Trimm, Charlie. The Destruction of the Canaanites: God, Genocide, and Biblical Interpretation. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2022. 117 pp. Pb; $14.99. Link to Eerdmans
In The Destruction of the Canaanites, Charles Trimm summarizes the problem of the command to destroy all the Canaanites at the time of the conquest. This is an important issue since the Canaanite Genocide and violence in the Old Testament is one reason many modern atheists reject the existence of God, such as Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, or Dan Barker, God: The most Unpleasant Character in All Fiction. After setting the background to the problem, Trimm offers four ways to understand why God commands Israel to destroy Jericho and other Canaanites.
Trimm begins with three chapters on the background necessary to develop an informed opinion on this issue. First, he briefly surveys warfare in the Ancient Near East. Drawing on Egyptian and Mesopotamian texts, he shows that the rhetoric of warfare often includes hyperbole to describe their victories. Archaeology and history confirm ancient kings engaged in battle. But friendly casualties are vastly under-reported, while the extent of the victories is exaggerated. Sometimes, both sides claimed victory! In the second chapter, Trimm examines other examples of mass killing or genocide in antiquity, focused primarily on Hittite records. Sometimes the Hittites consecrated a captured town, something which could be described as “cultural genocide.” Finally, Trimm defines Canaanites as various people groups who were in the land when Joshua arrived. This section also discusses the command to destroy the city of Jericho, focused on the key Hebrew term ḥērem. The word is sometimes used to describe bringing order to chaos (40). But the command to slaughter all the enemy may be because of a scarcity of land and resources. In addition, ḥērem sometimes appears in the context of sacrifice and punishment.
After this section on Ancient Near Eastern background, the second part of the book offers four approaches to the problem of Canaanite Genocide in the Old Testament: First, some reevaluate God and conclude that he is not good, or that he simply does not exist. For an atheist like Richard Dawkins, the question is pointless since there is no God, whether good or evil. Second, others reevaluate the historical value of the Old Testament. The Old Testament does record genocide, but these reports are historically suspect. This view (obviously) rejects biblical inerrancy.
Third, others are reevaluating the interpretation of the Old Testament. In this approach, the violence found in the Bible is not as violent as it appears. This approach involves a legal definition of genocide, but more often, in church history, these texts in the Old Testament are spiritualized to refer to a later enemy (the Crusades, or persecution of the Jews). Unfortunately, this doesn’t really solve the problem; it just moves it to a different enemy. Several scholars in this category will note that the word ḥērem is not always lethal, as it can be used metaphorically for devotion. Others will point to the hyperbole used in the command, “destroy the entire city and all the people.” It cannot mean they literally destroyed the entire city, since some cities continued to exist after they were supposedly destroyed.
The fourth view calls for reevaluating the violence in the Old Testament. These scholars accept that the Old Testament does accurately report mass killing, and that at one time, the holy God sanctioned this violence If this is true, then the violence must be a just punishment on the wicked Canaanites, not a “ethnic cleansing.” Scholars supporting this view often point out that the entrance into Canaan was unique in history. God gave the land to Shem and later to Abraham; Israel is reclaiming land that was already theirs.
Conclusion. Trimm’s The Destruction of the Canaanites is an excellent introduction to the problem of violence in the Old Testament, written with laypeople in mind. It does not require special training in Ancient Near Eastern culture or Old Testament literature to appreciate the various approaches to the problem. He does not advocate for any of the positions, although he affirms both God’s existence and the truth of Scripture. Readers interested in more detailed arguments from scholars representing the views themselves might turn to Show Them No Mercy: Four Views on God and the Canaanite Genocide (Zondervan, 2003). Trimm provides a wealth of footnotes and a detailed bibliography for further study of this important topic.
NB: Thanks to Eerdmans for kindly providing me with a review copy of this book. This did not influence my thoughts regarding the work.
Goldingay, John. The Book of Lamentations. New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2022. 228 pp. Hb; $40.00 Link to Eerdmans
John Goldingay’s 2021 Jeremiah commentary in the NICOT series replaced J. A. Thompson’s 1995 commentary (now an Eerdmans Classic Commentary). Besides his major commentary, Goldingay also recently published a short The Theology of Jeremiah (IVP Academic, 2021, reviewed here). There never was a NICOT volume on Lamentations. This new volume by Goldingay fills this gap.
