Review: Heartbeat of Old Testament Theology by Mark Boda

It is in vogue these days to abandon the notion that the Old Testament has a theology. The evidence is pretty clear on that matter, given the diverse library of books found in the OT canon. Nonetheless, this hasn’t stopped the proliferation of books dedicated to the subject of Old Testament theology.

Mark Boda is aware of the tension and recognizes that another book on the topic requires justification. In The Heartbeat of Old Testament Theology: Three Creedal Expressions (Baker, 2017), Boda asks rhetorically, “Can we speak any longer of a theology that lies at the core of the OT? Are our claims of theology merely perspectival projections, or can we identify something in these ancient texts that witness to some form of unity in the biblical corpus?” (p. 6)

Boda does not argue against the reality that the Old Testament portrays a multifaceted theological framework. Rather, Boda follows the lead of Gerhard von Rad who highlighted three creedal recitations (Deut. 6, 26, and Josh. 24) as Israel’s “underlying theological expression”(p. 11). For Boda, the three creedal recitations are not three biblical passages, but three biblical ideas: the narrative rhythm, the character rhythm, and the relational rhythm. These are detailed in chapters 2–4. 

The narrative rhythm represents God’s activity in history. “In this creedal tradition in ancient Israel, theology is expressed as God’s redemptive story described through finite verbs expressing past action” (p. 15). The basic elements of the narrative creed include the following: ancestors, exodus, wilderness, conquest, land, and exile. Exod. 20:2 exemplifies this creed: “I am Yahweh your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt.”

The character rhythm emphasizes God’s being versus God’s acting. Boda defines it this way: “Instead of speaking of God as One who did this or that at a particular time (e.g., in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth; at the Reed Sea God delivered Israel), this tradition speaks of God as One who does this or that (e.g., participles: God is the one who creates, God is the one who delivers; or nonperfective finite verbs: God will deliver) and by extension as One who possesses these characteristics (e.g., nouns: God is the Creator, God is the Deliverer)” (p. 29). Exod. 34:6–7 typifies this creed: 

The Lord, the Lord,a God merciful and gracious,slow to anger,and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness,keeping steadfast love for the thousandth generation,forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin,yet by no means clearing the guilty,but visiting the iniquity of the parentsupon the childrenand the children’s children,to the third and the fourth generation.

The relational rhythm refers to how God interacts with humanity relationally, primarily with covenant or familial language, or “by utilizing copular syntactical constructions (היה as copula, verbless clauses, third-person pronoun copula), usually translated into English as ‘I am/you are,’ ‘I will be/you will be’ or ‘He is/they are,’ ‘He will be/they will be’”(p. 55). Lev. 26:12 is a fair representation of this creedal expression: “And I will walk among you, and will be your God, and you shall be my people.”

In chapter 5, Boda looks at Exod. 5:22–6:8 and Neh. 9 as case studies to show how the three rhythms are integrated into the whole of the OT theology. Chapter 6 demonstrates how the three creedal rhythms are expressed in OT creation language. Chapter 7 illustrates how the three rhythms carry over into the NT. In chapter 8, Boda argues why Christians should be concerned with these three rhythms. After a brief postscript, Boda concludes with a thirty-two page appendix, “Biblical Theology and the Old Testament.”

For Christians, especially evangelical Protestants, chapter 8 shines a bright light into some dark corners. I suspect that some will read this chapter with skepticism and some will start to read but be turned off by his sharp criticisms of the church. Hopefully, though, many will read Boda’s commentary on the evangelical church and heed his exhortations.

For example, in response to an individualistic ecclesiology inherent in evangelical Protestant churches, Boda writes:

“The narrative creed in OT theology reminds us that salvation is defined in communal rather than individual terms. God saves and transforms a community in order to bring transformation and salvation to the entire cosmos. This is intimated from the outset in God’s promises to Abraham, promises that spoke of the creation of an entire nation through whom the nations of the earth would be blessed. These same promises are communicated to the church in the NT, and through this new humanity God will transform the cultures of the world” (p. 125).

This is a much different, and more vibrant faith, than one in which salvation is about saving my own hide from the fires of hell. As I understand the gospels, this is what it means to have life and have it abundantly (Jn 10:10).

