Title of the Article:

Rain on a Land Where No One Leaves: The Hebrew Bible On The Environment

About the Author:

Little is known about GENE M. TUCKER except that he teaches at Candler School of Theology at Emory University, Atlanta, and is a renowned scholar in Hebrew Bible and New Testament studies. He has co-authored known books like Preaching through the Christian Year: Year A-B-C, which he has co-authored with  Fred B. Craddock,John H. Hayes, Carl R. Holladay. He is also the author of FORM CRITICISM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT which he co-authored with Coert Rylaarsdam.  Also author of Canon, Theology, and Old Testament Interpretation: Essays in Honor of Brevard S. Childs which he co-authored with David L. Petersen, Robert R. Wilson

 Bibliographic Data: Journal for Biblical Literature JBL, 116/1 (1997) 3-17

Outline of the Article
I.  Posing the Question

II. Creation

III. Culture Over Nature

IV. Human Limits

V.  Conclusions

What is the article all about?

            The article is a commentary and a discourse on the reactions gathered on a 1967 article writen by Lynn White who argued that the Bible has authorized the abuse of nature and it’s resources of it by man. The question is would that be true and would biblical scholars participate in the discussions on policy’s on how man ougth to treat nature. Studies has shown that man’s reaction to nature have been linked to how he sees himself in relation to nature. It will then dictate his policies and practices that concerns  nature.

            The question whether the Bible really does authorize man for nature’s exploitation is not very self-evident, coming from Gene Tucker. For according to him, contemporary rhetorics and history can attest that the word “subdue..have dominion” really does give man power over nature to the point of exploitation. Therefore he proposes to further bring the discussion flow on the understanding of nature and what we call culture.

            In the Genesis account, he argues that the mandate for man regarding nature and over all the creatures in them is a blessing and not just a commandment. This he says is the Priestly viewpoint. In Near Eastern context human beings are said to have been created as royal stewards of a good creation. To be identified as a creation created in the “image of God” entails both freedom and responsibility to act in behalf of God consistent with God’s will. Somehow this suggests a hierarchy; first there is God, secondly there is man and third is the rest of creation.

            Another camp who bears but a dissimilar convention states that man’s role is to serve it and make it something that can support life. Therefore man has the role to cultivate it and he is not a royal steward. This he said is the Yahwist viewpoint. When man fell in sin, the estrangement of man from nature started even from the life giving arable soil. However, Tucker explains that that particular estrangement somehow met it’s consumation at the flood and with the new convenant God made that He will never destroy nature using the flood, re-establishes the relationship of nature and human relationship.

There are limits in the human movement when it comes to using and controlling nature. As depicted is some of the passages like Deut 22:6 “if you come on a bird’s nest, in any tree or on the ground, with fledglings or eggs, with the mother sitting on the fledglings or on the eggs, you shall not take the mother with the young.” Other passages suggest that man ougth to carefully consider forrest preservation as part of his activity. In Deut 20:19 “If in war a town is shut in by your armies for a long time, do not let its trees be cut down and made waste; for their fruit will be your food; are the trees of the countryside men for you to take up arms against them?”

In conclusion the, author of this article Gene Tucker, explains that although man has the power to use,exploit and even destroy nature, he does not have authority to do so. The special role of man in nature emphasizes more on the responsibility and not rights. And therefore, the term creation is mostly used and not just nature. In Psalms  104 and in Job 38-39, it is not simply a poem about nature, it is about the beauty of creation. The world is good simply because it is God’s creation.

Title of the Article:

On Putting Paul in His Place

About the Author:

VICTOR PAUL FURNISH is University Distinguished Professor of New Testament at the Perkins School of Theology, Southern Methodist University, in Dallas, Texas, where he lives. His numerous publications on and contributions to Pauline studies may have set him apart as one of the premier New Testament scholars of our generation. He is also the general editor of the Abingdon New Testament Commentaries. He is author also of one of the controversial book in our generation, Homosexuality in the church: both sides of the Debate, where according to his contribution on this book, homosexuality was not clearly defined in I Cor. 6:9 and therefore is not a sin.

 Bibliographic Data: Journal for Biblical Literature JBL, 113/1 (1994) 3-17

Outline of the Article

I.  The Churchly Paul

II. The Historical Paul

III. A Place for Understanding

What is the article all about?

            The article was a presidential address delivered by the Author on November 20, 1993 at the Annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in Washington D.C. The message may have sought the appeal of scholars alike to look and examine Paul more intently in different angles. He expounds on the light how Paul’s contemporary followers may have viewed him, tried to put him on his place to stay there, and how in our current time tries to do the same thing on him. He concludes that the there is no encountering him and no understanding on him without sustained attention to what he has affirmed in his Gospel and how he reasonned from it.

