Book Review – CBC Haggai (Andrew Hill)

Posted on by
Reply

Here’s another review from volume 10 of the Cornerstone Biblical Commentary, this time on the short book of Haggai. Andrew Hill covers Haggai, along with Zechariah and Malachi, giving continuity to these three closely related books.

Introduction

One nice feature of Haggai’s ministry is that it can be precisely dated and located in Israel’s history. Haggai was a herald sounding a wake-up call to a community that was spiritually asleep. In particular he wanted to stir them up to rebuild the temple. He emphasised the abiding presence of God’s Spirit. Some key themes of Haggai include:

  • A call to reprioritize community life
  • Reiteration of promises of blessing and restoration
  • Ritual purity for priests and people – they are to be holy
  • The prominence of the Davidic line

Commentary

As with all the commentaries in this series, the authors explain the meaning of a section, and then move to some quick, theological reflection, often linking in other parts of Scripture. So for example, Hill offers helpful comments on putting the significance of the temple into its proper place. He highlights how Haggai makes regular use of the name “Lord of Heaven’s Armies” for God.

On the second chapter, Hill shows how Haggai draws on themes from Ezekiel and Jeremiah’s prophecies in previous times, and overturns Jeremiah’s curse on the Davidic line (Jer 22:24-30), rekindling the messianic hopes that had been dashed by the Babylonian exile. He points out that though the second temple did not outstrip the glory of Solomon’s temple in terms of architectural magnificence, the real glory consists of  God’s presence in and amongst his people.

Overall, this has been one of my favourite commentaries in this volume so far. Hill has made effective use of the short space available to make this a good companion to those wanting to do a brief study of Haggai.

Book Review – CBC Zephaniah (Richard Patterson)

Posted on by
2

Next up in my journey through the minor prophets with the aid of the Cornerstone Biblical Commentary Volume 10 is Zephaniah.

Introduction

Patterson identifies the Day of the Lord as the primary theme of Zephaniah. He dates it early in Josiah’s reign, at a time where there was much syncretism. Zephaniah writes not just to inform people about God’s future program, but to exhort them to surrender to God, to repent and seek him.

Commentary

On Zeph 1, Patterson explains that “the Day of the Lord” refers to that time when, for his glory and in accordance with his purposes, God intervenes in human affairs to execute judgment against sin and/or deliver his people. The people of Judah were behaving like pagans. Patterson sees a partial fulfilment of these prophecies in Jerusalem’s fall in 586BC, with other elements being fulfilled in various historical epochs (e.g. A.D. 70). Patterson draws out a challenge for Christians not to sit idly by as a lost world heads towards the day of the Lord.

Zeph 2 includes themes of a godly remnant, of judgment and hope, the seriousness of sin and the sovereignty of God. Much of the fault for the nations disobedience could be accounted to the leadership’s failure to encourage the fear of the Lord (Zeph 3:1-7).

Zeph 3:8-20 is a passage of hope for the remnant – God will deem his people’s punishment completed and bring them happiness as their ultimate good. I was somewhat surprised, and a little disappointed, to note that Patterson passes over Zeph 3:17 with barely any comment – a curious omission considering this is one of the most cherished verses in the Bible. Indeed, his comments on this section are more focused on the “divine shepherd”, but he fails to explain which verse(s) in particular he finds this motif in.

This is, I suppose, both a strength and weakness of the CBC series. It is brief enough to be useful to those without the time or inclination to engage with every exegetical option, and can be relied upon to provide some pertinent observations on the contemporary relevance of the major themes of the passage. However, its brevity means that several potentially fruitful theological avenues will inevitably be left unexplored.

Book Review – Counterfeit Gods (Tim Keller)

Posted on by
3

I was deeply impressed by the first book by Tim Keller I read, The Prodigal God, which is a simply outstanding expounding on the nature of the gospel looking at the well-known parable of the prodigal son. This one maintains the high standard, this time tackling the subject of idolatry. Again, it is not only well-written, but profound, penetrative and deeply insightful.