The thirty-three-page introduction to the book introduces the five poems which make up Lamentations. Goldingay begins by comparing Lamentations with other ancient Near Eastern city laments, although some are a millennium older than Lamentations and from an entirely different culture. It is impossible to know if the author of Lamentations knew this literary genre, but some scholars suggest the canonical book is a parody of these ancient city laments.
The five poems manifest a tight unity unparalleled in the rest of Scripture. Even though the book describes a radical disorientation in grief, the acrostic poems make it one of the most orderly books in the Hebrew Bible (5). The Hebrew varies between qatal and yiqatol forms, but Goldingay consistently translates using the English aorist. For the poet, the destruction of Jerusalem is in the past.
Goldingay suggests Lamentations 1:1-4 is a “Textbook embodiment of many of the features of first testament poetry” (7). He assumes worshipers originally chanted this poetic material. The lines have a rhythm (he compares the Hebrew poetry of Lamentations to modern rap music). This poetry has a regular rhythm, which means exceptionally short or long lines draw attention to themselves. Following Allsop-Dobbs, the poetry of Lamentations has a “limping beat” (9). Other features of the book’s poetry include repetition combined with variation, terseness, imagery, and various points of view. All Hebrew poetry omits the small words that aid communication, so his translation often assumes prepositions or an article. Terseness also implies using ellipsis, which can produce a certain “jerkiness in the translation.”
With respect to authorship and date, Goldingay is clear. The book is anonymous even if the Septuagint ascribed the book to Jeremiah. He suggests that this result is based on “later guesswork or creative reflection” based on 2 Chronicles 35:25 (13). But there are many “Jeremiah-like similarities.” Like Jeremiah, the poets of Lamentations are acquainted with the devastation of the city of Jerusalem. Even though Lamentations follows Jeremiah 52 in English Bibles, the books are quite separate from the Hebrew Bible. Lamentations does not have any direct historical data to suggest a date other than after the fall of Jerusalem. Goldingay suggests it is “plausible to follow the direction that the poems point in, inviting us to think of the situation after 587 rather than starting from an alternative subtlety. The poets lived between the years 587 and the 540s B.C., “the same period that the Jeremiah scroll came into existence” (15). He suggests that Judahite communities used the poems in worship based on references to mourning and fasting at places like Bethel or Mizpah (Zechariah 8:18-19).
Regarding the occasion, place of origin, and destination, he observes that the book was not written in Jerusalem. Even though the city was completely destroyed, a Judahite community remained in the land. However, there is no direct information in the book regarding why the poems were written. Goldingay suggests the books guide worshippers on how to think about the 587 catastrophe and to encourage them to express their feelings about the disaster. Therefore, the writer’s goals are “theological, educational, pastoral, cathartic, and religious” (17). Sometimes, the poems address Yahweh. Other times, the poets address one another, although not in a dialogue. Following Leslie Allen’s suggestion, Lamentations is a “liturgy of grief.” The poems facilitate people expressing to the Lord their continuing grief over the state of their city and the community after the catastrophe of 587 (17).
There can be no systemizing the theology of Lamentations, “the book is a whirlwind” (27). The writers are casting around for some meaning in the darkness. The poems are often an expression of suffering rather than the meaning behind it. He suggests two central theological themes in the book: Yahweh as the God of Israel and Israel as the people of Yahweh. Yahweh is actively sovereign (Lam 3:32-38) but his anger toward his people is blazing (2:1-2). Many commentators on Lamentations assume the theology of Deuteronomy, 2 Kings, and Jeremiah: wrongdoing results in trouble. This is true, but Goldingay sees more in the book than poetry based on Deuteronomic theology. The theology of Lamentations can be compared to the Psalms. God’s people need to trust in Yahweh and his faithfulness to his promises. But like the Psalms, Lamentations encourages protest in the light of trouble. Also, with the Psalms and the prophets, Yahweh continues to be committed to David and to Zion. Goldingay suggests that the “genius of Lamentations” is to hold all this together at the same time. It is not a “theology in shreds,” as some describe the book.
Lamentations is often considered a theodicy. The book is an attempt to explain the disaster of 587. For many Christian commentators, the explanation is that God was acting justly by punishing Judah for their sins. But as Goldingay observes, Lamentations “spreads the blame around.” Judah is to blame, but God himself is responsible for the disaster. Following Zachary Braiterman, Goldingay briefly discusses the term antitheodicy to describe Lamentation’s theology. Antitheodicy is a response to evil or disaster that is a protest rather than an explanation. But Goldingay thinks neither term is quite right. In Lamentations, it works both ways. There is traditional theodicy but also bitter protest and expressions of genuine grief. In fact, he concludes, “If there is a way of living with the unresolvable, it lies outside Lamentations.”
