The book of Ruth shows that even amid a dark period of unthinkable wickedness and rebellion, God is still working to accomplish His purpose of redemption. This book is also a reminder that even when it seems an entire nation has rejected the Lord, His faithful remnant remains.

With everything we face in our world today, it is a great relief to look at God’s faithful, covenant love in the first two chapters of this book. God’s covenant love triumphs over everything against His people so that we persevere in hope. Paul writes in Romans 8:35: “Who will separate us from the love of Christ? Will tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?” In Ruth 1-2, we see a number of these things trying to separate God’s people from His love. Yet, these chapters are a living illustration of the truth of Romans 8:35-39 and God’s enduring, unbreakable love for His people. 

There are three things from Ruth 1-2 that enable us to persevere in hope on the firm foundation of God’s covenant love. 

First, to persevere in hope, we need to recognize the reality of adversity.

The story of redemption in Ruth is born in the cradle of adversity. In just this chapter, Naomi undergoes five severe experiences of difficulty. 

As the story opens, we meet a family of four, who are confronted with famine in Israel. This famine was such a severe trial that it prompted Elimelech, Ruth’s future father-in-law, to uproot his family to Moab. 

This family then faces the adversity of living among unfriendly foreigners outside the land that God gave to Israel. Moab had long opposed Israel and their military conquests.

Naomi’s third trial occurs when her husband died, and she now was burdened by being a widow in a foreign land. Her sons were probably not very old, so they would have been of limited help. 

God’s covenant love triumphs over everything against His people so that we persevere in hope.

After Naomi’s sons married foreign women, they died as well, extinguishing Naomi’s family line. She is bereft not only of her family, but also of any legal help or protection. 

Naomi eventually learns that the Lord has brought the famine to an end and decides to move back home. It was extremely dangerous for a woman to travel alone, but Naomi’s options at this point are to remain in Moab as an unprotected widow or to take a chance on the journey and hope some distant relative back home might assist her.

When Naomi arrives home, the intensity of the adversity she has faced is not lost on her. She recognizes the difficulties she has experienced, and she has been, at least in her understanding, irrevocably changed because of her trials. Naomi left a woman who was full of joy, with a family and high hopes. She came back destitute and hopeless. 

The language of this opening chapter is reminiscent of the book of Job. Naomi loses everything she values in her life. Her trials seem to happen in rapid succession, without a respite from the adversity. Also, like Job, she recognizes everything comes from the Lord’s hand and providence. Whether Naomi is proven right about what God is doing is yet to be seen, but the reality is that God is the one who has moved her through it all.

If we’re encountering adversity, remember God is working in and through our lives. Our trials have not taken God by surprise. Adversity is providence. 

Second, to persevere with hope, we need to respond to adversity in faith.

When Naomi decided to leave Moab, her two daughters-in-law desired to follow. She encouraged them to return to their mother’s house. Eventually, Orpah was persuaded to go home, but Ruth would not be persuaded. 

Ruth is determined to follow Naomi, wanting to convert to become an Israelite. In doing so, she understands she must forsake her gods and worship only the God of Israel; unexpectedly, especially given the context of Judges, she freely volunteers her unwavering loyalty to Israel’s God! Here we have this foreigner, excluded from the Lord’s assembly by her nationality, committing herself to the Lord until death. What a picture: Ruth the Moabitess is utterly loyal to the God of Israel, while Israel itself continually forsakes Him. 

If we’re encountering adversity, remember God is working in and through our lives. Our trials have not taken God by surprise.

This conversion appears to be genuine. Ruth does not say Naomi’s gods will be her gods; instead, she specifically names Israel’s God. Moreover, Boaz later recognizes Ruth came to take refuge under the Lord’s protection. Through Ruth’s relationship with her Israelite family, she saw the futility of the Moabite gods and the glory of the God of Israel – and she would not be parted from Him. 

What was it about the God of Israel that Ruth found so attractive? Ruth’s first exposure to Him was a God whose people were suffering from famine. Then, her father-in-law is dead, and her husband and brother-in-law passed away. She was a barren widow. She and her mother-in-law became embittered and impoverished.

Despite all that had happened, Ruth wanted to follow the Lord because she had found truth. Once Ruth had recognized truth, it didn’t matter the cost or the external trappings, nor did it matter that the lie looked more promising in the short run. The God of Israel was the true God, and she would not relinquish Him.

