But let’s for the sake of argument say that the KJV has it right. Let’s say it is a reference to voluntary will. Couldn’t one then counter that all sacrifice is a type of Christ, especially the sacrifice without blemish? And then couldn’t one argue that the one who’s will the sacrifice is offered according to is God? Don’t the folks who deny free will of humans affirm it of God? Couldn’t they then suggest that this is just speaking typologically? I don’t know if anyone has approached the issue like this, but it got me thinking.

Leviticus 1:5-17 — Now don’t get me wrong; I love being Pentecostal. I appreciate a good move of the Spirit and the freedom to worship in whatever way I felt led. But I also long for more order and repetition in our services. It seems to me that Israelite worship and sacrifice was very ordered. 3 times (1:7, 8, 12) in this chapter we read of things being laid “in order.” Everything had to be just so. But in a lot of Pentecostal/Charismatic churches order and repetition are seen as legalism or attempts to stifle the Spirit. Perhaps it is an attempt to stifle a spirit, but not the Holy Spirit, rather the spirit of man.

Leviticus 2:3 — Can we make a case for paying our leaders with a verse like this? I think so, but then again, I think the NT is filled with enough that we don’t have to.

Leviticus 2:4 — If oil symbolizes the Holy Spirit then are we seeing a subtle distinction here between having the Spirit in you (the unleavened cakes mixed with oil) and on you (the unleavened wafers anointed/smeared with oil)? People often make distinctions like this saying that believers now are indwelt by the Holy Spirit whereas before Pentecost he simply rested on people. I don’t know how tenable that is in light of John the Baptist, but he may be the exception that proves the rule (btw, do exceptions ever really “prove” rules?).

Leviticus 2:11 — It’s interesting that honey can’t be included in the sacrifice. God is bringing them into a land filled with it. You’d think that they’d want to make use of it in their worship.

Leviticus 2:13 — I once salted food before tasting it and was accused of having a “salt demon” (I’m not kidding!). I should have directed them to this verse!

Leviticus 3:17 — I’ve heard it argued that Jewish dietary laws were about health. In other words, God knew what was healthy and what wasn’t, so he commanded the Israelites to only eat the stuff that was good for them. Blood and fat can’t be good, right? But I’ve always seen the restrictions as having more to do with separating Israel from her pagan neighbors than anything else. In other words, worship was primary, not diet or health.

Leviticus 4:1-12 (cf. vv. 22-26) — Wait a second… priests (and rulers) sinned? And God offered a way of forgiveness? Get out of here! We often hold our leaders to such high standards that we can’t allow for even unintentional sin in their lives. We’re so quick to write them off when they don’t measure up. I’m not saying that we shouldn’t hold our leaders to high standards—we should!—but we shouldn’t act as if they’re the Lord himself.

Leviticus 4:13-21 (cf. vv. 27-35)– Well look at that. The people can unintentionally sin just like the priests. And guess who it is who handles the sacrifices for forgiveness? Yup, the priests! We need the same forgiveness as our leaders because we sin just the same.

Leviticus 5:1-13 — In the previous chapter when someone from the congregation sinned they brought their own offering and the priest took care of the sprinkling of the blood. In this chapter we come across people who can’t provide their own offering so it has to be provided for them by another. The priest here is a type of God, the sacrifice, as usual, a type of the Son. The Father provides the Son because we can’t provide anything of our own to atone for our sin.

B’H

B”H

I confessed Jesus as Lord on August 11, 2002 in a small church in Lakewood, NJ but my conversion began long before that. It’s strange to think that in nearly 10 years of being a Christian that I have yet to meet another person who came to Christ like I did. I can think of dozens of people who all share similar experiences with each other, yet none of them with me. How peculiar! So I thought to share a bit of my personal testimony, in hopes of finding a kindred spirit, or at least in hopes of being reassured that my salvation isn’t irrevocably weird.

About 2 years before I came to Christ a very good friend of mine “got saved” (that’s how we say it Pentecostal parlance; if you say something different then so be it). He had been my barber for years, and at that time I got my hair cut once a week, plus he lived next door to my cousins, so I saw plenty of him. Now in addition to being a philanderer (to put it mildly) and a recreational drug/alcohol user, my friend was also a self-centered man given to violence. But I wasn’t much better, if I could say that I was better at all, so it never bothered me much.

I don’t know how things work in hair salons, but in barbershops there’s no topic off limits. The discussion in the shop was usually about drugs or sex or some combination of the two. So imagine my surprise when I went in to get my regularly scheduled haircut and what I got instead was an earful about Jesus. I was taken aback. Here was a guy who quite literally, just days before, had been drinking and drugging and fighting and fornicating, telling me about Jesus!

Once I got over the disbelief I just went on my merry way. I ignored most of what he had to say and went about my life. But week after week I had to keep hearing about Jesus. Now keep in mind that I was raised Catholic, so it’s not like I’d never heard the name Jesus or had any idea about his sacrificial death, but when I was 13 I decided that I just wasn’t interested in any of it. When I was 17 or 18 I worked with a Guatemalan fellow who we called Rambo, who had preached to me for weeks and was met with argument, mockery, and utter disrespect. At that time in my life I really wasn’t interested in any of it. I was more interested in saying that I was a god and that there was no mystery to the universe.

So back to my friend; as he kept preaching I kept telling him something like, “I’m happy for you, but that’s not for me.” I never debated; I never ridiculed; I just kept it moving. You could say that I mellowed out since working with Rambo. Anyway, he kept preaching and I kept listening, but nothing made me want to change anything that I was doing. I had my life together: baby on the way, check; gainful employment, check; girls just a phone call away, check; all the weed I could smoke, check; happiness, check. So what did I need Jesus for? As far as I could tell, I didn’t. I mean, it was nice that it took Jesus for my friend to get his act together, but I was doing alright on my own.

