Five Things Biblical Scholars Wish Theologians Knew

by Scot McKnight, Hans Boersma (Foreword)

The disciplines of biblical studies and theology should serve each other, and they should serve both the church and the academy together. But the relationship between them is often marked by misunderstandings, methodological differences, and cross-discipline tension. New Testament scholar Scot McKnight here highlights five things he wishes theologians knew about biblical studies. In a companion volume, theologian Hans Boersma reflects on five things he wishes biblical scholars knew about theology. With an irenic spirit as well as honesty about differences that remain, McKnight and Boersma seek to foster understanding between their disciplines through these books so they might once again collaborate with one another.

Genres: Theology, Biblical Studies, Christian Non Fiction, Nonfiction, Christian, Christianity, Religion

184 pages, Paperback

Published September 7, 2021

About the author

Scot McKnight is a recognized authority on the New Testament, early Christianity, and the historical Jesus. McKnight, author or editor of forty books, is the Professor of New Testament at Northern Seminary in Lombard, IL. Dr. McKnight has given interviews on radios across the nation, has appeared on television, and is regularly speaks at local churches, conferences, colleges, and seminaries in the USA and abroad. Dr. McKnight obtained his Ph.D. at the University of Nottingham (1986).

Reviews

[Josh Olds · Rating 5 out of 5]

Have you ever listened in on a conversation with two people who were definitely smarter than you? Like, you were smart enough to follow the conversation and understand most of what was being said, but in no way were you prepared to interject yourself into the conversation at all? That’s how I felt through most of the Five Things duology by Scot McKnight and Hans Boersma. The series is written from one profession to the other, with the goal of the two interconnected but often disparate fields finding common ground and learning from the other.

McKnight pens Five Things Biblical Scholars Wish Theologians Knew while Boersma pens the opposite Five Things Theologians Wish Biblical Scholars Knew. This a bold project because it’s very much within a niche. One side is obviously writing to biblical scholars. The other side is obviously writing to theologians. And if you’re outside those camps, you’re really just a third-party looking in. But as an interested third-party, let me say that I came away from these books with a greater understanding of each profession, how they differ, and how they can supplement and support the other.

First off, I should probably define the difference between the biblical scholar and the theologian. Frankly, if you don’t already know the difference, this may not be the volume for you, but if you’ve stumbled across this review for some reason and don’t know the difference, I’ll break it down for you. A theologian is one who studies God. A biblical scholar is one who studies the Bible, or rather, a portion of it. As such, biblical scholarship is much narrower than theology and also not limited to theology. Conversely, theology is not limited to the revelation of God in the Bible and it is much more expansive that biblical scholarship.

The five things that McKnight wants his theology brethren to know are:

1. Theology needs a constant return to Scripture. That is, for Christianity, the foundation of theology should be the Bible. While this might sound elementary to the layperson, I can say from personal experience in seminary that my theology classes were very much about learning with Barth said, or evaluating what Calvin thought, and so on. With theology being so expansive, as God’s revelation comes in many different ways, setting the foundation of revelation as Scripture is important. I also appreciate that Scot addresses the charge of biblicism and correctly parses between a woodenly fundamentalistic interpretation and what he’s advocating.
2. Theology needs to know its impact on biblical studies. This is a pretty simple one, but important nonetheless. The average person approaches faith through the lens of theology before the lens of biblical scholarship. Theology is simply more accessible. McKnight makes this argument in a rather circumspect way, evaluating a number of systematic theologians and their Christological beliefs and examining how that impacts biblical studies. Probably the most academic and difficult to follow chapter.
3. Theology needs historically shaped biblical studies. That is, proper theology must understand the historical and cultural context of the biblical revelation of God. McKnight gets super specific, naming four recent works by biblical scholars that he sees as crucial for theologians. The majority of the chapter is spent examining Barclay’s definition of grace and its impact on scholarship.
4. Theology needs more narrative. Life is story, is it not? Systematic theology often comes to us in lists and categories and definitions. In other words, it’s removed from its context and laid out in what is perceived as a neat and orderly (systematic!) fashion. But removing the narrative leaves us with an analytic theology that misses out on the story of God. McKnight gently reminds theologians that when God wanted to talk theology, he did so through the narrative of Scripture.
5. Theology needs to be lived theology. Similar to the fourth point, but still important, McKnight’s final assertion is that theology has to be more than academic—it must be practical, livable, and meaningful. “Theology is multidisciplinary, exegetical, historical, narratival, and—all of it—meant to be embodied in such a way that life is the theology” (115).

