In my heart have I hidden your Word, That I might not sin against you.
I was introduced to Psalm 119 in elementary school. I had read a fair amount of Bible before that time, but hadn’t read it through. I went to a small Christian school where Bible memorization was a key component.
We memorized various verses, chapters, and larger sections, such as the Sermon on the Mount, or a lengthy chapter such as Luke 2. And we memorized Psalm 119, all 176 verses of it.
People have asked me what I thought about that part of my education. Was all that memorization worth it? Didn’t I resent it? I would add that we didn’t just learn the words, and we were not allowed to stumble through our recitation. Our recitation had to be perfect. We had to be able to write the passage perfectly including punctuation.
I was so steeped in the language of the King James Version that during my first year in college I acquired the nickname “Therefore.”
Now there are many ways of approaching Bible study. I’m reminded of the story of Dwight L. Moody, approached by a woman who disapproved of his method of evangelism. He asked her how she did it, to which she replied that she didn’t. His response? “I like my method of doing it better than your method of not doing it.”
I feel the same way about criticism of someone’s way of doing Bible study. If you’re doing it, encourage others, suggest helpful approaches, but don’t be a critic. Would I run a school in the same way? No. But I don’t regret a moment of my Bible memorization there. I’m delighted to be able to find so many passages quickly because I hid them in my heart when I was young. Even though it wasn’t by my choice!
What’s your way of hiding God’s Word in your heart?
It is critical to note that the signs Jesus’ gives his disciples are general and vague and always contemporary. War and suffering, famine and earthquakes, persecutions and false Messiahs have not only been prevalent throughout history; they are the also to be witnessed and experienced in the present, and they will be encountered in the future. Thus, the posture that Jesus is encouraging his disciples to take is not one where such signs signal the imminent end of history, but rather that such events remind them of the necessity to be ready for the end because they cannot know from these signs when it will take place.
Allan R. Bevere, Keeping Up WIth Jesus, p. 52 (forthcoming)
This was too good not tomention. I’m doing a final editorial read on this book which will be available shortly. Allan calls it a “narrative devotional commentary” which is a good description of what it accomplishes. I’ll post more here when the book is available.
I’ve been working my way through Ezekiel with my Sunday School class, at their request, since I have frequently said that Leviticus, Ezekiel, and Hebrews are the books most formative of my own theology. When this is done, I will have been through all three books with this group.
One major difficulty in teaching through Ezekiel is that it is a rather dismal book. There are long passages promising and explaining judgment. There are various passages about the hardships Ezekiel endures as a prophet. At the same time, there are brief looks ahead toward a time of redemption, that the judgment is not intended to destroy and put an end to God’s people, but rather to restore and rebuild after a cleanup.
One temptation in interpreting Ezekiel and many other books of Hebrew Scripture (which I refer to as the Old Testament when understood as part of Christian scripture) is to see the failures of Israel as theological and ritual. Theological in the sense that they are believing wrong stuff. Ritual in the sense that worship is going astray. This meets a frequent Christian assumption that the Israelite religion was largely about ritual.
This is a mischaracterization of Israelite religion. Ritual was intended to teach. What is condemned by the prophets is not ritual as such, but rather the performance of ritual while failing to learn from the moral, ethical, and indeed spiritual lessons of such ritual. In modern terms, this is much like the Christian who goes to church and carries out whatever rituals are expected, but then heads out to be something quite different from what those rituals represent.
As an example, we can participate in the ritual of the Eucharist, or communion as many protestants prefer to call it, and then fail completely to put the unity that this illustrates into practice. “The body of Christ broken for you and for many” is shared because we are all in Christ, and Christ is in all of us. To go out and be denominationally competitive after receiving the body of Christ is to miss the point of the “one body.” To go out and abuse those less fortunate than we are, no matter what our reason is for looking down on them, is to miss the lesson of that broken body. Just before his body was broken, Jesus said to “love one another as I have loved you.” Then he went and died for us. Skip all the arguments about the reason for this. He died. For us.
