Biblical Foundations for Living: Teen Edition

June 24, 2008 by 5 Comments

Systematic Theology for Teens

Biblical Foundations for Living: Teen Edition

Now, freely available here is the Teen Edition of Biblical Foundations for Living.

bfl-teachers-edition-download bfl-students-edition-download

 

Table of Contents

Part One: Who Am I?

Section One: The Doctrine of God–Who am I? I am a finite creature who is responsible to the infinite Creator.

Section Two: The Doctrine of the Bible–Who am I? I am a recipient of the Bible, God’s communication to man.

Section Three: The Doctrine of Man–Who am I? I am a sinner who has offended the God who created me to reflect His image.

Section Four: The Doctrine of Christ–Who am I? I am an undeserving recipient of God’s love.

Section Five: The Doctrine of Salvation–Who am I? I am an obedient, growing servant of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Part Two: Why Am I Here?

(The Doctrine of the Church)

Section One: The Purpose of the Church–Why am I here? I am here to bring glory to God through the ministry of His Word.

Section Two: The Objectives of the Church–Why am I here? I am here to worship God, serve His children, and reach the lost.

Objective One: Edification

Objective Two: Evangelism

Objective Three: Expansion

Section Three: The Destiny of the Church–Why am I here? I am here to participate in the reign of Jesus Christ.

Filed Under: Biblical Foundations for Living (Teens), Systematic Theology

Same-Sex Marriage

June 19, 2008 by 2 Comments

Same-Sex Marriage

On May 15, 2008, the California Supreme Court decided that the State of California must allow homosexuals to marry. It determined that the State must begin offering marriage ceremonies and certificates to such couples, which it began doing at 5:01 PM on June 16, 2008. California has become the second state in the US to offer recognition of same-sex marriage. Massachusetts began recognizing same-sex marriage in May of 2004. The governor of the State of New York plans to allow same-sex marriage there as well in the near future.

Christians, Jews, Muslims, and others who value traditional morality have been critical of same-sex marriage and have attempted to prevent the practice. Forty-four states have adopted constitutional amendments and/or statutory language preventing the recognition of gay marriage. Efforts are under way in California to overturn the Court’s ruling and enact a constitutional ban on homosexual marriage there.

This current political and social issue reflects the nation’s basic moral commitments. Should people simply be allowed to do whatever they please, or are there moral considerations that limit behavior? What guidelines do we use to determine what kind of behavior is “good” for society?

This issue also points out the stark contrast in the conflicting worldviews driving today’s culture wars. On one side are those who endorse a traditional view of morality. These people typically are connected in some way to a transcendent (God-given) form of morality found in sacred Scripture (the Bible, the Koran, etc.). On the other hand are those who hold that morality is simply a human idea, and that each individual must determine his own moral standards. Since morality has no permanent basis, rules of conduct must be flexible and conform to the times.

Let’s examine the underlying moral motivations of the two sides of this issue.

  1. Same-sex moral values
    1. Human love is a wonderful thing, even when it exists between those of the same sex. Love should be tolerated and celebrated. Love will always win over hate.
    2. God made people as they are. God loves everyone equally. Nature (or God) is responsible for a person’s sexual orientation. A loving God would never condemn someone for loving another person.
    3. Equality is a basic human right that should not be denied to any particular group. Equality demands that all people be given the same rights.
    4. People should be allowed to do whatever they want, as long as it doesn’t hurt others. Marriage between consenting adults is their own business. Same-sex marriage affects only those being married and no one else. Only individuals have the right to determine who will be part of their family. The government should not force adherence to any particular moral standard.
    5. Religions critical of homosexuality are merely folklore, mythology, and outdated superstition. No one should take moral standards from so-called sacred texts seriously. The Bible has nothing of value to say on the topic. Only uneducated idiots believe that stuff. Leave the Dark Ages and adopt modern values.
    6. Cultural traditions don’t matter. Many traditions have been wrong and evil, e.g., slavery, racism, sexism. The fact that something is traditional doesn’t make it right. Who says that marriage has to be defined as existing only between a man and a woman? Marriage began as a purely human invention and was co-opted by religion as a way of gaining control over people. There is nothing particularly sacred or special about any human relationship. People should be able to define marriage however they want.
    7. No one can judge anyone else for their moral choices.
  2. Christian moral values
    1. Human love is a wonderful thing. However, like all good things, human love can be corrupted and degraded. The proper expression of marital love is between one man and one woman only. Any other expression is wicked.
    2. God makes people and God loves people, even desperately sinful people. However, God never causes anyone to sin. Man is sinful by birth and by choice. Those who follow their sinful bent in their interpersonal relationships will suffer God’s displeasure now and merit eternal punishment in the future. Those indulging in perverse practices have no right to claim a positive relationship with God.
    3. Equality as a basic human right is rooted in biblical morality. Nothing in nature suggests equality of species or of individuals. It seems hypocritical to affirm this moral value while denying other biblical moral values. Further, homosexuality should not be afforded the same recognition as equality in race or gender, which are biological realities, not simple behavior choices.
    4. Individualized morality is a recipe for chaos and disaster. Without some kind of recognized rules for behavior, civilization is not possible. Other people’s behavior is a matter of public concern. Further, intimate contact between consenting adults is one thing; marriage is something else. Marriage has the status of public affirmation and recognition. By definition, same-sex union is not marriage. American society as a whole is not ready to re-define marriage.
    5. The critics’ assertion that the Bible is obsolete and irrelevant is purely a matter of opinion. Christians (and other advocates of traditional values) have the same right to promote and defend their viewpoint as anyone else. The Christian worldview has been dominant in western culture for many centuries, although its dominance is now beginning to wane, which is the only reason same-sex marriage has become legal.
    6. Traditions are not valuable simply because they are traditions; no one is arguing that. The debate concerns the value and definition of marriage. Is the traditional understanding of marriage to prevail in our culture, or should the concept of marriage be re-defined, or perhaps dropped all together? Recognizing same-sex marriage will inevitably lead to validating other perverse relationships and behaviors.
    7. Morality is by nature subject to judgment. Even the statement “no one can judge my moral choices” is a judgment. Any time someone alleges that something is good or bad, he is making a moral judgment. Frankly, those who deny morality have no basis to complain when their “rights” are violated.

Note the Quote: The heterosexual marital relationship, even with all its imperfections, constitutes the bedrock of civilization. Marriage — female wife and mother, male husband and father — is the basic social unit. Redefining marriage, given its integral design, is like tampering with root arithmetic: no court, retaining any semblance of respect for the concept of jurisprudence, would do so.