Most importantly, though, this woman responds to adversity with faith. She doesn’t make her decision based on emotion or external circumstances. Instead, she makes her decision based on God’s truth.

Ruth’s response is so instructive. When we struggle with adversity, does truth drive our response? Or does the flesh lead to despair rather than hope? When we tell others the gospel of Christ, are we confident that the power is in the truth, not in our presentation? We need to remind ourselves repeatedly that Scripture is the truth, and our God is the true God against all the world’s lies. 

Third, to persevere with hope, rest in God’s faithfulness through adversity.

Chapter two of Ruth shows God’s faithfulness to Ruth and Naomi. 

When she settles in her new home, Ruth takes the initiative to provide food. The field that Ruth discovers to glean belongs to a man named Boaz, who was related to Naomi’s late husband. When Boaz finds out Ruth’s identity, he instructed his workers to ensure she is provided for and protected. Boaz also tells Ruth he has provided for her because of her godly reputation.

Scripture is the truth, and our God is the true God against all the world’s lies.

In the end, God’s provision to Naomi and Ruth is more than abundant – not only of food, but also of physical protection, something two widows would have severely needed in their culture. Moreover, it appears that a budding romance is beginning between Boaz and Ruth. 

As we look at this chapter, God’s provision for Naomi and Ruth is unmistakable. God provides for the ladies in their distress in more ways than initially Ruth even was seeking. This is how God works. He regularly provides for His people even during adversity. We can rest in His care and love even if the entire world around us has been turned upside down.

Here we see two women who were able to persevere in hope because of God’s faithfulness. Without God, they would have had no hope – and neither does anyone apart from faith in Christ. It’s amazing to consider that Ruth was part of a population that God said were never allowed in His people. And yet Ruth was received by God because she trusted in Him. Jesus turns away no one who comes to Him in faith. What a marvelous and reassuring promise of hope and salvation!

Recently, the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC), an entity of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC), published its Light Magazine 2022 Winter issue, Pursuing a Culture of Life. One of the articles was by SBC President, Bart Barber, entitled, “Working Toward the End of Abortion: A Pro-Life Response to Abolitionism’s Critiques.”

But the title of Barber’s piece is a bit of a misnomer. Instead of responding to critiques, the bulk of his article is spent making false claims about the abolitionist position, false claims about the law and our legal system, and even false claims about the general Pro-Life movement’s positions.

Here, we will examine a few of Barber’s most egregious claims.

Life of the Mother

Barber leads off with a “question of contention” on the issue of life-threatening danger to the mother. Yet, in spite of what Barber implies, most abolitionists agree that laws should allow doctors to save the life of the mother in a life-threatening situation, after doing everything they can to save both, even if an unintended yet unavoidable result is the death of the baby. Every single abolition bill has allowed for this either under existing law or, more often, by including an explicit provision.

Barber should be very well aware of this, but he nevertheless leads off his attacks with this erroneous claim, probably because it sounds so frightening. Yet his own “evidence” for this claim demonstrates its absurdity.

He begins by spending two paragraphs attacking a 2019 Ohio bill, House Bill 413. Barber claims that the bill “presume[s] to mandate medical procedures that do not exist in the present state of medical technology,” and he tries to use it to argue that abolitionists write bad bills.

But here’s the thing: abolitionists did not write that bill. Even more importantly, that bill has never been claimed as an abolition bill. In 2019, prior to Dobbs, a bill was not considered to be an abolition bill unless it explicitly nullified Roe v. Wade, which the Ohio bill did not. As a result, trying to ascribe that bill to the “abortion abolition movement” is extremely disingenuous.

Although that should be enough to demonstrate the lack of good faith argument, Barber digs the hole deeper. He claims the Ohio bill “presumes to mandate” a medical procedure that does not yet exist, but then he leaves out an important part of the bill. He cites line 5377 of the bill but omits two important words from that same line. There, the bill only lists attempting to reimplant an ectopic pregnancy as an option “if applicable,” that is, if and when such a procedure were to be medically feasible. But Barber chops off the “if applicable” part.

