Tag: exegetical

“Opening John’s Gospel and Epistles” by Philip W. Comfort & Wendell C. Hawley

~ Bob Hayton

Teaching and preaching the New Testament text with vitality and faithfulness is a high calling. The tools for the faithful student of the New Testament are many and varied. A teacher’s needs will be different than those being taught however, and many times a commentary is designed more for the end audience than for the one teaching them. Some resources delve too deeply into biblical languages and critical analysis — much deeper than the average teacher needs. Others package up the application so nicely that there is no effort expected or required of the reader.

Philip W. Comfort and Wendell C. Hawley have given us a unique blend of particularly helpful scholarly material and pastoral insight. In Opening John’s Gospel and Epistles one finds detailed textual and interpretive notes, sprinkled throughout a warm exultation of the main points being taught in the text. The result is a manual or guide for the active teacher, rather than an application book or a detailed exegetical analysis.

The book is laid out in a helpful format, with 6-12 page introductions to the books (2 & 3 John are treated together), followed by separate discussions of each unit of text. The discussions include an exposition and notes on pretty much each verse. The section on John also includes a key words and phrases section.

The expositions set the stage and serve to provide a big picture and background for one’s study and preparation. This is the place helpful application points and themes are raised. The notes explain the text and cover critical or textual matters in some detail (but those discussions stay brief and accessible).

Given Comfort’s expertise in textual critical matters, the work abounds with detailed textual notes explaining alternate readings and the manuscript evidence behind various readings. This can be a strong point, as when the publication and canonicity of the Gospel and epistles are explained, and when the leading papyrii witnesses to John’s writings are described. It can also be distracting to those less familiar or concerned about such matters. I think Comfort aims to make the wider church more aware of such discussions, and this work will make such points more accessible for sure. Of particular note, is the decision to set off the story of the woman caught in adultery (7:53-8:11) as an appendix to the section on John. The manuscript evidence argues against the inclusion of the story in the text of John’s Gospel, and Comfort and Hawley correspondingly treat the passage as less than fully inspired.

The commentary reflects a conservative evangelical approach to Scripture. Detailed theological points of controversy are generally avoided, however, in favor of the explication of the text. In John 6, for instance, the transubstantiation debate and the unconditional election question (6:44), are only referenced obliquely. In John 3:5 the various interpretations for “born of water and of the Spirit” are offered, and the preferred choice defended briefly. That discussion was quite helpful, and the discussion stayed very irenic.

I found the claim that John’s version of the Last Supper was not a Passover meal to be somewhat confusing. The introduction and also the discussion in chapter 19 assert that John asserted the Last Supper to be prior to the Passover meal. But the discussion in chapter 13 was referenced for more information, and there the commentary explained the Last Supper likely was a Passover meal.

The combination of two separate works into one presented some problems. Opening the Gospel of John was the original title. The work on the epistles was published as a separate work later in the Cornerstone Biblical Commentary series. Bringing the two works together is great, but I would have liked to see a greater attempt at standardizing the work as a whole. The Cornerstone Biblical Commentary Greek numbering system was used in the epistles of John for instance. Each Greek word is transliterated (as in the Gospel section), but it is a Strong’s number, as well as another number as well. This convention is not followed in the Gospel of John. What makes this even more confusing, is there is no mention of what the numbering system is or means in this book at all. I had to pick up a Cornerstone commentary to find that the numbers with a prefix “TG” refer to a Tyndale’s modified Strong’s Greek number, and “ZG” refers to a similar numbering system popularized by Zondervan. “TH” and “ZH” refer to the numbers for the Hebrew words in such a system. A similar matter is the absence of end notes in the epistles of John entirely, whereas every section of the book of John had several end notes. Also the NLT is emphasized in the work covering the epistles whereas the section on John (produced before the publication of the NLT Bible) ignores it.

Along these lines, I encountered a few editing errors. Following the appendix to the Gospel of John, a list of three papyrii is found with no explanation as to why it is there. At the very end of the book a list is given of all the papyrii and major manuscripts and there are a few obvious typos in that list as well. Furthermore in at least two places (pg. 335 and 351) a single Greek word is followed by a reference to a Greek and a Hebrew number (TG & ZH).