  1. What God Says About Marriage
    1. Marriage is a partnership of opposite sexes, in kind, with full compatibility. (Gen 2:18-24)
      1. Opposite sexes: God did not make another man for Adam; He made a woman, a human of the opposite sex.
      2. In kind: Nothing in the animal kingdom corresponded to man; nothing was a suitable companion for Adam. Adam was human, not animal. God supplied Adam with another human—a woman—of the same “kind,” but a different type of human.
      3. Full compatibility: a “help meet”
        1. Help: the word often speaks of God supplying something people are unable to supply for themselves.
        2. Meet: fit, suitable, corresponding to. God created Eve to correspond to Adam. She was a perfect match for him. What he lacked she supplied. Only man and woman can procreate. The natural design of the human body (male and female) implies that they go together.
    2. Marriage involves commitment based on a covenant. (Gen 2:23-25; Mal 2:14)
      1. Commitment is key to marriage. God expects spouses to hold fast (KJV “cleave”) to one another. God designed marriage to be a permanent union held together by mutual commitment.
      2. Marriage is a form of contract or covenant, an agreement with certain stipulations. The spouses agree to “leave” their original families and “cleave” to one another for life. Only in certain limited cases can this contract/covenant be invalidated or dissolved.
    3. Marriage involves a sacrificial, mutual love and respect. (Eph 5:33; 1 Pet 3:7)

Marriage is more about giving than receiving. Mutual, sacrificial love and respect is necessary in a marriage.

    1. Marriage is best when the husband and wife accept their God-given roles.
      1. The husband: lead, love, protect, provide
      2. The wife: assist, complement, submit, encourage

Conclusion: The nature and definition of marriage are issues of basic morality. As western culture continues to deny its Christian heritage, it will adopt increasingly immoral standards of behavior. All manner of perversion will first be tolerated, then recognized as normal, protected as a right, and finally celebrated as good. American society must decide if it will retain its association with biblical morality or turn its back on that tradition and embrace moral chaos.

“Same-Sex Marriage in Perspective” Christian Research Journal, volume 27, number 2 (2004). Article: DH260 www.equip.org.

This material condensed from Barry Pendley’s article “The Problem of LGBTs and Their Marriages.”

Filed Under: Cultural Issues

Matthew 23:24: "Straining at Gnats"

May 17, 2008 by 5 Comments

Matthew 23:24: “Straining at Gnats”

The KJV states “Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.” (Matthew 23:24) What does this passage mean? One little preposition, “at,” causes some confusion and has led to some inaccurate interpretations.

Various Interpretations Based on “Strain At.”

The following interpretations are not comprehensive.

Interpretation 1: A common interpretation. Seeking to preserve the term “at,” those who interpret this add the phrase “the discovery of” to make sense of the translation. The Pharisees would “strain (the wine) at (the discovery of) a gnat.”

Interpretation 2:  Matthew Henry’s Commentary: Suggesting that the phrase means to look intensely at, says: “In their practice they strained at gnats, heaved at them, with a seeming dread, as if they had a great abhorrence of sin, and were afraid of it in the least instance…”

Interpretation 3: “Strain at a gnat” is the wrong reading. It should have been translated “strain out” to mean that the blind guides strain gnats out of their wine. They major on the minors by avoiding drinking something unclean, but at the same time, they drink down an unclean camel.

Meaning of “Straining”

The crux of the matter lies in what the verb means. Does the verb mean to “strain at” as if intently looking at something. Or, does it mean something entirely different?

Why the KJV translators translated the Greek Word, diulitzo, as “strain at” is not clear at all. This word has nothing to do with looking at a gnat. The Greek word means to “strain out, filter.” It is used in this passage as “straining out” or “filtering” gnats out of wine. This word never has the idea of “looking at” as the second interpretation suggests.

While one can make a case for the first interpretation, it is a forced interpretation that requires the addition of “the discovery of” to make sense of the passage. Readers of the KJV would not come to that conclusion unless this was explained to them. So, we prefer to let the Greek word to stand on its own. It is a more clear and precise translation to say: “You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.” (NIV)

The History of “Strain At.”

There is no explanation why the KJV translators chose “strain at” instead of the easier, normal reading “strain out.” Is this the way people spoke in 1611? Some suggest that is the case. However, no other contemporary English translation supports the 1611 KJV translation. Note the following:

1525-6 AD: Tyndale, “Ye blinde gydes which strayne out a gnat and swalowe a cammyll.”

1599 AD: Geneva, “Ye blind guides, which strain out a gnat, and swallow a camel.”

Even the Oxford English Dictionary states that “strain at” was misunderstood by Shakespeare himself. It would certainly be a “violent effort” on the part of a blind man to look intensely at a gnat. However, the idea of “straining to see a gnat” is not involved at all. It simply means to strain gnats out of wine.

What then does the passage mean and how does it apply?

It is human nature to focus on the technical aspects of a verse and miss the overall point. We should not simply leave this passage with a discussion of “It doesn’t mean this, it means that.” There is a great truth here that must not be missed. Even though a clarification must be made, the ultimate importance is what does the passage mean and what significance is there for me?

In probably the harshest series of denouncements, Jesus “blasts” the Pharisees worship at the temple. From an Old Testament legal perspective, the Pharisees brought all of the right things and the right amount for their tithe. In all, their gifts were perfectly acceptable. Any grain, fruit, or vegetable was appropriate for temple tithes (Lev 27:30). The Pharisees, given to extremism, collected offerings of mint (leaves), dill and cummin (seeds). The more common grains, fruits and vegetables would have satisfied the tithe, but the Pharisees were given to the minutest detail. The problem is that while they were given to counting seeds and leaves, they lacked the most obvious–justice, mercy and faithfulness (v 23) What is easier? Is it easier to focus on details that require only accounting skills, or giving oneself to the more difficult, germane matters–extending justice, mercy and faithfulness? Clearly, satisfying the rituals of worship are easier dealing with issues of the heart. Jesus pronounces judgment on the Pharisees for counting seeds rather than dealing with matters of the heart.

Verse 24 introduces another parallel illustration. Using hyperbole, Jesus pronounces judgment on the Pharisees for their meticulous care with gnats when they were actually swallowing a camel. As mentioned above, the verb “strain out” indicates that the Pharisees were straining gnats out of wine. Wine was also an acceptable tithe (Numbers 15:5ff). Gnats were drawn to alcoholic beverages like wine. In those days, wine was strained through cloths to remove the gnats. Apart from being a  distasteful item, gnats were considered unclean (Lev 11:20; Dt 14:129). It was their practice to filter the unclean gnats out of the wine before presenting it as an offering.

Using a deliberate exaggeration, Jesus pronounces judgment on the Pharisees for taking care that they do not defile themselves by drinking down a very small insect while they were willing to “drink down” another unclean animal, the camel.

The point is, the Pharisees prided themselves on following the Law to its most minute details while overlooking the evil intentions of their heart. Jesus, exercised His omniscience and saw that their perfectly, painstaking details to present acceptable offerings did not match their hearts. These Pharisees were evil men content with external ritualism. As one commentator notes, this is a “man who has lost all sense of moral proportion.” (Arthur Robertson, Matthew)

Conclusion

We all know at least one person who “has lost all sense of moral proportion.” How many have we seen make a profession of Christ then leave over some minor issue. It is very possible that person’s profession was false. Did that person leave a church simply because the carpet was changed? Did that person abandon regular assembly with others simply because another version was being used? Did that person leave his brothers and sisters in Christ because he found a hypocrite? That person needs the application of this verse!

