Review of Zondervan's New Commentary on Ephesians

Zondervan has just released a new commentary series on the New Testament, with four titles available: Matthew, Galatians, Ephesians, and James. When I had the chance to grab an early reviewer's copy of Ephesians, I jumped on it! After having spent the last few weeks perusing the commentary, I can say that overall, it is definitely a good addition to my personal library.

In the preface, author Clinton E. Arnold remarks that Ephesians is the book out of which he has most preached and taught over the years, and his love for this Pauline epistle comes across throughout this commentary. Arnold provides a detailed and robust introduction to the book that should leave the reader with no questions about the historical background of Ephesians. While this, of course, is standard fare for any commentary, his introduction is among the best and fullest I've read. In addition, Arnold provides a very nice section about the theology of the epistle at the end of the commentary, which means that the work provides not only detailed information about each verse of Ephesians, but it also steps back from the minutia and reviews key themes of the book at a broad level. This fact alone should be of much aid to anyone who uses this commentary for preaching or study. Regarding the actual, verse-by-verse commentary itself, I feel that Arnold has done a good job, although in this respect it is probably equally as good as WBC, BECNT, NIVAC, or any number of other commentary series. To be fair, Arnold does do the reader a service by providing the actual Greek text along with his translation and by providing paragraph diagrams, which include layman's descriptions of the various parts of Greek syntax that Paul is using. Arnold also frequently refers to Wallace and BDAG in the footnotes, which makes diving deeper into a word or phrase much easier for the intermediate-and-above student of Greek. In the end, however, one should not expect to find much new and ground-breaking material in the commentary section. Used in conjunction with several other commentaries on Ephesians, though, it will still be of great help.

I should issue one caveat: This commentary is definitely designed for someone with a working knowledge of biblical Greek. Although a Greek neophyte will be able to learn much from this commentary, a full interaction with the material requires that the reader understand the original Greek language, including syntax. Arnold uses many technical terms throughout that would probably serve to confuse non-Greek readers more than help them. That being said, if you have had Bible-college or seminary training, ZECNT Ephesians would be a valuable addition to your regularly referenced commentaries.

Review of The Idea of the Holy by Rudolf Otto

I decided to read The Idea of the Holy by Rudolf Otto when I saw that it was on C.S. Lewis' top-ten list of books that influenced him, reasoning that if it was good enough for Lewis, it was probably worth my time to read. All I can say after having read several of the list's books is that Lewis has strange tastes!

The Idea of the Holy is Otto's attempt to pick up where systematic theology leaves off. That is to say, while systematic theologies treat the rational aspects of God, The Idea discusses the non-rational divine aspects. How does one describe that which is by definition indescribable? Otto does so by using the via negativa (what it is not), metaphor (what it is like) and appeal to personal experiences in the believer's life, including one's a priori understanding of the holy. For Otto, the non-rational aspects of God, which he dubs "the numinous," can be explained (as best as one can) by the mysterium tremendum. Mysterium refers to the "wholly other" aspect of God--elements that differ in essence from everything that humans know and can describe. Tremendum refers to God's awefulness, His majesty, His overpoweringness, and all that causes humans when confronted with Him to experience what the Bible calls "the fear of the LORD." Taken together, we see that deep in God's nature there is something that we cannot ever fully understand, something which instills soul-shaking fear and respect, yet something for which we yearn, and indeed something which we as a race have felt from the beginning of history.

After discussing the concept--or feeling--of the mysterium tremendum and its means of expression in some detail, Otto turns to the expressions of the numinous in the Old and New Testaments and in Luther's works. The chapter "The Numinous in the New Testament" is especially worthwhile because of Otto's thoughts on the kingdom of God and predestination. He does an excellent job reaching past the "rational" mindset of the post-Enlightenment West and viewing those key theological concepts as part of God's supra-rational plan. Specifically concerning election, he writes

"The idea of 'election'…is an immediate and pure expression of the actual religious experience of grace. The recipient of divine grace feels and knows ever more and more surely, as he looks back on his past, that he has not grown into his present self through any achievement or effort of his own, and that, apart from his own will or power, grace was imparted to him, grasped him, impelled, and led him. And even the resolves and decisions that were most his own and most free become to him, without losing the element of freedom, something that he experienced rather than did." (p. 87)

Any true follower of Christ will at once recognize the truth of this statement--although it may defy rational analysis--because he or she has experienced it and knows it is true a priori.

