Threads from Henry's Web

Category: Bible Books

  • Leviticus – Two Commentaries Compared

    The first is by David W. Baker, one of three in Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy (Cornerstone Biblical Commentary), which is based on the NLT text.  The second is Samuel E. Balentine, Leviticus (Interpretation, a Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching).

    Yes, I have been reading both of these commentaries simultaneously, though in different portions of Leviticus. At the moment, I’ve completed David Baker’s commentary and am about to go on into Numbers by Dale A. Brueggemann in the same volume. I’m about half-way through Balentine’s commentary, but I think I have seen enough to make this comparison useful.

    Briefly, most of the comments I will make on the two commentaries are implied in the purpose of each series. There are really no surprises. First, let’s look at the total amount of commentary each provides. The portion of the Cornerstone volume on Leviticus is 208 pages excluding front and back matter. The Interpretation volume has 213 pages, but each page has about 25% less text. The total is changed, however, by the fact that the Interpretation volume does not include the Biblical text, whereas the Cornerstone volume does (NLT).

    It is rare that I read two books together that both exceed my expectations, but these did. Having started with Milgrom’s three volume commentary a few years back, I have been continually looking for commentaries that will help me express some of the things I found in this much neglected book of the Bible. While I still regard that study of Leviticus as a high point in my personal study of the Bible, I found that both of these commentaries helped me with thinking of ways to express what I have both learned and felt.

    It is not surprising, considering the breadth and high quality of Milgrom’s work, that both commentaries cite his views extensively and favorably, frequently choosing Milgrom’s interpretation in controversial cases.

    The critical difference between the two commentaries is one of focus.  I would say that if you want to get pointers toward specific doctrinal issues or ethical positions, Baker’s is more likely to satisfy you. If you’re more interested in theological themes and the broader sweep, then choose Balentine.  Both cover the basics and both are, not surprisingly, well referenced.

    One might even say that Balentine tends to get a bit more poetry out of Leviticus than does Baker, while Baker gets more prose.  If I were preparing a sermon, I think Balentine would get me to material I could use more quickly.  I would also note that you’ll probably be happier with Balentine if you are more concerned with liturgy.  Baker tends to learn non-liturgical things from the liturgy; Balentine tends to learn about liturgy and ritual.  Neither of them completely neglects other topics.  I’m speaking hear of emphasis, not exclusivity.

    That is one of the joys of using these two commentaries.  I can generally recommend them for a range of uses.  The only caveat would be that neither deals extensively with issues of source and redaction criticism that often take up space in a commentary on the Pentateuch.  If you want to study those areas, you’ll have to look elsewhere.  They are mentioned, but not dealt with extensively.

    I’m very glad to have read both of these commentaries.  For me their primary contribution was in application and in communication, but they would provide an excellent grounding for someone who was just beginning a study of the book of Leviticus.

  • Bob MacDonald on Psalm 119

    Psalm 119 is one of my favorite (at least top 10) passages in the Bible, especially since I had to memorize it (in the KJV) back when I was about 12 years old.  Bob MacDonald is writing a series on it in Hebrew that is well worthwhile following.  Start with his first post.

  • Jubilee and Care for the Poor

    I was struck by a comment made by David W. Baker in his commentary on Leviticus (Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy [Cornerstone Biblical Commentary]), p. 194-195:

    … Protection of life and dignity through a shared distribution of wealth was also known and practiced in the early church at Jerusalem (Acts 2:44-45), though not in relation to any actual Year of Jubilee.  This might sound radical and unheard of in much of today’s church, but its implementation in Acts seems to have been a catalyst for many becoming members of the church every day.  Could there be a causal link between the two, which the church today should take into consideration?  The church needs to give greater thought to its economic responsibilities in addition to, and as part of, its theological ones.

    Now for those who may think this is from a liberal commentary, it’s not; it’s from a solidly evangelical one.  The redistribution to which he refers is the return of land and the freeing of slaves at the Jubilee. Those who have done poorly during the preceding 49 years are suddenly blessed by a substantial redistribution of wealth in the form of land or even of their personal freedom.

    There are a number of principles that can be illustrated through Leviticus 25.  There is the basic idea of caring for those less fortunate, the particular command against enslaving one’s own people (though the extension to not enslaving anyone had to wait for a later time), and also the idea that such support was not a constant and unconditional thing.

    I suspect most of us have observed how people respond differently to certain sermons or passages of scripture.  When a pastor preaches on giving, for example, often people in the congregation who are already inclined to give feel the need to push themselves to do more, while others who give less on a regular basis are good at finding the loopholes.

    It’s difficult sometimes to find just how a scripture applies to me and not to all the other people I’d like it to apply for.  That underlines the importance of prayerful study of scripture.  Prayerful study does not merely involved praying before you study.  It is also the prayerful attitude, i.e. the attitude of listening to and depending on God throughout.