He begins his commentary on each poem by summarizing its content and offering something like an outline. Sometimes, verses can be grouped together, but this is not always possible. He offers a series of observations on the structure of the poetry in each of the five poems. The commentary treats each verse of the poem as a unit.
Goldingay’s translation follows the Masoretic text. In the introduction, he draws attention to 4QLam and 5QLam, which are not too different from the Masoretic Text. In his translation, Goldingay uses the Septuagint, Aramaic Targums, and the Peshitta in the footnotes of the commentary. These notes sometimes explain translation choices and occasionally amend the text. However, in his view, amending the Masoretic Text does not always clear up ambiguities. His translation in the commentary is a beautiful rendering of the Hebrew Bible in English (see also Goldingay’s translation of the First Testament).
Following the commentary on each poem, he offers a brief “Readers Response.” What would someone worshiping in Bethel or Mizpah think about the poem? These are short imaginary responses that are creative and moving. They are not the sort of thing one usually finds in academic commentary. This is not a basic pastoral application, nor is it an attempt to create canonical connections with the New Testament, which is all the rage in some commentary series. Goldingay invites us into the post-exilic world and asks us to think and feel along with the original worshipers who used these poems to cope with the catastrophe in which they were currently living.
There are several other unique features of this commentary. First, Goldingay writes in a very personal, familiar style. He captures the reader’s imagination and makes for a stimulating commentary to read. The commentary is not bogged down with minor exegetical details; he remains focused on the meaning of the poems. Virtually every page challenges the reader to deal with the poet’s grief. Second, Goldingay often uses bullet point lists of literary features or other data to summarize the material. Third, there is a more direct citation of other commentaries than usually expected in an exegetical commentary. Goldingay appears to have read every significant commentary on Lamentations ever written and plucks the most salient, moving, perhaps even shocking lines. Anyone using this commentary to prepare for teaching Lamentations will appreciate the fruit of Goldingay’s labor. He does not cite many ancient commentaries, but there are a few references to Ibn Ezra and Rashi. Fourth, occasionally, he makes important comparisons to other ancient Near Eastern literature. It is very difficult to understand Lamentations without this parallel literature. However, he uses this material judiciously to illustrate and not distract from the poems themselves.
Conclusion. As one expects when John Goldingay published a commentary, this new commentary on Lamentations is well worth reading. In fact, it is a rare commentary that should be read cover to cover as one might a monograph.
Firth, David G. Joshua. Evangelical Biblical Theology Commentary. Bellingham, Wash.: Lexham Press, 2020. xvi+425 pp.; Hb.; $49.99. Link to Lexham Press
Lexham’s Evangelical Biblical Theology Commentary was originally published by Broadman & Holman as the Biblical Theology for Christian Proclamation series. Lexham has repackaged four volumes (Hebrews, Romans, and 1-2 Timothy, Titus) and added three new volumes: Joshua (David G. Firth), Psalms (two volumes; James M. Hamilton), Daniel (Joe Sprinkle, reviewed here), and Galatians (Matthew S. Harmon). The series introduction indicates forty volumes are slated for the series. Firth (PhD, University of Pretoria) is tutor in Old Testament at Trinity College, Bristol. He previously published a monograph, Including the Stranger: Foreigners in the Former Prophets (NSBT 50; IVP Academic, 2019) and a major commentary, 1 & 2 Samuel (Apollos Old Testament Commentary; IVP Academic, 2020). He also wrote The Message of Esther (2016) and The Message Joshua (2022) in the Bible Speaks Today series from IVP Academic.
The commentary series uses the text of the Christian Standard Bible (Broadman & Holman), although the exegetical commentary itself is based on the Hebrew and Aramaic text of Daniel. As expected from the original publisher, although the authors of the series come from a variety of backgrounds, they all affirm inerrancy and inspiration of Scripture (xv).
The forty-four-page book describes the book of Joshua as transitional, looking back from Moses to Joshua, but also from the wilderness to the land. Is Joshua the completion of the promises made in the Pentateuch, or is the book something new in the life of Israel? The book of Joshua looks back to the Pentateuch but forward to Israel’s life in the land.
