Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • 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.

  • In Which My Wife Uses the Language of PSA

    This morning as I was listening to my wife’s message for our Running Toward the Goal podcast, I heard her use some distinctly PSA-like language. I thought I’d link to it. Today’s podcast was first broadcast on local radio here in Pensacola on July 21, 2003 and is titled I Surrender All. This is the first time it has been podcast. (The speaker is my wife, Jody Neufeld.)

    Those on the PSA side who also are complementarian may not want to listen to a woman teach, but I’m fullly egalitarian and enjoy sharing both blogs and platform with my wife.

  • Recognizing Literary Genre – I

    I’m keeping things short today as I’m facing another deadline tomorrow night when some research materials have to be returned, and I need to have all my notes extracted and filed. Nonetheless, I did feel the urge to post a couple of things.

    I’m promoting this comment from Peter Kirk because he makes a couple of good points. Some people never get down to the comments.

    Of course starting a story “Once upon a time” is enough to identify it as not intended to be historical, with no need to mention a wicked witch. And most languages have similar pointers to fairy tale or equivalent genres – which are sometimes also in the verb tenses used. It is important for Bible translators to be aware of these pointers, because if they are not, translations of historical books of the Bible may end up being misunderstood as fairy tales. By contrast, the genealogy at the beginning of Matthew is sometimes understood as a strong indication that what follows is intended to be a factual narrative about real people. This kind of study is known as discourse analysis.

    Peter is quite correct that the “once upon a time” indication is enough to identify such a story as one that is not intended to be historical. Many of us would clue in first on the wicked with, however, as it’s simply an easier clue. Such recognition becomes subconscious. We simply respond according to the genre because we have had practice.

    Relatively few of us learn discourse analysis. For example, I went through my BA and MA in Biblical Languages without any training in that area at all. It was only when I became much more interested in Bible translation that I started to pay more attention to it and to read some about it. Amongst students that I teach, which means largely lay people without a formal education in Biblical studies, the only people I have encountered who have an acquaintance with it were one graduate student/teaching assistant in English literature and one philosophy instructor.

    That is unfortunate, because we have many of the same people saying with confidence that Genesis 1, for example, sounds like history. On what basis do they say that? Well, generally they have the feeling that the “right” thing for it to sound like is something factual, because facts are more important than feelings any day. Other varieties of literature, in their view, don’t convey enough facts. I have often heard people in these settings judge works of fiction based solely on how much information one can learn from them. Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings or Lewis’s Chronicles of Narnia suffer, or are weighed solely on allegorical value (a questionable approach in Tolkien’s case at least).

    A good starting point in recognizing literary genre is to put aside prejudices about what literature ought to accomplish. Literature does so much more than convey facts. It can also convey facts in many different ways. I wonder how many of you who have preached or taught have gone back later to find out what people remember. I have done so. I preached a sermon in which I set up a skit. A friend of mine in the audience was primed to angrily interrupt me in the middle of a sermon, and then we followed by ad libbing and argument. A couple of weeks later I asked a few people what we had talked about. The only thing that anybody remembered was the interruption and the skit, but they also remembered the point of the skit.

    I use this approach in my study guide on Revelation. I ask members of the class to mention types of literature that they read and what they expect to get out of them. Once they’ve looked at how their lives actually interact with literature (and we usually extend it to other media as well), they begin to relax. Then we can ask what type of literature the book of Revelation is.

    Which leads to another point. Information may be packaged and organized differently in different types of literature. Just because Genesis 1 is not narrative history, doesn’t mean it contains no information. Peter mentioned the way in which Matthew starts, and one might also look at the way Luke and Acts begin. In both cases there is an indication that they are trying to present factual information. I think those who try to claim that the gospels are not intended to present historical information do a disservice. The gospel writers were not writing as historians, but they were convinced that they were writing something that contained historical information, that is events that actually took place. Now we can look at what was important to them–chronology not as much as the spiritual meaning–and that will help us get the right information.