Otto goes on to discuss how the idea or feeling of the numinous developed throughout humankind's history to become what it is today in "civilized" religions such as Christianity, and how its origins can still be seen in "primitive" tribal religions today. Here Otto writes under the assumption that religion evolved gradually from primitive humans, a theory also adopted by C.S. Lewis. As I find it hard to rationalize this view with my own interpretation of the early chapters of Genesis (namely, that Adam was a real man who had a close relationship with God, at least prior to the Fall), this part of the book remained fairly unhelpful to me. To one with a different interpretation of Gen 1-11, it may provide much more benefit.

Overall, this is a very difficult book to read. As Otto himself states in the forward, no one who has not mastered the rational aspects of God (i.e. systematic theology) should venture into the numinous. I could also add that to get the most out of this book, one should also have some familiarity with philosophy (and esp. early-1900s German philosophers and theologians such as Schleiermacher), biblical Greek, Latin and even some German, and be accustomed to the writing style of circa 1920. As someone with some but not all of this knowledge, the book was especially challenging for me. However, I did gain some valuable insights from it, and I plan to read it again at a later date. All in all, I felt the book was worth reading, but its appeal will ultimately be limited to a very specific audience.

Report: Everything Harmful to Everyone

PRAGUE - An international committee of top scientists released a long-anticipated report on Wednesday regarding the dangers of everything for everyone. According to the report, which is the culmination of years of study, everything on the planet is potentially threatening to any person, given the right set of circumstances.

“We spent years in the lab testing everything we could think of,” said top scientist and report author Dr. Miles Ferguson. “Lab tests confirmed that even an innocuous substance like water, when heated to above 212 degrees, could cause steam that can burn a person’s hand or other body parts.” The report recommends that people strictly limit their interaction with water, and that pregnant women should avoid it altogether. Other items that the five-year study found potentially dangerous were child car seats—a review of data revealed that 3 children had sustained slight injuries due to malfunctioning seat belts in the last 10 years—, banana peels—which test confirmed might cause an injurious fall if discarded on a smooth floor—, and all known flora and fauna—due to the risk for allergies, bites and scratches, and goring and trampling, in the case of mega-fauna. The report states, “We recommend that all persons avoid interaction with all animals, including wild, domesticated and feral, and plants, especially grasses, due to the inherent risk of associating with them, which may lead to harmful side effects or even death in some cases.”

Additionally, the report noted that many of the ins and outs of daily life are, in fact, potentially dangerous. Food-storage containers, for example, were determined to be particularly unsafe. “Plastic containers sometimes contain harmful chemicals,” stated Ferguson, “which might increase your risk for getting stomach cancer, and glass containers can break, resulting in razor-sharp shards.” Exercise, too, was found to be a risk-taking endeavor; one team discovered that many thousands of people had been injured or died during a workout. Furthermore, as many people exercise outdoors, this leads to an increase in the risk of skin cancer. Team lead Dr. Paul Daniels said, “Although we recognize the health benefits of moderate exercise, we feel these are outweighed by the possibility of melanoma, muscle strains, joint sprains and heart failure. It’s best just to avoid it.” But if you think avoiding exercise means more time for television, guess again. The study found that when rats were subjected to viewing television for more than 18 hours a day, their risk for eye cancer elevated by an almost statistically significant amount.

“Driving cars, eating, sleeping, paying bills, yard work, duct tape and even nature itself were all found to be potentially dangerous, and in some cases, fatal,” said Lewis Johnston, co-author of the nearly 5,000-page report. “We recommend that in order to negate all safety and health risks, persons should do nothing and be nowhere 100% of the time. Total abstinence and non-existence is the only way to ensure your safety and health will remain secure.”

Happy Earth Day!

In honor of Earth Day yesterday, I thought I would post some of my own ideas on the environment, or more particularly, on the environmental movement. While I do think stewardship of the earth is an important aspect of mankind's work--in fact, a divine command given to us in the Garden of Eden--I take issue with the environmental movement as a whole. It strikes me as a movement striving toward an earthly, man-made (and carbon-free) Utopia that is attempting to force the rest of us into submission in order to achieve that goal. It has moved from promoting healthy human interactions with our environment to a battle for political power, based on an anti-biblical worldview.

