On the Origins of War: Donald Kagan

Thoughts from an evangelical perspective

Bruce Waltke on Proverbs

Proverbs has seen a large number of great commentaries published recently, and one of the largest is a two volume commentary by Bruce Waltke (NICOT). One of the more interesting points of the commentary is his understanding of proverbs. Most commentators think of proverbs as general principles which are not always true: they are true only in specific situations. Waltke argues that this is a terrible basis to follow: can we seriously trust God's word if it is only true some of the time? Therefore, he makes the proverbs virtually into promises: this is what will happen. This naturally leads to some problems for his understanding of the proverbs, since many of them do not seem to be absolutely true. I have only glanced at his commentary, but he has several ways of explaining them as promises.

First, he reads many of them eschatologically. That is, even if they are not true now, they will be true in the eschaton. The righteous will not always get the rewards of righteousness now, but they will eventually. This is true enough, but I wonder if onecan get this from reading Proverbs. A canonical reading will support this interpretation, but that does not seem to be the langauge and idea of Proverbs itself.

Second, he interprets some passages as being only part of a process. For example, the proverb on training one's child and they will not depart from it receives this explanation. While it is an important part, parenting is not the only part of a child's choice in what to do with their life. Hence, the proverb, while being absolute, is not absolute. But then is any proverb absolute? Are not all situations interconnected with other situations and decisions? 

Third, he simply interprets proverbs to fit his definition. The most famous example of proverbs being used in different situations is 26:4-5, which contain a flat out contradiction. One tells us to answer a fool according to his folly, the other tells us not to answer a fool according to his folly. Which is it? Waltke, in contrast to most commentators, reads the first part of each verse in light of the second part, that is, they are actually talking about two different things. We are to answer a fool to make sure they are not encouraged in their foolisheness, but we are not to answer them in a way that sinks us to the level of foolishness. They are not contradictions. We are not to decide which one to follow in each situation (the usual interpretation), instead, we are to follow both all the time. Both are absolute and both are to be followed all the time. While Waltke knows Hebrew grammar far more than I ever will, I do not think that the leading parallel phrases can be defined differently when they are stated in exactly the same terms. 

While it is an interesting idea, I do not think Walkte has the correct idea on proverbs. Having said that, it is an excellent commentary, at least on my minimal reading of it. Owners of it will not be disappointed. 

War in the Bible and Terrorism in the Twenty-First Century

Reading and Preaching the Bible in the Worship of the Church 3

Medieval Church

Biblical Theology

Brevard Childs

Ashkelon in History

The Magi and the Gnats - Part 4

The Driving Question: Why could the magi not duplicate the third plague?

Mark Driscoll, Smashing Pumpkins, and Alternative Music

Random thoughts on alternative music

My favorite style of music is alternative, which is hardly surprising since I am from the Seattle area and I am part of the MTV generation. I once thought that as I got older my musical tastes would mellow out to something more respectable, but so far it is hasn't happened, although I do keep on waiting for the time when the alternative station becomes the oldies station (I am hearing advertisements directed to parents on alternative stations now). I heard a Smashing Pumpkins song on the radio recently and it reminded what a great song it was: Bullet with Butterfly Wings. I love the music of the song as well as how the music matches the pathos of the lyrics. The angst of the song reflects the angst of not being able to get out of the pit and the slime. Mark Driscoll used this video one time in a high school assembly as a way to introduce them to sin and the gospel: see the story below.

Old Testament Theology according to Walter Brueggemann Part 5

Extended Quote

Such a conclusion is not contextless. We do not say these things concerning Yahweh as though every occasion of response were an arbitrary flip of the coin. No, of course not. Yahweh is deeply enmeshed in a tradition of textuality, is committed to what has been previously claimed, and is held accountable for the chance for life together (between Yahweh and Israel). Thus the offer of Yahweh is not sheer capriciousness. But even so, one may ask: Does life with God not entail anxiety? Even if there is a tendency in a certain reliable direction, there is always a chance of a response in another direction, for Yahweh has a vast repertoire of possible responses. Yes, the faith of Israel is not without anxiety.

This, I suggest, is the severe meaning of the Second Commandment. The One with whom Israel has to deal is not an image, a category, a genre, a concept, or a norm. Rather this is a particular God with a name and a history, who is a free agent and an active character Israel’s faith is finally not trust in something that is transcendent in Yahweh, so as to escape what is contingent. But Israel’s life with God is endlessly dialogical, and it is therefore always open and always capable of newness. Israel is tempted to minimize the risk and curb the danger by boxing Yahweh into a formula. But each time it does so, Yahweh surprise. In times of judgment when sovereign assertion of Yahweh is expected and warranted, we find pathos. In times of terrible need, when Yahweh’s delicate generosity may seem appropriate, Yahweh is solemn and demanding. One does not know. Israel does not know. What Israel does know and counts on heavily is that the incomparable Yahweh of these several noun-metaphors will always be “in play” and Israel must always be “in play” with Yahweh, for that is its very life. (282).

Old Testament Theology according to Walter Brueggemann Part 4

Reflections

I highly enjoyed reading this book due to a variety of factors. The postmodern ignoring of history and discussion about what was going on behind the text was a refreshing change from the usual discussion of OT theology in the guild. There was little of the usual speculation about multiple sources and redactors. Instead, there was detailed study of the text as it stands. This rejection of history certainly causes problems and I am not sure that a fully satisfying OT theology can be done with a completely synchronic approach as Brueggemann, but if the choice is between a synchronic approach and a traditional historical critical approach, I will choose Brueggemann.