Review: The City in the Hebrew Bible

Here's a brief excerpt of my forthcoming review in the Bulletin for Biblical Research of James K. Aitken & Hilary F. Marlow (eds), The City in the Hebrew Bible: Critical, Literary and Exegetical Approaches.

Citizens of the West, and virtually all of the world’s population, have some concept of the idea of a city. It is the central hub of commerce, employment and entertainment. It is marked by densely placed housing units in relatively close proximity to said ventures. However, the word “city” carries a wide array of connotations, depending on one’s point of reference. For a rural farmer, “the city” might be the town of 500 where he buys seed and delivers grain. For the obstetrician at the county seat, “the city” might be the municipality where she delivers babies at the regional hospital. For the aspiring actor, “the city” might mean nothing other than New York City’s Broadway. In short, the term “city” is rather subjective even to the modern ear, as one’s definition of “city” is filtered through their personal experiences. 

If you are curious about what the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament has to say about cities, divorced from whatever modern conception of the idea you might have, the eleven essays (plus introduction) will give you plenty to think about. The contributors employ a variety of methodologies in their approach to the topic, providing a rich scope of perspectives.

Unfortunately, as a T&T Clark publication, this 248 page hardcover will set you back over $2.18/page, if you want your own personal copy! Or, you can check it out at your university library, which is what T&T Clark, Brill, de Gruyter, Routledge, and their ilk are counting on. But, that's another topic for another day.

Rowing Coaches and Bible Teachers

In my collegiate days I took up rowing and “walked on” the University of Cincinnati crew team. I had been an avid runner in high school, but got burned out mentally and physically. But, I hadn’t lost the desire to compete, so I took up rowing.

It’s not an easy sport to just “pick up.” Besides the physical demands on the body—virtually every muscle and organ in the body is taxed to the max—it requires precise technique that must be in complete sync with every other oarsman in the boat. There’s not a lot of room for individuality.

My local rec center has a few Concept-II ergometers, or rowing machines, which I will occasionally take for a spin for a full body workout. Not surprising, it’s not one of the more popular pieces of equipment in the gym.

Despite the instruction sheet pinned to the wall next to these machines, I’ve never seen anyone take the kind of stroke that would propel a boat of eight down the course with any measure of efficiency. Most would be fortunate not to capsize.

Yesterday, I observed an instructor teaching a group of novices. Her coaching wasn’t horrible. In fact, most of what she said was solid advice. She rightly told her students to keep their chins up and shoulders square, how to properly use the stirrups, and to avoid bending too far forward or backward. But, there was no instruction regarding leg drive, hand placement, the “catch”, or the “finish,” among many other finer details. Nonetheless, her  students were much better off than those who only read the instruction sheet, and far better off than those who were just winging it.

Watching this instruction got me thinking about teaching the Bible. People have a wide range of access to instruction on how to study the Bible: a graduate degree, a survey course at a university, classes through their local congregation, online, or none at all.

It should go without saying, that the more qualified the teacher the better off the student. A rookie rower who jumps into a boat with no training could hurt themselves or sink the boat (and everyone on board). Only after years of training under expert supervision is the student rower in the position to teach other rowers.

The same is true for teaching the Bible. Sure, anyone can read the Bible—and I suggest everyone should! But, unless you’ve studied under a qualified expert to the point where you have also mastered the material, you might want to think twice about passing on your limited skills to others.  After all, it would be tragic to capsize someone's faith or shipwreck their life due to irresponsible teaching (see James 3:1). It's true that a little knowledge can be dangerous.

* Photos courtesy of Wikipedia

"Three Dimensions of a Complete Life" by MLK, Jr.

On April 9, 1967, almost exactly one year before Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated, King delivered a sermon at New Covenant Baptist Church in Chicago titled "Three Dimensions of a Complete Life." Those three dimensions are length, breadth, and height and refer to loving oneself, loving others, and loving God.

Dexter Ave. Baptist Church, MLK's church in Montgomery, AL

Here's an excerpt from that sermon dealing with the third dimension: love of God.

