on those reconstructions
  • It does not attempt to reconstruct a specific heresy behind 1 John, but assumes the truths in the letter could speak to a variety of issues

Jobes’ introduction to the letters as a whole is short, and is followed by a briefer orientation to 1 John specifically before the commentary proper. Along the way, Jobes delves into the following In-Depth sidebars:

  • Messiah or Christ? (on 1 John 1:1-4)
  • The Johannine Dualistic Framework (on 1 John 1:5-10)
  • “Truth” in John’s Letters (on 1 John 1:5-10)
  • Being of God in John’s Letters (on 1 John 2:15-17)
  • The “World” in John’s Letters (on 1 John 2:15-17)
  • “Love” in John’s Letters (on 1 John 4:7-16)
  • How the Johannine Comma Happened (on 1 John 5:4-13)
  • What We Know (on 1 John 5:14-21)
  • Which Gaius? (on 3 John 1-4)
  • What Was the Problem with Diotrephes? (on 3 John 9-11)

As you can see, many of the flashpoints are covered. In addition to all this, I found Jobes’ Theology in Application sections helpful because they often wrestle with the tension between being loving to others and calling out false beliefs. She notes frequently that although we see these activities to be in tension, there doesn’t seem to be the same issue for John. For some reason, I hadn’t really thought of it this way before, but John talks quite a bit about love and is very adamant of having right beliefs about who God is and what he had done. Though Jobes does not go into extensive detail on the actual practical outworkings, she makes a compelling case in several places that pointing out false beliefs is not antithetical to loving one another. Certainly one could go about it in an un-loving way, but the activity itself should stem from care about the beliefs and soul of the other person and a concern for their understanding of God. Jobes uses the Theology in Application sections to provide brief helpful theological scaffolding for doing this.

While this not the only commentary out there on 1 John, the layout in which it is presented and the wisdom that Jobes offers makes it a good one to consider for your library. If you are teaching or preaching through the book, you’ll benefit from the way this commentary series introduces each section of the text. The comments themselves provide enough explanation to be helpful but not exhaustive for most pastors, and the Theology in Application sections offer instructive direction for moving into concrete exhortations. I would probably situate it between Colin Kruse (PNTC) and Robert Yarbrough (BECNT) and would make those my three go-to volumes on these particular New Testament books (though I hope to eventually add I. Howard Marshall’s volume in the NICNT series). Jobes is a bit more substantial than Kruse but not as extensive as Yarbrough (or other technical commentary series). This volume has the added advantage of the practical focal point, which isn’t necessarily absent from volumes in the PNTC and BECNT series, but isn’t designed to be a specific feature in the outline of the commentary. If you’d like that balance of material in a single volume, you should consider picking this up!

Karen Jobes, 1, 2, & 3 John (Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the NT)Grand Rapids: Zondervan, February 2014. 368 pp. Hardcover, $34.99.

Buy itAmazon | Westminster

Visit the publisher’s page

Thanks to Zondervan for the review copy!

They actually have a whole album of Christmas songs if that’s your jam, and you can check out their label’s Christmas album that just came out.


A couple months back as I was browsing the Wipf & Stock website, looking through Princeton Theological Monograph Series titles, this book caught my eye. Written by Melanie Dobson, a Methodist pastor with a Th.D in theology from Duke, Health as a Virtue: Thomas Aquinas and The Practice of Habits of Health is a book that uses wisdom from the past for practical theology in the present. I’m finding myself more and more interested in habit formation, and since I teach a health class (read: P.E.) at school, this seemed worth the read.

As I got into it, I discovered Dobson writes as someone who struggles with a chronic illness (ix). During her doctoral work, she was struck by Aquinas making frequent references to “health” in a section of his writings on Habit. Her basic argument is that Aquinas understands health as part of the moral life (ix). In the book, she not only fleshes this out, but she provides evidence of field research she completed involved a Clergy Health Initiative program in the UMC, as well as an evangelical organization called Word Made Flesh. She conducted interviews with participants in both of these programs to see if Aquinas’ insights actually worked. As she concludes her preface,

I offer to you, my readers, not a quick-fix diet book or exercise plan for greater physical health. To practice health as a virtue in accordance with Aquinas’s thinking engages all of our being. However, flourishing with God is worth the moral effort. May you be well. (x)

From here, after brief acknowledgements, she launches into the first part of the book. The opening chapter briefly recounts her personal journey, setting the stage for groundwork in Aristotle in chapter 2. With this foundation laid, she moves to Aquinas’ account of habit in general (chapter 3), and his writing on health in particular (chapter 4). In this latter chapter she correlates the seven aspects of habit with Aquinas’ thought on health. For Aquinas, habits

  • Have a lasting quality
  • Orient to action
  • Bear repeating
  • Increase, decrease, and are corruptible
  • Constitute virtue
  • Can be infused by God
  • Have a telos

She notes in conclusion:

Aquinas adopts, adapts, and elaborates upon Aristotelian philosophy of habit and health to develop his own moral strategy. Aquinas offers dual meanings of health that allow both for health to be a status, and a habit. Health as a status retains no moral component, and fluctuates dependent upon a person’s heredity, immune system, and constitution. At the same time health can comprise part of a virtuous life as a person cultivates lasting habits in order to care for her wellbeing (38).

