I have noticed in the past that there is a wealth of resources on iTunes U.  But last night as I was lying in bed I came across Westminster Theological Seminary’s page and found a mother-load of great lectures.  One of great interest is Dr. Richard Gaffin’s 20 lectures on the Theology of Hebrews.  I know what I will be busy with for the next few weeks.

ἐν τῷ λέγειν καινὴν πεπαλαίωκεν τὴν πρώτην· τὸ δὲ παλαιούμενον καὶ γηράσκον ἐγγὺς ἀφανισμοῦ (Heb 8.13).

The above statement by Auctor is one of the harshest statements in the NT in regards to the Old Covenant.  A translation of this would read

When he says, “A new [covenant],” he has made the first [covenant] obsolete.  And that which has become obsolete and is growing old is very close to destruction.

I know of no stronger language that describes the old covenant as no longer operative.  All of what is argued in Hebrews (the priesthood, sacrifices, etc.) is summed up in a contrast between these two covenants.  But what is interesting is the similarities between the two.

1.  Both the old and new covenant have a priest.

We know from the OT that Israel was to have appointed priests as well as one high priest.  For Hebrews Auctor puts forward three priest (four if you see Moses as a priest in Heb 3.1ff) for his discussion.  Auctor argues that Jesus our great high priest in the order of Melchizedek, and he is one forever.  This is in stark contrast to the priesthood of Aaron and the Levites.  For these two they were appointed continually because of death.

2.  Both the old and new covenant have a sacrific

Whereas the sacrifices of the old covenant were continuous, the sacrifice in the new covenant was once for all.  Auctor elaborates on this in Heb 7-10 in great detail, showing the need for a permanent sacrifice provided for by our high priest himself.

More could be said, and I am sure that his has.  But I write this in regards to a discussion I had in class on the covenants and their role in our eschatological thought.  For some, they believe that nation Israel is still bound in some sense to the promises that are given to them (i.e. land, millennial kingdom).  But if Auctor is saying that the old covenant is obsolete, would this then also mean that the promises of the old covenant are likewise obsolete?  There seem to be no room for a separate national Israel functioning in some sense under a quasi-old covenant.

So I ask you this: If the first covenant, the old covenant, is obsolete (and I argue that this became final at the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD), then can there be a future for a national Israel?  Put that in your theological pipe and smoke it for awhile.

This semester I have to write a paper on the so-called warning passages in Hebrews.  First, the debate about whether these passages teach one can lose his/her salvation really have no interest for me.  It seems most people want to read these passages divorced from the their contexts, being more interested in the Calvinist-Arminian debate.  I am convinced that if you just allow these passages to remain in their contexts and understand their coherence and cohesion to the discourse as a whole, there would be more of an understanding of there purpose in Hebrews.

On another note, Peter T. O’Brien’s new Pillar commentary on Hebrews has been released and it is fantastic! The introduction is well written (it is not a book in and of itself like Lane’s introduction in the WBC).  I was very happy to see a section on discourse analysis, discussing the works of both Guthrie and Westfall.  This is a neglected area of study in the overall structure of Hebrews, and O’Brien’s discussion of this is very helpful and informative.  As I read more of this work I will post my thoughts.

Last, as I was leaving for class today there was a package on my front porch.  A few weeks ago I tracked down a copy of Spicq’s commentary on Hebrews volume 1.  If you know the scholarship of Hebrews, then you know that value of this work.  I have been searching for a copy of this work for years, and was never able to secure one.  It is a pain to track down, and seems to be as rare as finding oil in my home town.  Nevertheless, I was able to find a copy of volume one through an online bookstore site in Europe.  It was shipped from Holland, and boy is it in a rough state.  It must be a first printing (1952), for it a paperback with very brittle pages that seem ready to go up in flames at the first strike of a match.  I hope to be able to preserve it as best as possible, but I need to find out the best way to go about it.

Well, there may be some more Hebrews news in the future, but that is for another date altogether.

Deep Preaching: Creating Sermons That Go Beyond the Superficial

By: J. Kent Edwards

My normal reading habits would not have led to a book on preaching and crafting a sermon.  I have often times thought that preaching is something that I would not be good at (although I have often desired greatly to preach).  Nevertheless, this semester I took the bold step to register for a class on Expository Preaching at Talbot because I desired to learn how to preach and prepare a sermon.  Thus far I am glad that I did.