This is interesting because, right after his attack on the bill, Barber himself says that such a procedure “would be a welcome and life-changing technology should it be developed, and we should pray for the day when it becomes viable.” Yet then he attacks a legal provision that tries to account for the procedure ever becoming viable. By not mentioning the “if applicable” part of the provision, Barber makes this part of the bill sound scary and out of touch instead of being something that accounts for the possible development of the very procedure he says we should pray for.

Later, Barber tries to use a 2022 Louisiana bill, House Bill 813, as evidence for his false claims. Barber says, “If abolitionists had succeeded in passing [HB 813] as they had written it, the definition of abortion in Louisiana would have included procedures to take the life of ectopic babies.” But that is completely false. While Barber does get it right (this time) that HB 813 actually was written and supported by the abolitionist movement, he gets pretty much everything else about it wrong.

Barber appears to believe that the bill’s removal of language regarding “implantation” in favor of “fertilization” in the Louisiana definition of “person” would have somehow criminalized the act of removing an ectopic pregnancy threatening the mother’s life.

Yet the whole reason an ectopic pregnancy threatens the mother’s life is because the unborn child has implanted somewhere other than the uterus. As the article Barber quotes says, “In an ectopic pregnancy, the egg [i.e. embryo] implants outside the uterus, usually in the fallopian tube” (emphasis added).

The existing Louisiana law defining “person” did not specify where implantation had occurred. So even under existing Louisiana law, an embryo implanted in a fallopian tube is just as much a “person” protected by law as an embryo implanted in a uterus. Since HB 813 would not have changed that at all, arguing that the bill would have somehow criminalized dealing with an ectopic pregnancy is ludicrous.

Even if Barber believes the bill could have been more clear on that point, the proper solution would have been for the bill to be amended to add further clarification. But instead of making suggestions or attempts to improve the Louisiana bill, the leadership of the ERLC joined efforts to kill the bill, in which they succeeded.

Culpability of Abortive Mothers

Barber spends the next three sections of his article discussing whether women who get abortions are victims and whether they should be subject to legal consequences if they have been a willing participant in the death of their own preborn child.

The standard line of the Pro-Life establishment has been that no woman should ever be subject to laws against prenatal homicide because all women are victims, and Barber begins by arguing as much.

Tom Ascol has previously written a helpful response to this kind of claim:  “Are women who seek abortions victims? Of course, in the sense that every human being is a victim of sin and its consequences. Beyond that there is no doubt that some women are coerced and manipulated into abortion due to being trafficked or otherwise abused. As the Bible requires in making any judgment, all the relevant facts must be taken into account. But these realities do not mean that as a class all women who procure abortions are victims in some special sense, or on par with the babies that are intentionally killed by the procedure.”

In other words, in the legal sense, some abortive women are victims, and some are not.

Yet Barber begins his arguments by echoing the mantra of the Pro-Life establishment, that all abortive women are victims even in a legal sense because they are pressured into abortions by men, their families, social stigma, and the abortion industry.

Perhaps one of the chief reasons many women in our country believe there is nothing wrong with aborting a child is that even the bills pushed by the Pro-Life movement have taught them this.

The law is a tutor. When a Pro-Life bill says that the abortive mother has done nothing legally wrong, they believe it. Sadly, the Pro-Life establishment has been complicit in perpetuating this grave misunderstanding. The abolition bills Barber opposes are actually the solution.

First, once they went into effect, abolition bills of equal protection would immediately teach everyone that a human being from fertilization to birth is just as much a human being as one after birth.

Secondly, unlike the Pro-Life bills Barber supports, abolition bills would actually deal with the pressure placed upon women by their boyfriends, parents, and the abortion industry.

When was the last time someone seriously tried to talk you into or pressure you into murdering a born person? It has probably never happened to you. Why not? Because it is illegal! And if you were to go through with it, the person who talked you into it would be a party to your crime.

Yet because abortion is not currently treated as homicide in any state, guess what is not illegal. That’s right. Because Pro-Life legislation says it is legal for a mother to get an abortion, that also makes it legal to encourage her to do it. And up to threatening her life or limb, it even makes it legal to pressure her into it.

This is why, even in Barber’s home state of Texas, some previous abortion clinics are still open so, among other things, they can teach and encourage women how to abort their children. Legally.

