The Baker Compact Dictionary of Biblical Studies - Tremper Lognman III & Mark L. Strauss

The Baker Compact Dictionary of Biblical Studies is a dictionary that seeks to provide definitions and explanations for words that you will find in many books and articles that delve into the study of the text of the Bible.  It gives definitions and brief overviews of places, scholarly terminology, prominent people whose works are mentioned in theological books.

It was pretty interesting to just sit and read through a lot of the information in the book, to learn a lot of new things and even to glean some extra helpful information about events, people and places that I already knew a few things about.  If I came across something that I've already become acquainted with I felt sort of reluctant to read those parts, thinking something along the lines of, "this is just a dictionary, what more could it tell me about that?" But I was surprised at some of the extra information I gleaned.  For example,  I have done a bit of reading on the "Counsel of Jamnia" but I did not particularly notice before that the book of Ezekiel was one of the books whose canonicity was debated by the Jews.  Or if I had noticed, I don't remember understanding why it's validity was up for debate.  The dictionary explains that it was because in the vision given to Ezekiel of the alter it is depicted as having steps which was something contrary to Mosaic law. Interesting!

 At least  one bit of information I came across was quite shocking.  I was extremely surprised, when I came to the summary of who Gerhard Kittel was (editor of The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament), to find that he had had strong Anti-Semitic viewpoints and supported the Nazis during World War II!

 There is some, in my opinion, pretty useless information in this dictionary, mainly the detailed information about various pagan 'gods' , their 'story' and the attributes attributed to them.  They don't actually have any attributes, so why mention them in detail? And I also didn't like how they mentioned how so many scholars think that The Biblical writers drew inspiration from myths and attributes of other gods, without countering that  viewpoint.  I guess I can sort of see how that could come in handy for someone who wanted to know which authors not to read, but I wish they would have countered them in the notes, instead of letting them stand.

  All I need to know that it is a pagan god and therefore not a god at all.  The Bible doesn’t focus its attack on the mythological attributes of the false gods, rather it deals with the facts.  It points out their ACTUAL attributes of deafness, blindness, dumbness, irresponsiveness and utter lack of existence at all.

Another thing I didn't like , and   was surprised at, was the dogmatism in certain places, like where they state that "The Sumerians invented writing for the first time in human history sometime in the thirty-first century BC."  Oh, really? How do we know that Noah didn't know how to write already and taught it to his descendants? How do we know for sure that people didn't know how to write before the flood?

I was also surprised that they don't list Martin Luther, John Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, John Wesley and the like in this dictionary.  That just seemed a little weird, as their works are still pretty popular.

Don't get me wrong, things like the above don't take away from the usefulness of this book.  They do have a lot of information, and,  when dealing with 'grey areas', for the most part the editors of this dictionary seem to use phrases along the lines of "it is believed"  or "some scholars think" when the facts are not certain. And they do give some quick criticisms to a few of the obviously erroneous viewpoints. 

Overall I think that this still  a pretty handy dictionary, for just about anyone.  If you read any linguistic commentaries on the Scripture, or even just a regular commentary, it would be handy to have. 

Many thanks to the folks at Baker Books Blogger for sending me a free review copy of this book!  -  My review did not have to be favorable.

This book may be purchased at Christianbook.com and at Amazon.com

A Commentary on the Manuscripts and Text of the New Testament, by Philip Wesley Comfort

A Commentary on the Manuscripts and text of the New Testament, by Philip Wesley Comfort is an interesting and a potentially helpful resource in studying the NT.  I appreciate that summaries are given about the various manuscripts that are referred to in the commentary, including their symbols, which are what Comfort uses to refer to the different manuscripts as he comments on the different readings of any particular verse. 

