Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • Moral Absolutes

    Most of the time I read the evangelical outpost to keep me up to date on intelligent conservative thinking. I can disagree with Joe Carter, and often do, but I never call him stupid.

    Today, however, he hit on an important topic–absolute truth. Now I’m all in favor of humility about our personal knowledge about truth, and about the appropriateness of trying to force truth as we understand it on others, but the post-modern age bothers me a good deal in that so many people appear (to me, at least) not to be in the search for truth at all. They’ve given up.

    Carter put it in balance here:

    Christians, on the other hand, would be more like the second umpire, who recognizes that there is an objective reality even if our ability to perceive it is somewhat limited.

    You’ll have to go read his whole post to get his truly great baseball analogy that makes this whole idea even clearer.

    The only place I would amend his statements is where he says: “Christians, however, can know moral truths and thereby know more than their po-mo neighbors.” I have two amendments. In spite of significant problems I might have with their epistemology there are post-modern Christians. Post-modern isn’t binary. One can be more post-modern and less, in my non-absolute, relative opinion. But further, those who are not Christians can also know moral truths, though that is a longer topic.

    I also wrote on this for my wife’s devotional list today, Seeking Truth. In that one I allowed myself to have some fun! Yes, I’ve been writing quite a few devotionals for the list recently.

  • A Singular Lack of Imagination in ID

    A post today dealing with junk DNA led me to some thinking about just how the nature of a designer might impact the nature of the things designed. It seems to me that no matter where we are looking for design, whether in the form of alien artifacts on a distant planet (in our imaginations) or for the footprints of God in living creatures, what we end up searching for is signs of human-like design, i.e. at a minimum we are looking for something that is designed the way we might design it.

    Casey Luskin at (HT: The Panda’s Thumb) Evolution News & Views says:

    Proponents of intelligent design have long maintained that Neo-Darwinism’s widely held assumption that our cells contain much genetic “junk” is both dangerous to the progress of science and wrong. As I explain here, design theorists recognize that “Intelligent agents typically create functional things,” and thus Jonathan Wells has suggested, “From an ID perspective, however, it is extremely unlikely that an organism would expend its resources on preserving and transmitting so much ‘junk’.” [4] Design theorists have thus been predicting the death of the junk-DNA paradigm for many years . . .

    But this really avoids the issue. Let’s consider some analogies, starting with architecture. What is the purpose of decorative elements on a building. I live in a very simple building, with almost nothing about its design that could be called decorative. I work in a similar building. But I know of numerous houses that are clearly designed (I not only know the nature of the designer, I know him personally) that nonetheless have wasted space, and elements of their design that are just there because they looked good to someone.

    I’ve heard this home designer explain to a client that doing something in a certain way will cost extra in materials and may not be the most efficient use of space, but if they like that appearance, it can be done that way. In general those clients decide to make the house look the way they want to, even if they could get more square footage of usable floor space at less cost by eliminating some of the odd shapes. The point here is that there is “junk” in the design, and it would be very difficult to determine why if we didn’t know something about the designers (and clients) and why they might want a certain design.

    Now let’s consider a horse. Horse ancestors in the wild are not “designed” for humans to ride them. Human beings thought of how to tame them, to breed them for particular characteristics, and train them for particular activities. A horse in the wild might be mistaken as something that had a human-oriented purpose (though without humans it would be unlikely that an imaginary alien would figure it out), and a “designed” horse, that is one that was bred for particular characteristics but which had then been released into the wild might be assumed to have no human intervention.

    My point is that our “instincts” on these issues all have a strong element of our understanding of how various humans think and what the possibilities are for human designers. I’m wondering if we would necessarily recognize something designed by a completely alien culture. How much would it overlap? Would it be possible, for example, to have an alien science that was totally centered around biology and solved various problems through manipulation of living things? Science fiction writers have certainly imagined such civilizations. The question I have is how long it would take us, with our assumptions and “instincts” to recognize such a cultures products as designed.