Meanwhile, at the same time Barber says women who consent to abortion should not be legally culpable, he says that they are morally and spiritually culpable. This is a major disconnect and inconsistency. While of course not all sins are or should be crimes, abortion is the knowing and willing shedding of blood of innocent human beings. Providing justice for such a crime is the very first duty God gave to civil government when He instituted it in Genesis 9 after the world had been filled with violence before the Flood.

Barber apparently has no problem with homicide laws protecting his life. For some reason, he seems okay with considering people to be morally, spiritually, and criminally culpable for killing another human being after birth. Yet he believes the mother who kills her own child before birth somehow is morally and spiritually culpable but is never culpable before the law.

Huh?

Barber himself tries to wrestle through his own obvious inconsistency: “But didn’t this essay just declare the woman to be morally and spiritually culpable in abortion? If so, why should abortion laws not hold them legally culpable? Surely there is some prosecutable role that the woman plays? Is she guilty of murder-for-hire?”

Barber answers his own question with, “It depends.” At this point, Barber seems to unknowingly stray from the “mainstream Pro-Life view” and toward abolition by indicating he may be okay with prosecuting some women (the ones who are not victims?). He then goes on to make some confusing and erroneous statements about how criminal laws work:

“But what about that “Shout Your Abortion” activist? Is there no legal recourse for differentiating between her and a frightened teenager or a victim of sex-trafficking? I think it is unnecessary to single out women for prosecution in laws banning abortion because most states already have criminal conspiracy laws on the books. If performing an abortion is a crime, and if the abortionist is held guilty by the law, it is likely possible under existing law to prosecute any obviously and egregiously culpable woman for criminal solicitation or criminal conspiracy.”

First, saying “it depends” and “prosecute some women” is contrary to the position of almost every single organization in the Pro-Life movement Barber claims to be representing, including the ERLC. Under bills pushed by the Pro-Life establishment, it does not “depend.” Every single woman who aborts her own child gets a free pass, regardless of how clear her intent or how heinous the circumstances.

Since Barber seems lost here, let’s remember: abolitionists are the ones who say “it depends” and “prosecute some women.” Abolitionists are the ones who say to let the justice system consider each situation on a case-by-case basis. Allowing the justice system to “differentiate among the Shout Your Abortion activist, a frightened teenager, or a victim of sex-trafficking,” is the abolitionist position. The Pro-Life establishment position Barber says he supports is the one that says none of them should be penalized for killing their own because they are all legal victims.

At the same time he seems to misunderstand these positions, Barber also demonstrates a lack of understanding of the law and the legal system. The bills passed by the Pro-Life movement for decades have explicitly stated that no woman may ever be prosecuted for aborting her own child. So not even the “Shout Your Abortion” women can be held legally accountable for murdering their children. As a result, contrary to what Barber claims, they cannot be prosecuted for criminal solicitation or conspiracy either. That is not how the law works.

Pro-Life Law

Some of you may be questioning the claims made here about Pro-Life bills. Please look at the laws for yourself. Here are a few examples of these kinds of legal provisions from Barber’s home state:

“This [homicide] chapter does not apply to the death of an unborn child if the conduct charged is…conduct committed by the mother of the unborn child.” Tex. Penal Code § 19.06.

In other words, you cannot charge a mother with homicide of her own child, whether she solicits or conspires with someone else to do it or not.

Here is similar language from the 2021 Texas Heartbeat Act:

“[The Texas Heartbeat Act] may not be construed to authorize the initiation of a cause of action against or the prosecution of a woman on whom an abortion is performed or induced or attempted to be performed or induced in violation of this subchapter.” Tex. Health & Safety Code § 171.206(b).

And here is more language from the 2021 Texas Human Life Protection Act (i.e. the “Trigger Bill”):

“[The Texas Human Life Protection Act] may not be construed to authorize the imposition of criminal, civil, or administrative liability or penalties on a pregnant female on whom an abortion is performed, induced, or attempted.” Tex. Health & Safety Code § 170A.003.

All of these laws were introduced by Pro-Life politicians, enacted by Pro-Life majorities, and signed by Pro-Life governors. And laws like this are not just in Texas. This is the way Pro-Life bills are written around the country because Pro-Life organizations like the ERLC oppose any abortive mother ever being legally accountable for murdering her own child.

