Yearly Archives: 2006

I Would Like to Thank the Academy…

Posted on by

Wow! Talk about unexpected awards! I didn’t even know I was nominated!

Jim West of Petros Baptist Church fame (formerly the biblioblogger known as Biblical Studies Blog) has awarded me with an “Oscar” in the category of Best Biblioblog (Hebrew Bible Category).

Thanks, Jim! I didn’t have time to prepare an acceptance speech, but I would like to thank the academy, my long-suffering wife, my kids, and, of course, all of my supporters who really should be doing something more productive than reading my blog! 🙂

Seriously, I would like to thank all who frequent this site. I’ve been blogging for almost a year and I have to admit that I have thoroughly enjoyed the expereince!


Cancer and John Piper Follow-Up

Posted on by

I wanted to post a follow-up to my previous post on “Cancer, John Piper, and the Falleness of Creation” in order to tie up some loose ends and offer a bit more reflection.

First, I would like to thank everyone who commented on my original post (I have moved all of the comments to WordPress) as well as those who have offered reflections on their own blogs (e.g., see the divergent perspectives offered at Christ and Culture and rhettsmith.com). As an armchair Barthian, I especially appreciated Ben Myer’s quotation from Karl Barth, which is so good I must reproduce it in full:

“[Sickness] is opposed to [God’s] good will as Creator and has existence and power only under his mighty No. To capitulate before it, to allow it to take its course, can never be obedience but only disobedience towards God. In harmony with the will of God, what man ought to will in face of this whole realm … and therefore in face of sickness, can only be final resistance.” Church Dogmatics III/4, pp. 367-8

I encourage you to read Ben’s own reflections (as well as the interesting discussion in the comments to his post) at Faith and Theology.

In my post, I was not espousing open theism, nor was I offering a critique of John Piper’s reformed theology as a whole; I was just offering personal reflections on two points of his post “Don’t Waste Your Cancer.” As such, I didn’t think I needed to engage everything Piper has written on suffering and the sovereignty of God! In regards to Piper’s “proof-texting” my point was simply that when offering scriptural support to a particular argument, it is important to understand the verse(s) in their larger context — as well as the larger context of the canon of Scripture. I did not feel that Piper did that in the post I was responding to (his second point was especially problematic IMHO).

At any rate, the primary reason I wanted to follow-up my original post was due to the fact that a student in my Biblical Theology course I am teaching this semester (the topic of his post came up in class discussion) contacted John Piper with some questions about the appropriateness of thinking of cancer as a “gift from God.” The John Piper Ministry, Desiring God, responded with the following (note that the reply is not responding to my blog post, but to an email my student sent):

Thank you for your email to Desiring God. My name is Brian Tabb, and I work at Desiring God and will answer this email for John Piper. Your questions/comments come in response to “Don’t Waste Your Cancer,� posted by John Piper the day before his cancer surgery. Piper cited Job 2:7-10 as support for the statement “You will waste your cancer if you do not believe it is designed for you by God.� This passage begins, “So Satan went out from the presence of the LORD and struck Job with loathsome sores from the sole of his foot to the crown of his head� (Job 2:7). Satan is the instrument and intends Job’s harm and ultimately his denial of God. Yet he can not so much as lay a finger on Job without asking God and God saying yes. God’s role in Job’s suffering is not minimized by the Biblical author or by the character of Job or his wife. Both knew that God was behind the boils. Job’s wife responded negatively (a common way to respond to cancer/boils/etc.) “Curse God and die.� This is exactly what Satan wanted out of this affliction. Job’s response is rebuke and humble submission, “You speak as one of the foolish women would speak. Shall we receive good from God, and shall we not receive evil?�

You want to emphasize that suffering exists only because ours is a sinful, fallen world, and I agree. That does not exclude Piper’s position but talks past it. You argue, “In a sinless and unfallen world, cancer would not be a gift from God so how can this be in our sin-filled world?� However, this is arguing for a hypothetical world in which cancer is not a gift rather than arguing from the world we live in. God did not ordain cancer in Genesis 2 and there will be no more in Revelation 21. But we live in between, and while the kingdom of God has been inaugurated in the ministry of Jesus (Lk 11:20), it will not be consummated until Christ’s return (Rev. 12:10). Jesus did come to heal, yet in God’s wisdom he also died a criminal’s death as the crowds jeered “Save yourself� (Lk 23:37). Why did Jesus not go immediately to heal Lazarus, his beloved friend, in Jn 11? For the display of the glory of God. Why was Paul not healed of his thorn in 2 Cor. 12? He said “so that the power of Christ may rest upon me� (12:9).

