Exegesis and Theology

The Blog of Brian Collins

Hamilton on Niehaus’ Ancient Near Eastern Themes in Biblical Theology

by

Jim Hamilton has a helpful post on Jeff Niehaus’ Ancient Near Eastern Themes in Biblical Theology.

According to Hamilton, Niehaus is challenging evangelicals to use ANE background material from a seriously Christian and Biblical basis. In other words, the ANE background material should not dictate how one understands the Bible. The Bible should dictate how one understands the ANE material.

The works by Niehaus that I’ve read and consulted before have all been very good. See especially his commentaries on Amos and Obadiah in the McComiskey set on the minor prophets.

The Emerging Church or Old Liberalism?

by

This temper of mind is hostile to precise definitions. Indeed nothing makes a man more unpopular in the controversies of the present day than an insistence upon definition of terms. . . . Men discourse very eloquently today upon such subjects as God, religion, Christianity, atonement, redemption, faith; but are greatly incensed when they are asked to tell in simple language what they mean by these terms

J. Gresham Machen, What is Faith? 13-14 cited in John Piper, Contending for our All, 135.

There are places here where I have gone out of my way to be provocative, mischievous, and unclear reflecting my belief that clarity is sometimes overrated, and that shock, obscurity, playfulness, and intrigue (carefully articulated) often stimulate more thought than clarity.

Brian MacLaren, A Generous Orthodoxy, 22-23.

The Fear of the Lord is the Beginning of Knowledge

by

One of the Oswalt quotes noted last week demonstrates how unbelief can distort a scholar’s understanding of Scripture.

It is hard to understand how those who can assert that the theological function of this passage [Isa 36-37 / 2 Kings 18-19] is to claim that God acts in history can then assert with equal force that God did not act in this event (cf. Clements). If they do so to demonstrate that biblical theology is self-discredited, that is one thing. But to speak of the worth of the theology while denying its evidence is very odd indeed.

Oswalt, Isaiah, NICOT, 1:638, n.21

Other examples of this abound if one looks for them. Here are a few others.

In commenting on Ezekiel’s charge as a watchman, Zimmerli, Ezekiel, 2.185, speaks of ‘the complete irrationality of the divine activity.’ He refers to God’s first commissioning a foe against his people and then sending a watchman to warn them. ‘Such is the divine logic!’ says Zimmerli. This bold exclamation minimizes the justice of God in bringing judgment on the persistently wicked, the mercy of God in not taking pleasure in the death of the wicked (33:11), and the full responsibility of every human being for his own actions.

Robertson, Christ of the Prophets, 295, n. 30

Or note the contrast between the critical and evangelical commentators on Ecclesiastes 2:26:

Qohelet’s positive counsel rests under a cloud. The ability to enjoy life is not in anyone’s power, coming as a gift from God.

Crenshaw, Ecclesiastes, OTL, 89

The final verdict of ‘vanity’ refers to the arbitrary (from the human standpoint) action of God who does as he pleases.

Murphy, Ecclesiastes, WBC, 26-27

This verse does not present God as capricious but does relate to the biblical idea of the grace of God. To believe that one’s life is ruled by impersonal fate is intolerable; to believe that one’s life is controlled by a personal God is a comfort.

Garrett, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, NAC, 296

All these commentators are looking at the same data, but the evangelical sees God’s grace whereas the liberals see a capricious god.

The Court of the Tabernacle

by

The court of the Tabernacle was open to Jewish worshippers bringing their sacrifices. Again God’s presence with his people is highlighted. There is an area set aside where Israelites could gather before the dwelling place of God on earth to worship him.

The court also indicated the distance of God. The court was a fenced off area. Gentiles were not permitted. The wall of the courtyard thus symbolized a “dividing wall of hostility” made up of “the law of commandments expressed in ordinances” (Eph. 2:14-15).

Once again, the Tabernacle was blessed symbol of God’s presence, but it was also a reminder of the further progress that was needed to reconcile man to God.

Three Views on the New Testament use of the Old Testament

by

And another interesting offering from Zondervan [catalog, p. 48]

Three prominent scholars — Darrell L. Bock, Walter C. Kaiser, and Peter Enns — detail their positions on how the Old Testament relates to the New Testament, a topic of significant interest today. This includes substantial discussion of instances where the New Testament authors discern the fulfillment of a prophetic element in the Old Testament text. The book also incorporates questions about the nature of fulfillment and typology as aspects of this seminal issue.