Regarding date authorship and purpose, Firth observes that there are sixteen occurrences of the phrase “until this day” in the book that imply a date beyond the “historical Joshua.” For example, Joshua 15:63 indicates the Jebusites “inhabit Jerusalem to this day,” suggesting a date before David captured the city (2 Samuel 5:6-10). The earliest edition of Joshua must have existed before David captured Jerusalem, possibly originating in the court of David (4). he suggests the purpose of the book is to bring the Pentateuch to a close. The writer deliberately reaches back to the promise of land, which was not fulfilled when the Pentateuch ends. Joshua, therefore, tells the story of the fulfillment of the promise of land made to Abraham.
Since this commentary focuses on biblical theology, Firth suggests several ways Joshua functions in the wider canon of scripture. Although Joshua is less prominent than Exodus, there are a few allusions in the prophets (Amos 2:9, Micah 6:5). Psalm 47:1-4and 114:3-6 allude to crossing the Jordan River, and Nehemiah 9:24-25 refers to Joshua and God’s faithfulness. Although there are no indisputable citations of Joshua in the New Testament, Acts 7:45 may allude to the story of Joshua and Rahab, which appears in Hebrews 11:30-31 and James 2:25 as a model of faith. Hebrews 4:8 refers to the experiences of Joshua and the rest of Israel when they entered the land.
Regarding the genre of Joshua, Firth surveys two options before concluding that Joshua is both narrative, history, and scripture. The book cannot simply be treated as a work of history, nor only as a book of sacred scripture. The book is certainly a narrative, but it functions within the constraints of the Old Testament narrative conventions. With respect to Joshua’s history, defining ancient history is difficult, but Joshua attempts to describe the origin of Israel. Joshua is therefore history, even if it is a theological history. Firth offers no detailed arguments for the historicity of Joshua, either in the introduction or in the commentary. Following Lawson Younger, he simply observes ancient conquest narratives “look like this” (22).
Every commentary on Joshua must address the difficult problem of violence in the book. In Joshua 6:24, God commands genocide: kill all the people in Jericho. Most modern readers find this offensive. How could a loving God command the death of innocent people (women, children, and animals)? In response, Firth makes three observations. First, there is certainly violence in the book, but not as much as is often assumed. Mostly, the violence is restricted to chapters 6, 10, and 11, all part of Israel’s military campaigns. Second, Joshua narrates history using the conventions of the period. Following John Walton, he observes that ancient people believed land belonged to their god, who gives it to whom he chooses. The land did not belong to any one people, it always belongs to God who gave it to Abraham and his descendants. Third, he suggests that the stories describing the total slaughter of the Canaanite people are hyperbole. He observes that in 10:37, the city of Hebron is “completely destroyed.” But in 14:6-15 (only five years later), Hebron is an inhabited and defended city. It does not seem likely it was completely destroyed in 10:37 (26). I would suggest this is the same sort of hyperbole found on the Merneptah Stele, which claims to have laid Israel to waste in the wilderness, so that “his seed will be no more.”
Since this commentary focuses on themes of biblical theology, Firth includes a second chapter tracing theological themes found in the text of Joshua through the rest of the Old Testament and into the New. He does not want to imply that the later texts knew and used Joshua (although this is possible). These are broad theological themes found throughout the canon of scripture. I will only summarize a few of these Firth’s eight themes here. First, an important theme of the book of Joshua is God’s faithfulness and his people’s obedience. He observes the importance of God’s word at the beginning of each major section of the book, (1:6-9; 6:1-5; 13:1-7). God made promises in the Torah, and his people are to hear that word of God and obey. Obedience comes through meditating on the Law and allowing it to shape one’s life. When Joshua relies on the word of the Lord, there is success (Jericho), but when he does not, there is failure (Ai). Rahab has heard of God, and she allows that knowledge of God to shape her life, express faith in the God of Israel, and become a part of Israel. He sees this theme in Psalm 1 (the one who meditates on God’s word flourishes), Malachi 4: 4-6, and the latter prophets. In the New Testament, God Jesus calls his people to both hear the word and do it Matthew 7: 21- 23. Jesus is teaching in the Sermon on the Mount is another example of meditating on the Law and allowing it to shape one’s life (Matthew 5:21-30).
A second example is the importance of land as God’s gift in the book of Joshua. Here he follows Walter Brueggemann’s now classic The Land (Second Edition, Fortress, 2002). What is perhaps unique in Joshua is that the land is a gift already given (something mentioned at least twenty times in the book), but it is also a gift promised, anticipating the capture of the land. Firth sees this as a balance between God’s faithfulness and Israel’s initiative. “The importance of the land is a theological theme across the Old Testament that cannot be underestimated” (49). This land theme is not prominent in the New Testament, although he mentions in a footnote that he has avoided the question of a future aspect of the land promises (50, note 21).
