Tag Archives: D.A. Carson

Book Review: Exegetical Fallacies

Recommendation: Recommended; Caveat: This book contains a significant amount of Greek


One word can be used to describe opening the pages of D.A. Carson’s challenging book Exegetical Fallacies, caution.  From the opening chapter on, Carson sets forth argument after argument against the common fallacies that are seen in so many exegetical works and sermons.  The word caution comes to mind because his style, delivery, and content should actually serve to cause any current or prospective pastor/theologian to proceed with caution in their exegesis.  There is a very real potential that readers of this book will feel crippled by it lest they run their exegesis of any and every passage through the grid that Carson establishes.  Not without warning though, Carson sets forth in his introduction a section entitled “The Dangers of this Study,”[1] wherein he points out the risks of such an impact on the student.  He adds, “If there are so many exegetical traps, so many hermeneutical pitfalls, how can I ever be confident that I am rightly interpreting and preaching the Scriptures?”[2]  Carson however, rightly points out that avoiding a study like this will only cause the exegete greater difficulties and mistakes than if they faced the challenges set forth in the book.

With this perspective, one can begin to see that this study is intended to become less crippling for the exegete and more thought-provoking and instructive.  In the “Introduction”, the primary danger of this study is defined as “distanciation”, which Carson says, “is a necessary component of critical work; but it is difficult and sometimes costly.”[3]  Distanciation is defined as “setting or keeping something at a distance, especially mentally.”[4]    Simply put, what he is implying here is that often a critical study of the Bible can become so cerebral as to create a distance between the student and work being studied, in this case God’s word.  In following his introduction, Carson lays out 4 main categories of fallacies that will each be reviewed: word-study fallacies[5], grammatical fallacies[6], logical fallacies[7], and presuppositional and historical fallacies[8].


Chapter One of Exegetical Fallacies addresses the largest group of fallacies categorized by Carson, the word-study fallacy.  He further breaks down this collection into 16 individual errors.  One of particular interest was defined as the root fallacy which the author describes as “one of the most enduring of errors…presupposes that every word actually has a meaning bound up with its shape or its components.”[9]  This fallacy was especially instructive because it included the ever-popular agapeand phileo (forgive my lack of Greek fonts) distinction.  Carson argues that these words, both translated into English as love, have “substantial overlap; and where they overlap, appeal to a ‘root meaning’ in order to discern a difference is fallacious.”[10]  Therein lays the fallacy, when the exegete seeks to draw a distinction between the two words based on root meaning, the root fallacy evidenced.  Concluding, Carson writes, “My only point here is that there is nothing intrinsic to the verb agape or the noun phileo to prove its real meaning or hidden meaning refers to some special kind of love.”[11]  Carson moves on in his examination of word-study fallacies to include several semantical fallacies in which either the modern use of a word is read back into the text or where a historical meaning of a word is assigned to the corresponding word in the text.[12]

Grammatical fallacies are the focus of chapter 2 and admittedly, the driver in this shortened discussion is the limited grammatical focus of theology students.[13]  It would be superfluous to summarize every one of the 7 fallacies listed in this chapter, however, Carson groups these into 2 categories: Fallacies Connected with Various Tenses and Moods[14] and Fallacies Connected with Various Syntactical Units.[15]  The former group is not found to refer to tense in any traditional sense of the grammatical use, such as past tense, present tense, etc., but instead Carson uses it to refer to “morphological form, with no implications whatsoever with respect to time. “[16]  These forms which Carson examines include the aorist tense, first person aorist subjunctive, and the middle voice.  Moving to the second category of grammatical fallacies, the author shifts his focus to fallacies of various syntactical units, or in other words, a fallacy based on incorrect assumptions from how a sentence is structured.  Of note in this group is the Granville Sharp rule[17], which is related to the grouping of words using kai.