Therefore, I present to you the changes I would like to see in the environmental movement:

• Drop the "salvation" language. If I switch to a hybrid car or turn my lights off for an hour once a year, it is not going to "save the earth." There are billions of people in the non-West who are more than making up for me in the "Global Warming" game. Plus, since there are problems with climate data dating back to 1960 (see next), we must question the underlying proposition that the earth is heating up due to human causes in the first place.
• Admit that there's a problem with the data. With the recent Climategate scandal, we now know that much of the data that the UN (via the IPCC) is using to determine whether or not the earth is heating up was deliberately altered. Unfortunately, the original 40+ years' worth of data has been "lost," so we will never know what the real temperature data is. And even if we did have the original data, the manner in which it was collected has also been shown to be suspect.
• Stop using the environment as a motivator. Yes, the environment is important. Yes, bettering the environment for its own sake is a noble cause. But most people aren't going to get motivated and make radically life-altering choices because of "the environment." If you really want people to be environmentally friendly, make it cheaper than the alternative and stress this fact ad nauseum. The caveat here is that it has to be cheaper in the short-term; as a consumer, if I'm buying an electric car, for instance, I'd better be able to come out ahead financially in 2-3 years' time--not 10.
• Let the free market "do its thing." When cars came out, the government did not have to enact legislation to force people to switch from horses. The car was a better mode of transportation that was affordable to most people, so most people sold their horses and bought cars. The same could be said for ice boxes and electric refrigerators, land lines and cell phones. When consumer demand is high enough, someone will come up with an affordable product to sell--and that includes "eco-friendly" products.
• Quit the scare mongering and guilt trips. Fear and guilt are poor motivators. We all want clean air and water, and we all want to preserve forests for future generations. Making me feel like a jerk because I don't use Denver's inadequate public-transit system, or telling me that if I don't act in wild and financially irresponsible ways, the earth will be destroyed before my kids grow up, well, that's just irritating. How about some positive reinforcement every now and then?

Happy Earth Day, everyone!

Pro-Choice is Anti-Woman

Below I have posted an excerpt from the Constructive Curmudgeon. The entire article is worth reading, regardless of your position on the role of women in the church, but I think all sides in the debate can agree with this:

11. To be “pro-choice” is to be anti-woman. This truth was seen clearly by early feminists, but it is lost to the view of modern feminists. Nineteenth-century feminists sought to hold men accountable to moral standards for sexual behavior, and opposed abortion in part because it allowed men to escape their responsibilities. Modern feminists, however, have leveled the moral landscape by advocating sexual promiscuity for women as well as men—which has created a demand for the “quick fix” of abortion. Because abortion is now seen as the woman’s “choice,” pregnancy and parenthood are also seen as the woman’s choice. This puts the entire responsibility for children upon the mother, and relieves the father of any obligation to care for his offspring—which hardly works in favor of women’s social freedom and equality. The fundamental assumption of the abortion agenda is that women are not “equal” as women (a condition that can involve pregnancy); they must have the opportunity to be made “equal” (i.e., not pregnant) through invasive surgery, whenever the “man’s world” in which they live, and to which they must adapt, requires it. In advocating abortion rights, modern feminism betrays the premise of any liberation movement (namely, belief in the equal rights of all human beings) by denying the rights of preborn humans.

Cognitive Dissonance

When it comes to abortion, the government "has no right to interfere with such a personal, private decision" (i.e. the decision to kill an unborn person).

When it comes to health care, the government "has the right duty to interfere with such a personal, private decision" (in the form of a mandate to purchase health insurance).

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over.

Myth of the Modern Man

As many people come to the Bible, they bring with them a peculiar bias. It's one they probably don't even realize they have. Nevertheless, it's the starting point for a train of thought that casts doubt on the accuracy of Scripture and can lead one far from the path of God. I call it the Myth of the Modern Man.

It goes like this: Our modern society has mastered electricity, the combustible engine, canned foods, computer technology, the Internet, satellite television and many other advanced technologies. We've figured out human psychology to the extent that we've got it all documented in the DSM. We've mapped the human genome and can trace our DNA ancestry back hundreds of thousands of years. We no longer hunt and gather, engage in bartering or fight each other with pointy sticks (most of us, anyway). We are so much more advanced technologically and sociologically than other previous peoples that it follows that we must be vastly smarter than they were, too.

From this foundation proceeds the idea that the Bible just can't be right. After all, people back then thought that the gods controlled the weather and demons caused epilepsy. Since we who are vastly superior intellectually know those things can't be true, we have no reason to trust them to have gotten anything else right, either. Everyone knows that people don't get swallowed up by a fish and then vomited out three days later. There might have been a king named David, but most of what is written about him is legend, you see. Jesus may have been a nice guy, but he didn't really rise from the dead--these things just don't happen! Even though we are removed from the events of the Bible by many thousands of years more than the original authors, we second-guess them from our Modern throne and say, "But of course it didn't really happen like that."