She goes on to clarify by way of summary that health for Aquinas is not synonymous with the WHO definition, salvation, the summum bonum, or an idol. From here, Dobson moves to a section of four chapters that take this notion of habit and health and apply it into several areas. She starts with the interface of body and soul (chapter 5), before exploring our passions/desires and their relationship to our health (chapter 6). Then, she examines the actions of habits of health (chapter 7) before finishing out the first part of the book looking at the end or telos of habits of health. The final section of the book details her two case studies mentioned above before a brief concluding chapter.

Though I’ve done some reading on healthy living and practical theology, I think this is the first book that is rigorously theological in its approach to health. There is much wisdom to be found in Aquinas on habit formation, so this makes for a helpful read to orient you to health in theological perspective. Because Dobson lives with a chronic illness herself, she doesn’t present the insights as if they will guarantee you won’t get sick or struggle with a disease. Rather, she present health as a habit of the body and soul that one lives out in spite of sickness and disease. Not everyone who gets sick is living an unhealthy lifestyle and not everyone who seems healthy on the outside actually is. Dobson’s work will help provide a theological framework for thinking about this topic, as well as open avenues for further exploration.

Melanie L. Dobson, Health as a Virtue: Thomas Aquinas and The Practice of Habits of Health (Princeton Theological Monograph Series). Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, June 2014. 170 pp. Paperback,$20.00.

Buy itAmazon

Read an excerpt

Visit the publisher’s page

Thanks to Pickwick Publications for the review copy!


If you remember yesterday’s review, Lincoln Harvey ended his book on sports with suggested further avenues for exploration. Although Marcia W. Mount Shoop didn’t take Harvey’s advice to heart before writing, she is definitely tracking down one of his avenues and then some. In her recent book, Touchdowns For Jesus And Other Signs of Apocalypse: Lifting the Veil on Big-Time Sports, Shoop takes on just about every controversial issue related to sports. As a brief overview, here’s her own video previewing the book:

This book is risky indeed. But, it’s worth checking out if you’re a fan of football, particularly the collegiate variety. Shoop’s opening chapter is similar to the above video. The following chapter unpacks more what the idea is behind a true apocalypse. If you knew that the last book of the Bible could be called “The Apocalypse of Jesus Christ” as well as “Revelations,” then you already know the connection. As she explains, “Apocalypse literally means lifting the veil. Apocalypse means seeing the truth about who we are, and seeing the truth about the nature of redemption” (10). The redemption is necessary because there are demonic distortions in the world of big time sports (who knew?) and in successive chapters, Shoop looks at how that plays out in fanaticism (chapter 3), gender inequalities (chapter 4), race (chapter 5), higher education (chapter 6), and religion (chapter 7). The final chapter offers some insights for the way forward.

I found the middle chapters (4-6), which are kind of the meat of the book, the most interesting and instructive from my perspective. As male, I’m not often aware of gender inequalities in sports since I always participated as a guy. As a Caucasian, race is not on the forefront of my mind either when it comes to sports. It is in this chapter as well that Shoop offers insightful (and incisive) commentary on the NCAA sanctions against UNC’s football program that went down a couple years back. She writes with an inside perspective since her husband was on the coaching staff at that time. Much of the critiques runs over into the following chapter on the interface of higher education and big time sports. For the unfamiliar reader, it can be quite the apocalyptic unveiling of the way the NCAA functions.

In general, this book to achieve the task of unveiling very well. Part of this was the choice of subject matter, which helped me think more deeply about certain aspects of my love for sports. The other part was that it is written from a perspective significantly different than mine. Shoop writes as the wife of a football coach, who is also an ordained minister and has a Ph.D in religious studies. This combination (theologian married to football coach) is not something you come across everyday (as she herself notes). And while we’re probably not on the same page theologically for some issues, I appreciated her thoughtful analysis in many places. For readers interested in exploring the ethical dimensions further of big time sports, particularly college football, this book should be on your to-read list.