The problem that Ezekiel is busy proclaiming is often expressed as idolatry, but then is brought home in the failure to care for those in need. In fact, when accusing Judah of sharing in the sins of Sodom, the lead point is: “She and her daughters had the pride that goes with food in plenty, comfort, and ease, yet she never helped the poor in their need” (Ezekiel 16:49 REB).
The problem with idolatry is not that you walk the wrong way or go to the wrong place, or that the ritual is performed incorrectly. Rather, it is a matter of lowered standards. I like to use a definition of idolatry cribbed from Paul Tillich: “Making something ultimate that is not ultimate.” As soon as you start worshiping something less than God, you start looking lower. When the potential goal is lowered, less is done.
This is the problem with using grace to deny law. The standard still needs to be there. I am a publisher. I am quite certain I have never produced the perfect book. But as soon as I dismiss the idea of a perfect book from my mind, knowing that I will not attain it, I will start working toward a lesser standard, and will, in turn, fail to meet that. Having failed, I lower the standard again, and fail to meet that.
One of the key points in Ezekiel 24 is blood guilt. If we go back to Deuteronomy 21:1-9, we’ll see the extreme importance the Torah places on life, and on the unlawful and unjustified taking of life. There the people are given a ritual for dealing with someone who is killed, but without witnesses, there is no way to assign guilt. The nearest community takes on the task of atoning. Ezekiel is addressing this blood guilt. The people are not dealing simply with erroneous theology. They are killing one another. They have not just worshiped other gods. They have destroyed other people.
Let me add a side-note here. I really, really don’t like the line “good in theory but bad in practice.” It is not that all theories work, but rather that a theory that cannot be put into practice is not a good theory. Similarly, I dislike having theology and doctrine lined up in opposition to how we treat people. “If you’re putting your doctrine above people, forget doctrine.” Rather, if your doctrine is one that justifies you in mistreating other people, reexamine your doctrine, because it has problems. Jesus says that all the law and the prophets hangs on the two laws, loving God and loving your neighbor. If it won’t hang there, it’s not a good doctrine.
But it is not the idea of “doctrine” that is bad. The idea that loving one’s neighbor is central is itself doctrine, and I believe good doctrine. Replace your bad doctrine with a good doctrine, one that fits with what Jesus made central.
Again, back to Ezekiel 24. I tend to jump around a bit. We don’t always go straight from the passage we’re studying to the way in which we will live for the following week.
Here are some key points:
The reason the passage is dismal is that the situation is dismal. On the bright side, Judah returned from exile. Many cultures effectively disappeared after the sort of events that had happened to Judah. Failing to recognize what it is that one needs to be rescued from likely means failure to rescue at all.
Ezekiel loses his wife and is instructed not to mourn, illustrating in his own actions what was happening to people back in Jerusalem, which was under siege at the time. We like to think of prophetic voices speaking from on high and informing the dismally flawed lesser mortals below of the error of their ways. The true prophetic voice operates differently. It lives in a community. It shares with the community. It is God’s voice inside, not outside.
The prophet, when called by God doesn’t get to have an easy life. So many today think that if God has called them to some activity or another, they must have an easy, obstruction-free journey. We look for leaders whose lives are better than ours. As Christians, we should recognize that we serve a leader who was not recognized as such by the society in which he lived. Ezekiel exemplified this with the people. He suffered among them and with them. Silently.
Finally, we should be tremendously encouraged by these facts. Easy, positive, glowing platitudes don’t provide comfort to the person who is suffering deeply. Such things may actually instead suggest that the sufferer is despised by God and make things even more difficult. That was the message of Job’s friends, whose speeches God refers to as “darkening wisdom by words without knowledge” (Job 38:2). One who can suffer with, who knows what the bad side of life is like, is also one who can rescue. God made “the pioneer of their salvation perfect through sufferings” (Hebrews 2:10).