So after about a year-and-a-half of hearing about Jesus once weekly, God started to make himself known to me through events I couldn’t explain. I’ll limit myself to one seemingly mundane example. I was working at a pizza place as a cook and I also handled the deliveries when it was slow or when the other driver was overwhelmed. One night we got an order for delivery but we couldn’t find the address on the map (this was in the days when you had to use a map because only the military had GPS). So we get this call and couldn’t find the address. I called the gentleman back to get directions and he gave them to me. I followed them to the letter and couldn’t have gotten more lost. I had gone up and down countless roads looking for this guy’s street and I couldn’t find it. I called the boss a few times to have him take another look at the map but that didn’t help at all. I called the customer to see where I went wrong but he couldn’t help. Finally, after an hour or so, I called my boss and told him that I was coming back. He agreed.

So I went to turn my car around in a condominium complex that had a horseshoe entrance. All I had to do was drive in and out. Somehow I got lost in this complex, which seemed impossible given that it was only a horseshow I had to navigate, but when I finally stopped the car and looked up, I saw the man whose food I had standing on his porch flagging me down. The reason I couldn’t find his house was because he didn’t live in one. He lived in a condo and he failed to mention that his street was in a complex! I was looking at all the wrong streets and in getting turned around in this complex I ended up being exactly where I needed to be! As I drove back to the pizza place I thought long and hard about the chances of that happening and concluded that they were a long shot.

But there were more things to come that I won’t get into here. I will say that the birth of my daughter changed a lot. I prayed when I was a kid, but like most kids I had a messed up childhood (I’m not complaining, trust me!), so it wasn’t long before I gave up on prayer. But when we went to the hospital for my daughter to be born I had a couple of conversations with God. I can’t remember exactly what I said but it was along the lines of, “please let the labor be quick and give me a healthy baby.” So we arrived at the hospital at 8 AM and my daughter’s mom was induced a little after 10 AM. By 12:12 PM I had a healthy baby girl! Now I’m not the kind of dude that cries, like ever, but when she came out I shed literally two tears. I went outside and called my friend and said exactly these words on his voicemail: “When you talk to God, tell him I said thanks for answering.”

So now I had a kid, was engaged to her mom, still had some other girls on the side, was still getting high, still making good money, and was still generally happy. I kept seeing my friend for my weekly haircut and I kept hearing the gospel week-in and week-out. Nothing really changed. But God continued drawing me in until it got to the point where I realized my sin before him. I was sitting down with my boss after work one night and we were smoking a joint, as per our custom. I sat there and then looked at him and said, “You know, if we died right now we’d go to hell.” He responded by saying, “Shut up man, I don’t wanna hear that!” “But it’s true,” I retorted. And that was that. I called my friend up on the following Saturday and left a message saying that I’d see him in church on Sunday. But I didn’t know where his church was so I called the barbershop and one of the other barbers told me.

So on August 11, 2002 (a mere 12 hours after I quit smoking weed) I wandered into a small black Pentecostal church in Lakewood, NJ with my fiancé and 7 month old baby. I walked through the doors and experienced culture shock for the first time in my life. I was used to black folks since I’ve always had black friends, but I wasn’t used to black church. It was nothing like the Mass I grew up with. There was no holy water; no liturgy; nobody in vestments; not even a pew in sight! There were old ladies with white doilies on their head (does that qualify as a vestment?) ushering us up to the front of the church to take the only seats left in the building. People were dancing and shouting and speaking in tongues. It was weird!

So we took our seats and got ready for the sermon. The pastor was out of town and another minister (a guy named Donald) came up to preach. I remember that he was saying something about Job and a hedge of protection but to be honest, we kept sneaking off to the vestibule with the excuse that the baby needed to get changed, or to eat, or to calm down. I really didn’t hear the message at all. But when I returned for the last time it was right after the call for salvation was made. Someone told me that they had asked if anyone wanted to be saved. I said that I did, after all, I thought that the only reason to go to church was to get saved. So I walked up to the front, and in something like a scene out of a movie, four men ushered me into a side room like they were secret service agents trying to protect the president from assassination!

One of the older gentlemen opened up his Bible to Romans 10 and asked me to read verses 9-10. I obliged him and read aloud, “That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.” Another gentleman asked me if I understood what I had just read. I said, “Yes,” even though I was partially unclear. They then asked me if I believed that God raised Jesus from the dead. I said, “Yes.” And then I confessed Jesus as Lord. They all hugged me and congratulated me and we went back into the sanctuary.

I was then asked to get up in the pulpit and say a few words. So I got up but I had to wait while the music was playing. I was uncomfortable to begin with since I had showed up in a dress shirt that was a little too young for me (I hadn’t had occasion to dress up in a number of years), but standing there bopping back and forth (when I loathed dancing) as the music played and the church looked at me was really awkward. So when the MC (a wonderful little old lady named “Mom” Lynn) handed me the microphone and asked me to speak I said something like, “Jesus is my Lord now and I don’t wanna serve the devil anymore!” Mom Lynn smiled at me and said, “That’s nice, but how do you feel?” I looked at her half-puzzled and said, “I feel good.”

In the 7 years I went to that church I never saw another person get saved like that. There were plenty of sinner’s prayers recited, but never reading the Scriptures and making a confession of Jesus as Lord. I never saw anyone asked if they understood the gospel they were professing to believe. My experience of getting saved in that church was peculiar, but it was peculiar in how God drew me as well. I didn’t come to Christ in despair like so many other folks I know. Plenty of people I’ve seen get saved over the years did so because life was terrible for them or because they experienced some terrible tragedy. My life was actually pretty good.

I also know plenty of folks who were led to recite the sinner’s prayer as the result of slick preaching (I shudder to say that I’ve seen folks manipulated into saying it by forceful preachers). I wasn’t. My friend’s preaching, while being nice and all, paled in comparison to the way God was revealing himself and the way in which the Spirit of God convicted me of my sin. And I can’t credit the sermon preached on the day of my conversion either since I didn’t hear most of it. I showed up at church with the intention of getting saved and that was the end result. So when I think back on it all I’m always taken by the peculiarity of it. And the peculiarities didn’t stop there, but this is the story of my conversion, so I will.