Most of the variants appear to be rather small and do not appear to change the meaning of a verse much, for instance some manuscripts saying 'Jesus Christ' in a certain variant and others reading simply "Christ",  whichever reading a Bible translator chooses to use doesn't make a major difference as either way we know to Whom it refers.   Comfort mentions a variant of Romans 8:28 which I found interesting, he translates the variant as, "God turns everything to good" which of course is different from "all things work together for good."  He says that "this is the original wording according to three early MSS….It is God who turns everything to good; it is not just that everything works out for the good."*  But I don't think that that concept is lost by using "all things work together for good" because God's being the One working all things together for good is evidenced by the verses that follow (and by realizing the sovereignty of God that is taught throughout the Bible).  It is an interesting variant though. 

Comfort's eschatological views are evidenced in his commentary on the number of the beast in Revelation, "A variant reading is 'his number is 616…Either reading could be original…whichever one John wrote, they both symbolize Caesar Nero…"  I take it that Mr. Comfort is not premillennial.  Also, I disagree with some of his commentary on the variants of 1 Cor. 14:33, " 'For God is not the  author of discord but of harmony, as in all the gatherings of the saints.'  This reflects the reading of the three earliest MSS…contra NA…which join this phrase with the beginning of 14:34.  The difference in meaning is significant:  harmony is the rule of God for all the gatherings of the believers…"…Paul was not saying that women should be silent in all the Christian gatherings, only in Corinth, which must have been experiencing problems with women speaking out of turn during the prophesying."  But even if the statement, "as in all the gatherings of the saints" doesn't connect with vs. 34 that doesn't imply that the command about women not speaking in the assembly only applied to the Corinthians church.  I don't see that implication at all.  Paul says, "It is shameful for a woman to speak in the Church."  That sounds like a very general statement that encompasses all church gatherings.  Besides, what about Paul's telling Timothy that women shouldn't teach or hold authority over men but should remain quiet while learning (1 Tim 2:11-15)?  Was he referring only to the women of the Corinthian church?  I think not.  

But,  I do like the book overall, and really appreciate Mr. Comfort's work in putting this book together enabling one to learn about the different variants of the NT even if one doesn't agree with all of Mr. Comfort's comments on them.

Many thanks to Kregel Academic for sending me a free copy of this book to review!

One of the places where this book may be purchased is at Amazon.com

*I omit certain parts of quotations as they are mostly symbols of various manuscripts referred to that I don't know how to replicate in type.

NIV Zondervan Study Bible

When first received my copy of the NIV Zondervan Study Bible in the mail, my first impression was amazement over its size and weight, it is HUGE!  It is quite impressive on the inside as well, the text of the  NIV is laid out in a one column format instead of the usual 2 columns.  The cross references are placed on the side of the column and study notes on the bottom.  I loved the charts throughout, especially in the OT which included charts summing up what was in certain sacrifices and offerings, and charts on the Lord's appointed festivals, census results, Levite Numbers and responsibilities…etc.  Very helpful.  There were many photographs of Biblical areas throughout, and also pictures of various archeological finds having to do with many biblical events and people.  Those are quite fascinating and interesting.  

Many of the study notes seem quite intricate and useful and exegetical.  Several of the pages are quite packed with notes.  There were various scholars writing the study notes for each individual book of the Bible and you can see the negatives and positives to that.  For instance, I was pleasantly surprised (shocked may be the better term) that the person who did the study notes in 1 Corinthians actually took the literal view of chapter 7, where Paul repeats, affirms and perhaps expounds upon, the Lord's command,  "To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord):  A wife must not separate from her husband.  But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband.  And a husband must not divorce his wife." 1 Cor. 7:10-11  The writer of the study notes comments:   vs. 11"...There are only two options for a divorced woman: (1) remain unmarried or (2) reconcile with her husband.  a husband must not divorce his wife.  Just as a woman must not divorce her husband; again Paul formulates no exception." Vs. 15, 'Let it be so.'   when a non-Christian spouse divorces a Christian spouse, the Christian cannot do anything about it.  not bound in such circumstances.  it is often suggested that this allows a deserted Christian spouse to remarry since the Christian is not 'bound' to the marriage that has been dissolved.  This interpretation is not plausible:  (1) In v. 11 Paul prohibits remarriage in cases where divorce has taken place. (2) The Greek verb does not mean 'bound'; it means 'enslaved' or 'under bondage.' (3) The thrust of the context is maintaining marriage.  (4) Paul speaks of 'freedom' for a new marriage only in cases when the spouse has died (v. 39; Rom 7:1-3).  If a non-Christian spouse leaves the marriage, the Christian spouse is not responsible for the divorce.  Christian spouses may not initiate divorce from non-Christian  spouses on religious grounds..."  But then where you turn to Christ's comments on divorce and remarriage in Matthew 7 and 19 you find the usual view espoused  (dissolution of a marriage before God in the case of adultery)by whomever wrote the study notes. 