Five Things Biblical Scholars Wish Theologians Knew presents a thoughtful critique of how theology could make use of biblical scholarship and learn from the expertise of biblical scholars. Despite being a biblical scholar, Scot McKnight is obviously well-versed in systematics and has a deep understanding of how theologians are often trained and the assumptions they often make. It’s a refreshing, if quite niche, volume that lays bare some of the “inner workings” of Christian academia and calls readers away from simplistic, non-contextual systematics that fail to either be grounded in Scripture or constructed in narrative.

[Bob · Rating 4 out of 5]

Summary: In an effort to foster understanding between the two disciplines, a biblical scholar outlines five areas for theologians to understand about biblical studies.

A common challenge in the academic world is the need for specialization, which promotes careful research in one’s field, but also increasing ignorance of other related fields. This is true in the world of theological studies as well, and disciplines like biblical studies and systematic theology operate in separate silos. Yet both concern the story of God. In this work, and a companion volume, Five Things Theologians Wish Biblical Scholars Knew (review forthcoming), Scot McKnight and Hans Boersma engage in a conversation that seeks to foster greater understanding between the two disciplines.

So here are the five things McKnight wishes theologians knew, and a few of the highlights of each:

1. Theology needs a constant return to scripture. While McKnight would not adhere to sola scriptura, he proposes an expansive model in which creeds, denominational beliefs, major theologians, and church and culture all figure into our reading of scripture, and yet always beginning with scripture (prima scriptura). He also distinguishes between good biblicism (Bebbington) and bad biblicism (Christian Smith).

2. Theology needs to know its impact on biblical studies. Here, McKnight asks the question of whether it is possible for the church to interpret scripture apart from church dogma and interacts with a number of contemporary examples around Christology where this is evident.

3. Theology needs historically shaped biblical studies. Often theology is done without awareness of the historical context of scripture in which a doctrine arises. He notes John Barclay’s Paul and the Gift as an example of where historically shaped study is modifying the theological paradigm.

4. Theology needs more narrative. Theology is often creedally or topically framed, yet most of the Bible is narrative and arguably, individual narratives are part of a larger, over-arching story. Should the fact that God has disclosed God’s self in this way shape how we do theology? McKnight would say yes.

5. Theology needs to be lived theology. Theology is often divorced from ethics or practice. McKnight argues that scripture itself doesn’t permit this, cites Ben Witherington, III and Beth Felker Jones as good contemporary examples, and offers a treatment of Romans 12-16 in context of the whole book of Romans as doing theology with practice in view.

Boersma in his forward largely agrees with McKnight. He does contend that even McKnight’s prima scriptura inadequately recognizes the influence of tradition on interpretation, which McKnight himself seems to flirt with in his second chapter. I’d love a longer conversation between the two and look forward to reading Boersma.

I think McKnight hits the key issues and offers constructive examples of theological work informed by biblical scholarship. The discussion on scripture and tradition shows the work critically needed here. McKnight’s proposal that specialists in seminaries regularly offer updates in all-faculty meetings of key contributions to their field just ought to be the case everywhere.

____________________________

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received a complimentary review copy of this book from the publisher in exchange for an honest review. The opinions I have expressed are my own.

[Stephen Williams · Rating 2 out of 5]

I admit that I read McKnight's work with predisposed skepticism, even as I read Hans Boersma's companion volume with predisposed appreciation. I tried to fight this skepticism throughout the book, as I want to, if not rein in, then at least be aware of my bias against the totalizing elements of historical/grammatical study. Hence reading this book in the first place.

I did indeed find some points of appreciation, particularly in the first half of McKnight's argument. Even so, I found his unwillingness to speak of Scripture on anything other than immanent terms to be troubling and frustrating; unlike Boersma, his engagement with the other "camp" (in this case, theologians) seemed significantly less direct and charitable, evidenced from the beginning by his shocking claim that biblical studies, with their emphasis on languages, etc., is a more difficult and rigorous discipline than that of theology (though I am aware of the irony that I am currently procrastinating a Hebrew exam as I write this). For McKnight, contemplation and worship seem to be only ancillary concerns to Scripturally-inspired social action and ethics and theological progress, whereas Boersma clearly showed that the latter three proceed from the former two.

