I think you probably have a point. As I thought further about Davis’s analysis there, I became increasingly uncomfortable with it. It overlooks the need for a perfect human righteousness, won in subjection to the Law, as necessary to redeem humans from the curse of the Law and win its blessings for them. The active obedience of Christ is therefore rendered entirely supererogatory, if all we need is divine righteousness considered in the abstract, and some way of getting it down to humanity.

No, I haven’t read Gerish. I feel increasingly uncomfortable reviewing academic books in fields I am not widely enough read in. I think Mahaney’s unbelievable endorsement of De Young’s book on the Heidelberg Catechism was a wake-up call for me. (“He’s endorsing a book he’s never even read!” And that upon a subject in which he admits he’s never read any book at all!”) Anyway, it started me thinking, by what rights can I even review a book that intends to add to a scholarly discussion, if I’m not up-to-date on that discussion? Then, given the fact that I review so many books, and with the general purpose of recommending them to a wider audience (remember, I do my work in this arena for Monergism Books, which is hoping to sell more copies [assuming that they've been well-selected, which is usually the case]), I fear I’m inclined exercise far too little critical analysis. Not that I dissemble when I disagree with something, I’m just too quick to brush little quibbles aside. I’ve been thinking for a little while that how I go about my reviewing needs a little overhaul. Or maybe it just needs more careful attention.

Thanks for the added thoughts.

I read this book for my MDiv Thesis at TEDS and found it very helpful as well. I think Davis states better than anyone the significance of Christ’s humanity for Calvin’s Eucharistic theology. I do wonder if his metaphysical interests have resulted in an over-interpretation of the data that compromises Calvin’s Christology. I am thinking especially of the place where Davis speaks of a “transfer” of righteousness from Christ’s divinity to his humanity in the crucifixion (p. 85). Aside from overlooking Calvin’s covenantal framework for “righteousness” and being a bit too metaphysically specific for Calvin, I this think obviates the need for the persistence of the hypostatic union which is exactly what Calvin wishes to avoid. So bah-humbug – but all nit picking aside, it was an interesting group of essays. Have you read Brian Gerrish’s Grace and Gratitude? I found that book especially helpful in understanding Calvin’s doctrine of the eucharist.