Another error that we should reject is the lack of diligent study of the Word of God. God’s Word is wholly and completely important, even down to the very prepositions. Some believers say “I have a simple faith. This kind of discussion is ‘straining at a gnat.'” As seen above, this is not what the verse means. To suggest that we ought not get the prepositions right, undermines the importance of studying God’s Word. Genuine Bible expositors are not interested in a Pharisaical approach to the Scriptures. They want people to understand exactly what God intended. Do not reject exegetical preaching/teaching as if it is some kind of Pharisaical approach.

Some simply point out errors in the King James Bible. However, for us to simply state that the preposition “at” is wrong and not explore the context of this passage is Pharisaical. This passage is a warning to us all. God knows our hearts. Our religious exercises, no matter how meticulously performed, are worthless if our motives, intents and actions are evil.

Filed Under: New Testament Theology

The Use of the OT Law for NT Believers

May 10, 2008 by Leave a Comment

The Use of the OT Law for NT Believers1

Many Christians are confused about the use of the OT Law. Do we follow it or not? Is it still in force or not? What parts of it should we follow? If we are not following it, of what value is it?

This lesson is designed to explore what the OT Law is and how it currently applies to NT believers.

Meaning of the word “law”

Part of the confusion on this issue stems from the multiple uses of the word “law” in the NT. Some of the uses of the term:

    1. God’s general moral will expressed throughout the Bible (OT and NT); divine commands in the widest sense (Rom 7:25). The moral principles of the Ten Commandments did not begin with Sinai; they are as eternal and immutable as the very holy character of God Himself (1 Pet 1:16).2

    1. The OT Mosaic code (including or especially the 10 Commandments): the set of rules and regulations that God gave Moses for Israel. (Rom 2:14a; 2:17; 3:21, 28; 7:12; Gal 4:21, 5:3)

    2. The “law of Christ” (1 Cor 9:21; Gal 6:2) refers to Jesus’ teaching or NT truth in general.

    3. Scripture in general (especially the OT). Thus: “the law” (Matt 5:18; 12:5; Lk 2:27; 10:26; 16:17; Rom 3:19); “the law and the prophets” (Matt 5:17); “the law of the Lord” (Lk 2:23, 24, 39); “the law of Moses” (Lk 2:22; cf. also Acts 28:23); “Moses and the prophets” (Lk 24:27). The threefold formula “Moses and the prophets and the psalms” also occurs (Lk 24:44).

    4. A rule, principle, or force (Rom 2:14b, 7:2, 21, 23, 8:2)

    5. Various forms of human laws, those prescribed by man through human government or custom (Luke 20:22; Acts 19:38).

    6. Law in general (Rom 3:27 and possibly Rom 5:13b).

NT teaching about the OT Law

  1. The Law extended “until John” the Baptist (Mt 11:13); after that comes the gospel of Christ.

  2. Christ did not come to abolish the Law but to fulfill it (Mt 5:17). It is impossible that any part of the Law would disappear (Mt 5:18-19). Jesus expected his audience to keep the Law.

It’s important to remember that Jesus lived and ministered under the Law. The end of the Law came with the death of Christ, the torn veil symbolizing the ending of the Levitical system (Mk 15:38; Heb 6:19, 9:3, 10:20). Jesus’ fulfillment of the Law set the stage for the church age.

    1. The Law can be summarized by these two commands: Love God and love your neighbor (Mt 22:34-40). Paul states that love fulfills the Law (Rom 13:10).

    2. Christians are not under the OT Law. NT authors, especially Paul, states this truth in no uncertain terms and in various ways:

Ac 15:10, 19 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? … Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God…

Ro 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace.

Ro 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

Ro 7:1-6 Or do you not know, brethren (for I speak to those who know the law), that the law has dominion over a man as long as he lives? For the woman who has a husband is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives. But if the husband dies, she is released from the law of her husband. … Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another—to Him who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God. … But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter.

(Note: the entire book of Galatians is a response to the idea that we are saved through the keeping of the Law.)

Ga 3:10-13 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them.” But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for “the just shall live by faith.” Yet the law is not of faith, but “the man who does them shall live by them.” Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”)…

Ga 3:24-25 Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.

Ga 5:1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage.

Eph 2:15 having abolished [to destroy, do away with; to render idle, inactivate, inoperative: to deprive of force, influence, power; to cause to cease, put an end to, do away with, annul; to pass away, be done away] in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace.

Col 2:14 having wiped out [to eliminate, cancel, erase, blot out3] the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.

      1. What does it mean to be “under” the Law? It means to be subject to its rules and regulations, to be accountable to it, to be liable to its penalties, and to be bound to obey it.

      2. The Israelites were “under” the Law in the sense that it applied directly to them; God expected them to apply it and obey it. He blessed obedience and punished disobedience.

      3. At the Jerusalem council (read Acts 15:5-11, 19-21, 29), the disciples specifically rejected the idea that Gentile believers need to observe the OT Law.

      4. Some Jews, like Paul (1 Cor 9:19-23) determined to observe the rituals of the OT Law, at least occasionally, simply to be non-offensive to those they were trying to reach. At other times, Paul exercised his freedom from those same rituals and restrictions (see Gal 2:11-21).

      5. The Law of Moses is a unit, an indivisible, all-or-nothing proposition. The Bible never makes a distinction between parts of the Law. People typically recognize the different civil, ceremonial and moral aspects of the Law, but these categories do not stand individually; they are parts of the whole. You can’t just pick and choose the parts that you like and ignore the rest. This is precisely Paul’s point in Galatians 5:3-4—if you agree to be circumcised, you are agreeing to obey the whole Law, which means that you are rejecting salvation by faith in Christ.

Breakdown of the OT Law:

Ceremonial: deals with sacrifices, rituals, purifications, and other religious things fulfilled in Christ.

Civil: rules dealing with the government regulations, the Theocracy; governed national Israel.

Moral: deals with timeless moral principles like the 10 Commandments.

Quote: “God did away with the Mosaic Law completely, both the [civil,] ceremonial and the moral parts. He terminated it as a code and has replaced it with a new code, “the Law of Christ” (Gal 6:2). Some commandments in the Law of Christ are the same as those in the Law of Moses (e.g., nine of the Ten Commandments, excluding the command to observe the Sabbath day).”4

Christians are under the law of Christ

Ro 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death.

1Co 9:21 to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law;

Ga 6:2 Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.