[Christopher Gow · Rating 4 out of 5]

Seems boring, but I genuinely thought this was really engaging - partly because McKnight knows both fields pretty well and gives a lot of examples.

Nothing shocking or brand new, but McKnight articulates nuance in really helpful ways. I thought his position was really helpful in that it’s distinct from the work of theologians yet not “anarchist biblicism” that assumes we could/should do a non-theological reading of the text.

Books like this should be more common reading for people in their first year of seminary as an orientation to the various fields and the reasons for their differences.

[Terese · Rating 3 out of 5]

“I was reading Katherine Sonderegger’s ‘Systematic theology’ as this book was in its final edits. I love it and get irritated by it at the same time.” - Scot McKnight

This portion from the conclusion made me laugh. A) because this was my experience with THIS book, and B) of course it was because the mentioned title by Sonderegger is one of my all time favorites.

Basically, there were a lot of things I appreciated and even agreed with in this book, however, at the same time, I found it frustrating and kind of dry. I couldn’t necessarily put my finger on what it was that bothered me so much during the reading, and when I look back I made a ton of bookmarks, but as a theologian (in academia) I do feel like my reaction proves why this book and it’s companion are necessary. There is a divide. A divide in language, outlook, and address.

“At times, of course, this is because of the erudition of the scholars - only specialists can absorb Lewis Ayres’s ’Nicaea and Its legacy’ and make sense of every paragraph - but also at times this is because of the third, fourth, and fifth levels of conversation, in which so-and-so said one thing, and so-and-so added to it, and then so-and-so revised it, and now we know that revision needed some fine-tuning by a book others were ignoring... and so on, until one enters the rooms and wonders what’s being talked about. ( I know, I know, systematicians feel this way about erudite discussions of Greek tenses and exegetical nuances. We all at times resort to Mona Lisa smiles).” p. 96

With the exception that I am actually quite comfortable with erudite Greek tenses, I did feel like I “Mona Lisa’d” the heck out of this book. I probably need to read it again, and I will, but I don’t look forward to it in the manner that I wish to re-read it’s brother from a theologian’s perspective. This is part of the problem these books are addressing, I reiterate. The divide needs to be crossed, and this is a good start,

A big thank you to NetGalley and IVP Academic for this ARC and forcing me to ponder this academic/disciplinary divide until September when I can get the print copies and read, as I prefer, with a marker in hand. I hope by then the phrase “avoid some their avoidance” has found an appropriate synonym.

[Robert D. Cornwall · Rating 4 out of 5]

The theological disciplines often engage in turf wars. Biblical scholars lay out their perspectives on things, and systematicians lay out theirs. The latter may try to take the biblical story and categorize things, hoping to make sense of what they read. They may or may not follow the Nicene Creed as a pattern. When they do they can cut things off. Biblical scholars can get caught in the minutiae of history and words. As a historical theologian, I'm averse to too tight of categories, but wish to let the biblical scholars know that they may have been formed by history. There's a lot of space between the first century and the present, and who we are now and how we view the Bible is influenced by the intervening historical moments.

All of that is said as a preface to my reading of Scot McKnight's "Five Things Biblical Scholars Wish Theologians Knew, which is a counterpoint to Hans Boersma's Five Things Theologians Wish Biblical Scholars Knew. Scot wants the reader to know that while systemic theology can be helpful it can also distort things. He acknowledges that biblical scholars and systematic theologians tend to stick within their disciplines, protecting turf you might say, and get defensive when the other steps on their turf. The goal, I suppose of these two books is to build a bridge of understanding so that both can do better with their own work and contribute to the greater good of the church.

I've read several of Scot's books over the years and have had conversations with him. I don't always agree with his take on things, but I do find him thought-provoking. Such is the case here. I'm not a biblical scholar but as a historical theologian and pastor, I'm also not a full-fledged systematician. That may be due in part to my own training in theology. My theology professor, Colin Brown, made it clear that no system is perfect and so we were encouraged to create our own drawing on Scripture, history, and contemporary contributions. I credit him for my own theological eclecticism. So, it's with that vision that I read Scot's book.

The five things he introduces here are, for the most part right on the money. I should not that I am part of a non-creedal denomination that has restorationist roots. So we have a tendency to jump over history to the New Testament. In other words, we would be ripe for what Scot suggests since we're not given systems (though we've created them -- it's too easy to proof text things even without a creed).

