Abstract
The intention of the ‘Two Horizons’ Commentary series is to assist preachers, teachers and students in their engagement with scripture in a manner that addresses the gap between biblical studies and systematic theology. This is certainly a worthy and worthwhile aim, not least for the education of candidates for Christian ministry who can be troubled by gaps that arise among the several disciplines of the theological curriculum. In their ‘Introduction” the authors state that ‘retelling is the most legitimate starting point for theological discourse on Old Testament narratives’ (original emphasis), beginning with a close reading of the text itself.
While single verses are sometimes addressed, especially where there is some theological point to be made, this is by no means a verse-by-verse commentary. For the most part sections of text are taken together; often these consist of two or three verses although some sections are quite lengthy. Throughout Shepherd adheres closely to the story line of Ezra and Nehemiah, which he briefly fleshes out in places.
The overriding intention of the commentary is to clarify the story told in Ezra-Nehemiah. As such, although sometimes admitting difficulties, it may not prove sufficiently helpful to those readers who are already aware of some of the many critical issues that arise in relation to these books. Where such issues are discussed, Shepherd tends towards a conservative assessment of the essential authenticity of the various documents and lists that might appear to be preserved in the books without denying the presence of some editorial material.
The three essays that follow the commentary provide an element of theological reflection. In ‘Reading Ezra-Nehemiah Canonically’, Wright seeks to focus first on the God and second on the people one meets in Ezra-Nehemiah. This permits him to focus on aspects of God and people that find resonances throughout scripture. Thus, for example, the discussion includes sections on God as creator, sovereign, redeeming, speaking in scripture, giving, keeping his promises, and worthy of worship. The people on the other hand have an historical identity, they are called to unity, and to distinctiveness. They are prone to failure—past, present, and future, and yet they have a hope for the future. In commenting on the call to distinctiveness he recognizes the problem modern readers have concerning the dissolution of marriages to foreign women and whether the solution to the problem perceived in the story was right or wrong. His ‘open verdict’ on the issue perhaps betrays a failure of nerve. One should be prepared where appropriate to say that particular activities of biblical characters are wrong and this case of enforced mass divorce surely betrays an abuse of power.
Wright’s second essay, ‘Reading Ezra-Nehemiah Theologically Today’, makes much of the working out of themes found in the New Testament, particularly in Paul (who he appears to take to be the author of all the epistles that bear his name including the Pastorals!). This essay includes some comments on leadership, an issue that is attended to more fully by Shepherd in the concluding essay.
In ‘Leadership and Ezra-Nehemiah’ while he also admits to some of its more mundane aspects, Shepherd lays considerable emphasis on charismatic aspects of the leadership exhibited in these books. While this book fulfils something of the series’ intention to bridge the gap between biblical studies and systematic theology, it would certainly be more interesting to see how well this gap could be bridged if the commentary and essays were undertaken from a more thoroughly critical standpoint. How far the three theological reflections on their own bridge the gap between biblical studies and systematic theology is questionable, but a start has been made.