 But now I must talk about the negative aspects of this Bible.  One is not so bad, but some may find it quite inconvenient, and that is that the font is (or seems to me) quite small, and that is aggravated by the fact that it is difficult to lift the book closer to one's face to take a closer look  because it is so heavy.  But if they made the font any bigger the Bible's overall size would be impractical and it would probably end up having to be treated like some old gigantic Bibles of the past where would you just designate a place for it to be left open on its own stand as it would be difficult to transport.

 

The second negative was that the person(s) who wrote the study notes on Genesis did not come down firmly on a literal 24 hour day creation.  For instance in the introduction to Genesis it is stated that, "The question of the age of the earth is not automatically resolved with the use of the seven days in 1:1-2:3.  In 2:4, Moses uses the same Hebrew word for 'day' to summarize all the work of creation…Of course, this does not mean that the term 'day' cannot refer to a 24-hour day in the seven days of creation.  But it may also serve other purposes."    And therefore of course, they also do not firmly promote a global flood in Genesis 6-7 but leave it open to the possibility of its being a regional flood.

 

The third negative is that the Bible has at least a few engravings, paintings and other forms of art picturing unclothed people.  I'll mention three of them  here: First there was a picture of a naked Adam and Eve holding a few tiny conveniently placed leaves…I don't get why they don't at least depict them in the clothing of leaves they had tried to make, or why don't they picture them when God clothed them with animal skins?  Why depict the father and mother of all mankind in what is now their shame???  It is STILL their SHAME, why is it okay for their offspring to have pictures of them in that state???????I don't understand that at all.  And then there was an engraving or something  showing  circumcision being performed on men and it was completely unnecessary, I didn't need to see that.   And lastly there was a painting in the introduction to Psalms that showed unclothed and scantily clothed Egyptian women musicians, the only connection to the Psalms was that they were musicians.   Why? Why choose that one?  I don't care if they are ancient archaeological finds and are considered 'a work of art', I don't care how old it is,  there are bad/immoral works of art from history just as there are bad works of 'art' today!  I don't understand how a person can think that pictures depicting naked people are justified to have in a Bible, rather I see it as an affront and a contradiction to the teachings of the Bible itself.  Think of Christ's statement:  "Ye have heard that it was said, Thou shalt not commit adultery: but I say unto you, that every one that looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. "(Mat 5:27-28 ASV).  What if a picture was placed beside it showing a lewdly dressed woman with the caption "ancient depiction of a prostitute", wouldn't that seem a little (sarcasm) contradictory? 

I'm sorry to have to be so negative but I simply had to say something.  I would have rated the study Bible higher if it hadn't been for the bad pictures. 

  

I received a free review copy of this book from the Booklook blogger program in exchange for my review which did not have to be favorable.

Acts: EP Study commentary - Guy Prentiss Waters

If you're looking for a commentary on the book of Acts that is more of an overview but still exegetical, this commentary by Guy Prentiss Waters is a pretty good choice.  He hits at a high level on some controversial issues/textual debates where he deems it necessary, but it is still kept at a minimum and further reading for delving deeper is usually suggested in the comments. 

I think that it is a nice commentary to have that you can start with in your studies, turning to it first to get the 'high-level' view and then after reading Waters on a text, turn to the ones that are more critical. Or you can just 'read it through' on its own, the author really helps you get your thoughts moving on a text, for instance, in the account of Pentecost, I had never considered that "Like wind, fire is a sign of God's presence with his people", which caused me to 'connect the dots' and remember the tabernacle in the wilderness and the cloud that had the appearance of fire by night and the tongues of fire possibly partly symbolizing the presence of God in our bodies/temples(1 Cor 6:19).    