I’ll close with a short quote from Bruce Epperly’s book, Walking with Whitehead, in which he builds on a well-known quote from Whitehead:
God is the fellow sufferer who understands and the intimate companion who celebrates.
This review is of a Bible I received as a #BibleGatewayPartner.
When I set out to review a Bible, I find it difficult to determine precisely what I should discuss. There is the translation it is based on, the nature and extent of the notes, the theological positions that drive those notes, and elements of the edition such as text size, arrangement, and paper quality.
In approaching the Grace & Truth Study Bible, edited by R. Albert Mohler and published by Zondervan, the question became even more interesting when I added it to my Bible store, and found that my distributor has 17 editions/formats available, ranging in price from $39.99 (unjacketed hardcover) to $279.99 (Premium Goatskin, gilded edges). The edition I’m reviewing is priced at $49.99, and is a jacketed hardcover.
I’ll begin with a few pictures.
Front CoverIntroduction to EphesiansA Spread from EphesiansA Page from GenesisA few pictures of the Grace & Truth Study Bible
Edition / Format
The production is of good quality, as you would expect from a Zondervan product. The layout is quite traditional for a study Bible. You have an introduction to each book, notes at the bottom of each page (allowing me to continue to remind classes to read from the upper part!), and cross-references in the center of the Bible text. In the back you’ll find a concordance and some fairly standard Bible maps.
Other editions have some variations on this, such as different page sizes, binding, and paper.
Overall, there is nothing to criticize about the layout, and in fact, I kind of like the straightforward approach. We don’t have numerous “features” added that really tend to detract from study. There is a text, and there is a commentary, one study Bible! I think few modern readers make great use of cross-references, but it is nice to have them.
The big weakness of this particular edition is the 9 pt font. I found it hard to read extended portions of the text. I’m just five years short of three-score and ten, and thus my eyes may not be quite as good as those of some readers, but I read extensively and rapidly, and reading this Bible feels like work.
It’s important to note, however, that several of the editions do have larger print than the one I’m reading, so one can look at the page and font size and choose a better compromise along those lines.
Content
The translation used is the New International Version. My general comment on this edition is simply that it is a compromise between woodenly literal and freely interpretive dynamic translation work. This means it suffers from the problems of both formal and dynamic equivalence, but it also shares in the benefits. There is no such thing as a perfect translation, and the NIV covers a great deal of ground. It is definitely evangelical in flavor and thus it is not surprising for it to be the basis of this study Bible, considering the general editor. You can find brief comments on the NIV at My Bible Version or in my book What’s in a Version?
First, let me note that I do not intend to criticize this study Bible for differences in theology. Dr. Mohler is a Southern Baptist and I’m United Methodist. The header of this blog proclaims me a “passionate moderate, liberal charismatic,” and while each word of that description brings up issues when applied to my theology, it does not suggest that I’m a conservative evangelical. A book edited by a conservative evangelical is one I expect to be, well, conservative and evangelical. And this book is that.
I strongly recommend that Bible students have on hand study Bibles that disagree with them as well as ones that are from their own theological tradition. I have gotten valuable insights by comparing the comments in various study Bibles.
The commentary is not dedicated to railing against theological opponents. I would describe most comments as gently conservative, but often not putting controversial issues front and center. For example, in the introduction to Genesis there is a comment about treating this not as a scientific or historical account, but understanding it as theology and even as a work of art. I know of people all across the spectrum who would find the literary description of Genesis as quite acceptable. Conservative evangelical interpretations are espoused in the notes as one would expect.
Another example is Romans 1, which is a frequent citation in arguments about homosexuality. The notes do, in fact, express a conservative view, but it correctly (in my view) see the primary point of the passage in idolatry, and it places idolatry at the foundation of human sin.
Book introductions don’t spend a great deal of time on issues of dating and authorship and don’t enter into controversies on these issues, but do assume a relatively conservative chronology regarding the writing of the text. For example, you could read the introductions to each of the gospels and miss any issues of authorship and dependency between the various writers.
