Brevard Childs on the Biblical Tabernacle

In his monumental 1974 commentary on the Book of Exodus, Yale professor Brevard Childs provided an overview of the long history in which both Jewish and Christian interpreters have sought to understand the tabernacle.[1] Childs noticed a consistent and common fascination with this unique place of worship. The biblical description of the tabernacle, he wrote, "has been regarded from the beginning with the greatest possible interest by Jewish and Christian scholars alike."[2]. And what has been the reason for this? Childs offered a two-part explanation:

First, the dimension of the tabernacle and all its parts reflect a carefully contrived design and a harmonious whole. The numbers 3, 4, 10 predominate with proportionate cubes and rectangles. The various parts--the separate dwelling place, the tent, and the court--are all in exact numerical relation. The use of metals--gold, silver, and copper-- are carefully graded in terms of their proximity to the Holy of Holies. In the same way, the particular colors appear to bear some inner relation to their function, whether the white, blue, or crimson. There is likewise a gradation in the quality of the cloth used. Finally, much stress is placed on the proper position and orientation, with the easterly direction receiving the place of honor.[3]

In addition, Childs highlighted how in the biblical account it is the Almighty who issues each one of the many directions for the construction of the Tabernacle. "Every detail of the structure reflects the one divine will and nothing rests on the ad hoc decision of human builders."[4] Consequently, both Jewish and Christian scholars assumed that these details are rich in meaning, laden with significance. And this naturally led those interpreters to take a figurative, symbolic approach. In the post-Reformation period, Christian studies of the Tabernacle reveal a distinctive effort "to demonstrate the typology between the kingdom of God in the symbolism of the tabernacle and the church."[5]

Notes

[1] Brevard S. Childs, The Book of Exodus: A Critical, Theological Commentary, The Old Testament Library (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1974), 537-50.  I refer to this work as "monumental" because, with only a handful of possible exceptions--most notably Karl Barth's commentary on Paul's Letter to the Romans--very few twentieth-century commentaries on any book of the Bible made a greater impact than did Childs's work on Exodus. Much of its prominence stemmed from the author's construal of the task of commenting on a biblical text. At the outset, Childs revealed his intention to break new ground by reclaiming what was essentially old ground. Compared to "the majority of scholars within the field," he set out to present "a different understanding of the role of biblical interpretation." While the majority apparently considered historical-critical scholarship an end in itself--particularly investigations of the so-called depth dimensions of the text--Childs intended to use higher criticism as a means whose end was nothing short of what he often referred to as "the recovery of theological exegesis" (ix). And this explains the subtitle he gave to his commentary.

[2] Ibid., 547.

[3] Ibid., 537-38

[4] Ibid., 540.

[5] Ibid., 548.

Job 38: A Brief Annotated Bibliography

A few days ago, I told a friend that he really shouldn't bookmark "Frankly Speaking."

So why would a blogger like me tell a friend that he'd be better off to stay away? Because, I told him, these days I'm using the blog as sort of a digital filing cabinet. What I've tucked away in draft form for a long time, I'm now posting for whatever it might be worth to someone else. As you'll see, this post fits that category.

What follows here is an annotated list of resources on the Book of Job in general, and on chapter 38 in particular. This is a bit spade work I took on several years ago while a student at Yale Divinity School. My goal was to provide a summary of and categorize a number of articles, book chapters, and commentaries. With that, here's what I came up with . . .

A. Journal Articles/Book Chapters I Found Helpful

1. Fox, Michael V. "Job 38 and God's Rhetoric," Semeia 19. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981.

The author begins by arguing, in general, for the exegetical goal of identifying a text's authorial intent (ala E. D. Hirsch). The second half of this article shows how, in Job 38, the rhetorical style of God's questions has the effect of drawing in the listener. The result is that Job is able to "accept the speaker's claims out of his own consciousness rather than having the information imposed on him from the outside" (58). For what it's worth, this article points to an important question regarding the rhetorical purpose of the divine speeches at the end of Job. Do the divine speeches have the effect of obliterating proud Job? Or do they function to reorient the mind of confused Job? This question often comes up in the secondary literature. Also, the remainder of Semeia number 19 is dedicated to the study of Job 38 in the light of Paul Ricour's hermeneutics. As it turns out, the other articles in this volume do not have much at all to do with the exegesis of Job 38. That's why they aren't listed in this bibliography.