    One last note. Genre doesn’t necessarily tell us how accurate a work is. We may determine that something is intended to portray history in some way, and yet also determine that the author was hopelessly careless or intentionally inaccurate. Josephus was intending to portray history, or at least he writes as though he was, yet his work is more a personal apologetic, and one can question many of his portrayals.

    To be continued . . .

  • Importance of Correct Procedure

    On both sides of the political spectrum, and even in the middle, we tend to elevate particular policies over the procedures. I think it is very dangerous to do so. This type of thing has occurred in abortion (use of RICO, free speech issues), various federalism issues, and quite commonly in church-state issues.

    Ed (Dispatches) obviously got my attention today as this is the second link to him this morning, but he comments on a brief in the Libby case in which a broad group of scholars filed a brief making a procedural point. Those who want Libby in jail have responded predictably. If the shoe were on the other foot, of course, the response would be different.

    We all need to consider how we would feel if these things were applied to us personally. Supposing a federal official were used improper powers to get you. Would you think it was inappropriate to complain about those powers? The golden rule requires us to consider how our actions would impact others, and how the things we do to them or advocate having done to them would feel if they happened to us.

  • Bible Curriculum in Odessa

    Ed Brayton has an informative post on the process of selecting a Bible curriculum in Odessa, TX. I haven’t had time to follow the case closely, but it appears that Ed is doing so.

    If one is to have a specifically Bible curriculum in high school, as opposed to appropriate mentions in literature, history, and various social studies classes, I would prefer the BLP curriculum strongly. I do not, however, think it is good either for the state or for the church to venture into this area. I realize it’s constitutional when done right (and NCBCPS is not done right), but I still do not think it is a good idea, as I explained in a previous post.

  • Notes and Links on Atonement

    I’ve gotten severely behind in reading the current atonement debate, but I haven’t ceased being interested. I note that Adrian has taken to throwing passages at his opponents, ones which we’re sure to have read before, including Isaiah 53, and 2 Corinthians 5. Because I accept substitution and even penal substitution as valid metaphors, but not as the key or sole metaphor, I am not surprised to find some substitution in scripture.

    I wrote two items on the atonement in partial response to the debate. The first is an entry for my wife’s devotional list, which was posted this morning and expresses my view that understanding the details of doctrine is not nearly as important as many seem to think. The second is a few notes on Isaiah 53 and the suffering servant.

    There is quite a bit of good stuff on the atonement going around the web right now. I got a link to Is Your Gospel Robust Enough, and I wish I could give a hat tip to the right person, but I can’t find where I got the link. The post discusses our excessively individual view of salvation, a problem that is common to many advocates of PSA–and to many of the rest of us as well.

    Dave Warnock is preaching from Ephesians 2:11-22, one of my favorite passages, and is doing a wonderful job of it. At the same time Peter Kirk is keeping active, with a post titled UCCF Director contradicts the Bible and the Apostles’ Creed which he starts from a comment he made here.

    I plan to get back to talking about literary genres tomorrow, but I may be tempted to say more about the atonement. You can always hope not!

  • Religion and Politics Forum

    I was happy to see this forum take place, though I only had time to watch a portion of it as it played. (I must note also that I am resistant to watching major political debates this far from the election.)

    The major reason is simply that there have always been many more people of faith, and even of Christian faith, than are represented by the “religious right.” This forum shows that there are more people out there interested in faith issues or part of a faith community than those conservative Christians who are also conservative Republicans. I would hope at the same time that we express issues in the public forum from the broadest possible foundation, so that they can communicate with people of many faiths or those who are not believers.

    I am motivated to love my neighbor from within my faith in Christ. I want to keep the royal law to love my neighbor. I can express the policies that I support in many ways. When I communicate with those in my community I may speak in one way. When I address those outside, I may speak another way. When I write on this blog, I realize that there will not only be Christians who will read it, but a variety of folks who are not Christians. Public debate needs to be open to all those options.

