<h2 class="date-header">Tuesday, January 22, 2008</h2>
<a name="9214439992686632205"></a>
<h3 class="post-title entry-title">
<a href="http://federal-vision.blogspot.com/2008/01/my-head-my-head.html">"My head! My head!"</a>
</h3>
<div class="post-body entry-content">
<p>Here is an excellent book review of Peter Leithart's commentary on <a target="_blank" href="http://www.amazon.com/Kings-Brazos-Theological-Commentary-Bible/dp/1587431254/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1201041578&sr=1-4">
1 & 2 Kings</a>; it appears in <i><a target="_blank" href="http://www.interpretation.org/">Interpretation</a></i>,
a theological journal published by Union Theological Seminary. Without
even opening the commentary, it's clear from this review that James
Jordan shaped Leithart's hermeneutic. Indeed, reading this makes me
cry, <i>"My head! My head!"</i> (2 Kings 4:19).<br></p><blockquote><b>Review of Peter Leithart's commentary on 1 & 2 Kings</b><br><i>Interpretation: A Journal of Bible and Theology</i>, 62.1 (January 2008) 98–99<br><br>
<i>1 & 2 Kings</i><br>By Peter Leithart<br><i>Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible</i>, Brazos, Grand Rapids, 2006.<br>304pp. $29.99. ISBN 978-1-58743-125-8.<br><br>This commentary on the books of Kings by Peter Leithart is part of the
<i>Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible</i>.
The aim of this series is to produce commentaries that interpret the
Bible using the Nicene tradition as the "proper basis for the
interpretation of the Bible as Christian Scripture" (p. 10).
Commentators are chosen for "their expertise in using the Christian
doctrinal tradition," not for "historical or philological expertise"
(p. 10). Commentators use whatever translation of the Bible and method
of interpretation suits them. The only unifying element of this series
is the premise that "doctrine provides structure and cogency to
scriptural interpretation." (p. 12).<br><br>Leithart's method is rather
eclectic. He draws here and there from historical and literary
criticism, but typological analysis is clearly his preferred method of
interpretation. Typology may have served the early church well, but we
are not the early church. Is it really possible to do typology today
without the philosophical and hermeneutical underpinnings that
dominated the early centuries of Christianity? For Leithart, every use
of the number "three" becomes an allusion to resurrection, every body
of water a reference to baptism, and every anointing is messianic. The
most tenuous of similarities lead to typological comparisons:
David/Jacob; Adonijah/Adam; Solomon/Joshua, Solomon/New Adam,
Solomon/Christ; Jehu/Christ; sacrificial animals/Israel, ritually clean
wild animals/Gentile "God-fearers"; Saul/Ahab; Jesus/Judah;
Elijah/Jesus; Elisha/Jesus; Elisha/Joseph; and judgment against Ahab's
house/eschatological judgment of the world/judgment passed against all
nations in the cross of Jesus. No quotation better sums up his approach
than "Moses is Elijah is John; Joshua is Elisha is Jesus. Yet also,
Moses is Elijah is Jesus, and Joshua is Elisha is the church" (p. 172).