The strength of the notes is that they are a nice blend of theological and devotional. Some study Bibles emphasize giving you technical and background details that you might not know. While you will get some of that from this Bible, the devotional value appears to be primary. I would say that this is a sort of theology that is readable by the average Sunday School class. It is not seminary material. It doesn’t give you a list of options for various issues, but basically preaches its way through.
Overall
Overall, I found nothing surprising here. The Bible was very much as I imagined it would be when I first looked over the descriptions involved. I personally wouldn’t recommend it as your sole study Bible. There is a strong possibility of absorbing relatively controversial conclusions without being alerted to the possibility of disagreement. That can be nice for morning devotions, but not as your sole opportunity to study.
I do think it would be valuable as one study Bible out of a set that one uses to study. The other study Bible should be from different tradition streams, and also with a different emphasis. There are a number of evangelical study Bibles that do more analysis of the issues, for example. That may be less devotional, but if you want a balanced perspective, it’s good to know what other views exist.
Note: I received this copy of the Grace & Truth Study Bible as a #BibleGatewayPartner, with the only requirement being an honest review.
Here is the video (via YouTube) and the PowerPoint slides for my study of September 30, 2020. I am taking a look at the law through scripture and looking at how that impacts Paul and his message.
First, the PowerPoint:
And for those, especially on mobile devices, who may have trouble viewing the PowerPoint, here it is as a PDF.
I’m continuing to read Guthrie’s commentary on Hebrews (George H. Guthrie, Hebrews, The NIV Application Commentary, Kindle edition) and I am enjoying his approach. That doesn’t mean agreeing with everything, but I find that his approach is likely to be particularly helpful to preachers and teachers as he attempts to bridge the cultural differences.
In the introduction he makes a strong differentiation between the theological portions of the book and the exhortation, even indicating in his translation some of the sections that overlap between both. When I read this part it made me somewhat uncomfortable. I think the distinction can be artificial in Hebrews, and problematic elsewhere.
In the commentary, however, he carefully draws the connection between the exposition (as he calls what I would call theology) and the exhortation. The exhortation derives from the theology.
It’s important to see this close relationship, and while I was uncomfortable with the hard distinction, I am very happy with the close connection drawn in the commentary on the text.
When I took a class in Exegesis of Romans, based on the Greek text in college we only managed to get through chapter 8, and it was generally accepted that this was OK, because we had done the important parts. In churches, on the other hand, I frequently hear exposition of Romans 12, 13, or 14 (generally separately, for more, see here), which treat these passages as separate topics. Paul tends to build his theological foundation and then draw from that for his exhortation, but the two are closely connected.
In Hebrews we have an even clearer connection between then two elements, and I believe the mixture is quite intentional. There is no sharp distinction. Yes, we westerners can classify and separate, and yes, you can distinguish the application from the theology, but when doing so you should avoid missing the author’s point, which is that his exhortation is rooted in a theology, and particularly in a Christology. He does not exhort without laying the foundation.
I consider this important for a reason that is perhaps different than that of the author. I think this close theological tie is what allows us to sort through applications and discover what is temporary and what is permanent. It even allows us to find ways in which the underlying theology can provide new guidance.
Just today I was reading a comment asking whether we can translate certain texts to permit women in certain ministry positions. I think that is the wrong approach. The question is really how we can apply the theology to our time and place and come out faithful to God’s action and revelation.
In the case of Hebrews it also involves understanding the way in which theology is expressed and separating the expression from the content. I think Hebrews is a superior place to practice this because I see the theological basis and form of expression so thoroughly laid out in the text.
In a way, this is the key issue. If you favor internal evidence, you will doubtless favor someone other than Paul as the author. If, on the other hand, you consider the early patriotic accounts, you are much more likely to consider Paul.
This was underlined for me when David Alan Black asked me this: “So if the book of Hebrews claimed Paul as the author in the text you would accept Paul as author?”
