This is a re-post, of sorts…
Daniel Kirk’s new book, Unlocking Romans: Resurrection and the Justification of God, is now available.
Many of the contributors of this blog, and certainly some of its readers, know Daniel Kirk. Daniel is a MDiv graduate of Westminster Theological Seminary (2000). He subsequently completed a PhD in New Testament from Duke University’s Department of Religion, studying under Richard Hays, E.P. Sanders, and Joel Marcus, among others. He wrote a fascinating dissertation on Resurrection in Romans, how Paul re-understood and re-told the significance of Israel in the light of Christ. His advisor was none other than Richard Hays, whose writings certainly molded my thought on Paul and the communal significance of Paul for the church more than anyone else’s writings. Daniel started his job as a professor of New Testament at Fuller Theological Seminary this Fall.
During and since his time at Duke Daniel has written a fair amount concerning Paul and the significance of recent scholarship on Paul for the contemporary church. He penned a helpful response to Doug Kelly (Professor of Systematic Theology at RTS-Charlotte) on the New Perspective and Reformed Theology for the PCA’s online news site. He also published a two-part article in the Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology (24 [2006]: 36-64, 133-54) arguing for a passive-obedience-only position both as Scriptural and within the bounds of the Westminster Standards. A shorter version of these articles is available online, as are google-documents versions of the original articles (1 & 2), which require some cleaning-up. Many of you have read, and probably frequent, Daniel’s blog. There, when he has time, he has continued to post refreshing communally and missionally-oriented reflections on Christ, the Bible, hermeneutics, and contemporary scholarship. His reputation as a cutting-edge but church-oriented scholar apparently grew enough that he was asked to present a paper on the New Perspective on Paul at last year’s meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society. Daniel has written and published other reviews, essays, and articles in more academically oriented contexts as well.
While I have known Daniel, I have seen (and see) him grow as a churchman; as one committed to serving the church through his scholarship. For those all of us here who know him, his passion for seeing God continue to challenge the Church through Christ and His Word is contagious. This passion and drive is evident in his writings.
Recently Daniel reworked his dissertation for publication through Eerdmans. It is now available, Unlocking Romans: Resurrection and the Justification of God. This book epitomizes many of Daniel’s driving concerns. He approaches Romans with a sensitive eye on the historical-pastoral concerns that shaped the letter and springs from there to wrestling with the powerful missional-communal message Romans still speaks to the church.
I have long found in Daniel’s work careful and sensitive exegesis. This sensitivity spans, again, from historical, cultural, communal, and theological issues of the first century to missional, practical, theological, and pastoral concerns for both then and now.
I wanted to alert everyone to this recent publication. In this book we find some matured fruit of Westminster’s and Gaffin’s Redemptive-Historical approach to Paul; matured through combination with helpful religious-historical sensitivities to the 1st century context of Romans.
Above I linked to the Westminster Bookstore’s page for the book. Should anyone want to go above and beyond in contributing to the college fund for Daniel’s children, I hear he gets even more money per sale when people purchase from the (always overpriced!) Barnes and Noble webside (currently out-of-stock on Daniel’s book).
April 7, 2009 at 8:11 am
FTH
Congrats to you on your Tar Heels finally winning one!
March 30, 2009 at 9:24 am
FTN
Sean and I have gone a round two over at Green Baggins ( but Lane has since banned him). Sean is a disciple of the late John Robbins and blames Van Til and WTS for every imaginable heresy that has come down the pike over the last 60 years. It should be pointed out to Sean that Guy Waters ,who reviewed Kirk book ,is also a graduate of WTS and did his PhD at Duke as well. Again, my comment over at Scott’s blog was designed as a dig or elbow in the ribs at N.T. Wright/NPP types-who actually are simply embracing a form of Baxterism(so says both J.I. Packer and Paul Helm).As a WTS graduate myself ,I take offense when the seminary is slandered from whatever source, but especially fellow alumni.
March 25, 2009 at 4:47 pm
The books is seriously mistitled. It should be “Unlocking Romanism” since Mr. Kirk is under the delusion that Protestants should ask “the Roman Catholic Church for forgiveness.” That would be laughable if it wasn’t so pathetic. Maybe Kirk should exegete 2 Tim 4:3,4.
Beyond that and per Guy Waters review of the book, Mr. Kirk is under the other Romanish delusion that the final judgment is on the basis of works – of course works done by faith. Anyway, more bilge coming from the misguided and lost at WTS.
March 25, 2009 at 5:13 pm
Sean,
To my knowledge we do not know each other. So, hi.
I saw a similar comment from you over at RSClark’s blog. Have you read the book or are you simply going from what Waters said in his ‘review’? Why don’t you buy the book, read it, and thus read the Daniel’s comment on pp. 233-34 in context (there, I have done some homework for you…telling you where in the book you can find the comments you go after).
I would love to see you and others like you use Daniel’s book as an opportunity to show the rest of us that you CAN engage in critical discussion about the Bible. To show you can engage in discussion and debate about historical and hermeneutical concerns and points of “exegesis” rather than simply labeling someone a Roman Catholic as thought that somehow functions as a legitimate argument against all their historical points.
Also, this is how you want to represent Jesus…name calling and insults?
December 4, 2008 at 7:30 pm
Daniel,
I would love to see some engagement here…however, I will let others start it in the comments.
December 4, 2008 at 2:10 pm
I get less when it sells via Amazon or CBD. B&N was the contrast used when telling me about commissions; I’m all for WTS Books being in the B&N category! Buy there!
But what I’m really looking for is a substantive engagement here. What’s the book say? Where does it need to be tightened up for the second edition?
December 4, 2008 at 10:17 am
You do know more about such things, Mark. I am simply going by what I heard.
December 3, 2008 at 10:14 pm
I’m not at all sure how he would get more money depending on where the book is purchased. His royalties ought to be paid out of the publisher’s sales, and both B&N and WTSBooks buy it from the same source.