            The churchly Paul might have been to narrow a space to confine him to. For his contemporaries have envisioned and regarded him in so many a picture like, the apostle in chains,  the prisoner for Christ, the Lord’s chosen instrument and the likes. His writings though he may not have thought of getting it circularized, was sought after and was regarded at par with the scriptures.

            The Historical Paul, the author presented four variants of measurements how Paul  could be illumined or defined and known.  What place did he occupy within the first Century-Judaism? Where was he to be placed in relation to Jesus? What was his place within the early church, and what about his place in the Hellenistic culture especially in relation to the Hellenistic  religions. The author says he may be hard to place either from the Hellenistic Jew or from the Palestinian Jew.  His relation to Jesus we may reason could be best reflected in how he responded to the church. As for his Hellenistic views, the author mentioned that he may have some taints in thinking like that of Philosophical realm and the mystery religions.

            In conclusion the author stated that knowing Paul is beyond the realms of how we wish to see him both as a Church worker or a Historical Figure.

            The article needs to be read and reread until it is clearly understood. Especially after learning of the Author’s inclings on main issues. It really pays to be grounded first before reading any article written by this Author. For safety purpose, I may not recommend any of his work to any of my contemporaries and friends.

Title of the Article:

Deuteronomy and Psalms Evoking a Biblical Conversation

About the Author:

Patrick D. Miller is a Professor of Old Testament Theology. B.D., Union Theological Seminary in Virginia; Ph.D., Harvard University. He is a former President of the Society of Biblical Literature and is presently Editor of Theology Today. He also serves as Editor of the Westminster Bible Companion commentary series and General Editor of the Abingdon Old Testament Commentaries as well as Old Testament Editor of the Interpretation series. Miller’s teaching and research interests lie primarily in the fields of Old Testament theology and the history of Israelite religion. The Books of Deuteronomy and Psalms are a particular focus of his teaching and writing. Among recent publications are The Religion of Ancient Israel (2000) and Israelite Religion and Biblical Theology (2000). (Presbyterian)

Bibliographic Data: Journal for Biblical Literature JBL, 118/1 (1990) 3-18

Outline of the Article
I. Divine Word and Human Word
II. Torah and Song
III. The Fear of the Lord

What is the article all about?

                     The author has investigated on two Old Testament books, Psalms and Deuteronomy and tried to magnify and present in his journal, patterns of concepts, principles and insights how they, borrowing his own words, might be communicating and complimenting each other in ways probably not have been elucidated before.

                     Two phrases which he gave some emphasis, common in to many of us and has been used to expound the concepts he shared are the Divine word and the Human word. Both books mentioned are Divine word yet happening in different ways. The book of Deuteronomy is generally divine word but is presented and lying behind the human words of Moses. The Psalmist however is originally of human word which when upon reading further and further presents itself as the divine word. In the book of Deuteronomy the response of the community is dictated by the divine word and their responses are expressed in songs, confession, recitation and teachings. The Psalms however is thoroughly a human articulation directed to the divine being, which incorporated the divine word as the response to it’s prayers. The human voice in the Psalms touches the very articulation we His children wanted to say to Him. It gives us the expression in a less settled terms the cryings of our human hearts. And as it progresses in it’s prayers, it does not disagree with the precepts presented in the book Deuteronomy. Even in the beginning of the Psalmist’s book, it is celebratory in it’s exaltation for the ways of the righteous and condemns the ways of the wicked and this reverberating truth plastered all over the book of Psalms and it cannot be  missed. Just like Deuteronomy, the Psalms have self indictments for the Jews for not obeying God’s law. Deuteronomy however starting with a periscope point from God, through Moses would also present itself and insists on God’s closelessness to His people. If there’s but one point on the discussions regarding the Divine word, Human word interplay,  it simply presents the nearness of God to us, which will be the main theme.

                   Both has been said to have motivation clauses. In Deuteronomy, the motivation clause come in words like “…for I the Lord your God am a jealous God…”. And offers promises to the end.. “that your days may be long in your land…”. In the book of Psalms the same tone of the rhetorics exists but presented in a way that somehow depict the Psalmist as if he’s presenting pleadings to the Almighty why He should reply to their cries and pictured that His response is in consonance with His being. This is the motivation in Psalms.

