R.T. France - The Gospel of Matthew (NICNT)

[Ploutos]

Pg. 83, on Herod's murder of the children of Bethlehem:

The lack of independent evidence is no more of a problem for this than for virtually every other incident recorded in the gospels...

In reading this I am reminded of Berkhof's statement, so influential in my life, that our faith is a reasonable faith but not one established by reason. The Word of God is self-attesting and, with the illumination of the Spirit, unfailingly effectual in convicting us of its veracity and reliability. We are not dependent on external proof (and I appreciate elsewhere Dr. France's rejection of the hermeneutic of implicit skepticism that "scholars" so often bring to Scripture).

Yet, where external proof exists, it only confirms the truth of Scripture. Even here, where there is no bibliography (Wikipedia would have said to Matthew "Citation needed"), it is fitting that the Biblical account fits in with what we know of Herod. And what we know of Herod renders it totally plausible that the Biblical story would not be sufficiently noteworthy to attract the attention of other authors.

Pg. 85, on Matthew 2:17:

The tragic events in Bethlehem give rise to one of Matthew's most puzzling formula-quotations. But this time the fulfillment formula is varied in that in place of the purposive clause "in order to fulfill" we have the simple statement "Then was fulfilled." [...] The different wording in these two cases may be designed to avoid directly attributing evil actions (infanticide and betrayal) to God's declared intention...

This to me echoes Calvin in his Institutes, II.ii.2 & 5, where he describes what I have thought of as his concept of "multiple agency" - where (as an example) God, Satan, and man may all be active in the same event, but each with different motives. The evil motives of Satan or man do not override the good purpose of God or impugn God's character by making him a willing participant in evil.

Pg. 94-5, on Jesus being called a "Nazorean" (emphasis mine):

The most promising approach paradoxically takes its cue from the very nonexistence of Nazareth in the OT - it is a scriptural nonentity. For someone to be "called a Nazorean, especially in connection with a messianic claim, was therefore to invite ridicule [...] We see precisely this reaction in Nathanael's response to Philip's suggestion of a Messiah from Nazareth, "Can anything good come out of Nazareth?" [...] Alongside the (probably dominant) royal strand of prophecy which Matthew has already tapped in 2:5-6 and which was the source of his apologetic problem in claiming a Messiah from Galilee not from Bethlehem, there is a less prominent but nonetheless significant expectation of a Messiah who would be unrecognized [...] The imagery of the servant "springing up like a shoot out of dry ground" underlines the unexpectedness of the servant's origins. IN John 7:27 there is an intriguing hint that this prophetic motif was still alive in the first century, when some people in Jerusalem assume [...] that "When the Messiah comes, no one knows where he is from." On this view, then, the words "He shall be called a Nazorean" represent the prophetic expectation that the Messiah would appear from nowhere and would as a result meet with incomprehension and rejection [...] a Messiah who came from the wrong place, who did not conform to the expectations of the Jewish tradition, and who as a result would not be accepted by his people. [...] No solution to the exegetical problem posed by 2:23 is straightforward[...] Perhaps his readers shared some more clearly agreed understanding of the meaning of the word Nazoraios and of what aspect of "the prophets" Matthew was here appealing to, but if so it is not now available to us.

Though written in a very different style, Dr. France seems to me to strike a concordant note with Matthew Henry in describing the parallel patterns of exaltation and lowliness that attended the birth of Jesus. When it comes to the intractable puzzle of what exactly Matthew is quoting, however, I am inclined to appreciate Matthew Henry who, untroubled by all the academic obstacles raised to this or that suggestion, seems in simplicity perhaps to have grasped more of that "clearly agreed understanding" which is "not now available to us". I am reminded of what was said in another post about Calvin's moderation as an exegete. Henry simply states that "Nazarene" could be a title of "honour and dignity" and has no problem linking it to either "Netzar" or "Nazirite", or alternatively that it could be a name of "reproach and contempt":

To be called a Nazarene, was to be called a despicable man, a man from whom no good was to be expected[...] it stuck as a nickname to him and his followers. Now this was not particularly foretold by any one prophet, but, in general, it was spoken by the prophets, that he should be despised and rejected of men (Isa. liii. 2, 3), a Worm, and no man (Ps. xxii. 6, 7), that he should be an Alien to his brethren, Ps. lxix. 7, 8.