What is the law of Christ? It’s the set of regulations and commitments taught by Jesus and expanded by the NT authors. It’s the Christian rule of life. In contrast to the Mosaic code, which emphasized rituals and works, the law of Christ emphasizes grace and love (cf. John 1:17, 13:34; 1 Jn 2:3-6). We serve “in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter” (Rom 7:6). The law of Christ covers all areas of the believer’s life just as the Mosaic code did for the OT believer.

Interpreting the OT Law

While we should not import NT ideas into the OT in our interpretation, we do consider NT teaching when considering application of OT principles. Our application of the OT should be read thru NT lenses. What principles still apply in NT times? What parts has Christ fulfilled or accomplished? What parts are mere shadows and symbols?

Values of the OT Law

  1. The Law is “holy and good” (Rom 7:12), one of God’s gifts to Israel (Rom 9:4).

  2. The Law provided a standard of righteousness (Deut 4:8; Psalm 19:7-9). The Law revealed the righteousness, holiness, and goodness of God (Deut 4:8; Lev 11:44-45; 19:2; 20:7; Rom 7:12-14).

  3. The Law entered “that the offense might abound” (Rom 5:20; cf. 7:8-13; 1 Cor 15:56b), and in order to “confine” men under Law and sin, with no prospect of escape until Christ should come (Gal 3:22f.). The Law produces the startling realization of sin which does not save (Rom 3:20; 7:7); but it calls forth a cry for help in one’s lost condition (Rom 7:24), a cry which can be answered effectively only by Jesus Christ (Rom 7:25).5

Ro 3:19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

Ro 7:13 Has then what is good become death to me? Certainly not! But sin, that it might appear sin, was producing death in me through what is good, so that sin through the commandment might become exceedingly sinful.

1Ti 1:9 knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,…

Note: In an evangelistic appeal, one must emphasize the sinner’s sinfulness. A comparison of the person’s lifestyle to the requirements of the 10 Commandments and to Jesus’ teaching on the Sermon on the Mount is often helpful in revealing the sinner’s total depravity.

Luther: The Law must be laid upon those that are to be justified, that they may be shut up in the prison thereof, until the righteousness of faith comes—that, when they are cast down and humbled by the Law, they should fly to Christ. The Law humbles them, not to their destruction, but to their salvation. For God woundeth that He may heal again. He killeth that he may quicken again.?6

    1. Perhaps the most significant purpose of the Law is to lead men to Christ. The Law is a ???????????, “schoolmaster, tutor, custodian” (Gal 3:24-25). The ??????????? was usually a slave whose duty it was to take the pupil to school and supervise his conduct generally. The OT Law served this purpose—it held authority until the coming of Christ. Paul states clearly that after faith comes, “we are no longer under a schoolmaster” (Gal 3:25).

    2. 2 Tim 3:16 All of the OT is still revelation, still profitable material, still contains doctrine and instruction in righteousness.

    3. 1Co 10:11 Now all these things happened unto them for examples: and they are written for our admonition.

Good quote: It is possible to conclude that since it is unnecessary to keep the Law to be saved, it is unnecessary to pay attention to the Law for any reason. However, Paul was not urging his converts to burn their Old Testaments. The Law has values, as he previously pointed out, … Under grace we are free to fulfill the Law by loving one another. [Cf. Ro 13:10.] For the Christian the Mosaic Law has revelatory value (2 Tim 3:16–17) even though it does not have regulatory value, controlling our behavior.7

Weaknesses of the Law

  1. The Law cannot save. Salvation was never based on obedience to the Law, but on God’s grace and man’s faith in God’s promises (Rom 4:1-3). There is no truth to the assertion that under the OT system, people were saved by works (Gal 2:16).

  2. The fundamental weakness of the Law is that its only answer to sin is to forbid it and condemn it. Law cannot overcome sin, because it depends on the cooperation of the flesh (i.e., autonomous human nature), which is weak (Rom 8:3), incapable of obedience.

  3. What the Law demands can be gained only by the Spirit on the basis of the work of Christ (Rom 8:4). The Law is essentially a letter that kills; the life of the new covenant is the Spirit who makes alive (Rom 7:6; 2 Cor 3:6).

  4. The book of Hebrews demonstrates that the old covenant of the Mosaic Law was only temporary and has been replaced by the coming of Christ whose ministry is based on (1) a better priesthood, one after the order of Melchizedek which is superior to Aaron’s, and (2) a better covenant with better promises (see Heb 7-10). The old covenant was only a shadow of heavenly things, and if it had been able to make men perfect before God there would have been no occasion for a second or new covenant (see Heb 7:11-12; 8:1-13).8

Heb 7:19 For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.

Why not place yourself under the Law?

Many today advocate observing some of the rules and regulations from the OT. They assert that Christians should observe OT moral stipulations whenever possible. Examples: dietary regulations, clothing guidelines, infant circumcision, observation of the Saturday Sabbath, various sexual restrictions.

What is true of those seeking to place themselves under the OT Law?

    1. They are violating the proper use of the Law (read 1 Tim 1:9).

    2. They ignore the fact that the Law demands entire obedience (Gal 3:10, quoting Deut 27:26). It’s illegitimate to pick and choose those aspects of it that seem “applicable.”

    3. Paul says that if one has been delivered from the Law through faith in Christ, to deliberately place oneself under its control results in “falling from grace” (Gal 5:4). In other words, to go back to the Law amounts to a rejection of Christ.

    4. To go back to the Law as a way of life puts one under the control of the flesh; it nullifies true spirituality by faith in the Holy Spirit and defeats the believer. It results domination by the sin nature or the flesh (Gal 5:1-5; Col 2:14f).9

Is the Christian without law (i.e., lawless, antinomian)? No.

Gal 6:2 Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.

Heb 1:9 [Christ] loved righteousness and hated lawlessness…

1Jo 3:4 Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness.

Discussion questions:

  1. Some people preach that the keeping of the OT Law is a moral and spiritual obligation for the Christian. They say that keeping the Law of Moses is necessary for sanctification, i.e., for living a holy life that is pleasing to the Lord. Although we are not saved by the Law, once we have been justified by faith, then the Mosaic Law becomes our rule of life. In other words, the OT moral Law still applies. Is this what the Bible teaches? No, we are not under any part of the OT Law—civil, ceremonial or moral. The OT Law is an all-or-nothing deal. Read Acts 15:10 and Gal. 5:1. Warning about Bill Gothard—major proponent of this error.

  2. Jesus said (Mt 5:18f) that not even the smallest part of the Law would pass away until all is fulfilled. Doesn’t that mean that the Law must still be in force? No, because Jesus fulfilled the Law. Mt 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. Ro 10:4 For Christ is the end (telov) of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

  3. Why not just cut the OT out of our Bibles if we are not under the Law? The OT still has revelatory value, just not regulatory value. It’s profitable (2 Tim 3:16) and gives us many examples to follow or to shun (1 Cor 10:11).