    Now look at how the early church implemented very similar principles, but in a much different way.  In their smaller community, which was not the equivalent of the nation, unlike that envisioned in Leviticus 25, they managed to keep everyone properly cared for by holding all things in common.  Latter, as discussed in 2 Corinthians 9 & 10 Paul implemented similar principles through taking a special collection.

    Our tendency is to read a passage like the description of the Jubilee, and if we’re inclined to support (or at least talk about supporting) the poor, we’ll emphasize that aspect.  One of my college professors constantly talked about the Jubilee in direct opposition to public welfare, even though wealthy Israelites would have been forced to give up wealth to others in a massive redistribution, because he noted that in the ordinary course of affairs people were expected to work.  That was his inclination, and that was what he heard in the text.

    Another professor whose inclination was toward communism found his warrant in Acts 2:44-45, and never seemed to notice that the early church was not a government, but rather a voluntary association, and indeed an association to which one really had to want to belong, nor did he notice the short duration of this particular practice.  Yet another person could hardly bring himself to fully describe the situation of Acts 2:44-45, because he was so anxious to point out how limited the circumstances were and how short the time!

    I think this passage should give pause for both Christian capitalists and Christian socialists.  I am fairly strongly inclined to the capitalist myself, but as a Christian I believe I should be deeply concerned about and positively active concerning those who are left out.  At the same time, I do have biblical warrant for good and careful stewardship.  Jubilee does not mean that I have to give without consideration or that redistribution is always a great idea.  It also does not give comfort to those who say “Never!”

    The particular way in which I implement God’s commands is left up to me and to the community of which I am a part, with the aid of examples of how God had these principles implemented over time.

    One further thought occurred to me here.  Frequently we read statements about caring for the orphan and the widow that are found frequently in the prophets and we use these in support of whatever program is on the front burner today.  Perhaps we should look a bit at the foundation document here in Leviticus to discover just what caring for the poor might have meant to those prophets.  I don’t mean that there cannot be tension between prophetic and priestly statements, but at the same time, my view of the world is doubtless more unlike that of Hosea or Jeremiah than either of their views was from their priestly contemporaries.

  • Quote of the Day – Balentine on Ritual in Leviticus

    From Samuel E Balentine, commenting on the tamid in Leviticus 6:13 and elsewhere in Leviticus (Interpretation, a Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching), p 65:

    … All religious rituals are more than practical or even symbolic acts, as important as these may be.  At their core, rituals are a form of liturgical exegesis that engages both mind and body in the drama of theology. [emphasis in original]

    Of course, many of our Christian rituals lack drama, are not based on exegesis of anything in particular, and mostly engage our backsides with the pew.

    I recall communion at one Methodist church I visited.  The pastor was clearly excited about what he was doing and saying.  He’d filled in those places in the Hymnal where it calls for words appropriate to the occasion.  One felt engaged in the ritual of breaking the bread.  Even more importantly, he clearly saw the ritual as leading to action outside of itself, and used it to focus the message.

    I wish more rituals were like that.

    (Before someone thinks I’m criticizing my home church, my pastors at First UMC Pensacola are doing an excellent job of engaging people in the liturgy, especially at the ICON service.  It is a struggle, however, to disengage people from the pews and engage them elsewhere.)

  • New Perspective on Paul and the Book of Hebrews

    Nijay Gupta has a short interview with Gordon Fee regarding his new commentary on Galatians (HT).  Since I have an extremely high regard for Gordon Fee’s work in general, and for his commentary on 1 Corinthians (which I cite frequently) in particular, I’m certainly planning to get my hands on a copy of his work on Galatians.

    As a completely undeveloped, unresearched, and unreconsidered thought, I wonder if anyone has written anything related to the relationship of the New Perspective on Paul to the theology and potentially even the authorship of Hebrews.  I personally find the language differences fairly compelling on the authorship of Hebrews, and have always found the argument based on theology less than compelling, but it sounds to me like the reading of Galatians based on the New Perspective is closer to the theology of Hebrews than a more traditional reading of Paul.  Specifically, in Hebrews, Jesus Christ becomes the fundamental law or the core of the Christian’s belief and action rather than the Torah.

    Now please bear with me.  I could decide in five minutes that the paragraph above is way off track, though more likely I’ll take longer than that to think about it.  But it seems that even if this did not bring one to believe Paul himself wrote the book, it might strengthen claims a Pauline genetic connection with the book and thus more strongly favor an author who sat under Paul’s teaching, as is already suggested.

    In any case, I’d be interested in any research along these lines, especially available on the internet, but also in any recent/forthcoming commentaries.  It’s about time for me to run through Hebrews again with a good commentary!