Now a lot of people have neglected this third dimension. And you know, the interesting thing is a lot of people neglect it and don’t even know they are neglecting it. They just get involved in other things. And you know, there are two kinds of atheism. Atheism is the theory that there is no God. Now one kind is a theoretical kind, where somebody just sits down and starts thinking about it, and they come to a conclusion that there is no God. The other kind is a practical atheism, and that kind goes out of living as if there is no God. And you know there are a lot of people who affirm the existence of God with their lips, and they deny his existence with their lives. (That’s right) You’ve seen these people who have a high blood pressure of creeds and an anemia of deeds. They deny the existence of God with their lives and they just become so involved in other things. They become so involved in getting a big bank account. (Yeah) They become so involved in getting a beautiful house, which we all should have. They become so involved in getting a beautiful car that they unconsciously just forget about God. (Oh yeah) There are those who become so involved in looking at the man-made lights of the city that they unconsciously forget to rise up and look at that great cosmic light and think about it—that gets up in the eastern horizon every morning and moves across the sky with a kind of symphony of motion and paints its technicolor across the blue—a light that man can never make. (All right) They become so involved in looking at the skyscraping buildings of the Loop of Chicago or Empire State Building of New York that they unconsciously forget to think about the gigantic mountains that kiss the skies as if to bathe their peaks in the lofty blue—something that man could never make. They become so busy thinking about radar and their television that they unconsciously forget to think about the stars that bedeck the heavens like swinging lanterns of eternity, those stars that appear to be shiny, silvery pins sticking in the magnificent blue pincushion. They become so involved in thinking about man’s progress that they forget to think about the need for God’s power in history. They end up going days and days not knowing that God is not with them. (Go ahead) 

And I’m here to tell you today that we need God. (Yes) Modern man may know a great deal, but his knowledge does not eliminate God. (Right) And I tell you this morning that God is here to stay. A few theologians are trying to say that God is dead. And I’ve been asking them about it because it disturbs me to know that God died and I didn’t have a chance to attend the funeral. They haven’t been able to tell me yet the date of his death. They haven’t been able to tell me yet who the coroner was that pronounced him dead. (Preach, preach) They haven’t been able to tell me yet where he’s buried.

You see, when I think about God, I know his name. He said somewhere, back in the Old Testament, "I want you to go out, Moses, and tell them ‘I Am’ sent you." (That’s right) He said just to make it clear, let them know that "my last name is the same as my first, ‘I Am that I Am.’ Make that clear. I Am." And God is the only being in the universe that can say "I Am" and put a period behind it. Each of us sitting here has to say, "I am because of my parents; I am because of certain environmental conditions; I am because of certain hereditary circumstances; I am because of God." But God is the only being that can just say, "I Am" and stop right there. "I Am that I Am." And He’s here to stay. Let nobody make us feel that we don’t need God. (That’s right) 

As I come to my conclusion this morning, I want to say that we should search for him. We were made for God, and we will be restless until we find rest in him. (Oh yeah) And I say to you this morning that this is the personal faith that has kept me going. (Yes) I’m not worried about the future. You know, even on this race question, I’m not worried. I was down in Alabama the other day, and I started thinking about the state of Alabama where we worked so hard and may continue to elect the Wallaces. And down in my home state of Georgia, we have another sick governor by the name of Lester Maddox. (Yes) And all of these things can get you confused, but they don’t worry me. (All right) Because the God that I worship is a God that has a way of saying even to kings and even to governors, "Be still, and know that I am God." And God has not yet turned over this universe to Lester Maddox and Lurleen Wallace. Somewhere I read, "The earth is the Lord’s and the fulness thereof, and I’m going on because I have faith in Him. (Oh yeah) I do not know what the future holds, but I do know who holds the future. (Yes) And if He’ll guide us and hold our hand, we’ll go on in. 

The entire 40 minutes sermon is worth reading, or watching.  

Best Bible Translation - Part II

Last week, I wrote about translation theory. That can be a boring and somewhat tedious subject, but I felt it was necessary background before talking about Bible translation. After all, we can’t really talk about a “best” translation unless we have some idea of what the goals of the translation are.

