Ancient Wisdom Today » New Testament

The New Testament and the People of God

Maer — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 17:21:23 +0000

Wright, N. T. The New Testament and the People of God. 1st ed. Augsburg Fortress Publishers, 1992.

Superb! What a great introduction to 2nd Temple Judaism and 1st century Christianity! N. T. Wright first lays out his epistemological presuppositions and then works through different elements of Israel’s worldview in order to understand Christianity’s self-understanding. He maps out the worldview of first-century Judaism (or Judaisms), considering its symbols: Temple, Land, Torah, and racial identity. This worldview is explained in terms of creational monotheism, election, and eschatology. The result is a highly enjoyable and challenging read that lays the foundation for his other volumes.

“The great story of the Hebrew scriptures was… inevitably read in the second-temple period as a story in search of a conclusion. This ending would have to incorporate the full liberation and redemption of Israel, an event which had not happened as long as Israel was being oppressed, a prisoner in her own land. And this ending would have to be appropriate: it should correspond to the rest of the story, and grow out of it in obvious continuity and conformity” (Wright 1992: 217).

Wright then proceeds to map out the worldview of first-century Judaism (or Judaisms), considering its symbols: Temple, Land, Torah, and racial identity. This worldview is explicated in Israel’s core beliefs of creational monotheism, election, and eschatology, understood in a covenantal context.

Acts 9:7 and 22:9 – Did They Hear the Voice or Not?

Maer — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 17:43:22 +0000

Listening to debates can be quite entertaining. Every once in a while you hear a good argument, learn something new, find out what different authors or scholars allegedly think, and even enjoy a nice come-back to a rebuttal or a timely joke at the expense of the opposition. But sometimes listening to debates may create more work for you because it is hard to believe everything you hear—are the debaters putting forth their best arguments or just trying to get the upper hand?—and a topic may arise that you just have to roll up your sleeves and check the facts out for yourself. In this post, within the context of a debate between Dan Barker and Mike Licona on the resurrection of Jesus¹, I will look at a particularly interesting syntactical phenomenon in Greek where ακόυω (hear) takes different cases for its object, and the role it may play in two different accounts of Paul’s conversion in Acts.

The Misunderstood Jew

Maer — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 02:03:16 +0000

Levine, Amy-jill. The Misunderstood Jew: The Church and the Scandal of the Jewish Jesus. HarperOne, 2006.

To me, the main value of this book is seeing the perspective of someone who is committed to Judaism but also happens to be a New Testament scholar. She begins by drawing an analogy—a tad strained, she admits—that, I believe, shapes the way she writes the book: “the Torah functions for the synagogue as Jesus does for the church: it is the ‘word’ of the divine present in the congregation” (Levine 2006: 17). Therefore, looking carefully at the worldview of each community is important if one is to understand the relationship between the two. She has many things to say about the interaction between Jews and Christians throughout history and the different ways that each misunderstands the New Testament. Although some will quibble about Levine’s exegesis of some passages, she does challenge Christians to take a closer look at those passages more critically, and I personally found her discussion of the parable of the Pharisee and the Tax-collector to be illuminating. All in all, it is a fascinating read even when there are points of disagreement.

Dig Out Your Ears! Hebrews, the LXX and Psalm 40

Maer — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 20:37:31 +0000

In celebration of “International Septuagint Day” Tyler Williams presents us with some Reasons to Study the Septuagint (in Honour of International Septuagint Day). I had also recently listened to D. A Carson’s sermon/lecture at UCCF Staff Training Conference on Psalm 40 where he talks about his understanding of how the LXX translates verse 40:7 and how Hebrews uses this psalm. Then Michael Heiser blogs about Hebrews’ quotation of Psalm 40:6-8 in The Naked Bible. He links to an article by Karen Jobes The Function of Paronomasia in Hebrews 10:5-7 where she contends that the author was using paronomasia for rhetorical effect.

So I thought it would be interesting to talk about Hebrews’ use of Psalm 40:7 by looking at Carson’s exposition and raising some questions. The reason why I think Carson’s treatment is useful is because he is not trying to get into technical stuff but wants to make Psalm 40 understood as a whole. I also thought it was a worthwhile exercise to see how he dealt with Hebrews’ use of Psalm 40.

Unlocking Romans

Maer — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 20:58:30 +0000

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.

The Seed: Four Theologians’ Quest to Understand Paul

Maer — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 21:57:03 +0000

One of the passages used to illustrate the NT use of the OT in Three Views on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament was Galatians 3 concerning Paul’s use of the word “seed.” I was especially interested in this passage because I remember being quite impressed with N. T. Wright’s treatment of it in The Climax of the Covenant a few years ago. In this post, I would like to do three things: 1) summarize each author’s understanding of this passage; 2) bring N. T. Wright into the conversation and explain, in broad strokes, his exegesis; and 3) ask which of the three views best reflects N. T. Wright’s approach.

Since Peter Enns chose the “seed” passage as one of his examples and elaborated on it in his essay, we get a fuller picture of Enns’ approach related to this particular issue. Kaiser and Bock merely responded to Enns so there will be some inevitable reading between the lines. But since I am only interested in the approach and not a full exegesis of the text, I believe each position can be fairly outlined (at least I will attempt to do that).

The Passage

Immanuel

Maer — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 16:24:47 +0000

I recommend an article by Rikki Watts called “Immanuel: Virgin Birth Proof Text or Programmatic Warning of Things to Come (Isa. 7:14 in Matt. 1:23)?” in From Prophecy to Testament edited by Craig Evans (Massachusetts: Hendrickson Pub. Inc., 2004) . It is a very thought-provoking article as he discusses the background of Isaiah concerning Immanuel and the different approaches to understanding the function of the name. Is Immanuel, “God with Us,” primarily a good or bad thing? Blessing or judgment? Although Watts recognizes that the term certainly can be used for salvation and blessing, “God with Us” is also used in contexts where judgment is in view. And it is judgment that makes more sense in the Isaiah passage. What Matthew does by citing Isa. 7:14 is to prepare the reader for the Immanuel citation. So “both names – Immanuel and Jesus – set the agenda for the gospel” and “they evoke different aspects of [the original Isaianic setting] – salvation and judgment” (113).