Moo on the Authorship of Colossians

Nijay Gupta has posted some nice interaction with Doug Moo's recent commentary on Colossians and the issue of authorship. You can read it here.

Walton on Blessing and Curse

He writes, John Walton has an interesting post on the meaning of blessing and curse in the Hebrew Scriptures."Blessing and curse are common terms in Genesis from the initial blessing in Genesis 1 to the curses of Genesis 3, 4 and 9, and then to the juxtaposition of curse and blessing in Genesis 12:1-3. It is therefore important for us to know the nuances of each one. It is especially intriguing that in Genesis 12:3, there are two different Hebrew terms for curse."

The rest of the post can be read here.

What Does Expository Mean?

Peter Mead has an interesting post which wrestles with what we mean when we talk about "expository" preaching or "expository" hermeneutics. Read it here.

Top Five Commentaries on Psalms

Ligonier Ministries has a list and discussion of their top five commentaries on Psalms. I would replace Kidner with either Hans-Joachim Kraus or Goldingay. I would also add Perowne, Leupold, and Allen Ross in The Bible Knowledge Commentary to the runners-up. In any case, the top five Keith Mathison has listed are:

1. Willem A. VanGemeren -- "Psalms" in the Expositor's Bible Commentary (1991).
2. Gerald Wilson -- Psalms Volume 1 (NIV Application Commentary, 2002).
3. Donald Williams -- Psalms 1-72; Psalms 73-150 (The Preacher's Commentary, 2002).
4. Derek Kidner -- Psalms 1-72; Psalms 73-150 (Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries, 1973).
5. Peter Craigie, Marvin Tate, Leslie Allen -- Psalms 1-50; Psalms 51-100; Psalms 101-150 (Word Biblical Commentary, 1983, 1990, 2002).

Walton on Pain in Chilbearing (Genesis 3:16)

John Walton has posted an interesting discussion concerning the topic of pain in childbearing in Genesis 3:16. Walston concludes that,

The conclusion to be drawn from these observations is that the first half of the verse is an extended merism (two endpoints used to refer to everything in between, e.g., “soup to nuts”) referring to the anxiety that the woman will experience through the whole process from conception to birth. This would include the anxiety about whether she will be able to conceive a child or not (major status issue in the biblical world); the anxiety that comes with all the physical discomfort of pregnancy; the anxiety concerning the health of the child in the womb; and the anxiety about whether she and the baby will survive the birth process. In all of these we must agree that anxiety defines the birth process, even in a world of modern technology and much moreso in the uncertain medical climate of the ancient world. The resulting paraphrase would be “I will greatly increase the anguish you will experience in the birth process, from the anxiety surrounding conception to the strenuous work of giving birth.” This cannot be viewed as an imposition of labor pains.

You can read the entire post here.

Free John Piper Books

Go here to see a number of John Piper's (as well as a few others) books which are available as free pdf downloads.

Bolin on the Identification of Khirbet Qeiyafa

Todd Bolin has posted a nice discussion on the identification of Khirbet Qeiyafa. You can read his extensive post here.

Review of Scot McKnight's The Blue Parakeet

Thanks to Zondervan and Robin Geelhoed for providing the advanced reader copy from which the following review is based.

Scot McKnight, The Blue Parakeet: Rethinking How You Read the Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008). 240 pp., $18.99 hardcover.

The author is Karl A. Olsson professor of religious studies at North Park College, Chicago, Illinois. He is well-known New Testament scholar and author of commentaries on Galatians and 1 Peter and numerous other books.

The Blue Parakeet is a readable challenge to the way many Christians are reading the Bible today. Blue parakeets are a metaphor for passages or concepts in the Bible which do not conform to one’s theological, cultural, or traditional presuppositions. McKnight addresses these blue parakeets in four movements: (1) Story: What is the Bible? (2) Listening: What do I do with the Bible? (3) Discerning: How do I benefit from the Bible? (4) Women in church ministries today.

On the positive side McKnight is to be commended for challenging Christians to take their Bible reading and application seriously. His writing is conversational in tone and generally irenic in spirit (although he takes periodic shots, e.g., p. 176). Some will also appreciate his culturally relevant metaphors (“wiki,” “WDWD” a take-off of WWJD], etc.). The author’s pastoral spirit and transparency is also refreshing.