A cursory examination of architectural and artistic history sheds light on the Myth of the Modern Man, however. The great pyramids, for example, are very large and intricate structures that are extremely precise in their layout. They still rank among the wonders of the world. They were made by humans long ago without the aide of computers, machines or even metal tools. Try making a pyramid using only your brain and a stone hammer--not so easy, is it? Much the same can be said for Stonehenge and many of the buildings erected by early peoples of the Americas. Machu Picchu's architects created an intricate system to provide the location with water from a nearby spring, and they devised an underground drainage system to prevent the torrential rains from washing the whole place off the mountaintop--a system which has been working quite well for the last 600 years. Artistically speaking, I will never forget an example I saw at a museum in Kansas City a few years ago. Archaeologists had found a piece of jade which had been fashioned into a 6" cube and had a 1" hole drilled through its center. Jade is a material that is harder than diamonds, yet someone thousands of years ago was able to drill a hole through six inches of the stuff (for merely aesthetic reasons, nonetheless!). To this day, no one knows how the feat was accomplished.

The examples go on and on, but the point is clear: Earlier peoples were just as smart and ingenuous as we are. They mastered the materials of their day (stone, iron, etc) and created wonderful and lasting works without the aid of our modern contrivances. They created such fundamental things as writing and philosophy, which are the building blocks of our own society. Their only tools were whatever they could find around them and their wits, and they used them skillfully. These were smart people. And if they were able to do all of this, does it not follow that they could perceive events just as well as we? And is not the corollary also true that they could sniff out a fishy story just as well as we?

And yet, unlike us, the early biblical writers did believe the stories they heard and documented. The stories made sense to them; something about them rang true. Maybe they even had a grandfather who told them what it was like to serve King David. Maybe they were well aware of a type of aquatic animal that could swallow a man whole. Maybe they knew some of the 500 people who saw the resurrected Christ with their own eyes. Maybe things did happen differently and for different reasons in another time and another place.

So the next time you are tempted to read the Bible and ask, "Did it really happen like that?" think about living without the benefits of modern technology. How long would you last? How observant would you have to be to completely sustain yourself and your family using only what you could hunt, trade or grow from the land? How long would you last in such an environment if you believed everything anybody told you? The answers to these questions might persuade you that those folks might have indeed known and recorded what really happened.

Today

The Winter Olympics are an amazing thing to watch. Here are people who have devoted their entire lives to a given sport (most of which are incredibly dangerous) and are now at the pinnacle of success. They execute triple lutzes, Double McTwist 1260s and 90-mph luge runs flawlessly, looming larger than life above us normal folk who work in an office for a living. We look at them and think, "I could never do that." And for most of us, we are right. We weren't privileged to be raised near a mountain range; our parents didn't start us in competitive skating at age 2; and, most importantly, we don't have a natural inclination to cheat death on a daily basis.

But think of successful men and women in other areas. Businessmen, speakers, teachers, singers and songwriters, moms and dads. Whatever it is you aspire towards, whatever personal or career goals you have, you no doubt have your role models, your idols. "The best." Those people about whom you think, "I could never be as good as him." The difference between these cases and those above is that in these cases, for most of us, we are wrong to think in this way. Each of these people is most likely just like you, dealing with the same issues, the same circumstances, the same constraints. In many cases, Fortune did not smile upon them; success was not given to them on a silver platter, nor did where they were raised come into play. (And thankfully, death-cheating was rare.) What does set them apart, in large measure, is their attitude.

While this is a multi-faceted topic, of course, I think I have identified a key aspect of this attitude (or at least I'm hoping so!). Like most of us, I, too, have personal and career aspirations. And because I am an overachiever, I set the bar high for myself. Without going into details, I want to be the best that I can possibly be--all the time. And when I do less than my best, it really grinds me. I can't stand it. Unfortunately, one cannot be at his best all the time. Perfection is a goal which can never be achieved. I have tried to come to grips with that. I understand that I will never reach perfection this side of the grave; I will not reach all of my goals tomorrow, or next month, or next year. And as I get older I am learning that I can't even do all of the things I should be doing to achieve those goals. It's just not possible. But what I can do is ask myself a question. Every day, I can ask myself, "What can I do today?"