Without denigrating the usefulness of Dr. France's scholarly and erudite observations, I find it telling that Matthew Henry has no apparent qualms about the things over which modern scholars expend so much worry when it comes to this passage.

 

[Ploutos]

@MW Dr. France makes frequent references to the pseudo-gospels of Peter and Thomas. Not having read these gospels, I have generally just assumed they were... well... pseudepigraphical bunk, full of distorted or mythical material with a gnostic bent. Is there value to these writings, in your estimation?

 

[RamistThomist]

@MW Dr. France makes frequent references to the pseudo-gospels of Peter and Thomas. Not having read these gospels, I have generally just assumed they were... well... pseudepigraphical bunk, full of distorted or mythical material with a gnostic bent. Is there value to these writings, in your estimation?

Without endeavoring to speak for Rev Winzer, you will sometimes see Ps. Peter cited in academic works on the post-apostolic period. It is made up, of course, but it does how many in the post-apostolic period believed and what life would have been like, or what our German friends call the Sitz em Leben.

 

[Ploutos]

Without endeavoring to speak for Rev Winzer, you will sometimes see Ps. Peter cited in academic works on the post-apostolic period. It is made up, of course, but it does how many in the post-apostolic period believed and what life would have been like, or what our German friends call the Sitz em Leben.

So it is valid as an insight into the times but not necessarily as any sort of accurate indicator of what Jesus actually taught?

 

[RamistThomist]

So it is valid as an insight into the times but not necessarily as any sort of accurate indicator of what Jesus actually taught?

Correct. It is kind of in the same category as 1 Enoch. 1 Enoch was what everyone probably thought about reality. Jude even quotes it. Yet we aren't bound to believe all of its specifics. I'll try to say it this way: if you want to know what the mental/cultural life was like back then, those texts will probably give you a better picture. To be sure, there are reasons why the early church didn't consider them canonical.

 

[Ploutos]

Correct. It is kind of in the same category as 1 Enoch. 1 Enoch was what everyone probably thought about reality. Jude even quotes it. Yet we aren't bound to believe all of its specifics. I'll try to say it this way: if you want to know what the mental/cultural life was like back then, those texts will probably give you a better picture. To be sure, there are reasons why the early church didn't consider them canonical.

Is there not some purported element of ill intent to these pseudo-gospels that warrants a more cautious approach? It's one thing to write a fanciful or semi-historical moral tale. It's another thing to deceitfully pass off that tale as the words of Jesus handed down by Peter or Thomas, with no basis in truth for that transmission story.

 

[RamistThomist]

Is there not some purported element of ill intent to these pseudo-gospels that warrants a more cautious approach? It's one thing to write a fanciful or semi-historical moral tale. It's another thing to deceitfully pass off that tale as the words of Jesus handed down by Peter or Thomas, with no basis in truth for that transmission story.

Probably, though the practice of pseudepigrepha was pretty widespread. I'm not judging pro or con as to the moral merits of the book. (I'm inclined against it, for what it's worth; much of early Christian writing, even the good kind, was surface level in-depth). I'm only noting the cultural value of the work.

 

[arapahoepark]

@MW Dr. France makes frequent references to the pseudo-gospels of Peter and Thomas. Not having read these gospels, I have generally just assumed they were... well... pseudepigraphical bunk, full of distorted or mythical material with a gnostic bent. Is there value to these writings, in your estimation?

What does he say?

Thomas is a bunch of quotations largely from the synoptics...