Having said this, this book was a bit frustrating to read. McKnight’s assertions are rarely validated and sometimes remained unexplained. While some of this may be attributed to the popular nature of the book– it is obviously not intended to be a scholarly treatise, one would still expect some level of validation. Unfortunately, he appears to devote more space to personal anecdotes than clarification and argumentation. For example, McKnight writes, “God was on the move God is on the move; and God will always be on the move” (p. 33). Perhaps his assertion is true, but what does it mean for God to “move”? This sounds a bit like Process Theology. Further, how does McKnight’s God of movement relate to a closed Canon? Another example can be seen in McKnight’s assertion that the central theme of the Scriptures is oneness (pp. 66–79). Again this might be possible, but there is insufficient evidence to support his point and the point is crucial to his argument that the Bible is story. The problem is the identification of a meta-theme for Scripture is more challenging than the reader might be led to believe. The challenging nature of identifying the meta-theme is evidenced by the lack of scholarly consensus regarding the “centers” of either Testament, much less both Testaments together, which a quick perusal of the numerous published Old and New Testament theologies and their proposed “centers” will reveal.

Perhaps the lack of careful validation is most evident in the final section concerning women in ministry where one assumes that the author is putting into practice the methodology that he is suggesting we follow. Three examples will have to suffice here. First, McKnight attempts to argue for the egalitarian view concerning women in ministry by asking What Did Women Do (WDWD). He seems to think that if he can show that women performed some leadership or ministerial functions in the Bible then they should be able to do any leadership or ministerial function in the church today. This argument is not only a non sequitur, but it is also faulty on several counts. It fails to recognize the important distinction in Scripture’s narratives between what is descriptive (what happened) and what is prescriptive or normative (what should happen). If the narratives involving women are descriptive then they surely cannot be used to overturn the prescriptions in 1 Timothy 2 and 1 Corinthians 11and 14. If one concludes that all the narratives involving women in Scripture were prescriptive then one has to explain the absence of women as high priests, kings (unless you want to throw in Athaliah!), and the omission of women from the Twelve. Using McKnight’s argument, could not one conclude that the predominant picture of male leadership in Scripture is equally prescriptive? Another problem with author’s WDWD is how he handles some of the evidence. McKnight’s appeal to Deborah is a case in point. It is generally acknowledged by scholars that the period of the Judges was a time of spiritual regression in which everyone did what was right in their own eyes. If this is the case, then should we not read all the judges, including Deborah, from this perspective? Would the original readers of Judges have said, “Wow, Deborah is a great example of egalitarianism!” Or might the original readers have concluded that the period of the Judges was a period of social and religious upheaval in which the men failed to lead as they should have? I suggest that the latter is much more likely given the nature of the period and even Deborah’s own statement in Judges 4:9. Therefore, if Deborah is a blue parakeet in Judges, it is simply because the men were head-buried ostriches during a time of moral, political, and spiritual decay.

A second example of faulty argumentation is McKnight’s all or nothing approach. He argues that “If a woman is given the freedom to explain the gospel and persuade others to respond to the gospel, and if the message of evangelism shapes how a person will eventually live as a Christian, consistency would demand that we either bar women from evangelism or permit to teach and preach as well” (p. 154). By this logic, the Old Testament Law would be inconsistent, because it required that all the priests be of the tribe of Levi and the high priest had to be of the family of Aaron. Did this mean that consistency would demand that all the men who were not in the tribe of Levi were not to participate in religious rituals since they could not be priests? It is worth noting that even men were not given full equality in the Old Testament. A similar point can be made in the New Testament. Applying McKnight’s “either/or” proposal would demand that men who do not meet the standard of eldership (1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1) be either included in the eldership regardless of their lack of qualifications, or be completely exempt from spiritual consecration or duty. At one point, McKnight notes that many of his friends gravitate to the problem texts (1 Cor 14 and 1 Tim 2) as the starting point of the discussion. He notes that this is “like asking about marriage in the Bible and gravitating toward the divorce texts” (p. 163). Consequently he begins his discussion with what women have done in Scripture. Fair enough, but perhaps McKnight needs to take one further step backwards. Namely, begin by looking at the texts that limited the role of men such as noted above. Positions of formal spiritual leadership in Scripture have, more often than not, been exclusive rather than inclusive.