What can I do today to move one inch closer to my goals? What can I do today to become a better, healthier person? What small thing is in my power to control that I can change for the better today? Asking this question is enormously freeing and gratifying. Will I be out of debt tomorrow? No. But can I make a good financial decision today, one that will help me become debt-free? Probably. Will I ever know everything there is to know about the Bible? Not a chance. But can I take a few minutes to become more acquainted with it today? More than likely, yes. Am I the world's best dad? Despite what any coffee mug or t-shirt I may someday receive might say, I doubt I am. But can I take Brodie for a few minutes to give his mom a well-needed break? Well, it doesn't take a genius to answer that question.

Am I great? Am I among those to whom people refer as "the best?" I would highly doubt it. Will I someday become noticeably successful? I'll leave that question for others to decide (they'll be the ones who would have to notice, after all). Will I at least achieve my own goals? That's the plan. And when I do achieve those goals, I'll know that it wasn't because I won the lottery, or because the Spirit miraculously endowed me with a Blombergian knowledge of the Bible in my sleep, or because I was visited by the Dad Fairy. I'll know that it was because each day between now and then, I made the decision to do something small, something positive, something today.

C.S. Lewis' Space Trilogy: A Review

The words "philology" and "exciting" are seldom used in the same sentence. In fact, one would imagine that a trilogy of books whose protagonist was a philologist would be tedious and downright boring. If the author of that trio of novels were C.S. Lewis, however, one could not be farther from the truth!

I speak of C.S. Lewis' epic Space Trilogy, which I just completed reading. The hero in all three books (Out of the Silent Planet, Perelandra and That Hideous Strength) is Dr. Elwin Ransom, who begins the series (in Out of the Silent Planet) as a mild-mannered linguist. While on a walking trip in Europe, he stumbles upon two scientists (named Devine and Weston) who end up kidnapping him and forcing him onto a spaceship headed to Malacanrda, a distant planet. Ransom soon learns that he is to be handed over to the Sorn, whoever that might be, and in all likelihood, killed, upon their arrival to the planet. In a daring move, Ransom escapes his human captors soon after they touch down and must survive on his own in a distant world. He meets several races of sentient beings along the way, befriending them and learning their language. He eventually finds himself face-to-face with the spiritual being (called an eldil) who protects the planet and, well, to say any more would spoil the story!

The saga continues with Perelandra. Ransom, who, along with his original captors, travels back to Earth at the end of the first book, is now summoned by an eldil to travel to another planet, Perelandra. Once on the planet, he meets a green woman who he learns is that world's "Eve." Furthermore, "Eve" has been separated from her "Adam," and Ransom teams up with her to look for him. By a stroke of luck (if one believes in that sort of thing), the language Ransom learned on Malacandra turns out to be Old Solar, the same tongue spoken by the green woman. Ransom does not succeed at finding the green woman's husband, but he does succeed at finding Weston, who has traveled there from earth in his spaceship. But this is not the same Weston he knew before. This Weston now takes on the role of the Serpent, trying to trick "Eve" into disobeying the command of the great Maleldil. Ransom realizes it was for this that he has been summoned to Perelandra, and so he does battle against Weston--a gripping tale that comprises most of the second half of the book. To tell more, again, would ruin this story for you. Let it suffice to say that Ransom does make it back to Earth again.

The final book, That Hideous Strength, continues Ransom's story, but in a most different way. This story is set on our own planet--Britain, in fact--and it centers on a "sinister technocratic organization" that has great plans for the human race. The organization, called the National Institute of Co-ordinated Experiments (N.I.C.E.), is most intent on purchasing Bragdon Wood from the local college who owns it. The woods are thought to be the burial place of Merlin the Magician, whom N.I.C.E. wants to resurrect and use for their own evil ends. Ransom, now the Director of a small band of men, women and animals, must determine what exactly N.I.C.E. is up to, which he accomplishes with the help of a clairvoyant woman named Jane, and put a stop to it. Ransom finds additional help to do this in some unexpected (and some quite expected) quarters.