                    As for the Torah and the Song, both books presents strongly the idea that following the Law of the Lord is the way to blessing and life and disobedience is the way to death. Deuteronomy and the Psalms present themselves as a highly dialogical relationship between the Lord and His people. Direct in expression, they have the freedom to somehow push the other member of the party to respond to them. In Psalms chapter 1, the following verbs “walk”,”stand” and “sit” have been associated with the positive instruction in Deut 6:6-9 that it is to be repeated and recited when you ‘sit’ at home, when you ‘walk’ on your way, when you lie down and ‘arise’. These activities express the total commitment to obey the law of the Lord. And it both Torah and Psalms, the word “meditation” has been the underlying mode of spiritual digestion.

                        The fear of the Lord is taught in the Psalms when it said “..come, I will teach you the fear of the Lord..” and in Deuteronomy “the fear of the Lord” is synonimous with the first commandment of “You shall have no other gods before me.” The over all aim and goal is to teach the people how to fear the Lord. Such is interspersed in the rituals and in the festivals. Therefore the congregation that sings and praises the Lord is the one who has the “fear of the Lord ” in their hearts.

                       In closing, as per the author, the exposition of the conversations of the writings of Moses and David, may have not yet been presented like these before, but however it is, the main point is to present that scriptures are one with another and has coherence in it’s principles and precepts.

                       For me, the journal presented a different way of looking at things and may have aided somehow in my personal insight.

1.) What Bible Version do you use for personal Bible Study? For teaching? For preaching and Why?

Answer:
I use two Bible versions when I do my personal Bible Study, the NIV and the KJV. In going through the whole text I use the NIV version because it talks in plain english and in quite understandable terms the story, the meaning, the principles, the concepts in the scriptures. I find NIV quite beneficial for me in laying down the foundational understanding of the passages. Now being aware that it was translated using dynamic translation, and I don’t have an issue on that, I also read the King James Version for the following reasons; 1.) To look for the original Greek word and perhaps the Hebrew if I can. It helps to see what the original word is and somehow helps in drawing out and getting a colorful, freshly baked insight. It also helps me to understand fully what the author of the book might be trying to say. 2.) Second, there are words in the KJV version which I feel are stronger, more picturesque and for me offers a more lucid aid in my imagination and taste, therefore I incorporate them in my teaching and preaching. People are interested in word meanings. It’s an added garnish to have old english words from time to time in one’s preaching.

For teaching and preaching, I use the NIV because not all can identify with the ancient language of the KJV. Teaching and preaching from it actually lessens my effort as a presentor to explain the meaning of words because it is so understandable and many times self-explanatory already. Using NIV comes along very handy with my purpose as a speaker, to be understood, to connect and to get my material across. It’s an effective tool as well for those who have KJV as their Bible. Some of them might not even understand their own Bible. On another point, It is also very effective in communicating for our unchurched and unbelieving visitors the Word of God. Many of them complain that the Bible is so hard to understand. Shoving them KJV might just convince them further.

Also for practical reasons, I think there are more Christians today who would rather buy and bring to church their NIV more than their KJV ( this is my personal observation only. Well at least for Southern Baptist and Conservative Baptist and some Fundamentals that I know of). I just find it helpful during scripture readings, a very simple way to be one with them is to have this more popular (I think) version. It’s a good feeling to hearing your congregation or your Bible study group, reading and treading along together through the Word of God in unison.

1.) What is the difference between Intended meaning and Literal meaning?

Answer:
Intended meaning means the interpretation of the Bible passages are based on what the author of the book is trying to convey in his writing. The intended meaning of a verse can be deduced how it is in relation to the whole context of the passage. It may require that, in seeing the greater picture, one should read the whole chapter or the whole book, know the book’s genre, it’s intended recipient and it’s historical background. When Jesus said in Matthew 5: 45 “That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.”, He was not stating that the sun revolves around the earth and was not in anyway presenting an Astronomical statement. The whole point was that the Father extends His unconditional love to both believers and non-believers. Others would call this God’s common grace to all and that we are all recipients of this whether we have faith in Him or not. We can also say that God allowed human expressions to describe His being, majesty, power, love and workings such that it can communicate, illuminate, touch and convict the finite mind, understanding and hearts of human beings. Intended meanings also recognizes the fact that the authors did not attempt to present multiple or diverse meanings in their writings. They would have one meaning for the passages written. There will not be levels of meanings on a particular passage for to take this stand will result into a disastrous interpretation.