I was amused to discover that Elisha's floating ax is a sign of
Christ's resurrection (pp. 200, 203) and that "the inclusion of
Gentiles into the new Covenant is signaled symbolically by many of the
apostles being [Jewish!] fishermen" (p. 73). <br><br>In addition to
spurious typologies, Leithart often uses the biblical text to leap into
contemporary discussions that defy any logical connection to the book
of Kings, e.g., a discussion of church/state/secularity/Locke with the
notice that Solomon built other buildings (1 Kgs 7:1–12); modern and
Christian views of the self and the condemnation of Solomon (1 Kgs
11:1–43); public/state/church relations and the Queen of Sheba's visit
(1 Kgs 10:1–29); Pope John Paul II's speech on the culture of death and
the Elisha stories (2 Kgs 4:1–44); and rationalists' views of Jesus and
Jehu's rebellion (2 Kgs 9:1—10:36).<br><br>Other problems with this
book include: misrepresenting his sources (e.g., Walsh, p. 43; Nelson,
p. 69; Blenkinsopp, p. 227); the anachronistic use of the term
"Gentile(s)" throughout the book; a superficial discussion of violence
and God; an odd discussion of idolatry, chiasms with no point, a
frightening view of God as an "equal opportunity trapper" (p. 180), the
nature of God and evil; God as trickster, and vengeance against the
wicked as "dear to Yahweh's heart" (p. 223). Space prevents me from
elaborating further. I have gained a much greater appreciation of the
historical-critical method and of the literal sense of the text from
reading this commentary. The literal sense is, after all, what God
inspired the author to actually say and it contains enough theological
depth that I do not have to imaginatively reconstruct the "hidden
meaning" or make artificial connection where none exist. I am also now
more firmly convinced that commentaries on the Bible should be left to
biblical scholars.<br><br>Pauline A. Viviano<br>Loyola University<br>Chicago, Illinois</blockquote><br>On
a personal note, I have several friends who have Peter Leithart's knife
ware stuck firmly in their backs. And they don't wear it well. Liethart
operates as one of Wilson's silent assassins, befriending members of
the Kult who are suspects in Wilson's paranoid mind. Leithart counsels
them. Prays with them. Shows kindness to them. And then reports their
every word back to Wilson, who sees to a bullet in the back of their
heads, shot in the darkness of Anselm's basement. Leithart was a
primary instrument in <a target="_blank" href="http://federal-vision.blogspot.com/2007/10/would-jeffrey-meyers-sign-this.html">this family's</a> demise. What a friend.<br><br>At
one time you could say that Leithart brought detergent to Moscow to
help sanitize Wilson's PR, but you can't disinfect raw sewage without
spillage contaminating your person; you can't bring sanity to the
insane; and in the end St. Paul's axiom holds true: "Evil company
corrupts good habits." If Peter ever had any good, it's all gone now.
So on that note, here's a king whose end Peter Leithart should
contemplate: <i>"And the king of Babylon slew the sons of Zedekiah
before his eyes: he slew also all the princes of Judah in Riblah. Then
he put out the eyes of Zedekiah; and the king of Babylon bound him in
chains, and carried him to Babylon, and put him in prison till the day
of his death."</i> (Jer. 52:10–11.)<br><br>Thank you. (HT: Anon)
</div>
<p class="post-footer-line post-footer-line-1"><span class="post-author vcard">
Posted by
<span class="fn">Mark T.</span>
</span>
<span class="post-timestamp">
at
<a class="timestamp-link" href="http://federal-vision.blogspot.com/2008/01/my-head-my-head.html" rel="bookmark" title="permanent link"><abbr class="published" title="2008-01-22T15:25:00-08:00">3:25 PM</abbr></a>
</span>
<span class="post-comment-link">
<a class="comment-link" href="http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=9097408555576085021&postID=9214439992686632205" onclick="">2
comments</a>
</span>
<span class="post-icons">
<span class="item-action">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/email-post.g?blogID=9097408555576085021&postID=9214439992686632205" title="Email Post">
<span class="email-post-icon"> </span>
</a>
</span>
<span class="item-control blog-admin pid-90443309">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=9097408555576085021&postID=9214439992686632205" title="Edit Post">
<img alt="" class="icon-action" src="http://www.blogger.com/img/icon18_edit_allbkg.gif">
</a>
</span>
</span>
</p>
<p class="post-footer-line post-footer-line-2"><span class="post-labels">
Labels:
<a href="http://federal-vision.blogspot.com/search/label/F%C5%93dero%20Culto" rel="tag">Fœdero Culto</a>,
<a href="http://federal-vision.blogspot.com/search/label/F%C5%93dero%20Facts" rel="tag">Fœdero Facts</a>
</span>
</p><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><br><br>Juanita Flores<br>Advocate for the Truth from Jesus