Threads from Henry's Web

Tag: Cornerstone Biblical Commentary

  • 1 Chronicles 14:1-16:3 (The Ark Again)

    I’m continuing my notes on 1 Chronicles, working from the Cornerstone Biblical Commentary volume on 1 & 2 Chronicles by Mark J. Boda.

    One of the strengths of this particular commentary is making the themes of the book and the connections between the various passages very clear.  The chronicler presents his theology in the form of story, and if you aren’t paying attention things will slip past you.  Some commentaries can make following the themes in a book more complex than the book itself.  Boda is very clear and easy to follow.

    In chapter 10 we find that Saul is rejected because he is disobedient and is seeking his guidance from someone other than God.  In chapter 13, we discussed Uzzah and the ark, as David tries to move the ark without due consideration of the proper procedure.  In chapter 15 the ark is moved according to the rules.  It might be tempting to regard chapter 14 as an unrelated interlude, but in that chapter we have the story of David encountering the Philistines twice, and each time he seeks God’s will.  Then in chapter 15 he admits that he did it wrong last time and does it right.

    There is also the theme in Chronicles of the proper role of the Levites and priests, and indeed I get a taste here of a call for Torah observance, a message that certainly fits with the post-exilic situation.

    I know this note is brief and general, but I think you can get the feel of the passage … and read it for yourself!

  • Uzzah and the Ark – 1 Chronicles 13

    I’m continuing with brief notes on the Cornerstone Biblical Commentary volume on 1 & 2 Chronicles by Mark J. Boda.  I previously provided an overview and some notes on the coverage of 1 Chornicles 1-9, and 1 Chronicles 10-12.

    As I mentioned in my previous post I wanted to make some specific comments on 1 Chronicles 13, dealing with David’s first attempt to move the ark to Jerusalem.  It illustrates two different approaches to commentary on a passage of scripture.  It is probably not surprising that the one thing most people remember about the chapter is the same one I emphasized in my title:  The moment when Uzzah touched the ark. In fact, in the Chronicler’s story, that is a minor point.  Yes, it provides the reason for the failure of that attempt, but Uzzah and his life is not the major concern.

    I recall a few years ago teaching a class on the Bible in general.  We were running through some themes in the Old Testament, and especially dealing with the conquest of Canaan.  I was emphasizing some spiritual aspects of the story when I saw that one lady in the class was building pressure.  Finally she raised her hand and interrupted.

    “I understand about all this spiritual stuff,” she said.  “But the fact remains that in the story real people are dying!  Now what about that?”

    Joshua and Judges don’t address the issues that concern many modern audiences.  Those books don’t spend the time worrying about just why God would allow, much less command, all that slaughter.

    In the face of that there are two distinct ways we can approach the text.  (Well, of course there are more, but just two that I want to contrast here.)  I’m not saying that one or the other of these ways is the way to approach a passage, but it’s useful to know which way a commentary leans.

    The first way is to look at the text entirely in its own context.  What was the writer trying to address?  In 1 Chronicles 13, some of the issues involve the relationship between the ruler and the worshiping community, particularly priests and in Israel’s case, Levites.  The moving of the ark forms a key point in David’s rise to power and eventually his preparation for the building of the temple by his son Solomon.  Internally, there is little concern for Uzzah.  David is certainly concerned that this has happened, but the concern is not directed to the fairness of Uzzah’s death, or how proportionate the penalty was to the offense.

    In fact, it may well be that the writer did not consider this so much of a punishment by God, but rather simply the results of improperly coming into contact with something holy.  One would as well become offended at God because one touched high tension wires and died in consequence.

    The second way one can look at a passage such as this is from the point of view of the questions it raises in modern readers.  Why would God be so nasty as to kill Uzzah when all he was doing was trying to keep the ark safe.  But as Boda notes:  “This incident is a subtle reminder that God sets the agenda for his worship; he must be worshiped in the way he as required.”  I would ask just what was “subtle” about it!

    Ideally, we go from reading the text for what it is in its own context to hearing the text speak in ours.  If we see events such as this as historically valid, then we have to deal with God’s action.  We worship a God who would “break out” against Uzzah in this particular way.  One can keep the text within its own world by assuming that this is not an actual action of God, but rather just a view of God by the Chronicler.  One should note, of course, that the Chronicler is hardly alone in this view.

    A commentary that emphasizes the first approach is more useful in terms of studying the text, but if you’re a pastor in a hurry who is looking for sermon material, it provides a much longer path to speaking to the questions the congregation is likely asking.  A commentary that takes the second approach often answers the question at the expense of the text, but it can be much more helpful to the hurried reader who needs something quickly usable.