 

[Ploutos]

What does he say?

Thomas is a bunch of quotations largely from the synoptics...

He is mostly comparing the Sermon on the Mount to similar ethical "sayings" in the Gospel of Thomas.

Probably, though the practice of pseudepigrepha was pretty widespread. I'm not judging pro or con as to the moral merits of the book. (I'm inclined against it, for what it's worth; much of early Christian writing, even the good kind, was surface level in-depth). I'm only noting the cultural value of the work.

My understanding is that pseudepigrapha were looked down on by the early church as dishonest. Do I need to revise/nuance that belief?

 

[arapahoepark]

He is mostly comparing the Sermon on the Mount to similar ethical "sayings" in the Gospel of Thomas.

My understanding is that pseudepigrapha were looked down on by the early church as dishonest. Do I need to revise/nuance that belief?

I'll have to take a look.

No. It's pretty evident that they (T and P) were copying what was available with their own twist

 

[Ploutos]

I'll have to take a look.

No. It's pretty evident that they (T and P) were copying what was available with their own twist

Here's a novel idea. Maybe I should just find and read them. Lol.

 

[RamistThomist]

My understanding is that pseudepigrapha were looked down on by the early church as dishonest. Do I need to revise/nuance that belief?

Some did, some didn't. The catechetical school of Alexandria, particularly Clement, quoted Ps. Peter. Origen was more aware of textual issues.

 

[MW]

Those Gospels are generally regarded as heretical from an orthodox POV. The discovery of mss. reignited discussion of them in the modern period, so they receive some notice in academic level commentaries. My recollection of France (and this would be the trend in conservative evangelical commentaries) is that he used them simply to show different accounts or perspectives of the same events without giving any credence to them. That is to be expected in an academic work.

I suppose anti-institutional feeling generates some degree of interest in them as well, which takes you into conspiratorial territory. That is to be avoided.

 

[Ploutos]

Those Gospels are generally regarded as heretical from an orthodox POV. The discovery of mss. reignited discussion of them in the modern period, so they receive some notice in academic level commentaries. My recollection of France (and this would be the trend in conservative evangelical commentaries) is that he used them simply to show different accounts or perspectives of the same events without giving any credence to them. That is to be expected in an academic work.

I suppose anti-institutional feeling generates some degree of interest in them as well, which takes you into conspiratorial territory. That is to be avoided.

In other words, he is essentially just doing a compare and contrast with the pseudo-gospels. Meanwhile, a crowd of Da Vinci Code enthusiasts are gleefully waiting for a chance to have a peek.

 

[MW]

In other words, he is essentially just doing a compare and contrast with the pseudo-gospels. Meanwhile, a crowd of Da Vinci Code enthusiasts are gleefully waiting for a chance to have a peek.

You could say one is black and white but the other is brown.

 

[Ploutos]

Pg. 108-9, on the topic of John's baptism:

Ritual ablutions were familiar in Jewish religious and social life, as may be seen from the remains of miqwa'ot (religious immersion pools) found around the south side of the temple and in the vicinity of several early synagogue buildings. But baptisma as a ritual term is a distinctively Christian word, which is used both of John's practice and of later Christian initiation to refer not to regular ablutions to remove ceremonial impurity but to a single act of symbolic cleansing marking the entry into a new relationship with God. There is no certain evidence for such a practice in contemporary Jewish life. [...] More promising is the practice of "proselyte baptism," the ritual cleansing of a Gentile at the point of commitment to a new life as a Jew, but scholars do not agree whether this practice can be attested as early as the time of John. Whether or not the baptisom of proselytes was yet a recognized practice, however, it seems most likely that John's distinctive rite carried some such symbolism. These were people who were "repenting" (renouncing their former way of life) and committing themselves to a new way of life as the purified people of God. [...] The crucial difference between John's practice and "proselyte baptism" is that John baptized Jews. There was, therefore, inherent in his baptism an implied critique of contemporary Jewish society as no longer truly constituting the holy people of God.