Keller’s thesis is that the human heart is an “idol factory”, that takes good things and turns them into ultimate things – God substitutes, or “counterfeit gods”, which will always disappoint us, often destructively so.

We never imagine that getting our heart’s deepest desires might be the worst thing that can ever happen to us.

Each chapter tackles an example of a modern idol, such as money, success, romantic love, or political ideology. He illustrates each one with well-chosen contemporary examples, and helps us to move beyond simply identifying these idols as out there in the culture, but seeing their pernicious effects at work in our own lives even as Christians.

we know a good thing has become a counterfeit god when its demands on you exceed proper boundaries.

He then picks out a Biblical character or story that illustrates each idol, often drawing out strikingly fresh insights from very familiar territory. Those who are familiar with Keller’s preaching will know that he is never content to simply tell a Bible story and draw out a few morals or lessons though. He always brings us to the gospel. Jesus is always brought in, as the one who is the greater version of the flawed hero of the story. As a result, this book also serves a double function as a masterclass in gospel-centred teaching.

we usually read the Bible as a series of disconnected stories, each with a “moral” for how we should live our lives. It is not. Rather, it comprises a single story, telling us how the human race got into its present condition, and how God through Jesus Christ has come and will come to put things right.

This book will not take you a long time to read, but you will need plenty of time to reflect on its message. It is a call first for us to examine the deep idols that have taken root in our own lives, but then to address them, not by trying to suppress them, but by supplanting them with a living encounter with God himself.

The only way to dispossess the heart of an old affection is by the expulsive power of a new one.

It deserves a wide readership amongst Christians, not so we can speak out against the idolatry of our culture (though we need to do that), but so that we can clean out the idols that have taken root in our own hearts. I also hope it is widely read by pastors and preachers, and that as a result, we will hear more gospel-centred preaching that gets to the heart of issues, rather than merely calling for behavioural change.

The secret to change is to identify and dismantle the counterfeit gods of your heart.

Jesus must become more beautiful to your imagination, more attractive to your heart, than your idol.

Book Review – CBC Habakkuk (Richard Patterson)

Posted on by
4

This is another commentary contained within Volume 10 of the Cornerstone Biblical Commentary series, which I am gradually working my way through. For more thoughts on the layout of the series, see my review of Andrew Hill on Micah.

Introduction

We know very little about Habakkuk. Patterson assumes a pre-exilic date, most likely during the reigns of either Josiah or Manasseh. The central theme of the book is faith, and we see how, despite how Habakkuk felt about the injustice he saw, he brought his doubts and perplexities to God in prayer and came to a place of trust.

Commentary

The “notes” sections serve as a way of highlighting exegetical issues, particularly the meaning of individual key words. Patterson feels free to disagree with the NLT translation. The “commentary” on each section always moves from summarising the meaning of the passage to drawing out a significant theological theme and discussing it in the light of other related Biblical passages.

A good example would be how he handles Hab 2:4, where he first explores the meaning of the verse in Habakkuk, explaining faithfulness as having both an active (truthfulness) and a passive (trustworthiness) sense. He then goes on to show how the different ways in which it is used in the New Testament (Rom 1:17 and Heb 10:35-39), as well as pointing out the way it references Gen 15:6.

because the believer is one in whom God’s righteous character has been reproduced, he can be expected to conduct himself in a manner consistent with his renewed being. … a genuinely righteous person will live out the faith in faithful activity

Patterson also highlights the different names that Habakkuk uses for God throughout the book, and how they mirror his journey from doubt to a confident faith that meant he could trust in the Lord through the coming hour of judgment and rejoice no matter what may happen.

Conclusion

These CBC commentaries serve as good companions to a Bible study, allowing you to get a good understanding of the meaning of the text as well as seeing how they fit into a wider theological picture. They help you to break out of the trap of just focusing on the famous verses, and getting a better grasp of the message of the whole book. Whilst the exegetical notes aren’t exhaustive, they are fairly thorough, meaning that you would only need to go for a more technical commentary if you were doing more in-depth study on the book.