Deep Preaching (DP from here on out) is an excellent book!  Not only does it discuss the methods and mechanics of preaching and preparing a sermon, it also discusses the preacher’s need to prepare himself while studying the text and preparing his outline.  Dr. Edwards-who also happens to be my teacher this semester-begins his book by laying out the challenges of preaching in today’s world (ch. 1).  In order for the preacher to be able to preach deep sermons his must understand the challenges that await him, both inside and outside the church.  Likewise, Dr. Edwards lays out the reasons why preaching in today’s world is necessary.

In chapters 2 and 3. Dr. Edwards gives his reasons for preaching.  His concern for and his emphasis on the theological reason for preaching is a breath of fresh air.  To often this is missed in books and lectures today on preaching.  I am unable to count the numerous times I have either heard or read how theology is divisive and what people need to hear is that Jesus loves them.  Dr. Edwards does not allow this mentality to go unchallenged.  Instead, he emphatically declares that theology is what makes a preacher deep, and without theology there will only be sermons of man’s clever ideas and not the gospel of Jesus Christ.

The most beneficial part of DP is the emphasis on the preacher’s closet work.  It is here according to Dr. Edwards where the preacher learns to go deep by means of the Holy Spirit’s work and power.  While reading these chapters (8-9) I almost forgot I was reading a book on preaching; it read more like a book on spiritual growth and how the Spirit is to play a part in understanding and teaching us Scripture.  Nevertheless, I found these chapters to be my favorite, and I have already began to implement these disciplines into my daily bible study and time with the Lord.

All in all, DP was hands down the best book on preaching I have come across.  Dr. Edwards does not leave us with a how to manual on how to preach, or the steps to forming an expository message.  No, what we are given is far greater!  We are shown how to become deep preachers by means allowing the Spirit to work in us from the beginning our time in exegesis of the text to the deliverance of the sermon on Sunday morning.  If you are a preacher, or a lay teacher, I highly recommend that you pick up this gem and put into practice the lessons which are laid out within.  If you do, you will soon find yourself preaching deeply the word of Jesus Christ.

Paperback: 197

Publisher: B&H Academic (2009)

Language: English

ISBN-13: 978-080544695-1

I have been studying Hebrews now in some fashion for five years, and it never seems to amaze me how intricate and detailed Auctor is in his writing. The way he forms his discourse and keeps it moving is pure poetry and a theological masterpiece. Tonight, as I was reading through Heb 2 I was taken back with how perfectly situated Ps 8 is in his argument. If we were left with the exalted Son of Heb 1 we would have a High Priest who is completely out of touch with humanity. But as it is, Ps 8 is Auctor’s bridge from glory to incarnation. Auctor’s use of the Psalm is necessary in his argument that Christ is a merciful and faithful high priest. How could a high priest be either if he has not in some sense experienced the sufferings and temptations of humanity (Heb 2.10-18). In closing, I cannot help but recall Paul’s brilliant section of Phil 2.5-11 when I read this portion of Hebrews.

I had the best search that led to my blog today:

“Theological reflections on 3:10 to Yuma.”

I am surprised anyone would know what that movie is. Most people I recommend it to have no clue what I am talking about. Obviously, the one who searched for it came to the right place.

After an elaborate exordium (1.1-4) and the extensive catena of OT quotation (1.5-13), Auctor shifts his genre from exposition to exhortation in 2.1-4.  While it may be easy to logically pick up on the surface the connection between ch.1 and 2.1-4, there are some important factors that aide in connecting the two different genres and moving the argument forward in a cohesive manner.

