Very Useful New Commentary on Samuel

March 18, 2008 at 10:42 am (Books (reviews and recommendations))

Some of us in the US might be wondering who in the world John Woodhouse is. However, a few brief sentences will serve to demonstrate that he is someone to whom we ought to pay attention. Moore Theological College has been a hotbed of conservative evangelical Anglican theology for years now. Some names with which we might be familiar include Barry Webb, P.T. O’Brien, Brian Rosner, and P.R. Williamson. The Rev. Canon John Woodhouse is Principal of this august institution, and teaches Old Testament there. He has written an excellent commentary on 1 Samuel. Here are some highlights.

He has a very thorough treatment of the question of the Spirit of God (pp. 292-293, and the endnotes are very important as well). After all, the questions surrounding this issue are difficult: do OT believers have the Spirit in the same way as NT believers? How did Saul have the Holy Spirit? Is there any difference between having the Holy Spirit come upon someone versus coming into someone? Is there a saving way of having the Holy Spirit and a mere “power” way of having the Spirit? It is somewhat astonishing that Woodhouse can answer so many of these questions in such a short space. But you have to buy the book to find out the answers.

Actually, the first place I always read in any 1 Samuel commentary I buy is the infamous chapter 28 (Saul consulting the witch of Endor), surely one of the more strange tapestries hanging on the wall of the Old Testament. Woodhouse focuses on the utter hopelessness of Saul, the irony of his casting out all the mediums but then consulting one himself (pg. 513-514), the failure of Saul’s kingship, and the need for a king after God’s own heart. Woodhouse does think that the shade that appeared was Samuel (a controverted question). Woodhouse has eloquent words to say about the feast in vv 24-25: “It was a meal fit for a king. The trouble was, it was eaten by a man not fit to be king” (pg. 518). This book has much meat for the people of God, and will serve the church well. Good Reformed commentaries on Samuel are not plentiful, which makes this book all the more important.  

13 Comments

  1. Woodhouse on 1 Samuel - The PuritanBoard said,

    March 18, 2008 at 10:46 am

    [...] R. Kent Hughes’s series Preaching the Word. It is available here. I have published a review of it here. __________________ Rev. Lane Keister Teaching Elder, PCA, North Dakota (working out of bounds in [...]

  2. rey said,

    March 18, 2008 at 1:39 pm

    Paragraph 2, you need a commentary to tell you there’s a difference between the Holy Spirit indwelling a saved person and speaking through an unsaved person? I’d of figured that Caiphas prophecy would have been enough to establish that.

  3. greenbaggins said,

    March 18, 2008 at 3:15 pm

    Not everyone has thought through these issues, Rey. And these kinds of questions do come up, especially in those kinds of passages.

  4. ReformedSinner (DC) said,

    March 18, 2008 at 3:27 pm

    Thanks baggins,

    I am convinced of this book when you highlighted that Woodhouse thinks Saul really did raised Samuel and it is the actual Samuel. This tells me Woodhouse is balancing his theology and his exegesis very well, and thus worthy of further investigation and appreciation. Of course I personally agree with him in my own exegetical studies of Samuels, and I find the arguments against (it’s faked Samuel, it’s Satan dressed as Samuel, etc.) unsatisfying.

    Wonderful review, thanks. I have to admit I am foreign to the Conservative Anglicans, maybe I should pay more attention to them.

    In Christ,
    ReformedSinner (DC)

  5. E.C.Hock said,

    March 18, 2008 at 4:01 pm

    As a further way to highlight Moore Theological College (Sydney), through its alum or faculty members, is Graeme Goldsworthy. He may be recently retired now but he has been a lecturer there in Old Testament, biblical theology and hermeneutics. I appreciate knowing about the 1 Samuel release.

  6. rey said,

    March 18, 2008 at 5:00 pm

    I suppose that Presbyterians are the least likely to think through these issues, since thinking them through fights against infant baptism.

  7. E.C.Hock said,

    March 18, 2008 at 6:01 pm

    #2/#5. I am not sure what Rey is thinking behind these ascertions or assumptions, as they read like the touch of a cattle prod, or why he should think the doctrine of the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament is hazardous to infant baptism any more than to circumcision, as both are tied to promise and promise is tied to the Spirit applying and confirming its reality in the recipient. At this point, one best read the 1 Samuel commentary noted above rather than launch into a discussion on Spirit’s presence and work among, and in, the covenant people of God. How the Holy Spirit’s work is tied to redemptive history, progressive revelation and types/shadows is, however, an interesting topic. I do recall B. B. Warfield in particular wrote an essay on this very topic.