First divides the body of the commentary into sections beginning with the Christian Standard Bible translation. A paragraph setting the context of the passage follows the English translation. The exegetical section proceeds verse by verse, although sometimes several verses are grouped together. He occasionally refers to Hebrew, but the commentary is mostly on the English text. Firth rarely comments on Hebrew syntactical or lexical minutiae. A commentary on Joshua 13-21 is either too brief, ignoring all the historical details, or far too extensive to be of use for pastors preaching the geographical section (see the excellent second volume of Trent Butler’s Joshua commentary in the WBC series). The footnotes, however, are extensive. He interacts with secondary literature, showing this is a well-researched commentary.
The last unit of each commentary section is entitled “Bridge.” These are theological and application comments intended to make canonical connections, as expected in a biblical theology commentary. Although this might appear something like “preaching Christ in Joshua,” his eight theological emphases usually guide Firth’s theological conclusions from the introduction. For example, commenting on the geographical detail of the 19th century, observes that these chapters are extremely difficult for modern readers and present challenges for modern preachers. He therefore observed that this material looks back to key moments in the Pentateuch and looks forward to Israel’s story to come. He recommends seeing these chapters in the context of Israel’s worship. Citing Deuteronomy 12, “Israel was to have a central sanctuary around which they would gather rather than local shrines following the Canaanite model” (329), something which becomes clear by taking all the geographical details together as a whole. The last paragraph of this section tries to connect this central worship to Christian worship, which is focused on Jesus Christ as our temple (John 2:1-22). Firth also suggests this focus on worship could look forward to the restructuring of the new creation (Revelation 21:9-14; Ezekiel 48). In his biblical theology conclusions on the cities of refuge (Josh 20-21), Firth recalls the theme of God’s faithfulness, especially in the closing summary of this section (21:43-45). As Firth does throughout the book, this theme looks back to the Pentateuch, especially the calling of Abraham, forward to the Sabbath rest described in Hebrews 4.
Conclusion. David Firth’s biblical theology commentary on Joshua provides balanced exegesis and explanation of the book’s details from an evangelical perspective. His biblical theology sections are judicious and avoid typological excess, which sometimes plagues this kind of commentary. This volume will be helpful for anyone preaching or teaching Joshua.
NB: Thanks to Lexham Press for kindly providing me with a review copy of this book. This did not influence my thoughts regarding the work.
Chen, Kevin S. Messianic Vision of the Pentateuch. Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2019. 338 pp. Pb. $35.00 Link to IVP Academic
The thesis of Kevin S. Chen’s Messianic Vision of the Pentateuch is that Moses self-consciously wrote about the Messiah and that the Messiah is the primary focus of the Pentateuch. He argues a misguided equation of the Pentateuch with the Sinai/Deuteronomic law prevented Christian readers from seeing the messianic vision that was in the Pentateuch from the beginning.
What is distinctive about Chen’s approach is his insistence on authorial intent. Biblical theologies often treat these Messianic texts using typology, which would see messianic references as unintentional. Chen’s goal is to not to discover historical analogies (typology) but to exegete textual references to Messiah that were part of an author’s strategy (14). For example, “a typological approach allows for seeing the ‘seed of the woman’ as a type of Christ while at the same time remaining noncommittal regarding whether Genesis 3:15 is actually a direct Messianic prophecy” (15). Citing Johann Enersti (writing in 1809), some things are “true doctrinally, but not grammatically or exegetically.” Chen seeks messianic prophecies in the Pentateuch which are true grammatically and exegetically because the author intended them as messianic prophecies.
Some readers will disagree with Chen’s views on Mosaic authorship for the Pentateuch (25) as well as his insistence the Pentateuch has a single compositional strategy. Here he is following his mentor John Sailhamer, The Pentateuch as Narrative (Zondervan, 1995) and The Meaning of the Pentateuch (IVP Academic 2009). More challenging is his argument for messianic prophecy as the main theological theme of the Pentateuch rather than Law.