Some Links

Posted on by
3

A few links for you to check out…

Book Review – CBC Nahum (Richard Patterson)

Posted on by
Reply

This is another commentary contained within Volume 10 of the Cornerstone Biblical Commentary. See my review of Andrew Hill’s Commentary on Micah for my thoughts on the layout of this commentary series.

Introduction

Nahum’s main message is the impending doom of wicked Nineveh. We know very little of who Nahum is, but Patterson tentatively places him at a time when Israel were reduced to Assyrian vassalage during the reign of evil king Manasseh. Despite the predicament they find themselves in, Nahum believes in God who is still sovereign over the nations, and faithful to his covenant promises. Nahum portrays God as the “divine warrior”, who subdues nature and his enemies, while protecting his own people.

Commentary

On Nahum 1, a strong emphasis is placed on God’s sovereignty over the nations, his omnipotence and his justice. Nahum chapters 2 and 3 are focused more on the destruction of Nineveh. A lot of translation notes are provided explaining the difficulties determining the exact meaning of many of the verses. The included NLT translation smoothes over most of these difficulties. Enough historical and geographical information is given to help make sense of much of the imagery, including some historical details on the savage brutality and treachery of the Assyrian empire.

Despite the bleakness of much of Nahum’s prophecy, Patterson does manage to find some fruitful avenues for application including reflections on the justice of God and sovereignty of God, as well as the need to work to transform the evil within our society. As with the other volumes in this series, he willingly draws on other parts of the Bible to help shed light on the message of Nahum.

Conclusion

I appreciated the way this brief commentary helped me get a solid understanding of Nahum’s main message and put it into some sort of historical context. The way he ties in themes from Nahum with other Biblical passages is also very helpful for those who, like me, have always found Nahum a difficult book to “get anything out of”.

Book Review – BEC Philippians (Moises Silva)

Posted on by
Reply

Introduction

This deserves credit for having one of the most engaging introductions of a commentary I have read. In 36 pages, he tackles the book from a wide variety of angles.

He is less certain than most that the Philippian church was in a good state of health. He in particular thinks that there may be some looming danger from the Judaizers – in fact, he thinks that most, if not all, of Paul’s “opponents” can be viewed as heterodox Jewish believers. Quite fascinating was his roundup of other commentaries. Since this is a revision of a commentary originally published in 1988, he deals with some of the new works that have come out since. Whilst there is high praise for O’Brien and Blockmeuhl, his opinion of Fee’s commentary is equivocal. He feels Fee misrepresented his opinions in a few places, and often when Fee is referenced in the footnotes it is to firmly reject his exegesis.

Commentary

The commentary itself follows the usual pattern of the Baker Exegetical Series. First is a section overview, followed by the author’s own translation. Then there are the comments on the text, dealt with usually in groups of about three verses at a time. At the end of each section, Silva provides a large number of additional notes, mainly dealing with translation or manuscript issues (which he clearly has a great interest in), and occasionally interacting with other commentators. Silva’s translation of Philippians is particularly useful, as he inserts a number of clarifying clauses, so that the translation reflects the sense he argues for in the commentary.

While there is plenty of attention given to the Greek grammar and vocabulary, Silva is always careful to move on to theological reflection. Silva demonstrates out that several of the grammatical problems of Philippians are minimized by the fact that many of the possible translations do not substantively differ from one another. In other words, we can often determine the main point being made even if we cannot discern the exact meaning of every phrase.

Points of Interest

Silva argues strongly that the “deliverance” of Phil 1:19 is salvation, not merely release from prison, though he acknowledges there may be some calculated ambiguity. He has some good comments on perseverance, which he sees as a running theme through the letter. He has some helpful theological reflection on suffering in his comments on Phil 1:29 and Phil 3:10. “The stinging reality of Christian suffering is our reminder that we have been united with Christ”.

On Phil 2:1-4 he points out that the true obstacle to unity is not the presence of legitimate differences of opinion but self-centredness. The opposition the Philippians were facing calls for steadfastness on their part, but this is only possible if they have unity, which in turn calls for humility. In Phil 2:6, the phrase μορφη θεου is equivalent to “being equal with God”, though it cannot be pressed to explain exactly how. In the same verse, he acknowledges that while we may not be able to detect the exact meaning of αρπαγμον, the sense is clear – Jesus refused to make a selfish choice with regards to his divinity.

