Recently in Bible study Category

David of course. What Christian child doesn't know the story of David and Goliath? 1 Samuel 17 very clearly states that David killed Goliath with a shot to his head with a stone:

ESV 1 Samuel 17:48 When the Philistine arose and came and drew near to meet David, David ran quickly toward the battle line to meet the Philistine. 49 And David put his hand in his bag and took out a stone and slung it and struck the Philistine on his forehead. The stone sank into his forehead, and he fell on his face to the ground. 50 So David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and with a stone, and struck the Philistine and killed him. There was no sword in the hand of David. 51 Then David ran and stood over the Philistine and took his sword and drew it out of its sheath and killed him and cut off his head with it. When the Philistines saw that their champion was dead, they fled.

But then why does 2 Samuel 21:19 say this:

ESV 2 Samuel 21:19 And there was again war with the Philistines at Gob, and Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim, the Bethlehemite, struck down Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.

A clue to what might have happened can be found in:

ESV 1 Chronicles 20:5 And there was again war with the Philistines, and Elhanan the son of Jair struck down Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.

Here's an article that attempts to explain the differences between 2 Samuel 21:19 and 1 Chronicles 20:5, blaming it on a scribal error.

I find it odd though that a scribe wouldn't know that Goliath was killed by David. Wouldn't he have caught such a glaring mistake as that?

(via)

So, I've been studying the Song of Songs and thought I'd share what I've been learning. I've been reading various articles about the Song of Songs and the various ways that it's been interpreted over the years. C. Lloyd Carr's article in Leland Ryken and Tremper Longman III's "A Complete Literary Guide to the Bible" has been helpful in examining the different interpretations and making the case for why they were inadequate in capturing the meaning of the text and making the case for his own interpretation. All quotes in the following are taken from his article.

The Song of Songs has been interpreted many ways over the centuries. One of the earliest forms of interpretation has been to allegorize the text. Rabbis and Christians have allegorized the song as pertaining to God's love for his people. The Jews see it as God's love for Israel and the Christians as Christ's love for his church (in line with 5:22-33). This leads to pretty wacky interpretations:

ESV Song of Solomon 1:13 My beloved is to me a sachet of myrrh that lies between my breasts.

Rabbinic interpretation saw the woman's breast as the "two cherubim that formed part of the 'mercy seat'...and the sachet of myrrh to refer to the Shekinah, the pillar of cloud symbolizing God's presence that stood between the cherubim in the Holy of Holies in the tabernacle."

The Christians interpreted the same passage as referring to the "Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments with Christ standing between them."

Others like Origen saw it as "a marriage song written by Solomon in the form of a drama" The idea was picked up again in the 19th century by Franz Delitzsch. His commentary established the idea that the "Song is a script for dramatic or musical performance."

But G. Lloyd Carr believes that since there is no plot, movement nor character development it really can't be considered a play. "The events and interchanges of those eight chapters do not move in a linear direction to a climax and resolution. Instead, is what some writers call 'ring construction,' they pivot around the central verses (4:16-5:1), with the last half of the book mirroring the ideas and even the specific vocabulary of the first half."

Another problem with the drama theory is determining how many characters are speaking. Solomon and the Shulammite bride (6:13) are considered the main characters but some see a third character, the shepherd lover of the Shulammite woman. In this interpretation the Shulammite woman isn't interested in Solomon's advances because she's in love with a shepherd and she resists Solomon attempts to seduce her. Some also see minor characters, "a chorus of women from the city, a male chorus (the woman's brother) and a mixed chorus of wedding guests." But it is really hard to determine who is actually speaking and quickly becomes speculative determining who is speaking. Which leads to another problem with the drama theory, the is no true dialogue. "The speakers, even when they are addressing each other, do not carry on conversations. The speech units are essentially monologues."