First, it is important to note the many semantic similarities that are shared between the two units of discourse.  For example, we are told at the onset that God spoke through the prophets (Πολυμερῶς καὶ πολυτρόπως πάλαι ὁ θεὸς λαλήσας τοῖς πατράσιν ἐν τοῖς προφήταις) as well as through a son (ἐλάλησεν…ἐν υἱῷ).  Also, the catena of OT quotes consists of God speaking either about the angels or the son (1.5-13).  The whole of the chapter focus on some aspect of God speaking.  This focus on speech continues into ch.2.  Note the warning to pay close attention to what was heard (Διὰ τοῦτο δεῖ περισσοτέρως προσέχειν ἡμᾶς τοῖς ἀκουσθεῖσιν), the mediatorial work of the angels at Sinai (εἰ γὰρ ὁ διʼ ἀγγέλων λαληθεὶς λόγος), the word spoken by the Lord and confirmed by those who heard it from the Lord directly (ἥτις ἀρχὴν λαβοῦσα λαλεῖσθαι διὰ τοῦ κυρίου ὑπὸ τῶν ἀκουσάντων εἰς ἡμᾶς ἐβεβαιώθη).  All of these references to speech/hearing form a semantic chain which provides 1.1-2.4 with a cohesive tie.

Also, the Διὰ τοῦτο serves as a marker indicating a conclusion to ch.1.  The warning which Auctor is driving home is contained in the conditional clause in 2.2-3:

εἰ γὰρ ὁ διʼ ἀγγέλων λαληθεὶς λόγος ἐγένετο βέβαιος καὶ πᾶσα παράβασις καὶ παρακοὴ ἔλαβεν ἔνδικον μισθαποδοσίαν, πῶς ἡμεῖς ἐκφευξόμεθα τηλικαύτης ἀμελήσαντες σωτηρίας, ἥτις ἀρχὴν λαβοῦσα λαλεῖσθαι διὰ τοῦ κυρίου ὑπὸ τῶν ἀκουσάντων εἰς ἡμᾶς ἐβεβαιώθη

For if the message spoken through angels was valid, and every transgression and disobedience [refusal to listen] received its just payment, how shall we escape if we disregard such a magnificent salvation?  This message of salvation was first declared by the Lord and then confirmed to us by those who heard

The comparison in ch.1 between the angels and Christ is a comparison between messengers.  Christ, because he is son (1.2, 5) is a far greater messenger than the angels.  Therefore, the message which God has proclaimed through Christ (ἐπʼ ἐσχάτου τῶν ἡμερῶν τούτων ἐλάλησεν ἡμῖν ἐν υἱῷ) is greater than the mediatorial work of the angels, who served likewise as messengers of God at Sinai.

More can be said, but it is getting late.  In closing, Auctor will later refer to Christ as the Apostle of our confession (3.1).  Instead of thinking of apostle in terms of an appointed position (i.e. the Twelve Apostles), think of it in its functional sense, what an apostle does.  Apostle, angel, and prophet are all messengers who are sent to proclaim a message; this is the focus of Heb 1-2.  Christ is God’s final communicative agent.

NB.

I am grateful for the work of Cynthia Long-Westfall who has informed much of my thinking on this section.  It is nice to be able to have an insight on something and then to have it confirmed by an expert in the field.

Cynthia Long Westfall. “Blessed Be The Ties That Bind: Semantic Domains and Cohesive Chains in Hebrews 1.1-2.4 and 12.5-8.” JGRChJ 6 (2009): 199-216.

NB: I am planning on posting more in this series as times permits me to do so.  I will be looking a lot at the so-called Warning Passages this semester and will find ways to post on this topic on a more regular basis

I do not remember my first encounter with the book of Hebrews, nor do I remember the first time I came across the phrase “Warning Passages.”(1)  Nevertheless, I soon became intrigued (and troubled) by these perplexing and harsh statements of warning, judgment, and peril.  I am unapologetically a Calvinist; therefore I read these passages through that grid of interpretation.  Nevertheless, I will be honest upfront that these passages prove troublesome for both my Calvinist and Arminian brothers and sisters.  Why is this?  Why do godly and skilled exegetes still spill ink over the soteriological message of these passages and never seem to reach an agreement on their precise meaning?

Well, I am not going to be able to solve that riddle or end the debate.  Rather, I think to focus on which camp has the right soteriological answer misses the point all together.  Instead of isolating these passages and divorcing them from the overall discourse, I think the only way to understand these warning passages is to read it in light of what precedes and proceeds.  Trying to read a Reformed or Arminian meaning into the text is anachronistic and will only serve to blur the meaning of Hebrews.

(1) The Warning Passages are: 2.1-4; 3.7-4.13; 5.11-6.12; 10.19-39; 12.14-29.