Chen introduces his argument with a reflection on John 5:46. In a dialogue with Pharisees Jesus says, “if you believed in Moses, you would believe in me; for he wrote about me.” In the context of healing on the Sabbath, Jesus declares Moses wrote (primarily) about the Messiah, not the Sabbath law. In a similar context in John 9, the Pharisees find it impossible for a person to be a faithful follower of Moses and a follower of Jesus at the same time because they equated faithfulness to Moses and his writings with attention to keeping the Pentateuchal law (2). (It is possible to include John 12 here as well, a passage rich with messianic implications). This raises the question: “is the main point of the Pentateuch the giving of the Sinai law, with the messianic passages playing a secondary role question mark or is it the other way around?” (4). For Chen, a coherent portrait of the Messiah is the center of the theological message of the Pentateuch.
Chen argues the translation “Law of Moses” distracts readers from the meaning of torah. Rather than “law of Moses,” he suggests it is better to read the phrase as “instruction of Moses” despite the deeply entrenched English translation “Law.” In the book, he distinguishes between the “instruction of Moses” (the Torah) and the Sinai Law. Chen sees this distinction in Paul’s letters as well. In Romans 3:21, for example, “Pentateuch’s message of faith and the system of Sinai/Deuteronomic” stand in contrast. For Paul, Chen says, the Pentateuch teaches the new covenant of the Messiah (29).
There are several texts in the Pentateuch Chen considers direct prophecy concerning the Messiah (for example, Genesis 3:15; Numbers 24:9). Using the metaphor of light passing through a series of lenses, Chen these texts form a complex array of interrelated texts designed to project a coherent sweeping vision of the Messiah. Other texts contain authorially intended foreshadowing of the Messiah, such as Genesis 28:10-22 (Jacob’s Ladder).
The book discusses nine passages spanning the whole Penateuch Chen considers intentional prophecies concerning the Messiah:
The Seed of the Woman (Genesis 3:15)
The Seed of Abraham in the Patriarchal Narratives
The Lion of Judah (Genesis 49:8-12)
Passover and the Song of the Sea (Exodus)
Shadows at Sinai (Wilderness period)
The Bronze Snake and Balaam’s Oracles (Numbers 24)
The Prophet Like Moses (Deuteronomy 18:15-19)
The Blessing of Judah (Deuteronomy 32:43)
The Repeated Breaking of the Sinai/Deuteronomic Law
Rather that survey the whole volume in detail, I offer a few comments on the first three chapters.
In chapter 1, Chen argues the seed of the woman (Genesis 3:15) is a direct messianic prophecy which boldly sets forth the key parameters of the messianic vision of the Pentateuch. It predicts the coming of a man who will defeat the serpent at the cost of his own life, securing victory over humanity’s ancient enemy. Using the broader context of the Pentateuch, Chen sees this prophecy as implying kingly and priestly roles for the messiah that Adam failed to achieve. The seed will rule and subdue all of creation as both priest and king. Salvation will come through the seed of the woman rather than through the Sinai/Deuteronomic law.
The seed of the woman prophecy resonates through the rest of the patriarchal narrative (chapter 2). Moses links promised seed directly to Abraham. Grammatical and intertextual considerations strongly suggest Abraham’s seed refers to a specific individual (Gen 15:3-4; 22:17b-18, for example). Chen argues these passages refer to the same seed as Genesis 3:15. Covenant promises are from Abraham to Isaac and then to Jacob, who receives the same blessing from his father that the Messiah will fulfil.
Although the principal lines of his argument are clear, some details seem coincidental. For example, Chen connects the pleasing aroma of Noah’s sacrifice after the flood (Gen 8:20-22) and subsequent Noahic covenant with the Jacob’s “scent” in Genesis 27:27. Both passages use the noun רֵיחַ, the only two places where the word appears in Genesis. Chen thinks this is “highly suggestive.” The scent of Jacob and his clothes is the same scent of an acceptable animal sacrifice (this is the common phrase in Leviticus and Numbers to describe an acceptable). Chen then connects this acceptable sacrifice to the death of the seed of the woman (Gen 3:15) and the near sacrifice of Isaac (Gen 22:1-19). But not all uses of רֵיחַ in the Pentateuch are pleasant. Exodus 5:21 the word refers to Israel’s reputation in Egypt (“you have made us stink in the sight of Pharaoh”).