Maybe next time I’ll talk about my entrance into teaching…

B”H

This idea was inspired by Tim Challies’ 30 Minute Reviews but I’m indebted to Kevin Edgecomb for the term “reviewlet.” The difference between the two is that Challies’ reviews are based on the 30 minutes he spent with the book in question in order to get a sense of the text. Edgecomb’s reviewlets are simply short reviews based on his whole reading of the book in question.

The reason I’ll be doing this as opposed to normal full reviews is because I want to stick to the one-subject-per-month plan that I decided on a couple of weeks ago. January has been “commentary month” but I’m pretty much done with my full reviews (it’s possible that I can squeeze one more out by Tuesday, January 31, but it’s not likely). Still, there have been a few other commentaries that I’ve been reading that I’d like to say something about, but I don’t want them bleeding into February, which will most likely be “Christology month.”

So expect some Month End Reviewlets at the end of every month (or at least at the end of every month where I’ve read more than I can review fully).

B”H

Oh, and one more thought on the priestly garment… It reminded me of Joseph’s coat of colors since it was made up of various colors (blue, purple, scarlet, etc.). Perhaps Joseph’s coat was a type of the priestly garment. Surely the priest’s garment was covered in blood after he performed the sacrifices. We know that Joseph’s brothers covered his coat in blood to trick Jacob into thinking he was dead. It’s a thought worth exploring in more detail.

Exodus 40:14 — The last time we read about anyone being clothed with coats it was Adam and Eve after they realized they were naked. There seems to be a reversal here. God clothes Adam and Eve and casts them out of his presence. Moses clothes the sons of Aaron so that they can minister in the LORD’s presence.

Exodus 40:34-35 — This reminds me of Matthew 12:43-45. Why? Because Jesus talks about an unclean spirit going out of a man only to return to find his “house” empty, swept, and garnished. Then he returns with even more spirits. Had the house been filled with the glory of the LORD then there would have been no room for the spirits to enter!

B”H

Exodus 36:5-7 — This passage would seem to pose a serious problem for prosperity theology, which says that in order for us to have the “abundant life” that Jesus gives, we should have more than enough. But here we see that too much is useless. We only need what’s sufficient to do the LORD’s work.

There’s not much to comment on in these chapters since they’re describing the various parts of the tabernacle. One of these days I’ll have to get around to studying the numbers mentioned but it’s not going to be tonight. The thing that stands out most to me in these chapters is the way that everyone comes together according to the purpose that God has called them in order to get the tabernacle constructed. This is just like what we read Paul talking about in 1 Corinthians 12. I wouldn’t be surprised to study these chapters side by side and find that Paul is drawing from Exodus. He draws heavily from Exodus and Deuteronomy in the chapters immediately preceding so it’s not a stretch to think he continues to do so.

B”H

Colossians and Philemon: A New Covenant Commentary

New Covenant Commentary Series 12.

Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2009. Pp. xiv + 177. Paper. $22.00.

 Amazon | Eisenbrauns | CBD

.

With thanks to Wipf & Stock for this review copy!

I can say, without fear of contradiction, that Mike Bird (Lecturer in Theology and Bible at Crossway College in Brisbane, Australia) is one of the most promising NT scholars to come along in a long time. He has his hand in seemingly everything, having published roughly three dozen journal articles, and written, contributed to, or edited dozens of books on Pauline & Gospel studies, Historical Jesus & Christological studies, systematic theology, and more. It’s not surprising, then, that Bird would direct his creative efforts toward commentary writing.

I can’t recall if Colossians and Philemon is the inaugural volume in the New Covenant Commentary Series—of which Bird serves as series editor along with Craig Keener—or if it was Keener’s volume that came out first. Whatever the case, Bird’s volume offers a concise yet informative look at these two short Pauline letters, and much like Keener’s volume on Romans, he pays close attention to the socio-historical features of the material.

The introduction, which comprises 30 of the 147 pages of main text, takes the time to familiarize the reader with the history of Colossae and the social setting from which Paul is writing. Philemon, being the shorter letter, gets the shorter treatment, which I’ll summarize: It was written by Paul in 55-56 CE as a result of Onesimus visiting him so that he could mediate between Onesimus and Philemon over a matter that was made public before the Colossian church. This resulted in Onesimus’ conversion, which led to Paul advocating for him in order to bring about reconciliation with Philemon.

The introductory material on Colossians is spread pretty evenly over authorship (Paul with others), provenance (Ephesus), and the Colossian philosophy (a form of missionary minded Jewish mysticism influenced by Hellenistic thought), while taking a little time to examine the relationship of Colossians to Ephesians (Colossians was written by Paul and co-workers; Ephesians was written by a secretary and composed on the basis of Colossians). In all of this Bird provides arguments and counters before drawing his conclusions; an approach I find satisfying.

As for the commentary itself, Bird says that he attempted to “avoid writing a commentary on other commentaries” (vii). It was only after translating and commentating that he consulted secondary literature. This doesn’t mean that Bird doesn’t interact with secondary literature or other commentaries—such interaction can be found throughout the commentary and the footnotes—he just keeps it to a minimum. If you’ve ever read a large technical commentary you can see how such an approach is refreshing. Rather than getting bogged down in the minutia of this or that point made by this or that scholar Bird is able to focus on the text and explain it clearly and concisely.

As stated above, Bird provides his own translation of the material (something lacking in Keener’s contribution on Romans), followed by concise yet dense (I mean that in a positive way) comments on the passage. Important terms are emboldened throughout, a feature that screams for a glossary in the back matter, but unfortunately doesn’t get one. Throughout the commentary there are a number of asides called “Fusing the Horizons” that aim at identifying the contemporary relevance of the text (topics include doctrine, prayer & teaching, worship, common faith, etc.). These asides manage to come across as devotional in nature while not sacrificing any theological integrity.