Pg. 109, on the mode of baptism:

The verb I have translated "were baptized" could in itself be read as in the middle voice ("baptized themselves"), but the following "by him" makes it clear that it is in fact a passive, and the same construction will occur in vv. 13-14. This markis a change from familiar Jewish rites of ablution, which were normally self-administered. Just how John baptized people is not certain. The fact that he chose a permanent and deep river suggests that more than a token quantity of water was needed, and both the preposition "in" (the Jordan) and the basic meaning of the verb "baptize" probably indicate immersion. [...] But we need not assume that the actual method was always the same, nor that John's method was necessarily the same as that of later Christian practice, especially where the latter took place away from a major river such as the Jordan.

Footnotes from pg. 109:

50 - BDAG translates βαπτίζω as "plunge, dip, wash" as well as "baptize"; they mention non-Christian usage outside a ritual context as "to put or go under water in a variety of senses." The symbolism of death, burial, and resurrection found in later Christian baptism (Rom 6:3-4) also suggests immersion. [...]

51 - L. Goppelt, TDNT 8:332, argues, however, for affusion as the normal method of baptism both by John and in early Christianity. See also H. Schürmann, Lukas-evangelium 1, 156, 176 for archaeological evidence for affusion rather than immersion as the early Christian mode of baptism.

My guess is that it's not within the scope of the present passage to discuss the debate over when and to whom Christian baptism ought to be administered, and I will look forward with interest to what Dr. France may have to say on the Great Commission at the end of this commentary. Regarding the mode of baptism, I found it interesting that he leaves the issue somewhat open-ended. Elements of continuinty and discontinuity with earlier Jewish practice are highlighted. He doesn't draw a firm conclusion on whether the idea of baptism as an initiatory rite was widely known at the time, and he doesn't clearly come down on one side or the other regarding the mode of baptism. He acknowledges that immersion was the likely mode, but offers, without clear supporting or opposing comment, more than a nod to alternate viewpoints.

 

[Ploutos]

Pg. 113, commenting on Matt. 3:11:

The superiority of the "stronger one" is explained in terms of two baptisms (clearly marked as a contrast by a classical men/de construction): John's baptism is a preliminary ritual "with a view to repentance," clearing the way for the real thing, the "stronger one's" baptism in the Holy Spirit and fire. Water is an outward sign, but the work of the Holy Spirit will be inward.

Pg. 114, still on Matt. 3:11

"Baptize in the Holy Spirit" is a phrase used in the NT almost exclusively in the context of this contrast between John's water baptism and the salvation Jesus brings (cf. Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16; John 1:33; Acts 1:5; 11:16). Only in 1 Cor 12:13 does similar language occur outside that specific context, and the different phrasing there, "in one Spirit baptized into one body," does not suggest that "baptism in the Spirit" would have been recognized in NT times as a designation of something other than initial Christian baptism.[68] Thus the contrast between water and the Holy Spirit here is not between two stages in Christian initiation, but between John's baptism and that of Jesus. Christian baptism did of course adopt John's use of the outward symbol of water, but the use of the outward sign in no way detracts from the true spiritual significance of baptism into the Christian community; it symbolizes (as for John it pointed forward to) that same pouring out of the Holy Spirit which is the essence of the Messiah's saving ministry.

n. 68:

While βαπτίζω ἐν is a natural phrase to use in connection with water[...], it is less easily understood of the Holy Spirit. The OT language about "pouring out" the Spirit shows that "liquid" metaphors could be used for the Spirit[...]. Elsewhere in the NT also the Spirit is spoken of in terms of water, whether poured out or drunk (John 7:37-39; Acts 2:33; 10:45; 1 Cor 1213; Titus 3:5-6). But these metaphors are not the same as immersion (see on v. 6). In this context the phrase is used in order to express the antithesis with John's water baptism rather than becaus it is in itself a natural metaphor. It would therefore be inappropriate to use βαπτίζω ἐν as a basis for explaining the nature of the Christian experience of the Spirit.