The five things he offers us begins with the declaration that "Theology Needs a Constant Return to Scripture." With that, I agree wholeheartedly. I believe that was what Karl Barth intended, though his followers may tend to read Scripture through a Barthian lens. But the point is, Christian theology must begin with Scripture even if we read Scripture through various lenses.

Secondly, he writes that "Theology Needs to Know Its Impact on Biblical Studies." Here Scot admits that biblical scholars, though hesitant about the impact of theologians, need to listen to theology, including the creeds as they contribute to the life of the church. This is seen in the way Christology is understood, and here he takes us from James Dunn's Christology through Larry Hurtado's to Richard Baukhams, showing each one offers a deeper vision of Christ's identity. Then he notes the works of people like Wesley Hill, who discover within the New Testament signs of the Trinity, signs that do require a theological lens. Thus, there is a reason for integrating the two disciplines (again I agree).

From there we move to "Theology Needs Historically Shaped Biblical Studies." Here Scot reminds theologians of the need to recognize historical context. How does the faith emerge and develop? What can the study of Scripture by biblical scholars contribute to this effort? Here he brings into the picture the work of John Barclay on grace as gift, which overturns much Protestant theology of grace. We root our view of grace in Scripture, but have we truly understood how this was understood in Scripture? By attending to this work, we may derive a different perspective.

The fourth thing is a call for the introduction of more narrative into theology. This is a reminder that a good portion of the Bible is comprised of narrative. To understand and communicate this message, we would be wise to attend to that narrative and find ways of doing theology in this way. Too often theologians take the Bible and try to fit it into a procrustean bed of preconceived categories. This can do injustice to the message. Preachers have come to understand this, at least some have. Theologians would be wise to consider it as well.

Finally, the fifth thing has to do with the importance of lived theology. Sometimes we get in a debate about what comes first -- orthodoxy (right belief) or orthopractice (right actions). The fact is, our theology is of little value if it isn't embodied and lived out. Thus, ethics is central to the conversation, and Scripture emphasizes the way we live before God. So, as we see in the biblical narrative, what we believe and how we live are inseparable. Thus, we are to be doers and not mere hearers of the word. In this chapter, he shares how five theologians have sought to connect the two and then focuses on the centrality of Romans 12:1-2, which speaks of us presenting our bodies as living sacrifices. He suggests that we might be wise to read Romans through the lens of Romans 12, and in fact, read backward from Romans 12-16 if we're to truly understand what Paul is up to. The point here is that true theology is embodied.

Scot concludes that he'll never be completely comfortable with systematic theology, but he recognizes the value that it brings to the conversation. He's just wary of the way in which systems emerge and distort scripture. Thus, the need for conversation. That I agree with. Sometimes I read biblical scholars and get lost in the minutiae of Greek and Hebrew words and their etymologies and end up without anything I can take with me. Theology helps me make sense of things. But I also know that theology can distort and deform what we find in Scripture. As Scot notes, sometimes theologians are stuck in older interpretations of Scripture and would benefit from learning anew from more recent work.

All said this is an interesting and helpful book. Of the two books in this series, I will say that this was the more helpful. I say that as a theologian!

[Fred · Rating 4 out of 5]

There are several things I like about this short book by Scot McKnight. First it is clearly organized and follows through on exactly what it introduces. McKnight offers five things that most Biblical Theologians wish Systematic Theologians knew. He wants theologians to pay more attention to the developments in biblical scholarship, to narrative and to application, among other things. In doing this he helps those of us outside academia to understand the difference between biblical scholars as theologians and those who write systematic theology. This is something most of us intuit but probably could not define. Also, the book does not talk down or over the motivated reader. This short book is not a simple read. It is dense but clear and in that McKnight helps us understand the recent movements in both biblical scholarship and theological writing.

[Matt Koser · Rating 5 out of 5]

I don’t see eye to eye with him on everything, but I learned a lot about how the worlds of biblical scholars and theologians don’t overlap but should. Definitely planning on reading this one again.