In chapter 3, Chen suggests Genesis 49:8-12 is a “goldmine of Messianic prophecy in the Pentateuch” (144). A powerful king will come from the line of Judah in the last days (Gen 49:1) and this lion will reign over Israel and the nations and bring a return of Eden’s abundance. For Chen, this passage in an intentional compositional strategy which recalls earlier messianic prophecies in Genesis 3:15 and 27:27-29. Chen focuses on 49:8, “your brothers shall praise you” as a way of reading the whole Joseph narrative. Certainly, Joseph’s brothers bow to him, and he is greatly praised, but is it possible the author of the Pentateuch used a descent/ascent theme to predict he death and resurrection of the Messiah? Chen says the theme of Genesis 37-50 “is not Joseph becoming Pharaoh’s second-in-command but its eschatological projection: the resurrection of the Messiah” (129). Further, he says “the eschatological rule of Judah over his brothers and the nations in Genesis 49: 8, 10 matches the messianic rule described in Genesis 27:29” (131). Again, is it possible Moses had the resurrection of the Messiah in mind when he included the Joseph story as a part of the book of Genesis? Did he intend for the “lion of Judah” to refer to a future Messiah or to the fact king David will come from the tribe of Judah?
By way of constructive criticism, I find myself in agreement with the larger ideas, but I question the smaller details. I agree, for example, Genesis 3:15 is a messianic prophecy. But I am not as sure about the details suggesting the death and resurrection of Jesus, and I resist the suggestion Joseph looks forward to the resurrection of the Messiah. I am more open to a developing theology of the Messiah, where later writers in both the Old and New Testaments use these ideas from the Pentateuch and apply them to the Messiah after the idea of a messiah developed in early Judaism. Even though Chen disavows typology in his introduction, the argument of the book still strikes me as a form of typology. I am not sure this is a bad thing and typology is certainly popular among those doing biblical theology in an evangelical context.
Conclusion. Chen’s Messianic Vision of the Pentateuch is a compelling argument for Messiah as a theological theme of the Pentateuch. Although he does not offer any reasons for the texts he chose, the nine texts Chen focuses on are important messianic texts in both Jewish and early Christian exegesis. Although some readers will question his conclusions or accuse him of reading the New Testament into these passages, he is not out of step with the goals of evangelical biblical theology.
NB: Thanks to IVP Academic for kindly providing me with a review copy of this book. This did not influence my thoughts regarding the work.
Kaiser, Jr., Walter C. and Tiberius Rata. Walking the Ancient Paths: A Commentary on Jeremiah. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2019. 633 pp.; Hb. $49.99; Logos Digital edition $34.99 Link to Lexham Press
Longtime Professor of Old Testament and former President of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, Walter Kaiser is well known in evangelical circles for his work in biblical theology and commentaries on several Old Testament books. Tiberius Rata is Associate Dean of the School of Ministry Studies and Professor of Old Testament Studies at Grace Theological Seminary. Rata contributed a monograph on Jeremiah, The Covenant Motif in Jeremiah’s Book of Comfort: Intertextual Studies in Jeremiah 30–33 (Peter Lang, 2007). This commentary focuses on a clear exposition of the text of Jeremiah and will be useful for pastors and teachers preparing to apply Jeremiah to Christian communities.
The twenty-nine-page introduction deals briefly with the composition of the book. Jeremiah is obviously not arranged in a chronological order (chapters 36 and 45 date to the fourth year of king Jehoiakim) so there was some editorial activity. Kaiser takes the two scrolls in Jeremiah 36 seriously. When the king destroyed the first scroll, Jeremiah dictated a second scroll with added material. Beyond that, Kaiser is not interested in theories of composition. For example, he rejects Bernhard Duhm’s suggestion that the prophet Jeremiah wrote the poetry (280 verses), Baruch wrote the prose sections (220 verses) and the bulk of the book are post-exilic additions (880 verses). As Kaiser observes, most reject this theory today. Prose is close to Hebrew from the period (citing the Lachish letters).
The introduction deals with Jeremiah’s use of Deuteronomy. For conservative scholars, Moses wrote Deuteronomy much earlier and Jeremiah knew Deuteronomy after Josiah re-discovered in 622 BCE. Critical scholarship focuses on a Deuteronomic history (Joshua-Judges-Samuel-Kings) compiled during and after the exile. Kaiser points out there is no reference to Jeremiah in the Deuteronomic history, even though the prophet Isaiah figures prominently. Others detect a difference between Jeremiah and the Deuteronomic history; Jeremiah is optimistic about her return from the exile while 2 Kings seems pessimistic (there is no hope for return). For Kaiser, the historical Jeremiah wrote the book at the end of the Kingdom of Judah.