Literal meaning however picks the literal meaning of the words used and generate interpretation based from there. To some scholars this kind of interpretation is sometimes called “Letterism”. The problem with this is that it either overshoots or misses the target meaning or the concept presented in the passages. Like when the bible says Jesus is the Lamb of God, it was not saying that Jesus is God’s pet animal bearing four footed hoofs. Or like when Jesus said, “ Take and eat; this is my body..”, literal interpretation may make this as cannibalism. On a particular passage Jesus was actually holding the bread and wine while saying this and common sense will say that this is to be taken symbolically instead of literally.

Title of the Article:

When Did the Gospels Become Scripture

About the Author:

D. MOODY Smith

Five years after beginning his teaching career at the Methodist Theological School in Ohio, Moody Smith joined the Duke faculty, where he taught in the Divinity School as well as the Graduate Program in Religion, in 1965. From 1974 through 1980 he was Director of Graduate Studies in Religion. In the course of his graduate teaching he directed the dissertations of two dozen New Testament Ph.D. students, most of whom subsequently taught in theological schools, from Indonesia to the Central African Republic.

Although his research centered on the Gospel and Epistles of John, on which he has published extensively, he taught a wide range of New Testament courses, particularly on the Gospels and Jesus. This broader interest is reflected in the introduction, Anatomy of New Testament (6th ed., with Robert A. Spivey and C. Clifton Black, 2007), which has been in print continuously since published in 1969.

Early in his career Smith spent two years in postdoctoral study, first in Zurich and Basel (1963-64; Lilly Fellowship) and then in Cambridge (1970-71; Guggenheim Fellowship). In 1990 and 1991 he was a resident member of the Center of Theological Inquiry in Princeton. In 1996 he was presented a Festschrift, Exploring the Gospel of John in Honor of D. Moody Smith. Edited by two former graduate students, R. Alan Culpepper, Dean of McAfee School of Theology at Mercer University and C. Clifton Black, Otto A. Piper Professor of Biblical Theology at Princeton Theological Seminary, it is still in print. In 1999 he served as President of the Society of Biblical Literature

Bibliographic Data: Journal for Biblical Literature JBL, 119/1 (2000) 3-20

Outline of the Article
I. Introduction. Defining Scriptures from Canon.
II. Did the authors of the Gospel intend to write scriptures.
a. Gospel of Matthew
b. Gospel of Luke
c. Gospel of Mark
d. Apocryphal books claims to be scripture
III. Intertestamental Writers
IV. Conclusion
What is the article all about?

According to the author, a certain William Cantwell Smith made a sharp criticism against the guild of biblical scholars for paying no attention to the scriptural status of a literature. In response the author presented a broader case as what could be or how do we define what scripture is.

This article seem to have dealt with a topic that is quite common to the Bible scholastic world. Yet it’s quite interesting how the author presented some things to think about and ponder with.

It started with a challenge to define what scripture is. Borrowing from another author that this article has named, Graham says’ “texts that are revered as especially sacred and authoritative”. This can be as a good about how we ought to treat and see what scripture is. In our present context Canon presumes Scriptures. But for purposes of discussion Canon would be distinguished as a delimitation of such texts. With the existence of Scripture and Canon, it can be presumed that there exists a community that somehow accords a status and authority for some text. This community also rejects some text as not scriptures. We may think of the Gospels and the Epistle, for the meantime, as documents generated at specific times and places to address issues of such time and place.

According to some of the writings of Justyn Martyr, the gospels may have already been read in the churches side by side with the Prophets and was treated as scriptures during the middle of the second century. The question now rise is if the NT writers refer to their writings as scriptures. Did the authors intend to write scriptures. This would imply then if have they written for the New Testament Canon. Yet we know it was currently beyond their knowledge that an NT would ever exist. However, the following were presented in the article.

The book of Matthew starts with a genealogy that sets Jesus in context and lineage of the Davidic monarchy. Matthew makes it clear that Jesus represents the restoration of such dynasty and presents a continuation of the Biblical narrative. Presenting a genealogy is a biblical form characteristic of the Hebrew scripture. An example is in chapter 9 of I Chronicles, a whole chapter dedicated to presenting the genealogy was done. Also, Matthew with it’s five thematic discourses has been arguably presented by the author as a confirmation to attempt to correspond the five books of Moses. Therefore Matthew may have conceived his gospel as a continuation of the biblical history and intending it to belong to the same literary category as the scriptural cycles in the OT figures.

The book of Luke has a characteristic Segtuagintal phrasing noticed in Luke 2:1 when it started with “In those days….”. The same phraseology was found in some books who inadvertedly tries to present itself as scriptures. Example is I Maccabees. In Mary’s response, is an epitomy of Hannah’s prayer in I Sam. 2:10. Luke somehow imitates or parallels scriptural styles. He also uses the infancy narratives to establish Jesus’ continuity of the Biblical history.