Overall, the trilogy was a delight to read and hard to put down. Although Lewis mentions that each book may be read alone, the true beauty of his story can only be seen by reading them all consecutively. Lewis' ability to write both fiction and nonfiction is, of course, extraordinary, and the Space Trilogy is as equally good as the Chronicles of Narnia. (It is important to note, however, that the former is written for adults, and the latter for children. The Trilogy is definitely a tougher read.) A few things stood out to me as I read that are worthy of mention. First, I found his take on myth to be fascinating. He contends (at least in these books) that ancient myths are not mere fables but are in fact usually rooted in history. Furthermore, things may have happened very differently thousands of years ago than they do now. One thinks of the plethora of flood myths found in ancient civilizations around the world--is this evidence that a global flood really did occur? Lewis might have thought so. Second, Lewis' ability to create evil characters is almost diabolical itself. These characters (Weston in the second book, and quite a few characters in the third) are evil for the sake of being evil. Especially frightening is Weston in Perelandra, who uses intellectual arguments, school-boy taunts and everything in between for his vile tools. In him is no appreciation for anything for its own value, but only for how it might advance his evil ends. There were times when I literally had the "heebie jeebies" as I read. Finally, That Hideous Strength is Lewis' attempt to put the ideas of The Abolition of Man into novel format. This leads the reader to realize that this story is not mere fiction; it embodies what could happen to a society that embraces total moral relativism. In that vein, one could construe this book as a prophecy--what the future might hold for us.

If you have not read C.S. Lewis' Space Trilogy, I highly encourage you to do so. As fiction, it makes for lighter reading than his other books, but one sees some of the same themes. It is also a captivating read--you'll find yourself sacrificing sleep, because you just can't put the books down! And finally, it may awaken a desire to read some of his other works, all of which are worth the effort.

Look Who's Talking Now, or Thoughts on Leviticus

I'm currently reading through that great and exciting tome, the book of Leviticus. What a joy it is indeed! In all seriousness, many people get bogged down when they reach this book. How many people (myself included) have had their "read through the Bible" campaign halted when they reach this seemingly dry, boring and utterly inapplicable book? Why is it still even in the Bible at all, we surely wonder. This time 'round, though, I have been reading Leviticus through a different lens, and although it cannot take all of the dry, technical writing out of the book, it has been teaching me about God--knowledge that is well worth the work.

What is this lens, this magic magnifying glass through which I am observing the text? Perhaps it is best expressed through the title of Francis Schaeffer's book He Is There and He Is Not Silent. Most people in the Ancient Near East (ANE) worshiped local gods, who were represented by idols. These idols were carved by the hands of men. They did not speak; they had no power. They were, in reality, nothing at all. Yet a group of former slaves from Egypt do not need idols carved by men. They don't need a silent representation of God; they hear His very voice. In the ANE, this is unheard of (pardon the wordplay)! What's more, this God is very, very powerful. He spoke the universe into existence, and now He speaks to them personally. He provides structure and order to their fledgling country. He describes in painstaking detail how to build the tabernacle, how to construct the priests' garb, and how and when to make sacrifices and have feasts. He gives them a civil law code, so they can know how to act, and a dietary law code, so they can know what to eat (quite a helpful thing in an age without refrigeration!). The maker of the universe condescends to talk to a rag-tag group called Israel, and even goes so far as to help them set up their government and cult, so that they might be an established nation.

Is Leviticus dry? Unless you enjoy reading blueprints and law textbooks, yes. Is it boring? When you remember that God is doing most of the speaking, it becomes much less boring. Is it inapplicable today? God is shown to be personal and to desire orderly worship. Furthermore, He wants our total devotion to Himself in all areas of life--civil, religious, even in what (or how) we eat! These truths alone will take a lifetime (and then some) to apply. The bottom line? Don't discount this admittedly hard-to-read yet enormously important book of Scripture. After all, God is there, He is not silent, and he wants to speak to you and me--even through Leviticus.

The New American Commentary: Judges by Daniel Block

"No book in the Old Testament offers the modern church as telling a mirror as this book." So ends Daniel Block's New American Commentary on Judges.* One might very well add, "The book is a telling mirror of American society as a whole." Block takes a biblical book describing events that took place 3,000 years ago and shows how relevant they still are through his solid exegesis of the text.

Throughout his commentary, Block reviews and expounds upon the continual decline of Israel after they entered the Promised Land, during the time of the shofetim (traditionally translated "judges," but Block uses the more technically correct term "tribal leaders"). Block traces two main themes of of Judges throughout his commentary. The first is the gradual Canaanization of Israel. In every episode, Israel and her shofetim take on more and more of the characteristics and culture of the surrounding peoples (the Canaanites), which of course is in direct disobedience of God's original command to them to completely and utterly destroy the native peoples. By the end of the book, the only people Israel attempts to destroy in this manner is the tribe of Benjamin--their own brothers and sisters! Block shows that this is the dramatic effect of acquiescence and indeed full acceptance of a sinful culture. The second main theme Block traces throughout the book is God's grace. Israel and her leaders follow and disobey the laws of God in whatever manner is most convenient for them at the moment. Although they cry out to God on multiple occasions, it is always a cry for help and never a cry of repentance. Every judge, save two (Othniel and Deborah), are shown to be poor leaders. And yet God continually saves them from destruction! As Block mentions several times, God is more concerned with redeeming his people than they are!