    From the theological point of view, I would suggest that we make excessive assumptions about the desires of the creator. Very commonly people assume that human beings are the only intelligent creation. But we have only our lack of knowledge of anyone else to make us assume that. There is plenty of room for other creatures out there. There are those who argue that the Bible is addressed to us and doesn’t mention those other creatures, yet to whom precisely do they expect that a divine revelation would be addressed, except, well, to the folks to whom it is addressed? In other words, we do not know the answer to that question. We don’t know if human life, or life on earth in general, is the one and only form of life the creator might have created.

    This is one of the possibilities that biological evolution opens up for theologians. The observations that stand behind the theory of evolution let us know that there is a tremendous freedom and a certain level of disorder behind our observed order. This suggests to a number of people, including me, that God is less interested in a fixed order and more interested in the freedom of creation–a creative creation–than we might normally have imagined.

    Due to our fears and uncertainties, we tend to try to take control of our environment and fix things in place. Then we try to make God in our image by assuming that he is going to do the same thing. We try to conserve our resources when we create something, though even at that we expend resources on decoration. Just look at any church building if you doubt me. But is there any reason to assume that God as creator would behave in the same way? Can we assume that an alien culture would share our insecurities?

    I have previously stated it this way:

    We put a low value on freedom of choice, on autonomy, and on creativity. We prefer comfort and safety. Many, many people will give up their own decisions and their own stewardship in exchange for the feeling that they are safe. But it appears that in the way that God has arranged the universe, physical safety is much lower on the priority list. Spiritual safety is much more assured than is physical safety. (Not Ashamed of the Gospel, p. 55)

    All of these questions suggest that we need to know the nature of a designer before we can discuss just what that designer would design.

    Again, to quote myself:

    When we deal with the creation, we’re in a similar position with God. We can look at the way the universe functions and we can see certain things about what is necessary to live in the universe. We can try to imagine the attributes of God that are reflected in his natural universe. These would include the law of cause and effect, and the apparent desire for creatures that have a range of freedom of action. Simple application of the law of cause and effect could make moral creatures of us, though we might choose rather different value systems.

    But if God has a greater purpose for this world, this universe, and for our individual lives, the universe itself is not going to inform us. For that we would need special revelation if we are to know at all. (Source: When People Speak for God, p. 21

    Now I’m somewhat unorthodox in much of my theology, but on this I believe I’m quite thoroughly orthodox. We will not comprehend God’s purposes purely from natural things. We require God’s self-revelation. I think it is logical to derive from that the idea that the purpose of some elements of creation may look like one thing to us without special revelation, and may look quite different in the light of God’s revelation in scripture.

    Intelligent design may claim to detect design without any comment on the designer, but it looks to me as though through a foundational lack of imagination, it is stuck looking at totally natural design, and thus providing nothing new that could ultimate explain the existence of anything.

  • Ephesians 5:21-33: A Short Lesson in Focus

    It often amazes me to notice the difference in what I get from the scriptures when I approach a book or a passage simply asking what message God has for me in that passage as opposed to when I search out various passages of scripture in order to answer a particular theological question.

    That second procedure is not always a bad one; there are questions that can be answered by going to scripture and studying a particular topic. Getting a variety of scriptures that bear on a particular topic can help you keep your balance. Paul addresses the law in both Galatians and Romans (amongst others). You’ll get a more complete understanding if you read both.

    Very frequently, however, we view the topical study of scripture as the shortcut method. It’s easier to know topics than it is to know the Bible. But that is the danger. Quickly surveying a topic is a good way to fall into proof-texting, and that is dangerous ground.

    What brought this to my mind today in particular was my pastor’s Father’s Day sermon this morning. He used Ephesians 5:21-33, and he pointed to many of the balancing features of the entire passage.

    Let me suggest that you read the passage over, and then answer the following two questions:

    1. What is the primary focus of this passage?
    2. What from that passage have you heard quoted the most?

    My suspicion is that if you read the passage carefully, you’ll see it talking about the relationship been husbands and wives, and its focus is on the love that husbands are to have for their wives. This love is to be like the love Jesus Christ had for the church–self-sacrificing love.

