There is at least one thing in common between Christianity and Judaism: monotheism. However, not everyone will agree with that. To many, Christianity’s claim that it is a monotheistic religion is at the very least a mix-up of categories. You cannot say that you worship only one God, but then define it in such a way that strains the definition to the max. The doctrine of the Trinity seems to be a way that Christians found to have their cake and eat it too.

But when we talk about monotheism, what are we really referring to? Are we certain that the way we’ve come to understand monotheism is the same way Jews and Christians understood it in the 1st century? That’s the main question James McGrath, associate professor of Religion at Butler University (see his blog Exploring our Matrix), poses to us in his book The Only True God. Simply assuming that the way we define monotheism today and the way it was defined two thousand years ago is a huge fallacy. We need to set aside our understanding of monotheism and let the texts that we have from that period define the term for us.

At first, I thought this was going to be a defense of Christian monotheism, showing that what people thought about the one true God was in line with later Christian doctrine. But what McGrath wants to remind us is that the worldview of the Jews and early Christians allowed for certain things that were later extrapolated (my word, not McGrath’s) in Christianity and suppressed in Judaism as a way to contain its new definition of monotheism. The result is that neither quite formulated its understanding of the oneness of God as was perceived early on.
Read more »

James Kugel intends his book How to Read the Bible to be a guide to, and a tour through, the Hebrew Bible. With over eight hundred pages, the book showcases most of what professor Kugel knows about the Bible—and that is a lot! It was a little daunting for me to get through book as I found it almost impossible not to stop here and there to digest its content and to get better acquainted with some ancient interpreter, or conversant with a particular hypothesis of biblical scholarship. This is what the book does: it shows you how the Hebrew Bible was interpreted in the past by both Jews and Christians, and how biblical scholars understand the meaning of the same biblical texts today. Kugel also has a website dedicated to the book worth checking out. And, if you want to know how the book is being received by the public at large, you will probably appreciate the article by David Plotz in the New York Times entitled Reading Is Believing, or Not.

To understand why the “interpretation” of ancient interpreters and modern scholars are almost always divergent, it would be helpful to outline the assumptions that, according to Kugel, ancient interpreters brought to the text:

1) They assume that the Bible was a fundamentally cryptic text: that is, when it said A, often it might really mean B.

4) Lastly, they believe that the entire Bible is essentially a divinely given text, a book in which God speaks directly or through his prophets

The assumption that the Bible is essentially a divinely given text came last because Kugel did not want to give the impression that the other 3 assumptions were just a by-product of it (for example, there is no need to assume that a divinely given text be cryptic). Kugel’s lecture Can the Torah Make Its Peace with Modern Biblical Scholarship? is also helpful in showing the dynamics between tradition and biblical scholarship. In this particular lecture, delivered at the Jewish Theological Seminary, he talks about the reference in the Mishnah to Rosh Hashanah as the “day of judgment” which is not found anywhere in the Hebrew Bible. How this belief came about, and how it became an unquestioned tradition in the Jewish community shows that interpreters were doing much more than just reading the Bible. Kugel says that although the Jewish people are known as the people of the Book, a much better title would be “the people of the interpretation of the Book.” And, I would venture to say, this is no less true of Christians.

Let me show you an example of Kugel’s approach in the book. The passage is Numbers 20:2-13 which recounts the events at Kadesh where the people of Israel once more complained about the lack of resources, and God tells Moses to get water from a rock. At first glance, the account seems to be about a similar miracle as the one back at Meribah in Rephidim. But, what is puzzling about it is that Moses says “these are the waters of Meribah.” Of course, we could look at this assertion theologically and say that Moses is just using a metaphor; in other words, he might be just making an allusion to the waters at Meribah to remind the people that their lack of faith is the same even forty years later. But, how did the ancient interpreters handle this, especially when we keep in mind the four assumptions above? And there is one more thing: there had not been a word about the Israelites lacking water since the book of Exodus.
Read more »

I recently read a fascinating book entitled They Also Taught in Parables: Rabbinic Parables from the First Centuries of the Christian Era by Harvey K. McArthur and Robert M. Johnston. The first part is a collection of selected parables of the תנאים (tannaim – the Rabbinic sages in the Mishnah from approximately 70-200 CE) and the second part comprised of essays on the nature of their parables and some comparisons with the parables of Jesus.

The rabbinic word for parable(s) is mashal/meshalim, and, to mark a literary item as a narrative mashal, the authors chose the following elements:

Explicit label. Often the introductory formulas to the items explicitly label them as meshalim. Some typical introductions are: “A parable”; “A parable: It is like unto . . .”; and “They parable a parable. Unto what is the matter like? It is like unto. . . .”

Abbreviated label. Frequently the introductory formulas are abbreviated in such a way that the word mashal itself is omitted: “It is like unto. . . .”