In Phil 2:10, Paul stunningly applies Isa 45:23 to Jesus. Phil 2:12-13 is one of several places in Philippians that express the paradox of human and divine activity in salvation, and Silva offers some good theological reflection on this. The grumbling of Phil 2:14 is likely to be an allusion to the Israelites complaining against Moses. The best commentary on Phil 2:15 is Jesus’ words in Matt 5:14-16: you are already the light of the world – therefore shine.

In Phil 3:2, Paul is ironically (rather than abusively) characterizing these Judaizers as “dogs”. A great spiritual reversal has taken place – these Judaizers are the new Gentiles, while the Christian believers are the new Jews. He effectively rebuts Stendahl’s notion that in Phil 3:6 Paul is referring to his subjective conscience.

In Phil 3:9-11 we see Paul’s doctrine of salvation compressed into just a few sentences – justification, sanctification, and glorification. Silva makes the point that union with Christ, rather than justification by faith is at the heart of Paul’s soteriology. When Paul speaks of experiencing the power of Christ’s resurrection in Phil 3:10, he has in mind our spiritual transformation into the image of Christ.

Silva makes the case that antinomian libertines may not be the opponents in view in 3:12-4:1, and that it makes good sense to read this section as being against the Judaizers. In Phil 3:15, Paul is referring not to differences they may have with him, but differences they have amongst themselves – he paraphrases: “If there continue to be some disagreements among you, I trust that God will soon bring unanimity in your midst.”

About Euodia and Syntyche (Phil 4:2), Silva says “most likely, what we have here is not a personal quarrel between cantankerous old ladies but rather a substantive division within the church leadership, which from the beginning consisted largely of faithful women.” On Phil 4:4-7 Silva notes that “genuine Christian joy is not inward looking. It is not by concentrating on our need for happiness, but on the needs of others that we learn to rejoice.”

Conclusion

Philippians is served by several highly-rated commentaries. I found Fee’s extremely helpful when I read through it about 10 years ago. O’Brien and Blockmeuhl also get consistently high praise for their work. But this one deserves its reputation too. As any good commentary should, it helps you get right to the heart of what is being said and how it fits into the overall flow of the argument, but also brings out the practical and doctrinal application of the text. So even if you already have Fee, it is well worth your money getting Silva as well (especially since they don’t always agree on the interpretation).

Slaves or Sons?

Posted on by
2

One question that I have been pondering recently is what to make of the tension between the biblical designations of believers as both sons and slaves (the Greek is doulos, more commonly translated servant) of God, highlighted by my recent reading of Murray Harris’ book “Slave of Christ”. Should I primarily think of myself as a son, but in a lesser sense a slave? Or is there another way of holding the two in balance?

Indeed, for many, if not most evangelicals, the concept of thinking of ourselves as slaves  at all seems very foreign. After all, in the famous parable, the wayward son thinks he can only come back to his father as a servant, but no, he is welcomed back as a son (Luke 15:19,20). Similarly, Paul seems to encourage us to think of ourselves as sons of God rather than slaves in Gal 4:7 –

So you are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, then an heir through God.

But this is the same Paul who introduces himself in several places as a “slave of Christ”. So how can we hold these things in tension?

God the Father, Christ the Lord

I wonder whether there is a clue in the names used most commonly of the first and second persons of the Godhead. First, we have God the Father. Though he could also be called God the Creator, or God the Judge, the name that we as believers most commonly refer to him as, is “Father”, following the example of Jesus. Hence, I would argue that the primary way we think of ourselves as relating to God the Father is as his dearly loved children.

However, when we think of God the Son, by far and away the most common title he is given in the New Testament is Lord. The term is entirely religious for most people today, but in the first century, as Murray Harris points out, wherever there was a slave (a doulos) there was also a master (a kyrios, or Lord). Whilst we could say that Jesus is our elder brother, or friend, or even lover, the primary way we are encouraged to think of him is as our Lord or master, who we listen to and obey and seek to please.

