Saving the Bible From Ourselves: Learning to Live and Read the Bible Well - By Glenn R. Pauuw

Saving the Bible From Ourselves by Glenn R. Pauuw is a book about people's misuse of the Bible, how it has come to be used as a book that is a collection of isolated propositional statements that are written specifically for me and for my special encouragement.  Overall this book is argument against those views of the Bible (it critiques  other views as well) and I believe it is a rather good argument.  I mainly listed those two things because they are the things that captivated me most in this book. Then I will give my critique.

First, Pauuw does an excellent job at attacking the rather modern approach to the Bible that takes the form of hunting for individual verses that seem relevant to us, "…find the fragments you need at the moment.  If you are looking for your daily inspiration, then find a devotional fragment.  If you are arguing with the local heretic, find a doctrinal fragment.  If you are facing an ethical question, find a moral fragment.  They're all in there, already neatly numbered for you.  You just have to find the good ones." He makes a good case that part of what instigated this fragmentary approach was the addition of verse numbers and chapters to the text of the Bible. 

Second, and very much related to the first, is Pauuw's critique of our use of the Bible as though it were written directly to us personally (or at least the comforting parts and the parts that we like, the curses…not so much).  Pauuw demolishes the perspective that we can make ourselves the authority in discerning what we need from the Bible, and he demonstrates that we should trust the wisdom and sovereignty of God in His design of His own Word, and that means the WHOLE Word of God.  To use the author's own words: "How can the Bible possibly lead and direct our lives if we are the ones who predetermine which parts of it speak to us?  Fragmentary patters of reading entail a fragmented sense of authority."  Perhaps my favorite part in the whole book is where Pauuw presents the "Parallel -Universe Bible" where he demonstrates what would happen if we used verses that we do not find so applicable to ourselves in the same way that we use our favorite verses, that are often taken out of context, to apply directly to ourselves (for instance: everyone likes Jeremiah 29:11 but what about Deut. 28:29?).  I found that part absolutely hilarious (I was almost crying I was laughing so hard) but very clear in the point that is being made. 

So why did I only rate this book at 3 stars (out of 5)? Well, for one thing there were a bunch of statements and descriptions of things that were too…I don't know…"mystical" might be the right term.  Perhaps it was just me, but some of the way things were phrased seemed just plain weird to me (and I didn't necessarily understand it all).  He talked about things like "Story" or "Chaos". Another thing was that Pauuw approached (in my opinion) irreverence in how he spoke of God, in statements like: "God was willing to take a great risk with the Bible: He left it in our hands…"    and, ""To  enter history really is to give it a go in the rough-and tumble.  Even for God."  Those were just some of the things that bothered me about this book. There was a lot to be gleaned in it but was interspersed throughout the bothersome thing, and so ironically (having in mind Pauuw's excellent critique of the 'snacking Bible), if I ever read this book again I would read it in a 'snacking' sort of way.  That is why I only gave it three stars.  But on the other hand Paauw made a good (and convicting) case for reading the whole Bible rather than just fragments of it.  I'll end with quoting an excerpt that I really liked (there were several that I liked):

"Snacking (on isolated Bible fragments) hides things to be sure, but it also distorts the things it does show us.  For example, ,the Snacking Bible is not great news. It has gospel verses, but no gospel, because the gospel is the announcement of a particular turn of events within an ongoing story.  The gospel is not a sentence about justification by faith or a verse reference on the forgiveness of my sins.  The gospel is not the Romans Road.  The gospel is not John 3:16.  What the apostles Paul and John wrote - what God's Spirit enkindled in them - was something entirely different than these boiled-down reductions.  Evangelist D. L. Moody said he could write the gospel on a dime.  Well, Paul and John couldn't, and didn't."