At the end of different sections he has an 'application' part that summarizes the ways the accounts of Acts apply to us today.   In his discussion of the application of chapters 4:32-5:11 where it speaks of Christians selling their property and giving the proceeds to the Apostles to be distributed to the needy Waters points out that, "Many commentators note, as we have done, that this passage does not warrant the abolition of private property in the church.  In saying this, we need to take care not to ignore the main point of these verses:  one mark of a church filled with the Holy Spirit Is that believers  are from the heart concerned for the physical needs of their brothers and are prepared to take extraordinary steps, if necessary , to meet those needs……How do we view our possessions?  Are we enslaved to them or have we been freed from that bondage in the service of our Savior God?  If we profess to know this freedom, then are we taken providentially-appointed opportunities to assist our brothers in Christ?" 

I need to note that Waters is 'Reformed' and holds to the Westminster Standards, so if you, as I do, hold to an earthly millennial reign of Christ in a redeemed Israel(having redeemed, and given new hearts to  the descendants of Jacob- Ezek 36:26-38) note that Waters does not see that, and this is evinced especially in his views on the first chapter of Acts.   

But overall I think it is a good commentary, and a good tool for assisting in the study of Acts.

Many thanks to the folks at Cross Focused Reviews for sending me a free review copy of this book to review(My review did not have to be favorable.)

The Ten Commandments: Ethics For the Twenty-First Century - By Mark Rooker

The Ten Commandments: Ethics for the twenty-first century by Mark Rooker is a good and quite concise look at the meaning of each of the ten commandments, comparing them to the laws of other nations, looking at the repetition(or the significance of their non-repetition) in the New Testament, their application in the lives of Christians and their significance, or comparison to our modern culture.

Have you ever wondered about the statement some people make, that other nations had laws similar to the ten commandments before the ten commandments were given out to Moses and Israel? I really liked Rooker's point about how the how the Ten commandments express God's eternal will, and how "This is known by the conviction of the human conscience but more explicitly by the ancient pagan law codes discovered in the Near East. Many of these law codes contain statutes similar to the Ten commandments which indicate their recognition of basic intrinsic moral values. Indeed, the law sin the Decalogue are not entirely new to Israel. The Bible presupposes a moral code long before the theophany on Mount Sinai. This is indicated in earlier biblical events such as the slaying of Abel by his brother Cain(Gen 4)…." This is also supported by Romans 2:15.

The rather intricate looks at each individual commandment were quite insightful, here are a couple of comments to demonstrate this: In his section on the 2nd commandment he comments: "Idolatry has never been connected to ethical behavior……Wrong thoughts about God lead to wrong behavior." And looking at the 3rd, taking the Lord's name in vain he states that, "This commandment addresses any insincere reference to the Lord, as His name is the revelation of His person. This would include offering praise or singing to God out of routine without any thought to what one is singing or praying."

Also, I really appreciate Rooker's explanation of how the ten commandments function in the lives of Christians, "It could be said that the law illuminates sanctification. It provides a guide for the believer to what is pleasing in God's sight."He explains that they functioned in a similar manner in the old testament, "Works have never been the instrument of salvation; they are the evidence of salvation. Obedience to the laws should be placed in the domain of sanctification rather than justification wherein by adherence to these laws a social distinction was maintained between the Israelites and the rest of the world."

There were some statements that I didn't quite agree with, but overall I liked it. It is interesting, well written and is a good overview of the moral law of God.

Many thanks to B&H publishing group for sending me a free review copy of this book. (My review did not have to be favorable)

This book may be purchased at Amazon

R. C. Sproul's Commentary on John

Some commentaries are nice to have merely for referencing and some are good for reading all the way through. This book is one of the latter.  It is well written, or perhaps I should I say,' adapted' as this book is to some degree a compilation of Dr. Sproul's sermons on John. 

