Capital Punishment within a Christian Worldview

God entrusted to fallible, fallen, unsaved humans the responsibility of exercising justice (Deut. 1:16-17). He established the principles by which humans were to judge justly:

1. No favoritism or partiality (Lev. 19:15).
2. No allegation may be accepted without a minimum of two witnesses (Deut. 17:6).
3. When the appropriate number of witnesses are present, and the allegations are found to be true, the judges must pass an equitable sentence upon the criminal, i.e., the punishment is to be equal to the crime (Exod. 21:24-25; Lev. 24:19-21; Deut. 19:21).
4. The judges are to be present when the punishment is meted out so that they are fully aware of the effects of the punishment (Deut. 25:1-3).
5. The witnesses, in the case of capital punishment by stoning, are to be involved in carrying out the punishment (Deut. 17:3-6). This means that if witnesses have colluded and falsely accused someone, they become guilty of murder and, when discovered, will receive the same death penalty that they wrongly had inflicted upon another (Deut. 19:15-19).
6. Execution by stoning was to be done publically with the participation of the public (Deut. 17:7). This reinforced the seriousness of the crime and served as a deterrent to future criminal activity.
7. Prior to the establishment of the Mosaic Covenant and the creation of the nation of Israel, God established capital punishment as the appropriate sentence for intentional manslaughter in time of peace (Gen. 9:6)
8. Within the context of the Israelite nation, God established that the following crimes were to be punished with the death penalty

+ Intentional manslaughter in time of peace (Lev. 24:21; Num. 35:30-33). The Numbers passage is important because God says no amount of money may be accepted as reparation for murder. Only by the blood of the murderer being shed can a land be purged from the guilt of murder.
+ The owner of an animal that kills another man, if the owner knew the animal was likely to kill and did not take precaution to keep the animal away from people (Exod. 21:29). In this case, the owner may ransom his life with money if it is demanded of him (Exod. 21:30).
+ Kidnappers (Exod. 21:16)
+ Those involved in witchcraft (Exod. 22:18)
+ Those who are involved in homosexual behavior (Lev. 20:13) or beastiality (Exod. 22:19; Lev. 20:15-16)
+ If a man marries a woman and her mother, they are all to be burned with fire (Lev. 20:14)
+ Whoever blasphemes God’s name (Lev. 24:16).
+ Whoever curses his father or mother (Lev. 20:9) or strikes his father of mother (Exod. 21:15).
+ Those who commit adultery (Lev. 20:10), including the rape of or consensual sex with an engaged woman.
+ Those who commit incest (non-rape) are both killed (Lev. 20:11-12)
+ A non-Levite who gets near the tabernacle during its setup (Num. 1:51).
+ A prophet or dreamer of dreams who entices God’s people to serve other Gods (Deut. 13:3), as well as any person or group of persons who depart from God and serve other gods (Deut. 13:5ff)
+ A stubborn, rebellious son who is a glutton and a drunkard (Deut 21:18-21). It appears that after a person was stoned to death, they were hung on a tree as a warning against committing such crime. They were allowed to hang only until sundown (Deut. 21:22).

Since God is always just, God’s establishment of capital punishment for the above crimes means that it is an appropriate (equitable) punishment for the seriousness of these crimes. If the death penalty seems too severe for these crimes, that tells us that we do not view these crimes the way God does. Since God specifies that certain crimes are to be punished by stoning, others by burning, and others by hanging, none of these forms of capital punishment should be regarded as inhumane or failing to reflect a godly compassion.

The fact that God imparted responsibility to exercise capital punishment to fallible, fallen, unsaved humans tells us that the possibility, even likelihood, of injustice being done, was not a sufficient cause from God’s perspective to forbid capital punishment. It should not, therefore, be a sufficient grounds for us to oppose it.

When we value human life more than God values it, we are idolaters because we are essentially saying we know the real value of things better than God does.

Since we are not part of the nation of Israel, we as individuals do not have the freedom to enact capital punishment. However, to the extent that we can influence the laws of our land, we should seek to influence our laws to punish as capital crimes those sins that God deems worthy of capital punishment.