Today seems to be “Day of the Didache” on my blog.  A few years back I was blessed to be Dr. Varner’s research assistant for a book that has since been published on the Didache.  For some unknown reason people are searching for info on the Didache and are coming in large numbers(1) to this humbled corner of the internet.  So to them I say welcome, and enjoy this blog.

Also, ever had those days were all you can think of is seeing and the face of Christ?  Well, that is what has been consuming my thoughts and emotions these last few days.  God has given me such a desire to see my Savior and fall at his feet in thanksgiving for all that he is and for all that he has done to save a wretch like me.

Another bit of random nothingness really, I seem to have on more occasion than not the desire and thought, I want to write a book, article, etc. on this or that topic.  This last just as long as it takes to realize that someone already took my idea.  This has happened a lot more recently than I would like, but it only tells me that I at least am thinking in the right direction.

Well, I will leave you all now with the promise of a more serious and somewhat biblical based post in the near and distant future (it could be near or it could be distant, God knows).  I hope to have N. T. Wright’s “Jesus” book finished by the end of this semester and then plow through the third volume during the summer.

Soli Deo Gloria

(1) By large numbers, I mean 4.

I have been busy reading devouring N. T. Wright’s impressive and informative The New Testament and the People of God.  And while I must confess that I had the hardest time beginning the book due Wright’s writing style, I have nevertheless began to enjoy the book immensely.  One of the aspects I have been considering is Wright’s “Exile” motif.  While I must say that it is quite persuasive, I am not thoroughly convinced.  The reason for this is (shocker) Auctor’s usage of the “Exodus” motif.  Now, I have written briefly on the Exodus in Hebrews in a series of previous post, so I will not rehash it here.  But what I find to be at odds with Wright’s analysis of the worldview of Jews in the first century is the utter lack of Exile themes, passages, allusions, and echoes in Hebrews.  Could this mean that the audience of Hebrews is not Jews but Gentiles?  I am not sure, but for Auctor he is more concerned with the fact that the people of God have not yet entered into a land in which they can be exiled from.

That is what I am considering this early morning.  What are some of your thoughts on this?

Well, another year has come and another year fades into the archives of history. The year 2009 proved to be one of blessings and one of trials. The greatest blessing was my marriage to my beautiful wife. She is awesome and I am so undeserving of her love and devotion. It amazes me how I am slowly beginning to be unable to function properly without her around. I guess the whole two becoming one flesh thing is real after all.

This year has been one of the hardest years emotionally for me. I wish I could say that I spent the year fully devoted to Christ in everything, but that would be a lie. There was much sin, failure, compromise, fear, doubt, guilt, shame, hardness of heart, and other wicked and sinful actions and thoughts. I spent a great deal of the year afraid of what the future may or may not hold. Instead of trusting the Lord with my life and for the necessities that one needs to survive, I instead turned to my own self and depended upon me to provide all that I need to survive. I basically said I will be the one who provides for my daily bread. While this may have seemed to work, I was miserable inside; I was cold, hard, and distant from Jesus. But the end of the year brought revival to my once jaded and wounded heart. Whereas the cares and concerns of this world had driven me away from the Shepherd of my soul, nevertheless the Good Shepherd came and found me wandering in the cold and bitter wilderness to which I had fled. Times of sweet repentance soon were granted a rebellious sinner, and like Lazarus I found myself coming to life once again.

Now I know that the cares of the world are still pressing down upon me. But I was again reminded that if I seek first the Kingdom of Christ, all that I need will most certainly be provided. Temptation to fear and despair will still want to claim my affections and drag me back into the wilderness, but I pray that I will not turn my eyes from the Great Redeemer of my soul. Lord, I cast my cares upon you because you do in fact care for and love a sinner like me.

So this year my resolution is to not let the waves of fear, worry, doubt, and despair carry me away from the great anchor of my soul Jesus Christ. To him be all power, glory, dominion, and praise forevermore. Amen!

Well, here are a few books that I have received over the last few weeks.

David M. Allen, “Deuteronomy and Exhortation in Hebrews: A Study in Narrative Re-Presentation.”

Dale F. Leschert, “Hermenuetical Foundations of Hebrews: A Study in the Validity of the Epistle’s Interpretation of Some Core Citations from the Psalms.”

Steve Moyise and Maarten J. J. Menken, “The Psalms in the New Testament.”