  8. Tom Wenger said,

    March 18, 2008 at 8:39 pm

    Rey,

    I’m not sure why you won’t answer my question, because there shouldn’t be any reason to hide:

    What church are you a part of?

  9. rey said,

    March 18, 2008 at 9:11 pm

    The one that you read about in the Bible that only baptizes believers for the remission of sins.

  10. rey said,

    March 18, 2008 at 9:15 pm

    @E.C. Hock

    It’s not just the Old Testament doctrine of the Holy Spirit. It is the fact that the Spirit may come on a person temporarily and not indwell them. Many try and use the situation with Cornelius to say that the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is not received in baptism but may be received before or after. However, Peter makes it clear in Acts 2 that one receives the Holy Spirit in baptism, as also does Paul’s “re-baptism” of those 12 whom Apollos had wrongly baptized with a defunct Johanine baptism. The fact is that in Acts 10, the Holy Spirit did not enter Cornelius prior to baptism to indwell him, but merely came on him and his household as a sign to Peter that the Gentiles are acceptable to preach the gospel to, and then they all received the indwelling of the Holy Spirit when they were baptized as believers. As also in Acts 2, “Repent and be baptized…and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” shows again, that the Holy Spirit is received in baptism, but only by repentant believers.

  11. ReformedSinner (DC) said,

    March 19, 2008 at 12:27 am

    Rey,

    Very strong words against infant baptism. However, historical Christianity simply do not agree with you. Evidence shows as early as Ancient Church that they baptize infants. Medieval Church baptize infants. Reformation baptize infants. Reformation also doesn’t rebaptize converted Roman Catholics, and of course they have big issues against Anabaptists. If you want to argue why you are “so right” and generations of Christians before you are “so wrong” then you have to interact with historical Church.

    Second, it is exegetically arguable what Paul means in Acts when he “rebaptize” those men. One possibility is definitely water baptism. However, many commentators (John Calvin included) argued that what Paul meant is that these men have now received the Gospel, and the Holy Spirit “baptized” their hearts. Baptism is also referred to as fire and Spirit in the Bible, and one needs to look at the context to see which definition is being used. Of course this is not a settled argument, but just to let you know exegetically there’s another very viable alternative and bringing up Paul in Acts is hardly a “put-down” argument that it seems to be.

    As for saying Peter says one can only receive the Holy Spirit through baptism, that is exegetically arguable in of itself. Also, the book of Hebrews also reveals that there will be non-believers that may act like believers, even serve in the Church, and Hebrews calls them people that have tasted the Holy Spirit, but ultimately they are still non-believers and heading towards condemnation.

    Finally, if children (infants) don’t have the Holy Spirit then what Paul teaches in Ephesians about parents-children don’t make sense. Paul is calling for children to obey their parents, not because it’s “naturally the right thing to do”, but because it’s God’s Law (Paul makes his argument from the 10 commandments.) Now, if children (infants) don’t have the Holy Spirit in them, then as sinners they cannot have any positive responds to the Law of God (10 commandments). Even if you bring the 10 commandments to sinners the Law will only bring death, not life. Only with the Holy Spirit in the children (infants) will the children be able to respond positively to Paul’s teaching in Ephesians about obeying parents.

    In Christ,
    ReformedSinner (DC)

  12. GLW Johnson said,

    March 19, 2008 at 9:06 am

    rey
    Is you a he or a she? I can’t tell simply by your name. Other than you rabid Pelagianism, what other interest do you have beside your open hostility to Reformed theology?

  13. J.R. Polk said,

    March 19, 2008 at 1:21 pm

    # 10

    The fact is that in Acts 10, the Holy Spirit did not enter Cornelius prior to baptism to indwell him, but merely came on him and his household as a sign to Peter that the Gentiles are acceptable to preach the gospel to, and then they all received the indwelling of the Holy Spirit when they were baptized as believers.

    Rey,

    Exactly which version of Acts 10 are you reading? The last part of your statement quoted above is curiously missing from the text of Acts 10. Allow me to point out the order of events - watch carefully Rey.

    1. The Holy Spirit came upon Cornelius during the preaching of the Gospel:

    Act 10:44 While Peter was still saying these things, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word.
    Act 10:45 And the believers from among the circumcised who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles.

    2. Peter commands water baptism after the Holy Spirit falls upon Cornelius:

    Act 10:46 For they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared,
    Act 10:47 “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?”
    Act 10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days.

Post a Comment