Threads from Henry's Web

Category: Bible 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.

  • Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament – Isaiah 7:14 and Hosea 11:1

    With a recent flurry of posts regarding the way in which the Old Testament is used in the New, at least peripherally, I wanted to call attention to one written from a different perspective.

    The post is Isaiah 7, Nativity, and the Theotokos, written by Mark Olson, who speaks from an Orthodox perspective.  He discusses quite accurately the difficulties involved with interpreting Isaiah 7 either from the Masoretic text or the LXX, the first based on language, and the second (or either) based on context.  Let me extract one paragraph from his post:

    But there is a problem for the modern western (protestant?) Christian who has decided the typological/allegorical hermeneutic is to be abandoned. For it seems if you do so, you need to abandon Isaiah 7 as a prophecy which points to Christ. Yet, noting that modern translators of texts such as the ESV, which primarily use the MT documents for their basis use the less proper translation term “virgin” over “unmarried/young girl” in this case. Why? Because they are Christian and the traditional Christian interpretation of this text is that it is in fact pointing to Christ and the Nativity. Yet that does violence to a consistent hermeneutical method.

    I think Mark is right.  If we stick with the historical-critical method, or even the historical-grammatical method, we really have no way to bridge the gap here.  We can say that Matthew prophetically reapplies the passage when he quotes it, and we can give special privileges to early Christian interpreters–they get to take things out of context while we don’t–or we can ask whether the historical meaning taken in context is always the controlling factor.

    As an aside, let me note that I don’t think the LXX is a translation of a different strand.  The TDNT article on parthenos implies that the word may have overlapped the word ;almah more than is normally thought and thus it is neither a mistranslation, nor a different strand, but simply a case in which the semantic range of the two terms overlapped at the time of translation, but less so at the time of quotation (Matthew).  In any case, I don’t think the translation issue will solve the problem completely, and this becomes even more difficult when one considers the syntax of Isaiah 7:14 which could quite easily be translated as “is pregnant” as well as “shall conceive.”

    But laying all that aside we’re stuck with the likelihood that those who first heard Isaiah speak the words of Isaiah 7:14 would have understood it differently from the way in which Matthew applies it in Matthew 1:18-23.

    I see this as an excellent case requiring typological interpretation, but also inviting us to do such typological interpretation within the bounds of church tradition, i.e. as part of a community.  One of the great problems I see with allegorical or typological interpretation is that it lacks controls.  My early inclination, during graduate school and for a time after, was to require the historical/contextual meaning as an anchor point for one’s typological understanding.  To a certain extent, I think that is still good plan, but it doesn’t really cover everything.

    First, the historical meaning doesn’t necessarily make much of a suggestion as to what typology might apply.  One is stuck with a sort of subjective guess as to how far one has deviated from the historical meaning.  Second, and as a result of the first, this idea really provides very little control.  The easy answer from a western protestant perspective, is to try to drop typological and allegorical interpretation entirely.  But if we do that we cut ourselves off from both much of the interpretation of the early church, and also most of the interpretation that scripture does of itself.  Thus any allegorical interpretation we may do will be rootless.

    If I might illustrate from another text, Hosea 11:1 as quoted in Matthew 2:15, I think there is an even greater contextual problem here, based on purely historical-grammatical or critical exegesis.  Yet there is an excellent typological reason to connect the birth and mission of Jesus to the exodus.  In fact, I think it is important to see the shaping of the story of Jesus from the exodus and then the exile and restoration if one is truly to understand redemption.  I don’t think I’m terribly out of line with Christian tradition on that point, but what I want to underline here is that such a view involves a typological interpretation, not a contextual view of a text.

    It seems likely to me here that Matthew, rather than interpreting a specific text loosely or contrary to context, is using a piece of phraseology from the exodus to draw the broader body of the exodus/redemption story into our understanding of the story of Jesus.  To view it as a misappropriation of a phrase is a distinctly modern error, one of which I have been guilty in the past.  Rather, Matthew takes advantage of the fact that his readers will know the broader story, and uses the one phrase as a tie-in to connect the stories together.

  • Why You Should Read the Previous Post

    I had just finished posting the previous note, Talk about the Method, when I went back to my Google Reader and found this YouTube video, complete with a call to a five year commitment to God, via Polycarp:

    Now if people had any knowledge of method, or were at least practiced in thinking about method, that video would immediately seem just too stupid to watch.

    Besides the fact that it uses essentially random numbers to generate the results, I find it angers me to hear the gospel message connected to such things, especially that part about the five year commitment to God. I think that’s precisely why we don’t know the time when Jesus will return–so we make a lifetime commitment knowing it may be a long life that we have surrendered to God.