Burden of Proof

Barber goes on to talk about how the burden of proof should not be on the woman (as if anyone had been arguing otherwise): “Let abortion abolitionists seek to prosecute women under these existing laws if they must [not possible, as discussed above], and if they cannot meet the requisite burden of proof, then it is in no way necessary or just to take the burden of proof away from these activists and place it upon the woman instead.”

Yet again, Barber displays his unfamiliarity with basic concepts of criminal law and tries to make it sound like abolitionists would require mothers to prove their own innocence, but that is completely false.

In our American system of justice, every criminal defendant is presumed innocent, and the burden of proving their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is always on the government. If that is what Barber says he wants, fantastic! That is exactly the way it would work under every abolition bill of equal protection because that’s exactly how it works when someone is accused of homicide of a born person.

Medication Abortions

Another glaring issue throughout Barber’s article is that he repeatedly ignores the existence of medication abortions.

At one point, Barber says, “What is the murder weapon? It’s a set of surgical tools, right? Who operated the murder weapon? The abortionist did. The abortionist is the murderer, and any law banning abortion should identify the abortionist uniquely as such.”

Ignoring the whole murder-for-hire issue for the moment, what about the abortions where there is no abortionist wielding surgical tools? Even before Dobbs, the majority of all abortions were medication abortions. The mother takes the pills herself.

Mr. Barber, welcome to 2023, where Pro-Life bills regulating surgical methods have simply redirected the demands of the abortion market toward earlier and easier methods. How do we stop that? Should we criminalize the pills, which also have positive uses? Would outlawing guns stop murders of born people?

Instead,the proper way to deal with prenatal homicide is not to try to imagine every possible tool, chemical, and method someone may use to kill a preborn baby and then try to outlaw it. That would be impossible. The right way to deal with prenatal homicide is the same way we deal with postnatal homicide: to prohibit the act of causing the death of another person if done with criminal intent. And do not give anyone a license to kill. Make the prohibition apply to everyone.

Conclusion

Barber winds down his article by defending his own state representative, Jeff Leach, as well as Oklahoma senators Greg Treat and Jason Smalley, because Barber alleges they were criticized by abolitionists merely because these legislators “prefer the pro-life approach over the abortion abolition approach.”

The irony of this is that, just a few paragraphs earlier, Barber said this: “The abortion abolition movement has, so far, been unable to pass legislation even in the most pro-life states in the Union.”

This is a self-own, because what Barber fails to mention is the primary reason why the abolitionist movement has, so far, been unable to pass legislation in the most Pro-Life states in the union. You see, Leach, Treat, Smalley, and other Pro-Life politicians do not merely “prefer the pro-life approach over the abortion abolition approach.” Rather, they are the ones who are killing the abolitionist bills. And they are doing so at the urging of Pro-Life organizations like the ERLC and Pro-Life leaders like Bart Barber.

Perhaps the culture in many states would start believing a fetus is a person if we all started acting like it. Perhaps we should all agree to support bills that try to protect their lives with the same laws protecting the lives of all other human beings. And perhaps we could truly abolish abortion and pass those bills and if the Pro-Life movement and its leaders like Bart Barber would stop killing them.

Regardless, we will continue to strive to do God’s will God’s ways by seeking to love our preborn neighbors as ourselves by protecting their lives with the same laws that protect ours.

Recently I received the prayer letter from Wayne Grudem. He sends these out because he really wants the saints to join in prayer that Wayne’s calling, gifts, experience, and projects be owned of God for his glory and the leavening effect of his truth. The letter this week contained a prayer request to pray in light of the “Ending my teaching career.” He explained that at the end of a theology class “I walked out of the classroom with a kind of weariness that I don’t remember feeling before. The combination of my Parkinson’s disease, my prostate cancer and its treatments, and my 76 years of age all are combining, and the result is that I don’t have the energy that I have previously had.” After consultation with Margaret and trusted observers and advisors, Wayne decided “that this would be my last semester of teaching.” Wayne began his teaching ministry in 1977-1981 at Bethel College in St. Paul. From 1981-2001 he taught at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. In 2001 he began a 23-year tenure of teaching at Phoenix Seminary in Scottsdale, Arizona. Over these 47 years Wayne has taught more than 9,000 students. Now he will do what he has already done so well—write.