There are several other important topics that Block tackles in his commentary, not the least of which is the narrator's repeated observation that "there was no king in Israel." For those discussions, I would refer you to the commentary itself, which I felt was a good resource overall. Block provides the reader with the usual discussions of grammar, history and so forth that one expects in a quality commentary. I appreciated, too, how he wove the aforementioned themes together to provide his commentary and the biblical book with a good and memorable flow. On the other hand, I felt his "theological and practical implications" sections were rather weak. I would have liked to have seen some of these implications more drawn out, since Judges is so incredibly apropos to today's culture (and indeed, it was all too easy for this reader to find his own implications). I also must sadly admit that the commentary suffered from bad proofing. I have never seen so many basic grammar and punctuation errors in a published book. (I even found some of the Hebrew transliterations to be incorrect!) All in all, though, these negatives did not detract from the overall quality and value of Block's commentary, and it has become a welcome addition to my personal library.

*Note: The volume also includes a separate commentary on Ruth, which I have not yet read.

Ability and Desire: An Article Review

In my last post, I discussed an article from the (now) penultimate issue of the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (JETS) on biblical literacy of Victorian Britain and present-day America. A few short pages later, I discovered another stellar article that deserves comment, one that deals with the oh-so-contentious area of human free will.

The article, entitled “Ability and Desire: Reframing Debates Surrounding Freedom and Responsibility” and authored by Scott C. Warren, provided me with a valuable tool to use in my own theological journey. For quite some time now, I have been wrestling with the Calvinist/Arminian debate. To put it simply, I can see both sides of the argument. God is sovereign, and no one comes to Him except those that are drawn by Him (Calvinism). At the same time, sinners are held morally responsible for rejecting God, which implies that they had the freedom to choose this route (Arminianism). (I don't buy the hyper-Calvinist idea of double predestination, and I don't think John Calvin would, either.) But how do these two truths intersect? How does one marry the ideas of divine sovereignty and human free will in a logical, non-contradictory way? While I don't expect to resolve this tension completely in my lifetime, Mr. Warren provided me with an answer to a piece of the puzzle.

What the author did was to look at the word "freedom." What does freedom really mean? To answer that question, he draws a diagram. The outer perimeter of the diagram is a box labeled "all conceivable actions." That is, the box represents anything you might think that a person could do in any situation. Inside of the box is a circle representing those things which are actually actionable--that is, what a person has the ability to do in a certain situation. A second circle inside the box represents those things that a person desires to do--what he or she would like to do in a given situation. Finally, the two circles form a simple Vinn diagram, and the overlapping segment is where free actions reside. To make a long explanation simple, Warren defines freedom as "the ability to do what you desire to do." Freedom is thus comprised of ability and desire.

This turns out to be an extremely important distinction that throughout history and the present has been overlooked. But it helps to explain the biblical data very well. Take, for example, Hebrews 6:18, which states that "it is impossible for God to lie." Really? Something is impossible for an omnipotent being? Couldn't God tell a lie if he wanted to? And that is precisely Warren's point: God would not want to lie. An omnipotent deity may very well have the ability to lie, but a good God would not have the desire to lie. To lie would fall so far outside of God's desires that it may be referred to as impossible. In the same way, Jesus, who was fully man, was really tempted to sin and therefore had that ability, but being fully divine, did not have the desire to sin. Therefore, we can agree with Millard Erickson's words, "[Christ] could have sinned, but it is certain that he would not" (italics original).

This idea also works with human freedom. The author argues that humans in their natural state have the ability to repent of their sins and turn to God, but they do not possess the desire to do so. They are free to choose to follow or reject God, but they freely choose to reject him 100% of the time. Warren aptly sums it up when he writes, "The essential problem is not that sinners cannot do what they must, but that they will not do what they can."*

How, then does one change her inmost desire? How does a sinner change his propensity to sin? He doesn't--God alone can do this. Thus in Warren's ordo salutis, regeneration precedes acceptance of salvation. In other words, men and women freely act on their natural desire to reject God until God changes their desires, at which time they act freely to accept His rule. The author contends, and I agree, that without regeneration, a person cannot desire to repent. Thus even though she has the ability to repent, she would never act on it. Thus the certainty of sin and the justice of God's judgment of sinners are harmonized.