These minor quibbles aside, the notes and commentary provided in this work seem especially clear, straightforward and eminently helpful. It will be a volume that I’ll be keeping in arm’s reach, whenever I teach from John’s Gospel or his epistles. I recommend this book highly.

Pick up a copy of this book at Amazon.com or direct from Tyndale House.

Disclaimer: This book was provided by Tyndale House Publishers for review. The reviewer was under no obligation to offer a favorable review.

“The Meaning of the Pentateuch: Revelation, Composition and Interpretation” by John H. Sailhamer

~ Bob Hayton ~ 3 Comments

Few 600 page books on theology are intended to help the average Bible student as much as the learned theologian. Even fewer succeed in that aim. But I figured something was special about this book when John Piper encouraged everyone who cared about “meaning” to get this book, because it will “rock your world”. Rock my world, it did! And more.

I can’t claim this book is an easy read. I had to work my way through parts of it. But the effort was worth it. Sprinkled throughout the book are the kinds of takeaways that can truly change one’s life. John Sailhamer unpacks the meaning of texts and shows the relationship between various parts of the Old Testament. I came away with an enhanced understanding of OT Scripture and a greater appreciation for the unity of the testaments. In the following review, I will walk through the book, then I’ll focus on Sailhamer’s emphasis on authorial intent, the final shape of the canon, the poems of the Pentateuch and some of his conclusions about the meaning of the Pentateuch.

The book begins with a 46-page introduction setting the stage for what will be covered. The scope of what Sailhamer sets out to accomplish with this book is impressive. He is all about “meaning”, and showing us how we can go about finding the meaning of something as large as the first five books of the Bible — considered as one cohesive unit, the Pentateuch. Along the way, he offers thoughts on OT theology, and traces a history of biblical interpretation. This sets the stage for his discussions of authorial intent, verbal meaning, and the place of “historical meaning” in biblical texts. Ultimately he is pushing toward discovering the “big idea” of the Pentateuch, as expressed by the biblical author.

Once he introduces us to his stress on finding the author’s intent in the final shape of the canonical Pentateuch, he goes about doing fantastic exegesis of the Pentateuch itself. He explores how the Pentateuch was put together and composed, and shows how poetry frames the Pentateuch, offering textual clues to finding the author’s emphasis. He then goes on to trace several themes in the Pentateuch, finding corroboration in how the prophets and later authors of Scripture themselves interpreted Moses’ foundational books. That’s the book in a nutshell, but there’s so much more that could be said about it!

Sailhamer sees incredible importance in finding the author of the Pentateuch’s intent. He sees both conservative and liberal theologians as having erred in focusing too much on the questions of historicity. To this point, Sailhamer explains:

The Pentateuch may be compared to a Rembrandt painting of real persons or events. We do not understand a Rembrandt painting by taking a photography of the “thing” that Rembrandt painted and comparing it with the painting itself. That may help us understand the “thing” that Rembrandt painted, his subject matter, but it will not help us understand the painting itself. To understand Rembrandt’s painting, we must look at it and see its colors, shapes and textures. In the same way, to understand the Pentateuch, one must look at its colors, contours and textures. (pg. 19)

Sailhamer’s history of biblical interpretation focuses on the increased attention paid to the historical background to the OT text. There was an attack on the historicity of Scripture, and Sailhamer acknowledges the apologetic value of historical studies. But they have served to distract OT scholars from their real mission. “Filling in the biblical narratives with additional historical material may teach us things about the events of which the biblical writers were speaking, but the evangelical’s goal in interpretation and biblical theology is not an understanding of those events as such. The goal, as evangelicals must see it, is the biblical author’s understanding of those events in the inspired text of the Bible (OT).” (pg. 104)

Questions of authorial intent, when it comes to the Pentateuch, inevitably run into the various source theories. This is where Sailhamer parts course and advocates a “compositional approach”. Some have read Sailhamer and conclude he rejects a Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, my understanding is different. I’ll let Sailhamer explain at some length.