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

This book may be purchased (among other places) at Amazon and Christian Book Distributors

The Messianic Hope: Is the Hebrew Bible Really Messianic? - By Michael Rydelnik

How defensible are Old Testament prophecies of Christ?  If someone came up to you and declares that, in the Hebrew manuscripts of the OT, Psalm 22:16 does not read, "they pierced my hands and my feet," rather, when it is accurately translated it reads, "like a lion are my hands and feet." What would your answer be?  And what if they say that Isaiah 53 was not speaking of a Messiah, but rather of Israel as a suffering servant?  Nowadays, too many Christians believe that many, if not all, of the prophecies of the Messiah are only indirect prophecies, not direct prophecies.  And many Christians might say that these prophecies are allegorically fulfilled, or that it is perfectly alright for the Holy Spirit , in His inspiration of the Apostles, to change His own prophecies.  Others say that many prophecies have a 'double fulfillment', that these prophecies were fulfilled historically, in the prophets' life-time, and that they were fulfilled spiritually by Christ.   

Michael Rydelnik offers the best defense I have read on the topic, arguing for the literal/direct fulfillment of Messianic/end time prophecies.  I was fascinated by his information on Rashi and his followers,  how they influenced, and to some degree instigated, the change from the literal interpretation of the Messianic prophecies, to interpreting these prophecies as having historical fulfillments in the time they were prophesied. In doing this, they countered the Christians' proof texts that Jesus is the Christ.  These Jews' claimed to be using a literal hermeneutic, and that the literal interpretation of these prophecies was to view them as historically fulfilled.  For instance, Isaiah 7:14 is speaking of a woman in Isaiah's day, most likely Isaiah's wife, who will have a baby, it is not speaking about a virgin birth.  This method of interpretation was eventually picked up by the church, and now, "As a result, much of contemporary, Christian interpretation uses anti-Christian Jewish polemic to interpret messianic passages of the Hebrew Scriptures."  And Christians try to apply them to the Messiah by saying that these prophecies had double fulfillments, that their primary fulfillment was their literal fulfillment in the days they were spoken, but that they have a secondary spiritual fulfillment in Christ.   

 Rydelnik is also very good in his explanation of the Masoretic Text(the Hebrew text our modern Old Testaments are based upon) and his defense of ancient versions of the Old Testament:  "…the Masoretic Text is a post-Christian, Jewish version of the Old Testament.  As such, it reflects the theological perspective of post-Christian, rabbinic Judaism.  Thus, there are several significant examples of the Masoretic Text interpreting Old Testament messianic texts in a distinctly nonmmessianic (or historical) fashion, whereas other ancient versions interpret the same texts as referring to the Messiah." He goes on to show some examples of where the Masorites changed the text, talking about how the ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible(and other translations) reads the same passages Messianically rather than historically.  For instance, the Greek OT translation of Psalm 22:16 reads, "they pierced my hands and feet" rather than, "like/as a lion are my hands and feet".  He explains how obscure the Hebrew is vs. the Greek which makes more grammatical sense.  He counters the view that we should go with the Hebrew since it is the "harder reading" by the statement, "…defining the harder reading depends on the audience reading it.  For a Masorete, 'they pierced my hands and my feet,' a seeming prediction of the Messiah's crucifixion, would certainly have been the harder reading."  And he also notes that in 1997 a Hebrew fragment of the book of Psalms was found, dated "between AD 50-68" containing this Psalm and it reads "they pierced".  Rydelnik ends up stating that, "The careful interpreter of messianic prophecy should be aware of text critical issues because these predictions may be buried in the Hebrew Bible's critical apparatus rather than in the Masoretic Text itself."   

