Threads from Henry's Web

Category: Bible Commentary

  • Aiming Your Bible

    I discuss letting the Bible convict you first in my monthly devotional post for the World Prayr devotional blog.

  • Gordon Fee Discusses Interpreting Revelation

    … in this video, which has been all over the biblioblogosphere.  Sorry, I don’t even remember where I first saw it.

  • Lectionary and Mosaic Bible – Pentecost + 3

    I’m ending a hiatus in blogging of just over a month.  I see my last post was dated May 8, 2010, but I was pretty sparse for a month before that.  I’ll get a post up about what I was doing during that time.  No, nothing adventurous; just trying to do necessary work to grow my publishing business.

    This morning I looked again at the lectionary passages for the week, and compared them to the Mosaic Bible.  Three of the lectionary passages do have material connected with them in The Mosaic Bible, though there is no overlap in the texts for this week.  The lectionary gives us 1 Kings 21:1-21a (again deleting what I think is some relevant material starting with 21b),  Psalm 5:1-8, Galatians 2:15-21, and Luke 7:36-8:3.  Of these, only Psalm 5 is not connected, though Galatians only overlaps with verse 20 used for Easter in the Mosaic Bible.

    This simply reaffirms the way in which I think the Mosaic Bible is most useful for those who already use a reading plan oriented to the church year–it provides a rich range of readings that relate to the various church seasons that will be helpful in lesson and sermon preparation.  For those who do not use a reading program tied to the church calendar, I think the Mosaic Bible provides a more friendly starting point than simply diving into the lectionary.  Often the lectionary texts prove a challenging combination–individually helpful, but seeming quite scattered as a group.

    The focus for this lectionary reading seems to be evil men.  One interesting twist is just how you read the story in Luke.  Naboth’s vineyard gives you a pretty clear set of bad guys and good guys, with Ahab in the role of very bad guy.  One interesting approach might be to contrast the response of Jesus to the woman who is a sinner as opposed to the judgment meted out to Ahab.  That could lead to really interesting discussions of varying types of sin as well.  No matter how often we claim that sin is sin, I think we really do have “clean” sins and “dirty” sins. Most commonly “dirty” sins are the ones you commit, and “clean” sins are the ones I commit.  (See the host in the story in Luke.)

    I find the possible range of topics presented by each collection of lectionary texts quite fascinating, and this week was no exception.

  • Review: Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: Hebrews

    My primary training in biblical studies placed an overwhelming emphasis on historical study.  The idea was to get at the original meaning of the text as it would have been understood by those who first heard or read it.  I should note that amongst my professors there was some desire to look at reception, and there was also some desire to look heavily at denominational application (these were Seventh-day Adventist schools), but I rejected both elements quite strongly and stuck to historical study.

    Now I still have no problem with that approach, as long as that is seen as an approach rather than the approach to Bible study.  The Bible is indeed a document written in history.  I would no longer say, as I said at the time, that I approach the Bible like any other piece of ancient near eastern literature.  (At some other time I’ll discuss the problem I see with interpreters who remain in the sacred tradition and seem unable to see the historical meaning at all.)

    But what does a person whose approach has been entirely on the historical side do if he is convinced that there is also an approach to studying scripture that is not purely historical, but sees the Bible not as just another piece (or collection) of ancient near eastern literature, but rather as God’s revelation to the church?  Such a view means that the reception of the text through the history of the church is also critical.

    Where I actually started was with whole books by church fathers and by Christians through the centuries.  There is a benefit to this form of study in that you get a better picture of a particular writer by reading a substantial portion of his or her writing.  But I am still primarily a student of language and history and definitely not a professional theologian.

    Enter the Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture series.  (I wrote this on completing my read of New Testament Volume X, but I think my comments apply to the whole series.) Here we have a selection of patristic commentary on various passages.  It simple to read and follow and contains the full text of the scripture in question.  The variety and the selection is great, and most of the commentary is brief.