…an evangelical compositional approach to biblical authorship identifies Moses as the author of the Pentateuch and seeks to uncover his strategy in putting the book together…. As far as we know, the Mosaic Pentateuch is identical with the canonical Pentateuch with only few exceptions…. Two notable examples are the account of the death of Moses in Deuteronomy 34 and Moses’ final words in Deuteronomy 33. Such comments, though possibly spoken by Moses, were added late in Israel’s history, likely as part of a “new edition” of the Pentateuch (“Pentateuch 2.0,” in the lingo of today’s computer world). Contrary to the prevailing view of biblical authorship, both critical and evangelical, the compositional approach suggests that the Pentateuch was not the product of a long and complicated process of literary growth, but comes to us more or less as an updated edition of a single earlier Mosaic composition. The present canonical Pentateuch is thus an updated version of the Mosaic Pentateuch produced, perhaps, by the “author” of the OT as a whole (Tanak). (pg. 48)

Such a focus on the “final shape” of the canonical Pentateuch is best suited to a vigorous pursuit of the author’s intended meaning given to us through the text. To that end, Sailhamer sees an importance in the poems which frame the narrative sections of the Pentateuch. Gen. 49, Ex. 15, Numb. 23-24, and Deut. 32-33 are all large poems which function as a frame for the stage upon which the narratives of the Pentateuch are played out. These and other poems in the Pentateuch “serve a didactic purpose without being didactic.” Sailhamer explains further:

They are intended as commentary, although, being poetry, what they add to the narrative is not merely commentary, but also the opportunity of thoughtful reflection. The poems, as such, slow readers down and challenge them to reflect on the narrative through the eyes of a poet. Ultimately, the reader is left not with a narrative meaning, but with a poetic one. The reader joins the narrator in filling in the sense of the story. Although this may challenge the patience of modern readers, it adds an essential feature to the meaning of biblical narrative. (pg. 319)

When one looks at these four chief poems, an emphasis on a kingly messiah figure is apparent. Furthermore, three of the four poems are specifically said to be related to “the last days”. Sailhamer explores the intertextuality of these poems and other sections of the Pentateuch and even with the Hebrew OT as a whole. He then offers a decisive verdict: the Pentateuch is decidedly messianic in focus. The laws given on Sinai are not central, rather the new covenant Moses foretells and the coming of a kingly Messiah — they are the focal point of the books of Moses.

Following the lead of the poems, Sailhamer finds several important themes in the Pentateuch itself. Some of them sound very much like ideas we find in the New Testament. He sees a stress on a singular “seed” rather than a collective “seed” as the ultimate fulfillment of the Abrahamic promise (and Gen. 3:15), the importance of faith as opposed to a mere law-keeping perspective, and the idea of salvation coming to those who believe and hope in God. Along the way, Sailhamer also explains the Messianic structure in the arrangement of the Hebrew canon (the Tanak) and within the psalter. Three additional points from Sailhamer’s book were especially helpful to me.

First, was the discussion of Matthew’s use of Hosea 11:1. Sailhamer shows how Matthew’s use of the text in Hosea is not entirely novel, as many interpreters believe. Rather, Hosea himself is reading the Pentateuch in a messianic way. Hosea quotes Numb. 24:8, one of the messianic poems which frame the Pentateuch. So he has in mind a messianic application in his use of the text. Matthew is merely following suit. Second, was the discussion of how Gen. 49 and the surrounding chapters about Joseph’s story, actually serve to use Joseph as an example of the future kingly Messiah. In other words, the very structure of the Genesis account of Joseph is designed intentionally to see Joseph’s life as a kind of type of the future messianic kingly leader who was to come from Judah’s line.

Third, was Sailhamer’s discussion of the law as being given successively over time and in response to the sin of the Israelites. He revives the earlier teaching of John Calvin and Johann Coccejus based in large part on both Gal. 3:19 and a careful reading of the Pentateuch itself. The golden calf as well as Israelite sacrifices to goat idols (Lev. 17:1-9) are narrative sections that frame different collections of laws. Sailhamer also points out that there were laws mentioned as operative prior to the account of the giving of the 10 commandments even. This perspective merits further study especially as it doesn’t fit the mold of either covenant theology or dispensationalism’s teaching on the laws of Sinai.