Carr's approach to the song is to treat it as a love poem similar to those of the ancient Near East. He sees a similarity in the use of detailed descriptions:

"All of these collections share another common element: elaborate and often very specifically detailed descriptions of the physical attractions of the parties. This form is often identified as the wasf, a term that in it's narrow technical meaning is limited to poems composed and sung in honor of the bride or groom as part of the wedding celebration, but it frequently used much more broadly to include any poem describing the adornment and physical charms of a woman."

Some who see it as a love poem see it as a collection of poems, not a unified poem but Carr sees unity in the poem, he thinks that it has a chiastic structure:

I. Anticipation (1:2-2:7)
II. Found and Lost -- and Found (2:8-3:5)
III. Consummation (3:-5:1)
IV. Lost--and Found (5:2-8:4)
V. Affirmation (8:5-14)

Check out the article for a more detailed outline.

For a more outside the box interpretation there is Jim Hamilton's interpretation of the song as a non-allegorical messianic song:

The Song is about Israel's shepherd king, a descendent of David, who is treated as an ideal Israelite enjoying an ideal bride in a lush garden where the effects of the fall are reversed. The thesis of this study is that when the Song is heard in the context of the three movement symphony of Torah, Neviim, and Ketuvim, this lyrical theme, the sublime Song, proves to be an exposition of the messianic motif of the Old Testament. I am suggesting that the Song of Songs, read in the context of the Old Testament, is messianic music that we do not need allegorically imaginative ears to hear.

[...]

This messianic understanding of Canticles is not allegorical, nor need it even be
typological, it is strictly historical and canonical. It assumes that the Song of Songs was written from the hope for an anointed king reflected in the rest of the OT,52 but it neither imposes foreign concepts nor imports the NT into the interpretation of the poetry. The garden imagery and the edenic quality of the Song call us to consider the points of contact between the lyrical beauty of the Song, the pristine bliss of Eden, and the one who would bring restoration.

I'll leave it to you to read the rest to see how he does it but it's pretty freaky that he sees the bride as being the Messiah's queen. How does he get around not allegorizing that as the church? (A non-allegorical interpretation that has the Messiah fulfilling the son of David role would have to have a non-allegorical bride fulfilling the Shulammite bride role.)

OK, so you guys want to know why I believe what I post is consistent with Reformed theology. Why do I say that I'm blogging from a Reformed perspective and yet I usually only blog about politics? What does the Iraq war funding bill have to do with Reformed theology? Or gun rights?Or politics in general?

Well, before I can answer those question, you have to understand what Reformed theology is because without that background, you won't understand my reasoning (goes without saying, I would think). So, I decided to give you a quick primer in Reformed theology, just enough to introduce the terms and concepts. The reason I didn't make this fuller is the impatience of the commenters who continue to demand an accounting of my position on almost every post and my fear that if I wrote a more thorough accounting, it wouldn't be read. I'd rather put my time to more useful endeavors. Plus, why reinvent the wheel? If you really want to know more, there are tons of places you can go to read more indepth articles for each of these doctrines. I recommend Monergism.com, they have links to articles covering just about any theological issue you would be interested in. I also recommend Putting the Amazing Back into Grace by Michael Horton. It is one of the best introductions to Reformed theology that I have read.

Reformed theology isn't just about soteriology (the doctrine of salvation). Some who say they are Reformed do so because they believe that the TULIP is biblical but do not subscribe to the rest of the doctrines found in the Westminster Confession of Faith or the other Reformed confessions and catechisms. What is the TULIP? It is an acronym for the doctrines that the Synod of Dort used to refute the five articles of the Remonstrants:

Total Depravity - man was created good but fell in the Garden because of his disobedience. He is now in a state of condemnation and will remain in that state until he turns back to God in obedience. But man is unable to do so because of his fallen nature. He's in rebellion to God and doesn't want to be obedient. Without the intervention of God, man will never turn to God, he does not want to.

Unconditional Election - It is God who chooses who will be saved. He is well within his right as Creator to select those to whom he will be merciful. He does not owe us salvation; each of us will receive what we deserve which is justice. There is no condition that the person has met to merit salvation, election is unconditional. God does not base his election on anything good that the person has done.