    This commentary clearly takes the first approach.  I would note as an example of the second approach the book Who’s Afraid of the Old Testament God? published by my company.  The author is well aware of the text, but is addressing the questions that are going to be asked by modern readers.  That book is not a commentary, which is probably a better venue in which to discuss such questions.

  • 1 Chronicles 10-12 in the Cornerstone Biblical Commentary

    I’m continuing with brief notes on the Cornerstone Biblical Commentary volume on 1 & 2 Chronicles by Mark J. Boda.  I previously provided an overview and some notes on the coverage of 1 Chornicles 1-9.

    I have only a few comments on these three chapters, but I’m covering them in a separate post because I want to write a bit more about chapter 13 dealing with the ark and particularly with Uzzah.

    One of the key elements of Boda’s writing on Chronicles is that he is clearly not trying to force the text into some preconceived view of what it must be.  He lets the chronicler speak.  One of the ways in which he does this is by identifying the cases where the chronicler is using sources, such as Samuel-Kings, that are available to us.  Differences between these sources and Chronicles provide insights into the themes of Chronicles.

    In chapters 10-12 the issues involved are usually minor, but they are very important to understanding where we’re going with the story.  David is emphasized and Saul is minimized.  Boda doesn’t try to explain differences (or “errors” or “contradictions”).  Rather, he simply lays out the options that are available for understanding the text and why it is as it is.

    A good illustration of this is the commentary on 12:23-40, in which he states the problem succinctly on page 121:  “The numbers given in this section for the armed warriors who joined David at Hebron are inordinately large.”  Indeed they are.  So what do we do about it?

    First, Boda provides four traditions in interpreting the passage:

    1. They are precise figures representing historical reality
    2. The word for “thousand” was actually the title of a military unit
    3. The word for “thousand” should be repointed to represent the commander of such a unit
    4. The chronicler is using the numbers hyperbolically

    Mixed in with these options, but not excluding any of them, is the possibility of errors in textual transmission.  I personally would add the possibility of confusion in the sources, i.e. that the material used by the chronicler may have already confused some of the numbers.

    Boda then proceeds to evaluate these views, and finds that perhaps the fourth view fits best with what we see elsewhere in Chronicles.  I do note that he does not list as an option that the chronicler intended the numbers as real numbers, but that they were inaccurate in his source, something he hardly had the opportunity to check.  In my view there is no reason to expect the Holy Spirit to correct sources when that correction does not impact the message.

    In the end, Boda recommends the possibility that at various points in Chronicles different ones of these options may come into play, and that in chapter 12, the best option is likely that they speak of military units rather than actual numbers.

    What I find particularly helpful is that Boda explains the numbers without detracting from his main effort of explaining what these numbers are intended to accomplish in producing this history as a whole.

    I’ve already read and made my own notes on chapter 13, and I’ll try to get those posted in the next couple of days.

    http://www.deepbiblestudy.net/?p=1103

  • 1 Chronicles 1-9 in the Cornerstone Biblical Commentary

    I previously gave an overview of the Cornerstone Biblical Commentary on 1-2 Chronicles, but I’ve been spending more time with it since, reading the Hebrew text along with the commentary. While I do appreciate the NLT text on which the commentary is based, I’m not reading this for the NLT text, but rather for the commentary.

    I just completed chapter 9 which gets me to the start of the narrative portion of the book. In the genealogies especially, it’s hard to properly represent the Hebrew text in English translation. There are many ambiguities, name variants, and textual variants, especially in the versions. In several cases when I went to the NLT after reading the Hebrew I found that the reading I had chosen as I went through was in the NLT margin. That’s not a negative comment on the translation–it’s just very difficult to render this sort of text both clearly and accurately. Clarity is often purchased at the price of accuracy.

    My impression of the commentary on this section is very positive. Author Mark Boda focuses on structural issues and the way in which the structure of the genealogies sets the shape for the narrative of the remainder of the book. One can derive timing, sources, and the purpose of the author from the way the genealogies are named. This commentary tends to emphasize a key point about studying the Old Testament: Genealogies aren’t some sort of appendix or footnote, but are rather of great, even central importance to the writers.

    Within the limits of space (1 Chronicles 1-9 occupies pages 25-102), and the purpose of the commentary, which is for serious lay students or pastors, and not so much for scholars, the coverage is excellent. Boda includes a discussion of sources wherever they are used. It would be interesting to see more discussion of the implications of the way these sources are used, but what is provided is excellent.

