This book is more history-focused than Gerhard Hasel’s Old Testament Theology: Basic Issues in the Current Debate, yet it seems to have a similar aim. Prussner shows how Old Testament theology developed and advanced at each different point. Along the way he includes some brief discussions on the philosophical mileu which he believes contributed to the advancements in OT theology. The work is not as conservative as Hasel’s work. The author appears to give more credence to the historical-critical developments than Hasel does.

The work progresses from J.P. Gabler’s address up to the present age. He chooses to describe the progression in terms of segments of history rather than trajectories of ideas. For example, there is a chapter on the 18^th century developments followed by a chapter on the 19^th century developments. Each chapter contains moderately lengthy essays on different scholars and their own contributions. There is some attention to identifying scholarly trajectories, but the emphasis is on the historical development.

The book is a plodding read, and is mainly useful as a reference work, because of the fact that this grew out of a Ph.D. Dissertation – yet it is of excellent quality as an overview. The bibliography is excellent in this book, though there have been many developments since the book’s writing. It seems that Leo Purdue’s The Collapse of History, and later Reconstructing Old Testament Theology after the Collapse of History attempt to fill a need for a more recent work of this sort, though Purdue approaches the matter from a much different perspective. I would say that any student of the graduate level in the field should read this book.

Tweet This Post

Hawking has recently decided that there is no need for God, when physics governs the universe – including its origins. As the article points out, Hawking has not always been of this opinion. He used to think that there was room for God in the big bang event. Yet, now he has rescinded that comment, opting to assign no role to God, or to say that God is merely the laws of physics (a sort of deism). Hawking has made some claims recently that seem out of sorts with his illustrious career. He said that intelligent alien life certainly exists, and that we should not try to contact aliens, because they might destroy us with superior technology. I don’t like to make a sort of ad hominem argument against him, but these claims don’t seem to be consistent with his career (before retirement).

If one assumes that the supernatural does not exist, arriving at Hawking’s conclusion seems inevitable. Yet, if one grants the miraculous,  then Hawking’s conclusions don’t seem to make sense. How can the universe’s system of physics govern something that does not exist? If the laws of physics produced the universe, then how did they exist before the existence of the universe? It’s not the best logic. I used to really like Hawking, and admire his genius, but no longer can I admire

Tweet This Post

This book is somewhat dated (almost 20 years old in 2010). Yet, the analysis of the field is still quite useful, for the problems (questions) are still basically the same. Still, several major OT theologies have been published since this book was written. Brueggemann’s work takes a radically different approach from the one proposed here, bypassing several of Hasel’s “issues”. He does this by making use of rhetorical criticism, a perspective which Hasel’s work fails to note. Hasel’s work does well to describe and categorize the works of theology which he analyzes. Every course on Old Testament theology I have taken (4 now) have used this book as a textbook in some way.

Still, Hasel’s basic proposals at the end of the book are very much debated. One should probably think of the final chapter as “one man’s way of working through the issues”, and not a conclusive decision for the field. The work is very lacking in how one incorporates literary theory into doing OT theology. The idea reading the Bible as literature, or utilizing theory in reading, goes untouched in this book, though many (often sub-par) theologies have made use of these methods lately (Segovia, Oduyoye, Kwok, etc.).

FULL REVIEW

Tweet This Post

We discuss “Hipster Christianity”, Energy Saving Myths, and an idea for the center of Old Testament theology – Deuteronomy 26.

 Standard Podcast: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Tweet This Post

by Pat Marvenko Smith

In an Old Testament Theology Seminar I was asked to come up with a “central theme” for the Old Testament, that could carry over into the New Testament. It’s what Biblical Theologians call a center, or a mitte. In thinking about that I looked at Deuteronomy 26. The first 11 verses function as a sort of summary of the exodus event, a summary which would be read in Passover celebrations later (and today). It seems to me that this statement is like something that NT theologians identify as a kerygma, a central summary gospel, which the rest of the NT expands upon. In our case in Deuteronomy 26, the Old Testament’s gospel (that is what Christian interpreters call the Exodus tongue in cheek) is presented in summary form. What I find greatly interesting is that verses 17-20 end the section with a sort of call to live for God. It says,

17 Today you have obtained the LORD’s agreement: to be your God; and for you to walk in his ways, to keep his statutes, his commandments, and his ordinances, and to obey him. 18 Today the LORD has obtained your agreement: to be his treasured people, as he promised you, and to keep his commandments; 19 for him to set you high above all nations that he has made, in praise and in fame and in honor; and for you to be a people holy to the LORD your God, as he promised.

This seems much like a NT call to follow Christ. It’s followed by a promissory statement that if one does so, they will inherit eternal life. Of course the terms are different, using Old Testament imagery which is later (2nd temple era) re-interpreted as the NT presents. I find it significant that when Christ is asked what the most important commandment is, what he says lines up with Dt 26:17 (not exactly, he’s quoting the shema). Those who follow God become the holy ones, which in the NT gets translated as saints.