Now I’ll confess to having never had much of an interest in Philemon, and to be sure, I still don’t. Not even Bird’s many talents as a scholar and commentator were able to change that. But I have long had an abiding interest in Colossians for its rich Christological content. Bird devotes a nice amount of space (47-59) to the so-called “Christ Hymn” in 1:15-20. He’s certainly correct to reject a gnostic redeemer myth as the passage’s background. Bird sees the “poem” (a position he takes for granted) as a “christological interpretation of Genesis 1,” which I agree with, but I think he concedes too much when he “admit[s] that links with wisdom traditions are simply too plain to ignore” (49). While such links are ubiquitous in scholarly literature they are arguably completely absent from the primary texts (see thorough critiques in Aquila Lee’s From Messiah to Preexistent Son, Gordon Fee’s Pauline Christology, and Sean McDonough’s Christ as Creator).

Bird helpfully reminds us that “[t]he issue is far more than, ‘Is Jesus God or is he only quasi-divine?’ More appropriately, it asks which place Jesus occupies in the cosmological order in relation to the one God of Israel, and to various spiritual entities with varying degrees of power and authority as well” (51). Sadly, the attention to “relationship” (with God and the created order) is often passed over by readers with little more than apologetic interests, which ironically, is the strongest apologetic argument to be made from this passage! The “Fusing the Horizons” section is also well done, noting that this passage doesn’t exist just so we can know the right stuff about Christ, but so that we can see our parts in the story of creation and reconciliation (58).

Bird’s treatment of Colossians 2:8-23 has been very informative for me. Over the years I’ve taken the Colossian philosophy (I’ve always used the term heresy) to have been a brand of proto-docetism given Paul’s reference to the fullness of deity dwelling bodily in Christ in 2:9. Bird has successfully convinced me otherwise by pointing out the rather obvious Jewish features of the passage, e.g., references to circumcision, decrees, feasts, New Moons, the Sabbath, and some less obvious ones such as the worship of/with angels. A local synagogue attempting to lead Christians away through legalism and indoctrination now sounds much more plausible than my original understanding.

If there’s one thing that struck me as odd in this commentary it was the lack of consistency between the use of the terms Messiah and Christ. In the translation Bird always opts to translate χριστος as Messiah, and his reasoning for doing so is sound. He says, “I have rendered Christos Iēsous as Messiah Jesus, using ‘Messiah’ rather than ‘Christ’ for Christos in order to emphasize the Jewish and eschatological connotation of the designation for Paul” (33). Good and well; but then why not consistently use Messiah rather than Christ in the commentary? Does the term not carry the same connotation for Bird and modern readers? Sure, Christ functions as a proper name now, as Bird later admits, but as he also admits, it has “not lost all of its titular significance.” In any event, it was just a little taxing constantly switching off between “Messiah” and “Christ” knowing that they’re equivalent terms and either one would have been fine.

I can recommend this commentary in good conscience to intermediate and advanced readers. I think that Bird might fly (no pun intended) over the head of those just getting their feet wet in theology and Biblical studies, but those who have some familiarity will benefit greatly from this volume’s sharp analysis and theologically sensitive reading of Paul.

B”H

No Christian understands the doctrine of the Trinity fully. In fact, if people are not confused to some degree by this doctrine, is someone says, “Ohhhh, now I understand,” it probably means that they have slipped into heresy in their thinking. If we think about it too long, try to solve it, or nuance it according to our desire to comprehend things, we will find ourselves refusing the hand of God who has given the mysterious Trinity to us a description of Himself. While it is impossible that finite beings can fully comprehend an infinite God, we can understand him truly. The doctrine of the Trinity does not give us the full understanding of God, but it does give us a true understanding of God.

There’s a few things at issue here:

1. Just to nitpick, Patton cannot possibly know what all Christians understand so he can’t universally declare that “no Christian” understands the doctrine of the Trinity fully, which brings me to my second point…
2. There is a distinction that needs to be made between the doctrine of the Trinity and the Trinity itself. Catherine Mowry LaCugna and Tarmo Toom have both rightly noted this distinction and said (I’m paraphrasing) that doctrines are formulated with the express intent of being understood. The doctrine of the Trinity is nothing more or less than our way of making sense of divine revelation. We can understand as much as God has revealed about himself. This does not mean that we can understand the aspects of God that remain a mystery to us. So the doctrine of the Trinity most certainly can be understood fully by a great many Christians, and Patton seems to recognize this in the latter part of the paragraph, but…
3. Some, like Dale Tuggy, like to argue that there is no such thing as the doctrine of the Trinity. Tuggy prefers to speak of multiple Trinity theories. In other words, on this understanding, Patton’s statement would be correct simply because no single doctrine of the Trinity exists to be understood by all believers. Let’s for the sake of argument grant this position—the result is still the same—any competing doctrine or theory of the Trinity is formulated in order to be understood. Christians therefore are capable of understanding them all fully.
4. And finally, while it is true that heresy is usually a result of trying to understand God fully (a point James Anderson argues successfully in his Paradox in Christian Theology), the problem is with using an extra-biblical standard as the plumb line. Heresy arises from trying to make revelation conform to predetermined structures of thought. Again, Patton seems to recognize this in the latter part of the paragraph. But if one sticks to revelation then they can say with confidence that they understand as much as God has chosen to reveal, and thus they’ve understood God on his own terms, not theirs.

So in conclusion, I would say that the Trinity (i.e., God) can be understood truly while the doctrine of the Trinity can be understood fully. I’d also say that I appreciate Patton’s distinction between truly and fully and I will continue to apply it in conjunction with my distinction between the Trinity and the doctrine of the Trinity.