  4. How do we know what parts or principles from the OT we can apply? Generally, by how they correspond to NT principles.

  5. If the OT is not the Christian’s rule of life, what is? The NT, the Law of Christ, grace. “The believer is now to live in the liberty and power of God’s grace by the Spirit, not the rule of Law. This new liberty must never be used as an occasion to indulge the flesh or sinful appetites (Gal 5:13) nor does it mean the Christian has no moral Law or imperatives on his life, but simply that he or she is to live righteously by a new source of life.”10

  6. Why don’t we keep the Saturday Sabbath? 1) We are not under the OT Law; 2) There is no particular virtue in recognizing one day over another (Col 2:16); 3) Saturday Sabbath keeping is a command not repeated in the NT. However, observing a day of rest is biblical. Observing the Lord’s Day (Sunday) as a day dedicated to worship is proper. A “soft” or “modified” form of Sabbath observance allows other activities on the Lord’s Day that focus one’s attention on God or on the good things God provides. Various forms of recreation, if pursued with a thoughtful attitude, need not be prohibited on Sunday afternoons.

  7. Does the Bible teach the necessity of circumcision? 1Co 7:19 “Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God [is what matters].” Galatians 5:6 “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love.” Circumcision is no longer binding on Christians today. It may or may not be a good idea for health reasons, but the practice has no spiritual value.

1For a very good discussion of this issue, consult Alva McClain’s brief volume Law and Grace (BMH Books). This lesson updated April 08.

2J. Hampton Keathley III , “The Mosaic Law: Its Function and Purpose in the New Testament” www.Bible.net

3Swanson, J. (1997). Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains : Greek (New Testament) (electronic ed.) (GGK1981). Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

4Tom Constable. (2003; 2003). Tom Constable’s Expository Notes on the Bible (Ga 5:1). Galaxie Software.

5NIDNTT

6Quoted in R. Kent Hughes, The Sermon on the Mount: The Message of the Kingdom (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books, 2001), 95.

7Constable.

8Keathley

9Keathley

10Keathley

Filed Under: Biblical Theology, Old Testament Theology Tagged With:

Is the 1611 KJV Bible God’s Only Inspired Word?

May 3, 2008 by 40 Comments

Is the 1611 King James Bible God’s Only Inspired Word?

In the early 1970s, a movement swept across the country. This is called the King James Only movement. Though not a new idea, a man by the name of Peter Ruckman began to aggressively teach that the 1611 King James Version (KJV) of the Bible is the only inspired Bible. They commonly refer to every new version as “perversions.”

Just go to YouTube and search “KJV Only.” With few exceptions, you will notice from the profile of the video authors, this movement has basically affected only a generation of believers. Most of the creators are 40 and older. While most conservative Bible colleges and universities still use the KJV as their primary text, they are, for the most part, no longer King James Only.

What does the KJV Only crowd teach? Why do they make the claim that the KJV Bible is the only Bible people should use? They believe that the KJV Bible is God’s perfectly preserved Word and is based on the best Greek and Hebrew manuscripts to have ever existed. This article examines that position.

Is it correct that the KJV Bible contains no errors?

At least one person thinks so. “The King James Bible, AV 1611 is the preserved words of God. It has no errors, that means the text is perfect.” (Lawrence Bronsing, Peter Ruckman)

Already, the KJV has undergone many revisions. The KJV that most people have today is not the 1611, but a revised version that dates back to the 1800’s. The earliest known revision was made in 1612, one year after the original was printed. This was necessary because typographical errors were made.

Was it a surprise to those who translated the KJV that mistakes would be made? No. According to the preface in the 1611 Bible, the translators knew this was a possibility. “If anything be halting, or superfluous, or not so agreeable to the originall, the same may be corrected, and the trueth set in place.” “…some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting foorth of it.”1

Unlike the translators in 1611, the original authors of the Bible (Moses, Paul, John and many others) knew full well that what they were writing was guided by the hand of God. When they composed, they knew their work was Scripture. That is not true of the 1611 translators. While they performed a great task, they knew their humanity would pass errors along. Since the original translators of the 1611 KJV knew their work was open to scrutiny and there may be “some imperfections and blemishes,” why do we have a movement of people today that think otherwise? Simply, they have a distorted (or in many cases puerile) understanding of inspiration and preservation.

Is it true that the KJV Bible is based on superior Greek and Hebrew manuscripts?

James Jaspers Ray states that the Greek text behind the KJV (Textus Receptus {TR}) is made of the original Greek manuscripts that Paul the Apostle and others wrote. He says, “Any version of the Bible, that does not agree with the Greek Textus Receptus, from which the King James Bible was translated in 1611, is certainly to be founded upon corrupted manuscripts.”2 Is the TR really based on the best manuscripts?

A man named Erasmus gathered several manuscripts of the New Testament. Of all the manuscripts he had, not one of them contained the last six verses of Revelation. He translated those verses from the Latin Vulgate, not the Greek.

When Erasmus translated 1 John 5:7-8, several men charged him that he left out the phrase “…the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth…” He simply replied that no Greek manuscript was available to support the reading. A few days later a manuscript appeared. Was this “made to order?” Erasmus thought so, and included the phrase only as a marginal note. 3 Though Erasmus was diligent in compiling a Greek translation, he did so with the best resources available to him. Today, the resources are greater and more reliable, thus providing the basis for more reliable versions.

What does the Bible teach about translating, inspiration, and preservation?

So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused [them] to understand the reading. And all the people went their way to eat, and to drink, and to send portions, and to make great mirth, because they had understood the words that were declared unto them. (Nehemiah 8:8,12)

The Israel exiles returned to Jerusalem. During their 70 year captivity, their language changed. When Ezra (and the scribes) read from the book of the Law, it was necessary for Ezra to explain what was being read. The book of the Law was in Hebrew, however the people who returned to exile no longer understood everything in the older Hebrew. What was the response of the people? Was it, “You can’t do that to God’s Word!”? No, the people were able to understand God’s Word because it was updated to the language of their day. The response of the people was a repentant attitude from sin and obedience to God’s Word. The people understood the message, then they became changed individuals!

One comment that is made to support the sole use of the KJV is “The people through prayer and Holy Spirit illumination will understand the KJV!” If that is true, then why don’t people read the language of the originals–Greek and Hebrew? It is necessary to know the meaning, then the Holy Spirit has a tool by which to cause the Christian to understand how the Scriptures apply to their lives.

All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: (2 Timothy 3:16)

Paul the Apostle wrote this verse 1500 years before the KJV was translated. The originals were “God-breathed.” Therefore, if a modern version is an accurate reflection of the original document, there is a sense in which the translation is inspired.