  • Quote of the Day – On Leviticus

    … Byu inculcating worship patterns that emphasize mind over body, word over deed, and rational thought over “merely” reflexive sacramental systems, all legacies of the Protestant Reformation, religious communities learn to be at home in the cognitive, typically abstract world of theological ideas.  Ritual invites something different:  the active participation in “embodied” theological reflection.  Both the knowing and the learning of theology come from performing the ritual act itself. …  (Samuel E. Balentine, Leviticus (Interpretation, a Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching), page 5)

    I have only read the introduction and the commentary on the first chapter thus far, but I am extremely impressed by this commentary.  While I would agree that protestants tend to downplay ritual and emphasize belief as mental assent, I would note that the other commentary on Leviticus that’s on my plate right now, David W. Baker in Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy (Cornerstone Biblical Commentary), also points out the value of learning through ritual.

    I think, however, that our tendency is to look for concrete doctrine in the rituals, and thus to miss the way in which God chose to communicate those particular doctrines.  We may also learn from Leviticus both that there is a spiritual value in ritual, and also something about how that works, and how we can gain from it in our worship today.

    Liturgy is, I think, sadly neglected, and for most of my time teaching and writing, I’ve contributed to that neglect.  I started to see things differently after reading Jacob Milgrom’s three volume commentary on Leviticus in the Anchor Bible series.  As I study Leviticus and the rest of the Pentateuch further, I am convinced even further that this should change.

  • St. John Chrysostom on Law and Perfection

    From Hebrews: Ancient Christian commentary on Scripture, New Testament X, p. 116, (with translation taken from A Collection of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church), commenting on Hebrews 7:

    Was the law then of no use?  It was indeed of use and of great use, but to make humans perfect it was of no use.  For in this respect he says, “the law made nothing perfect.”  All were figures, all shadows: circumcision, sacrifice, sabbath.  Therefore they could not reach through the soul, and thus they pass away and gradually withdraw.  But “a better hope is introduced, through which we draw near to God.”  — ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 13.4

  • 2 Corinthians – The Importance of the Story

    I’m reading Frank J. Matera’s fine commentary on 2 Corinthians, and today was reading about Paul’s recitation of his history with the Corinthians as the basis for what  he was about to teach them.  I warn you that this post is only partially about 2 Corinthians.  It is more broadly about the importance of seeing the stories involved in each passage of scripture.

    The word “story” gets used a great deal when talking about Biblical interpretation these days.  I want to be careful in explaining how I am using it here.  I am not suggesting that we each have a story (though we do) and that any story is equally valid.  Rather, I’m suggesting that the story of God’s revelation is important in understanding scripture overall, and that the particular stories of prophets, apostles, and audiences are critically important in understanding and applying passages effectively.

    More than one story can intersect as well.  In both letters to the Corinthians we can look at a story of God revealing himself to the believers in Corinth, using the apostle Paul and others in doing so.  There is the story of Paul living out his life as an apostle of Jesus Christ.  There is a story of preservation in that this content is made available to us.  Finally, there is a story of God bringing his word to me and to you in our particular circumstances.

    This doesn’t mean that just any story will do and that we must give equal credence to all stories.  In fact, paying close attention to the stories will bring us to a more focused view of the meaning of various passages.

    No commentator that I know of ignores the story of Paul’s interactions with the Corinthians.  I have previously enjoyed Gordon Fee’s commentary on 1 Corinthians, which I regard as the best single-volume, pastor accessible commentary I have ever read.  Fee is very concerned with Paul’s story as indeed he must be.  Similarly Matera is very conscious of that continued story in the commentary I’m currently reading.  I bring these two together, because both relate the story in such a way as to preserve the unity and the coherence of both letters.

    In 2 Corinthians, the story helps us see some important elements of being a servant who proclaims God’s word.  Paul can sound quite boastful as he defends his own ministry and integrity.  He is quite conscious of the problem as he writes, but nonetheless he knows that his integrity, his calling, and his reliability are inextricably linked to the proclamation of his gospel.

    This second letter, or more likely fourth letter assuming we’re missing two, teaches that the gospel manifests itself not merely in a set of beliefs, but also in a life.  It is especially important for those chosen to proclaim the gospel to display the gospel in their lives.

    I think 2 Corinthians is particularly susceptible to being mined for theological quotes, because the letter as a whole is difficult, yet it so obviously contains many theological gems.  But we may miss the emphasis of those gems by pulling them out of their setting.

    Let me illustrate this from 1 Corinthians, which I think is also very subject to quote mining.  Chapter 12 is frequently used in charismatic circles as a chapter about gifts.  The emphasis is on determining just what each gift means and what the person having that gift will be able to do.  But Paul is not primarily attempting to catalog gifts.  His concern is with the source of these gifts and how they are to be used.  He’s telling the church in Corinth that the gifts that they have are to be used in unity under the authority of the one Spirit.