    I’m not going to be afraid to express my faith, but at the same time I believe that if the policies I derive from my faith are also for the common good, I should be able to express the reasons why they are for the common good.

    In the meantime, such forums as this, and programs such as ONE Vote 08 will help demonstrate that not all religious voters have the same beliefs, no matter what many in the media appear to believe.

  • Isaiah 53: A Short Note on the Suffering Servant

    Yesterday Adrian was apparently surprised that anyone would question that the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 (or better, Isaiah 52:13-53:12) was Jesus. He said:

    The answer to the first question is very straightforward if you believe the bible is without error and Jesus can be trusted. For he himself tells us who the prophet is speaking of –


    Luke 22:37 For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me has its fulfillment.”

    So, can we now all accept that Isaiah 53 is about Jesus? Jesus himself might not have had a theological degree, but I do think we should take his exegesis seriously!

    Further, he is amazed that anyone could think that this passage was not about substitution:

    Now, as far as question 2 goes, I simply cannot see how Isaiah 53 can possibly be stripped of the idea of punishment and substitution. Dave Warnock claimed in this comment section to have found commentaries that disagree. . . .

    Let me look at these points in reverse. I quite agree that the ideas both of substitution (though I think it can be better expressed) and of punishment occur in Isaiah 53. There actually have been commentaries that claim that those concepts do not occur, but I am only aware of them by citation (and refutation) in Childs (Isaiah in the OTL), and Childs disposes of them pretty quickly.

    My question would be, “What of it?” I have thought that the ideas of substitution and punishment were present in Isaiah 53 since I can remember, but that doesn’t make the chapter support penal substitutionary atonement as it is being argued currently. If all folks want to prove is that the ideas of “substitution” and “punishment” occur in the Bible, I can concede their point. But it seems that they want me to buy the entire doctrine based on the presence of a couple of concepts.

    Since I believe that penal substitution is one valid expression of the atonement, I am scarcely surprised to find it in scripture. But thus far every person with whom I have debated this point has been unsatisfied with my calling PSA “one valid expression.” They want this one metaphor to be the sole expression. That is a narrowing of doctrine that I reject.

    So let me start by saying that both the ideas of substitution and punishment can be found in Isaiah 53. There are some additional points that I think should be emphasized, but they will only broaden the picture, not eliminate the concepts.

    So let me turn back to the question of whether this is Jesus. I’m going to try to abbreviate my comments, so please forgive me (and chastise me in comments) if I fail to cover all points. Traditionally there have been two extremes in the interpretation of Isaiah 53. The first is the more or less standard Christian view that this is a prophecy, or more precisely a predictive prophecy of the suffering, death, and resurrection of Jesus. I’m referring to a simple, one-to-one relationship. Isaiah was talking specifically and exclusively about Jesus and Jesus specifically and exclusively fulfilled the prediction. The other extreme views the suffering servant as Israel collectively, suffering for their sins and the sins of the world in general, yet redeemed by God and restored.

    Informed readers will be able to point out difficulties with these interpretations very quickly. Isaiah 45:4 stands against the identification with Jesus by identifying the servant directly at Israel. Many interpreters see Isaiah 49:1-3 as a narrowing of this concept specifically to the prophet (or someone of whom he spoke) individually as a representative of Israel. In objection to understanding Israel as the servant one can present Isaiah 53:9 “done no violence” and “no deceit in his mouth.” It hardly seems likely that someone in the prophetic tradition would present Israel as totally innocent.

    There is an intermediate position (in fact, more than one, but I don’t want to write a small book here), which sees the servant firstly as the (reformed) remnant of Israel. In this case, the exiles, who will eventually be restored to Judea become the servant, despised by the remainder of the people (Ezekiel 11:1-13). This leaves us with not precisely substitution but a form of representative suffering, in which a small group suffers for a larger group. This concept would have been easier to comprehend in the ancient world, which was less individualistic. We think of offenses and punishments as personal things. I sin, Jesus dies for me, I am saved from sin. In that formulation there is no representative suffering; there is a simple swap. But we should take seriously the words of Hebrews 2:10-15 where Jesus is said to be perfected through suffering, and to be made “of one stock” (REB) with his brothers and sisters. This intermediate position is then completed with the identification of Jesus as the ultimate representative of Israel.