Biblical Theology of the New Testament

by

Here’s another interesting offering from Zondervan [catalog, p. 40]

The Biblical Theology of the New Testament (BTNT) series aims at providing textbooks in the areas of New Testament theology, interpretation, and exegesis at the highest level of academic excellence. A multivolume work, its eight volumes will cover the entire New Testament and include Matthean, Markan, Lukan, Johannine, and Pauline theologies as well as works on the theology of Hebrews;
Peter, Jude, and James; and the Book of Revelation. Each volume is written by a recognized expert in the field who has written one or several major commentaries or monographs on the subject. This exciting new series is designed both for use in the classroom and seeks to make a significant contribution to the burgeoning field of biblical studies.

The theology of Matthew—Michael J. Wilkins
The theology of Mark—David E. Garland
The theology of Luke & Acts—Darrell L. Bock
The theology of John—Andreas J. Köstenberger
The theology of Paul—Douglas J. Moo
The theology of Hebrews—George H. Guthrie
The theology of Peter, James, and Jude—Thomas R. Schreiner
The theology of Revelation—Andreas J. Köstenberger and Alan S. Bandy

Oswalt on Isaiah

by

Oswalt’s commentary on Isaiah is masterful. Furthermore, not only is Oswalt helpful in elucidating the text, he is also unafraid to challenge unbelieving scholarship.

On Isaiah 36:20

It is hard to understand how those who can assert that the theological function of this passage is to claim that God acts in history can then assert with equal force that God did not act in this event (cf. Clements). If they do so to demonstrate that biblical theology is self-discredited, that is one thing. But to speak of the worth of the theology while denying its evidence is very odd indeed. [1:638, n. 21]

On Isaiah 42:20

The change from second person to third in the middle of the verse has been troublesome to translators since the time of the LXX . . . But none of these stratagems seems necessary given the well-documented tendencies for this kind of shift in Hebrew writing. [2:131-32]

On Isaiah 45:18ff.

These verses show a rather profound understanding of paganism. Because paganism refuses to admit of a God who stands outside the cosmos, it must posit that the beginning of all things was matter in chaos. Out of this chaos the gods emerged. The ordering of the chaos was something of an afterthought on the part of the gods to protect themselves from the ever-present danger of its reemergence. Humans are even more of an afterthought, created primarily to take care of the gods. Since the gods have no commitment to and accept no responsibility for humans, they have no interest in communicating with them. If humans wish to divine the future, they must resort to mediums, wizards, and necromancers (cf. 8:19). To all of this Isaiah says a resounding no! Chaos did not exist before God, and God did not bring a meaningless chaos into existence. Rather, the preexistent God created the cosmos specifically for human habitation. [2:218]

On Isaiah 49:6

Some modern translations (e.g., NRSV [ESV, NASB]) render the final phrase of the verse as ‘that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth.’ While this is not impossible, it is not the obvious sense of the grammar. The plain sense is: ‘I appointed you . . . to be my salvation to the ends of the earth.’ The former translation obscures the point that the Servant is not merely to be the means of God’s salvation coming to the world, he is to be that salvation. All the versions confirm this understanding.” [2:294]

John Oswalt on the OT & Myths

by

Here’s another forthcoming work form Zondervan that looks good:

The Bible among Other Myths
Unique Revelation or Just Ancient Literature?
John N. Oswalt

Sixty years ago, biblical scholars typically maintained that Israel’s religion was unique, that it stood in marked contrast to the faiths of its ancient Near Eastern neighbors. But nowadays it is widely affirmed that Israelite religion mirrors that of other West Semitic societies. What accounts for this radical change, and what are its implications for our understanding of the Old Testament?

Dr. John N. Oswalt says theological and philosophical convictions account for this new attitude among scholars, rather than a revision to the data itself. Its roots lie in the Western world’s increasing hostility to the idea of revelation. Revelation, which presupposes a reality that transcends the world of the senses, is objectionable to people because it assumes the existence of a realm over which they have no control.

Oswalt makes a detailed comparison of the Old Testament and the other ancient Near Eastern religions. While not advocating a “the Bible says it, and I believe it, and that settles it” point of view, he asserts convincingly that the Bible’s historical claims cannot be disassociated from its theological claims.

This thought provoking book supplies a necessary corrective to rejecting the Old Testament’s testimony about a transcendent God who breaks into time and space and reveals himself in and through human activity. Instructors will find it to be an ideal supplemental textbook for courses covering the Old Testament and Ancient Near Eastern backgrounds.

[see 2008 catalog, p. 16]