Book Review: From Eden to the New Jerusalem

From Eden to the New Jerusalem: An Introduction to Biblical Theology by T. Desmond Alexander 

Kregel ǀ Amazon ǀ WTS

Many thanks to the kind folks at Kregel for this review copy!

Interest in biblical theology (hereafter BT) has been on the rise in recent years and a number of fine volumes have been published on the subject. One of those entries is T. Desmond Alexander’s From Eden to the New Jerusalem: An Introduction to Biblical Theology . One thing that quickly becomes apparent is that Alexander’s approach is hardly like most others. Rather than an introduction to the discipline of BT per se, it’s more an example of how one can do BT. There is no discussion of the history of the discipline, nor of what constitutes such—it’s simply a demonstration of one approach to BT.

He states that this book has its origins in a study he was doing on what Revelation 20-22 reveals about death and the afterlife. Using that study as a springboard, Alexander explores the meta-story of scripture from…end to beginning? Yes, Alexander puts it in reverse and explores the grand story of scripture by starting at the end—Revelation—and working back to Genesis. By that I mean that his study of Revelation 20-22 serves as a catalyst to study from the beginning—Genesis0—and work through the Bible, tracing the development of particular themes.

You should not expect, however, a detailed walkthrough of the whole Bible, but rather a thematic exploration that hits on some of the more central themes in Scripture, the temple motif in particular. Admittedly, I had reservations about this approach; however, Alexander capably accomplishes the purpose he set out to achieve in this book, which is to answer the questions “Why does the earth exist?” and “What is the purpose of human life?”

Having said this, it seemed a bit odd (initially) that Alexander would have entitled the book From Eden to the New Jerusalem.  Given his approach, shouldn’t it have been the other way around? Not really, because Alexander vacillates back and forth between the two canonical bookends and discusses not only how each serves to frame the biblical story, but how the temple motif figures into the intervening material. Obviously this is not an exhaustive discussion of the motif, but a survey to show at minimum how the temple, from the garden of Eden to the New Jerusalem, is developed throughout the biblical story.

Overall, Alexander’s take on the meta-narrative of scripture is one with which I can mostly resonate. If someone wanted to know what my general take is on the big picture of scripture is, I would recommend this book. While I remain unconvinced that the whole of Scripture is bound by a single unifying concept or theme (Heilsgeschichte would be the most likely contender), Alexander ably answers the questions asked at the outset.

Though a few years old now, I gladly recommend this title, particularly if you are interested in biblical theology in general or the temple motif specifically. This book clocks in at only 208 pages (including bibliography and scripture index), so it will leave many questions unanswered or partially addressed. However, Alexander amply footnotes his discussion throughout. That and the bibliography should provide plenty of resources for additional study.

Αυτω η δοξα

Book Review: A Commentary on the Psalms: Volume 1 (1-41)

A Commentary on the Psalms: Volume 1 (1-41) by Allen P. Ross.

Kregel ǀ CBD ǀ Amazon

With thanks to Kregel Publications for the review copy!

While it may possible to read through this entire volume for the purpose of this review, I never read commentaries that way. As such, I will focus on a handful of psalms to serve as the focal point of this review. Volume 1 spans the first 41 psalms and from them I will provide a brief synopsis of Ross’s treatment of psalms 1, 2, 22 and 23. At the outset I must say that I am no expert on the psalter or the language in which they were written; in fact, I’m barely a novice, so my reflections will be in accordance with the measure of knowledge I have of the psalms. With that said, let’s commence with the review.

Ross’s introductory section (180 pages!) covers some of the typical issues (date, authorship, provenance, etc.) encountered in most commentaries, but he doesn’t devote whole sections to them. He instead intersperses discussion of these issues throughout the commentary itself as he finds them relevant. His attention then is paid to matters that are more particular to the psalter: abbreviations, the psalms’ value, the text and versions of the psalms, and titles and headings. Reading through these chapters shows the reader the psalms’ truly variegated nature. Following these chapters, Ross attends to other matters that are more broadly applicable, but important for understanding the psalms. These chapters cover the history of interpretation (which shows quite a diversity of approaches), biblical poetry (a notoriously untamable beast!), literary forms and functions in the psalms, theology of the psalms, and an exposition of the psalms. I won’t deal with these sections except to say they are helpful in equipping the reader with the appropriate tools necessary to begin the interpretive process in the psalter.