Recall, that there is a spectrum of translation methods. On one end of the spectrum is the “formal equivalence” translation method, a stilted, mechanical rendering of the source language into the target language, but gives the audience a good sense of how the original was spoken. On the other end of the spectrum is the “free” translation method, a smooth, conversational rendering of the source language, but remotely distances the audience from the original style.

Before Bible translators begin the process of translating Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek into English, they need to decide how they will do it. Will their version be more formal, more free, or somewhere in-between? Here’s a chart of where several modern English Bible versions fit on the scale of translation method:

There is a common misunderstanding regarding the nature of the formal equivalent and free translation methods. These are often mislabeled as “word-for-word” and “thought-for-thought,” respectively. But, this doesn’t adequately describe the process. In fact, both methods are “thought-for-thought,” since words only have their meaning in a context.

Let’s look at two examples.

The Hebrew text of Prov 7:2 literally reads, “Keep my commandments and live, and my law like the little man in your eyes.” Both the formal equivalent translations and the dynamic equivalent translations recognize that the phrase “the little man in your eyes” is a Hebrew idiom that is equivalent to the English “apple of your eye,” which in itself requires some interpretation. Rather than leave the Hebrew idiom intact, even the formal equivalent translators decided that “little man in your eyes” was too foreign for an English audience. By contrast, translators on the right end of the spectrum determined that “apple of your eye” was, itself, too idiomatic and would leave some readers in the dark, so they translate it with the idea that the command in the second half of the verse is to guard the law with “your own eyes” (e.g. NLT, NCV).

Another example helps illustrate the various positions on gender-inclusive language. In John 3:19, the Greek says “men loved darkness.” The NASB, which is the most formal of the modern English translations, translates it exactly that way. However, most other translations, including the ESV, NIV, CEB, and NLT, recognizes that John not only meant the male population, but all of humanity, so it translates anthropoi (men) as “people.” These translations are not adapting “the truth of the Bible to man’s fickle and sinful ways,” as I’ve heard some say about gender-inclusive language. Rather, they are accommodating the intent of the text with the appropriate English translation.

While discussing his own translation of Hebrew into German, Martin Luther said, "What is the point of needlessly adhering so stiffly and stubbornly to the [Hebrew] words, so that we can't understand it at all?...Once he has the German words to serve the purpose, let him drop the Hebrew words and express the meaning freely in the best German he knows" (Luther’s Works 35:213–14).

Or, more recently, Douglas Moo (Wheaton College) echoed these sentiments, saying, "The principle that meaning resides in larger clusters of words means that we should no longer talk in terms of ‘word-for-word’ as a translation value. To suggest in our discussion of translations among a general audience that ‘word-for-word’ is a virtue is to mislead people about the nature of language and translation." [Douglas Moo, We Still Don’t Get It: Evangelicals and Bible Translation Fifty Years After James Barr (Zondervan, 2014), p. 10].

In short, for Luther and Moo, the best Bible translations would be anything to the right of formal equivalent on the spectrum. However, for students who want to dig more into the original languages or the history and culture of the ancient world, formal translation might be preferred as they can “see” or “feel” the original language behind the translation and it gives them the freedom to ask questions and draw their own conclusions based on their own study.

Addendum:
I should add, that no translation is perfect. The late-18th century/ early-nineteenth century Jewish poet Hayyim Nachman Bialik wrote, "He who reads the Bible in translation is like a man who kisses his bride through a veil." Of course, few people have the time, energy and resources for the years-long investment of learning a biblical language, let alone three! So, the next best option is to read from many Bible translations. Don't just pick the one that you like or has the same theological bent as you. Mix it up. Compare translations and ask why version X goes in one direction, while version Y goes another. Let the different translations inform you of the complexities of the biblical world. Let their languages expand your vocabulary. Let their theological diversity allow you to appreciate the Bible's theological nuances. In other words, let the word of God speak to you, rather than the other way around.

Best Bible Translation - Part I: Ich Bin ein Berliner

Once people figure out that I’ve had some Bible learnin’, it’s typically not long before I’m asked, “What’s the best Bible translation?” It seems simple enough, but I’m not always exactly sure what they mean. Does the King James still reign (catch that?)? Is the NIV still reliable post-1985? What about the Message? Without learning Hebrew and Greek (and throw in a little Aramaic, for good measure), what translation will get me closest to what God really said?

