Leviticus 10:1 — Now notice how Nadab and Abihu took it upon themselves to offers “strange” (or “unauthorized”) fire before the LORD. They wanted the glory but they didn’t want to follow instruction to get it. Instead of consuming their sacrifice with holy fire the LORD consumed them.

Leviticus 10:7 — There’s something about going out from God’s presence that brings death. Just ask Adam and Eve. Or perhaps we should understand this as saying something about taking God’s anointing to a place where he has not sent you. It brings to mind Matthew 7:21-23. In the judgment people will call Jesus Lord, and they will cite their many wonderful works of prophecy and exorcism, but Jesus will respond that he never knew them. Is it possible to do good for selfish gain? To use the gifts and talents that God has given for the wrong reasons? You betcha!

Leviticus 10:17-20 — I’m reminded of Brant Pitre’s book Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist here. One of the points Pitre makes with regard to the Passover is that not only did the lamb have to be sacrificed; it had to be eaten as well. We see the same principle at work here; Moses is worried about the sacrifice not being eaten in the sanctuary. It would seem that if not eaten then it wouldn’t bear the iniquity of the people and it wouldn’t make atonement for them before the LORD. This certainly has Eucharistic implications.

Leviticus 11:6 — I remember back in my chat room days this used to be a favorite verse of atheists and Bible haters. It was supposed to show that the Bible was errant because it was scientifically inaccurate. Everybody knows that hares/rabbits don’t chew the cud. Of course the problem with such arguments is that it imposes a standard on the text that the author wasn’t aware of. He wasn’t looking to write something that was scientifically precise according to modern knowledge. He was looking at a hare that eats its own poop and including it with the animals that chew their own cud.

Leviticus 11:9-12 — I hate fish, so forgive my ignorance, but what is the difference between fish that have scales and fish that don’t? They’re all an abomination to me!

Leviticus 11:19 — This was another one of those “gotcha” verses since we all know that bats aren’t birds. But if I lived thousands of years ago and saw a little creature flying around I’d probably classify it with birds too.

Leviticus 11:45 — It’s interesting how the LORD repeats what he said in v. 44 but now grounds it in his act of deliverance. The Decalogue is really grounded in the same act so it shouldn’t be surprising that as he continues to add instruction that he’d proceed along the same grounds. But there seems to be something here about restoring the image of God in man. The LORD is saying I delivered you in order for you to once again be like me. When you were in bondage and slavery you were less than your full selves. Or something like that.

B”H

I also think that’s why Nick Norelli is head-and-shoulders above the average Arminian blogger. He has interests outside of the Arminian/Calvinist debate.

On the one hand, I’m flattered. On the other hand, Saul was head and shoulders above everyone else in Israel (1 Sam. 9:2) and we know how he turned out. And if I had a third hand I’d note that Head & Shoulders is a dandruff shampoo, which is kind of unappealing. I’m just sayin’…

B”H

• Messiah and the Throne: Jewish Merkabah Mysticism and Early Christian Exaltation Discourse (WUNT II/142) by Timo Eskola.
• Manifest in the Flesh: The Epiphany Christology of the Pastoral Epistles (WUNT II/86) by Andrew Y. Lau.

Most folks know just how expensive WUNT volumes are, so I was very pleased to get these at what I consider to be heavily discounted prices. I had put Eskola’s book in my shopping cart when it was priced at $85 & change and I thought that was a great deal. But that didn’t leave me enough to get Lau’s volume at $64 + shipping.

I was going to get David Capes’ Old Testament Yahweh Texts in Paul’s Christology instead, which was more than $11 cheaper. But when I received the gift card I immediately went to order the books and I saw that Eskola’s had dropped nearly $10 to $76 & change! That allowed me to not only get Lau’s book, but to also order my daughter a video game for her PS3.

She likes playing Madden ’08 with me on the XBox 360 but I thought it would be nice to get her her own copy. So she’s going to be getting a used copy of Madden ’10. I opted for ’10 over ’11 because it had the better reviews and I was able to get the used copy with free shipping.

Thanks again to everyone who purchases products through my Amazon links. These books really help me in my teaching efforts and my daughter always appreciates video games!

B”H

A Different Priest: The Epistle to the Hebrews

Translated by Leo Arnold, S.J.

Rhetorica Semitica

Miami: Convivium, 2011. Pp. 450. Paper. $26.99.

Amazon | Convivium Press

.

With thanks to Convivium Press for this review copy!

Albert Vanhoye, honorary president of the International Society for the Study of Biblical and Semitic Rhetoric, is a Jesuit priest recently appointed Cardinal (in 2006) by Pope Benedict XVI, has been studying and writing about the book of Hebrews for more than 50 years. He brings his expertise on this homily-letter to the Series Rhetorica Semitica, a series focused on the rhetorical analysis of Biblical books.

Vanhoye suggests that Biblical/Semitic rhetoric is different from classical Greek rhetoric (e.g., the propositio in classical rhetoric develops themes in the order they are announced while Hebrews develops the theme announced last because Biblical rhetoric favors chiastic constructions [20]) but that the author of Hebrews uses both, which makes a full analysis difficult because he “plays on several planes at the same time” (19).