You are correct to point out that we must deal with the sinfulness that is real and pervasive in our present world, and Piper and I certainly agree with you. But it is too simplistic to say that such and such happens because of sin. Job’s friends did that and were heartily rebuked at the end of the book because they had no clue about God’s wisdom and design. The disciples in John 9 said “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?� Jesus’ answer blows their retribution theology out of the water, “It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be displayed in him.� Sin is a very real cause of suffering, but it is not ultimate. What we want to stress is that God is ultimate as this seems the clear witness of the above passages and more. I hope this helps to clarify the article and I welcome any further feedback.

For the Supremacy of Christ in All Things,

Brian Tabb
Desiring God
2601 East Franklin Avenue
Minneapolis, MN 55406
888.346.4700 (toll free)
612.338.4372 (fax)
www.desiringGod.org

I have a couple reactions to this response. First, I would agree that God is presented as absolutely sovereign in the book of Job. The adversary (hasatan) only does what God permits. That being said, the point of the book is to undermine traditional retribution theology that sees all suffering as the result of sin. I don’t think its point is to argue that all suffering is caused by God (nor is that the point of John 9). The prose prologue to the book of Job gives us a metaphorical glimpse into God’s council chambers in order to provide an incontrovertible example an individual whose suffering is not the result of his own sin (and let’s face it, Job is presented as the poster-boy for traditional retribution theology). It’s point is not that all suffering should be seen as a gift from God anymore than it should be understood as the result of a wager between God and a celestial adversary!

Second, I would agree that it is “too simplistic” to say that suffering is the result of sinful actions (I don’t think my post would have given this impression; I imagine that it is more in response to my student’s email). I would also say that it is “too simplistic” (or reductionistic) to attribute all suffering/sickness to direct divine agency. The question of suffering is complex and I believe ultimately mysterious. In the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament (and in parts of the New Testament as well), the dominant theological view saw a direct connection between action and consequence (for more on retribution theology, see my reflections on hurricane Katrina here). The book of Job dismantles this reductionistic view and ultimately argues that only God knows the solution to the question of suffering (hence, passages like the mediation on who is truly wise in Job 28 is not extraneous to the message of the book as a whole). The biology lesson that God gives Job in the final chapters of the book forcefully makes the point that if we as humans can’t understand the world that God has put us in, how do we think we could understand the divine economy? Suffering has many sources. If we take into consideration the entire biblical witness, then suffering may be understood as the result of human, demonic, or divine agency, or its origins may be the result of the fallen state of the world. To reduce it to any one of these is saying more than Scripture allows.

Finally, back to the topic of cancer. In my humble opinion, cancer is not a gift from God. Perhaps the difference between Piper’s views and my own are semantic, though I don’t think so. What is a gift, however, is the grace, hope, and healing that God may give to those who are struggling with cancer.

In terms of an update, I am happy to report that my father-in-law and good friend have both had their first round of chemotherapy and are doing remarkably well, all things considering. I have not heard anything more on John Piper’s condition (I couldn’t find anything on his website, so I assume no news is good news). Please continue to pray for these individuals as you see fit.

Once again, I encourage you to consider supporting one of the many agencies or foundations who work towards cures and more effective cancer treatments, such as the Canadian Cancer Society or the American Cancer Society.


The Editing of the Book of Psalms: A Tribute to Gerald H. Wilson

Posted on by

GWilson.jpgI was shocked and saddened to read of Dr. Gerald H. Wilson‘s passing in today’s up-date to the SBL Forum (I was also surprised that it took so long to hear the news since he died in November; but perhaps it was a consequence of not attending the SBL Annual Meeting). While I did not know Gerald really well, we did have lunch together on a number of occasions at SBL meetings to talk shop and interacted via email on a number of topics surrounding the study of the book of Psalms. He was an able scholar, a man of integrity, and a great guy — and he will be sorely missed.

Here is an excerpt from the obituary posted in the SBL forum:

Dr. Gerald Wilson, Professor of Biblical Studies at Azusa Pacific University since fall 1999, died on 11 November 2005, immediately after suffering a heart attack. He was deeply respected by his students and colleagues. In 2002 he was awarded the Faculty Outstanding Scholarship Achievement Award.

Professor Wilson was a graduate of Baylor University in Waco, Texas. Afterwards he took an M.Div. and an M.A. from Fuller Theological Seminary. There he was inspired in the study of biblical Hebrew by Prof. William S. LaSor. He continued his studies at Yale University, under the direction of Professors Robert R. Wilson and Brevard S. Childs. There he earned an M.A., M.Phil., and Ph.D. On the basis of his work at Yale, he established himself as a pioneering scholar in the study of the Psalms as he undertook examination of the canonical shape of the Psalter.