Matthew and Luke may have intended to Superceed Mark as well as they augmented and rewrote their gospels to attain the suitability of it’s function as a scripture.
However Mark presents itself as the document that presents Jesus as the fulfillment of biblical prophecy. Unlike Matthew and Luke, it is not as explicit in presenting a continuation of the biblical narrative. It may have been written as a response for a particular biblical need. However this book has been accepted as part of the scriptures and has been in chapels, read out together with the other Old Testament scriptures.
For John, it may be accurate to ask at what stage of his writings. At some point John may have begun to function as a scripture in the community as First John suggests. The book of Revelation is quite clear that it be treated as scripture when it announced that no part of it should be removed and no amount of information be added to it.

The Apocryphal books had the intention of being recognized as scriptures. The forms and styles of writings adhere to the Old testmanent style. It could have been to mask itself so that it can blend it easily. However based on the content, they were not acceptaed. Thus Canonization came into view.
The Essenes during the intertestamental period have been mentioned to may have had the intention of writing for the NT Canon, so to speak. Their literary styles and contents are marked with piety yet the only difference in our current NT testament writers is that they continue to look forward for the Messiah, they still await the fulfillment of prophecy, while the NT testament writers were looking back, treating the NT as the fulfillment of prophecy.

In conclusion, when the Gospel became elevated as a Scripture, it may well be pointed out that the Gospel writers also intended them to be treated as scriptures. This is a new insight, a very nice to know information which one may use as he approach to study God’s word.

1.) Are any of the characteristics of the liberal scholar’s approach to the Bible valid? Explain.

Answer:
First Corinthians 3:22 says “And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are in vain.”. What about the liberal’s approach to the Bible, is there but anything in them that is valid? To put it simply, none at all. I find the liberal scholar’s approach all invalid. It is an expression of human ignorance over matters of faith, over matters beyond their cerebral cortex can reach and contain.

Number one, science is not the ultimate dictator of truth for it is not able to provide an eternal and lasting explanation for all the mysteries found on the earth below, within and above it. How can one put his entire life on something that keeps on changing and sometimes contradicting itself. While Science can answer some of our questions, but it is not all encompassing. Science itself is evolving and therefore cannot provide a foundation for what is true or not. Empirical Science will not have an explanation for faith, peace, miracles, blessings, sufferings, patience, hope and love. It can only go so much in explaining the tangible, yet the scriptures offers more than the eyes can see, the ears can hear, the hands can touch and feel.

Second, the Scriptures is inspired regardless whether it brings a religious experience or not. It is the Word of God and does not need man’s approval or testimony. For man’s emotional and intellectual response can be affected and elicited by almost anything. We cannot rely on this human response as indicators for what is inspired or not.

Third the scriptures cannot just be the result of an evolving truth. Because the Bible has a tone of finality regarding it’s precepts,laws, the sinfulness of man, the salvation provided by the Almighty and the future of those who put their trust on Him. If it is evolving then we can never arrive at the truth. And those who died for it, died in vain. While it has provided contemporary Christians with age old precepts, principles and guidelines, the Bible has helped the establishment of great nations as well. It is a fact that the society’s morality has been greatly affected and influenced by the timeless precepts found in the Scriptures.

Fourth, the theological concepts expressed in the scriptures has been constant and needs to be understood by our generation. We are the ones that should learn and adjust to the truths expressed in them. If we are to go back and examine the reasons that brought about the curses and punishment to the Israelite nation by the Lord, it was because they have not known His ways, they have not known His will and they second guessed God thinking that His precepts needs to be readjustment to accommodate their needs and wants. Liberal reasoning may seem to be a thing of the past, something the Lord has been blasting off even before.

Fifth, while it is true indeed that the Bible gives a historical and social record of Israel with their Judaistic religion whose God is the Almighty, we cannot deny the fact that Biblical truth has answered and has satisfied the deep needs of many men and women all over the world. The Bible has provided humanity with answers that meet man’s need although they are beyond his human comprehension. The Bible itself talks of not one nation only but of the World. How God’s love is for the whole of mankind and that the Saviour died for the sins of man and not just for one nation. The Bible presents itself as the answer to the whole of humanity in the form of Jesus Christ, the Saviour.