The next two chapters of Exegetical Fallacies expose errors of the logical and presuppositional/historical variety, chapters 3 and 4 respectively.  In Chapter 3, Carson sets forth his argument against fallacies that are logical in nature, which very simply refers to those fallacies in which the misapplication of evidence has been used to reach a faulty conclusion.  This, at least it would appear, seems to be one of the more widespread categories of fallacies, but perhaps the least often recognized.  Chapter 4 concludes Carson’s examination of fallacies with a look at presuppositional and historical fallacies.  This chapter, as Carson readily admits[18] could easily be addressed in a book of its own.  Surely, one must agree that an exegete’s presuppositions are critically important to understanding the exegete’s conclusions.  Related are those of the historical variety in which an exegete often misrepresents historical reconstruction.

Concluding his work, Carson reflects on the possibility for at least seven additional fallacies which could have been investigated in another book.  Nevertheless, he addresses well the potential pitfalls and discouragements that might come from reading a book like this by adding, “A little self-doubt will do no harm and may do a great deal of good: we will be more open to learn and correct our mistakes.  But too much will shackle and stifle us with deep insecurities and make us so much aware of methods that we may overlook truth ourselves.”[19]  In other words, the very danger of distanciation that Carson alluded to at the beginning of his book.


D.A. Carson’s book has obvious strengths for any study of its kind that seeks to make the theologian, both of the student and pastoral variety, more aware of inherent fallacies that can persist without careful attention to detail and exegesis.  Such strengths include improved accuracy in the handling of Scripture, greater awareness of the types and varieties of fallacies, and providing an exegetical grid to work from in sermon and writing preparation.  Certainly, all interested parties would answer in the affirmative to a desire to more rightly handle the Word and Exegetical Fallacies can serve as a tool to help that become more of a reality in evangelical pulpits.


It is difficult to highlight particular weaknesses in a book that has such obvious strengths and a central thesis that is necessary for today’s study of Scripture without becoming overly critical or sensitive.  However, there are glaring limitations of a study of this kind that cannot go unmentioned.  Chief among them may be the tone of delivery for a book that seeks to correct the large majority of errors that are taking place among one’s peers.  It is near impossible to determine the intended tone from mere words on a page, so one is limited to perception.  Far from accusing Carson of taking a haughty tone on purpose, it is difficult to ignore how he sometimes comes across to his audience as singularly holding the theological keys to exegesis which many well-respected theologians have not had the privilege, education, or experience to hold.

Similarly, another particular distraction from the fallacies that Carson outlines throughout his book seems to be his particular bent in naming offenders of the various fallacies he outlines.  While it may be necessary to describe fallacies, while likewise ascribing them, it could have the appearance of either a witch-hunt or unnecessarily throwing peers “under the bus” while simultaneously asserting that he alone holds the premium on exegetical faithfulness.  As Carson himself admits to his own less than precise exegesis[20] in the latter part of the book, it would seem then that he could have maintained greater integrity of the book and accomplished its goal of identifying exegetical fallacies while limiting the number of personal references.


There is little questioning the importance of this book for the Church today.  Pastors, teachers, and lay leaders alike will benefit greatly from D.A. Carson’s analysis as they observe the various fallacies and pitfalls in personal exegesis.  The strengths severely outweigh any perceived weaknesses, though one reading this book should do so while keeping the warnings that Carson describes in mind to avoid the potential “paralysis of analysis” that may result from such an intense work.


[1] D.A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies, 2nd edition (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1996). 22

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid., 23.

[5] Ibid., 27-64.

[6] Ibid., 65-86.

[7] Ibid., 87-123.

[8] Ibid., 125-136.

[9] Ibid., 28.

[10] Ibid., 31.

[11] Ibid., 32.

[12] Ibid., 33-36. The former refers to semantic anachronism and the latter to semantic obsolescence.

[13] Ibid.

[14] Ibid., 67.

[15] Ibid., 77.

[16] Ibid., 67.

[17] Ibid., 81.

[18] Ibid., 125.

[19] Ibid., 142.

[20] Ibid., 113.

