# Humourous commentary



## Poimen (Feb 23, 2008)

So yesterday I am reading Iain Duguid's commentary on Ezekiel. Speaking on Ezekiel 38&39 Ian notes:



> “the Gog of Ezekiel transcends historical categories and takes on mythical proportions, rather like the figure of Arnold Schwarzenegger in _The Terminator_. He is the sort of person who when he drives up to your house would deliberately drive over your kid’s toy truck in the driveway, just for fun. Gog is thoroughly “bad to the bone.” You can easily imagine Ezekiel’s Gog saying _“Hasta la vista, baby!”_ before he blows someone away.”



You wanted cultural relevance in your commentaries, right?


----------



## turmeric (Feb 23, 2008)




----------



## Pergamum (Feb 23, 2008)

WoW! Very picturesque! Made me think of the guy that blew up the bunny rabbit with a grenade in "Raising Arizona."


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Feb 23, 2008)

Poimen said:


> So yesterday I am reading Iain Duguid's commentary on Ezekiel. Speaking on Ezekiel 38&39 Ian notes:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Quotes like that are EXACTLY the reason I try to avoid any Bible Commentary written after 1899 or so.


----------



## Archlute (Feb 23, 2008)

Iain's commentary on Ezekiel, as well as his preaching in general, is outstanding. One of the reasons being that he gets the message of the text, as well as the centrality of Christ and the Gospel, across to the many who would never stop to pick up anything that was written before 1899.


----------



## danmpem (Feb 23, 2008)

It sounds like the talks given at the youth group at my church!


----------



## Poimen (Feb 23, 2008)

Archlute said:


> Iain's commentary on Ezekiel, as well as his preaching in general, is outstanding. One of the reasons being that he gets the message of the text, as well as the centrality of Christ and the Gospel, across to the many who would never stop to pick up anything that was written before 1899.





I may have given the (mistaken) impression that this commentary was just fun and games. It is not; the little I have read is excellent.

Also I really enjoyed him as an OT professor at Westminster. Great scholarship; engaging lecturer.


----------



## Archlute (Feb 23, 2008)

If you take time to read the commentary, from within a series whose aim is to communicate on a more "popular" level for the laity and pastors whose language-fu skills are weak/non-existent, you will see that quite a bit of scholarly study has actually gone into that work. I sat through his teaching on much of the OT, and his knowledge of the Hebrew of Ezekiel, along with the many textual variants and emendations involved in the latter chapters, would humble the knowledge of most here. 

And you're right, Daniel, that is a funny passage!

(edited to add - we crossed posts by just a few seconds I think; I personally had no doubt that you were just showing a lighter moment for humor's sake)


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Feb 23, 2008)

Poimen said:


> Archlute said:
> 
> 
> > Iain's commentary on Ezekiel, as well as his preaching in general, is outstanding. One of the reasons being that he gets the message of the text, as well as the centrality of Christ and the Gospel, across to the many who would never stop to pick up anything that was written before 1899.
> ...



Okay. Understood. Yes, by titling this thread "Humourous Commentary" I thought perhaps the entire commentary was like this. I am not opposed to a little humor, but too often I find a general lack of seriousness in the newer writers. I am not familiar with Mr. Duguid and meant no disrespect.

Also note, I wrote that "I try to avoid any Bible Commentary written after 1899." But have been known to read guys like Sproul, Boice, Derek Thomas, John Piper, etc.

So with your recommendations, I just might add another "newer" writer to my reading list. Thank you.


----------



## kvanlaan (Feb 23, 2008)

> language-fu



Nice.  A new term (to me, anyway.) 

So when a reformed newb opens "Death of Death in the Death of Christ", he then falls over on his front, spits blood on the ground (as in every dubbed 70's kung fu movie) and says (though his lips say something different) "His language-fu is too strong for me. Must. Read. Osteen." And then expires.


----------



## Sonoftheday (Feb 24, 2008)

Sounds like something Mark Driscoll might say. I think it would really appeal to those like my brother who are curious about what God's word says, but not curious enough to try to read the puritans and reformers who explained it so well. I am excited about the publishing of works that take the understanding of the text brought to us by great commentators like John Calvin and Mathew Henry but put it into the language understood by the culture of today. (I will be sticking to Calvin and Henry myself however)


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 24, 2008)

That's great. I was teaching my congregation recently about Paul's reference in Galatians 5 about the Judaizers emasculating themselves and mentioned to them how shocked they would be if I was vulgar in my teaching but, in some ways, that's exactly the shocking effect that Paul had in a few places in his Epistles.


----------



## tellville (Feb 24, 2008)

Poimen said:


> So yesterday I am reading Iain Duguid's commentary on Ezekiel. Speaking on Ezekiel 38&39 Ian notes:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



 That was awesome!


----------