B”H

Reference Works — I can’t think of a single reference work that I’ve ever read from cover to cover. The reason for picking and choosing which parts to look at is simple: it’s a reference work and I reference it as needed. When I receive a reference work for review, such as a dictionary or encyclopedia, then I read the preface and introduction in full and then select the articles that suit my interests at the time of reviewing. The rationale for this is simple: I try to only review books that I’m interested in and will ultimately benefit my personal studies. So if I receive a reference work for review I actually use it as I would if I had bought it and didn’t need to review it.

Bibles — The way I go about reviewing a Bible depends on the kind of Bible I’m reviewing. Generally I note aesthetic features, my opinion on the translation as an average reader, not as one who knows anything about translation, and then if it’s a study Bible I’ll say something about the notes and articles. But I have yet to read an entire Bible in order to review it. Again, I read the preface and introduction and then all of the major articles and a sampling of the smaller articles. I limit the notes I read to the areas I’m interested in studying at the time.

Commentaries — I use commentaries as reference works so I almost never read them from cover to cover. The same practice applies to commentaries as to other reference works, although I do give commentaries a closer reading given the fact that they’re not a bunch of disparate articles or entries. In other words, it takes a fuller reading of a commentary, than say, a dictionary, to benefit from the contents.

Edited Volumes — For the most part I try to read all of the essays in edited volumes even though the review generally only highlights those I found most noteworthy. There have been plenty of times when I haven’t read all of the essays due to a lack of interest in the particular subject or an essay, or my inability to read the essay because it was composed in a foreign language such as German or French.

Monographs — I read every single page of monographs to include footnotes, endnotes, bibliography, appendices, and indices. In fact, I generally always read appendices no matter what kind of book it is (this includes commentaries and reference books). I even muddle through foreign language quotations in monographs, oftentimes typing them into Google Translate in order to get the gist of what is being said. If there are extended quotations then I just sound the words out and move along.

Textbooks — I try to read textbooks (such as NT introductions and books of the like) in full because I generally only request those I want to use to aid me in my teaching at my church or home Bible study. This requires a close reading although there have been times when I’ve mined the material for what I could use and discarded what I couldn’t.

One thing that Nijay notes is the limitations that come with reviewing books for journals. Journal reviews vary in length from as little as 100 words to as much as 1500 words on average. There are always those times when review articles appear in a journal and can span 12 to 20 pages. The limitation of the review can affect the method one uses in reviewing. Since I post reviews on my blog I’m never constrained. I can write as much or as little as I’d like. I generally like to keep it between 700 to 1500 words although I regularly go over that limit and hardly ever under it. But for me personally, that’s enough space to offer an introduction, summary, praise, critique, conclusion/recommendation.

I think the general ethic that all book reviewers should follow is to give the volume under review a fair and long enough reading to be able to offer a general assessment. This is not merely a summary of the contents, but also an idea of the strengths and weaknesses of the book. Certain books require a full reading to be able to do this sufficiently; other books can be assessed from a healthy sample reading.

One thing that is unforgivable, and all too common among bloggers, is not reading the book at all, or reading the last page of each chapter and pretending to have read it in full. I’m sure we’ve all seen enough fake reviews to choke a goat. The motivation for doing such is easy enough to discern: the faster one “reviews” a book is the faster that they can get more.  I’ve ranted about this in the past so I won’t repeat it here. What I will say is that every book deserves interaction and every reader of reviews deserves to hear genuine thoughts borne from actually reading the books. This can manifest in 100 words or 100,000; that’s really up to the reviewer.

B”H

Exodus 32:2 — It’s amazing how quick Aaron was to jump on the bandwagon and lead the charge in actually forming the idol. This is just a foreshadowing of Israel’s checkered history with idolatry.

Exodus 32:4-6 — Here’s the sick thing. They believed the golden calf to be the LORD. They attributed their deliverance from Egypt to the golden calf! They were ready to hold a feast in its honor saying that the feast was to the LORD! They offered sacrifices to it as if it was the very God that Moses was up on the mountain receiving instruction from! This is one of the reasons that I reject arguments about intermediary agents being worshipped in God’s place. To do so is blatant idolatry.

Exodus 32:11-13 — On the one hand I can appreciate Moses’ compassion and his desire to see his people delivered rather than destroyed. On the other hand I kinda wish God would have just did it because they only continued in their stiffneckedness.

Exodus 32:19-21 — Moses’ reaction seems to be very difference once he actually witnesses the debauchery. Had he been privy to what he saw after coming down from the mountain beforehand, I wonder if he would have interceded on Israel’s behalf. Also notice in v. 19 that Moses’ אף “anger” (KJV) “waxed hot” against the people. This is the same word transated as “wrath” (KJV) in v. 10 where it says that the LORD’s wrath waxed hot against them. This isn’t really surprising though. In Exodus 7:1 the LORD makes Moses like God to Pharaoh. This role hasn’t changed. Moses is like God to Israel hence the reaction of idolatry in his absence. But then Aaron functions as a type of false prophet; something Israel will see plenty of in throughout their history.

Exodus 32:22-24 — Who does Aaron sound like here? Kinda like Adam, right? Passing the buck. Blaming everyone else for what he willingly participated in. And notice how he tries to act as if the golden calf just hopped out of the fire without his forming it. That’s the nature of idolatry isn’t it? Giving power to something that has none in and of itself.

Exodus 32:28 — This would, of course, be rectified on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2.

Exodus 32:31-33 — Another text that leads me to believe that someone can’t take on the guilt of another. But Moses was willing to suffer in their place. An obvious type of Christ.

Exodus 32:35 — Israel is no better than Egypt. Now they get the same treatment.

Exodus 33:9 — I don’t feel lik pulling out my BHS and checking the apparatus, but I’m not seeing “the LORD” in the MT or the LXX. The KJV it in italics while the NRSV, ESV, NET, and NLT all supply it without italics. Without “the LORD” it simply says that the cloudy pillar talked to Moses. Is the addition of “the LORD” meant to clarify or is it there for something else? It almost seems the opposite of what we find in the Targums, which use buffer words to avoid using the divine name. Here, the English translations are using the name to avoid something else.