Richard W. Johnson, “Going Outside the Camp: The Sociological Function of the Levitical Critique in the Epistle to the Hebrews.”

Also, I want to thanks Angie Cheatham of Crossway Books for sending along to me a review copy of:

Vern Sheridan Poythress, “In the Beginning Was the Word: Language, A God-Centered Approach.”

I plan on making this my book to read while on Christmas break.

Well, the semester is over (all but a quick two-page paper and a take home exam) and I must say that this one has been one of my favorites thus far. I did relatively well (I think) in my classes. And for the first time ever, I really enjoyed Hebrew. I had to write an exegetical paper on the Akedah (Gen 22) and I was blessed by the process and analysis.

Also, I have beefed up my library some over the last two weeks. I have been trying to focus some of my time, energy, and brain power on the use of Ps 95 in Heb 3-4. I have been intrigued by the references to the wilderness in Hebrews and decided that I should take a look. Since I am taking an exegesis of Hebrews next semester (this will be the second time I have taken an exegesis class on Hebrews. The first time being at Master’s College with Dr. Varner), I figured I would begin the research and writing process this winter.

Well, I will post some of the books that I have received tomorrow Lord willing. I will now retire to an episode of CSI: Las Vegas.

Peace out!

One of the beautiful things about the letter to the Hebrews is the way Auctor ties his sermon together. Instead of being a number of different genres which seem to have no connection whatsoever to its surrounding parts, Hebrews displays a very intricate and cohesive argument. At first glance one may think Auctor is confused, switching from a detailed and theological exposition to an exhortation of warning and concern without so much as a transition. But taking step back to see the discourse as a whole, one soon realizes that the switch in genre is dependent upon the previous argument.

One such example of a cohesive argument is found in the transition from Heb 2 to Heb 3. Auctor’s focus in Heb 2.5-14 is the humanity of Christ and his partaking of flesh in order to share in the experiences of humanity. This theme is introduced by the quotation of Ps 8. This Psalm serves to introduce a break from the focus on angels by illustrating the position of Christ as for a little while “lower than the angels” (ἠλάττωσας αὐτὸν βραχύ τι παρʼ ἀγγέλους, Heb 2.7; cf. 2.9 which identifies Jesus as the subject of the 2.7, contra TNIV). Auctor effectively switches his subject from the comparison of Christ with angels to that of Christ’s solidarity with mankind with the help of Ps 8.

As mentioned above, Heb 2.9 identifies Christ as the one who has been lower than the angels. The reason for his being made lower than the angels was so that he would taste death for everyone. God saw fit to perfect his Son through suffering and death in order that he may understand fully what it is like to partake in human nature (2.9-16). In order for Christ to understand the intricacies and sufferings of mankind it was necessary for him to be made lower (i.e. the incarnation) and to experience suffering and ultimately death (cf. Phil 2.5-11). Christ’s incarnation and suffering was to prepare him to become a “merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God” (ἵνα ἐλεήμων γένηται καὶ πιστὸς ἀρχιερεὺς τὰ πρὸς τὸν θεὸν; Heb 2.17). Because he experienced temptation and suffering, he is able to intercede on behalf of mankind as high priest.

Although the genre switches from exposition to exhortation, the cohesion continues through into Heb 3. Some cohesive indicators tying the previous exposition together with the exhortation are Ὅθεν, the repetition of the high priest (ἀρχιερεὺς, 2.17; ἀρχιερέα , 3.1) and Christ’s faithfulness (πιστὸς, 2.17; πιστὸν, 3.2). Auctor moves his setting from heaven (his comparison of Christ with the angels) to earth by comparing Christ with Moses, the first high priest of Israel. Just as the angels were privileged to see God face to face and serve him, Moses likewise had the same awesome responsibility to serve him as a mediator between God and the people of Israel.

If God permits, my next post will focus on Auctor’s introduction of Moses as the first high priest of Israel and his comparison to God’s ultimate priest Jesus Christ.

Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary: Old Testament: Vol. 1, Genesis-Deuteronomy.