The first psalm I chose to evaluate is arguably the most important in the entire collection—Psalm 1. It’s place at the head of the psalter is not accidental and, as Ross argues, it along with Psalm 2 sets the theme for the whole psalter: the way the righteous are to live among the ungodly and the salvation the righteous have in their divinely chosen king (182). Psalm 1 is indeed concerned with the comparison of the righteous and the wicked and Ross ably works through the details so that the reader is clear on some of the important nuances in the descriptions. One aspect here I appreciate is his attention to the description of the ungodly (which plays out primarily in the footnotes). Discussing each of the three terms used to describe these “ungodly” each bear a slightly different nuance and drawing such distinctions can prevent unnecessary and inaccurate depictions of those outside the faith. Ross also draws attention to the apparent escalation of the descriptions of the two groups as well as to the verbs used to describe their actions (or inaction in the case of the righteous). All this reinforces the point—to enjoy the “heavenly blessedness” of God is to pursue life in the fashion of the righteous and abstain from undue influence from the ungodly. In general, Ross’s interpretation of this psalm is fairly consistent with how I understand it (not a claim to the veracity of said interpretation!) and there’s nothing here that one probably wouldn’t find in most standard commentaries.

Psalm 2 is a regal psalm that serves to remind God’s people of His plan for them in the absence of a Davidic king (199-200).  Here, as in the previous psalm, Ross offers a fairly straightforward interpretation that would find resonance with more conservative interpreters, though I don’t know that those who are less conservative would find much to disagree about.  I certainly don’t consider that a bad thing, for I myself am in that camp more times than not.  One thing that readers will notice here is that Ross does not spend a great deal of time tackling matters of how this psalm (or part of it) is used in the NT, specifically in Hebrews 1.  While he addresses the language of sonship in footnote 25 (p. 208), he leaves it at that and focuses on the psalm itself in the commentary.

Psalm 22 presents several challenges to interpreters, a couple of which are understanding the textual variants and how it (the psalm) is interpreted Christologically.  Ross gives some  attention to the text-critical questions, but keeps things fairly manageable due to the nature of the commentary, namely to remain accessible.  Though I personally do not enjoy reading about and sorting through text-critical issues, it is a good and necessary part of exegesis and Ross makes the issues fairly understandable without oversimplifying them.   As to the matter of Christological appropriation of the psalm, Ross claims that though Christians will find it nearly impossible to read the psalm and not think of Christ’s suffering, we must first read it in light of the psalmist’s experience of suffering.  Once readers can interpret the psalm in its original context can the parallels and Christological overtones be seen and heard.  Ross handles this psalm in the same erudite manner as those before and after it, providing a solid interpretation supplemented with abundant discussions of various theologically significant vocabulary in the footnotes.

Psalm 23, arguably the most well-known psalm of the whole collection, is also ably handled by Ross.  In fact, of the four psalms I focused on, this was the most enjoyable to read.  This is due partly to the general familiarity I have of the psalm, but also because of Ross’ explanation of the text (what’s a commentary for if not that!).  While certainly this psalm is committed to the memories of many in the KJV or other older translation, Ross demonstrates a number of points concerning how one translates the psalm that show more accurate ways in which to translate it.  As with the previous psalms (and others I skimmed), there are grammatical references aplenty!  Overall, Ross’ exegesis of the 23rd psalm is solid and thoroughly readable.

Though I’ve not read many commentaries on the psalter (and what I have read has been on particular psalms, never a whole volume), I’ve worked with them enough to know what I expect from the commentary in general and whether or not it will be helpful to the overall interpretive process. I can say that after my examination of Ross’s commentary I am assured that many will find great help in this volume (and presumably the coming volumes 2 and 3), even those whose training in Hebrew far exceed my own.

Perhaps the most commendable aspect of this commentary is its accessibility, a goal that many commentators either eschew or miss altogether.  To benefit from Ross’ commentary one need not have advanced knowledge of Hebrew to work through the exegetical discussions.  However, some facility in Hebrew will be beneficial, perhaps even necessary, to fully benefit from Ross’s work.  Ross, whom I know primarily through his introductory Hebrew grammar, offers plenty in the way of grammatical analysis and categorization of usage.  While for me this is helpful, it may not be to some, only because some of the categories require minor explanations (which are standard fare in Hebrew grammars).  In fact, it’s the one element that stands out about this volume in comparison to other commentaries on the same level, which is why I say some facility in Hebrew will help gain the fullest benefit from the commentary (just keep Ross’s grammar handy and you’re good to go!).

Another feature that I appreciate is the absence of transliterations.  I am no fan of them so I was glad to see that Ross does not employ it, but rather puts terms/phrases being discussed in quotes as a translation and provides the Hebrew in parentheses.  I also appreciate the relegation of more technical discussion to the footnotes (and by implication the absence of endnotes!), which of course is the whole purpose of footnotes, thereby providing opportunities for deeper study for those interested.  I must admit that at times I was a little frustrated that the information I was after was in the footnotes and didn’t receive quite the attention I would have liked, but again this is in a way a commendation for Ross for keeping more technical points and discussions out of the main text.

One other interesting aspect of the commentary is its layout—each psalm is arranged structurally according to the Hebrew text, yet Ross takes another step and arranges the discussion homiletically.  For those teaching or preaching through the psalms, this could be a great help.