    Connections with historical events are covered, including references to place or personal names in other ancient near eastern sources are covered. What is absent is any extended effort to deal with the historicity of either these chapters or their sources. The author presents options but doesn’t really push any particular approach. I think that’s a positive thing. With the number of rough edges involved, such a discussion could easily occupy the whole book.

    Overall, the commentary on these first nine chapters presents a structure that sees the post-exilic community built around the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, but with the Levites placed at the center of national religious life. The other tribes are included in such a way as to make a statement that they are part of the restored Israel as well. In some ways you can see Israel reinventing itself post-exile.

    I’ll post further notes as I study further.

  • Review – Cornerstone Biblical Commentary 1-2 Chronicles

    I previously reviewed the Cornerstone Biblical Commentary on Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy on my book blog and have posted a number of notes about it on this blog.  So when I had an opportunity to review the volume in the same series on 1 & 2 Chronicles, I jumped at it.  I would say many of the same things I said about that previous volume with regard to this one, so if you want my thoughts on the series in general, read that previous review.

    Chronicles as a whole is not a staple of Christian teaching.  We use a number of individual passages, especially the various prayers, but as a whole, the method is a bit foreign.  From a historical point of view Samuel-Kings is closer to the events it relates as an historical source, while the emphasis on genealogy in Chronicles goes against the grain of our western minds.

    In this commentary, author Mark J. Boda has managed to continue the quality commentary that I expect from this series.  My personal tendency is to criticize a commentary such as this one for not including enough comment on issues of biblical criticism, the language, and translation issues.  But those are not the primary focus here.  This commentary is designed to be read by the non-theologian and people who do not read Hebrew.

    At the same time it does have considerable information on the structure of the book and on the language.  I found the introduction to the genalogies (pp. 25-31) particularly helpful, because it takes on issues such as the purpose of the genealogies and why they are included in the way that they are.  I’ve previously written about the importance of genealogies and why they should not be neglected.  These pages make many of those points and a number more as well.

    In the section on 1 Chronicles 1-9, the commentary section follows a consistent structure that differs from what it follows in the rest of the book.  The first portion discusses sources.  Chronicles is one of those sections of the Bible where we have source explicitly referenced and easily discernible.  The second portion discusses structure and content.  While most readers will probably be going more directly for content, the excellent discussion of structure is one of the strong points of this commentary.  Finally, there is a section on significance, particularly important because we are dealing with genealogies.

    The whole commentary is 449 pages, including the text of the NLT.  The remainder of the commentary starting with 1 Chronicles 10 is follows the more standard format of comment on short passages in succession.  The discussion is thorough.  References to Hebrew are transliterated and explained adequately for someone who does not know the language.  (Those who do read Hebrew will, or at least should, want to know more.)

    I would like to have an index in a book like this.  I realize that people generally read commentaries by going to the section on a passage in which they have an interest.  I would like to be able to follow some themes, such as prayer, through the commentary, and an index would be extremely helpful.

    The bibliography occupies 13 pages, and will prove useful.  I don’t have enough knowledge of the literature in this area to criticize the content, but it looks quite good in general.

    I’m delighted to be studying these two books using this commentary.  I personally want more comments on the language, but that is something I can get from other commentaries.  This one is accessible and useful especially to the pastor or teaching in the church.

  • Introduction to Numbers – Cornerstone Biblical Commentary

    I’m trying to return to my pattern of posting short notes from my morning reading.  My schedule has been disrupted recently to the extent that my “morning” reading sometimes has taken place in the evening.  But today I moved from Leviticus to Numbers in Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy (Cornerstone Biblical Commentary), and I read the introduction.

    I have my standard complaint about most commentaries on books in which there are substantial critical issues, which certainly includes any book in the Pentateuch, which is that whatever the author’s approach, the introduction and notes rarely take the time to get to the nuts and bolts.  I have to assume that this is audience driven.  Not that many people will take the time to hear the arguments of why an author accepts or rejects sources; they just want to hear the view proclaimed in a scholarly tone.

    As a result, many non-specialists who nonetheless do considerable reading on biblical topics simply assume that whatever their community and church culture accepts is pretty much established.  This applies, in my experience, to both conservatives and liberals.  Any of these scholars could address these issues, I’m sure, but they don’t do it all that often.  This even reflects my experience in undergraduate Bible classes in which, for example, I learned what the two and four source hypotheses were for the gospels, but didn’t learn just how one would go about demonstrating the validity of those views.

    Thus Dale Brueggemann dismisses JEDP in the course of two paragraphs (admittedly substantial ones), while establishing a relatively moderate position that claims substantial rooting in historical sources and even eyewitness accounts, but allows for added material and redactional effort.  I can’t really call this a criticism of his work, however, because those two paragraphs are better done, in my opinion, than the average for such material in a commentary not addressed primarily to experts.

