NIV FIRST-CENTURY STUDY BIBLE
Explore Scripture in its Jewish and Early
Christian Context
Notes by Kent Dobson
Zondervan. 1850 pages. £34.99
ISBN 978 1 473 614 345
It is not easy to review a Study Bible because of the large amount of material involved.
My method with this volume has been to take samples. I have looked at the study notes for a number of crucial texts underpinning vital areas of gospel theology. In pursuing this exercise I have found myself quite disturbed by this book. Let me just walk you through some of Kent Dobson’s comments and you can draw your own conclusions.
Original sin
I turned to what David says in Psalm 51.5 ‘Surely I was sinful at birth.’ Dobson writes: ‘The text raises several questions. The doctrine of “original sin” states that humanity’s sinful state is the result of Adam and Eve’s rebellion in the garden. Does the text support the doctrine of “original sin” though it does not mention Adam and Eve? Is the text about the sinfulness of women, childbearing, conception or the child? Is the author being poetic or making a more literal statement? Certain Jewish interpreters understood this text to mean that David’s father Jesse, had sexual relations with his wife out of lust rather than good intentions. From a Christian point of view, this text has been used to support the doctrine of “original sin”. However the text seems to be a poetic lament on David’s own sinfulness rather than a clearly defined doctrinal statement about the sinful state of a baby.’
Scripture
Here we turn to comments on 2 Timothy 3.16, ‘All Scripture is God-breathed’ (theopneustos). ‘Paul could either be saying that God speaks through the words of Scripture or that God breathes life into Scripture. It’s also difficult to know if Paul meant “every Scripture is useful” or “every inspired Scripture is useful”.’ So, while not denying the inspiration of Scripture, Dobson is at least leaving the door open to more theologically liberal views of the Bible.
The Trinity
In John 14.28 Jesus says: ‘The Father is greater than I.’ Dobson’s comment begins: ‘These are difficult words to fit neatly into Trinitarian theology.’ He goes on to quote Augustine who acknowledged the difficulty. That is fair enough. The problem that arises is that when you look for notes on verses which clearly teach the Trinity, e.g. Matthew 28.19; 2 Corinthians 13.14, you find no remarks in the footnotes concerning the nature of God. The comments on John 1.1, and 1.14 do speak of ‘an affirmation that God dwelled in the created order, in flesh itself, which was good’. But then they go on to say: ‘Yet Trinitarian doctrine, which developed later in the church is not spelled out in these verses.’ This looks very much as if he is saying that the doctrine of the Trinity is not found in Scripture but was a purely post-apostolic construction.
The works of the law
When it comes to this crucial phrase Dobson seems much influenced by the so-called ‘New Perspective on Paul’ adopted by E.P. Sanders and Tom Wright. The comment on Galatians 2.16 is as follows: ‘It is difficult to be certain what Paul meant by such a phrase. The question is whether or not Paul had in mind the entire law or the boundary markers of the law, such as circumcision and diet.’ He then goes on to indicate that, though it is not certain that it is legitimate to do so, if the phrase is to be interpreted in the light of certain Dead Sea Scrolls it would carry the ‘boundary markers’ meaning.
Sex and gender
With regard to the ‘unnatural sexual relations’ mentioned in Romans 1.26 the comment is: ‘This has been traditionally understood as acts of homosexuality; however, it’s difficult to be certain of the precise practice or practices Paul is condemning.’ On 1 Timothy 2.12 Dobson says that ‘the rhetorical meaning of this text may be understood as “I do not now permit [a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man].”.
My own feeling from leafing through this volume is that there is a desire to leave many vital questions concerning the Christian faith as open questions. Such an attitude commends itself to our post-modern world but is miles away from historic Christianity.
Faulty assumption
The Reformation taught us that Scripture should be interpreted by Scripture. The assumption of this volume is that first-century sources give us the key to understanding the Bible.
But which first-century sources give us the insight we need? Apart from the problem of archaeology providing us with only a fragment of the discourse of the times, why should sources from outside the apostolic circle be the lens through which we understand what the Bible says?
Rather, why should it not be that Paul gives us true insight into John’s works and Peter into Mark and Luke’s writings, etc? Shouldn’t it be that the New Testament gives us the proper interpretation of the Old Testament? Shouldn’t this especially be the case when Jesus promised his disciples in the upper room that when the Holy Spirit came he would lead them into ‘all truth’ (John 16.13). There is much that is interesting in this book by way of Bible background. But to make non-apostolic sources the light through which we see Scripture is to move outside the sphere of the Spirit’s work and is bound to lead to darkness.