“Abba Father”, “Jesus is Lord”

I wonder then if there is any coincidence that the two authentic heart-cries of the Spirit filled person are to refer to God as “Father” and to Jesus as “Lord”. “Father” is not just a name we mechanically call God as we recite the Lord’s prayer, rather the Spirit causes us to recognise deep within us that we can relate to God as his children in whom he takes great delight.

And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, "Abba! Father!" (Gal 4:6)

For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, "Abba! Father!" (Rom 8:15)

Similarly, it is the Spirit who causes us to joyfully confess the lordship of Jesus in our lives:

no one can say "Jesus is Lord" except in the Holy Spirit. (1 Cor 12:3)

This is confession that Jesus is Lord is at the very heart of our regeneration, also a work of the Spirit:

if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. (Rom 10:9)

Conclusion

I would suggest then that the primary way we are to think of our relationship with God is as his sons, and the primary way we are to think of our relationship with Jesus is as his slaves (although maybe obedient disciples might be a better way to express this). And since it is the Spirit who causes us to recognise these things, this is not a purely intellectual exercise. As we are filled more with the Spirit, so we appreciate and rejoice in these realities more and more.

I must admit that this solution is not perfect. Paul does sometimes refer to himself as a “slave of God” (e.g. Titus 1:1), so he clearly did not consider that self-designation to be inappropriate. Similarly, it would be a mistake to suggest that we can only relate to Jesus as slaves (e.g. John 15:15). But I think it is true to say that God the Holy Spirit is the one who helps us to rightly understand our relationship to God the Father and God the Son.

Book Review – CBC Micah (Andrew Hill)

Posted on by
2

Cornerstone Biblical Commentary Series

The Cornerstone Biblical Commentary series is relatively new, but already over half the volumes have been published. Eventually there will be 12 volumes covering the Old Testament, and eight covering the New. Most of the contributors have written more technical commentaries on the same or related books, but this series is aimed at the pastor and layperson. Each commentary features the text of the New Living Translation in full.

Each section of Scripture is then followed by a few pages of “notes”, often explaining the meaning or significance of a single word or phrase. After that follows the “commentary” itself, which consists mainly of a summary of the main emphasis of the passage in question. The commentators have a conviction of the unity of the Bible and that the whole of Scripture is God’s word, so often in this section, teaching from other parts of the Bible will be brought in to help clarify various themes.

The commentary on Micah is contained in Volume 10, which consists of commentaries on each of the 12 minor prophets, some authored by Andrew Hill, and the others by Richard Patterson. This 650 page volume represents a cost-effective way to get hold of a basic commentary on each of the minor prophets. Rather than waiting until I have read all 12 commentaries, I will review each of them as and when I finish them.

Introduction to Micah

The brief introduction covers all the bases of introducing us to when and where Micah prophesied, what the political situation was, and what little we know of Micah from the rest of Scripture. Assyria was emerging as a super-power at the time, and Hill sees the book of Micah as essentially a collection of prophetic sermons. He sees a recurring structure to the book of several pronouncements of doom, each followed up by a brief message of hope. The doom is judgement, and the hope is restoration, but the main character in both cases is Yahweh, the covenant God who jealously guards his relationship with his special possession, Israel, and will tolerate no idolatry.

Commentary

In some ways the New Living Translation itself functions as a commentary, with the translators feeling free to insert some explanatory phrases. For example, Micah 1:5 in the ESV reads:

All this is for the transgression of Jacob
and for the sins of the house of Israel.
What is the transgression of Jacob?
Is it not Samaria?
And what is the high place of Judah?
Is it not Jerusalem?

while the NLT makes this of it:

And why is this happening?
      Because of the rebellion of Israel—
      yes, the sins of the whole nation.
   Who is to blame for Israel’s rebellion?
      Samaria, its capital city!
   Where is the center of idolatry in Judah?
      In Jerusalem, its capital!