A third example of the weaknesses of McKnight’s application of his methodology as it relates to the role of women is his discussion of Mary (pp. 176–79). His assertions are speculative and his conclusions are dubious. How one gets from Mary to egalitarianism escapes me. This statement is not meant to diminish Mary’s role or importance in the Jesus story. One can affirm Mary as Theotokos. But isn’t the fact that Mary is a woman more predicated on the idea that Messiah was to be fully human and thus birthed by a woman rather than some kind of affirmation regarding egalitarianism? If God wanted to show Mary as a paradigmatic picture of egalitarianism in the New Testament then it seems that He has chosen to do so rather obscurely. Mary’s role in the early church receives scant attention in Acts or the Epistles. Furthermore, one also needs to determine whether the narratives which mention Mary were written to be prescriptive or descriptive.

In conclusion, McKnight’s call to take another look at Scripture is worth heeding. But there are some clear problems with his methodology especially regarding his test case of women in ministry. In following McKnight’s example, we may find that some blue parakeets may turn out to be red herrings! Nonetheless, one might be thankful that The Blue Parakeet will elicit further discussion about Scripture.

John Piper on Why the Book of Job is Worth Talking About

John Piper has posted ten reasons why the Book of Job is worth talking about. They are:

1. Hundreds of you have suffered or are suffering and are looking for light in your darkness.

2. Suffering is coming. For sure. Basic discipleship means tribulations.

3. Persecution, disease, war, disability, disaster, freak accident, assault—all are alike in this: Satan aims to destroy your faith, but God aims to strengthen it.

4. Natural disasters put theodicy in the news: tsunami, Katrina, flooding, tornadoes, avalanches.

5. God is rejected by many because of the suffering in the world.

6. There are Christians who openly question the sovereignty of God over all suffering.

7. God's wise, good, just, absolute sovereignty is pastorally precious beyond measure. Being able to say, "Satan meant it for evil, but God..." gives hope and strength. Nothing is wasted. Nothing surprises God.

8. Suffering is appointed as one way the Gospel is spread.

9. The supreme value and glory and admirableness of Christ is shown most clearly when Christians treasure Christ more than they treasure what they're losing—health, wealth, family, or life.

Read the entire post here.

The Preacher and Pride

Matt Waymeyer has a timely word on the precaher and pride. He writes,

This morning as I sat here in my study preparing for next Sunday’s sermon, it occurred to me that the choice of whether or not to preach the Bible simply comes down to this: Do I think more highly of what I have to say or of what God has already said in His Word? Put another way, whose words do I truly believe are more trustworthy, authoritative, and efficacious in the hearts of the people? Mine? Or God’s?

Read the entire post here.

Third Jerusalem Temple

The Jerusalem Post has posted an interesting article on the Temple Institute's preparation for the construction of the third temple. You can read the article here.

Thanks to Todd Bolen for his posting of the story.

Rashi's Commentary on Tanach Free Online

An English translation of Rashi's Commentary on Tanach is free online here.

Thanks to Stephen Cook for pointing this out.

Top Five Commentaries on Job

Ligonier Ministries has a list and discussion of their top five commentaries on Job. I would replace Smick with Gerald Wilson (NIBC) and add Zuck in The Bible Knowledge Commentary to the runners-up. In any case, the top five Keith Mathison has listed are:

1. David J.A. Clines -- Job 1-20; Job 21-37 (Word Biblical Commentary, 1989, 2006).
2. John Hartley -- The Book of Job (New International Commentary on the Old Testament, 1988).
3. Francis I. Andersen -- Job (Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries, 1976).
4. Elmer Smick -- "Job" in The Expositor's Bible Commentary (1984).
5. David Atkinson -- The Message of Job (The Bible Speaks Today, 1991).

Jeremiah as Preacher

Concerning Jeremiah’s role in the Book of Jeremiah, Jack Lundblom notes, “As a royal messenger, Jeremiah’s job is to deliver the King’s word—to Judah primarily, but also to foreign nations of the world. The divine word is central to Jeremiah’s preaching; in fact, it is his preaching” (Jeremiah 1-20: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, Anchor Bible, ed. William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman, vol. 21A [New York: Doubleday, 1999],144).

Would there be Jeremiah's today? Preachers of whom it could be said that the divine Word is central to their preaching; in fact, it is their preaching.

The Hermeneutics of Dispensationalism

Matt Waymeyer has an interesting discussion on the topic of Dispensational hermeneutics. Read it here.

Blomberg on James 1:5-7

See Craig Blomberg's discussion of James 1:5-7 here.

Another Quotation Related to Jeremiah

Maybe you will be encouraged by this as I was.

