According to ChristianColleges.com (link removed due to odd request by linked site), and since they include this blog, how could I argue?
Well, besides including me, there are a number of others on the list that are on my blogroll, and several other sites that I use regularly in study. If I have time, I’ll look over the entire list, but that won’t be a very fast process.
I’ve now read through the first chapter of Leviticus using the Cornerstone Biblical Commentary on Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. I want to caution readers that I’m reflecting on and responding to the text of the commentary, and not just repeating it. If I don’t identify a thought as coming from Baker (David W. Baker, author of the Leviticus portion), don’t blame him for it. I will try to clearly identify those portions.
I decided to add a bit to my study by trying a new way to use the Orthodox Study Bible, which I have already reviewed negatively. Since the translation tends to annoy me, especially in the Old Testament, I’m reading the Biblical text in Greek from Rahlf’s (on which the introduction says the translation was based), and then reading just the notes from the Bible. I’ll comment on this a bit more below.
One theme I’m following throughout the commentary is worship. Baker used the phrase “handbook for worship” back in the introduction (p. 4) and I want to see how he works that out. In his comments on the first chapter, he has been very clear. On page 24 he introduces the question “What can we take from this chapter that will help us in our worship?” He continues with about 1 1/3 pages of discussion. I think a key to this is his comment that:
…The whole being, not just the intellect, would have been caught up in this celebration of worship for the God who held life itself in his hand, who gave blessings and heard prayers, and who even smelled the scent of his people’s worship.
Is not our contemporary worship too often more cerebral than sensory, thinking about God rather than celebrating him? … (p.25, emphasis mine)
Baker goes on to indicate that beliefs and thinking are important as well, but that we are perhaps not balanced.
What struck me throughout, and was mentioned in other sources I read on this book as well, is that the tabernacle worship was very visual, or indeed more broadly sensory. One doesn’t get the impression of a quiet place of meditation, or a building of one’s personal relationship. One’s gift is public, presented in the community at a tabernacle in the center of the community, to a God who manifests his presence in that tabernacle.
All of the introductions also emphasize how revelation comes from the tabernacle. God shows his presence there and he speaks to the community from there. Leviticus is largely presented as divine speech, and this speech comes from that center (Lev. 1:1). Often we–and I am certainly guilty here–present hearing from God as an individual activity to be done in our times of devotion, personal prayer, and reflection. Leviticus presents a very different picture of God speaking in, from, and about the various rituals of corporate worship.
The introduction from the New Interpreter’s Study Bible points out something interesting about the structure. They note that the book has 36 speeches of God, introducted by “the LORD said.” In addition, there are twelve major summarizing statements which tend to divide the book into 12 parts. These kinds of structural elements are often subject to subjective judgment (NISB points out two minor summaries as well), but do indicate an intentional and careful creation of the final form of the book, irrespective of how one dates it.
In reading from three sources this morning, the Cornerstone commentary, the NISB, and the Orthodox Study Bible, there was one issue on which three divergent opinions were expressed. Baker understands the laying on of hands as indicating that the animal is a substitute (p. 22), and he dismisses the idea of indication of ownership. The NISB, on the other hand (p. 148, note on Lev. 1:4) states that this laying on of hands indicated ownership.
The Orthodox Study Bible phrases it differently, and I think this expression is consistent with Orthodox theology. (Perhaps one of my Orthodox readers can confirm this for me or correct any error). It says:
Here, the worshiper placed his hand on the head of the animal and killed it, and in so doing united with the offering; for the animal’s death became the death of the offerer. … (p. 118, comment on Lev. 1:4)
I am going to keep those three expressions in mind as I continue this study. Which best expresses the understanding of sacrifice in Leviticus? In protestantism there is a certain desire to get a “pure” substitution out of Leviticus, but I don’t see that clear of an expression. On the other hand, Baker’s comment that ownership was already indicated by the worshiper bringing the animal, so what was added by laying on hands, is a cogent criticism of the “ownership” idea.
It seems likely to me that the idea of identification, which the OSB then carries forward to the identification of the believer in baptism with Christ’s death, is closer to the thought of Leviticus. Milgrom (150-153), however, makes a fairly strong case for hand-leaning as an indication of ownership, and dismisses identification because of its magical nature. This will be one to watch and think about as my study progresses.
As a final note, I did find the OSB much more usable when I did not read the translation. I’m going to continue the practice of reading the scripture from the Greek and then reading the notes while ignoring the translation for awhile.
Abbreviations:
OSB – Orthodox Study Bible
NISB – New Interpreter’s Study Bible
Milgrom – Milgrom, Jacob. Anchor Bible: Leviticus 1-16.
Baker – Leviticus portion written by David H. Baker, of the Cornerstone Biblical Commentary on Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.
… when the Secretary of State does it. I thought many of these things were so obvious they hardly needed said, but apparently the obvious can be offensive. Perhaps a little truth will help diplomacy. Or not…
Read: Mark 9:2-9
Reading the gospel lesson for today–and I’m writing this on Sunday morning before going to teach Sunday School–I was struck by the parallel to a question I commonly get from Bible study classes. “Why can’t God just make it clearer, unmistakable? Why all this variety and human stuff?”
I can imagine the disciples thinking along the same lines. Jesus keeps performing miracles, running around healing people, and proclaiming the kingdom, yet he never seems to do anything that would have to do with a coming kingdom. Why couldn’t he just be clear?
Then Jesus takes Peter, James, and John and does something spectacular. Now for some reason many in my classes seem to relate “spectacular” and “miraculous” with “clear.” But Peter, James, and John don’t really get the purpose of the transfiguration either. They think it’s spectacular, they like it, they’d like to stay where it happened, but they don’t really understand any more about Jesus than they did before.
But did it help?