Structural characteristics. The immediate environment and internal structure of the typical narrative mashal in its fullest form include these five parts:

Here is an example:

Read more »

G. K. Beale’s book The Erosion of Inerrancy in Evangelicalism: Responding to New Challenges to Biblical Authority is a response to what he believes is a challenge to biblical authority that has arisen recently in evangelicalism. The book contains a response to Peter Enns’ book Inspiration and Incarnation, a defense for the single authorship of Isaiah, and a discussion of Old Testament cosmology as opposed to its modern scientific understanding.

It was somewhat frustrating to read the first part of the book because I had already read Beale’s articles (and rejoinders) along with Enns’ responses. What you get in the first few chapters is basically this exchange (Enns’ responses are summarized) with some modifications. I do not understand why Beale chose this format having the benefit of Enns’ responses. His critique is extensive and Enns’ original responses are short (as responses should be) so, at the end, you do not get a balanced exchange (plus most people will probably not bother to read Enns’ articles although Beale encourages us to do so). I do not mean to imply that Beale isn’t asking good questions or doesn’t have some valid points (this back-and-forth is what should be happening). What I did not appreciate was the format and the fact that Beale seems to put Enns in the worst possible light. This part of the book will satisfy those who didn’t like Enns’ book and irritate those who did.

The chapter on Isaiah’s authorship basically repeats traditional arguments and, from what I could see, does not advance the discussion. This will probably be of interest to people who would like to have a summary of the arguments for the single authorship of Isaiah and why Beale believes they are important. In the end, he concludes that a different view can not be said to hold a high view of Scripture.

Perhaps, the best chapter in the entire book in my opinion is chapter 6 entitled “‘Can Old Testament Cosmology be Reconciled with Modern Scientific Cosmology? Part 1.” Read more »

Christopher Wright is a gifted writer. His book Knowing Jesus through the Old Testament, which I read maybe two years ago, gave me a glimpse of the type of thinker he is. He is able to restate things that you either heard before or thought you knew from a new angle and often with fresh insights. His works on Old Testament ethics, Old Testament Ethics for the People of God, and mission, The Mission of God, are on my bookshelf and I always feel guilty that I haven’t gotten around to reading them yet. Many people have sung high praises of The Mission of God as an unparalleled work on a biblical theology of mission (one that takes seriously what the OT has to say about it). I also enjoy listening to Wright’s preaching at All Souls which is available for free.

It was then, with surprise and delight, that I heard that he wrote a book entitled The God I don’t Understand: Reflections on Tough Questions of Faith (there is a site dedicated to this book here). I immediately started asking questions like: what is it about God that Wright doesn’t understand? Are his tough questions of faith the same ones I have? Will he point things out that will create more tough questions for me?

The book answered these questions, specially the first one. But to get a sense of the tone of the book, it is helpful to see what is Wright’s goal in writing it.

Those who read this blog know how much I like Ecclesiastes, and I was delighted to see Wright using it to summarize his intention (it is only fitting that Qohelet would have a say in a book called The God I don’t Understand):

When I applied my mind to know wisdom and to observe the labor that is done on earth-people getting no sleep day or night-then I saw all that God has done. No one can comprehend what goes on under the sun. People toil to search it out, but no one can discover its meaning. Even if the wise claim they know, they cannot really comprehend it. (Ecclesiastes 8:16-17, emphasis of the author)

“Even those who claim to have final answers to the deep problems of life on the earth God created are living in some degree of delusion. They don’t really know what they claim to know. My hope is that this book will share some of the honesty and realism of Ecclesiastes while being able to affirm wider dimensions of God’s action and revelation that were not available to the author in his day” (17).

Read more »

Kirk, J. R. Daniel. Unlocking Romans: Resurrection and the Justification of God. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2008.

Unlocking Romans first came to my attention in a post by Foolish Tarheel Daniel Kirk’s New Book: Unlocking Romans. Although I was not planning to read anything on Romans now (since I had spent some time on it last year), I was impressed by FT’s recommendation of Daniel Kirk as a person and his work. FT thinks that Kirk’s exegesis is “careful and sensitive” and whose sensitivity spans from “historical, cultural, communal, and theological issues of the first century to missional, practical, theological, and pastoral concerns for both then and now.” With this recommendation and the fact that Daniel Kirk would probably interact with the New Perspective on Paul, I decided to read the book. I was not disappointed.

Starting with the question of “Who is God?,” Kirk says that “no question is more central to the study of Paul than to determine at the outset which God we expect to find as the topic of his letters” (2). Can God be defined in universal terms without reference to the story of Israel? His answer is no.

If this is true, then we need to start asking questions about how God will fulfill his promises to Israel and be faithful to His covenant. Therefore the following statement gets to the heart of the thesis of the book:

“In Romans, the resurrection of Jesus becomes Paul’s key for demonstrating that the promises contained in the Scriptures have been fulfilled in the Christ event…Because Paul’s God is the God of particulars, the God whose righteousness is tied to a particular story in which God has promised to act in a particular way and to bless a particular people, Paul must show that his gospel message makes sense as the fulfillment of that God’s actions fulfilling precisely those promises and blessing that particular people” (8).