Book Review: Scandalous – The Cross and Resurrection of Jesus

Scandalous, by D.A. Carson (PhD, Cambridge University) and published by Crossway is a well-written, clear exposition of 5 Scripture passages that detail the cross and resurrection of Jesus Christ.  As Carson states in his Preface, “nothing is more central to the Bible than Jesus’ death and resurrection” and this is precisely the focal point of his book.  Dr. Carson begins his book with a look at Matthew 27:27-51 in Chapter 1 entitled: “The Ironies of the Cross.”  In classic Carson style, he brings out the following paradoxes from his look at this passage: 1) The man who is mocked as king – is king 2) The man who is utterly powerless – is powerful 3) The man who can’t save Himself – saves others 4) The man who cries out in despair – trusts God.  Of note in this chapter was John 2:19 “Jesus answered them, ‘Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up’” to which Carson adds:

“The point is that under the terms of the old covenant, the temple was the great meeting place between a holy God and his sinful people.  This was the place of sacrifice, the place of atonement for sin.  But this side of the cross, where Jesus by his sacrifice pays for our sin, Jesus himself becomes the great meeting place between a holy God and his sinful people; thus he becomes the temple, the meeting place between God and his people.  It is not as if Jesus in his incarnation adequately serves as the temple of God.  That is a huge mistake.  Jesus says, ‘Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.’  It is Jesus’ death, in his destruction, and in his resurrection three days later, that Jesus meets our needs and reconciles us to God, becoming the temple, the supreme meeting place between God and sinners.  To use Paul’s language, we do not simply preach Christ; rather we preach Christ crucified.”

Chapter 2 was most significant for me because it brought to my attention an oft-read passage from Romans 3:21-26, but one which is of supreme importance.  So much so that Carson titled this chapter, “The Center of the Whole Bible.”  Here Dr. Carson does some of his best expositions from the book and he adds a strong statement that “the hardest truth to get across to this generation is what the Bible says about sin.”  The central question of humanity is how a sinful man can be just before a holy God.  In summary, this passage answers that question by detailing the substitutionary atonement of Jesus Christ.  Dr. Carson highlights 2 key terms which are critical to understanding not only this passage, but the centrality of the cross in the entire Bible: Redemption and Propitiation.  To Redemption, Carson states that until recently it was always considered economic language and this is how the Greco-Roman world would have understood the term, as in the redemption of slaves.  Carson points out that Romans 3:24 says Christians have been redeemed from slavery to sin and are now slaves of Jesus Christ (see Romans 6).  But, he asks, “How does this work?  In what sense, then, are we redeemed?  What has freed us?  The answer: God has presented Christ as a propitiation.”     

“Propitiation”, “expiation”, “sacrifice of atonement”, and even “remedy for defilement” are all terms used by various translations, but propitiation is the best.  Carson defines propitiation as the sacrificial act by which someone becomes favorable.  He then takes a paragraph to explain the pagan application of the word, which refers to offering a sacrifice for the purpose of making the gods propitious or favorable.  Carson then sets out to define the other related terms, mentioned above, and follows to expiation.  This term actually stands in contrast to the definition of propitiation of making someone favorable in that it “aims to cancel sin.”  The object of propitiation is God Himself.  The object of expiation is sin, which is cancelled.  Carson concludes, “Expiation refers to the cancelling of sin, and propitiation refers to satisfying or setting aside God’s wrath.  The particular word used in Romans 3:25 is used most commonly in the Old Testament to refer to a propitiating sacrifice that turns aside God’s wrath.”

In this chapter, Carson introduces objections to the meaning of propitiation brought on in the 1930’s by C.H. Dodd.  Dodd argued for the meaning of expiation versus the propitious act of God, because he believed in the pagan nature of propitiation (previously mentioned) and said it could therefore not apply to God.  Carson states that he misunderstood the personal nature of God’s wrath and was wrong to separate the nature of expiation and propitiation, whereas biblically they “hang together.”  As Carson writes, “In Christian propitiation, God the Father sets Jesus forth as the propitiation to make himself propitious; God is both the subject and the object of propitiation.  God is the one who provides the sacrifice precisely as a way of turning aside His own wrath.  God the Father is thus the propitiator and the propitiated, and God the Son is the propitiation”

Chapter 3 is an exposition of Revelation 12 and is entitled, “The Strange Triumph of a Slaughtered Lamb.”  Here Carson seems to approach the cross from an eschatological (end time) point of view encouraging believers in the face of future opposition.  This is a beneficial chapter to help challenge the reader’s view of their millennial position.  The concluding applications drawn by Carson as they relate to society are 1) Analyze culture biblically and theologically, not merely sociologically and psychologically.  2) Use the weapons that Christ has provided, weapons based on Christ’s atoning death.  

