As Daniel Bolliger has shown, Zwingli’s development was deeply rooted in the Scotist tradition, as represented by Thomas Brulefer in particular. This article follows up on this observation in order to draw systematic conclusions. Zwingli took up Scotus’ understanding of God as a kind of being that is far above any relationship to the finite. Zwingli framed this notion in different ways throughout his career. The first step of his development was the opposition of the infinite creator to finite creation. In a second, decisively reformational step, Zwingli highlighted the difference between the Divine Word and that of the human. This leads to the difference between spirit and matter. This is at the source of Zwingli’s difference to Luther. Both show different ways of transforming the Middle Ages, leading to different ways of Reformation.

Review

The doctrine of the beatifying vision of God may be derived not only from Sacred Scripture’s promise to the faithful that they shall ‘see God’ (Matt 5:8; 1 Cor 13:12; 1 John 3:2), but also (and perhaps more fundamentally) from Scripture’s testimony that God ‘is not the God of disorder but of peace’ (1 Cor 14:33). An analysis of the concepts of nature, on the part of humanity, and agency, on the part of divinity, within a broadly Aristotelian framework elucidates why early modern Reformed scholastics exposited the beatific vision as the ultimate end of humankind as a fitting implicate of the biblical testimony that God is a God of order.

By Drew Hunter (Wheaton: Crossway, 2020), 601pp., hbk, US$19.99.
 ISBN 9781433569494

By Robert Bruce, edited by David Searle (Fearn: Christian Heritage, 2019), 624pp., hbk, £29.99.
 ISBN 9781527103634

Currently, Old Testament scholars have accepted that it is virtually impossible to ascertain the provenance and date of the biblical book of Obadiah confidently. The majority views the date as soon after the fall of Jerusalem in 587 BC, but this is acknowledged to be tentative. Post-exilic and pre-exilic dates are also advocated. This article re-examines the evidence and introduces some more considerations, concluding that an early pre-exilic date for Obadiah is most likely. Elsewhere, the author has redated Joel to 773 BC. Since Joel quotes Obadiah, the book of Obadiah should be dated earlier than that. This article then examines all nine attacks on Jerusalem recorded in the Old Testament to see if what Obadiah describes can be matched to any of them. This leads to the conclusion that Obadiah should be dated to 801 bce, in conjunction with the raid on Jerusalem by a small band of Syrian soldiers as described in 2 Chronicles 24:23–25:24. I propose that some Edomites aided and abetted them in this attack. Obadiah prophesied in between the events recorded in 2 Chronicles 25:16 and 17. If this is so, it sheds light on Amaziah’s attacking Edom, not Syria, for justice and/or revenge (2 Chr 25:11–14). It also offers an explanation for Amaziah’s apostasy to Edomite, not Syrian gods (2 Chr 25:14), and his challenge to Jehoahaz, king of Israel (2 Chr 25:17–24). Other confirming data are presented, and some corollaries are then deduced.