2. Jamieson-Drake, David W. "Literary Structure, Genre and Interpretation in Job 38." In The Listening Heart, edited by Kenneth G. Hoglund. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987: 217-35.

A detailed, penetrating analysis of the literary structure of Job 38. Some fine points on how the form of this text complements its function in the larger context of the Book of Job. Provides a table that shows the close verbal parallels between Job 38 and Psalms 104 and 147.

3. Vall, Gregory. "'From Whose Womb Did the Ice Come Forth?' Procreation Images in Job 38:28-29." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 57 (1995): 504-13.

Vall convincingly argues that the correct answer to God's first question in Job 38:28 is, "No, the rain has no father" (512). Further, "the three questions in our text should be answered as follows: 'No one begat the dew drops. The ice came forth from no one's womb. No one gave birth to the rime.'" (p. 512). The point of the text is that God is "directly responsible for bringing about these forms of water (cf. the verses immediately preceding our passage, 38:25-27), but his mode of bringing them about has no true analogue in the realm of human (much less animal) procreation" (p. 513). A splendid piece of exegetical work!

4. Wilcox, Karl G. "Who Is This . . . ? A Reading of Job 38:2" Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 78 (1998): 85-95.

Alas, the YDS copy of JSOT 78 could not be found. But, according to Old Testament Abstracts, here's what this articles is about: "Takes the third-person construction of Job 38:2 into account in order to show that it is Elihu that God judges as darkening counsel at the beginning of Job 38 and not Job. This reading argues that Elihu is judged at 38:2, and that the narrative supports God's final assessment of Job as one who has spoken the thing that is right. Job's repentance is viewed as an acknowledgment that while Job has been correct in his attempt to justify himself, he has erred in his demand that God must justify himself to man. In condemning Job, Elihu assumes the divine prerogative; consequently Elihu's justification of God results in a divine condemnation and exclusion from the closing sacrifices made by Job for the three friends."

B. Journal Articles/Book Chapters that were Interesting, but not as Helpful

1. Allison, Dale C. "What Was the Star that Guided the Magi?" Bible Review 9 (1993): 20-24, 63.

Takes Job 38:7 to be "synonymous parallelism" (i.e. morning stars = sons of God, or angels) which serves to advance the author's theory that the star that led the magi to the place where Jesus was born was an angel. The article is better and more convincing than you might imagine.

2. Cornelius, Izak. "The Sun Epiphany in Job 38:12-15 and the Iconography of the Gods in the Ancient Near East -- The Palestinian Connection." Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 16 (1990): 25-43.

Asserts that Palestinian iconography was the link between the iconographies of Egypt and Mesopotamia. Throws light on Job 38:12-15 by comparing its description of God with representations of the divine in art of that place and period.

3. Fox, Michael V. "Egyptian Onomastica and Biblical Wisdom." Vetus Testamentum 36 (1986): 302-10.

Argues, contra A. Alt and G. von Rad, that in ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia there were no genuine onomastica (i.e., lists of nouns which would summarize a certain field of study like geography or zoology). The so-called Egyptian onomastica did not function as lexicons or encyclopedias, but as primers for those who were learning to write. At any rate, "There is no evidence for a 'science of lists' in ancient Israel" (308). Thus--and here's the exegetical point--such lists do not provide source material for passages like Job 38 or 1 Kings 5:10-14.

C. Four Big Modern Commentaries on the Book of Job

1. Gordis, Robert. The Book of Job. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1978. xxxiii + 602 pp.

Wow! Contains the Hebrew text and an English translation of the entire Book of Job. Too, in the comments sections, quotations from the text are in Hebrew (i.e., not transliterated). The arrangement of the commentary is also very nice. For each section of Job, the Hebrew text and English translation are followed by notes, each note beginning with the chapter and verse numbers. Using this commentary, one could work through the text by translating one verse, comparing the translation by Gordis, reading his comment, and so on. Also, for quick reference, one can easily find the author’s comments on a particular verse. On Job 38, the Hebrew text, translation, and commentary amount to approximately sixteen pages. At the end of the book, there is a section (75 pp.) of 42 "Studies on the Language, Structure and Contents of Job." Here one will find such entries as "Special Note 33-The First Speech of The Lord (38:1-40:2)" (pp. 563-65). If price were no object, I would buy this one without thinking twice.