    You shouldn’t expect to use this as a full commentary.  It’s not intended to be.  Neither should you expect it to give you a full introduction to each church father.  It’s providing snippets that relate to particular scriptures.  But you can find the context of the various fathers and their contribution by looking at the brief bios and the summary timeline in the back.

    I’ve found myself providing many quotes from this book as I’ve read.  It has been a far back-burner type project, and in many cases I’ve gone on to find the context of the quotes online, for which the Christian Classics Ethereal Library has proven very useful.  I’ll be bold enough to note also that I find some statements by the fathers to seem somewhat wide of the mark.  I think they were subject, as I am, to a desire to make the scriptures support their own pre-established views.  I would note that they are closer to the time and language of the texts, and thus they provide some help in discovering the historical meaning as well.

    This is really turning out to be more notes on using the church fathers and writers from other periods in Bible study and less a review of this particular commentary.  Let me summarize.  I think the selection is excellent, the volume well-organized, and provided one makes use of the resources provided, one can gain substantial value using any of these volumes in study.

  • Do You Deserve a Light or a Heavy Beating?

    I’ve probably mentioned a few times that I studied under Dr. Alden Thompson at Walla Walla University (then WWC).  He’s the one who taught me Hebrew, though actually I joined his class in the second year, and also introduced me to Aramaic.  But more importantly, he introduced me to what I believe is a very constructive way of dealing with Bible difficulties.

    He’s just written a book, Beyond Common Ground: Why Liberals and Conservatives Need Each Other which pulls together many of the things I’ve heard him teach over the years.

    I’ll get around to referencing some of those on this blog as I have time, but today I just want to share a video put out by the publisher in which Alden discusses how he goes about understanding some passages from Luke. Now Alden is an Old Testament scholar (PhD, University of Edinburgh), but his passion is for Bible study amongst the laity.

    I’m delighted this little book has been published. My major regret is that it may be neglected because it is published by Pacific Press, a Seventh-day Adventist publisher. Though it was written to help address conflicts within that denomination, the ideas are applicable elsewhere as well. I’ve heard Alden teach some of this material to rooms filled with United Methodists, for example.

    Alden Thompson is also the author of Who’s Afraid of the Old Testament God? which my company publishes, besides being one of my teachers, so perhaps I am not fully free of bias.

    Nah. This book is good!

  • St. John Chrysostom on Being Strangers

    From Homilies on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Christian Classics Ethereal Library), commenting on Hebrews 11:13-16.  All emphasis is mine.

    What then? Did they mean that they were “strangers” from the land that is in Palestine? By no means: but in respect of the whole world: and with reason; for they saw therein none of the things which they wished for, but everything foreign and strange. They indeed wished to practice virtue: but here there was much wickedness, and things were quite foreign to them. They had no friend, no familiar acquaintance, save only some few.

    But how were they “strangers”? They had no care for things here. And this they showed not by words, but by their deeds. In what way?

    He said to Abraham, “Leave that which seems thy country and come to one that is foreign”: And he did not cleave to his kindred, but gave it up as unconcernedly as if he were about to leave a foreign land. He said to him, “Offer up thy son,” and he offered him up as if he had no son; as if he had divested himself of his nature, so he offered him up. The wealth which he had acquired was common to all passers-by, and this he accounted as nothing. He yielded the first places to others: he threw himself into dangers; he suffered troubles innumerable. He built no splendid houses, he enjoyed no luxuries, he had no care about dress, which all are things of this world; but lived in all respects as belonging to the City yonder; he showed hospitality, brotherly love, mercifulness, forbearance, contempt for wealth and for present glory, and for all else.

    And his son too was such as himself: when he was driven away, when war was made on him, he yielded and gave way, as being in a foreign land. For foreigners, whatever they suffer, endure it, as not being in their own country. Even when his wife was taken from him, he endured this also as being in a strange land: and lived in all respects as one whose home was above, showing sobermindedness and a well-ordered life.  // For after he had begotten a son, he had no more commerce with his wife, and it was when the flower of his youth had passed that he married her, showing that he did it not from passion, but in subservience to the promise of God.