What about preservation? Doesn’t God promise in His Word that “not one jot or tittle shall pass away?” (Matthew 5:18) Yes, and that is true, not one has passed away! We have God’s Word. However, God did not promise that one manuscript or version would be preserved in this fashion. With the thousands of manuscripts and fragments in our possession today, God has given us His Word. We should take heed to God’s Word when He says, “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15)

“Practical KJV Only” Position

Many churches, colleges, and other institutions are declaring positions that the KJV is the only Bible to be used. While these same pastors and teachers may reject the KJV Only position, they are actually teaching by practice that the KJV is the Only Bible to use. This is problematic for at least a few reasons.

  1. If one demands that the KJV is the only translation to be used, then what real difference is there between this position and the KJV Only position?
  2. Instead of responding biblically to those who are KJV Only, this position concedes to them and allows them the freedom to propagate error.
  3. Conformity becomes the rule rather than unity to truth. Many good translations are available, why not teach the next generation about other reliable translations?

Conclusion

The translators of the KJV knew that the KJV itself would not be readily accepted. The Geneva Bible was the most widely circulated Bible in their day.6 The preface to the 1611 KJV says, “Many mens mouths have bene open a good while and yet are not stopped with speeches about the Translation so long in hand, or rather persuals of Translations made before…”

The purpose of this article is not to destroy one’s faith, but rather show that some modern translations are also reliable. The many books and pamphlets that are circulated today promoting the “KJV Only” position are actually destroying people’s faith. It is a divisive issue over which many Christians are confused. The KJV Only position is a heresy that must be combated. The proponents of this position are misleading sincere Christians by using poor logic, misguided facts and contentious language.4

For further study on this topic see:

James White, The King James Only Controversy

Donald Carson, The King James Version Debate

Jack Lewis, The English Bible from KJV to NIV

Bruce Metzger, The Test of the New Testament

  1. All words in these quotes are retained with their original spellings. ↩
  2. J.J. Ray, “The New Eye Opener”, (Eugene, OR: The Eye Opener Publishers), p. 3. ↩
  3. Bruce Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, (New York: Oxford University, 1968), p. 101. ↩
  4. Some examples of this are found in the writings by Peter Ruckman. Note the recent publication called New Age Versions by Gail Riplinger. The presupposition of the book tries to link any translation, except the KJV, with the New Age phenomenon. The author of this book fails to recognize that most modern versions were made before the New Age Movement existed. ↩
Filed Under: Bibliology

Aliens

April 22, 2008 by Leave a Comment

Aliens

People have always been fascinated with the “above and beyond.” Remember Orson Well’s radio program, “War of the Worlds?” It was a broadcast about an alien attack on the world. Some people who tuned into the radio late, thought it was real life. They became hysterical.

In the 80’s a movie called E.T. portrayed an ugly, but lovable alien befriended by a young boy. Later the same decade, a television series about a short, furry, sarcastic alien named ALF made it’s debut.

The popular, entertaining StarTrek television program still has a “cultic” following. Now, Stephen Hawking dons his StarTrek gear and “boldly goes only where New Mexico trailer park residents have gone before.”

Why? Why is there a fascination of life on other planets, especially human-like life? Have you ever wondered about these questions?

Are there more intelligent life forms in the universe?

Will they ever come into contact with man?

Many people are consumed with the thought of being the next person abducted. Rational, bible-soaked Christians should dismiss extra-terrestrial aliens as myths. These myths are an attack on God’s character.

Alien Myths are an Attack on God’s Image.

Throughout man’s history, God’s focus has been on establishing His Kingdom on earth (Daniel 7:14, 27; Micah 4:7). This means that God is earth-oriented. Why? Because in the final analysis, this brings Him glory. To accomplish His plan, God made Adam in His own image (Gen. 1:27). What does it mean that “man is made in the image of God?” It basically means that man is “like God and represents God.” (Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, pg. 442.) That is, man is the height of all creation because he is like God.

Man shares with God His ability to think, feel, and make decisions. Though man is finite and God is infinite, man is the best representation of God next to Jesus Christ (Hebrews 1:3).

Since God designed man in His image, and since His plan is Kingdom-oriented, it logically follows that God has not divided His interests in beings on other planets. Though God certainly could have created aliens, this logic would be strikingly similar to the philosophical question, “Can God create a rock bigger than He can handle?” He can, but this is contrary to His desires and plan.

Alien Myths are an Attack on God’s Plan of Salvation.

Since Adam fell, all of creation suffers from his sinful choice. For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected [the same] in hope . . . For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. (Romans 8:20-22)

Man is only saved through a committed faith in Jesus Christ (Romans 10:9,17). God planned that Jesus Christ would be the way of salvation for everyone (Hebrews 2:10). Jesus Christ humbled himself and became a man, not an alien. No one else, including aliens, are God’s object of redemption. Jesus Christ died for man, appeared to men after His resurrection and is now at the right hand of God praying for believers (Romans 8:34).

Jesus Christ is the only way of salvation. If aliens exist, then it logically follows that God has doomed them to destruction, unless Jesus Christ is going from planet to planet, becoming an alien, and dying for aliens. The result is absurd, unbiblical logic. We do know what Christ is doing,

Alien Myths are an Attack on God’s Word.

God has revealed to us everything that He wants us to know for life. God gave us information that enables us to know Him, to relate with others, and to live God-honoring lives. Though He did not tell us about every molecule, plant, or animal that exists, He did make Scripture complete enough so that we can respond appropriately to anything that happens in life.

His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness. (2 Peter 1:3)

God’s Word gives us many instructions about how to relate to others. Note the following groups:

  • God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit
  • Angels
  • Satan
  • Other Believers
  • Non-believers
  • Other nations
  • Government
  • Family
  • Employers/Employees
  • Husband/Wife
  • Ourselves
  • and the list goes on.

The Bible never gives us any instruction on how to relate to aliens. The reason is simple: We will never have to relate to aliens. This could be for two reasons: 1) God planned it so we will never come into contact with them; or more simply, 2) they do not exist.

Alien Myths are an Attack on the Bible’s account of our true enemy — Satan.

We live in a day when people, including Christians, are more interested in the creature than the Creator. They chase after talk shows instead of Bible studies. They regurgitate speculations rather than ministering the Word. They mull over the concept of aliens rather than meditating on Scripture. These people illustrate the depravity of man by seeking man’s glorification, rather than God.

The folly of alien myths has diverted people’s attention away from the real nemesis — Satan.

Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. (Ephesians 6:11-12)

God has already unequivocally listed who our enemies are—Satan and his forces. This is extraterrestrial enough. We are in a battle with demons and Satan. Let’s not seek to advance our technology and spend our time worrying about alien abductions. Our enemy is real and God has given us the prescription needed to deal with him — “put on the whole armor of God!”

In the final analysis, what can be said about the testimonies of people who have been abducted by aliens? They are either lying or have duped themselves. Solomon wrote, He who works his land will have abundant food, but he [the fool] who chases fantasies lacks judgment. (Proverb 12:11) Don’t be duped, be equipped!

In conclusion, don’t chase after fantasies. Think objectively, biblically, and doctrinally. Hollywood’s genre of alien pix is creating a pseudo-anthropology based on fantasy, rather than objective, biblical proof.