    Now while I might debate issues of just what submission means and how this applies today. But that’s not my point. Whatever you believe about the structure of the home and authority there, Paul talks only a little bit about authority, secondary to his main point about the way a person in authority is to love, following the example of Jesus.

    Now what about the second question? Though I’ve heard quite a number of balanced sermons from this passage in conversations I’ve heard largely verses 21 and 22 quoted. Jesus is really, truly, and absolutely the head of the church (v. 23), and that’s the way the husband is the head of his wife (v. 22). While that fits the words of those two verses, if you add the remainder of the passage, starting with mutual submission (v. 21), and going on to note that the characteristic of Christ’s headship that husbands are asked is self-sacrificing love.

    The focus makes a great deal of difference. Now I’m not suggesting that the details of a passage don’t matter. What I am suggesting is that it’s important to see the overall focus–what it was that Paul was most interested in communicating in this case–before applying the details.

  • The Duke Lacrosse Players and Prejudice

    According to this MSNBC commentary, Mike Nifong has received a severe penalty but it is precisely what he deserves:

    Lawyers usually try to understand a fellow practitioner’s blunders and usually reprimand their colleague without issuing the ultimate penalty, the death penalty for a lawyer: disbarment. While it is public disgrace indeed, it also says “you are the worst of the worst and do not deserve to live as a lawyer. You are not trustworthy. The public has to be protected from you.” Plus, it strips Nifong of the only way he knows to make a living. Instead of collecting his pension and retiring, he will have to start from scratch. It is a stunning fall from the height of his power. And it is absolutely the right thing to do. Nifong had many chances to escape this fate, yet he never chose to do the right thing. Not once.

    I agree completely with the article. Prosecutors and other law enforcement officials generally deserve our respect, but they should also be held to a high standard. When they start playing with the truth in order to make political points or because of prejudice, they should be held accountable. Mike Nifong has now been held accountable.

    But the reason this story caught my attention was not quite so noble. You see, when the accusations were first made against the Duke University Lacrosse players I reacted with prejudice. Without fully processing the information, I categorized them as spoiled rich kids trying to take advantage of a poor victim who didn’t have the resources to defend herself. As it turns out I was wrong.

    I don’t know if Nifong reacted as I did. Even if that was where he started from, as the evidence came in, he had every reason to change his mind and correct his actions, yet he did not do so. He couldn’t let his high profile defendants go. As stated in the MSNBC article I quoted above, “. . . he never chose to do the right thing.”

    I was surprised when it turned out that the Lacrosse players were not, in fact, guilty. And why is that? I guess I have a prejudice against the rich, the assumption that their money will get them off. That’s not a good thing. I think many of us do have the flip side of that prejudice, a prejudice against those who are down and out, homeless, vagrant, seemingly out of place. I have heard such prejudice acknowledged many times. But it’s good to realize that we can have a prejudice against the successful as well.

    The one cure of prejudice is a willingness to have your opinions corrected. So many times I have answered “I don’t know” when someone asked me my opinion of some popular case. That’s usually the right answer. In general we don’t know, because we don’t have all the evidence. This would have been another good case in which to say, “I don’t know.”

    This reminds me of a Bible text:

    ?15You shall not render an unjust judgment; you shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great: with justice you shall judge your neighbor. — Lev. 19:15 (NRSV)*

    *The Holy Bible : New Revised Standard Version. 1996, c1989. Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

  • Moderate Christian Blogroll Issue

    For those who don’t regularly read the home blog of the Moderate Christian Blogroll, I want to call your attention to this post which explains a recent run of links that result apparently from a single post on a former blogroll member’s blog. Please comment there.

  • Evolutionary vs. Scientific Thinking

    In a comment to my earlier post Why Talk About Evolution in Church, seeker said:

    You might enjoy criticizing my article Is creationism a barrier to faith.