    And what did Jacob? Did he not seek bread only and raiment, which are asked for by those who are truly strangers; by those that have come to great poverty? When he was driven out, did he not as a stranger give place? Did he not serve for hire? Did he not suffer afflictions innumerable, everywhere, as a stranger?

    [5.] And these things (he says) they said, “seeking” their “own country.” Ah! how great is the difference! They indeed were in travail-pains each day, wishing to be released from this world, and to return to their country. But we, on the contrary, if a fever attack us, neglecting everything, weeping like little children, are frightened at death.

    Not without reason we are thus affected. For since we do not live here like strangers, nor as if hastening to our country, but are like persons that are going away to punishment, therefore we grieve, because we have not used circumstances as we ought, but have turned order upside down. Hence we grieve when we ought to rejoice: hence we shudder, like murderers or robber chiefs, when they are going to be brought before the judgment-seat, and are thinking over all the things they have done, and therefore are fearful and trembling.

    They, however, were not such, but pressed on. And Paul even groaned; “And we” (he says) “that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened.” ( 2 Cor. v. 4.) Such were they who were with Abraham; “strangers,” he says, they were in respect of the whole world, and “they sought a country.”

    What sort of “country” was this? Was it that which they had left? By no means. For what hindered them if they wished, from returning again, and becoming citizens? but they sought that which is in Heaven? Thus they desired their departure hence, and so they pleased God; for “God was not ashamed to be called their God.”

  • Book Notes: Roetzel on 2 Corinthians

    I’ve given up the enterprise of reading this book through from cover to cover, so these notes are based on using it as reference while I’m reading 2 Corinthians itself.

    The fact is that I found the book impossible to read straight through.  As I mentioned previously in using it as a comparison to Matera’s commentary, Roetzel divides the book into five letters:

    1. A Letter of Appeal for the Offering (8:1-24)
    2. First Letter Defending Paul’s Ministry ( 2:14-7:4)
    3. Second Letter of Defense or The Letter of Tears (10:1-13:10)
    4. The Reconciling Letter (1:1-2:13; 7:5-16; 13:11-13)
    5. Offering Letter to the Churches of Achaia (9:1-15)

    I find this reconstruction unconvincing not because it isn’t well thought out.  In fact, it proposes a rather interesting set of correspondence.  What I find unconvincing is any theory of why it would have been combined in the way it was by any redactor.  I simply see no logic, and Roetzel doesn’t seem to provide any, for why anyone should join the various letters together in this particular fashion. In my view, that is a fatal flaw.  What does the letter mean as constructed?  Why would one construct it in that particular way.

    Since Roetzel then writes the commentary according to his reconstruction, one almost is required to accept the reconstruction in order to read it comfortably.  Now that isn’t necessarily a criticism.  I suspect Roetzel would say that a person who follows the canonical form is requiring people to accept that (re)construction.  (See his comments on hypotheses on pages 24-25.)

    Using the index, one can still find the commentary useful in studying particular passages, and the introduction to the whole book as well as the introductions to the various sections are still quite useful.

    Due to space constraints, the commentary covers many of the major theological issues in the book very briefly.  That will actually be a feature to many readers, especially to pastors who are trying to prepare a sermon.  On the other hand, the pastor doing sermon preparation will have to work through the table of contents to find where his or her particular passage is covered.

    The language of the commentary is commendably clear, easy to read, and the referencing is light, and does not use footnotes.  That makes individual sections easy to read and to follow, again an advantage to the pastor of Sunday School teacher wishing to find the answer to some issue of interpretation.  Omissions in the discussion are entirely due to the size of the commentary.  You’ll find a great deal of information for the size of book involved.

    In the final analysis, I would have to say that I cannot overcome the negative factor of the book’s arrangement, and that goes back to my personal evaluation of the author’s hypothetical reconstruction of the book.  Were one to accept his reconstruction, the same things that I find annoying might be seen as helpful.

    As it stands, I must say that I prefer Matera’s commentary in all ways, and give this one three stars out of five.