Edited by John H. Walton

Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan 2009

Reviewed by Clifford B. Kvidahl

*This is the first in what will probably be more than a few reviews*

My previous entry on this very useful commentary from Zondervan dealt briefly with basic information such as presentation and layout.  In this brief review we will look at a section from Genesis 22.  Because I have a paper to write on this section of the OT, I figured that it would be beneficial to write some of my thoughts down in a brief review.

The commentary on Genesis was written by John H. Walton (PhD, Hebrew Union College).  Dr. Walton teaches at Wheaton College and Graduate School.  Earlier this year Dr. Walton published “The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate.” (IVP, 2009). Prior to these works on Genesis, Dr. Walton published “Genesis, NIV Application Commentary.” (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001). It is clear that Dr. Walton is adequate and up to the task to publish a commentary on Genesis.

Obviously with a work that encompasses the whole of the Pentateuch it is impossible to be thorough and very detailed, but do not let that hinder your usage of this fine commentary.  If detail is what you seek, there are numerous single volume commentaries that cover just Genesis that will adequately suit your exegetical needs.  What makes the ZIBBCOT so helpful is not just the written text of commentary, but also the various sidebars of information, pictures, maps, and the like.  These numerous illustrations are almost nonexistent in almost every commentary published today.

An example of the illuminating affect of the sidebars is tidbit of information included on “Child Sacrifice in the Ancient Near East” (p. 97) as well as a map that helps to identify the exact location of Moriah, the hill on which Abraham was commanded to sacrifice Isaac.  While a detailed textual account of the region surrounding Moriah is indeed helpful, the inclusion of a map as a visual aid only helps to situate the region in a way that we can see and comprehend.  Think of the textual information as a normal movie experience and the visual aid as digital 3D.

The actual text of commentary is brief, covering only 22.2, 10, 13, and 19.  But as I mentioned above the purpose of ZIBBCOT is not detailed exegesis, but rather background information.  It is here that I feel this work is very helpful.  The amount of information on the ANE is very helpful for anyone desiring to study the world of the patriarchs.

Matthew Thiessen. “Hebrews and the End of the Exodus.” Novum Testamentum 49 (2007): 353-69.

A few posts back I mused on the topic of the wilderness experience of Israel and how the author of Hebrews seemed to indicate that his reader were sharing in the same experience.  In his excellent article, Matthew Thiessen confirmed a lot of my suspicions about Auctor’s use of Ps 95 and the wilderness theme in Hebrews.  Thiessen states that his purpose in writing this article  was “to examine Hebrews to determine in which period of Israel’s history the author believed himself and his readers to be living” (354).  He goes on to conclude that Auctor “believed that the promises of God had not yet been fully obtained, though, in a unique move, he does not place himself and his readers in the time of the exile but even further back in Israel’s history, into the time of the exodus and the wilderness wanderings” (354).  This is obvious not only from the quotation of Ps 95, but also from the inclusion of Moses, Aaron, the tabernacle, and other indicators.

One obvious point made by Auctor is that the rest which God promised had yet to be entered.  Auctor warns his readers of the danger of unbelief: Βλέπετε, ἀδελφοί, μήποτε ἔσται ἔν τινι ὑμῶν καρδία πονηρὰ ἀπιστίας ἐν τῷ ἀποστῆναι ἀπὸ θεοῦ ζῶντος (3.9). It was precisely this reason that Auctor says not only kept them from rest, but also caused their death in the wilderness.  Thiessen is correct I believe in seeing Auctor’s use of Ps 95 as a re-reading of the history of Israel and its relationship to the Church.  For the rest that was promised Israel was not obtained.  Joshua was unable to bring the Israelites into the rest of God, therefore that rest is still available and waiting to be entered into (4.9).

Another interesting aspect of Thiessen’s article is his analysis of Heb 11 and the retelling of Israel’s history.  I began to notice this myself sometime back (see my previous posts on Heb 11 and the Wilderness), but did not elaborate on it like Thiessen did in his article.  “Simply put, Hebrews 11 recounts Israel’s history in such a way that the people of God never receive the land of God’s promise” (361).  This is an accurate assessment on the part of Thiessen.  Much like Moses exhorating the people on the cusp of the promise land by reminding them of their past experiences, Auctor too likewise exhorts his people on the verge of entering into the promised rest.

Well, there is much more than I would like to say, I believe you me I will!  But for now I will conclude with a exhortation of my own: Read Thiessen’s article.  It is an excellent look at the promised rest which we are striving to enter into.