There are many more nuances to ponder and resolve (at least in my own mind) in the Calvinism/Arminian debate, enough to keep me busy for the foreseeable future. But thanks to a scholarly article in an obscure (for some) academic journal, I have received a nugget of wisdom that puts one more question to rest.

*In other words, if sinners were judged because they did not repent--and this because they could not repent--God would be unjust. But if sinners could reorient their own hearts toward God in their own strength--that is, if they themselves could obtain the desire to repent--there would be no need for grace.

Why 19th-Century Britain Challenges Me

Sometimes inspiration comes from the most unexpected places. I received the latest issue of the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (JETS) in early December and saw an article entitled "Literacy and Biblical Knowledge: The Victorian Age and Our Own." Interesting, I thought. I'll get to learn some history. Instead, I learned about myself.

The author, Timothy Larsen, discusses the basic attitude of 19th-century Britain concerning the Bible and the reading thereof, and then compares them to 21st-century America. What he found is alarming.

Victorian Age Britain:

• "Even the scientist T.H. Huxley, the original agnostic who wrote polemical works attacking the Scriptures, insisted on 'the use of the Bible as an instrument of popular education.'"
• Catherine Booth, founder of the Salvation Army, had read the Bible in its entirety eight times by the age of twelve.
• Florence Nightingale, who denied that the Bible was special revelation, nevertheless "read it earnestly every day, both by herself and aloud to her servants."
• "Obviously figures such as [the ones mentioned above] represent best practice, but the point is that Victorians across the denominational and theological spectrum agreed that this [voracious and regular (read: daily) Bible reading] was best practice, and there was a mass culture of aspiring to attain it across the traditions."

Current Day America:

• In 2004, the National Endowment for the Arts discovered that 43.4% of adults had not read a single book (much less the Bible!) in the entire previous year.
• "Most Americans now cannot name the first book of the Bible and half cannot name even one of the four Gospels."
• And finally, a personal quotation from me: "What percentage of people think that the axiom 'a house divided against itself cannot stand' was originated by Abraham Lincoln?" (Hint: Read Mark 3)

The article really hit home for me. It made me think about my own Bible reading habits. What I realized was that while I am academically familiar with scripture, having studied it in the classroom for many years, I was not as personally familiar with it as I should be. Even my own Bible reading was focused on studying various biblical books, and really diving deep. While this is a good habit, and one which I have not dropped, I was neglecting the broad, surveying reading that allows familiarity over time (and a more developed matrix for those deep dives). It is important to note, this was not an exercise in self-guilt, but rather a realization that I could be doing better. (Also, I didn't like the idea of being upstaged by a twelve-year-old girl!)

Because of this article, I have changed my own personal reading habits. I now carve out time to read the Bible every day, with the goal of reading it through multiple times this year (a feat accomplished by reading just 15-20 minutes a day). I still keep up on my other reading, too, but now I am prioritizing differently. I'm finding that I look forward to it, too. I'm beginning to engage with the story lines and connect with the characters. In short, I'm enjoying it.*

I would encourage you, then, to dust off that Bible and read it--purposefully, chapters and books at a time, not randomly, verses here and there--not as a guilt-ridden duty, but as a joyous opportunity. Don't try to understand everything the first time through, either, but remember that with discipline, you will have many more opportunities to increase your understanding. With this mindset, you just might be unexpectedly surprised. I know I have been.

*And I'm watching less TV--and added bonus!

LiterateTwit

I've finally done it. I've joined the Twitter craze. I did it on a whim, really. I was reading a book and had just marked a sentence as important with my pen when I thought, "What if I tweeted this?" What if I provided brief excerpts of what I've read in the hopes that someone, somewhere would be intrigued enough to pick up the text in question? I thought it was a worthy enough idea that I implemented it. Therefore, I bring you LiterateTwit.

Be forewarned: I will not be tweeting about my daily life--when I go to the store, when we run out of toilet paper, and that sort of thing. My tweets will deal exclusively with material I am reading so as to edify the recipient and encourage him or her to read quality books, journals and articles. It will also be replacing the Reading List section of my blog. In the future, then, in order to know what I'm reading, just check Twitter!