Exodus 33:12-13, 17, 19 — Passages like this make it difficult to maintain that the OT was all about Law and not grace.

Exodus 33:21 — For some reason I hear an echo of Genesis 22:4 here. The “place” that Abraham saw afar off Moses gets to see up close.

Exodus 34:13 — This is a command that Israel will fail to obey time and time again, and the result is always bad.

Exodus 34:30 — It’s a shame that the people were afraid to go near Moses because he was covered in God’s residual glory. That’s something that we should run toward, not away from.

Exodus 34:33-35 — Moses’ face was a miniature holy of holies.

B”H

He also says that the Zebulun Jesus is Lord Barber Shop is the church’s business. This is not technically correct. In reality, the church was birthed from the barber shop. My pastor owned another shop in Lakewood, NJ, where he ministered and evangelized tirelessly for years. At the time he was bringing souls into our former church ITM Incorruptible Word of Faith Tabernacle. During our time there we held regular Wednesday night Bible studies & deliverance/prayer services at the barber shop.

When the Lord finally called him to the pastorate he began holding Sunday services in the barber shop, which then moved to the basement of his home, and then to a church we rented from another ministry, and finally the space we rent now in a shopping center. So the barber shop preceded the church chronologically. Also, the barber shop is not a non-profit business. It’s my pastor’s source of income. It is, however, most certainly tied to the church in a spiritual sense. It’s a Christian owned and operated establishment where the gospel is preached without shame or fear.

Hochron also cites our congregation size as between 25-70 people. I’m confident that my pastor provided him with this number but it’s closer to the 25 people than the 70. Not counting children we probably have around 20 solid faithful members. If we add children then the number jumps to 35. This is the group we can count on to show up most Sundays. But then we have a lot of people who battle with all sorts of things and are in and out of the church. If we were to add all of those folks to the number then we’d start coming a lot closer to that 70 mark.

But I’m being nitpicky. In reality Hochron has done our ministry a great service by highlighting our thrift store as well as the community outreach that we do. In truth, we opened the thrift store in order to generate income for community outreach as well as the church’s needs (rent, utilities, etc.), but things have been rough for the first couple of months. Hopefully plenty of people will read Hochron’s writeup and come into the thrift store and spend some money.

And let me take this opportunity to thank those of you who generously donated to my church. Your help is appreciated and you are certainly in our prayers. Please continue to keep us in yours.

B”H

Exodus 29:14 — I’m amazed that dung was a sin offering.

Exodus 29:34 — Nothing should remain of the offerings offered to the Lord. This has Eucharistic implications. What does your church do with the leftover bread and wine/juice of communion? At my church we don’t leave anything behind (me and my pastor will finish whatever is left over after the congregation has partaken).

Exodus 29:41 — This is the third time (cf. vv. 18 & 25) that offerings have been described as a sweet savour before the LORD. This is a description found repeatedly throughout the Torah but hardly anywhere else. In the NT we only find it used in reference to Christ’s sacrifice of himself (Eph. 5:2); the Philippians’ financial support of Paul (Phil. 4:18); and to believers’ evangelizing efforts (2 Cor. 2:15). There’s a connection between Jesus’ sacrifice, sacrificial giving, and evangelism. Without Jesus’ sacrifice there would be no good news to proclaim. Financial support enables the proclamation of the gospel. In all of this there is an underlying current of selflessness, which is sacrifice, which comes up before God as a sweet smelling savour.

Exodus 30:15 — Sounds kinda socialistic but not really. If socialism actually worked then there shouldn’t be any rich or poor; just equals. But here the rch and poor are made equal in what they offer to the LORD. The LORD is the great equalizer.

Exodus 30:33, 38 — Notice that the penalty is being cut off from one’s “people” rather than “God.” In reality it’s both. God is connected to individuals, yes, but only individuals who are members of the covenant group. Any individual can become a part of the group and any individual can break the covenant and be cut off.

B”H

Romans: A New Covenant Commentary

New Covenant Commentary Series 6

Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2009. Pp. xxv + 268. Paper. $32.00.

Amazon | Eisenbrauns | CBD

.
.

With thanks to Wipf & Stock for this review copy!

Craig Keener is known the world over for his weighty New Testament commentaries¹, and most recently his books The Historical Jesus of the Gospels and Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts. If you’ve ever read a book written by Keener then you’ve undoubtedly been inundated by voluminous foot/endnotes. Keener has mastered what seems like every piece of ancient Greco-Roman and Second Temple Jewish piece of literature known to man. No one can help but be impressed by the attention to detail that Keener gives to providing context for his claims, but I’m willing to bet that more than a few can attest to being overwhelmed by the sheer amount of that information alone.

I’m the type of reader to go off on rabbit trails when I come across footnotes. This isn’t a bad thing; I actually enjoy it. The problem is that with Keener’s larger volumes I can get so far off the path that it takes what seems like forever to return. This isn’t the case with Keener’s commentary on Romans in the New Covenant Commentary Series. Don’t get me wrong—footnotes abound—but they’re nowhere near as dominant as in his larger volumes. Keener has streamlined his research and crammed it into as small a space as possible. He does, however, thank his co-editor for “allowing [him] more space than some shorter volumes in the series, so that [he] did not need to end [his] comments, like some early manuscripts of Romans, with chapter 14 (or at least to omit the cover)” (xi).

I really appreciated Keener’s introduction, which focused on providing literary and social background material, while simply noting the date (58 CE) and place of composition (Corinth) in passing. Here Keener suggests that Paul was trained in rhetoric and knew how to use it to make his point to both Jewish and Gentile audiences. He emphasizes the shift that came about in NT studies with E. P. Sanders’ seminal monograph Paul and Palestinian Judaism, and the debates concerning Paul’s understanding of law and grace. Adding to the complexity of the issue is the fact that Judaism in Paul’s day (as it is now) was diverse, and that even the early Church had its own share of diversity.

