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.