    But I also think your assessment of creation science is too steeped in evolutionary, rather than scientific thinking.

    Well, you asked for it, so here it is.

    What seeker fails to do for me is provide a definition of what he means by “evolutionary” and “scientific” as adjectives describing “thinking.” I have this dream, far too wispy and insubstantial to be called a hope, that someday I will discuss with an anti-evolutionist who will give me credit for having read the Biblical materials, read a substantial amount of material on so-called creation “science” and thus address the position I actually hold, rather than some position they imagine me to hold.

    I’m going to comment on the post he suggests, but first I’d like to ask creationists for this definition. I grew up on young earth creationism books. I was taught it in school. It was the official position of the denomination of which my parents and I were members (I’ve since changed). Then I started to look at the scientific merits of young earth creationism, studying books from the other side. The people who first suggested this activity to me were theologians and Bible scholars. My uncle Don F. Neufeld, associate editor of the Adventist Review at the time, commented that he could tell that SDA geologists who led a field trip he’d been on realized that they could not explain all the formations in a young earth framework. He suggested I examine some other viewpoints for myself, and he was not the only one to do so.

    My starting point was not books written against creationism, but rather standard books on geology and paleontology, especially such simple materials as road side geology guides. Besides being a great deal of fun, this was quite informative, and convinced me that my uncle’s suggestion–something he never said publicly so far as I know–had been a good one.

    What I saw and still see in creationist literature is this: They pick at unanswered questions in evolutionary theory, call them “flaws,” and assume that the alternative must be creationism. What is their science? They start with the assumption that the Bible is the ultimate source of information on everything, continue by imposing a particular interpretation on it, and then force all science to conform to that particular interpretation. I have yet to see any piece of creationist work that does not follow that general pattern. Even when they try their best to present “creation science” from the ground up, one can read between the lines easily enough back to the same pattern.

    The best of the young earth creationist books, in my view, is Kurt Wise, Faith, Form, and Time. Wise admits outright that the foundation of his thought is the literal reading of the Genesis accounts as history, and thus he must make the effort to create a scientific model. At the same time Wise finds it necessary to admit to many difficulties with the theory of creationism he proposes, and many gaps that need to be filled.

    So here is what I would be looking for from a creationist who wants me to take seriously the accusation that I am “steeped in evolutionary rather than scientific thinking.” First, propose an actual complete model of origins based on creationism (young earth or old earth, but make it consistent). If you include a world-wide flood it must be a part of your model. You cannot separate the two elements as Morris and Parker tried to do in What is Creation Science?. Second, give specific predictions about what should be found in the lab or the field, and show how such predictions are supported.

    This whole picking at the pieces of evolutionary theory on the assumption that if evolution loses you win is pretty silly. For a theory to win in actual science it has to be confirmed by making predictions and having those predictions turn out to be valid when tested. Then, of course, evolutionary scientists get to pick at the holes in your model, crowing about every question that is unanswered.

    And this is an incredibly important point: Unanswered questions are not a weakness in a scientific theory–they are the strength. They provide opportunities for study, for adjustment of the theory to new evidence, or for new theories to emerge. They are the sea on which the voyage of discovery can continue. There are always unanswered questions, thus there is always new research designed to answer those questions.

    But now to the specifics of seeker’s post which he said I might wish to criticize. There are several points on which I would like to comment:

    A CBS Poll published Oct 23, 2005 shows that most Americans believe in, *gasp*, special creation. Buahahaha! Silly evolutionists – either Americans are a bunch of boobs, or you are… hmmmm.

    It was interesting to me to find this in the first paragraph I read from someone who suggested my thinking was not scientific. I’m guessing that the number of scientifically illiterate people who disagree with their theories falls very low in the concern of scientists who are studying those theories. I would not call Americans “a bunch of boobs,” but I would question the average person’s scientific literacy. I regard my scientific knowledge as fairly weak, and I work hard to improve it, yet most people I encounter in daily life think I am quite scientifically literate. I don’t take that as a compliment to me–I have a lot of work to do. I take it as a negative reflection on science education in general. And after seeing my son’s 10th grade science text, I’m not surprised.