It is a gap in my understanding that I don't really know the traditional Reformed view on the meaning of John's baptism and its relation to Christian baptism. I'm gathering from Dr. France's comments that he views John's baptism as more symbolic of the desired repentance on the part of the believer, while the baptism instituted by Jesus is representative of the effectual work of the Holy Spirit in our hearts.

He doesn't get into the covenantal issues at play in the debate between paedobaptist and credobaptist views, so it's hard for me to draw out a theology of baptism solely from these comments. Nor do I think that he really intends for that to be a possibility since this passage taken on its own is not dealing with Christian baptism. That said, my guess is that he inclines toward a paedobaptist view, insofar as he depicts Christian baptism with what would seem to be a rather Presbyterian metaphor of pouring - and also because he seems to allow for the possibility that immersion was not, or did not long continue as, the ancient mode of baptism. I know Phil, at least, has lately remarked on the recent provenance of such an idea.

 

[Ploutos]

Pg. 122, on the "voice from heaven" in Matt. 3:17:

The words of the declaration are usually understood to be derived from one or more of Gen 22:2; Ps 2:7; and Isa 42:1.

I'll mention more on this later (particularly when he gets to the Beatitudes), but from a devotional standpoint, it has been really helpful to me to see the parallels he draws between OT passages and Matthew's gospel.

Pg. 129, on the temptation of Jesus, Matt. 4:1

Running through Jewish references to the devil is a tension between his total hostility to God and his people and his operation apparently within and subject to the ultimate sovereignty of God, a tension which Matthew here reflects in that the devil's intention to "tempt" Jesus to do wrong is subsumed under Good's good purpose to "test" his Son.

Here again I make a nod to Calvin's Institutes, II.iv.2-5, and his idea of multiple agencies. It may be present in the writings of other Reformers, but that is where I have come across it.

Pg. 137, introduction to the main body of Matthew's gospel:

[...]the Galilean section of the gospel has no clearly defined framework of time and movement[...] but is rather an anthology of events and teaching designed to convey an overall impression of an undefined period of largely public activity in the north.

It is sometimes challenging for me, with my credentials, to come to a commentary like this, written by someone vastly more knowledgeable on this topic, and to continually remind myself to stay vigilant. Here his view of Matthew as a highly editorialized freewheeling compilation of facts seems to come through, and I'm not sure I can do anything but give voice to a bit of inward muttering about my distaste for that way of reading the Bible.

 

[Ploutos]

On pg. 149-150, Dr. France challenges my assumed belief that the term "synagogue" denoted a physical building, rather than simply a gathering of villagers. As in many other cases, he leaves it somewhat open-ended, noting a spectrum of views about the likelihood of synagogue structures in the time of Jesus.

His commentary on the Sermon on the Mount begins in pg. 153. Here he makes a remark that seems to indicate that he doesn't view the discourse as an entirely synthetic creation of Matthew's, or at least that he doesn't consistently follow through on that line of thinking:

But the teaching is addressed, initially at least, not to the crowds, but rather to the narrower circle of his committed disciples.

Later on he will attempt to explain that at some point during the speech, Jesus has pivoted from talking just to his disciples to speaking to the larger crowd. My initial reaction is to find this way of scientifically dissecting the text from a critical viewpoint to be unhelpful, and in such moments I prefer the "rustic" simplicity of Matthew Henry, to whom it simply hasn't occurred to grapple with such issues: he simply assumes what the text says, which is that the disciples followed Jesus as he went up to an elevated spot from which he could teach the gathered crowds.