I did encounter a few minor annoyances while reading through the commentary.  For one, there is the occasional use of rather esoteric vocabulary.  Because of the nature of Hebrew poetry, some technical jargon is to be expected and thankfully Ross keeps it to a minimum; yet, the presence of words such as epizeuxis and tapeinosis aren’t really necessary in a commentary written on this level, even with brief definitions provided.  Second, there were a few instances in which I was hoping for a more helpful discussion in the footnotes (as I mentioned above).  For example, in the discussion of Psalm 22, Ross claims that Jesus’ enemies knew Psalm 22 as a messianic psalm and thus quoted from it in order to mock and deride Jesus as he suffered (536).  While I find it very likely that by the time of Christ’s death this psalm was being read through a messianic lens, Ross only points to one example from Jewish literature that substantiates this idea.  I only wish there were more discussion of this.  Again, this is comparatively minor complaint, especially given the detail some Hebrew words/concepts are given, but I hoped for a little more here.  Third and finally, I had hoped for a little more background to explain the figurative language that permeates many of the psalms.  I am certainly not saying such was entirely absent—hardly!  The literal reality that stands behind figurative speech can really bring the text to life and such is the case when Ross fills us in, but it’s not quite enough to satisfy me.  Again, this is more a personal preference and not necessarily a critique of Ross.

You might think that a commentary that addresses 41 psalms in just over 700 pages (for the commentary proper) would be verbose, but not so. Part of this is due to the length of some of the psalms themselves and part is due to Ross’s extensive footnoting (as previously mentioned), but in general he provides rather concise discussion for each psalm.  Ross’s style is easily read and never comes across as pedantic and that makes this particular volume quite handy.  Again, this series is not going to be as helpful to some (those whose own scholarly pursuits intersect with the material presented), but there is more than enough insight and exposition to benefit the vast majority of those for whom it was written.  I would recommend this volume to any who are studying the psalms, but especially for those whose training in Hebrew and OT is/has been minimal.

Αυτω η δοξα

Lot and His Daughters

I’ve set out to read the bible from beginning to end (though not in a year) just to re-familiarize myself with parts I’d not read in a while and to see the bigger picture of scripture’s story. I’ve also been doing my reading from the Common English Bible as the basis of my review for the CEB Blog Tour (my review I hope to have finished soon). I already inquired as to the origins of Cain’s wife and today’s post concerns Lot and his daughters. In Genesis 19 we read that two of the messengers (presumably two of the three who visited Abraham and Sarah in ch. 18) entered Sodom where Lot greeted them. They initially decline Lot’s request for them to stay at his house, but after some earnest pleading, they accept his invitation. Once they are finished eating, they prepare for bed and here’s the part of the story that’s strange to me.

The men and boys of Sodom surround the house and begin to call out to the visitors to come outside so they can “know them” in a special way (gotta love translators’ choices for such euphemisms). Lot, however, does not wish for them to be involved in such evil acts, so he offers a substitute: his virgin daughters. What is so perplexing about this is that he offers his daughters for the men and boys to do to them whatever they please in the place of total strangers! What is in the world is he thinking? He offers the explanation that these visitors are under the protection of his roof, but what about his daughters? As a dad I can hardly imagine even allowing the thought to cross my mind.

Ultimately nothing happens to them because they were not the object of the men’s desire and the visitors see to it that they are confounded in their pursuit. This also is part of the larger point of the account, namely that the visitors set out to destroy Sodom for its wickedness. Is that the primary point of this little detail, that it shows the nature of the Sodomites’ disposition? John Walton suggests a “subtle alternative” to the offering, namely that Lot was saying he would just as soon have them rape his daughters than he would have them rape his visitors, to whom he has shown hospitality. In doing so, Lot is being rather sarcastic and his offer “is intended to prick the conscience of the mob” (Genesis, NIVAC, 477).

By modern sensibilities this is a grotesquely unthinkable act, but given this is an ancient text, what are we to make of it? Is Walton’s explanation satisfactory? Did Lot have gain some understanding of who the visitors were and perhaps knew that nothing would happen to his daughters? Even so, it’s still an unsettling moment in the story.

Oh Old Testament, how you trouble me!

Αυτω η δοξα

 

Where did she come from?

Cain’s wife, that is. In Gen 4:17 Cain and his wife “know” each other, conceive and give birth to Enoch. But his wife just appears in the story, seemingly out of nowhere. Obviously the biblical writers/editors/redactors don’t always give us the information we would like, but it seems odd not to mention where she came from. I suppose it just wasn’t that important.

What also piques my curiosity is how this issue is handled in light of a literal interpretation of the creation accounts. If Adam and Ever were the only humans created and they only had two sons, then where does Cain’s wife come from? I’m willing to admit my ignorance on this question–I’ve not studied this particular issue.