When we studied this in our small group, we talked about how this story describes on a corporate level, something similar to what happens in the NT picture of Christ. I think this is because the Hebrew way of viewing history is that it is cyclical (some would call it typological). Israel went through a struggle, cried out to God, who saved them. Later, God saved them (and us gentiles) in Christ. It was something on a grander scale. One reason I think I’m on track here is that in Deuteronomy, God is called “I AM”, the Hebrew YHWH. John’s Gospel presents Christ in this manner, becoming the passover lamb, who takes away the sin of the world, and makes it possible for God to tabernacle with humanity, and restore humanity to the intended state of eternity with God (in our death).

Tweet This Post

I ran across an article describing the general illiteracy about energy saving in the general public. The article notes that most people are dead wrong about how to save energy. As someone who values God’s creation, the environment, I thought I would point out some common myths about saving energy.

1. You have to go without to save money. While its true that you can save money by never turning lights on, and therefore help the environment, using more efficient light bulbs would do the trick too.

2. Saving water means not taking showers. Certainly showers save more water than baths. But, if you install a low-flow shower head, you can really save some serious water. Also, sink aerators decrease water usage.

3. Air-conditioning is a no-no. Programmable Thermostats are worth the cost. They will allow you to let the temperature go up in the summer while you are at work, and then cool the place back down before you come home. In addition, a one degree change can save you a significant amount of money each month. You can even get Energy Star air conditioners to really decrease your cost and emissions.

4. Public transportation is the only way to really go green. While Public transit is much more efficient than even a super efficient car, there are other options. Trading in your full-size SUV that you only fill up occasionally for a smaller SUV plus a 500 dollar trailer will mean going from 15mpg to 30mpg. Of course, for those of you who have to drive – like me – there are plenty of hybrids available to make sure you are as efficient as possible.

Sure there are more myths. But, if you correct people’s ideas on these four issues, then the country would greatly reduce its emissions and energy usage.

Tweet This Post

Brett McCracken has written a book about Hipster Christianity. While I haven’t read the book, I read an interesting interview here. When I was a Youth Minister, I was very aware that more than 70% of youth group attenders never go to church after they graduate. It’s a disheartening phenomenon. He contends that “hipster churches” (which he considers the antithesis to the idea of a counter-cultural church), celebrate culture and art in order to attract this group of people who have dropped out of church. They try to be cool with technology and shocking slogans or sermons.

He contends this is harmful because it will actually drive people away from church in the long-term. He thinks the flash and sizzle method almost always lacks content, and real life-change. As such, the attenders are just as likely to walk out as walk in. In other words, these “hipster churches” are places lots of people have been, but don’t keep going to regularly. It turns out – he says that twenty-somethings don’t want something hip, they want something real. These “hipster churches” are the new sort of televangelists with the fake-looking hair.

But I have a problem with his analysis. I’ll admit it. I go to a church which is probably the most “hipster” church in my area. To be fair, there aren’t many that try in my area. Yet, at the same time there are many ways that New River Fellowship isn’t quite a “hipster church”. While cool graphics, and technology are a part of our church – it isn’t that important. A recent sermon series ended with an iPad giveaway. Yet, it also concluded with a very REAL call to accept Christ as Lord and get involved in a small group Bible Study in order to grow in your faith. New River is also made up of people who have kids. Many, like me, are in their 30s and don’t drive a VW or have a mac. New River encourages real life growth through small group bible studies. If you want to join the church, you have to join a small group of some sort. You have to attend a class about the church’s beliefs. So, there is an emphasis on acting out spiritual knowledge – something which McCracken’s “hipster churches” don’t tend to emphasize.

McCracken’s website lists several types of “hipster christians”. These are interesting caricatures, which one would do well to avoid. Yet, probably most 20-30 something Christians have something in common with his stereotypes. I am similar to the “bookish intellectual”, yet hopefully not too similar.

As with any fresh critique of a movement, he tends to criticize the stereotypical (and fictional) “hipster church”, of which surely none really exist. While it seems likely that many churches exhibit some of the weaknesses he points out. He likely doesn’t have the life-experience or wisdom to really level much of the critique that he offers. There are more experienced and educated consultants out there (many hired by denominations to guard against this sort of problem).

Tweet This Post

Hypermiling on Vacation; How to get a 30% tax credit on new windows; G.K. Beale’s Right Doctrine from the Wrong Text?; 1 Corinthians 4:1-7 Bible Study; Russian accuses USA of Weather Weapons – All in this Episode!!!

 Standard Podcast [13:59m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Tweet This Post

Conspiracy theorists rejoice! A Russian Scholar accused the USA of causing the major heat wave in Moscow. How you might ask? By using ultra-low frequency radio waves from an Alaskan device known as H.A.R.P. The implications of this being true are enormous. That would mean that Global Warming was most certainly a hoax. In fact, it would merely be a cover-up for the governments horrible actions.

Of course, the guy who wrote the paper backed off from his original remarks. He now claims they are only a possibility, and not fact. I enjoy a good conspiracy as much as the next person. But this one seems a little bit over the top. Of course, if all of the USA’s enemies start experiencing catastrophic weather events, I might give this idea some credibility.

Tweet This Post

 Standard Podcast: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Tweet This Post