2. Habel, Norman C. The Book of Job. Old Testament Library. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1985. 586 pp.

Sets out to provide "a literary and theological study of the text" (p. 9). Notwithstanding the alleged pre-history of the text, Habel treats the Book of Job as a literary unit. Offers a translation plus, I. Textual Notes, II. Design, and III. Message in Context. On Job 38, these four sections add up to about 25 pages. Does not offer a lot by way of comparative Semitics (like Pope), but will be much more helpful for those interested in literary and theological analysis.

3. Hartley, J. E. The Book of Job. New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1988. xiv + 591 pp.

This commentary stands in the tradition of evangelicalism. Though conservative, it acknowledges and explains other points of view. Very well researched. As with all the commentaries in this series, this work is heavily footnoted, which is bothersome to people like me who want to read everything the author has to say. Provides a ton of good bibliography.

4. Pope, Marvin H. Job. Anchor Bible. Garden City, NJ: Doubleday, 1965. 409 pp.

A series of detailed notes which follow the author’s translation of the text. Translation and Notes on Job 38 take up sixteen pages of smaller print. The strength of this commentary is its philological analysis. On the other hand, if you’re looking to see something on the literary qualities, rhetoric, and theological import of the text, you’ll have to look elsewhere. For a good overview of the entire Book of Job, see the "Summary of the Content of Job," pp. xv-xxiii. As with the other sections of introduction, this is very helpful.

Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible

Over the past year or two, I've noticed the publication of several volumes in a new series called the Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible. R. R. Reno (pictured here) is the series editor. Reno is a professor of theology at Creighton University and authored the Brazos volume on the Book of Genesis.

Of all the commentary sets out there, I have to say this one intrigues me the most. For one thing, you might not always recognize the names of the authors. Most preachers and teachers expect to see commentaries on New Testament books by well-known specialists like Ben Witherington III, Scot McKnight, Gordon Fee, and the everywhere-all-the-time N. T. Wright. If it's a commentary on an Old Testament book, then you expect names like Tremper Longman, Choon-Leong Seow, Terence Fretheim, and John H. Walton. But none of those names show up on the Brazos list.

Something else about this series: when I do recognize an author's name, it's usually someone who's earned his or her reputation in a field next to biblical studies, not in it. For example, the volume on the Book of Acts was written by the late Yale professor Jaroslav Pelikan, who made his mark as an historian of Christianity and the Middle Ages. Pelikan was a great scholar. But he was not a biblical scholar per se. The commentary on Colossians has been assigned to Christopher Seitz, an Old Testament specialist who, to my knowledge, hasn't published much at all in the area of New Testament (but who has always shown an interest in the theological unity of the Christian Bible). The volume on Matthew is by the popular theologian and ethicist Stanley Hauerwas. And Ellen Charry, a theologian who teaches at Princeton, is scheduled to co-author the commentary on the Book of Psalms.

In short, this series deliberately steers off the beaten path. Instead of biblical specialists, it turns to people who are more theologians to say what they will about the various books of the Bible. This comes across clearly in the official blurb:

Leading theologians read and interpret scripture for today's church, providing guidance for reading the Bible under the rule of faith. Each volume in the Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible is designed to serve the church--through aid in preaching, teaching, study groups, and so forth--and demonstrate the continuing intellectual and practical viability of theological interpretation of the Bible.

It will be interesting to see where this series will go, what impact it might actually make in the way that students of the Bible hear and apply the text. If you need to know the answer to some technical question, there are a handful of resources you can turn to (e.g., Word Biblical Commentary, International Critical Commentary, etc.). But to hear what historian Timothy George might have to say about the Book of James? That sounds especially interesting to me.