  • Railing against the Text of Scripture

    … and against God.  John Hobbins thinks you should.  I think he makes a pretty good scriptural case!

  • Longman, Genesis, and Inerrancy

    I’m not going to make an extended comment here except to note that the point at which I get the most questions about my own interpreation of scripture and the doctrine of inerrancy is Genesis 1-2, possibly extending to Genesis 1-11.  The fact is that I can find people who affirm the doctrine of inerrancy to back everything I have said about those chapters.

    Besides pointing out that I haven’t done anything very original in this area, it shows that people very often conflate some form of Biblical literalism with Biblical inerrancy.  The two are not the same thing.  I have discussed this more extensively in my series on Biblical interpretation on my Threads blog, and more specifically regarding Genesis 1-11 on this blog.  I would note that some things I say regarding Genesis 4 and later raise more questions, though I would still maintain I could find backing from folks who support Biblical inerrancy.

    In any case, there has been a recent uproar over some remarks by Dr. Tremper Longman, and my main point is to link to a discussion of this matter by Jeremy Pierce, which I think is exceptionally clear on a number of key points.  One cannot determine whether a document in error before one determines what it intends to convey, and one cannot determine what it intends to convey without knowing what type of literature it is.

    Read Jeremy’s entire post for a good exposition.

  • Bibles with a Viewpoint – The Green Bible

    Those who read this blog regularly are probably already aware that I have mixed emotions about study Bibles.  I would say “love-hate relationship” but none of my feelings about study Bibles attains the level of “love.”

    Via Sun and Shield I found a review on First Things of The Green Bible.  I recommend reading the review.  I have not purchased, nor have I read, the Green Bible, and I don’t plan to.  None of my comments here are based on anything specific written in the notes to that Bible.  It is to the very idea that I object, not this particular implementation.

    Now let me state for the record that I am not offended by the idea of discovering reasons for taking care of the earth properly in your Bible.  I think that much of that is covered under the theology of creation, if one pays attention.

    No, my problem is more general.  Think of it this way.  Supposing someone took one of my books, sliced it up, and then inserted comments about some particular theme everywhere.  Let’s say, for example, that these comments had to do with the ecology.  I support recycling.  I support reducing carbon emissions.  I think we’re doing too little.  But that’s not really my field of study, so there would be a few sentences here and there, just like the ones in this paragraph that indicate what I believe.  So instead of focusing on the topic I intended the book to focus on, the new book, whilst being anchored by text I had written, would be focused on something that was quite incidental to the earlier work.

    How would I react?  Easy question.  I’d say, “Go write your own book.”

    The Bible is different in many, many ways from one of my books.  It is a collection, it is ancient, it comes from a different culture than mine, and it is regarded as sacred, which nobody has or likely will do with mine.  There are reasons to apply commentary to the Bible.  But when that commentary is interspersed with the Bible text, it becomes easy to confuse the reader and slant the result toward a particular topic.  That’s as true of The American Patriot’s Bible: The Word of God and the Shaping of America
    as it is of The Green Bible.  It doesn’t matter which of them is more compatible with my own views (The Green Bible, for what it’s worth).  Both Bibles are offensive to me.

    Some may not believe that anyone would be confused.  Surely they know the difference between the Biblical text and the commentary.  But I have found in Bible studies that when people use study Bibles they very often take the notes as the true word of God, while spending little time on the text.  Even more frequently they take the theme of a passage from the introduction and notes rather than, again, reading the text itself.

    Simply the fact that a single theme is taken and emphasized throughout is enough to introduce unbalance.  I believe that’s a substantial problem.

    My suggestion to people who want to emphasize that the Bible is green as green can be, or that every word of scripture supports American patriotism?  Write your own book!

    There is good reason to have study Bibles, but I think those who write notes for such Bibles have a great responsibility to point back to the text.  Thus providing background information, interpretational options, and structural notes can be very helpful.  The problem comes in when the notes begin to direct the study and its emphasis.

  • Popular Exegesis – Cutting the Knot

    David Ker at Lingamish has started a series in which he looks for ways to bypass the Grammatical-Historical approach to Bible study and look for ways that would allow more people to get involved in the study.

    To quote:

    … In fact, GHI [Grammatical-Historical Interpretation-HN] rather than illuminating the texts almost always results in muddying the waters and leaving us less certain about the “original intended meaning,” (OIM). What GHI fails to address is the need for intuitive and populist ways to arrive at Scriptural meaning leading to appropriate localized applications….