    What’s even more interesting, however, is the huge amount of people who believe one can believe in both God and evolution – 90%. So if all those people can believe in evolution and God, why do we push creationism? Why not just leave it alone instead of creating a barrier to faith, by adding something else they must believe along with the gospel?

    My position is not that we should ignore the issue of creation vs. evolution because a large number of people think you can believe in God and evolution. Rather, I think we should openly discuss the issue because it is a non-essential of the faith, but more importantly it is an issue that should be settled scientifically. I don’t want evolution enshrined in doctrinal statements any more than creation. A barrier to faith is created when we require a particular view of scientific data in order for someone to be Christian, something seeker certainly does in this post.

    Skipping over seeker’s point 1, let me comment on point #2:

    2. We must teach and show Christians that faith is about all of life, not just one’s “personal relationship w/ God.”

    Just so. But this does not make the theologian better equipped than the scientists to study scientific questions.

    3. Teaching a simplistic view of Christian thought causes many to leave or easily dismiss Christianity.

    On this point I would simply suggest that teaching something so unscientific as creationism is what is most likely to suggest simplistic thinking.

    4. Evolution is not a harmless idea, but a philosophy with grave implications for individuals and society.

    I’ll respond to this point in more detail.

    Evolution is science, not philosophy. Without doubt people will produce philosophical conclusions from observations of the physical world. This is no surprise. We do that from observed reality all the time. But the theory of evolution is science, not philosophy.

    First, in the realm of individual faith, many people are duped by atheism, missing the riches of a relationship with God – God’s love, forgiveness, and hope.

    And here we have the amazing bait and switch. Without a word of support, atheism pops into the discussion. The theory of evolution is a systematic explanation of the facts as we have them. Those facts can be, and are, read by people of any faith or no faith at all. That is how science should work.

    Evolution provides the atheistic world view with a key pillar to rest on – an explanation of our origins without God.

    Here, seeker (and Dawkins, IMV) gives too much credit to evolution. The theory of evolution itself doesn’t explain origins without God. That is supplied by the reader/observer. The ToE says what is. Whether God is to be found somewhere in there is another question. I believe it is equally valid to say that gravity provides an explanation for why objects fall (amongst many other behaviors) without God, and thus makes atheism possible. After all people once believed that God personally guided the planets in their tracks through the heavens.

    In fact, noted atheist and ardent evolutionist Richard Dawkins summed it up well when he said

    Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist

    One of the chief ways we can keep people from the error of atheism is to tear away this pillar of falsehood so that they might come to see Christ and be saved, healed, and transformed.

    Of course, the problem here is simply that the “pillar” is not a pillar of falsehood–it is a well established theory dealing with the facts. Until creationists can deal equally well with the facts, they are placing a barrier to the faith.

    Let’s compare this to the problem of suffering (or evil). Very few people deny suffering, yet this provides an important argument for atheists. How can Christians believe in a good God who is also all-powerful, but who allows suffering. Something is wrong here. By seeker’s logic, I should deny that suffering exists, because it provides an opportunity for atheists.

    I would suggest instead that the best evidence is that if God created he did so through evolutionary means, and we’re stuck with that. Right along with that suffering we Christians have to deal with huge extinction events and millions of years of suffering for living creatures on this planet. Denying it so that our theology can hold up will, in the long run, be no more successful than denying human suffering would be.

    Second, many individuals reject Christianity because they believe that science and faith are at odds, and that evolution has disproved the Genesis account of the creation of man. We need to show that modern science was birthed out of Christian thought and reason, and that science (and archeology) overwhelming support scripture, and vice versa. All truth is connected. Science has not proved evolution, nor has it disproved creationism.