______
My ⭐️ rating criteria
- ⭐️: I absolutely did not like or totally disagreed with the book and would recommend that no one else read it
- ⭐️⭐️: the book was below average style or content, arguments were very weak, wouldn’t read it again, but wouldn’t beg people not to read it necessarily
- ⭐️⭐️⭐️: a fine book, some helpful information (or a decent story, for the handful of novels I read), maybe I disagreed somewhat, enjoyed it decently well
- ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️: a very good book, information was very helpful, mostly agreed with everything or it was a strong argument even if I disagree, was above-average enjoyable to read
- ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️: incredible book, I enjoyed it more than most other books, I want to read it again in the future, I will be telling everyone to read it for the next few weeks

[Nathan · Rating 4 out of 5]

I really enjoyed this book. Some of it certainly went over my head, and some of it was very stretching. His comments on Romans at the end were genuinely helpful, and something I would like to explore more. They create a much more nuanced conception of what "weak" and "strong" mean, and a more coherent view of the book as a whole.

[Martijn Vsho · Rating 4 out of 5]

As someone trained in biblical studies and in the historical-critical method, I found this book went better than my expectations. It seems that McKnight is addressing both sides in his book, rather than just what theologians should know. His book is about how biblical scholars and theologians and work together and in fact need each other. I think McKnight was an excellent author for this since it is clear he has read widely in both biblical scholarship AND theology. He thus is able to speak to what theologians should know without misrepresenting systematic theology or making strawman arguments (though I say this from someone who hasn't read much systematic theology).

I appreciated his discussion of the retrieval and expansive models (Ch. 1). Whereas the retrieval model seeks to anchor everything in biblical exegesis and only allows theology to come directly from the biblical text, the expansive model starts with the Bible but expands beyond it into new dimensions of thinking. McKnight argues that both of these are good and that an integrated approach is needed where the biblical text and theology are in constant dialogue. Theology then expands the biblical text into new areas but it needs to remain organically connected to the Bible. An approach that tries to do away with church's theological tradition is naive since it is impossible for anyone to separate themselves from their theological tradition, and doing so leads to "pervasive individual pluralism" where individual study is absolutized and everyone has their own view of what the Bible really says (Ch. 1).

Interestingly, McKnight acknowledges that his integrative "knows the Bible is fertile ground and does not have to be restricted solely to authorial intent" (Ch. 1). This is rare to hear from biblical scholars. Unfortunately, McKnight only briefly explains this and does not go into much detail.

His second chapter "Theology Needs to Know It's Impact on Biblical Studies" is a study case of an integrative approach. McKnight looks at recent studies on Christology and argues that the arguments made by biblical scholars such as Dunn, Hurtado, and Bauckham are missing something when they discuss the Christology of the early church. Instead, scholars like Hill, Bates, and Pierce have shown that by engaging the biblical text through the lens of later articulated theology, it in fact brings out the Christology in the NT much better. As McKnight argues: "What these scholars demonstrate is that New Testament scholars, to be ecclesial theologians, need the theology of the church in order to map the terrain of the New Testament.... [B]y pondering the exegesis of the patristics in light of later theological thinking, we actually get closer to the hermeneutic and the theology of Jesus and the apostles than we do when we restrict our minds to the historical-critical method and bracket of later thibking. Perhaps the later thinking is in direct line with the New Testament itself" (Ch. 2).

McKnight does a great job thinking about how theology is presented and framed and how this affects theology (Ch. 4). The questions we ask and the topics we use to organize our theology will shape our theology. When we delineate theology by topics (e.g., God, Humanity, Christ, Sin, Salvation, Ecclesiology, and Eschatology) or by frame (e.g., the creeds), then these are the parts of Scripture we focus on to the exclusion of the rest (e.g., the frequently missing topic of the Holy Spirit). He instead argues for a narrative ttheology, which looks at theology from a biblical narrative frame of reference (e.g., Creation, Fall, Redemption, Consummation OR Theocracy, Monarchy, Christocracy). While there are many ways to organize a narrative theology, they follow the Bible much better. I was taught a narrative theology in college (although I wasn't aware of it at the time) and agree with McKnight how helpful it is.

I liked what he had to say about lived theology (Ch. 5), essentially that "theology is embodied, and it is incomplete until it is embodied." This is something that biblical scholars also need to hear about in regards to their scholarship. Sometimes they also can get too caught up in the minutiae of the text or debates that make no difference. They too need to ask how their biblical scholarship leads to lived theology.

All in all, an excellent book. McKnight voices a lot of the concerns that biblical scholars have with (systematic) theology. At the same time, he also surprises his readers by how much he has read and thought about theology and by his exhortations to biblical scholars to engage more with systematic theology.

See also my review of the companion book Five Things Theologians Wished Biblical Scholars Knew by Hans Boersma.