Lastly, how foolish it is to give credit to the servants and ignore the master. I have watched an episode of the well-renowned National Geographic, the television broadcast probably of some of the most well informed, intelligent video documentalist. A Historian said that even without Jesus, Paul would have single handedly spread out Christianity. They reasoned that he has reached more Gentiles than Jesus did. The mouth of intelligent man has spoken and has seen but one aspect of the coin. If one would allow himself to be controlled by this kind of mentality then it would really be very hard for to see the Bible as God’s word and therefore approach it with validity. Even the youngest of our Sunday school attender knows for a fact that without Jesus, there is no Christianity. It is like having KFC without a chicken or McDonalds without a hamburger, or Jollibee without the Champ. While basketball can exist without Michael Jordan, but there will be no Micheal Jordan without Basketball. How will Christianity ever exist without Jesus?

I Corinthians 1:20
“Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath
not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?” (KJV)

Title of the Article:

Narrative Intentionality in First Samuel 29

About the Author:

The son of a German Evangelical minister, he was ordained in the United Church of Christ. Brueggemann received an A.B. from Elmhurst College (1955), a B.D. from Eden Theological Seminary (1958), a Th.D. from Union Theological Seminary, New York (1961), and Ph.D. from Saint Louis University (in 1974). He was professor of Old Testament (1961–1986) and Dean (1968–1982) at Eden Theological Seminary. Beginning in 1986, he served as William Marcellus McPheeters professor of Old Testament at Columbia Theological Seminary, from where he retired in the early 2000s.

Brueggemann is an advocate and practitioner of rhetorical criticism. He has authored more than 58 books, hundreds of articles, and several commentaries on books of the Bible. He is also a contributor to a number of the Living the Questions DVD programs and is featured in the program “Countering Pharaoh’s Production-Consumption Society Today. Brueggemann participated in Bill Moyers’ 1990s PBS television series on Genesis.

Originally a strong supporter of Israel and its Biblical claims, Brueggemann later repudiated Israel for its exploitation of “ancient promises” to create a “toxic ideology”, and now claims that it’s not anti-Semitic to stand up for justice for Palestinians

He served as the professor of OT at Columbia Theological Seminary in Decatur, Georgia, Dr. Brueggemann is known throughout the world for his brilliant method of combining literary and sociological modes when reading Bible. V. S. Parrish categorized Brueggemann as being an exegete and theologian. As an exegete he has composed several commentaries (Genesis, Exodus, Deuteronomy, 1 and 2 Samuel, Isaiah, and Jeremiah). His most notable work was on the Psalter. As a theologian he has performed work as an editor for the Fortress Press series Overtures to Biblical Theology . In addition, Brueggemann development of OT theological methods consists of literary mode social function, and dialectical approach. Dr. Brueggemann’s work of commentary, especially on the Prophets and Writings, is buttressed by a overwhelming of monographs and articles on specific portions of the Hebrew Bible. Titles like David’s Truth in Israel’s Imagination and Memory (1985), Power, Providence and Personality (1990), 1 Kings and 2 Kings (1982c), The Prophetic Imagination (1978), and Hopeful Imagination (1986) reflect his interest in the prophetic corpus.

An ordained minister in the United Church of Christ, Dr. Brueggemann currently resides in Cincinnati, Ohio (2008).

Bibliographic Data: Journal for the Study of Old Testament (JSOT) Volume 43 Number 21-35 1989

Outline of the Article
I. Background from I Samuel 24 – 26 and 2 Samuel 4-6
II. Analysis of David’s predisposition
III. David though guilty was thrice acquited
IV. David’s Trial, a typology of Christ’s Trial

What is the article all about?

