Remnant, Edom, AD 70

Some reflections based on an ETS talk by Edward Meadors on Romans 9-11. Meadors suggested that “Esau” in Romans 9 refers to Esau as the patriarch of Edom, well-known for its opposition to Israel throughout the centuries. That is Malachi’s focus in the passage Paul cites. And this . . . . Continue Reading »

Incarnational revelation

Westminster OT professor Pete Enns has been a friend since he taught me German at seminary nearly twenty years ago, and as editor of the Westminster Journal he regularly published my work. I have raised questions to him in private in the past, and we have had our friendly disagreements. I offer the . . . . Continue Reading »

Cleanse, consecrate, atone

Jay Sklar of Covenant Seminary carefully examined the uses of various terms for cleansing, consecrating, and atonement, particularly aiming to distinguish “atone” (Heb kpr) from the others. He took aim particularly at Milgrom’s claim that kipper “means purge and nothing . . . . Continue Reading »

Eternity in the heart

Brian Gault gave a carefully-argued paper on the meaning of “ha-olam” in Ecclesiastes 3:11 - normally translated as “eternity.” Gault ran through a number of possible interpretations of the verse, finally suggesting a repointing leads to a translation as . . . . Continue Reading »

Vestigia trinitatis

Keith Johnson gave a solid exposition of Augustine’s views on the vestigia trinitatis in an ETS session this morning. He argued that Augustine is not using the vestigia to prove the Trinity or as a “second root” (Barth) in addition to the economic revelation of the Trinity. In . . . . Continue Reading »

True Toleration

J. Budziszewski gave a sharply argued and spryly humorous deconstruction of liberalism’s neutralist view of tolerance, arguing that liberal states are confessional states that pretend not to be and that liberalism leads to a disguised dictatorship (a plenary ETS session). He suggested that a . . . . Continue Reading »


No doubt it goes without saying after the previous few posts, but Latour’s anthropological assessment of modernity provides a lot of ammo for a study of modernity that would treat it as the creation of a purity culture, as dirt-avoidance. . . . . Continue Reading »

Heidegger in his woods

Latour is tired of being accused of having forgotten Being, and offers this clever brush-off of Heidegger: “If, scorning empiricism, you opt out of the exact sciences, then the human sciences,, then traditional philosophy, then the sciences of language, and you hunker down in your forest - . . . . Continue Reading »


Postmoderns, Latour suggests, think they are still modern, but in fact they have greatly oversimplified the modern Constitution. Postmoderns might emphasize the separation of subject and world, and stretch that opposition to a breaking point (Latour vividly describes them as doing the splits to . . . . Continue Reading »

Modern temporality

In his very good section on modern temporality, Latour argues that modernity assumes that everything in the present, modern moment, is purely modern, novel. Anything that appears that is not up-to-date is a “archaism,” and moderns worry constantly that this or that event or trend might . . . . Continue Reading »