Time prevents me from offering a fuller discussion of these matters. One must get the book and hear Sailhamer out. Even if one differs with some of Sailhamer’s conclusions, he must appreciate Sailhamer’s exegetical insight and the great care he has to listen to the text itself. Like John Piper implied, Sailhamer cares about “meaning” , and so should we. If you do, you will benefit from studying what John Sailhamer has to say on the Pentateuch. You may never look at the Old Testament in the same way again.

Pick up a copy of this book at Westminster Bookstore, Monergism Books, Amazon.com or through Inter-Varsity Press.

This book was provided by Inter-Varsity Press for review. The reviewer was under no obligation to offer a favorable review.

Quotes to Note 15b: Sailhamer on How Genesis Intends Joseph’s Life As a Type of the Coming Messiah

~ Bob Hayton ~ 4 Comments

I’m working my way through John Sailhamer’s The Meaning of the Pentateuch: Revelation, Composition and Interpretation (IVP). I’m finding multiple nuggets of special insight and blessing; the reward for reading through this 600 page book is well great indeed.

Often the interpretation of the Joseph narratives proves problematic among pastors and evangelical theologians today. Many don’t want to see Joseph’s life as paralleling Christ’s because the New Testament doesn’t expressly indicate that Joseph’s life is typical of the Messiah. But right in Genesis, however, Sailhamer finds a warrant for seeing Joseph’s life typified as an example of what the coming Messiah-King will be like.

…special attention [is] given to Judah in the whole of the Joseph narrative (Gen 37-50). As the story of Joseph’s journey to Egypt is getting underway (Gen 37), the author interrupts the narration to insert a lengthy story about Judah and his “righteous” (Gen 38:26) descendants (Gen 38). Also, when Joseph’s brothers devised a plot to kill him (Gen 37:18), it was Judah, rather than the firstborn, Reuben, who saved Joseph from sudden death. Such “reversals” occur numerous times within the remainder of the Joseph narrative. Judah is singled out from the other brothers as the one through whom the rescue of the family of Jacob was accomplished.

…Joseph’s brothers understood his [dreams] to mean they… would bow down to him…. As the narratives unfold, that is exactly what happens…. When they bow to him, Joseph “remembers his dreams” (Gen 42:9), and with him, the reader discovers that this is a work of divine intervention. The point of the narrative is to show that these and similar events are a fulfillment of Joseph’s dreams.

The narratives that focus attention on the fulfillment of Joseph’s dreams are not permitted a final word. There are still important parts of the narrative that draw our attention not to Joseph, but to Judah. That focus reaches its fullest expression in Jacob’s poem (Gen 49). The last word of the Joseph narrative turns our attention toward the preeminence of the tribe of Judah: “your brothers will bow down to you”… (Gen 49:8b). These words connecting Judah to Joseph’s dreams are… important in giving us another look at the author’s understanding of Jacob’s first words to Judah. By means of these words (Gen 49:8b), a larger lesson is drawn from the Joseph narratives. What was once true only of Joseph, that his brothers would bow down to him (Gen 37:7-10), is now to find its fulfillment in the reign of one who holds the scepter from the house of Judah (Gen 49:10)…. In drawing a connection between the Joseph narratives and the promise to the house of Judah, Joseph and the events of his life foreshadow what will ultimately happen to the king from the house of Judah, the one spoken of in this poem. The king who was to come from the house of Judah is foreshadowed by the life of Joseph. He will save his people and the nations, just as Joseph saved the families of the sons of Jacob (Gen 50:20) and the nations (Gen 47:19). Joseph, rather than Reuben, will be the firstborn among his brothers, but Judah will reign through the kingship… (pg. 327-328)

A redemptive-historical approach to interpretation such as I advocate, would already feel liberty to find divinely-intended parallels between the life of Joseph and the life of Christ. Now with Sailhamer’s work, a stronger connection is forged, and we can see that the prophetic shapers of the final canonical form of the Tanak, themselves, saw parallels between Joseph’s career and the life and work of the coming Messiah-King.