It will be worthwhile to consider Wayne’s attitude toward this pivot in life. Having parents that lived into their 90’s, close to two decades could remain (DV) and careful stewardship leads him to say, “I need wisdom from God to know what to spend my time on.” Certainly, readers of this post will sympathize spiritually with that desire and pray for the usefulness of this steward of the gospel.

In reflection on having reached such a corner in life, Wayne pointed to a biblical passage shared with him by Vern Poythress.

Do not cast me off in time of old age;

forsake me not when my strength is spent . . . . 

O God, from my youth you have taught me,

and I still proclaim your wondrous deeds.

So even to old age and gray hairs,

O God, do not forsake me,

until I proclaim your might to another generation,

your power to all those to come

(Psalm 7[1]:9, 17-18). 

Giving insight into the operations of Spirit-driven Christian confidence Wayne noted, “I find it interesting that I’m not thinking of old age as something to be feared. It rather feels like I’ve been running a long race and I’ve turned a corner and now I see the finish line in the distance. Thinking that perhaps 80% of the race is over is, for me, a comforting feeling.”

Wayne’s literary contribution in a number of biblical and cultural areas has been profound and formative: spiritual, theological, exegetical, business, political, ethical issues have all been addressed by this theologian. His engagement with topics of many kinds has been so consistent, voluminous, and large that any attempt to give an extensive summary would be impossible. Wayne’s book the Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today [Westchester, IL: Crossway, 1988], in addition to his defense of the continued presence of the gift of prophecy, has some stern warnings against flippant or uninformed dependence on an immediate manifestation of Spirit-driven utterance. His appendices on the canon and the sufficiency of Scripture are profound and apologetically assuring. He says, “if someone claims to have a message from God for us concerning what we ought to do, we need never think that it is sin to disobey such a message unless it can be confirmed by the application of Scripture itself to our situation.” (308) He also issues this warning, “if a pastor does not prepare for a Bible teaching, but says he is ‘trusting the Lord’ to bring something to mind, then he is, in my opinion trying to force the Lord to reveal something to him when he speaks. … Stepping into the pulpit without preparing is like jumping off the pinnacle of the temple. It involves refusing to use the ordinary means God has made available and demanding that he provide some kind of extraordinary revelation to rescue you from your dilemma!” (258).

Application of biblical principles to political issues is a mark of Grudem’s sense of stewardship of the whole life. In over 600 pages of text in Politics According to the Bible, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010] Wayne develops his discussion through “Basic Principles,” “Specific Issues,” and “Concluding Observations.” That final section serves as an excellent summary of his conclusions and how the different political party commitments align with his observations. He does not dodge any tough issue and seeks to unfold relevant biblical principles into greatly diverse and detailed issues. The first specific issue is “protection of life” within which he discusses not only abortion and euthanasia, but the right for citizens to own guns. He discusses the CIA, climate change, coercive interrogation, abortion, the economy (under ten categories), marriage and family, national defense, foreign policy, freedom of speech and religion, and other particular issues. In his section on worldview Wayne begins, “The very first sentence of the Bible tells us the most important building block of a Christian worldview: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” (116). As he maintains throughout, this is God’s world, and governments and political systems will thrive and be redemptive agents or fail and increase corruption to the degree that they maintain the proper relation between human responsibility, moral vision, and just adjudication.

His Christian Ethics: An Introduction to Biblical Moral Reasoning, a book of almost 1300 pages, is not only concerned about coming to a biblical position on a large number of complex moral issues, but about developing Christian character and a desire to live to the glory of God. As in virtually all he writes, Wayne gives an exposition and defense of the full authority of Scripture as the word of God. He shows that, in addition to informing the mind and shaping one’s actions, Scripture properly conceived has a transforming effect on those who study it, cherish it, and hide its words in the heart with the ultimate effect to be conformed to the image of Christ (107-115). He gives 50 pages to the chapter on “Homosexuality and Transgenderism” dealing with large amounts of biblical material, frank discussions of the variety of unscriptural behaviors, and dissonant arguments from other ethicists. In a discussion of transgender bathrooms and locker rooms Wayne makes the judgment, “Such policies thus attempt to reinforce the lie that a person’s gender is something one can choose, not something determined by biological reality” (880).