Basically, Jesus’ resurrection is the hermeneutical key for understanding Romans. In a sense, this book is proposing that Paul’s hermeneutics is a hermeneutics of resurrection.
Read more »

Berding, Kenneth, Stanley N. Gundry and Jonathan Lunde, eds. Three Views on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2007.

Issues surrounding the NT use of the OT have been of great interest to me for a long time, so it was with equally great delight that I read yet another contribution to this complicated and yet fascinating field of study.

The structure of Three Views on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament is very simple. It contains an introduction, closing remarks by one of the editors and three essays followed by a response by the two other opposing views. Although the length of the essays were adequate, I wish more space had been given for the responses.

The three views represented are:

Walter Kaiser – Single Meaning, Unified Referents
Darrell Bock – Single Meaning, Multiple Contexts and Referents
Peter Enns – Fuller Meaning, Single Goal

The task of each author was to answer the following questions:

• Is sensus plenior an appropriate way of explaining the NT use of the OT?
• How is typology best understood?
• Do the NT writers take into account the context of the passages they cite?
• Does the NT writers’ use of Jewish exegetical methods explain the NT use of the OT?
• Are we able to replicate the exegetical and hermeneutical approaches to the OT that we find in the writings of the NT?

It would be pointless to reproduce the arguments of each author here since this is a complex subject and there is no way I can do justice to their views. But I would like to make some general observations and share some personal impressions of the different positions and the book.
Read more »

Wright, N. T. Paul: In Fresh Perspective. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005.

A few years ago, a friend of mine recommended a book by N. T. Wright called “The Climax of the Covenant.” The author was unknown to me and the book’s title wasn’t particularly appealing. But because of some of the discussions we were having, he said that this book would help me see where he was coming from. I read the book and was captivated by it. I have to say that quite a bit of the book was way over my head and a lot just seemed like too much information for me to be able to process at the time. But I was able to get the gist of the issues involved and the solutions that Wright was attempting to put forth. This is one of the reasons why I need to read the Climax again because, since then, I have become more familiar with the issues and little more in tune with the process of exegesis. This is why I first started to read N. T. Wright. He was the author who really got me interested in N. T. exegesis and Paul in particular.

After many lectures, articles and books, I finally came around to reading “Paul.” I had read “What Saint Paul Really Said” before and I was glad to know that Wright had written a book that seemed to go beyond it and would become a sort of thumbnail sketch of what is to become his fourth volume in “Christian Origins and the Question of God.” Read more »

Heine, Ronald E. Reading the Old Testament with The Ancient Church: Exploring the Formation of Early Christian Thought. Grand Rapids, Michigan: BakerAcademics, 2007.

Although I am not particularly interested in the Church Fathers (CFs), there is something about their interpretation of the Bible, and in particular the OT, that fascinates me. Sometimes reading the CFs on particular issues or passages helps us understand the shape of our own hermeneutics. I also find quite interesting that people who value the contribution of the CFs tend to pick and choose the portions that they find helpful and almost ignore all the other things they have to say on other passages (often less palatable to our modern sensitivities). I will be honest, I haven’t read any complete work of any of the CFs, but I have read many of their sermons and commentaries on specific passages. Although I value their contribution to the development of Christendom and fight against heresies, I do not find them to be very helpful. This is especially true of their reading of the OT. That’s one of the reasons why I picked up this book.

Ronald Heine wrote a very readable book on the CFs’ attitude and interpretation of the OT. I thought it was brilliant of him to start by outlining the Christian attitude and disagreements over the role of the OT in the Reformation, Enlightenment, Romantic and Modern periods. By doing this, it was obvious that there was a huge contrast between these periods and the CFs who never questioned its central role in the life of the church.
Read more »

Beale, G. K. The Right Doctrine from the Wrong Texts: Essays in the Use of the Old Testament in the New. Grand Rapids Michigan: BakerBooks,1994.

This is a collection of 22 essays on the NT use of the OT. The authors have different perspectives on whether or not the NT writers respected the context of the OT passages they used. I especially liked the essays of Paul’s use of Exodus 34 in 2 Corinthians 3 because you could clearly see how the way one views this issue will change the interpretation of certain texts. I thought Morna D. Hooker’s essay was much better. I wish there were more essays of this type showing how authors with different perspective approach the same passage.

This collection is unbalanced as G. K. Beale felt that the position that sees the NT writers honoring the OT context has been outnumbered and this is a way to attempt to even the playing field. But I also think that the collection is unbalanced by the choice of essays of the opposition. The writing style of some of the writers will be off-putting to some people. For example, Morna D. Hooker, when referring to Paul’s use of Exodus 34, says that “there are blatant contradictions and non sequiturs in Paul’s argument” (290). Of course, this is qualified later as the point is to show that, according to Paul’s method of exegesis, these apparent contradictions are “due to the peculiarities of the text” (290) and not Paul’s inability as an interpreter. I think that another book like this should be edited which contained papers by writers like Peter Enns who will be a much better representative. Read more »