  • On the Old Testament and Vengeance

    Peter Kirk linked to my post on “an eye for an eye” in responding to David Ker’s post What to do with the vengeance in the Old Testament? Skip it!

    As a result I’ve been able to follow a rather substantial number of posts discussing this issue.  One of these comes from John Hobbins, who tells us that one can’t be a “New Testament only” Christian.  I’m glad he used the word “only” because we all should be New Testament (or covenant) Christians.  As it is I can agree with him completely.  Dr. Platypus gets somewhat more helpful as he discusses the value of some of the difficult passages, especially in the Psalms.  Bob MacDonald also provides some good thoughts and resources.

    I emphasized Old Testament rather strongly in my studies and would certainly not want to be without it as part of my spiritual life.  I wanted to link in three more posts that provide videos of presentations made recently by one of my undergraduate professors, Dr. Alden Thompson.  I also am the publisher of his book Who’s Afraid of the Old Testament God?  You can regard this as a semi-commercial announcement.

    I have not yet watched this set of videos, but having both taken classes from Alden as an undergraduate, and must more recently hosted him as teacher of several seminars, I have no doubt that he will make a valuable contribution to this discussion.  One of the things he says regularly is:  “You may not like the Old Testament, but Jesus did!”

    Links to the videos:

    Part 1, Part 2, Part 3

    The presentations were at the Toledo First Seventh-day Adventist Church.  If you’re harboring some denominational prejudices I’d urge you to lay them aside for the time it takes you to benefit from Alden’s teaching.

  • Commentary: II Corinthians (NTL)

    I have really enjoyed studying 2 Corinthians with this commentary.  Since I’ve used a number of volumes from the New Testament Library before, the easiest evaluation of this commentary I can give is that it meets and in some cases exceeds the expectations I have of volumes in the New Testament Library series. If you have used and liked other volumes in either the OTL or the NTL, you won’t be disappointed.

    There are several things I look for in a commentary, and of course different commentaries serve different purposes. In a scholarly commentary intended for the preacher or teacher I look for solid coverage of critical issues, reasonable accessibility, good theological applications (or at least hooks on which to build them), and comprehensive coverage without going overboard. On all these points this commentary stands up well.

    For my personal use I like good coverage of text-critical issues and language issues. As is usual with NTL or OTL volumes, the language and text issues are a little less prominent, being largely covered in short notes following the translation. Considering the purpose of the commentary, this is actually a feature, since overdoing minor textual issues is simply distracting for someone who need to go out and preach to a congregation that will have limited use for that type of information.

    Two things stood out in reading the commentary. First, Matera covers the literary integrity of the book in some detail, including discussion of the various arguments for believing that more than one letter has been combined to make the single book we call 2 Corinthians. Matera supports the literary integrity of the book as we have it. He does not treat the other side unfairly, however.

    Second, Matera covers rhetorical issues in some detail, which helps the reader see the book as a whole as well as digging into the details. I had never been able to really “feel” 2 Corinthians, even though I’ve studied it and read it many times. It always seemed like a patchwork of topics. That’s OK for a letter, but with Matera’s comments I see more connection and structure and less of a loose collection of topics.

    I find it helpful two compare one commentary to another to give a more precise idea of what it’s like.  In this case I’m starting to read 2 Corinthians by Calvin J. Roetzel in the Abingdon New Testament Commentaries series (Abingdon).

    Of these two, the Abingdon volumes aim at theology students, but are expected to also be useful to pastors and teachers.  NTL volumes aim a bit higher on the scholarly scale.  The Abingdon volumes do not use footnotes, while the NTL uses them quite extensively.  This might give an impression that the text is more dissimilar than it is.  While I haven’t completed my read of the Abingdon volume, I find it about the same reading level, provided one skips the footnotes in NTL, which I don’t.

    The  NTL volume is 314 pages of content, while the Abingdon is only about 138 pages.  That in itself is quite a difference, but the Abingdon pages are about 70% of the length of those in the NTL.  That, of course, means that the larger volume can cover a great deal more data.