Wilson’s Pioneering Work on the Psalms

Professor Wilson was truly a “pioneering scholar” in the study of the Psalter. Some of the most exciting — and theologically fruitful — work being done on the Psalter in the last quarter-century has been by those employing “canonical” or “synchronic” methods — and Wilson’s ground-breaking study of the editing of the book of Psalms led the way. In fact, his 1981 Yale thesis, The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter (SBLDS 76; Scholars Press, 1985; Buy from Amazon.ca or Amazon.com) was one of the first comprehensive English-language works on the shape of the book of Psalms. This volume, as well as Wilson’s numerous articles and essays (see bibliography below), have served as the foundation for much of the research done in this area.

ShapePsalterChart.jpgUsing a number of ancient collections of hymnic material as a comparative “control group,” Wilson sought to demonstrate that the Hebrew Psalter has an overall shape or structure that was brought about by purposeful editorial activity. From his study of the comparative material and the book of Psalms itself, Wilson isolated a number of indicators that helped identify the editorial pattern behind the canonical form of the book of Psalms. Indicators such as author and genre categories from the psalm headings; thematic grouping of psalms; the placement of previous collections; the function of the first psalm as an introduction to the Psalter as a whole; and the Psalter’s fivefold division were understood by Wilson to have editorial significance (Click on the image to the right to see a handout I developed that graphically displays Wilson’s understanding of the editorial structure of the Psalter).

Because of the different methods used in putting together psalms in Books I-III and IV-V, Wilson suggested that the Psalter underwent two (likely distinct) editings, one for Psalms 1-89 and another for Psalms 90-150. The first segment (Psalms 1-89) is organized principally by author and genre distinctions, with royal psalms used as buffers between the collections (e.g., Psalms 2, 72, 89). According to Wilson, these royal psalms give the collection a Davidic framework that traces the events of the Davidic monarchy from its inception (Psalm 2) to its failure and exile (Psalm 89). The second grouping (Psalms 90-150) is dominated by smaller collections organized by common themes or catchwords. In particular, book four (Psalms 90-106) functions as the editorial centre of the book of Psalms and answers the lament over the demise of the monarchy expressed in Psalm 89. Wilson argues that these psalms point back to the Mosaic era (cf. the heading to Psalm 90) when Yahweh alone served as Israel’s king and refuge, and promise that Yahweh will continue to be such in the future. Book five (Psalms 107-150), like book four, answers the lament of the first three books by encouraging Israel to trust in Yahweh alone through obedience to the Torah (cf. the overwhelming effect of the placement of Psalm 119). Finally, Wilson argues the placement of Psalm 1 at the beginning of the Psalter indicates that “the Psalter is a book to be read rather than be performed; to be meditated over rather than to be recited from.” For Wilson, the message that the shape of the book of Psalms declares implicitly is that kingship and the Davidic monarchy are false hopes. Yahweh is the only true king and refuge for Israel, and in him alone should they trust.

Wilson_Psalms1.jpgIn the years following the publication of his thesis, Wilson produced a whole series of articles that refined his views (see below). His most significant publication since his thesis, however, is clearly his Psalms Volume 1 (The NIV Application Commentary; Zondervan, 2002; Buy from Amazon.ca or Buy from Amazon.com. This commentary on Psalms 1-72 is written for a more popular audience in mind, yet is based on a careful analysis of the Hebrew text. What is more, Wilson does not just deal with the psalms individually, but explores the connections between the psalms in a way that is both academically sound and theologically relevant. I highly recommend it for all students of the Bible.

When all is said and done, Gerald Wilson’s research on editing of the book of Psalms has been an inspiration — whether directly or indirectly — to countless scholars. And with his passing, biblical scholarship has lost an able scholar. I extend my condolences to his family, friends, and students.