The translators help us out by turning Jacob into Israel, and explaining that Samaria here is a capital city, not a region. In fact, throughout the commentary I noticed many places in which the NLT helps you out with its translation. While I do prefer a more literal translation generally, it is in Old Testament prophetic books like Micah that the strengths of the NLT really shine through, as they often require a lot of background information to fully appreciate the meaning.

Micah 1:10-15 contains several puns on the names of various towns, so Hill has included a very clever poem by Peterson, which changes the names of the towns to make the puns work in English. It brings a lot of clarity to what otherwise would seem like an arbitrary list of places and comments.

As he moves through each section of the prophecy, Hill will often pick out a theme for application or theological reflection, such as covetousness in Micah 2:1-5, and the concept of a remnant in Micah 2:12-13. These effectively function as hints for preachers for ways they could apply the message of Micah to their congregations.

Both in the “notes” (for exegesis) and “commentary” (for exposition) sections, Hill often draws on the insights of other commentators. The notes section usually give an even covering of the text, picking up on words and phrases from most verses, but the commentary section is not always so thorough. For example, commenting on Micah 3, Hill chooses to use all the space for a discussion of the revelation of the Trinity in the Old Testament, prompted by the mention of the Spirit in Micah 3:8.

He detects a liturgical hymn in chapter 7, and explains the difference between a lamentation (an expression of grief over a calamity that cannot be reversed), and a lament (an appeal to God’s compassion for the purpose of changing a desperate situation for the better), and shows how an appreciation of the various elements of the lament tradition would be beneficial for us today.

Conclusion

Like many of the Old Testament prophetic books, Micah is known mainly for a couple of ‘famous’ verses (Micah 6:8 and Micah 5:2). Hill’s commentary provides an accessible way to get a bigger picture of Micah’s message. The NLT translation helps the reader to see the flow and cohesiveness of the prophecy in a way that many readers would miss in a more literal translation.

The “notes” section might be skipped over by some readers, as it may seem like a disjointed collection of exegetical trivia, but on the other hand, for those studying a passage, it provides a lot of useful information.

The “commentary” section, on the other hand, gives a helpful overview of the main message of Micah as well as some good practical application and theological reflection, and could provide a useful starting point for preparing a sermon, although given the limited space, will not necessarily address all the questions you might bring to the text.

I’m looking forward to reading several of the other commentaries in this volume, as I think it strikes a nice balance, and has been a good companion to my daily reading of Scripture.

Schreiner on Judgment According to Works

Posted on by
4

6 He will render to each one according to his works: 7 to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; …

10 but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek.

(Rom 2:6-7,10 ESV)

At first glance, what Paul says in Romans 2:7 (and 2:10) seems to be that you can earn your salvation by good works. The big problem with that, is that he categorically contradicts that idea elsewhere (for example, Rom 3:20 which states that no one can be righteous before God by the works of the law). So what exactly does he mean?

Naturally, some are willing to suggest that Paul has indeed contradicted himself, but this seems like a colossal blunder to attribute to someone who is such a coherent thinker.

An alternative approach, is to assume that Paul is speaking hypothetically here. That is, “Eternal life would be given if one did good works and kept the law perfectly, but no one does the requisite good works, and thus all deserve judgment”. In many ways, this is a good solution, since it harmonizes well with what Paul says later in chapter 3, while still fitting in with the overall argument of 2:6-11.

However, Schreiner has come up with an alternative and intriguing suggestion:

Paul elsewhere teaches that works are necessary to enter the kingdom of God (cf,. 1 Cor 6:9-11; 2 Cor 5:10; Gal 5:21). Since Paul asserts that works are necessary for salvation and also that one cannot be justified by works of the law, it is probably that he did not see these two themes as contradictory.

He thus concludes:

in verses 7 and 10 Paul is speaking of Christians who keep the law by the power of the Holy Spirit

Apparently he defends this view further in his commentary on 2:25-29, which I haven’t got to yet. In many ways, this idea is connected with his take on “the righteousness of God”, being both “forensic” (it is a declaration) and “transformative” (it actually changes us). Here again we see a synthesis between the two potentially competing concerns of salvation entirely based on grace not works, and a strong expectation that those who receive that salvation will indeed experience a transformation of behaviour.