An evaluation of Jeremiah by most standards of success would brand him an abysmal failure. He preached for forty years without convincing the people that he was God’s prophet. He was threatened, ridiculed, and physically abused by his own people. Jerusalem was finally destroyed, and Judah ceased to exist as a nation because the people refused to accept Jeremiah’s remedy for deliverance—turn back to God and submit to the Babylonians. However, Jeremiah must not be judged by human standards. God has a different measuring stick by which he judges a person’s life. His is the test of obedience. God only required that Jeremiah obey him by proclaiming his message. Jeremiah was not responsible for a favorable response or lack of response. One who is an obedient servant of the Lord today is not held accountable for lack of response from those who hear his message. The great rulers of Jeremiah’s day—Ashurbanipal, Nebuchadnezzar, Neco, and Hophra—have largely been forgotten. Their influence is nil, whereas Jeremiah’s name and influence remain because of his obedience to God’s will for him.

F. B. Huey, Jr., Jeremiah, Lamentations, vol. 16, New American Commentary, ed. E. Ray Clendenen (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1993), 24.

1 Corithians 15 and Resurrection

Matthew Malcolm has an interesting discussion on 1 Corinthian 15, namely the problem that the Corinthians had with the resurrection. Malcolm suggests that,

Firstly, I suggest that the denial of resurrection was focused not primarily on the present or future experience of the deniers themselves, but on those who were presently the dead. Secondly, I suggest that this denial was not primarily driven by logical problems with postmortal existence or celestial physicality; but by political and existential issues of status and superiority. Thirdly, I wonder whether the Corinthian denial was implicit in certain claims and activities, rather than an explicit theological point of dispute.

In other words, the claim that “there is no resurrection of the dead” was one more example of spiritualistic Corinthian superiority, pouring disdain on those who were presumably going to miss out on the benefits of being personally present for Christ’s parousia because they had died. This proud, superior attitude toward the status of “the dead” is the climactic example of Corinthian cruci-phobia; and the Corinthians need to learn that the dead are not at a disadvantage - rather, the Corinthians themselves are called to embrace present death and look ahead to future resurrection.

You can read the entire post here.

Website for the Study of Hebrew

Animatedhebrew.com is a site created by Charles Grebe that appears to be full of various creative helps for studying biblical Hebrew. Check it out here.

Mounce on Pastors and Teachers in Ephesians 4:11

Bill Mounce has posted on the topic of pastors and teachers in Ephesians 4:11. The post is part exegesis and part pastoral philosophy. I would have preferred a more of the former since it serves as the basis for the latter. In any case, you can read it here.

Rahab through the Ages: A Study of Christian Interpretation of Rahab

The month's SBL Forum has an article by William Lyons entitled "Rahab through the Ages: A Study of Christian Interpretation of Rahab." The author identifies and discusses four different Christian approaches on the meaning and significance of Rahab. The four approaches are: (1) Allegorical Interpretation, (2) Tropological Interpretation, (3) Anagogical Interpretation, (4) Literal Interpretation.

Read the entire article here.

Latest Issue of Review of Biblical Literature

The latest issue of Review of Biblical Literature is out. Reviews that may be of interest from a Bible Exposition perspective include:

Edward Adams
The Stars Will Fall from Heaven: Cosmic Catastrophe in the New Testament and Its World
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=6312
Reviewed by Lorenzo DiTommaso

William Sanger Campbell
The "We" Passages in the Acts of the Apostles: The Narrator as Narrative Character
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=6149
Reviewed by Jean-Fran็ois Racine

Andrew D. Clarke
A Pauline Theology of Church Leadership
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=6427
Reviewed by Stephan Joubert

Benjamin Fiore
The Pastoral Epistles: First Timothy, Second Timothy, and Titus
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=6157
Reviewed by Korinna Zamfir

Daniel Hillel
The Natural History of the Bible: An Environmental Exploration of the Hebrew Scriptures
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=6330
Reviewed by Norman Habel

Werner G. Jeanrond and Andrew D. H. Mayes, eds.
Recognising the Margins: Developments in Biblical and Theological Studies
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=6231
Reviewed by Peter R. Rodgers

Matthew Levering
Ezra and Nehemiah
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=6276
Reviewed by Ralph W. Klein

Graham S. Ogden
Qoheleth
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=6358
Reviewed by Ludger Schwienhorst-Sch๖nberger

R. J. R. Plant
Good Figs, Bad Figs: Judicial Differentiation in the Book of Jeremiah
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=6432
Reviewed by Mark Brummitt