Limited Atonement - Christ died for the sins of his people alone. Just as the yearly atonement offering was limited to Israel under the old covenant, Christ's atonement is limited to those who are united with him in his death.

Irresistible Grace - It is God's will to save a people for himself and since he is the Creator, he can accomplish what he wills. He will bring to salvation every single person that he chooses because they cannot resist his will.

Perseverance of the Saints - God will ensure that all of his people will be saved. None will fall away but will be kept until the day of judgment.

I didn't bother with proof texts because I believe that the entire Bible clearly teaches these doctrines and so proof text are really not necessary. But for those of you who are used to a more atomistic view of Scripture, read Romans. These doctrines are clearly taught there.

As I mentioned, Reformed theology isn't just limited to soteriology but encompasses more aspects of God's revelation to man including:

Creation - God created man in his image and to be his vice-regent in his place. We are to have dominion over creation and bear the responsibility for it. This is the creation mandate.

The Fall - Adam was the representative of mankind and in him we all fell. Adam was the only person born with the ability to choose between good and evil, obedience and disobedience. The rest of mankind is born into sin and lacks the ability to choose to be obedient.

Covenants - this is actually a complicated and controversial subject, so I'm going to punt and quote the Confession:

WCF 7.1 The distance between God and the creature is so great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto Him as their Creator, yet they could never have any fruition of Him as their blessedness and reward, but by some voluntary condescension on God's part, which He hath been pleased to express by way of covenant.

The Confession goes on to talk about what the covenant looks like. You can read it here.

Union with Christ - we believe that union with Christ is central to the doctrine of salvation, that it is through our union with Christ that we die with him, are raised with him in newness of life (Romans 6), ascended with him to heaven and are seated on the right hand of God the Father.

The threefold office of Christ: we believe that Jesus came as prophet, priest and king. As prophet, his word is the final word of God, he is the final revelation (Hebrews 1). As priest, he is the sacrifice and the one making the sacrifice for our sin. As king, he is to rule nations with a rod of iron but his kingdom is the church - his kingdom is not of this world.

I could talk about other distinctives like our view of communion, baptism, the nature of God, the nature of man, other aspects of salvation, election (when did election take place before the fall or after, this is another area of controversy in Reformed circles), recreation, etc. but I don't want to keep the commenters waiting any longer. So, here is the basic background on Reformed theology, just enough so that I can reference these terms and you'll have some vague idea what I'm talking about.

Today we observe the day that Christ was crucified for our transgressions:

Matthew 27:45 Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land until the ninth hour. 46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?" that is, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" 47 And some of the bystanders, hearing it, said, "This man is calling Elijah." 48 And one of them at once ran and took a sponge, filled it with sour wine, and put it on a reed and gave it to him to drink. 49 But the others said, "Wait, let us see whether Elijah will come to save him." 50 And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice and yielded up his spirit. 51 And behold, the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. And the earth shook, and the rocks were split. 52 The tombs also were opened. And many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, 53 and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many. 54 When the centurion and those who were with him, keeping watch over Jesus, saw the earthquake and what took place, they were filled with awe and said, "Truly this was the Son of God!"

Amazingly we read about the account in Isaiah:

Isaiah 53:3 He was despised and rejected by men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief; and as one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not. 4 Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. 5 But he was wounded for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his stripes we are healed. 6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned--every one--to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all. 7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth; like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent, so he opened not his mouth. 8 By oppression and judgment he was taken away; and as for his generation, who considered that he was cut off out of the land of the living, stricken for the transgression of my people? 9 And they made his grave with the wicked and with a rich man in his death, although he had done no violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth. 10 Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him; he has put him to grief; when his soul makes an offering for guilt, he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days; the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. 11 Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied; by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities. 12 Therefore I will divide him a portion with the many, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong, because he poured out his soul to death and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and makes intercession for the transgressors.

