The Future of Biblical Commentaries?

Nijay Gupta has some interesting proposals/suggestions related to the possible alternatives to the formats of traditional biblical commentaries. While the comments are appreciated, I wonder if what what is being envisioned isn't already being done in a way through monographs. Also, I am not sure that such supplements would really be all that cheaper, at least for the end user, since such supplements would appeal mostly to the specialists, who are fewer in number. That being said, I do like the suggestion concerning stand alone commentaries on some of the less-covered books.

Khirbet Qeiyafa Inscription

There has been considerable activity in the media and blogging world in the last few days concerning what is being called the Khirbet Qeiyafa inscription.This ostracon (a potsherd with writing on it) containing five lines of what is being called Proto-Canaanite or Hebrew script has been tentatively dated to 1,000 and 975 B.C. The dating is significant because it is around the time that King David would have lived. For a Fox News article of this find go here. For pictures of the ostracon go here, here, here, and here. A short video on Youtube can be seen here.

Todd Bolen at the Bibleplaces blog also has a couple of helpful posts here and here.

Questioning the Questions of Postmodernity

Michael Bird posts the following thoughts questioning the questions of postmodernity.

My good friend Denny Burke gives a quote from Abraham Piper about the postmodern ethos of our day: “If you ask questions but you reject answers, you’re not actually asking anything. You’re just festooning tired, old propositions with trendier punctuation.” I agree entirely. I am highly unimpressed with the pomo obsession with questions that no-one answers and being-on-the-journey that doesn't go any where (or any where worth going to). Don't get me wrong, questions are a great way to do theology (see Thomas Aquinas no less), but without stating answers, even provisionally, it comes down to a meaningless word game. I say this because questions without answers (1) lead to indecision, inaction or inconsistency since the rationale to act is never established, and (2) little pomo popes wonder the country thinking that the more people they can confuse with their word games the greater their acumen and intelligence. Teachers should teach. They shoud not try to clone themselves nor aim to confuse. As Karl Barth once said to a student, we don't have time to play the devil's advocate!

You can read the entire post here.

Mounce on the Greek Participle as Imperative

Bob Mounce has a nice post on the use of the Greek participle as an imperative in the New Testament. You can read it here.

King Solomon's Copper Mines

A number of stories have been circulating regarding the discovery of what is being called "King Solomon's Copper Mines." What apparently has been discovered at Khirbat en-Nahas ("the ruins of copper")in modern day Jordan, is a copper mining and smelting complex dating to the tenth century. You can read Leen Ritmeyer's take on the story here. A twelve minute video providing a general historical overview and an examination of Khirbat en-Nahas in particular can be viewed here.

Top Five Commentaries on Ecclesiastes

Ligonier Ministries has a list and discussion of their top five commentaries on Ecclesiastes. I would replace Eaton, Kidner, and Hubbard with Fox, Murphy, and Kruger respectively. I would also add Seow (Anchor), Brown (Interpretation), and Glenn in The Bible Knowledge Commentary to the runners-up. In any case, the top five Keith Mathison has listed are:

1. Derek Kidner -- The Message of Ecclesiastes (The Bible Speaks Today, 1984).
2. Michael A. Eaton -- Ecclesiastes (Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries, 1983).
3. Iain Provan -- Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs (NIV Application Commentary, 2001).
4. David A. Hubbard -- Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon (The Preacher's Commentary, 2002).
5. Tremper Longman -- The Book of Ecclesiastes (The New International Commentary on the Old Testament, 1997).

Four Preacher Criticisms

Cal Habig has posted a discussion on four criticisms of preachers based on the work of Zach Eswine, Preaching to a Post-Everything World. The four kinds of personal criticisms are:

1. You don’t do it the way my favorite preacher does it. This is a criticism of personal preaching style or handling of a passage. There’s nothing we can do about our personality. The criticism is essentially correct; we are not like the other preacher. This comparison stings. When given outside the context of friendship, it shows a shallow understanding of calling and gifts. But we can shrug our shoulders and say, “You are right. I’m not like that other person.”

2. You could have done better. This is a criticism of clarity or competence with the text and the sermon. Every sermon technically warrants this criticism. j There is always something we could have explained more clearly or illustrated better. This criticism hurts. When given outside the context of friendship, it shows a shallow understanding of what preaching requires and how preachers are limited. But we can shrug our shoulders and say, “You are right. This passage has more to say than I can match.

3. Your motives are wrong. This is an accusation of character. It puts the criticizer into the position of knowing the heart. It puts the preacher into an indefensible position. How does one defend when accused of preaching a particular sermon with pride? Do you try to prove your humility? To do so only confirms the suspicions of the accuser.

4. You shouldn’t preach at all. This is an accusation of calling. Challenge to ones character and calling perhaps hurt the most . No individual Christian has the authority to determine whether another person is called or not. This authority resides with Christ alone and is demonstrated through the community of believers, not individuals.

You can read the entire post here.

Top Five Commentaries on Proverbs

Ligonier Ministries has a list and discussion of their top five commentaries on Proverbs. I am not familiar with Van Leeuwen's work But I would replace Hubbard and Kidner with Fox and Longman. I would also add Clifford (OTL) to the runners-up. In any case, the top five Keith Mathison has listed are:

1. Bruce K. Waltke -- The Book of Proverbs: Chapters 1-15; The Book of Proverbs: Chapters 15-31 (New International Commentary on the Old Testament, 2004, 2005).
2. David A. Hubbard -- Proverbs (The Preacher's Commentary, 2002).
3. Raymond C. Van Leeuwen -- "Proverbs" in The New Interpreter's Bible (1997).
4. Tremper Longman III -- Proverbs (Baker Commentary on the Old Testament Wisdom and Psalms, 2006).
5. Derek Kidner -- Proverbs (Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries, 1964).

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.