In Chapter 4, “A Miracle Full of Surprises” Dr. Carson highlights John 11:1-53.  This is the familiar passage of Lazarus’ resurrection.  The purpose of this chapter is to show that in the midst of despair Christ draws attention to Himself.  “In our deepest loss, we need more than friendship and a listening ear – though they are wonderful.  We need more than mere arguments – though in some cases good arguments stabilize us.  We need the reality of God Himself – God as he has spectacularly and definitely disclosed himself to us in the person of his Son.  He will require of us that we focus our attention on him, both for this life and the one to come.”  Dr. Carson concludes his discussion on the scandalous nature of the cross and resurrection with an exposition of John 20:24-31 in chapter 5, “Doubting the Resurrection of Jesus.”  Here Carson confronts the nature of doubt and counters it with true, genuine belief in Jesus Christ.      

Scandalous is an accessible book, regardless of theological knowledge or background, and is a commendable read to anyone wishing to better understand the cross and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Why Is the Doctrine of Penal Substitution Again Coming Under Attack?

I found this to be a well written article by D.A. Carson.  It can be somewhat dense at times, but worth reading and thinking through.   A review will be forthcoming on both Carson’s book Scandalous as well as the book he recommends below, Pierced for Our Transgressions: Rediscovering the Glory of Penal Substitution by Jeffery, Ovey, and Sach.


By: D. A. Carson

A book could usefully be written on this subject. To keep things brief, I shall list a handful of developments that have contributed to this sad state of affairs.
(1) In recent years it has become popular to sketch the Bible’s story-line something like this: Ever since the fall, God has been active to reverse the effects of sin. He takes action to limit sin’s damage; he calls out a new nation, the Israelites, to mediate his teaching and his grace to others; he promises that one day he will come as the promised Davidic king to overthrow sin and death and all their wretched effects. This is what Jesus does: he conquers death, inaugurates the kingdom of righteousness, and calls his followers to live out that righteousness now in prospect of the consummation still to come.

Much of this description of the Bible’s story-line, of course, is true. Yet it is so painfully reductionistic that it introduces a major distortion. It collapses human rebellion, God’s wrath, and assorted disasters into one construct, namely, the degradation of human life, while depersonalizing the wrath of God. It thus fails to wrestle with the fact that from the beginning, sin is an offense against God. God himself pronounces the sentence of death (Gen 2-3). This is scarcely surprising, since God is the source of all life, so if his image-bearers spit in his face and insist on going their own way and becoming their own gods, they cut themselves off from their Maker, from the One who gives life. What is there, then, but death? Moreover, when we sin in any way, God himself is invariably the most offended party (Ps 51). The God the Bible portrays as resolved to intervene and save is also the God portrayed as full of wrath because of our sustained idolatry. As much as he intervenes to save us, he stands over against us as Judge, an offended Judge with fearsome jealousy.