So, has anyone out there taken a look at one of the Brazos volumes? What did you think?

Why Read Old Commentaries?

Every period of church history exhibits a different set of strengths and weaknesses. Human nature being what it is, we tend to prize what we have going for us while remaining ignorant of our deficiencies.

This is the great value of old commentaries for today's Bible students. Although the old books reveal the weaknesses of their time, they also contain its strengths. That's why I love these words from David Steinmetz:

The principle value of precritical exegesis is that it is not modern exegesis; it is alien, strange, sometimes even, from our perspective, comic and fantastical. Precisely because it is strange, it provides a constant stimulus to modern interpreters, offering exegetical suggestions they would never think of themselves or find in any recent book, forcing them again and again to a rereading and re-evaluation of the text. Interpreters who immerse themselves, however, not only in the text but in these alien approaches to the text may find in time that they have learned to see, with eyes not their own, sights they could scarcely have imagined and to hear, with ears not their own, voices too soft for their own ears to detect.

--in "John Calvin on Isaiah 6," Interpretation 36 (1982), p. 170.

- - - - - -

Speaking of old books, I got to go to the noon meeting of the Downtown Lion's Club yesterday. One of my friends, Trent Sisemore, was the keynote speaker. He talked about the history of the English Bible and brought along several examples from his personal collection, including a 1611 copy of the King James Version. Trent gave a really good speech. Afterwards, I got the chance to look through some of those Bibles. Fascinating.

The Pastoral Epistles, by George W. Knight III

Every once in a while, I like to write about a book that I've read thoroughly, one that I can recommend to others (or warn them about). I've recently gone back through The Pastoral Epistles, by George W. Knight III (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1992). Here's an updated version of something I wrote not long after Knight's work first came out: . . .

Over the last ten years or so, students of 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus have been given several nice gifts, among them a full-scale commentary by William D. Mounce in the Word series, a similar work by Luke Timothy Johnson (but which does not include Titus) in the Anchor Bible, not to mention Ben Witherington's Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians, Volume 1: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on Titus, 1-2 Timothy and 1-3 John.

These latest works go a long way toward supplementing other fine books on the Pastorals like the ones by J.N.D. Kelly, Donald Guthrie, Gordon D. Fee and, of course, John Calvin.

Next on the horizon is Abraham J. Malherbe's long-awaited commentary in the Hermeneia series. While we wait for that one, another fairly-recent and very helpful treatment of the Greek text should not be overlooked: George W. Knight's The Pastoral Epistles in the New International Greek Testament Commentary series, edited by I. Howard Marshall and W. Ward Gasque.

Given the modern history of studies in the Pastorals, it comes as no surprise that the 50-page introduction focuses on the question of authorship. Knight, acknowledging the help of Donald Guthrie, fends off the arguments against Pauline authorship and upholds the traditional position. Knight argues that Paul wrote 1 Timothy and Titus during the time between his two Roman imprisonments (i.e., during the early-to-mid 60s). He wrote 2 Timothy during the second Roman imprisonment (as early as 64 and as late at 67). He was martyred in Rome around that same time.

In defending this reconstruction, Knight deals with the alleged and real differences in vocabulary, style, ecclesiology, and theology between the Pastorals and other letters ascribed to Paul. In dealing with the revived suggestion that Luke wrote these letters, Knight accepts no more than the possibility that Luke served as Paul's amanuensis.

In the commentary proper, Knight briefly introduces each section and then seriously engages the Greek text verse by verse, treating phrases and individual words. He discusses significant textual questions, carries on a conversation with the immediate and broader biblical contexts, and responds to both ancient and modern secondary literature. Instead of asserting a determined position, he discusses every exegetical alternative with thoroughness. For example, more than a page is taken up discussing whether the Greek term kyrios in 1 Tim 1:14 refers to the Father or to the Son.

In two excursuses Knight crosses the line that traditionally divides exegesis from hermeneutics. In the first, "Bishops/Presbyters and Deacons," he builds a strong case that churches of the New Testament era typically recognized the two classes of leaders (1 Tim. 3:1-13; Phil. 1:1). Indeed, sounding much like a member of the Churches of Christ, the author says that a plurality of bishops and deacons serving a congregation is the New Testament "pattern."