The commentary proper shows us the concise Keener. Translations are not provided in the text so the reader will have to use this volume with a Bible nearby. In terms of format, there isn’t much to speak of, just Keener’s comments on the text with tables and excursuses scattered throughout. The excursuses are all printed in a different font from the commentary text and they address anything from important theological vocabulary (e.g., “Dikaiosunē in Romans” [27-29]) to the interpretation of controversial passages (e.g., “Fusing the Horizons: Homosexual Activity” [35-40] to helpful background information (e.g., “Ancient Mediterranean Food Customs” [161]).

As is my custom, I sought Keener’s insights on various issues and passages, such as Romans 1:3-4 with respect to whether or not he sees Jesus as being appointed God’s Son (i.e., an adoptionistic reading) or declared God’s Son; 2:12-15 and the identity of the Gentiles (i.e., were they Christian or non-Christian); 9:5 concerning the referent of Paul’s doxology; and 11:26 in order to see how he understands Paul’s use of “all Israel.” I’ll briefly summarize Keener’s findings:

On 1:3-4 he’s somewhat ambiguous saying, “As a descendant of David (1:3; cf. 15:12), Jesus could be rightful heir to Israel’s throne, but once a king was enthroned, he was adopted by God (2 Sam 7:14-16; Pss 2:6-7; 89:26-33). Jesus was not only descended from David (as some other people were), but attested as God’s Son by the Spirit, who raised him from the dead and hence exalted him as Lord. Of course, Jesus is not God’s “Son” only in the ordinary royal sense (cf. Rom 8:3, 29; Isa 9:6-7), but the good news that God has established a king, and hence his kingdom, sets Paul’s preaching of Jesus squarely in the context of the OT promises.” (20)

But I’m unclear on exactly whether or not Keener reads this passage in an adoptionistic sense. On the one had he clearly sees the Davidic king as being adopted as God’s Son, but he sees Jesus going beyond this by virtue of the Resurrection. The question I have concerns whether or not Keener sees the Resurrection as the moment when Jesus was adopted as God’s Son or declared God’s Son, which he had always been.

On 2:12-15 Keener sees three possible referents for the Gentiles who by nature do the works of the Law: 1) “a real but small class of people (the way some Jewish people thought of ‘righteous Gentiles’)”; 2) “a hypothetical class of people (posited perhaps for rhetorical purposes)”; or 3) “Christians” (44). He finds merit in the latter two options but ultimately argues that the first is the focus of this passage since Paul is arguing for “God’s ethnic impartiality.” One can see how this would make sense if Paul stopped speaking here, but in light of what Paul says about the sinfulness of humanity in Romans 3, and the mind set on the flesh’s enmity with God in 8:7, I think the more likely option is #3.

On 9:5 Keener, rightly in my opinion, sees Jesus as the referent of Paul’s doxology, saying, “Given the parallel to Paul’s doxology in 1:25, ‘who is… God blessed forever” in 9:5 most likely applies to the Christ who is over all, though Paul more often prefers the divine title ‘Lord’ for him (10:9-13; 1 Cor 8:5-6; Phil 2:9-11 [with Isa 45:23])” (116-17). While there is a note about those who dissent from this view and those who agree with it, there is no mention of the alternative interpretation and its supporting reasons. In fact, Keener rarely gives more than a brief mention to alternative viewpoints throughout the commentary, which I suppose is understandable given the limited space he had to work with. On the other hand, more interaction with other views would prove extremely helpful.

On 11:26 Keener understands “all Israel” to be “Israel as a whole” as opposed to a “completed Gentile church,” which is a position that some argue. Keener rightly notes that in the context of Romans 9-11 Paul has been contrasting “Israel” with the “Gentiles.” This is a very important point to make since there is no shortage of people who argue for Gentile believers as “spiritual Jews” or “the true Israel” based on a couple of verses taken out of context (e.g., Rom. 2:28-29; 9:6 cf. Gal. 6:16). Keener also rightly understands that the salvation of “all Israel” or “Israel as a whole” does not mean that every single individual Jew will be saved, nor does he understand the passage to be speaking of individual salvation, but rather corporate salvation.

I have to say that I greatly appreciate Keener’s no frills approach to this commentary. He provides plenty of background information without overwhelming us with it. He mentions the commentaries of others in passing but he reserves most of his space for making his own observations. This seems to be a trend in this commentary series as Fee (Revelation) and Bird (Colossians & Philemon) have taken similar approaches in their respective volumes (Fee is much more extreme in his lack of interaction than either Keener or Bird though).

If I had to lodge a complaint or two then they would be these: First, Keener lays (here and elsewhere) a lot on the shoulders of Greco-Roman customs, culture, literature, etc. I will in no way, shape, or form deny the importance of this background info, and I won’t deny that Paul’s was a Judaism steeped in Hellenism, but at times it seems that the emphasis is on Greco-Roman material where more interaction with Jewish material would have been preferable.

Second, Keener gets kind of lazy with his references to midrash (54, 63, 126) or “midrashic linking” (55) or “reading [a] key text for all its worth as midrashic expositors typically did” (64). The problem is that he doesn’t really explain exactly what midrash is or expound on different techniques of midrashic exegesis. The references are pretty vague to be honest. While one might risk anachronism, it’s worth it to explore later rabbinic writings for possible insights into what Paul does with his exegesis, and Keener makes plenty of reference to rabbinic material so it wouldn’t have been difficult for him to do so here.

Some readers will find themselves less than thrilled with some of Keener’s theological insights, e.g., he suggests that Paul’s use of terms like “chose” or “predestined” weren’t invested with all the meaning that they’d come to acquire in later debates like the “Greek fathers’ defense of free will against fatalism, Augustine’s defense of God’s sovereign grace against Pelagius, or the debates of the Reformation era” (109). Rather than pitting God’s sovereignty against human choice, Keener says that most ancient Jews understood God as accomplishing his sovereign purposes by “work[ing] in and around choices (Exod 13:17; 1 Sam 9:8, 16)” (109, n. 45), and that “Paul might ground predestination in foreknowledge (8:29) to allow that God takes faith into account (in advance) in salvation (a question much debated by theologians)” (110). Others will find themselves more than thrilled by such suggestions.