    Let me quote Wolf (Interpreting Isaiah: The Suffering and Glory of the Messiah, p. 215):

    The suffering and salvation of the nation led Isaiah to his fullest disclosure of the suffering and exaltation of the Servant, who is “Israel” par excellence. The fourth Servant Song describes the meaning of the death of Christ and its significance for a sinful world. . . .

    Now I’m not quoting Wolf in support of every element of my interpretation, but specifically in connecting the servant of the early songs, clearly identified as Israel, with the servant of Isaiah 53, with characteristics that are not as applicable.

    Here I would like to note my problems with Adrian’s approach of simply telling us that Jesus said it and we should respect Jesus’ exegesis. First, this approach is fairly weak if one is going to ever dialog with a non-Christian. Acts 8:26ff tells the story of the Ethiopian eunuch, which Adrian also references. Imagine if Philip used that approach. “You’re reading Isaiah 53? Well, there’s this guy who lived in Judea, and he said this applied to him.” I’m suspecting Philip’s approach was slightly more complex than that. If Jesus provided a good exegesis, one would hope a good exegete could provide an explanation.

    But second, I think that approach rips Isaiah 53 out of its context in Isaiah and loses us part of the understanding. If we start with the idea of Israel as God’s servant–a role to which they were called–we can then take the single step to the remnant who suffer, but not merely for their own transgressions. Many of them were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.

    Yet even a quick read of Isaiah 53 will leave you dissatisfied with that solution. Perhaps we’re talking about one heroic figure, contemporary with the prophet if one sees this as an exilic 2nd Isaiah (40-55), or someone amongst the exiles, to which most of the passages are primarily addressed. That is a useful idea, but nonetheless I don’t think it fully fulfills the promise of the passage.

    Both of those concepts, however, provide some context for the type of suffering which befell the ultimate servant. Just as the exiles receive God’s punishment from a foreign power that is God’s agent, so Jesus is crucified by the Romans. Just as the exiles were despised by those not taken, so Jesus is handed over for that punishment by his own people. The redemption is accomplished by God’s action exalting his servant and redeeming the many.

    I feel quite a lot like someone who has attacked a several acre field with a small garden hoe, but I’ll leave it at that. Let me commend to you both of the books (Wolf and Childs) that I have quoted in their comments on the servant songs. They provide a good survey and basis for further research.

  • Good Ruling on Detainees

    A panel of the U. S. Court of Appeals for the fourth district has ruled that the government cannot detain resident aliens as combatants.

    The appeals panel ruled that Bush had overreached his authority and that the Constitution protects U.S. citizens and legal residents such as Marri from unchecked military power. It also rejected the administration’s contention that it was not relevant that Marri was arrested in the United States and was living here legally on a student visa. (Source: Washington Post)

    This is a case in which I strongly agree with the court’s ruling. It is very easy for the military or security authorities to claim that they need additional powers in order to protect us, and when we are frightened, we tend to go along. Many people who would be horrified, hire an attorney, and sue the government agencies responsible should their own home be illegally entered nonetheless cheer when such a thing happens in a police drama, for example.

    We need to think about these things as though they could happen to us. How would we feel? What recourses would we have? Now there’s a strong probability that the individual involved in this case deserves to be arrested, but if that is true, then it should be possible to find a judge who will agree to that. He can be charged with whatever offenses are appropriate and tried.

    There is good reason to provide special circumstances for the battlefield, where there can be much confusion and time is critical. There are even good reasons for such considerations to apply to U. S. citizens who are caught fighting against the United States. But none of those circumstances do not obtain in this case. This is just a matter of convenience for the law enforcement authorities, a convenience we can’t afford to provide them.