My personal view remains (and no one here has felt the need to correct me of folly) that the Sermon on the Mount was an actual sermon that Jesus gave at that point in place and time. It seems perfectly logical that Matthew, in a pre-modern age where MLA citation standards were unknown, would summarize the teaching rather than present it verbatim. It also seems perfectly logical that Jesus might have presented this teaching in more than one place, with Luke either recording another example, or simply presenting his own summary of what Jesus taught here. I don't believe that this discourse was put together with a heavy editorializing hand, since Matthew is not re-working material to fit his own agenda but rather putting down material under the inspiration of the Spirit to fit the Spirit's agenda - a concept of which I have not really seen much indication that Dr. France takes seriously. So, in reading through this commentary, I am tending to reject out of hand statements that suggest this way of approaching the gospel.

I have found lots of good things too, and his commentary on the Beatitudes was very helpful to me - notes on that to be posted shortly.

 

[Ploutos]

Some initial takeaways from reading Dr. France's introductory notes on the Sermon on the Mount:

1) As mentioned several times above, I'm uncomfortable with his synthetic approach and the "editorializing" role he assigns to Matthew. This seems to ignore or at least downplay the role of divine providence such that these events could in fact happen as recorded by Matthew, without him needing to put them together. I'm also not sure what to make of his attempt to analyze, with scientific precision, where Jesus switches from speaking to only his disciples to speaking to the larger crowd. For one, if this distinction were as important as he makes it out to be, I think Matthew would have provided greater clarity. Also, I imagine that the real-life situation was a bit more fluid than such dissective analyzing allows for.

2) It is my anecdotal impression that a lot of evangelical American piety has viewed the Sermon on the Mount as a set of rules for Christian living in the wake of Jesus' time here on earth. I like that he sets out to counter this: "...the demands of this discourse do not easily translate into a practical, day-to-day morality" (pg. 153).

3) With regard to the Beatitudes, I had a bit of an eye-opening moment. Looking through my Bible, I see that I have, on a couple of past occasions, noted OT parallels to the Beatitudes in the margin. But I hadn't yet put 2+2 together in my head in realizing that the beatitude, as a distinct concept, is found in the OT - nor had I realized that there were so many examples of it. I'm much more aware now, anytime I come across the word "blessed" in the OT, of possible parallels with this passage, beyond obvious precursors like Psalm 37:11.

4) Dr. France's discussion of "the eschatological character of the promises (pg. 164ff) seems to belie an implicit amillennial worldview. He speaks of the present arrival of the kingdom of heaven (164), but also states that for God's people, especially those in trying situations, "there are better times ahead" (165). In discussing the second beatitude: "...this beatitude speaks of a general characteristic of God's people: there will be times of rejoicing, but their situation in the world is generally one of disadvantage and therefore of mourning" (166). Maybe he's not explicitly endorsing an amillennial worldview, but the overall thrust of his statements seems to me to be very congruent with one, at least moreso than with an overtly optimistic postmil stance.

 

[py3ak]

these events could in fact happen as recorded by Matthew, without him needing to put them together.

I certainly agree that Matthew's primary source is the facts. But there is always an editorial or authorial principle at work in terms of choosing what to describe out of a larger pool of events (that element is very explicit in John, for instance) and also the choices of how to describe those chosen events and speeches.

Although some of the language used sometimes reflects unfortunate presuppositions or methods, pursuing clarity about the reality of those choices has always been a helpful exercise for me in appreciating the text of Scripture.

 

[Ploutos]

I certainly agree that Matthew's primary source is the facts. But there is always an editorial or authorial principle at work in terms of choosing what to describe out of a larger pool of events (that element is very explicit in John, for instance) and also the choices of how to describe those chosen events and speeches.

Although some of the language used sometimes reflects unfortunate presuppositions or methods, pursuing clarity about the reality of those choices has always been a helpful exercise for me in appreciating the text of Scripture.

Agreed on both counts. My issue with Dr. France is that there is a great deal of what appear to be higher-critical presuppositions in his thinking, though there are many welcome moments where he does not toe every higher-critical line.