The answer to that is yes, absolutely. The internal evidence would never lead me to Paul apart from external statements, I don’t see enough issues in the text to convince me Paul was not the author if the claim was made in the text, assuming that the claim was textually secure.
I publish Dave’s book The Authorship of Hebrews: The Case for Paul, and I credit editing that book for changing my view from “anyone but Paul” to “unknown, but Paul is an option.” One of the key values of Dave’s book is the discussion of the internal evidence.
Data collected by Paul Foster at the 2011 British New Testament Conference (Hat Tip to Peter Gurry on Facebook)
While I imagine there might be minor variations in a survey of American scholars, I think the results would be similar.
It’s always fun to see the numbers on Hebrews, since I would describe myself as uncertain (with the nine and not the 100), but also publish the book The Authorship of Hebrews: The Case for Paul by David Alan Black, which argues forcefully for Pauline authorship.
I remain unconvinced of Pauline authorship, but Dave did more to move the needle for me than anyone, and I believe he argues his case in exemplary fashion, which is why I published the book.
I mentioned in my post about completing the study of Romans that our next book was Leviticus. This was by choice of the group, but it is surely driven somewhat by the number of references I have made to Leviticus.
While I experienced Leviticus as a child, going to a Christian school where we read—really read—the entire Bible, and memorized a great deal, it never really caught my attention.
Two factors combined to catch my attention:
I changed my view of biblical inspiration
I studied through Leviticus using the three volume commentary on it in the Anchor Bible series by Jacob Milgrom.
Studying with Milgrom
Here’s a key Milgrom quote, and this from a man who does not tend to speak in one-liners!
Theology is what Leviticus is all about. It pervades every chapter and almost every verse. It is not expressed in pronouncements but embedded in rituals.
Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus, Vol. 1, Anchor Bible. (New York: Doubleday, 1991), 42. (Link is to my review.)
One of the key lessons I learned in that book is that ritual matters. The way we worship both reflects and creates theology. When we go to church and listen to one person from the front do all the talking, that has an impact on how we see the Christian life, learning, discipleship.
I recall that I was once asked to speak at a church where, unknown to me, people felt they could delegate that task of prayer to the prayer warriors. The pastor who invited me knew I’d say something different.
I would like to say something similar about study to the church as a whole: You can’t leave your study to pastors or scholars. You need to get involved.
Bottom line here is that our ritual matters in many ways.
I asked a question in a previous post:
If God showed up on Sunday morning, would God enjoy what was going on?
The other element is my change was my view of inspiration. There is a single element that is critical. I came to regard the process of inspiration and transmission of scripture as a critical element in our understanding. I see scripture as a compendium of the experience of people with God. It is important to recognize both the divine and human element.
Out of that divine-human story, I see God working with people through scripture. In Leviticus, we see God as educator. Yes, we see the human report of what happened. I’m not trying here to debate details on how human and how divine scripture is; in fact, I think that’s the wrong question. What we’re looking for is the process behind what we have. We want to see God in action.
Is that perhaps arrogant? I don’t believe so. I believe God has left God’s imprint all over creation, and very much in the way in which God’s chosen people were developed and prepared. Looking at this process is even more critical than connecting dots between specific scriptures.
Things I Won’t Be Doing
In focusing on the way ritual expresses theology and develops worshipers, there are two things I will not be emphasizing.
First, I will not be looking for the minor ties between specific scripture prophecies and New Testament events. While I accept predictive prophecy in principle, in practice I find that the detailed interpretation of a prediction/fulfillment is rarely necessary to learn the lessons expressed.
Second, I will not be doing a detailed symbolic connection between elements of the ritual. Those sorts of things (and the resulting debates) are available elsewhere.
I will be focusing on the expression of theology through ritual and the relationship of that ritual to forming God’s people. I hope to learn something about discipleship and instruction/nurture through this book.
(Featured image credit: Adobe Stock #158382143. Licensed, not public domain.)