Nor is this a matter of Old Testament theology alone. When Jesus announced the imminence of the dawning of the kingdom, like John the Baptist he cried, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near” (Matt 4:17; cf. Mark 1:15). Repentance is necessary, because the coming of the King promises judgment as well as blessing. The sermon on the mount, which encourages Jesus’ disciples to turn the other cheek, repeatedly warns them to flee the condemnation to the gehenna of fire. The sermon warns the hearers not to follow the broad road that leads to destruction, and pictures Jesus pronouncing final judgment with the words, “I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!” (7:23). The parables are replete with warnings of final judgment; a significant percentage of them demonstrate the essential divisiveness of the dawning of the kingdom. Images of hell–outer darkness, furnace of fire, weeping and gnashing of teeth, undying worms, eternal fire–are too ghastly to contemplate long. After Jesus’ resurrection, when Peter preaches on the day of Pentecost, he aims to convince his hearers that Jesus is the promised Messiah, that his death and resurrection are the fulfillment of Scripture, and that God “has made this Jesus, whom you crucified [he tells them], both Lord and Christ” (Acts 2:36). That is every bit as much threat as promise: the hearers are “cut to the heart” and cry, “What shall we do?” (2:37). That is what elicits Peter’s “Repent and believe” (3:38). When Peter preaches to Cornelius and his household, the climax of his moving address is that in fulfillment of Scripture God appointed Jesus “as judge of the living and the dead”–and thus not of Jews only. Those who believe in him receive “forgiveness of sins through his name”: transparently, that is what is essential if we are to face the judge and emerge unscathed. When he preaches to the Athenian pagan intellectuals, Paul, as we all know, fills in some of the great truths that constitute the matrix in which alone Jesus makes sense: monotheism, creation, who human beings are, God’s aseity and providential sovereignty, the wretchedness and danger of idolatry. Before he is interrupted, however, Paul gets to the place in his argument where he insists that God has set a day “when he will judge the world with justice”–and his appointed judge is Jesus, whose authoritative status is established by his resurrection from the dead. When Felix invites the apostle to speak “about faith in Christ Jesus” (Acts 24:24), Paul, we are told, discourses “on righteousness, self-control and the judgment to come” (24:15): apparently such themes are an irreducible part of faithful gospel preaching. Small wonder, then, that Felix was terrified (24:25). The Letter to the Romans, which many rightly take to be, at very least, a core summary of the apostle’s understanding of the gospel, finds Paul insisting that judgment takes place “on the day when God will judge men’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares” (Rom 2:16). Writing to the Thessalonians, Paul reminds us that Jesus “rescues us from the coming wrath” (1 Thess 1:10). This Jesus will be “revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels. He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power on the day he comes to be glorified in his holy people and to be marveled at among all those who have believed” (2 Thess 1:7-10). We await “a Savior from [heaven], the Lord Jesus Christ”–and what this Savior saves us from (the context of Philippians 3:19-20 shows) is the destiny of destruction. “Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath” (Eph 2:3), for we gratified “the cravings of our sinful nature . . . following its desires and thoughts” (2:3)–but now we have been saved by grace through faith, created in Christ Jesus to do good works (Eph 2:8-10). This grace thus saves us both from sins and from their otherwise inevitable result, the wrath to come. Jesus himself is our peace (Eph 2; Acts 10:36). “The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of human beings who suppress the truth by their wickedness” (Rom 1:18). But God presented Christ as a propitiation in his blood” (3:25), and now “we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand” (5:1-2).

Time and space fail to allow reflection on how the sacrifice of Christ in the Letter to the Hebrews is what alone enables us to escape the terror of those who fall into the hands of the living God, who is a consuming fire, or on how the Apocalypse presents the Lamb as the slaughtered sacrifice, even while warning of the danger of falling under the wrath of the Lamb.

This nexus of themes–God, sin, wrath, death, judgment–is what stands behind the simple words of, say, 1 Corinthians 15:3: as a matter of first importance, Paul tells us, “Christ died for our sins.” Parallel texts instantly leap to mind: “[Christ] was delivered over to death for our sins, and was raised to life for our justification” (Rom 4:25). “Christ died for the ungodly” (Rom 5:6). The Lord Jesus Christ “gave himself for our sins, to rescue us from the present evil age” (Gal 1:4). “Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God” (1 Pet 3:18). Or, as Paul puts it in 1 Corinthians 15:2, “By this gospel you are saved.” To be saved from our sins is to be saved not only from their chaining power but from their consequences–and the consequences are profoundly bound up with God’s solemn sentence, with God’s holy wrath. Once you see this, you cannot fail to see that whatever else the cross does, it must rightly set aside God’s sentence, it must rightly set aside God’s wrath, or it achieves nothing.