More to follow in due time.  But now I sleep!

χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη ἀπὸ θεοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν καὶ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ.

I was skimming through the upcoming Eerdmans publications and noticed that Peter T. O’Brien’s commentary on Hebrews is coming down the pipe in the very near future (anticipated realease: 3/1/2010).  This work is part of the Pillar New Testament Commentary series, which has produced a number of well written and useful commentaries.  This would be O’Brien’s second work in the Pillar series, his previous work on Ephesians is considered a must have for students of Ephesians.

As you may know, one of my main interest is the book of Hebrews.  So any major work or commentary on Hebrews I immediately snatch up and add to my library (just do not tell my wife).  I have been looking forward to O’Brien’s work since I first learned of his writing.  He has written mostly in the field of Pauline studies, so it will be interesting to see his take on issues unique to Auctor.

Here is the description:

In this carefully crafted commentary Peter O’Brien distinctively harvests the results of recent scholarship on the letter to the Hebrews, especially in relation to the genre of the document and the flow of its discourse. O’Brien views this letter as a “word of exhortation” — a homily or sermon that skillfully interweaves exposition and exhortation, encouraging faithful perseverance in the light of the superlative final word that God has spoken in Christ.

I decided to check the stats of this blog to see what the most visited post of mine was.  And by a landslide it was this one.  I wrote this one way back in August of 2006, just over three years ago.  It has been visited more than 1800 times, that is more than three times the next two.  I guess there are a lot of people out there who want to know who Auctor is and why he wrote (preached) Hebrews.  If only I knew who he was, then I could cash in and retire.

Thanks again for reading my posts.

Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary: Old Testament: Vol. 1, Genesis-Deuteronomy.

Edited by John H. Walton

Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan 2009

Reviewed by Clifford B. Kvidahl

*This is the first in what will probably be more than a few reviews*

 

Understanding the culture, language, geography, and the history of the Ancient Near East is no easy task.  Furthermore, trying to place the Old Testament writings into the broader literary context of its day takes much skill and discipline.  Thankfully there are men like John Walton who have spent many years doing such a thing, and the fruit of that labor can be easily seen in Zondervan’s recent publication of ZIBBCOT.

This review will be an ongoing review, taking form as I work my way through key passages and sections of the Pentateuch.  This first review will focus mostly on presentation and overview of the commentary itself.

Having been familiar with ZIBBCOT’s older brother, Zondervan Illustrated Bible Background Commentary New Testament (ZIBBCNT), I had high expectations for ZIBBCOT.  As one who found ZIBBCNT to be useful and informative, my was anticipation was high that ZIBBCOT would likewise fail to disappoint.  Because of the rich history, culture, and religious background of the OT ZIBBCOT would be an indispensable tool for layman and scholar alike in their interpretation of the OT text.

At first glance I was blown away with all of the detailed charts, colorful pictures, and ancient texts that help to illuminate the text of the OT in a way that I have never been able to see before.  The reader will find such visual aides an enormous benefit in his or her personal study of the text.

So, to conclude this initial review, I am very impressed with the quality and detailed work that Zondervan has put into the ZIBBCOT.  On the basis of the visual aides alone I would whole heartedly and without hesitation recommend that one pick up this set from Zondervan, they will not be disappointed one bit.

A special thanks to Andrew Rogers at Zondervan for two review copies:

A Theology of John’s Gospel and Letters (BTNT) by Andreas J. Kostenberger as well as 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus: African Bible Commentary Series by Samuel M. Ngewa.  I was excited to look at Kostenberger’s Johnanine theology, and after seeing it I am very impressed!  It is a massive work of scholarship and I am sure that it will be just as good as his previous commentary of John in the BECNT.  Reviews are forthcoming.

Also, two other books came in the mail, but  these I purchased.  The first, Story as History, History as Story: The Gospel Tradition in the Context of Ancient Oral History by Samuel Byrskog is one that I had on my wish list for sometime.  I finally saw a used one at a good price so I snatched it up.  The second, God’s People in the Wilderness: The Church in Hebrews by O. Palmer Robertson is a book right up my alley.  If you noticed, a recent post of mine dealt with this subject, so when I came across this little book I was excited to read through it.