Why do Christians in the 21st century believe that a man was crucified on a cross almost 2,000 years ago and that he rose again from the dead? Because of the witness of Scripture. Isaiah said that it would happen and it did.

I'm not surprised by this study since religion gives you a way to cope with the anxities of life and in some cases a reason for them.

Religious people are better able to cope with shocks such as losing a job or divorce, claims the study presented to a Royal Economic Society conference.

Data from thousands of Europeans revealed higher levels of "life satisfaction" in believers.

[...]

Professor Clark, from the Paris School of Economics, and co-author Dr Orsolya Lelkes from the European Centre for Social Welfare Policy and Research, used information from household surveys to analyse the attitudes of Christians - both Catholic and Protestant - not only to their own happiness, but also to issues such as unemployment.

Their findings, they said, suggested that religion could offer a "buffer" which protected from life's disappointments.

Professor Clark said: "We originally started the research to work out why some European countries had more generous unemployment benefits than others, but our analysis suggested that religious people suffered less psychological harm from unemployment than the non-religious.

[...]

He said that the benefit might stem from the increased "purpose of life" felt by believers.

This isn't surprising to me at all. If I know that problems in my life are used by the Lord to produce fruit, then suffering takes on new meaning and it's something I can endure with confidence in the Lord that he will see me through it and it will be used for my betterment. How can I be so sure that my suffering has a purpose? The New Testament is filled with words of encouragement to help us endure and persevere in the face of suffering:

Romans 5:1 Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. 2 Through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God. 3 More than that, we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, 4 and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, 5 and hope does not put us to shame, because God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us.

Romans 8:6 The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, 17 and if children, then heirs--heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.

Philippians 1:29 For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake

James 5:13 Is anyone among you suffering? Let him pray. Is anyone cheerful? Let him sing praise.

Suffering draws me closer to Christ and conforms me to his image:

Philippians 3:10 that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, 11 that by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead.

2 Timothy 2:3 Share in suffering as a good soldier of Christ Jesus.

1 Peter 2:21 For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps.

1 Peter 4:12 Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery trial when it comes upon you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you. 13 But rejoice insofar as you share Christ's sufferings, that you may also rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed. 14 If you are insulted for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the Spirit of glory and of God rests upon you.

Also, knowing that the suffering of this life doesn't compare to the glory that is to come, gives us the ability to endure whatever comes our way:

Romans 8:18 For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us.

If you have this understanding, is it any wonder that Christians could be content with whatever situation we are in?

Philippians 4:11 Not that I am speaking of being in need, for I have learned in whatever situation I am to be content.

Of course, it's not always easy to feel that way and it's a process we struggle with. We don't enter the suffering ready to handle it as the Roman 5 passage makes clear.

And then there's this:

Terry Sanderson, president of the National Secular Society, which represents the interests of atheists and agnostics, said that studies purporting to show a link between happiness and religion were "all meaningless".

"Non-believers can't just turn on a faith in order to be happy. If you find religious claims incredible, then you won't believe them, whatever the supposed rewards in terms of personal fulfilment.

Unfortunately she has this backward, no one is saying believe so you can be happy, it's a cause and effect. Happiness flows from religion. I didn't became a Christian to be happy, I became a Christian because I believed what the Bible said about Jesus. Happiness has flowed from that. How can you not be happy when the God of the universe has poured out his love on you?

Romans 5:5 and hope does not put us to shame, because God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us.

(via)

Bruce Waltke was recently at Westminster and he gave the chapel message. Here's the link to the audio. Also they recently had a forum on social justice. Here's a link to the archive where you'll find the MP3s from the...

I have trouble reading the Psalms, I don't take the time necessary to really get them. So, I was thinking about getting this book. It's pretty cheap only $14.06 at the Westminster Bookstore....

I have been invited to join a bible study at my new church. Well can you technically call it a "new" church if you've been there for a year? Anyway, I am looking forward to getting to know some of...