That is an excellent question. You see, I believe that Jesus was being quite clear. It’s just that “clear in general” is not always the same thing as “clear to me.”
Frequently when my wife and I are in conversation, I’ll change tracks to another subject without warning. Suddenly I say something. It’s clear to me what I mean. In fact, there’s probably something in the last sentence that suggested it to me. But she has no idea what I’m talking about, because she’s on another program.
For conversations with my wife I’ve learned a simple solution, even though I still forget: Tell her I’m changing the subject! But Jesus can’t change the subject. His disciples have one set of things in mind, and they are interpreting what he says and does in the light of their own agenda. It will take the shock of the crucifixion and finally of the resurrection to get them off of their own agenda and onto God’s.
But did it help? Well, yes. But only later. God’s spectacular act on the mount of transfiguration didn’t immediately communicate to the disciples what they needed to know, but it provided a building block that came together with others to build a new structure born in the fire of adversity at the end of Jesus’ mission.
And isn’t that really our complaint about God’s communication? He doesn’t give us enough information to keep us from getting in trouble sometimes, or so we think. But God knows that we’re not really going to learn it until we get into trouble.
You can find his further thoughts again at Reclaiming the Mind. If you read the first one, you should read this one as well.
This is a first look, before I have read or used the book extensively. I have simply looked through it, read the preface and some introductions, and laid out a plan for reading and study using the volume. I intend to “blog through” rather than simply read and review this volume. See the end of the post for how I will proceed.
Those who know me will be completely unsurprised that, when I was given the opportunity to review a volume in this commentary series, I chose this one. There are two interlocking reasons: 1) I love studying the Torah from every perspective I can manage, and 2) I believe Christians who neglect this part of the Bible also miss some of the depth of their own theology and tradition.
Yet few Christians are really interested in Torah, and it is difficult to get them to study it. So while I have studied from much more complex commentaries on the topic, such as Jacob Milgrom’s three volume commentary on Leviticus (here is my review), I can’t pass those on to Sunday School classes or to pastors I’m encouraging to get started in preaching or teaching from these books.
Thus I am very much attracted to the basic idea of this commentary series, starting with its use of the NLT second edition text, which is an excellent foundation on which to build a commentary for everyone. Too frequently commentary translations are done in a technical fashion, designed to illustrate the commentator’s points. This is not a bad thing for a scholarly audience, or even for those past the first stages of study. Indeed it is necessary. But it doesn’t help much with that first study.
I’m encouraged by the ambitious goal set forth in the General Editor’s preface: “… the Cornerstone Biblical Commentary aims at helping teachers, pastors, students, and laypeople understand every thought contained in the Bible.” Yes, it’s ambitious, but it is aimed at the right group of people. If one doesn’t keep one’s eye on the goal, then one will never get anywhere.
So how is this volume laid out?
First, it includes the full scriptural text from the NLT second edition. That’s a highlight. I’ve already read that part, though not from this volume. It is a good translation to use in accomplishing the goals of the commentary.
Second, it includes notes on textual, translational, and interpretational details. For example, looking at notes from Leviticus 4:1-5:13, I see explanations of the Hebrew word behind the English translation “commands” along with references. We’re provided with word numbers in both the Tyndale and the Zondervan numbering system (Kudos to Tyndale for including the latter), along with references to selected works. There’s a discussion of the phrase “ceremonially clean” and “an offering for their sin” amongst many others. In scanning through the volume I also saw notes on various textual issues, but written in minimally technical language.
Finally, there is commentary on the passage as a whole, dealing more with themes, theology, and application. In the case of Leviticus 4:1-5:13, there is about a page of notes followed by nearly five pages of commentary. The scriptural text itself occupies very nearly two pages. This will give you an idea of how space is proportioned. (The introduction and outline of the book is 10 pages.)
Overall, the book is 679 pages + 14 pages of front matter. The main section uses 214 pages for Leviticus, 229 for Numbers, and 236 for Deuteronomy.
So let’s compare bulk as a sort of “intimidation factor.” The NLT Study Bible uses 65 pages for the book of Numbers. The New International Commentary on the Old Testament volume on Numbers uses 667. I don’t have a good intermediate number on Leviticus, but I would note that Migrom’s commentary is over 2700 pages. I would say this commentary is well-placed then to draw people beyond the study Bible stage and on to the more serious study.
As for perspective, the authors (David W. Baker, Dale A. Brueggemann, and Eugene H. Merrill) and editors are all unsurprisingly evangelical, and fairly conservative at that. I don’t intend to criticize the commentary for its stated perspective. I will note just how much each author interacts with opposing viewpoints. In a commentary such as this, there is a balance. Too much discussion of every idea out there means that one can’t get to the basic work necessary; too little tends to limit the usefulness of the work to broader audiences.
As I mentioned in the initial note, it is not my intent to read through this book and then publish a review. Rather, after publishing these initial notes, I am going to use it as my secondary devotional study, after my time spent on the week’s lectionary passages, and then blog about the experience, finally wrapping everything up when I have read the entire volume. While I will, as always, be studying and comparing with many sources, my primary question in this case will be just how valuable and accessible the material is to someone preparing a Sunday School lesson or a sermon for their congregation that would draw from this material.
In terms of overall theme, I’ll be asking myself how well the volume will link the theological themes to Christian theology and tradition, and of course ultimately to Christian living. Then I will rate the book as to how well it accomplished the stated goal I quoted above, with due consideration for how ambitious a goal it is.
You will be able to follow my study on my Participatory Bible Study blog. There will be a final wrap-up post here.
This headline caught my attention: Osteens offer hope for today with new Bible. Obviously the headline doesn’t mean what one could construe it to mean; it’s a study Bible, not a rewritten Bible, but the headline still struck me as funny. I do have problems with single themed study Bibles, but that’s another post.