Filed Under: Practical Theology

Book Review: "God’s Lesser Glory: The Diminished God of Open Theism" by Bruce A. Ware

April 13, 2008 by Leave a Comment

Book Review of “God’s Lesser Glory: The Diminished God of Open Theism” by Bruce A. Ware

Reviewed by Brad Anderson

[amazonify]1581342292[/amazonify]Bruce Ware’s book is a welcome and weighty addition to the debate over open theism. Those who desire to understand open theism and why the idea is so dangerous to orthodox theology should pick up this relatively short (230 pages) paperback volume.
The book is divided into three major sections, the first examining what open theism teaches, the second showing what is wrong with open theism, and the third exposing how open theism is inimical to daily Christian life.

The first section of the book starts by asking the question, “Why should you be concerned” about open theism? In answering, Ware proves that open theism is nothing less than a redefinition of Christian theology, and even of God Himself. He then tracks the rise of open theism from within the Arminian tradition, showing both similarities and differences between the two and proving that open theism diverges significantly from the classic Arminian position. Ware explores the perceived benefits of open theism, namely, that God is thought of as present with and infinitely interested in the lives of believers. God took a genuine risk when He gave man a free will, and now God has to live with the free choices of man. Because God genuinely does not know (indeed, cannot know) what a free agent will choose, He often ends up changing His mind, regretting His choices, and following plan B when sinful people reject plan A.

Part two is a brilliant exposure of the weaknesses and unorthodox notions of open theism. Ware shows that open theism’s interpretive methods are mistaken by looking at several key passages. In each case, he demonstrates how open theism has mishandled the text or come to an erroneous, unbiblical conclusion. Chapter Five is perhaps the dagger in the heart of open theism. In it he demonstrates conclusively that the Bible clearly and repeatedly teaches that God possesses exhaustive foreknowledge of all future events, an idea open theism strongly rejects. He also shows from Scripture that man is not able to thwart God’s eternal plan.

In Part Three, “What difference does it make in daily life?” Ware demonstrates how open theism has a negative impact on many aspects of the Christian life. If God cannot know the future in many cases, and if He is powerless to influence free agents, of what use is it to pray? If people often thwart God’s plans, and if God’s plans often fail to materialize, why should we trust Him? Why should we believe that God will ultimately be victorious? As to the problem of evil, open theism can at best suggest that God empathizes with the suffering. In reality, suffering may have no meaning or value whatever. God is unable to prevent it or bring any good from it.

In the short concluding chapter of the book, Ware argues that, while open theism claims that its view of God actually heightens God’s glory, the exact opposite is the result. He shows that if God is so often unsuccessful in what He attempts, His glory is of necessity diminished. God’s sovereign control of all things is directly related to glory being ascribed to Him. If God is not sovereign, the glory He would be entitled to is decreased. Ware joyfully reaffirms God’s sovereignty and the glory that should accompany such a truth.
One of the strengths of the book is its logical format and clear exposition of ideas. The author proceeds in a clear and sensible way that helps the reader digest the information, something this reader greatly appreciated. Section headings abound. Ware successfully avoids the harsh tone of many polemic works. The book is on a level that most serious Christians could understand and profit from. The conclusions at the end of each chapter and at the end of the book are helpful, serving to review and reinforce the preceding material. I wish more authors would follow suit.

Ware repeatedly shows how open theism is not just another intramural doctrinal fracas, but a genuine deviation from orthodoxy. As the title of the book implies, the author is greatly concerned about how open theism diminishes the glory of God and God’s ability to do good for His people. Ware’s concern about how open theism may potentially downgrade Christian worship as well as denigrate the glory of God is evident throughout the work. This penetrating critique of open theism deserves a reading as well as shelf space.

Filed Under: Book Reviews

His Banner Over Me is Love: Song of Songs 2:1-4

April 13, 2008 by 2 Comments

“His Banner Over Me is Love” Song of Songs 2:1-4

by Barry Pendley

The Song of Songs (a.k.a. Song of Solomon) is a collection of love poems. The book begins with poems written by those who were dating. It progresses to poems written by newlyweds, then concludes with poems written by those who have matured in love. Solomon may have written this after he had been married for some time.

Song of Songs 2:1–4 is located in the section of dating poems. As Solomon wrote about his courtship, we should reflect back on ours. When I counsel young dating couples, I remind them that they are seeing the best of each other. The young man tries his best to woo the young woman into marriage and the young woman does the same. On certain occasions, my wife reminds me that during our dating life, I often bought her flowers, teddy bears, and showed her unique, thought through kindnesses. She has been known to ask, “What happened?” There are at least two lessons we can learn from Solomon’s courtship:

Lesson 1: You bring stability to your relationship by expressing your love in private. The couple is praising one another, most likely when they were alone. Some have suggested that since the couple refer to various flora, they are alone during a walk in the forest.
Interestingly, the book begins with a statement of love by the woman. Likewise, this section begins with a statement from the woman. Of the 117 verses in this book, over half of them are spoken by the woman. In much poetry of the times, the woman initiated the conversation. This is not to suggest some feminist agenda whereby the woman is always to take the initiative. I would say, this does suggest that communication is a two-way street. The woman has just as much right to speak her mind as her husband. And when she does, it should be as Solomon’s girl:

[She says] I am the rose of Sharon, and the lily of the valleys. [He says] As the lily among thorns, so is my love among the daughters. (vv 1–2)

She describes herself a “the rose of Sharon” and the “lily of the valleys.” The identification of both flowers are not definitively known. The word “rose” is not the kind of rose of which we usually think. This was a wildflower which grew in Sharon. Sharon was a low swampy area which produced heavy vegetation including many varieties of wildflowers. It was a common wildflower.

The “lily of the valley” is not to be confused with our Easter lily, but rather it was another common flower, the lotus or water lily. Emphasis again is on its commonality.
Solomon quickly takes her description and makes a compliment out of it. Whereas she figuratively identifies herself with common flowers,1 He calls her a “lily among the thorns.” He is not pejoratively implying that all other women are “thorny.” Rather, he is merely pointing out that she stands out from the rest.2

The dialogue continues and she gives him a compliment:

[She says] As the apple tree among the trees of the wood, so is my beloved among the sons. I sat down under his shadow with great delight, and his fruit was sweet to my taste.

She calls him an “apple tree among the trees of the wood.” The precise nature of this tree is not known. It may have been an apple tree, but the Hebrew does not demand this. Some believe that it may have been an apricot tree for 7.8 refers to its fruit as being aromatic, a more fitting description of an apricot. Whatever the type of fruit tree it is, we do know that this particular tree received special attention in that it was cultivated, pruned, and harvested.

Latter on, the prophet Joel warned Israel that her orchards would be destroyed. Among the cultivated trees were fig trees, pomegranate trees, and the apple tree. The point she makes is that Solomon is a rare find. He is like finding a cultivated tree among those that are wild and unpruned.