    He goes on with an excellent introduction to the structure of the book, literary style, and major themes, and provides a welcome presentation of the large numbers in the book, which covers a wide variety of arguments and solutions, occupying six pages overall.  It’s interesting to see the difference in the amount of space dedicated to this issue as opposed to source and redaction criticism, but again I would say this is audience driven.  In my experience people want a yes/no answer on Pentateuchal sources.  They want to hear more about those big numbers.

    While I like the discussion, I would object to one part of the solution.  On page 226, Brueggemann states:

    … Any solution shold work for the high numbers elsewhere in the Bible, especially analogous numbers (e.g. military counts), …

    The problem I have with this is that it is quite possible that words like ‘elep might be used differently at different periods in Israel’s history.  I think it would be foolish to assume that the language remained the same over the several hundred years between this census (if one assumes it derives from a source near the time of the exodus itself, as Brueggemann seems to do) and the census in the time of David, or various military reports during the divided kingdom.  I am nowhere near clear enough on this to assert that the solution must be different; I simply don’t see sufficient reason to require that the same solution fit all.

    I’m being fairly nitpicky here, as I enjoy interacting with commentaries as I read, but despite my picky comments, I regard this as an excellent introduction to Numbers, especially for the pastor or teacher at the popular level.  You’ll get the material that your congregation or class members are most likely to be looking for.

  • 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.

  • Expectations follow Encounter

    I haven’t been posting on Leviticus for some time because I have been busy preparing books for publication.  All that paying work sure does interfere with one’s hobbies!

    Today I encountered this quotation in my continuing effort to read through Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy alongside the Cornerstone Biblical Commentary on those books.

    … It is important to remember, both in the case of God’s dealing with his people in the past, as well as with his people today, that God first encounters his people in history, and only after a relationship has been established are the expectations derived from the relationship presented.  Expectations follow encounter.  — p. 57, emphasis mine

    And that is how grace is manifested throughout the Bible–before we call, so to speak.

  • 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.

  • Leviticus 5:14-6:7

    I’m still following the division of David W. Baker’s commentary on Leviticus in the Cornerstone Biblical Commentary on Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.  Today’s passage equates to Leviticus 5:14-26 in the Hebrew text, and the Hebrew text is indeed better divided than the English or the LXX.

    While the section is indeed properly grouped together, the priests have snuck in a pretty major doctrine into the passage.  The first part deals with violation of holy things (through 5:19), along with the possibility that one has done so but doesn’t know.  I think there’s good reason to believe, with Milgrom and others, that this also involves that horrible sense of guilt that has no known source; one feels that one has done something very wrong, but can’t be sure.  The early part of this passage provides an opportunity to deal with that guilt.  One can pity the bank account of someone who had a guilt complex, however!

    Some call this a guilt offering.  I prefer “reparation” offering, again following a number of commentators.  The offering accompanies a reparation.  It is this reparation portion that presumably connects the violation of sacred things at the end of chapter 5 with the violation of one’s neighbor at the beginning of chapter 6.

    I recall quite vividly how I encountered this chapter when reading Leviticus with Milgrom’s AB commentary.  I read the passage ahead in Hebrew before reading the commentary and so I had studied through the previous chapters and noted the sacrifices for inadvertent sins, but no sacrifices for intentional sins.  There was no statement that these sins were intentional, but it’s hard to imagine finding someone’s property and then lying about it as “inadvertent.”

    Baker notes this, but the best discussion comes from Milgrom (373-378) in a section titled “The Priestly Doctrine of Repentance.”  In his words, “…The Priestly authors took a postulate of their own tradition, that God mitigates punishment for unintentional sins, and empowered it with a new doctrine, that the voluntary repentance of a deliberate crime transforms the crime itself into an involuntary act.”  NISB emphasizes the voluntary part of this repentance, i.e. one must repent without being caught.

    The passage also provides the elements of repentance:

    1. A realization of feeling of guilt; one acknowledges that what was done was a wrong.
    2. Payment of reparation
    3. Confession
    4. Desire for atonement and sacrifice
    5. Forgiveness

    These days we frequently forget the first part and often the second.  I doubt one gets to #5 without going through those elements.

    The OSB notes that the sacrifices here for damage done to another are not gradated, unlike the previous sacrifices.  The poor must offer the same thing as the rich.  Being poor, they note, does not provide the right to steal (p. 124 on 5:15, 21, 25).

    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.