So, what say ye?

Αυτω η δοξα

Ancient Writers?

I’ve made a few comments lately in a group discussion at LinkedIn on the subject of creationist apologetics, namely the call for a certain Christian retailer to carry more titles in that area. I commented about the worldview of the ancient writers and how the cosmology of Genesis reflects that. One gentleman responded by saying

 Ancient cosmology is another method of ‘fitting’ ‘millions of years’ into the obvious and literal meaning of the Scripture

So I commented in response and so on and so forth. His most recent comment befuddled me and I thought I’d get your thoughts on it. Ready?

The root of the problem is that when you begin with the presumption that the Bible was written by ‘ancients’ instead of the inspired Word of God, you get into trouble.

Um, huh??? I don’t know his personal beliefs about scripture (though I think I have a clue), but it seems like a classic case of assuming the biblical writers’ own view of reality had no bearing on the writing of our biblical books.

I don’t know that I’ll continue in the conversation because little will come of it. Neither of us will change our opinion based on a few terse comments, so I’ll probably leave it at that.

Αυτω η δοξα

Words of Wisdom

11 “Be careful that you don’t forget the Lord your God by failing to keep His command—the ordinances and statutes—I am giving you today. 12 When you eat and are full, and build beautiful houses to live in, 13 and your herds and flocks grow large, and your silver and gold multiply, and everything else you have increases, 14 ⌊be careful⌋ that your heart doesn’t become proud and you forget the Lord your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the place of slavery. 15 He led you through the great and terrible wilderness with its poisonous snakes and scorpions, a thirsty land where there was no water. He brought water out of the flint-like rock for you. 16 He fed you in the wilderness with manna that your fathers had not known, in order to humble and test you, so that in the end He might cause you to prosper. 17 You may say to yourself, ‘My power and my own ability have gained this wealth for me,’ 18 but remember that the Lord your God gives you the power to gain wealth, in order to confirm His covenant He swore to your fathers, as it is today. 19 If you ever forget the Lord your God and go after other gods to worship and bow down to them, I testify against you today that you will perish. 20 Like the nations the Lord is about to destroy before you, you will perish if you do not obey the Lord your God – Deuteronomy 8:11-20 (HCSB), emphasis mine.

Αυτω η δοξα,

Jason

 

 

On Old Testament Theology

This semester, one of the classes I am taking is OT biblical theology, in which we have been surveying the theologies of important OT scholars. Though I have found particular points of agreement (and disagreement) with all thus far, the one scholar with whom I found myself in more agreement than not has been Claus Westermann. I must admit that I’ve not read his works and base the claim to agreement with him based on our lectures and readings in Hasel’s text.

There are a couple of points on which I found myself resonating with Westermann’s view of OT theology:

  • “Westermann sees the task of OT theology as a summarizing and a viewing together of what the whole OT has to say about God,” that  ”it is illegitimate to elevate one part of the OT to a status of being most important or to interpret the whole on the basis of such concepts as covenant, election, or salvation. To raise the question of the center of the OT means also to go astray, because the OT does not manifest such a centering structure” (Hasel, 91-92).
  • “The OT functions in the dialectic of divine address manifested in manifold acts and words  and man’s response evidenced also in words and deeds. History (Geschichte) thus involves both God and man” (Hasel, 92).

Certainly these are rather generalized statements, so I am not suggesting that I would even likely agree with Westermann on most issues, but from this starting point I think he’s right on. I would like to eventually read his works and form a much better opinion of his theology, but that will have to wait.

Αυτω η δοξα,

Jason

 

Biblical Theology of the OT

Looking at the syllabus for my biblilcal theology of the OT, we will be surveying a number of OT scholars and their theology and methodology. Here’s the list:

Walter Eichrodt, Gerhard von Rad, T. C. Vriezen, Walter Kaiser, Claus Westermann, Walther Zimmerli, Elmer Martens, Charles Scobie, William Dumbrell, Brevard Childs, Walter Brueggemann, Stephen Dempster, John Goldingay, Bruce Waltke, and Eugene Merrill (who is the prof for this class).

This should be very interesting!

Αυτω η δοξα,

Jason

OT Textual Criticism

Having to work through yet another set of text-critical issues for my paper, I am content to think of such exercises as providential plagues! How long, O Lord, how long?

Αυτω η δοξα,

Jason

Call for Resources

Ok John, Jeremy, Jim, and other OTers (NT folks, too, if you’ve worked through Jeremiah)–what are the best commentaries/exegetical works on Jeremiah? I need to pick up a few for my papers this summer session (I have until the end of the first week of August to have them turned in), so I am hoping you can point me in the right direction.

Thanks in advance!

Αυτω η δοξα,

Jason

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 779 other followers