As Solomon and his wife-to-be were walking in the forest, they expressed their love to one another with genuine compliments. Loving words bring stability to a marriage. They ought to flow from our lips when we are with our intended or spouse.

At least one marriage about to dissolve was rescued when a wife practiced loving words. She and her husband were on the verge of divorce. The wife suggested that they go to counseling. The husband would not hear of it. So, the wife went by herself.

One night, after the woman went to counseling, she diligently worked on her homework. The husband saw her writing and thinking. Wondering what she was doing, he blurted out, “So, what did you tell the counselor about me? Did he tell you to write everything out that I have done wrong?” His wife told him, “No, quite the opposite. He told me that we would not talk about you.” The man said, “Then what are you writing?” She handed him the slip of paper. He stopped talking for over a minute, tears began to stream down his face. She was told by her counselor to go home that evening and list all of the things she appreciated about her husband. She had written nearly 50 things when her husband picked up the sheet. By the time she turned in the homework, she had identified over 75 things she appreciated about her husband.

Lesson 2: You bring stability to your relationship by expressing your love in public.
[She says] He brought me to the banqueting house, and his banner over me was love. (v 4)
She notes that Solomon expresses his love to her in public. He makes it widely known that she is his. Usually a “banqueting house” was a banquet hall where celebrations were held. Her point is that Solomon’s love for her was apparent to all who dined in the banquet hall. He made it apparent as if he was holding a banner over her.

Banners were flags raised high above a group of people to identify their group. These were used in times of peace to identify the tribes of Israel. They were also used in times of war to identify certain troops.

Solomon made his love for her so evident to all that there was no question in her mind, nor the minds of others, that he loved her. As one writer says:

“He does not say one thing in private and another thing in public. He is not warm and considerate when they are alone but cold and sarcastic when they are with others. He is not ashamed of his love for her, so he is glad for all to see it.”3

We live in a dangerous age. We must hold our banners high so others and our spouses will never question our love. Some married Christian businessmen do not see any difficulty in having a private business lunch with women who are not their wives. I know a Christian lawyer who helped his client, a single woman, by giving her rides to the court house, taking her to different legal offices, etc. His wife was suspicious, but he had the audacity to blame her for jealousy and “making something out of nothing.” Nothing ever happened physically, yet he ended up in his pastor’s office confessing to an emotional attachment. We ought never create a situation where we give our spouse reason to doubt our love. We need to hold a banner over us announcing quite clearly that we have one love, and room for only one love, our own spouse.

Conclusion We need to show mutual love and respect for our spouses and spouses-to-be. We are to do this in private as well as in public places. Do you treat your spouse poorly in private and well in public? Do you treat your spouse well in private and poorly in public? Do you treat your spouse poorly all the time? What banner are you flying over your spouse one of ridicule, one of jest, or one that displays your mutual love and affection for all to see?

Endnotes

  1. Duane Garrett, Song of Songs in The New American Commentary (Broadman, 1993) 390.
  2. Paige Patterson, Song of Solomon in Everyman’s Bible Commentary (Moody, 1986) 46.
  3. S. Craig Glickman, A Song for Lovers (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1976), 43.
Filed Under: Biblical Theology, Song of Songs (Solomon)

Book Review: The Lie by Ken Ham

April 13, 2008 by 7 Comments

Book Review: The Lie by Ken Ham

Reviewed by Barry Pendley

[amazonify]0890514461[/amazonify]Creationism is alive and well. If you were to search Amazon.com for books on Creationism (pro & con), you would find 205 books on the topic. The Institute for Creation Research, Answers in Genesis, and other organizations are equipping the modern believer to do “battle royal” against the evolutionist pundits.

You should note well that not all Creationist material is created equal. Some creationists think that by proving Noah’s Ark exists that unbelievers will be convinced that the Bible is true. Ken Ham’s approach is different. He assumes, rightly so, that unbelievers already know that the Bible is true when it speaks on matters of creationism. They merely suppress that truth so they will not find themselves accountable to the Creator God (Rom 1:19–23). Taking this approach, Ham exposes the evolutionist’s assumptions and teaches the believer how to biblically respond to those presuppositions. By reading this book, not only will you gain a greater understanding of Creationism, but you will also be introduced to the study of Apologetics (the study of defending one’s faith).
The Lie shows how evolutionism has reframed society’s ethical structure. Evolution contributes (and promotes) the moral ills of abortion, suicide, homosexuality, and racism.

Many Christians are trying to blend Genesis 1 and evolutionary thought. Ham’s book exposes the fallacies of the gap theory, day age theory, and the local flood theory.

The Lie is a good introduction to Creationism, providing a solid theological, biblical approach.

Filed Under: Book Reviews

Isaac Watts: Father of English Hymnody

April 13, 2008 by Leave a Comment

Isaac Watts: Father of English Hymnody

by Barry Pendley

“Ye monsters of the bubbling deep, Your Master’s praises spout; Up from the sands ye docclings peep, And wag your tails about.” We can thank Isaac Watts that we do not sing hymns like this anymore! One Sunday after church, Isaac told his father that something had to be done with the deplorable hymns of his day. His father challenged him, “Well then, young man, why don’t you give us something better to sing?” By the next Sunday, Watts had produced his first hymn. By the time he died, he had over six hundred hymns to his credit! He truly deserves the title The Father of English Hymnody.

Not only was Isaac Watts known as a hymn writer, he was also accomplished in many other areas. In addition to his six hundred hymns, Watts wrote books on grammar, pedagogy, ethics, three volumes of sermons, and twenty-nine treatises on theology.

Watts did not enjoy a life of ease. As a young man, he turned down the opportunity to be schooled at the highly revered Oxford University for theological reasons. He learned to stand against the crowd and pastored a non-conformist church in London by the age of 27. Shortly after becoming the pastor, he became very ill. This illness was so severe that it caused him to become semi-invalid for the rest of his life.

Watts’ hymn writing created a controversy among the churches of his day. It was the practice of contemporary hymn writers to put the Psalms to music. Though Watts also followed in that tradition, he also believed that one could compose hymns that reflected one’s own thoughts. It was considered blasphemous to sing anything other than the Psalms. If Watts had accepted the views of his day, we would not have hymns such as Joy to the World!, O God, Our Help in Ages Past, or Jesus Shall Reign.

Watts never married, but he did have a relationship through correspondence. When he met the young woman, she found his appearance so deplorable that she broke off the relationship. Instead of sulking in self-pity, Watts identified with the sufferings of Christ and composed the hymn Alas! And Did My Savior Bleed (originally entitled Godly Sorrow Arising from the Sufferings of Christ). Not only did Watts give us many hymns, he gave us a brilliant testimony of one who ministered to others in spite of great personal setbacks!

Filed Under: Historical Theology, Hymn Histories