Whatever your theological disposition, this is a commentary that will benefit you, if for no other reason than it will supply you with plenty of background information (in both the text and the footnotes, as well as in the Scripture and Ancient Source indices) to understand the text in ways that its original audience simply took for granted. And for those looking to study matters further, Keener has a detailed bibliography to lead you in the right direction. Not only has he mastered the primary literature; he’s seemingly mastered the secondary material as well.

Something else that stood out in rereading these chapters was why Israel needed to leave Egypt with all the spoils. This Tabernacle took a lot of fine linen, brass, gold, silver, and all sorts of other materials to make. The priestly garment took a lot of fine linen and jewels. Israel wouldn’t have found these things laying around in the wilderness. They had to come equipped.

Exodus 28:29 — I never noticed that the priest’s breastplate was called the “breastplate of judgment” before now. I immediately thought about the whole armor of God and the “breastplate of righteousness.” Since Jesus now wears the breastplate of judgment that frees us up to wear the breastplate of righteousness (or something like that).

Exodus 28:30 — Now I fully believe in substitutionary atonement, but I’m far from sold on penal substitution. Why? Because of passages like this. Aaron bears the judgment of the children of Israel, but not their guilt. But what about v. 38? It says that Aaron shall bear the עון of the holy things, which the children of Israel shall hallow in all their holy gifts. The ESV translated עון as “guilt” while the KJV has “iniquity.” Granted, עון can be translated as either word (as well as “punishment”) depending on the context, but I wonder if the ESV hasn’t read penal substitution into this passage. It’s one thing to bear the sins (or iniquity) of another. Someone can do that by standing in their place and suffering for them. I believe that Jesus did that without question. He stood in our place and suffered. But that’s different from saying that he bore our guilt and was punished. The guilty are punished. The innocent suffer. My question concerns the concept of transferring guilt. I don’t believe that it can be done but I’m willing to listen to reasons why other folks think it can be.

Exodus 28:42-43 — Here we see the result of the fall in full force. Before the fall the man and woman were always naked before God. Now the high priest needs to cover his nakedness to even step foot in the LORD’s presence.

B”H

Exodus 22:23, 27 — Twice, within the space of a couple of verses, we read that God will hear the cries of those in need. In both instances it is the people that Israel oppresses whose cries will be heard by God because he is gracious.

Exodus 22:28 — Now should this be “revile the gods” (KJV), “revile God” (ESV, NRSV), or “blaspheme God” (NET, NIV)? The MT is ambiguous since אלהים can refer to either the God of Israel or the gods of the nations. Contextually, it would seem only fitting for the God of Israel to be in view. But the LXX confuses the matter by translating אלהים with θεους. The Vulgate has diis, which only further supports the plural translation. Yet it still doesn’t make any sense contextually. Why would Israel be commanded to not revile the gods of the nations? Or perhaps אלהים is synonymous with “ruler” here, which the LXX also translates as a plural (αρχοντας).

Exodus 23:4-5 — Whoa! This sounds like what Jesus said about loving your enemies and all that other stuff that goes with it. I guess his message wasn’t as radical a redefinition of what went before as some think.

Exodus 23:7 — This factors heavily into the debates/discussions about the compatibility of opposition to abotion with support of capital punishment. Innocence is a key concept. When we speak of being “pro-life” that’s really shorthand for being “anti-abortion.” It’s not a way of saying that we are opposed to any death at any time. We are opposed to the death of the innocent.

Exodus 23:21 — Unitarians love to bring this verse up as a way of casting doubt on Jesus’ uniqueness. If God’s name can be in an angel (who later psuedepigraphical texts [the Apocalypse of Abraham; 3 Enoch] would call Yahoel or Metatron [or the "lesser YHWH"]), then Jesus is not unique in this regard (see, e.g., Phil. 2:9). But orthodox Christians have long interpreted the Angel of the LORD as being none other than the preincarnate Son (e.g., Irenaeus, Cyprian, John Chrysostom, Eusebius, Hilary of Portier, Clement of Alexandria, and Theodoret, to name a few) so his uniqueness is maintained. In other words, the one(s) these other texts identify as Yahoel or Metatron is the one that Christians identify as the Word or the Son.

Exodus 24:1 — There’s echoes of Abraham on Mount Moriah here. In fact, these echoes started in Exod. 20:18, 21. Abraham saw the place where he was to sacrifice Isaac to God “afar off.” The Israelites stood “afar off” as Moses went to speak with God. Now Moses calls the elders to worship God “afar off.” There’s a progression here from seeing the place afar off, to seeing God afar off, to worshipping him afar off. Each time it’s a little bit closer.

Exodus 24:8 — Jesus echoes these words in his words of institution at the Last Supper.

Exodus 24:9-11 — This passage clearly says that the Moses, Aaron, Nadab, Abihu, and the seventy elders saw God. How is this possible if God has never been seen (John 1:18; 1 John 4:12). If they saw the preincarnate Son then it would make plenty of sense.

Note also that the covenant was celebrated with eating and drinking. This is a type of the Eucharist. A precursor to the heavenly banquet that we will experience in the eschaton.

Exodus 25:9 — I wonder if the heavenlt tabernacle was the pattern for creation just as it was the pattern for the earthly tabernacle. I really need to delve deeper into all this cosmic temple stuff. I was thinking about some cool stuff the other day with regard to entering into God’s rest in Hebrews 4, but I’ll save that for another post.

Exodus 25:18-20, et al. — The KJV sounds awkward here when it translates (or transliterates) כרבים as “cherubims.” The “im” already makes the word plural. To add an “s” just makes it sound weird. Like saying “deers” or something.

B”H