My only real problem with this book is that Rydelnik doesn't believe that certain texts were actual prophecies.  For example, he believes that Matthew 2:15, where Matthew states events that "fulfill" Hosea 11:1,"Out of Egypt I have called my Son", is a typological fulfillment, because he believes this passages was actually speaking of Israel.  I disagree here, and think that John Gill has a better answer, that the passage actually is speaking of Christ, and that it(Hosea 11:1) can be interpreted/read something like this, "Because of God's love for Israel, He has called His Son out of Egypt."  Israel and her King were rebellious, and the King of Israel was 'disowned', 'cut off' or 'cast out'(chpt.10:15) but God loves Israel so He will call His own  Son out of Egypt to be their King.  I don't believe, as the author does, that Numbers 23-24 establishes 'Israel' as a valid 'type' of the Messiah, I don't believe that it makes Israel a type of the Messiah at all.  You see Him coming out of/from the people of Israel(Num. 24:17,19), but I do not see that He is called 'Israel'.  I believe that Rydelnik's excellent comments on Psalm 110 apply here:  "If one presupposes that there are no direct messianic predictions or any concept of a Messiah in the Hebrew Bible, then certainly it would be necessary to look for alternative interpretations of Psalm 110.  However, if there is a good reason to presuppose that the Psalms are indeed messianic, then this will yield a messianic explanation of the psalm."   I believe that we have good reason to believe that Hosea 11:1 is Messianic, and so we ought to look for an 'alternative interpretation that yields a direct Messianic meaning, rather than just settling for the view that the verse is not essentially Messianic.  If an Apostle appears to view a passage as being literally fulfilled, I believe that we should presuppose that the passage is directly Messianic. Knowing that the Apostles had much older copies of the Old Testament than we do should also bias us towards them, and make us less biased towards our own limited modern textual assortment of manuscripts and supposed superiority of our own modern manuscripts and interpretations.   

Despite my disagreements, I consider this  a GREAT book on the topic of Messianic prophecy and an excellent source of information on textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible and on modern interpretations of the Old Testament.  Even the conclusion is great.  He ends with an example of the Scriptures Accomplishing God's purposes at a time when he failed in his presentation/defense of them.   I am very pleased that Rydelnik has a bias towards the authority, inspiration and literal-grammatical-historical interpretation God's Word;  that type of bias is sadly declining/has declined in 'Christian' circles.  I highly recommend this book. If you are studying prophecies of Christ, or just want more information on their interpretation, get this book!

 

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 on Amazon.com

Basics of Biblical Greek - By William Mounce

I took Spanish in high school (a correspondence course) and I must say that I wish that the textbook and workbooks for that class were produced in the same format as this Greek Grammar. Mounce  teaches in a compare/contrast style.  Throughout the book he teaches, or reminds you of, English grammar and then gives you the Greek grammar.  It is at times quite different  from the English equivalent but the contrast actually helps one understand it more.  He will also give you examples of things you will learn later on in the book and tell you not to try to learn them yet since, "They are given just to expose you to the concepts."  I like that as repetition helps things stick in my mind. 

Mounce has a little character called 'the professor' who appears throughout the book giving you fun facts about what you are learning, summaries of what you have just learned and more information as well.  Though a bit weird, it proves to be quite helpful and interesting.  I love the incentives given for studying each chapter by means of written examples by preachers and teachers showing the importance of each grammatical point for exegetical study.   For instance, at the beginning of his chapter about infinitives, Mounce has an exegetical insight from Darrell Bock demonstrating how infinitives often "complete important ideas".   He uses the example of 1 Corinthians 15:25 which reads, "For he must reign, till he hath put all his enemies under his feet." (ASV)  The tense of the  word for 'reign',βασιλευειν,is  an infinitive in the present tense, describing a continuous action.  "this present infinitive explains what is necessary about what God is in the process of doing through Jesus…Paul stresses that Jesus is in the process of ruling until the job of subjecting everything under his feet is complete." So, in order to properly interpret passages like this, one needs to understand Greek infinitives.

Mounce has come up with many ways, including what I have mentioned above, to encourage your persevering in learning Greek. At the end of some chapters he has 'exegesis' sections that show you how what you have learned is used in exegesis.  And at the end of every chapter he has a section showing you the percentage of what you have learned of the total words in the New Testament.  By the time you finish chapter 6 you'll have learned 36.79%of the total word count in the New Testament.  And before I forget, I must also mention that Mounce has many free resources online that compliment this grammar, including a program called "FlashWorks" which exercises  your memory of the Greek words you have been learning.  You may tell it what chapter you are on and it will drill you accordingly.

I highly recommend this Grammar, it is deliberately geared towards keeping you focused on the many benefits of learning Greek because of its great value as a tool in the proper exegesis of the Word of God.

Many thanks to Zondervan for sending me a free review copy of this book!(my review did not have to be favorable)

This book may also be purchased  at Amazon.com