The article is an exploration on a particular account in the life of David, which the author creatively suggests to may have some Christological typology, if we are to comparatively look at some of the major players involved.
Before going to 1 Samuel 29 which is the culminating chapter where this article has been so born off, a background of the events was presented in the earlier chapters of I and II Samuel. First Samuel chapters 24 – 26 talks about the life of David after he was banished from the Kingdom of Israel for being charged by King Saul for treachery. He was then being hunted down by Saul and his men. Yet twice David had had the chance to kill Saul but he submitted to the Lord’s will and opted not to. The first opportuned time was in a cave and David after cutting a piece of garment from the sleeping Solomon, felt guilty about it. He exposed himself before Saul and demonstrated to him that he has no evil intentions of killing him (Saul). This happened in two events and twice David spared Saul’s life. Twice Saul commended him for his goodness to him. The author suggested that deep inside David was an issue of revenge and bloodguiltiness, however he was able to fight it off for the sake of not discrediting himself from the throne of Israel. He suggested that this might even be within the dictates of maintaining a good image before Israel. Another incident was when he was saved from the shedding of blood when Abigail stood in the middle to save his lunatic husband Nabal from the hands of an angry David who was out to wipe out an ungrateful bastard. Again David was saved from the activity of bloodshed which the Author suggested may have affected, if not discredited his future claim of the throne.
In Second Samuel chapters 4 to 6 there were a series of death of David’s enemies, i.e. Saul, Abner and Ishbosheth. However their deaths were taken with pain by David and has ordered the execution of the people responsible for their deaths. Here David displays his non-conformance with these deaths. The flow of attention of the story from these verses where beginning to shift away from Saul going towards David. His ascendency to the Throne are beginning to be realized.
In summary, an analysis of David’s predisposition based on the events, first from in 1 Samuel 24-26: he could have eliminated his enemies but was spared from doing that, in 2 Samuel 4-6, his enemies were killed but he was not guilty for them. Both events gave picture of a well protected, credible and free from blame image of David, the future King of Israel.
In I Samuel 29, the point in David’s career where he sided with an Israelite enemy for his refuge, the Philistines. David acted cunningly by attacking the Geshurites, The Girzites and the Amalekites ( enemies of Israel) but reported to Achish that he was attacking Judah, Jerahmeelites and the Kenites. For Achish his gullibility made him to pronounce David as a loyal ally and a prospective battle personnel for the future expansions of the Philistines to other nations including Israel. However this deception made by David, was said to be an indication of his undying loyalty to Israel nonetheless. But he was pronounced innocent and reliable by Achish because he was functioning on an erroneous data supplied by David himself.
One time, the Philistines were indeed mounting an attack on Israel. David was recommended by Achish to fight with them side by side. This is a dilemna for David because fighting Israel would mean he would be branded as a traitor to his nation. But inspite of the threefold positive build-up from Achish, the Philistine leaders rejected David because he does not look sincere to them. He was again saved from a posible dilemna which could have sent him away from the throne. There was something right about the decisions of the Philistine leaders regarding David for not including him, because it favored the Philistine leadership inspite of the acquital done by Achish for him. It was favorable for David as well to keep his hands away from bloodshed from his fellowmen the Israelites.
In conclusion, the author parallelized this event with the Lord Jesus’s trial with Pontius Pilate. Like Achish, Pontius Pilate gave a not guilty pronouncement to Jesus and his desire was to let him go. However both Achish’s and Pontius Pilates’ desire was vetoed by a more powerful voice. For Achish it was the Philistine rulers, for Pontius Pilate it was the mob. Jesus’s impending death then, actually acted in favor for the Kingdom of God because it meant the salvation of the chosen. Although, Pilate was acting over data which he doesn’t really understand or may not know quite well. Jesus was indeed to make a new Kingdom just like what the mob was saying but not the way they were thinking. His death gave way to his becoming the King of the Kingdom of Heaven.
For David, it acted favorably for him when he wasn’t included in the war against Israel because his absence from this war, somehow established his guiltlessness from bloodshed and treachery from Israel to later on making him the King of Israel.
The explanations and twists of insight is quite fascinating. This would be the first time I have heard David’s trial and acquital painted with a Christological picture. It’s amusing and thought provoking although I just feel that we need to really be grounded in our doctrines and be carefull in making interpretations like this so as not to give a wrong idea that God’s word can almost always be interpreted like this. The author himself gave some disclaimer that his parallelism is by no means an introduction for a doctrinal stand or teaching. It was just to give a parallelism of David’s event with that of Christ.

Answer:
The Alexandrian Hermenuetics used Allegory to interpret the Old testament scriptures. They reasoned that there are hidden spiritual meanings in the scriptures. Some of the perpetuators of allegorical interpretations argued that the words of God was not intended to be understood literally and that it implied influence on the soul of man. This for example was contended upon by Aristobulus. Philo introduced his sets of rules in approaching or interpreting the Pentateuch. He presented that passages which seems to be unworthy of God is meant to be interpreted allegorically like when Adam hid himself before God was seen as something that undermines God’s capacity because He can see all things and therefore this has to be interpreted allegorically. Another rule is when contradictions appear like when Abraham was called the father instead of the grandfather of Jacob. Lastly there are passages that are obviously of allegorical interpretations example is when Paul interpreted Hagar and Sarah as the representations of the two covenants in Galatian chapter 4. Moving forward, other rules Philo created included an allegorical and literal interpretation of passages. Usually when words are repeated and superflous. Unusual words imply to have a mystical interpretation.
The forerunner of the Alexandrian’s way of interpretation is Origen. Coming from the influence of Philo he devised a three level meanings of interpretations; First is the literal, next is the moral meaning and lastly is the spiritual or allegorical meaning. Probably a good example for this type of interpretation is the fall of Jericho. Literally, the walls fell down, morally it was interpreted as Christ upon coming into an individual life has his personal walls fall down upon the sound of the trumpet and Spiritually it symbolizes the falling away of idolatry upon the coming of Christ.
Allegory was rejected by the Jewish teachers in Antioch. They believed in the historical reality for biblical revelation which the Alexandrians have denied. They refuse the interpretation using hidden meanings attributed to the Gnostics way of thinking. They reasoned that the knowledge will come from the scriptures and not from the selected Gnostics whom the Alexandrians has place too much faith on. Two of the leading men for the Antiochene interpretations are Theodore and Chrysostom. Theodore payed close attention in particular particles, moods and terminology and studied verses in context before giving out his exegesis. Chrysostom interpreted the bible in the literal sense as a guide to for conduct rather that using it to support his arguments. It was said that Chrysostom studied the passage as a whole and extorted out meanings rather than putting or introducing in it.