    If “faith” is defined as accepting a literal reading of Genesis, then science and faith are at odds. I do not believe that they are, simply because I don’t believe that Genesis is science, nor is it history. Something that is not science cannot conflict with something that is. I have no need to reconcile Genesis and science because Genesis makes no statement that can be regarded as scientific. (For purposes of discussion, I would accept any statement that makes a specific prediction about the natural world that can be tested experimentally, potentially falsified, but found to be true. There are a number of statements about the natural world in Genesis that do conflict with scientific data, if it is to be read scientifically.

    Third, regarding society, the idea that we are evolving into something better always leads to social Darwinism, i.e. eugenics. Eugenics, which begins with the goals of improving the gene pool via birth control, selective breeding, and genetic engineering, may inevitably lead to the evils of selective abortion and killing of the weak and “genetically damaged”, government control of who can have children, and forced genetic modification “for the good of society.” And sometimes it leads to genocide.

    Well, there’s a statement that starts out bad and deteriorates in a hurry. First, evolutionary theory doesn’t state that we are evolving into something better. Popular versions often express it that way, but that is not evolutionary theory. “Better” is not a term that can be defined broadly and objectively in science in any case. A creature can become better suited to an environmental niche, but then a change in the environment can suddenly make the “better” creature “worse.” As with almost any topic, the problem with the word “better” is that one must define better for what.

    Second, just because something happens naturally doesn’t mean we should enshrine it in law, morals, or philosophy. One could equally well argue that no medical should be provided, and that eugenics is positively excluded based on evolutionary theory. After all, the universe has a mechanism for inheritance, adaptation, and the creation of variety (without any implication of purpose), so who are we to interfere through neonatal care or through planned genetic culling?

    Lastly, there are many theological implications of evolution which are at odds with Christian theology. These differences can not be ignored if you want a coherent, integrated system of truth and thinking. Most people who believe in God and evolution probably have an unbiblical view of God in order to make a harmony of these two.

    In other words, evolution disagrees with one’s theology so one discards evolution no matter what the evidence.

    I disagree with that position. But further, I think that if one better defines one’s theological positions in consideration of new scientific discoveries one often improves one’s understanding of theology as well as science. It is not we overturn all theology; rather, we sharpen, refine, and clarify theology. Do I believe some different things about God because I now accept the theory of evolution? Yes. Did those cause me to reject essential doctrines? No. Of course, let me note that the issue here hinges on what one defines as essential.

    Further, I should point out that if I became convinced that I was wrong on an essential doctrine I would find it essential that I change, since following what I believe to be right is an essential of personal integrity, a most essential doctrine.

    For my list of elements of a Biblical doctrine of creation, see God the Creator.

    One further note here–I favorably comment on Kurt Wise and his book Faith, Form, and Time, at least in the sense that Wise is very honest about his presuppositions. But there is an extreme danger in Wise’s position, I believe, because he knows and has stated that his view goes against the best scientific evidence, yet he believes that he must believe what he does because of the way he reads Genesis. That is a position that must, at least, put extreme stress on one’s personal integrity.

    Evolutionary theological implications which differ from Christian theology include:

    I appreciate that seeker provides a list. Often I’m told that evolution is inconsistent with Christian faith and that if I don’t agree, I must know nothing of Christianity. Lists are helpful.

    Man’s Origins – an accident of chance, not created with a purpose

    Evolution is not actually a random process. Selection operates according to rules. Just as an object falls according to natural laws, so living things inherit characters and evolve according to laws. It is not the task of science to provide purpose. Science observes what is.

    For some reason creationists think that unless God interrupted all natural processes in order to create the first human being in a completely different way, human beings cannot be special and cannot have a purpose.

    How is it that being formed from the dirt–and God could have used agents to make that form–is somehow more dignified than evolving from a single celled creature?

    Man’s Nature – just a higher animal, not made in the image of God

    You may conclude that from evolution; I do not.

    Value of Human Life – same as any animal, not made special with immortal soul

    First, I would not expect science to comment on immortal souls, except to say that they have not been observed in the field or tested in the laboratory. Second, my religious faith teaches me to value human life. I cannot see even the slightest reason why the process by which human life came to be. An eternal God is no less involved in the process of millions of years than he is in the act of a moment.