It's worth noting two counterpoints though. First - as I work my way through the commentary (and in my actual reading I'm quite far ahead of my posts here), I am finding more and more truly edifying insights, so it's well worth the time and hassle of facing some questionable premises. Second - this is my first time reading an exegetical commentary cover-to-cover, and a lot of my no-doubt tiresome and amateurish complaining stems from the fact that I'm learning how to read such a work properly, so to speak. It exposes areas where I haven't thought through my own assumptions or how to parse and defend truth from error in a work that contains some of both. It's the whining of a novice, in other words.

 

[Ploutos]

Pg. 171, on Mt. 5:11-16:

At this point, then, the discourse turns from a general statement about the good life to a specific address to the disciples gathered around Jesus on the hillside. Because they have committed themselves to follow Jesus and so to adopt the new values of the kingdom of heaven, they are now going to stand out as different from other people. The address is in the second-person plural not only because more than one person is being addressed, but because it is the corporate impact of the disciple community, as an alternative society, which is here in view. The hilltop town of v. 14 is a symbol not of a conspicuous individual but of the collective impact of a whole community. Modern western individualism is such that we easily think of the light of the world as a variety of little candles shining, "you in your small corner, and I in mine," but it is the collective light of a whole community which draws the attention of the watching world.

This is a thought-provoking statement to me: first, because it's easy to see how such language can lead people to hastily embrace various forms of social activism as a solution to the problem. I can think of the heavy-handed missions emphasis that sometimes comes across in John Piper's teaching, or of other works such as David Platt's "Radical" that propose certain specific ways of looking different and building community, all of which can seem artificial without the heartfelt commitment and Spirit-led tug that is, somewhat ironically, so critical to what Christ is actually getting at in this discourse.

Because these group efforts - so often marked by buzzwords such as "authentic" or "relational" or "mission-minded" - can seem so artificial, my own temptation has often been exactly what Dr. France here describes - a tendency to think of this passage primarily in its application to me as an individual. It does often seem to me that, in America, we do have a problem knowing how to forge and sustain relationships compared to other cultures, so it's a challenge to think through how to apply this passage in a non-individualistic way when a highly individualistic society doesn't readily lend itself to communal applications. That said, having a family seems to provide a starting point here, to the extent that our family is a little community of sorts.

Pg. 173:

Disciples, therefore, must be both distinctive and involved. Neither the indistinguishably assimilated nor the inaccessible hermit will fulfill the mandate of these challenging verses.

I wonder how Dr. France would respond to some of the developments of the nearly two decades since this commentary was written, and in particular to an increased centrifugal tendency in our society - not that he'd necessarily change his opinion: I'd just be curious to see how he applies this concept to the growth of identity politics or to suggestions like the Benedict Option of Rod Dreher.

On pgs. 174-5 he gives his take on the interesting metaphor of the salt that loses its flavor (emphasis mine; footnotes omitted):

Unsalty salt is a contradiction in terms ("like water losing its wetness"; Betz); if it is not salty, it is not salt. But salt as used in the ancient world was seldom pure sodium chlordie. The "salt" collected around the Dead Sea contained a mixture of other minerals, and it is possible to imagine the true salt content being washed out, leaving a useless residue. In any case, Jesus is not teaching chemistry, and the ludicrous imagery of trying to "salt" that which should itself be the source of saltiness is a powerful indictment of disciples who have lost their distinctiveness and so no longer have anything to contribute to society.

 

[py3ak]

Agreed on both counts. My issue with Dr. France is that there is a great deal of what appear to be higher-critical presuppositions in his thinking, though there are many welcome moments where he does not toe every higher-critical line.