If you’ve ever taken piano lessons, or guitar lessons, or voice lessons, your instructor probably tried to get you to learn “music theory.” Sounded boring, right? You just wanted to learn to tickle the ivories like Chopin or Billy Joel, make the guitar gently weep like the George Harrison or riff like Jimi Hendrix. But, your teacher insisted, because if you wanted to create music, not just copy musicians, you needed to know how music is made.

So, let me tell you a little about translation theory…in very general terms.

The language that is being translated is called the “source language,” while the language that something is being translated to is called the “target language.” Take, for example that famous quote by John F. Kennedy during the Cold War, “Ich bin ein Berliner.” The source language is German. The sentence translates easily into English (target language) as “I am a Berliner.”

However, anyone who is bilingual or has ever studied a foreign language knows that sometimes things are “lost in translation.” What do we really mean when we say “ jump on the bandwagon,” “I smell a rat,” or “It jumped the shark.” When translating these idioms, translators have to decide whether they are going keep the idiom as it stands, or reformulate the idiom into a comparable idiom into the target language that captures the meaning of idiom, not the vocabulary of the idiom.

This leads us, then, to the two end of the translation theory spectrum. On one end of the spectrum is a “formal equivalent” method. According to this method, translators try to maintain the same vocabulary, syntax, and style (“form”) of the source language. This method expects the reader/hearer to have some knowledge of the culture and language of the source language, leaving it to the reader/hearer to understand idioms and smooth out syntax and style. The advantage of this method is that it allows the target audience to decide for themselves how to interpret the translation. The disadvantage with this method is that can lead to a stilted, unnatural reading in the target language.

On the other end of the spectrum is the “free” translation method. According to this method, translators have a greater interest in the target language, with little or no expectation for the reader/hearer to comprehend the culture, background and language of the source language. So translators provide as many helps as necessary to get the message across. The advantage with this method is that it makes for smooth and natural reading, but it puts the target audience at the mercy of the translator for interpreting the source language properly.

Formal equivalent: the attempt to replicate the structure and vocabulary of the source

language, leaving idioms intact; translators make few interpretive decisions on behalf of the reader.

Free Translation: the attempt to translate the source language into its equivalent

meaning (structure and form) in the target language; translators make all interpretive decisions on behalf of the reader.

As I said, these are the ends of the spectrum. Translators can “interpret” to varying degrees along this spectrum. We’ll talk about this more next time when we specifically look at Bible translation.

Let’s apply these two methods to JFK’s “Ich bin ein Berliner.” The translation I provided above, “I am a Berliner,” is a formal equivalent translation. It follows the syntax and style of the source language. Ich = I; bin = am; ein = a; Berliner = Berliner. However, this translation makes some assumptions from its target audience. It assumes the audience has general knowledge of European geography, that Berlin is a city in Germany, that “Berliner” means an inhabitant of Berlin, and that JFK was attempting to capture the essence of the Latin civis romanus sum (I am a Roman citizen) to capture the idea of a common humanity. This formal equivalent translation is literal according to vocabulary, but not necessarily literal according to its meaning.

On the other end of the translation theory spectrum is the free translation, that assumes very little from the target audience. In German, the definite article (ein) is not used when a member of a group is stating they belong to the group. So, a Berlin resident would simply say, “Ich bin Berliner.” By adding the definite article, JFK was clarifying that he was not a resident of Berlin, but identifies with West Berlin residents who, unlike their, East German counterparts, were free citizens. So, a “functional equivalent” translation might render “Ich bin ein Berliner” as “As an outsider, I identify with the freedom enjoyed by these residents of Berlin.” In terms of vocabulary and style, this translation is nowhere close to that of the source language. However, it more adequately captures the meaning for an uninformed target audience.

Tune in next time when I show how these translation techniques are applied among the various English translations of the Bible.

Mission Accomplished, Part II: Fill-in-the-blank

In part one, I tried to make the case that when the New Testament authors spoke of “fulfilled” Scripture, they weren’t saying the OT predicted the events of the NT, but that God’s mission was accomplished in Jesus. Jesus saw it this way himself, when on the cross he said, “It is finished,” perhaps better translated “it has been accomplished” (Gk tetelestai; Jn 19:30).