A Bibliography of Gerald Wilson’s Work on the Psalter

  • Wilson, Gerald H. “The Qumran Psalms Manuscripts and Consecutive Arrangement of Psalms in the Hebrew Psalter.” CBQ 45 (1983): 377-88.
  • Wilson, Gerald H. “Editiorial Divisions in the Hebrew Psalter.” VT 34 (1984): 337-52.
  • Wilson, Gerald H. The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter, SBLDS 76. Chico, California: Scholars Press, 1985.
  • Wilson, Gerald H. “The Qumran Psalms Scroll Reconsidered: Analysis of the Debate.” CBQ 47 (1985): 624-42.
  • Wilson, Gerald H. “The Use of ‘Untitled’ Psalms in the Hebrew Psalter.” ZAW 97 (1985): 404-13.
  • Wilson, Gerald H. “The Use of Royal Psalms at the ‘Seams’ of the Hebrew Psalter.” JSOT 35 (1986): 85-94.
  • Wilson, Gerald H. “A First Century C.E. Date for the Closing of the Hebrew Psalter?” In Haim M. I. Gevarjahu Memorial Volume. English-French-German Section, edited by J. J. Adler, 136-43. Jerusalem: World Jewish Bible Center, 1990.
  • Wilson, Gerald H. “The Shape of the Book of Psalms.” Interpretation 46 (1992): 129-42.
  • Wilson, Gerald H. “Shaping the Psalter: A Consideration of Editorial Linkage in the Book of Psalms.” In The Shape and Shaping of the Psalter, edited by J. Clinton McCann, 72-82. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993.
  • Wilson, Gerald H. “Understanding the Purposeful Arrangement of Psalms in the Psalter: Pitfalls and Promise.” In The Shape and Shaping of the Psalter, edited by J. Clinton McCann, 42-51. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993.
  • Wilson, Gerald H. “The Qumran Psalms Scroll (11QPsa) and the Canonical Psalter: Comparison of Editorial Shaping.” CBQ 59 (1997): 448-64.
  • Wilson, Gerald H. “A First Century C.E. Date for the Closing of the Hebrew Psalter?” Jewish Biblical Quarterly 28 (2000): 102-10.
    Wilson, Gerald H. Psalms Volume 1, NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002.
  • Wilson, Gerald H. “King, Messiah, and the Reign of God: Revisiting the Royal Psalms and the Shape of the Psalter.” In The Book of Psalms: Composition and Reception, edited by Peter W. Flint and Patrick D. Miller, 391-406. Leiden: Brill, 2005.

Blogger Move Over… biblicalia Converts to WordPress

Posted on by

Kevin Edgecomb over at biblicalia has made the move from Blogger to WordPress, a move that I just made earlier this week. So you will have to update your feed to his site if you use a RSS reader.

I am quite happy with WordPress so far. I’m still playing around with settings and adjusting the look of my blog (how do you like the new “Codex” header?), as well as checking out some useful plugins.

I highly recommend checking out WordPress if you are not satisfied with your current blogging program.


Email and the Student-Teacher Relationship

Posted on by

The New York Times published an interesting article the other day by Jonathan D. Glater entitled, “To: Professor@University.edu Subject: Why It’s All About Me” (To read the full article you will have to sign-up for a free account). The article explores the implications of technology such as email on the student-professor relationship. Here are some relevent excerpts:

At colleges and universities nationwide, e-mail has made professors much more approachable. But many say it has made them too accessible, erasing boundaries that traditionally kept students at a healthy distance.These days, they say, students seem to view them as available around the clock, sending a steady stream of e-mail messages — from 10 a week to 10 after every class — that are too informal or downright inappropriate.
….
While once professors may have expected deference, their expertise seems to have become just another service that students, as consumers, are buying. So students may have no fear of giving offense, imposing on the professor’s time or even of asking a question that may reflect badly on their own judgment.
….
But such e-mail messages can have consequences, she added. “Students don’t understand that what they say in e-mail can make them seem very unprofessional, and could result in a bad recommendation.”

Still, every professor interviewed emphasized that instant feedback could be invaluable. A question about a lecture or discussion “is for me an indication of a blind spot, that the student didn’t get it,” said Austin D. Sarat, a professor of political science at Amherst College.
….
A few professors said they had rules for e-mail and told their students how quickly they would respond, how messages should be drafted and what types of messages they would answer.

Meg Worley, an assistant professor of English at Pomona College in California, said she told students that they must say thank you after receiving a professor’s response to an e-mail message.

“One of the rules that I teach my students is, the less powerful person always has to write back,” Professor Worley said.

This raises a bunch of interesting questions for instructors. As a professor who encourages students to email me and one who is pretty informal, I don’t see it as a huge issue. I find email a great way to communicate with my students. I try to respond to most emails in a timely manner and I don’t necessarily reply to every email, especially if they are not directly tied to the course (as a rule I do not like email responses that require too involved a response; I will typically ask the student to catch me after the next class if possible).

I do like the idea of setting up some guidelines for emails at the onset, as I have received some emails that were too informal and bordering on inappropriate. I am not sure I would expect students to send a thank you reply. I do have “netiquette” rules that I use for class discussion lists and boards that I could adapt.

What do you — whether instructor or student — think? The comment board is open.