Fernando F. Segovia and R. S. Sugirtharajah, eds.
A Postcolonial Commentary on the New Testament Writings
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=6344
Reviewed by Jonathan A. Draper
Reviewed by Hans Leander

Stephen Westerholm
Understanding Matthew: The Early Christian Worldview of the First Gospel
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=6121
Reviewed by David C. Sim

Quote on the Book of Jeremiah

"In the end, the book of Jeremiah does not belong to the scholarly guild. It belongs more properly to the synagogue and the church, who have, all through the centuries, attended to its preservation and reading. This does not mean that the book of Jeremiah is reduced to conventional religious expectations. It does mean, however, that the book's proper climate is a community that expects to be addressed in dangerous and unsettling ways by the holiness that sounds here."

Walter Brueggemann, A Commentary on Jeremiah: Exile and Homecoming (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), xiii.

Paul as Letter Writer

Matthew Malcom has a nice post that offers annotations of some recent books that help to better understand Paul as a letter writer. Malcom offers the following:

Greek and Latin Letters: An Anthology with Translation, by Michael Trapp

This is a useful collection of ancient letters in the original greek & latin, along with a discussion of issues related to the production of the letters. For example, Trapp states, in relation to the use of secretaries: “[W]e can make at least some headway with the question of who did the writing: the presence of particularly skilful hands, and of changes of hand between the main body of the letter and the final salutation, suggest just how often the bulk of the work, or all of it, was done by secretaries (for the affluent) and (for the less well-off) professional letter-writers.” (p8)

Paul the Letter-Writer: His World, His Options, His Skills, by Jerome Murphy-O’Connor.

This book explores three areas: Practical issues related to writing a letter; Theoretical issues related to creating the content of a letter; and issues related to the collecting of ancient letters. Unfortunately his consideration of the ‘content’ of letters relies too much on Rhetorical Criticism, but this is a great little book. He notes, for example, that secretaries/professional letter-writers (as mentioned by Trapp above) would generally have been employed not only to write the letter to be dispatched, but also to write a copy for the sender to keep, “both for control and perhaps future use” or perhaps because one’s letters “were shared with friends” (p13)

Books and Readers in the Early Church, by Harry Y. Gamble

Gamble argues for the collection of Paul’s Epistles as canon, a canon sufficiently long that it needed to be kept together using the format of the Codex - explaining the early Christian preference for the codex over the roll. He covers a number of interesting issues along the way. For example, he applies the insight that ancient letter-writers kept copies of their letters (as mentioned by Murphy-O’Connor above) to Paul: “A dossier of Paul’s letters would surely have been useful to Paul and his coworkers: it can hardly be supposed that each letter immediately had its intended effect, required no further clarification, and generated no new issues. The letters themselves are proof to the contrary. The tangled correspondence of Paul with the Corinthians, if not typical, certainly indicates that Paul needed to and did keep track of what he had written.” (p101)

Paul and First-Century Letter Writing: Secretaries, Composition and Collection, by E. Randolph Richards

This is a great overview of the issues in the title. For example, Richards considers ancient letter writers’ use of secretarial copies of their letters (as mentioned by Gamble above), and writes: “From the evidence we can infer that material was recycled from one letter to another in two common scenarios. First, if a writer had written a lengthy account and then later wanted to send the information to another recipient…. A second common reason for reusing material in another letter was when the writer wanted to send a well-written passage to another.” (p160) Obviously, this sort of insight might be fruitfully examined in relation to the letters of Paul - perhaps in terms of a possible relationship between Ephesians and Colossians… perhaps in terms of a possible relationship between 1 Thessalonians & 1 Corinthians…

You can read the entire post here.

Top Five Commentaries on Esther

Ligonier Ministries has a list and discussion of their top five commentaries on Esther. I would replace Baldwin with Berlin. I would also add M. V. Fox (Character and Ideology), C. M. Bechtel (Int), F. B. Huey (EBC) to the runners-up list. In any case, the top five Keith Mathison has listed are:

1. Karen Jobes -- Esther (NIV Application Commentary, 1999).
2. Joyce Baldwin -- Esther (Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries, 1984).
3. Iain Duguid. -- Esther and Ruth (Reformed Expository Commentary, 2005).
4. Frederic Bush -- Ruth/Esther (Word Biblical Commentary, 1996).
5. Mervin Breneman -- Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther (New American Commentary, 1993).