Title of the book:
Esther an Introduction and Commentary

About the Author:

Joyce G. Baldwin is the author of many books used by Seminarian and alike. She wrote commentaries Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi: An Introduction & Commentary, Daniel (Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries) , 1 And 2 Samuel: An Introduction and Commentary (Tyndale Old Testament), Esther: An Introduction and Commentary (Tyndale Old Testament), The Message of Genesis, DNA Pioneer: James Watson and the Double Helix, To Heal the Heart of a Child, Lamentations-Daniel (Bible Study Commentary). She held a degree of BA, BD, was principal of Trinity College, Bristol, and wrote several volumes in the Tyndale Old Testament Commentary series. She died in 1996 leaving us treasures of practical knowledge in the Scriptures.

Table of Contents:

·Introduction
o The place narrative in Scripture
o The book’s historical accuracy
o Literary Features
o Literary Genre
o Theology
o Text and versions of Esther
o Date of Writing
o The Canonical Status of Esther
·Analysis
·Commentary

What is the book all about?

This book is a handy tool for every bible student. It provides ample introduction for it’s background and a detailed commentary of book. It aims to present the different aspects of the bookd of Esther give it a foundational. The author provided a list of the abbreviations on the first page to aid in understanding as the reader moves on.
As per the author, the Story of Esther is deemed as one of the most popular Jewish story which tells of the victory of Israel under the regime of a foreign ruler. So loved and widespread, it is always read at the Purim and has been the traditional custom since then. It is not a parable and communicates a story that marks something in the Jewish history.
The original writer of Esther meant the book to be Historical. It seemed to have been written during the Persian Monarchy in the reign of King Ahasuerus; also known by by his Greek name, King Xerxes. Some of the personalities in this book has been supported by the records of Herodotus. Elsewhere, some of the events attested by Herodotus coincide with the incidents mentioned in the book of Esther. As pointed out, it is quite fitting after knowing that he was born and lived during 490 to 480 BC. There were other archeological findings that has attested to the stories of Esther like the Persian Inscriptions during the 5th century, tablets found in Persepolis which supports the activities of the Persian empire.
The Literary feature is said to be of artistic quality. The author of Esther seem to have a clear idea how to set the environment, the mood and the character. They appear in such color that the message being sent across hits the readers quite effectively. It’s literary Genre was said to fall under the category of law and History. It was the authoritative source from which the proper observance of Purim has been based.
While there is not a mention of God’s name or Lord in the entire book of Esther, the Jews firmly believe that God was in control of everything that transpired during the time they were under the rulership of King Xerxes. The resounding theology is that The Lord will not abandon His children and it is by His provindential will that Esther and Mordecai were set-up as the top influential champions standing for them. This story was mostly available in Hebrew written language and has been told that a celebratory story like this was a household desire to be read during Purim.
The most probable date this book could’ve been written was later in the Persian period which could be inferred from verse 1 which gives a picture that it belonged already in the past.
While it’s strangeness and the lack of the mention of God made it very suspicious for canonicity, Josephus in his writings however included Esther in the 22 books considered as Scripture. He related the contents to be as part of History. For the Jews the book of Esther is a story of hope and victory. It is the vindication for their nation that will always be attributed to God. An Analysis in the form of an outline has been provided in the book. And based on this divisions the book will then now give it’s commentary.
The book of Esther is a fascinating book and has always intrigued me why God was not even mentioned in the book yet it stands to be one of a Jewish treasured story. It maybe that a story viewed in the Jews eyes will be different from one viewed from the outside. Today it stands firm as a reminder that He controls everything that happens to us.

LINKS:

http://www.amazon.com/Esther-Introduction-Commentary-Testament-Commentaries/dp/0877842620