It's worth noting two counterpoints though. First - as I work my way through the commentary (and in my actual reading I'm quite far ahead of my posts here), I am finding more and more truly edifying insights, so it's well worth the time and hassle of facing some questionable premises. Second - this is my first time reading an exegetical commentary cover-to-cover, and a lot of my no-doubt tiresome and amateurish complaining stems from the fact that I'm learning how to read such a work properly, so to speak. It exposes areas where I haven't thought through my own assumptions or how to parse and defend truth from error in a work that contains some of both. It's the whining of a novice, in other words.

Understood! I thought it might be helpful to highlight the element of portrayal that higher-critical presuppositions rightly highlight, even though they are alert to them for the wrong reasons. In seminary I was taught that close observation is good, even if the theories based on it or the factors driving it are not. That was helpfully applied to Rabbinic commentaries and more contemporary critical approaches. An additional example would be A.W. Pink, who is a fanatically close observer in some ways, even though some parts of his approach are not to be imitated.

 

[Ploutos]

Understood! I thought it might be helpful to highlight the element of portrayal that higher-critical presuppositions rightly highlight, even though they are alert to them for the wrong reasons. In seminary I was taught that close observation is good, even if the theories based on it or the factors driving it are not. That was helpfully applied to Rabbinic commentaries and more contemporary critical approaches. An additional example would be A.W. Pink, who is a fanatically close observer in some ways, even though some parts of his approach are not to be imitated.

Can you explain this for me? I confess that I do not quite follow or understand.

 

[py3ak]

Can you explain this for me? I confess that I do not quite follow or understand.

I hope I'm guessing correctly at which part needed further explanation.

Different people will read Scripture closely for different reasons. Some people do so looking for "seams" or other evidence of composition history in one form or another. The close reading often flags interesting details, although it often misidentifies their import or bases unsustainable theories on them. Others will engage in close reading driven by a belief in inspiration, by the habits of detailed literary analysis, or from a different motivation.

A.W. Pink, in his commentary on Joshua, for instance, clearly exhibits that he reads the text very closely indeed trying to overlook no detail. Where I part ways with him is that he sometimes seems to think that every detail must be independently edifying, whereas I think parts of Scripture are free to be edifying in conjunction with others, and not always independently. "Balaam arose early and saddled his ass," to draw an example used by Lloyd-Jones, is not edifying when isolated from its context. Nor is it an adequate basis for a three point sermon, as evidenced by the gentleman referenced by Lloyd-Jones who upon this text constructed three points:
1. A good trait in a bad character.
2. The ancient art of saddlery.
3. Some remarks upon a woman of Samaria.

 

[Ploutos]

So you are basically saying it's not bad to closely scrutinize the text and that the underlying approach of poring over every detail can yield some valuable insights, if I understand correctly. It's just that we don't then have to agree with every insight that others find, or with every premise that they bring to the table in gathering insights.

 

[py3ak]

Yes, the legwork of obsessing over details of the text often gives us something we can legitimately use, even when the people obsessing do so from misguided agendas or take it in a wrong direction.

 

[Ploutos]

That's fair. Thanks for the helpful insight!

 

[Ploutos]

Our pastor, yesterday morning, covered Eph. 4 and the infamous quote from Ps. 68. I was reminded of what Dr. France said, referenced in an earlier post I made in this thread.

My pastor did state that Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, had the authority to quote and interpret OT passages in any way the Spirit guided him, with the implication that this is not license for us to handle the sacred texts with the same degree of freedom. But he did supplement that with a statement very similar to what France said, namely that we often will unintentionally change the wording of a text when quoting it from memory in the process of drawing out the sense of a passage or using it to make a point. This is still a rather new idea to me, in a day and age where precise verbatim quotation is such a normative habit, to think that the "targum" process of adaptively interpreting a quoted text is a natural part of the way our mind works. I will repeat my own caveat, even if it just means I'm talking to myself, that the adaptations still need to be faithful and Biblical, and there's a reason Aramaic and rabbinic targums are held to a lower level of credibility than the sacred text itself.