In the next few months, two new books will be released from my editorial purgatory and see the light of day.

In October/November, my Ecclesiastes commentary will be available. This is one of the earlier Old Testament volumes in Eerdman’s Two Horizons series, the focus of which is theological interaction with biblical texts, not the safe, boring, technical things that biblical scholars like me typically gravitate to like: “Did you know this Hebrew word occurs 17 times in this book and only one other time in the whole BIble? Wow!! Why aren’t you excited like me?” Or, “Watch me take this very common Hebrew word and interpet it in an utterly unique way because what I wrote in the previous paragraph depends on it.”

Things like that.

The commentary is divided into two parts roughly equal in length.

(1) Interaction with the Hebrew text (complete with transliterations and without getting stuffy about it).

(2) Interacting with the theology of Ecclesiasties.

The second half is made up of three parts. I first give an overview of the theological content of Ecclesiastes, then Ecclesiastes in the context of the Old and New Testament, and finally the significance of Ecclesiastes for theology and praxis today.

Those of you who know me well will not be surprised that in the theological section I apply a Christotelic hermeneutic. Also, for the truly geekified among you, I do not see Qohelet’s words as corrected by the epilogue but affirmed as wise–though not the final word. I also see Qohelet as a suffering Christ figure. (Yes, you heard me right.)

The second book, The Evolution of Adam (Brazos) should be out by January 1, although I have a fleet of lawyers trying to “encourage” the publisher to have it out in time to satisfy your gift-giving holiday needs.

For those familiar with my blogging on BioLogos, some of this book will be familiar–though I go into much greater detail than I could in blog posts and bring much more into the discussion.

The book is divided into two parts. Part one focuses on Genesis, and my general point is that the creation stories are part of Israel’s literature of national and religious self-definition. In other words, they are not prepared to give the type of (historical and scientific) information we ask for today when speaking of “human origins.”  To seek such information is to misread Genesis, and so attempts to align science and Genesis get us off on the foot altogether by not taking the biblical text on its own terms.

Part two focuses on Paul’s use of the Adam story in Romans 5. Paul’s reading of the Adam story, despite superficial appearances, is hardly straightforward, and appreciating the theological subtly and depth of Paul’s words requires much more of us than simply opening an English Bible, reading a few verses, and drawing conclusions. I go on and on about this for a lot of pages, because this is a far more pressing problem for most Christian readers than Genesis.

The audience for the commentary is seminarians, pastors, and scholars. For The Evolution of Adam, the intended audience is similar to that of Inspiration and Incarnation: lay readers looking for different approaches to old problems. In fact, The Evolution of Adam applies the approach of Inspiration and Incarnation to a specific and pressing issue: in view of evolution, what does it mean to read the Bible well? So think of EOA as I&I part two.

As time gets closer, I will blog more about these books, provide a table of contents, and maybe…if you’re nice…post some small excerpts to get you to read the books–or at least buy them.

My thanks to Westmont College and Tremper Longman III for inviting me to give this lecture.

He mentioned in his presentation the BioLogos Foundation as a being on the wrong side of this culture war, a since we are not biblical literalists and we feel science affects how we read the biblical account of creation. Along the way, Mohler made numerous statments about Darwin, science, and biblical interpretation that are simply wrong, ungenerous, and potentially misleading to his listeners, so we thought we would respond.

My response follows that of Darrel Falk’s and Karl Giberson’s (here and here). A transcript of Mohler’s presentation can be found here and the video here.

I will now sit back and wait for book and movie deals to come pouring in. Please don’t call me as I need to leave the phone lines open.

All kidding aside (was I kidding?), you can see that the story was handled with some objectivity, with little attempt to incriminate Waltke or RTS. Neither did ABC opt for an incendiary approach, which they could easily have done. I don’t think Ken Ham is a good representative of the Evangelical counterculture, though, since his views are so idiosyncratic (I don’t think RTS faculty think that there were dinosaurs on the ark).

The heart of the issue did come through, though, as far as I am concerned, which is: what happened between BKW and RTS should not have happened, but, given the general “culture of fear” concerning evolution among Evangelicals, it was inevitable.

The piece will air either tonight (Friday the 16th) or this Sunday night.