Prediction in the NT

Greek actually has a specific word, proeipon, that can be translated as “predicted.” It’s only used 12 times in the entire NT. But, even then, proeipon usually doesn’t mean to predict, as in to declare ahead of time the unfolding of specific future events. You can see from the chart below just how infrequently the verb has the connotation of “prediction.”

	NAS	ESV	NRSV	NIV	CEB	NLT
Matt 24:25	told in advance	told beforehand	told beforehand	told ahead of time	told ahead of time	warned ahead of time
Mk 13:23	told in advance	told beforehand	already told	told ahead of time	told ahead of time	warned ahead of time
Acts 1:16	foretold	spoke beforehand	foretold	spoke long ago	announced beforehand	predicted long ago
Rom 9:29	foretold	predicted	predicted	said previously	prophesied	said the same thing
2 Cor 7:3	said before	said before	said before	said before	already said	said before
2 Cor 13:2	previously said	warned before	warned previously	gave a warning	already warned	already warned
Gal 1:9	said before	said before	said before	said before	said before	said before
Gal 5:21	forewarned	warned before	warned before	already gave warning	already warned	already warned
1 Thes 4:6	told before	told beforehand	told beforehand	told before	told before	solemnly warned before
Heb 4:7	has been said before	words already quoted	words already quoted	passage already quoted	in the passage above	words already quoted
2 Pet 3:2	spoken beforehand	predictions	spoken in the past	spoken in the past	foretold	said long ago
Jude 17	spoken beforehand	predictions	predictions	foretold	spoken beforehand	predicted

As you can see, among the 12 occurrences of the verb across six modern English Bible translations, “predict” occurs only 7 times (8 if you include “prophesied”), which works out to approximately 10% of the time. In other words, it is very, very rare for the NT writers to suggest that the OT predicted the NT.

Fulfillment in the NT

On the other hand, the word for fulfill, plēroō, occurs 86 times in the NT. The chart below shows its distribution in the NT and Greek Apocryphal books.

The basic meaning of plēroō is “to fill”, as in to fill a container. It is the word most commonly  used in the Septuagint (over 70 times) for the Hebrew verb mālē’, “to be full, to fill.”

The article on the word plēroō in the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament can be summarized here:[1]

This also attaches to πληρόω (→ 291, 3–9, 10 ff.), but the particular content of this word in the NT is determined by 2.–5. (→ 291–298): “to fulfil a norm, a measure, a promise,” “to complete or achieve” something, and in 1. the idea of “totality” or “fulness” is decisive. Senses 2.–5. are prepared, or at least intimated, in non-biblical Gk. (→ 287, 4–23) and further developed in the LXX (→ 288, 1–21). The multiplicity of nuances does not always permit us to integrate individual passages into a firm lexical schema. Lit. the term means “to fill something completely,” a place, Ac. 2:2 (pass. Jn. 12:3; Mt. 13:48; Lk. 3:5), a material lack, Phil. 4:19; in a transf. sense Ac. 5:28: “You have filled all Jerusalem …”

In short, plēroō simply means to fill something. In the case of the NT’s understanding of the OT, it means something along the lines of “to fill in the blanks.”

So, what blanks needed filled in? God’s mission was to bring redemption to the world (as discussed in Part I), beginning with the call of Abram in Gen. 12. Exactly how God was going to accomplish that mission was not always clear. But, the NT authors are convinced, and they wish to convince us, that the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus answered that concern. He was the answer to the fill-in-the-blank question.

Conclusion

In summary, the NT writers rarely suggested that the OT predicted the events of the NT. Frequently, though, they stated that the mission of God was accomplished through the signature NT event—the Christ event—and this event filled in the blanks in terms of understanding how God’s plan would unfold.

---

[1] Gerhard Delling, “Πλήρης, Πληρόω, Πλήρωμα, Ἀναπληρόω, Ἀνταναπληρόω, Ἐκπληρόω, Ἐκπλήρωσις, Συμπληρόω, Πληροφορέω, Πληροφορία,” ed. Gerhard Kittel, Geoffrey W. Bromiley, and Gerhard Friedrich, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964–), 291.