    It’s a bit ironic for me that he begins his series just as I am starting to follow Scot McKnight’s series on John Walton’s book on Genesis (see my initial notes on my threads blog).  This discussion of Genesis 1 illustrates what I would see as a clear case in which approaching the text without some context in terms of ancient literature in which to understand it would result in an incorrect understanding.

    Having expressed my skepticism, however, I intend to follow David’s posts rather closely as I would like to get hold of any light he can shed on ways that people can reasonably and accurately study the Bible for themselves without excessive dependence on others.  By dependence on others I don’t mean a proper dependence in terms of getting facts from those who have researched them, but rather the dependence that says, “A scholar says it means X so it <em>must</em> mean X.”

    David is certainly pointing at a very real problem.  My tendency is to believe the problem won’t be solved unless the believers in the pew decide to spend more time on their Bibles.  But I’m willing to hear any shortcut that doesn’t result in each person coming out with an individual opinion without good checks on that opinion.

  • 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.

  • Another Reason to Hate Study Bibles

    Thomas Nelson has release The American Patriot’s Bible: The Word of God and the Shaping of America*, which is a Bible so lousy in concept that one can dislike it without even bothering to read it.  (HT: Christ my righteousness.)  You’ve probably heard the cliche, “It’s a really bad book, that’s why I never read it?”  OK.  I’m caught.  But I’m still not going to read it.

    I don’t really hate study Bibles.  I’ve reviewed some of them before.  They can provide valuable background information and ideas.  But in too many Bible classes I see students reading the footnotes in place of the Biblical text, and assuming that the notes are correct, rather than interacting with what the Bible text (you know, the part normally printed on the top half of the page) actually says.

    But the Patriot’s Bible goes a step further by simply mating two sets of concepts.  It is really quite rare that American patriotic stories and symbols go directly with the passage of scripture one is reading.  In many cases, the text might just go quite contrary to these symbols.

    But by putting information on a particular page of the Bible, one suggests (to the suggestible, at least) that the Bible in that particular place actually embraces what is contained in that extraneous information.  Unfortunately, I know people in churches who are just careless enough to believe this without actually checking.

    The first rule of interpretation should be to actually read the words of the text you’re interpreting, even if only in translation.

    * Note that I provide this link for information purposes only. I do not in any sense recommend buying the book to which the link leads you.

  • Leviticus 6:8-13

    Baker takes a series of short sections here, and I’m not grouping them into any larger passage, because I’m under some pressure and these short sections are working for me right now.

    Let me note also that while the electronic edition of Rahlf’s LXX that I’m using today (GnomeSword) follows the English verse divisions, the print edition of Rahlf’s follows the Hebrew division.  So the passage there is 6:1-6.

    The idea of having a fire from sacrifice going on 24 hours a day doesn’t sound much like modern worship, but there are really two key elements in this passage that I think can be applied to modern worship:

    1. The fire burns continuously.  Three times in the LXX text we read that it is never to go out.
    2. There is a continuing ritual for keeping it clean.  There is care taken in carrying out this command as with every other one in Leviticus.

    There appears to be an error in the notes of the Orthodox Study Bible, which bases the notes on the English verses, and thus the notes on our passage for today indicate they are about 6:9.  But they are interesting, and connect this daily sacrifice with the continual offering of Christ in heaven.  The continuous worship provides an “open door for uninterrupted worship of God and fellowship with Him” only now this is through the sacrifice of Jesus.

    Milgrom adds an interesting note.  With Baker, I have emphasized the continual worship, and I think this is an important point.  But Milgrom points out:

    … The sacrifices offered up at the inauguration of the public cult were consumed miraculously by a divine fire (9:24), and it is this fire which is not allowed to die out so that all subsequent sacrifices might claim divine acceptance… (p. 389, emphasis in original)

    This raises another point to me for the modern church.  How careful are we with the spiritual fires that God lights?  We have waves of revival and then for various reasons we let them die out or treat them with contempt.  There’s a “fire” that was lit in Christianity back with Jesus and then at Pentecost.  But we often neglect one end or the other, either the connection back to that original flame, or the need to keep it actively burning in our modern world.  Both are necessary to keep up the continuing fire.

    Abbreviations:

    OSB – Orthodox Study Bible

    NISB – New Interpreter’s Study Bible

    Milgrom – Milgrom, Jacob.  Anchor Bible:  Leviticus 1-16.

    Baker – Leviticus portion written by David H. Baker, of the Cornerstone Biblical Commentary on Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.

    Chapter 6 deals with sacrifices for sins that appear to be quite deliberate.