    Chapter 13 is a beautiful chapter, but frequently those talking about gifts and worship skip straight over it to get to chapter 14 where we’re talking about nuts and bolts again–fun stuff!  But Paul didn’t just let his mind wander into some special spiritual realm in order to write chapter 13.  Read it carefully with chapters 12  and 14, and you’ll see how Paul’s definition of love is also a way to describe how one uses God’s gifts under God’s Spirit.  It connects closely with what precedes and follows it.

    Note here that in narrowing he focus from a general treatise on gifts to a discussion of the source and purpose of those gifts, we also broaden the discussion to cover Christian behavior in general.  Chapter 12 provides a pattern for using any and all of our gifts, talents, and resources, and then chapter 13 names that “love” and expands on just what it means.

    Chapter 14, in turn, is frequently mined for quotes to apply to almost any worship setting, but the fact is that most of our churches do not have a worship service like the one in Corinth that they need to bring into line with God’s Spirit.  Be honest now!  How many churches can say that at their worship services, “each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation” (1 Corinthians 14:26 ESV)?

    Yet I’ve heard verse 40 (“decently and in order”) used to argue that one can’t make any change in the bulletin at all, or that nobody other than the pastor and designated readers should speak.

    Getting into the pastoral situation in which Paul finds himself would help us apply this properly.  Perhaps we should move our focus from verse 40, as important as that is, and look more at verse 26.  When we actually have two or more people wanting to speak at once, then we could try working on some of the other verses.  Right now, most of the churches I visit are singularly short on “lessons” and “revelations” not to mention the rest.

    To return to 2 Corinthians, I am getting the feeling that God is challenging me through Paul’s experience to make myself a better example of the gospel that I claim to teach.

    But watch out even there, because 2 Corinthians also tells us about God using the weak.  How to I make myself a better example?  I let God use my weaknesses.  The gospel, after all, is about grace, not about my strength or brilliance.

  • Lectionary Notes

    One of my devotional practices is to keep track of the weekly lectionary texts (not the daily and often not special days during the week), and read them through daily using different versions and different reference sources.

    I keep notes online when I have time.  I haven’t publicized this very much because I have been quite irregular, but I really like to get some kind of a note from these passage on a daily basis, so I’ve added the feed to the far right sidebar.

    Today I posted on another passage where I think the lectionary cuts off in an unfortunate way.

  • Choosing Bible Reading

    I was reading an excellent post by Martin LaBar (Sun and Shield) today about our reading choices.  He’s commenting on a study that shows that we tend to select reading that confirms our already existing views.

    Now I suspect there’s nothing terribly surprising about that.  At least most of us assume that other people only read to support their own prejudices.  We, of course, just choose to read only the truth!

    This idea connected with some current reading.  My daughter and her family, who obviously know me well, sent me a gift card for Barnes and Noble for my birthday, and I used it to get a commentary I’ve been wanting, Frank J. Matera’s commentary on II Corinthians.  I’ve been reading it for part of my devotional time.

    In the exceptional introduction to the book, Matera finds a common theme for the book that connects the gospel to apostolic ministry. To summarize and paraphrase (a fuller explanation of this is on page 14), Paul preaches God who raises the dead, but to participate in this resurrection, one must participate in Christ’s suffering and affliction.  Paul becomes part of Christ’s suffering through his suffering in his ministry to the church.

    Thus the book presents a picture of ministry that is almost entirely the opposite of the waythe world–and often the modern church–see it.  We like to think of great leaders, strong and capable people, called to carry their natural gifts into service, for which they get due reward.  That is not New Testament, Christ-like service, however.

    While we quote a text or two in 2 Corinthians, on topics like new creation, imputation, and cheerful giving, that is only a tiny portion of the theme–the theme of the book is a defense of Paul’s apostolic minsitry as a fragile, weak vessel used by God.

    So what does this have to do with reading choices?

    Ask yourself how much time we spend studying various books of the Bible.  I recall, for example, that books like Romans and Galatians were pretty popular in the seminary where I studied.  Second Corinthians?  Not so much.

    Indeed, we didn’t really get the whole books of Galatians and Romans.  I took a class titles Exegesis of Romans in Greek in my undergraduate program, and we never got past chapter 8.  Chapters 9-16?  The professor mentioned them a few times, but I had to work on those on my own later.

    In graduate school I took a course in Galatians.  With effort we got through chapter 4.  We missed chapters 5 & 6.

    But one of the things 2 Corinthians does is provide us with the application of salvation by faith to ministry–ministry by faith.

    Perhaps we ought to spend some serious time on the portions of the Bible that are a bit less popular.