[Jonathan · Rating 4 out of 5]

7/10

Nice, finally a more technical/scholarly McKnight book: buckle up.

My dad's a Biblical Scholar, so I've always had a bit of mistrust when it comes to Theologians. That's not true, but it does mean I'm probably biased towards McKnight's view, especially when he chides theologians for their habit of creating theology whole cloth without a reliance on the Bible, which is terribly common. His other most impactful criticism is that all theology that is not lived theology is hypocrisy. He says that more politely, but that's what I got from his chapter.
Honestly though, I do think this was probably a little more dry than it needed to be, though I suppose it's written to academics.

1. Theology needs a constant return to scripture.
2. Theology needs to know its impact on biblical studies.
3. Theology needs historically shaped biblical studies.
4. Theology needs more narrative.
5. Theology needs to be lived theology.

[Douglas Lee · Rating 4 out of 5]

McKnight writes from the position of a Biblical Scholar to challenge theologians to a greater level of interaction with Scripture and in particular, integration with the narrative arc of Scripture. This is high level academic writing that I believe will be most useful to those in the academy, especially Theologians. I found Boersma's partner book to this one to have a broader and warmer application. As a Church leader I found myself resonating most strongly in the final chapter on Praxis - "Theology needs to be lived theology". My favourite quote from the book: "Theology abstracted from ethics or from lived theology is not biblical theology. Ancient Israel's theology was as integrated into ethics as its ethics was integrated into its theology. The two are inseparable."

[Michael Bozmarov · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an excellent book on biblical scholarship, and McKnight does a good job of connecting and modeling the connections possible between biblical and theological studies. My one regret is that the text does not discuss historic theology’s role here. Are we to attend only to current biblical scholarship? McKnight seems to model precisely this by his attendance to current biblical scholars at universities such as Duke. Yet, historic theology is usually biblical studies focused in that it often attends to older readings and interpretations of the text. McKnight does not fall into presentism consciously, and would probably agree that looking solely at current biblical scholarship is susceptible to fad-chasing, but he does not effectively model or argue for this.

[Kendall Davis · Rating 3 out of 5]

McKnight seems to assume that the goal of systematic theology is to create a system that summarizes the whole bible in both form and content. He doesn't every question this assumption or defend it. I don't believe that this is what systematics is doing, so I found much of what he had to say somewhat frustrating. His encouragement to learn from each other's disciplines is well taken, especially in an age of increasing academic specialization.

[G. Salter · Rating 4 out of 5]

It's common to see different kinds of scholars squabble, less common to see them looking for what they can learn from each other. McKnight working with another scholar to see what they wish each other's disciple understood creates a new model, critique mixed with community and a shared desire to do things better.
A bit dry and definitely a book for academics, but quite good.

[Patrick Hiltz · Rating 5 out of 5]

Loved this!

This concretely and eloquently speaks to many of the issues I've felt with Systematic Theology since I went to seminary. McKnight wrote with a command of the subject matter of both the field.of Biblical Studies and Systematic Theology. I'll read Boersma's companion book as well but this book spoke to me.

[Joel Newberg · Rating 4 out of 5]

Similar to Boersma's parallel, McKnight is a writer you have had to read prior to understand his bias' and style. There is much of this book that I like, and some of which I think will cause more than your standard Evangelical to scratch his head. It is always quite a bit different than the title insinuates. This is a plea to do biblical scholarship, but also to do just do theology. It seems the book could be titled "Why You Should not Be Only a Philosopher: From a Biblical Theologian."

Is it worth a read? Yes. Should it be read with Boersma's? Yes. Should it be read in a group with someone who understands the over-arching issues and has read McKnight before? Definitely. That is the second weakness of this book: it doesn't do a great job of laying out the basic issue and what is on the line from that issue. The content is good, but it can quickly get over the heads of most readers.

[Adam Bloch · Rating 2 out of 5]

First, this is an extremely niche book. I’m on the fringe of these realms, so maybe that’s why I didn’t like it as much, but I also didn’t agree with everything. I do, however, definitely agree with the main overall principle—that theology needs to be rooted in biblical study.

[Chadd · Rating 3 out of 5]

It was way more academic than I expected. Good, but not the easy read I envisioned.

[Christopher · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good but somewhat technical.

[KY Wifette · Rating 3 out of 5]

Audiobook. I listened to this some time ago. I had different expectations...maybe too high of a bar for my brain on audio, but it didn't interest me enough to read it in physical form.