    As for writing style and content, Matera, as I have noted, argues for the literary integrity of 2 Corinthians, while Roetzel goes for a five letter hypothesis.  I found Matera’s discussion of the various hypotheses on how to divide the book quite helpful; Roetzel sounds dismissive of those, like Matera, who argue that the book is a single letter largely for rhetorical reasons.  I realize that Roetzel has less space to work with, but he found the space to go through the various views in some detail.

    The Abingdon volume is printed in the order in which Roetzel has reorganized the text.  That has the advantage of clarity for those who want to understand just what the fragments from which he thinks 2 Corinthians was constructed would have looked like.

    If I might add my own note in response, I find it quite easy to believe a two letter hypothesis, such as 1-9 being one letter with 10-13 added from a second letter.  It’s not hard to imagine a scribe copying two letters into one manuscript and assuming everyone would know there were two letters, though it’s hard to understand in that case why all the elements that one would expect from a letter have been removed from this second one.

    What I find hard to believe is that five different letters were pasted together out of order.  I just don’t understand the motivation and what the redactor, if one should call him that, was trying to accomplish.  Any good redactional theory should be able to explain what the redactor was up to.

    I found Matera’s explanation, even where it tends to stretch things a bit, such as in explaining Paul’s change of mood from chapter 9 to chapter 10, to be very carefully thought out and well worth considering.  I strongly recommend this commentary (5 of 5 stars).

  • A Brief Thought on Partitioning Epistles

    I’ve just completed reading Frank J. Matera’s II Corinthians: A Commentary in the New Testament Library series.  I’m going to post a few notes in review of that commentary, but this is just a brief note, a passing thought, and definitely not a completed theory.

    There are many cases in which critical theories about authorship strike me as rather well-taken.  First and second Isaiah come to mind with a very striking change in style and theme between chapter 35 (36-39 provide an historical interlude) providing at least a substantial basis to consider multiple authorship.  The entire book gives evidence of collection, and so one shouldn’t be too shocked to see evidence of a seam here and there.

    But in other cases such suggestions seem a bit less well taken, and epistles are one case.  Keep in mind that I’ve done much more study of Isaiah than I have of any New Testament epistle, but still it seems to me that the very nature of an epistle should suggest that it is not necessarily going to be a coherent theological presentation as might be expected of a thesis or dissertation.

    But some of the arguments seem to depend on a slightly too sanitary an image of what an epistle should be.  Second Corinthians reads to me like a letter written by a volatile, emotional, and very intense man.  That he goes from a “that’s OK now” view at the end of chapter 7, invites them to participate in a collection, and then switches back to castigating them about certain other faults in chapter 10 seems out of place if Paul wrote a carefully planned, drafted, and edited letter.  On the other hand if Paul was responding to the situation with mixed emotions–you’re getting it!  some of it!  not all of it!  let me tell you what else you need to do!–then the letter actually seems fairly coherent.

    Matera deals with the literary integrity of 2 Corinthians on pp. 24-32 and then again briefly on pp. 214-215.  I think he makes some excellent arguments.  He doesn’t appeal to anything like the idea I’m presenting here.  He relates this to Paul’s rhetorical goals.  I’m afraid I think that the letter might have been structured better rhetorically (from a certain point of view) if drafted by a committee of bishops, but Paul was hardly to be compared to a committee of bishops!

    I recall the recent pastoral letter from the United Methodist bishops on care for God’s creation, titled God’s Renewed Creation: Call to Hope and Action.  I think that letter should be strongly contrasted to 2 Corinthians.  While I disagree with very little in the bishops’ letter, though in some cases I think they are not doing well in terms of priorities, I nonetheless find the letter boring and unchallenging.  I have heard several of those bishops preach and without exception they produce a better sermon on their own.

    What I’m getting at here is that it seems to me that some critics expect Paul to produce something akin to the bishops’ letter.  Paul was not too likely to do such a thing, so instead we have 2 Corinthians.