Marcia W. Mount Shoop, Touchdowns For Jesus And Other Signs of Apocalypse: Lifting the Veil on Big-Time SportsEugene, OR: Cascade Books, July 2014. 134 pp. Paperback, $16.00.

Buy itAmazon

Read an excerpt

Visit the publisher’s page

Thanks to Cascade Books for the review copy!


Lincoln Harvey is Lecturer in Systematic Theology at St. Mellitus College, London. Earlier this year he published A Brief Theology of Sport. Peter Leithart already reviewed it, and Harvey offered a response. I’m going to comment on it here briefly, and then hopefully you’ll get a copy for yourself and read it and enjoy.

Although this book could easily be a Saturday afternoon read, it is not particularly light reading. It’s a slim volume that offers both Historical (Part 1) and Analytical (Part 2) soundings. In the historical section, Harvey runs from ancient to modern conceptions of sport in just over 50 pages. His opening chapter on the ancient conception argues that both sport and religion are universal and that inevitably they are intertwined. The following chapter details Greco-Roman understandings before turning to the early church’s response in chapter 3. As you might imagine, if sport and religion are intertwined, and early Christians were critical of the Greco-Roman religious activities, then they were also not big sports fans to say the least. Similar attitudes can be found in the medieval church (chapter 4), as well as the infamous Puritans (chapter 5), although noticeable shifts in the attitude toward sport did occur in both periods.

With the historical soundings in place, Harvey takes another 50 or so pages to complete his analytical task. In the opening chapter, Harvey moves toward a working definition of “sport,” noting that it is a sub-species of “play.” The latter is “a radically contingent, self-contained and utterly absorbing, unnecessary-yet-meaningful activity” (69). “Sport” is part of the sub-species of “games,” though is not identical to them. Games are a rule bound type of play (70), and sport is one genre of games. With all this in mind, Harvey turns in the following chapter toward the development a Christian theology of sport. Here, he draws a connection between play as “unnecessary-yet-meaningful” activities and our own existence as “unnecessary-yet-meaningful” creatures (84). The next chapter elaborates on this and so begins explicating a theology of sport proper. He ultimately suggests sport as a kind of liturgy of our most basic identity as “unnecessary-yet-meaningful” creatures (93). He likewise makes a sharp distinction between worship and sport, and that is a point that Leithart criticizes and to which Harvey responds.

The final two chapters, still part of Part 2, offer seven avenues for further explorations and some concluding comments. Harvey suggests taking the proposal that “sport is a liturgy of the creature’s contingnecy” (101), and applying its explanatory power to the following areas of study:

  • Rules (“By mapping sport onto contingency in the way we have, we get a clear idea of the value of rules in sport.” 101)
  • Competition (“Is competition really compatible with the Christian life?” 101)
  • Idolatry (“Sport will always be a perfect arena for idolatrous self-worship. It easily slips into the pagan (self-) worship of nature.” 103)
  • Sport and war (“[O]n a properly Christian reading of creation, war would be much better understood as a fallen state of sport rather than sport being seen as a domesticated form of war.” 104)
  • Professional sport (“Our theological analysis shows that sport should not be professionalized, any more than worship should be professionalized.” 104)
  • Gender and sport (“The corrupted nature of sport is again evidenced in the undervaluing – and denigration – of women’s sports historically.” 105)
  • Good and bad sport (“By linking sport to our  created being in the context of a fallen world, we have created some space for judging between sports.” 106)

As Harvey says in his concluding chapter, “Thinking through the question of sport has helped me appreciate why I love football so much. It has helped me see football for what it is. It is a chance for me to bounce up against my meaningful non-necessity” (111). Hopefully, if you are interested in sports yourself, and football in the American sense, this will be the effect of reading Harvey’s work for you as well. His book is not the final word on the topic, but it is excellently researched and probes the topic from angles that many have not. The endnotes following each chapter provide many avenues for additional reading, since this book will probably whet your appetite for further study.

But, like sport, Harvey’s book can be read as an end in itself. That is, it can be read as a way to give you a general orientation to sports in Christian theological perspective. It can be a way for you to enjoy playing and watching sports to the glory of God, knowing that it is an unnecessary, yet meaningful activity for you as a creature to partake in. But, if you really like sports, you’ll want to explore further and Harvey’s book will help set you along the right track.

Lincoln Harvey, A Brief Theology of Sport. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, April 2014. 152 pp. Paperback, $17.00.

Buy itAmazon

Visit the publisher’s page

Thanks to Cascade Books for the review copy!

It’s been a while since Monday has been metal, so here you go. Haken is London-based progressive metal group. This track is the first off their recently released Restoration EP.

Though I wouldn’t buy Derrida’s deconstruction wholesale, he does kind of have a point, right?