Wayne does not shy away from all the tough issues and helps us engage with biblical awareness the possible future fallout of naturalistic relativism as applied to ethical issues.  Parts 2-7 are built on the ten commandments, showing the truth of the Psalmist’s exclamation, “I have seen a limit to all perfection; Your commandment is exceedingly broad” (Psalm 119:96 NASB). Chapters close with a Scripture memory passage and a hymn relevant to the subject discussed. Though the issues are often complex and the stakes for personal integrity and social stability and justice are high, Wayne’s discussions and application of relevant Scriptures give a sweet simplicity to the reasoning process about these matters. An example of a general principle applicable to several questions of moral desire is this: “In every generation there is a temptation to depart from the sufficiency of Scripture with new kinds of legalism that God does not require. Therefore, we must avoid two errors: the error of disobeying Scripture and the error of adding to Scripture more than God requires.” (688).

His Systematic Theology (Second Edition) is close to 1600 pages of intense biblical discussion of dogmatics in seven divisions: the Word of God, God, Man in God’s image, Christ and the Holy Spirit, the application of redemption, the church, and the future. This huge systematic theology has been edited to two smaller versions useful for church studies.

Similar to the experience of many Reformed and Evangelical Christians, Wayne testifies to the pleasing and confirming influence of J. Gresham Machen’s work, Christianity and Liberalism. His evaluation of its helpfulness has prompted him to encourage a serious engagement with the breadth of its doctrine and the biblical potency of its arguments. In the section on Scripture, Wayne includes a table of J. Gresham Machen’s interaction with liberalism by distinct categories along with relevant passages of Scripture and places in Christianity and Liberalism where the issue is discussed.

None should doubt the Christological orthodoxy of Grudem. In the context of a carefully-crafted exposition of the biblical and confessional development of the church’s confession of Christ’s person (663-705), in a section discussing the question of impeccability, Wayne says, “But Jesus’ human nature never existed apart from his divine nature. From the moment of his conception, he existed as truly God and truly man as well. Both his human nature and his divine nature existed while united in one person” (673).

Grudem narrates his broad and deep engagement with contemporary and historical theology both in the text and in well-placed pertinent footnotes. Each chapter includes questions for personal application and a double bibliography. One of these locates page numbers from denominational theologies in chronological order dealing with the subject under discussion. The other is a list of works devoted to the subject. The chapter on atonement has 46 such works listed. On this doctrine, Grudem says, “In conclusion, it seems to me that the Reformed position of ‘particular redemption’ is most consistent with the overall teaching of Scripture” (743). Having staked out his personal position, Wayne warns against unhelpful and spiritually unhealthy “nit-picking that creates controversies and useless disputes” (744). Again, every chapter includes a memory verse and a hymn to memorize.

In his book entitled “Free Grace” Theology: 5 Ways it Diminishes the Gospel [Wheaton: Crossway, 2016], Wayne engaged a modern manifestation of Sandemanianism. Like Andrew Fuller before him, he examined the leading ideas of the “Free Grace” movement in the context of closely reasoned biblical exegesis, confessional history, and the moral character and necessary connection of repentance and faith. Though justification certainly includes a belief of the truth, the work of the Holy Spirit in bringing a person to a saving relationship with the Lord Jesus and his redemptive work involves more than a bare belief of the bare truth. While stating clearly the errors of the “Free Grace,’ Grudem helps the reader understand what prompts such a doctrinal reaction and seeks avenues for nurturing a spirit of fraternity.

The last contribution I will mention is his activity in beginning and bringing to fruition the translation of the Bible called the English Standard Version. Having disagreements with some of the translation theory of the TNIV, Wayne gave much time, energy, and theological expertise to that project from its beginning to its completion. He served on the Translation Oversight Committee for the translation itself and as General Editor for the ESV study Bible.

Space allows no comment on Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, his book on Business for the Glory of God, his commentary on 1 Peter, and scores of papers presented at professional meetings. Wayne has demonstrated genuine Christian character in his family relationships, parents to grandchildren. He and Margaret have served as a team for encouragement and hospitality for many peregrinating fellow Christians. I can speak confidently for many thousands of Christians a sincere word of gratitude to him for his unrelenting and uncompromised love of the Bible, the God of the Bible, the redemption of the Bible and his work to make it known. We pray that his stewardship of the gospel in his post class-room labors will be satisfying as he views the “finish line in the distance.”