Kaiser deals briefly with the Septuagint text of Jeremiah in the introduction. The Septuagint text is 2700 words shorter than the Hebrew Masoretic text and arranged differently. Kaiser points out three fragments of manuscripts from the Dead Sea Scrolls, two of which are similar to the Masoretic text, and the third is closer to the Septuagint. This implies there were two text forms for Jeremiah in the third century BC (12). Although the translation in the body of the commentary often refers to the Septuagint, but the exposition relies on the Hebrew Bible.
The introduction summarizes the theological contribution of the book of Jeremiah. First, focusing on God, Yahweh is the God of creation, love, and “pathos.” More than any other book in the Bible, Jeremiah presents God as having deep feelings, emotions, and passions. God shows his love and affection for his people Israel and the people of the whole earth. But also his deep anger and wrath for the moral degradation of those flaunting his law (13). Second, Jeremiah presents God as using historical events as the means to accomplish his will. Third, God’s words of salvation echo the promises given to the patriarchs and David. In Jeremiah, promises of salvation intermingle with words of judgment. Commenting on Jeremiah 31:40, Kaiser asks, “has Israel forfeited… her share in the promises made in the covenant to Abraham and David? Surprisingly enough, the answer to that very good question is: Never! Never once will God retract and go back on what he has promised Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and David” (375). In fact, the new covenant “does not envision a change in the partners to that covenant” (370). Kaiser rejects a supersessionist reading of Jeremiah 32:31-33. He suggests the church has “no grounding and no vitality except through the promises made to Israel and that at some point the Jewish people will turn to their Messiah in such vast numbers that it will be said ‘all Israel’ will saved (Romans 11:25b-27)” (370). The future of Judah will not depend on Judah’s own works, but on God himself. Because God made an everlasting covenant with his people, he will accomplish his covenant via a new covenant, the internalized law written on people’s hearts (31:31-33).
The introduction concludes with a detailed nine-page outline of Jeremiah, which forms the sections of the commentary. In addition, there is a short bibliography of major works cited in parentheses in the body of the commentary.
In the body of the commentary, each unit starts with a fresh translation with translation notes comparing the Hebrew text to other early translations (Septuagint, Syriac, etc.). For example, if the Septuagint omits or adds words, these appear in the notes with relevant Hebrew and Greek, along with a translation of the phrase. Expositional comments are verse-by-verse, written in clear prose without too much reference to the Hebrew text. When Hebrew appears, it is untransliterated. Footnotes deal with details of Hebrew syntax or variations of translation based on the Septuagint. There are occasional references to secondary literature.
Although not marked with a heading, each unit concludes with a paragraph drawing devotional or pastoral conclusions. For example, in his comments on Jeremiah 11 and Jeremiah facing his enemies, Kaiser comments that a congregation will stand or fall on how faithfully the word of God has been preached, and how well that congregation has responded to the word of God.
Kaiser interprets some of the prophecy in the book from a premillennial perspective. For example, commenting on Jeremiah 3:16, the phrase “in those days” points to “the messianic times coming in the future” (71). Commenting on the unification of Israel and Judah in Jeremiah 50:4, he says this will occur over a long period of time, “into the days of the second coming” (561). Commenting on the prediction “Babylon must fall” (51:61-64), Kaiser rejects the suggestion Jeremiah’s words are hyperbole since that “would verge on saying Jeremiah gave a false prophecy” (571). Instead, he suggests this prophecy telescopes from the immediate fulfillment of Jews returning from the Babylonian exile to an ultimate future when these prophecies will be fulfilled in the messianic age. But Kaiser is no dispensationalist. He rejects an interpretation of Jeremiah 30:7 which associates “the time of Jacob’s trouble” with a great tribulation after the rapture (342).
Although the commentary is nearly 600 pages long, some sections are brief. For example, the section on Jeremiah 52:1-34 is only nine pages, the bulk of which is translation. In the printed version, pages 357 have the wrong chapters for the commentary; Lexham corrected this error in the Logos digital version.
Conclusion.Walking the Ancient Paths is an excellent example of evangelical scholarship aimed at service to the church. Pastors and teachers will find this a valuable addition to their library as they prepare to preach and teach this important prophetic book. Although some academically minded readers may find the lack of engagement with critical issues frustrating, that is not the goal of the commentary.
NB: Thanks to Lexham Press for kindly providing me with a review copy of this book. This did not influence my thoughts regarding the work.
You must be logged in to post a comment.