In the second excursus, "Motivations for Appropriate Conduct," he argues that in Titus 2:1-10 Paul insisted upon such standards not merely because their violation would be offensive to outsiders and thus hurtful to the reputation of the gospel, but also because those standards square with healthy teaching, are intrinsically right, and were recognized by many first-century Cretans as such. In taking this stance Knight rejects the view that some of the regulations (notably, the wife's submission to her husband) are purely cultural and should not be bound in more egalitarian societies like ours. (For an overview of Knight's argument on the wider question, see his article, "The Role of Women in the Church"). He also rejects the notion that the high ethical standards of Pauline Christianity and the culturally accepted norms of the Pastorals do not match. Citing the ideal of citizenship in Romans 13 and the popular ethics of 1 and 2 Thessalonians, the author denies any sort of tension between "the real Paul" and the author of the Pastorals. Furthermore, the Pastorals do not uniquely represent an "early catholicism" that upheld a sort of pedestrian, middle-class morality.

As expected, readers will find in this work any number of likes and dislikes. In my opinion, the best aspect of this commentary is its exegetical detail on the Greek text. Knight also does a better job of drawing the reader into the text than do, say, Dibelius and Conzelmann (although their commentary remains a gold mine of historical and literary parallels).

I think that the primary flaw of Knight's commentary is that its linguistic focus is so intense, other contours of the biblical text are frequently ignored. For example, on 1 Tim. 5:23 ("No longer drink water exclusively, but use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and frequent ailments"), he says nothing of wine drinking in the Greco-Roman world, nor does he respond to the common suggestion that this verse gives us a glimpse into how the ascetic demands of the false teachers at Ephesus were affecting timid Timothy. Though shorter commentaries might ignore such questions, one expects a full-length work to treat them. A second criticism is that the historical notes, as well as the reported positions of other scholars, sometimes lack precision.

These quibbles aside, Knight's commentary is a significant contribution to New Testament study. An excellent supplement and balance to more liberal works like Dibelius-Conzelmann, this work will be a help to professors and other students of the Greek text. And for preachers whose Greek is serviceable, this guide is arguably the one to turn to first after working through the text itself.

John Calvin (1509-2009)

July 10th of this year will mark the 500th anniversary of the birth of John Calvin. It's safe to say that he changed the world.

During my undergraduate days, most everything I heard about Calvin was negative. After all, someone named Calvinism after him. And that was bad. One of my classmates was required to read part of his Institutes of the Christian Religion. My assumption was that the assignment was for the purpose of figuring out all the places where Calvin went wrong.

A few years later, when I was a graduate student, I noticed that biblical scholar Brevard Childs rarely missed an opportunity to make some glowing statement about Calvin's commentaries. I wondered how someone I respected so much could say such great things about John Calvin.

My interest at the time was the so-called Pastoral Epistles: 1 and 2 Timothy, and Titus. So I started working through an English translation of Calvin's commentary of that part of the New Testament.

Wow! What I discovered in that commentary was nothing short of marvelous. Not only did Calvin offer many great observations about the text, he did something else that modern commentators avoided: He "preached." His comments were at once studious and unabashedly theological. He didn't seem to understand the modern rule that biblical scholars weren't supposed to be preachers as well. To Calvin, one thing naturally lead to the next. I loved it and wished that today's Bible scholars were a little more like him, eager to say something about God in the midst of their serious studies.

Oh, sure. There were parts of Calvin that I didn't like so much. For instance, he sometimes went out of his way to take shots at "the Papists." But those places were easy to overlook when there was so much rich material all around them.

It's been a long time, too long, since I read much of John Calvin. I still reject his predestinarian ideas and wish that they didn't have so much influence. (If you haven't noticed, Calvinism is very popular among twenty-somethings today). But the depth and the warmth of his commentaries cannot be denied. I think I'll revisit some of them this year.

How about you? Ever read much from (as opposed to about) Calvin? What did you think?