Vanhoye divides Hebrews according to the following scheme:

• Exordium (1:1-4)
• The Name of Christ: General Christology (1:5-2:18)
• Christ is a Trustworthy and Merciful High Priest: Priestly Christology, General Characteristics (3:1-5:10)
• Christ is the Perfect High Priest: Priestly Christology, Specific Characteristics (5:11-10:39)
• Union with Christ the High Priest through Faith and Endurance (11:1-12:13)
• Call for Right Conduct in the Search for Holiness and Peace (12:14-13:18)
• Concluding Good Wish (13:20-21)
• Dispatch Note (13:22-25)

These larger sections are then treated according to smaller subsections where Vanhoye discusses the composition of the text, the Biblical context, and the interpretation of the text. The translations of the text appear to be Vanhoye’s own (or at least his translator’s) and seem rather wooden at times (e.g., 10:26 begins, “If voluntarily, indeed, we continue to sin…”). There is no effort put forth into discussing authorship or provenance, so far as I can tell, and very little attention given to socio-historical features.

Vanhoye’s rhetorical analysis draws out many instances of synonymous, antithetic, and complementary parallelism, inclusio, propositio, chiasms, etc. He’s a very astute observer of quotations and allusions to the OT, and at times he refers to exegetical techniques such as qal wahomer, but he doesn’t seem to have transcended the lack of attention, development, and explanation of the author’s exegetical techniques as well as the lack of in-depth interaction with his underlying LXX texts, that Susan Docherty noted in her The Use of the Old Testament in Hebrews: A Case Study in Early Jewish Bible Interpretation. A commentary focused on rhetorical analysis seems as good a place as any to attempt to right these scholarly wrongs.

But perhaps we can attribute this to the overall feel of the commentary, which seems aimed at a more general audience of theologically inclined non-specialists (with some acquaintance with Greek and Hebrew) than scholars in particular. This would explain the general lack of features that we find in more technical commentaries (i.e., detailed exegesis of the Greek text, extensive use of Greek and Hebrew [which is there, but not in abundance], footnotes [which are few and far between], bibliography, and indices [there is a very limited index of authors, but that only shows the lack of interaction with others]).

The commentary itself is a mixed bag. Vanhoye’s treatment of 1:1-14 is masterful, especially 1:5-14, where he expounds upon “the name” inherited in v. 4. He points out features of the passage that I had not previously noticed, such as the force of asking to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son.” Angels were referred to as “sons of God” collectively in the OT, but no one angel in particular was ever referred to as God’s Son (80). Vanhoye also does well to debunk the interpretation of 1:8 that would understand it as saying, “Your throne is God forever and ever.” He says that this is “untenable, for it presents God as a seat on which the king is sitting! No text in the Bible proposes this aberration” (83). He goes on to note that the title “God” is not reserved for God (= YHWH) alone, but it is used hyperbolically of humans, yet when it is applied to the risen Christ it “loses its hyperbolic character and becomes the expression of genuine reality” (84); a simple, yet effective line of argument, which he naturally expounds upon well past my brief summary.

I found myself wanting more out of his treatment of the so-called warning passages (2:1-4; 3:1—4:13; 5:11—6:20; 10:26-39; 12:14-29). Some receive more attention than others (e.g., 2:1-4 receives a 7 page treatment [91-98]; 12:14-29 a 16 page treatment [381-97]; while 6:4-8 [181-82] and 10:26-31 [319-20] each receive about a page), which is understandable, I guess, but it’s hard to pin him down on whether or not he believes that true believers can apostatize. For example, of 2:1-4 he says, “«Neglecting so great a salvation» obviously means consigning oneself to perdition” (96), but then goes on to say, “The preacher still does not say that it is a question of «eternal salvation»” (97). Presumably, as a Catholic, Vanhoye believes that apostasy is possible, but he never quite nails down what he thinks the author of Hebrews believed.

A couple of times I found Vanhoye to be a bit arrogant, as if better knew what the author meant than the author himself knew. For example, he charges the “preacher” with “clumsiness” for not perfectly fitting the rhetorical scheme that Vanhoye thinks he should (181). Perhaps the fault is Vanhoye’s in trying to force rhetoric on the text that isn’t there. Vanhoye later says that “The author imperfectly expresses himself” (220) in Hebrews 7:27. Vanhoye understands the wording here to be ambiguous and thinks that it can be construed to mean that Jesus offered up himself for his own sins, but as he goes on to note, “this interpretation is excluded because, because the beginning of the sentence affirms the innocence of the new high priest (26b) and because in 4,15 the absence of sin was pointed out” (220). So the allegedly imperfect expression could only be misunderstood out of context, but then again, what couldn’t be?

In the end I think that A Different Priest stands out as unique among other Hebrews commentaries. I can think of no other commentary that is devoted to rhetorical analysis above all else, and I certainly can’t think of one that is aimed at a more general audience of what I’d consider mid-level students (undergrads & well-read non-specialists who can handle a lexicon). The things that would help to improve this volume are indices. It desperately needs a Scripture/Ancient source index and a subject index would be incredibly helpful as well. I would have also appreciated a bit more decisiveness on some of the more controversial passages as I noted above. Still, I think this would make a welcome addition to the commentary user’s library.

B”H

Here’s some other posts to check out on the topic:

• T. D. Jakes Not a Modalist? An Update from the Elephant Room — Michael Patton
• A Mega-Friday DL on TD Jakes and Elephant in the Room — James White
• Is T. D. Jakes a Trinitarian? — Brian LePort
• Is Oneness Pentecostalism the Same as Sabellianism/Modalism? — Brian LePort

B”H

Jesus is the author of eternal salvation to all who obey him (Heb. 5:9); his blood obtained eternal redemption for us when the blood of goats and calves couldn’t do it (Heb. 9:12); he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance (Heb. 9:15); God makes us perfect in every good work by the blood of an eternal covenant (Heb. 13:20-21). I don’t know about you, but I can’t read Leviticus without thinking about this, and I’m glad about that. Those are a lot of “eternals” that bring me joy and comfort and confidence when I think about them.

B”H

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