I like that Sproul is not afraid to say when he is unsure what a text means.  He'll give you the differing views about the passage, tell you his opinion but will make sure to clarify when he isn't certain that his opinion is correct.  He is also very enthusiastic about what the Bible says, He is excited about it, and is good at communicating that excitement.  When Sproul reaches the verse where Christ says, "Nevertheless I tell you the truth.  It is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send Him to you." he comments  "The first time I really grasped the implication of this text, I literally began to dance in the street and jump over fire hydrants.  I said:  'Eureka!  I can't believe it! All this time I have felt like Abraham, living in the Old Testament, looking forward to the time of Christ's coming, or wishing that I could have been alive during Jesus' earthly ministry, because those people heard and saw Him and His miracles. If only I could have been an earthly eyewitness disciple of Jesus, my Christian life would be so much better than it now is.'  Yet our Lord said our situation now is better than that of HIs disciples when He was walking on the earth." 

He generally sticks to studying out what the  texts actually say rather than reading into the text.  In one place in the commentary he comments:  ""I'm sure you've seen the popular bumper sticker that says, 'God said it; I believe it; that settles it.  'It doesn't matter whether I believe it. It's settled long before my assent.  If God Almighty opens His holy mouth and declares something, we don't need another witness.  It's  over.  It's settled." And then again, "We should be careful about speculation.  As John Calvin said in his commentary on Romans, when God closes His holy mouth, we should desist from inquiry."  He has some very good applications to our own day as well, such as his observing that in our time we have a 'practical Unitarianism', in that we focus too much on the Holy Spirit, for the most part excluding the Father and Son. 

Now, I need to mention that I disagree with his view of Christ, and subsequently the church, as the 'true Israel'.  I believe, and I see this as biblically, that one must be a part of the physical  race of Israel in order for one to be a part of Israel.  Christ certainly was a part of Israel, and certainly the ultimate 'Israelite'.  But this does not make Christian Gentiles spiritual 'Israel'.  Romans 9-11 is very clear that 'Israel' is still made up of those descended from Jacob(as is Jeremiah 31:35-37), and that God is not done with this race. Let me clarify that the Jews will be saved the same way as Gentile Christians are saved, by Christ's atoning work on the cross and his regeneration and sanctification of them.    The 'Israel of God' is elect Jews, not elect Gentiles and Jews. And the Jews have material things promised to them when they are a righteous people (which will happen by Christ's righteousness)that were not promised to righteous Gentiles.   But, this is not the place for me to expound on this.

All in all, this commentary is very interesting, and good.  Let me end this review with two of my favorite quotes:  "Suddenly the words 'born- again' became a part of the nomenclature of American culture.  Many people began to call themselves 'born-again Christians.' That term, however, is a kind of stuttering, because 'born-again Christian' is really a redundancy. It's like speaking about 'an unmarried bachelor' or 'a three-sided triangle.'" and "The saints, the holy ones, those called out from the world assemble together on Sunday mornings to be fed.  We are to do evangelism, engage in outreach, and be involved in ministries of mercy, but Sunday morning belongs to the sheep. It is the task of the pastor and of the church to feed the sheep. If someone who is not a sheep comes in, that's fine, but we're not going to change the menu and give the sheep goats food…….Babies have almost no influence in a culture. Before they can turn the world upside down, they have to grow up, they have to become mature, and that happens as they are fed the Word of God. Nothing less will do.  Notice that when Jesus spoke to Peter, He did not say, 'Peter, if you love Me, feed the goats.' Neither did He say, 'Peter, take care of your flock; feed your sheep.' He said, 'Feed My sheep, feed My lambs, tend My sheep.' 

Thanks to Ligonier Ministries for sending me a free copy of this book in exchange for my review of the free pdf copy! 

You may purchase this book at the Ligonier store 

http://www.ligonier.org/store/john-hardcover/

or at Amazon.com:  
http://www.amazon.com/John-St-Andrews-Expositional-Commentary/dp/1567691854