(2) Some popular slogans that have been deployed to belittle the doctrine of penal substitution betray painful misconceptions of what the Bible says about our Triune God. The best known of these appalling slogans, of course, is that penal substitution is a form of “cosmic child abuse.” This conjures up a wretched picture of a vengeful God taking it out on his Son, who had no choice in the matter. Instead of invoking the Triune God of the Bible, this image implicitly pictures interactions between two separable Gods, the Father and the Son. But this is a painful caricature of what the Bible actually says. In fact, I do not know of any serious treatment of the doctrine of penal substitution, undertaken by orthodox believers, that does not carefully avoid falling into such traps.
Consider Romans 5:8: “But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners Christ died for us.” This verse is coherent only if Christ himself is God. The cross is not Christ’s idea alone, conjured up to satisfy his bad-tempered Father. The Triune God, our Creator and our Judge, could have, in perfect justice, consigned us all to the pit. Instead, the Father so loved us as to send his Son, himself God, to bear our sins in his own body on the tree. Moreover, the Bible speaks of this mission not only in its bearing on us lost sinners, but also in its reflection of inner-Trinitarian commitments: by this mission the Father determines that all will honor the Son, even as they honor the Father (see John 5:16-30): where does this insistence fit into crass language about cosmic child abuse?

(3) In recent years there has been a lot of chatter about various “models” of the atonement that have appeared in the history of the church: the penal substitution model, the Christus Victor model, the exemplary model, and so forth. The impression is frequently given that today’s Christians are free to pick and choose among these so-called “models.” But for any Christian committed to the final authority of Scripture, this approach is methodologically flawed. It allows historical theology to trump Scripture. Surely the right question to ask is this: Which, if any, of these so-called “models” is exegetically warranted by the Bible itself? For instance, are there passages in which biblical writers insist that Christ in his death triumphed over the powers of darkness? Are there passages in which Christ’s self-sacrifice becomes a moral model for his followers? Are there passages in which Christ’s death is said to be a propitiation for our sins, i.e. a sacrifice that turns away the wrath of God? If the answer is “Yes” to these three options–and there are still more options I have not mentioned here–then choosing only one of them is being unfaithful to Scripture, for it is too limiting. Christians are not at liberty to pick and choose which of the Bible’s teachings are to be treasured.

(4) There is another question that must be asked when people talk about “models” of the atonement. Assuming we can show that several of them are warranted by Scripture itself, the question to ask is this: How, then, do these “models” cohere? Are they merely discrete pearls on a string? Or is there logic and intelligibility to them, established by Scripture itself?

One recent work that loves to emphasize the Christus Victor “model”–Christ by his death is victor over sin and death–somewhat begrudgingly concedes that penal substitution is found in a few texts, not least Romans 8:3. But this work expends no effort to show how these two views of the atonement should be integrated. In other words, the work in question denigrates penal substitution as a sort of minor voice, puffs the preferred “model” of Christus Victor, and attempts no integration. But I think it can be shown (though it would take a very long chapter to do it) that if one begins with the centrality of penal substitution, which is, as we have seen, grounded on a deep understanding of how sin is an offense against God, it is very easy to see how all the other so-called “models” of the atonement are related to it. The way Christ triumphs over sin and death is by becoming a curse for us, by satisfying the just demands of his heavenly Father, thereby silencing the accuser, and rising in triumph in resurrection splendor because sin has done its worst and been defeated by the One who bore its penalty. Moreover, in the light of such immeasurable love, there are inevitably exemplary moral commitments that Christ’s followers must undertake. In other words, it is easy to show how various biblical emphases regarding the atonement cohere if one begins with penal substitution. It is very difficult to establish the coherence if one begins anywhere else.

(5) At least some of the current work on the atonement that is proving so scathing of penal substitution reflects discouraging ignorance of earlier theological study and reflection. Few interact any more with standard works by J. I. Packer, John Stott, and others–let alone classic works produced by earlier generations. But a new generation is rising, forcing readers to take note that historic Christian confessionalism will not roll over and play dead. I heartily commend the recent book by Steve Jeffery, Mike Ovey, and Andrew Sach, Pierced for Our Transgressions: Rediscovering the Glory of Penal Substitution.