    Man’s Purpose – to preserve our genes, not know, love, and serve God

    Again, science doesn’t determine purpose. Science observes what is. If “what is” constitutes the sum of our purpose, then we’re pretty pitiful. But I know of nobody who lives according to such a narrow definition of purpose.

    Morality – a human construct, not a divine law with penalties and blessings

    If God is necessary to morals, it would not matter how God brought human beings into existence. It would only matter that he did.

    In conclusion, what I don’t see in this post is any suggestion of a reason why my thinking is not scientific. I’d really enjoy seeing a creationist–especially a young earth creationist–point out to me how “evolutionary thinking” differs from “scientific thinking.” Thus far, I fail to see any scientific thinking happening in the YEC camp.

  • Worst Worship Song

    Peter Kirk is discussing the “worst worship song,” a theme (or proto-meme?) that seems to be running amongst the Christian blogs, and he’s particularly concerned that “Heart of Worship” is regarded as the worst by a number of bloggers.

    That one isn’t my favorite, but I also wouldn’t call it the worst. I’m a bit more of a hymn person, preferably accompanied by a fine pipe organ or excellent synthesizer.

    A great deal of the quality of worship music has to do with the time and circumstances. Too many times worship leaders just work off a list of favorites.

  • Mildred Loving’s Statement

    I recommend that everyone read this statement printed in full and discussed over on Dispatches.

  • Book: Hebrews

    Attridge, Harold W. The Epistle to the Hebrews. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1989. 437 pages.

    This is the second of two commentaries I have been spending a great deal of time with. The library managed to get both of them to me on the same day, loaned from different libraries–a shocking event!–and thus I worked with them in parallel.

    This is Harold W. Attridge’s volume in the Hermeneia series. I can say almost the same thing as I said about the last commentary, though the author is much less known. But Attridge has produced a commentary that goes right along with the standards expected of the Hermeneia series.

    Most criticisms of Biblical commentaries come from someone buying/borrowing the commentary with the wrong expectations. For example, the New International Commentary on the New Testament can expect material suitable to a serious Bible student or pastor. It is an extremely valuable series for the expository preacher. Hermeneia, on the other hand, is aimed at the scholar, and you should expect to have some trouble following it if you are not acquainted with major critical disciplines.

    This volume is no exception. It’s discussions of major critical issues are extremely strong, but you will find very little that can be imported directly into your sermons or Bible lessons. That shouldn’t be a complaint–that’s not the purpose of the volume. You will find many things that you can apply if you take the time to think about them and figure out the applications for yourself.

    I would recommend this to any scholar or serious Bible student with some background in critical disciplines. Some Greek will also be useful.

  • Book: The Book of Hebrews

    Bruce, F. F. The Epistle to the Hebrews. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1990. 426 pages.

    I’ve been reading and using F. F. Bruce’s commentary on Hebrews for the last few weeks, and it has to go back to the library tonight as I’ve exhausted my renewals, so I thought I’d write a few notes. For those acquainted with F. F. Bruce or the New International Commentary on the New Testament little comment is necessary. Essentially it’s what you would expect from that author in that series.

    For those who are not acquainted with author and series, this commentary manages an excellent compromise between scholarly depth and value for the pastoral library. If you ignore the footnotes you will find a great deal to incorporate into your expository teaching. The footnotes tend to bring in a great deal of technical detail that will be of interest only to those who know Greek or the various disciplines of Biblical criticism.

    This is an evangelical commentary which comes through especially in the application. It does not shy away from critical issues, however. Note that this is one of the older volumes, and so is based not on the NIV, but rather on the RSV and NEB. I do not, however, consider it too far out of date to be extremely useful.

    Generally I commend this commentary to the library of pastors or teachers who have a fair amount of background in Biblical studies. Biblical languages are optional, but will allow you to make more use of footnotes and some of the more advanced material. Pastors can expect to find useful material for sermons quickly and easily.