NT Issues:
Woman taken in adultery. Assuming that this story is actually part of the text (and there are serious questions about its authenticity), Jesus told the witnesses to stone her. He passed judgment that she was worthy of death. However, he also added a condition that exposed the hypocrisy of her accusers: “Let him that is without sin cast the first stone.” Jesus is not establishing a requirement that only those without sin can be involved in the judgment of others. If so, that would invalidate all forms of civil courts by non-Christians, but God said that those in authority in civil government are appointed by God (regardless of their personal spiritual status) and they do not “bear the sword in vain,” implying that they legitimately wield the sword (a tool of death) in the punishment of evil doers (Rom. 13:1-6).

1 Cor. 6:9-11 some of the Corinthians were formerly adulterers and homosexuals, but God washed, justified, and sanctified them. Does this show that God no longer considers these capital crimes? No. Rather it shows that these sins are not unforgiveable. Capital punishment in the OT did not preclude the possibility of repentance and forgiveness prior to being killed. Repentance, however, is not a reason to commute a death penalty for those who, according to God, deserve it. The reason the Corinthians weren’t killed for their adultery and homosexuality is because they were not living in Israel under God’s government. They were living under Roman law which did not reflect God’s perspective on these issues. We too live under laws which do not reflect God’s perspective on these issues, but as followers of Jesus, the one who gave the Mosaic Law to Israel, we must view all of life from His perspective.

Glorying in the Cross (Gal. 6:14)

But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world. (Galatians 6:14 KJV)

Ἐμοὶ δὲ μὴ γένοιτο καυχᾶσθαι εἰ μὴ ἐν τῷ σταυρῷ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, δι᾽ οὗ ἐμοὶ κόσμος ἐσταύρωται κἀγὼ κόσμῳ

What does it mean to "glory in the cross?"

The first rule of interpretation is context, and the previous two verses provide the setting.

Galatians 6:12 Those who desire to make a good showing in the flesh try to compel you to be circumcised, simply so that they will not be persecuted for the cross of Christ. 13 For those who are circumcised do not even keep the Law themselves, but they desire to have you circumcised so that they may boast in your flesh. (NASB)

As Paul makes clear throughout this letter, Judaizers were pressuring the Galatian Gentile Christians to be circumcised. Their purpose in this campaign was to avoid persecution themselves and to be able to boast about making "converts," which appears to be what Paul means by "so that they may boast in your flesh."

The word translated "boast" in v. 13 (NASB) is the same word translated "glory" in v. 14 (KJV). To "glory" in something is to view it as a basis for bragging, boasting, or being proud. BDAG offers the sense "to take pride in someth.," and the glosses "boast, glory, pride oneself, brag" for Gal. 6:13, 14.

In contrast to the Judaizers who wanted to brag or boast about a "righteousness" achieved through external conformity to the Law, specifically through circumcision, Paul asserts that he will only glory, boast, brag about the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ.

I remember singing songs about "glorying in the cross," and being uncertain what precisely it mean to glory in the cross. It is difficult to glory in the cross if I do not see the cross as more than the place Jesus died for my sins.

As I have matured in my understanding of the significance of the cross in God's plan of redemption, my appreciation for the cross (metonymy for all that was accomplished by Jesus in his atonement on the cross) has grown.

The cross should be the grounds for our boasting for at least the following reasons:

• The cross reveals the monstrous nature of my sin – the Son of God had to suffer and die to ransom me. Yet, He did!
• The cross trumpets the necessity of justice, the inevitability of punishment for sin, and an irrevocably moral universe.
• The cross testifies to the value God places upon humanity, made in His image (Col. 3:10).
• The cross unveils the vastness of God’s desire for our restoration to relationship with Himself, the unsearchable limits of His love (John 3:16; Rom. 5:8).
• The cross is a token of God's purpose to give me all that it takes to live in relationship with Him, for if God spared not His son, how shall He not also with him give me all things freely (Rom. 8:32).
• The cross was the place where Christ provided a propitiation for righteous wrath of God for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2).
• The cross frees me from the law's claim upon me – for the law views me as dead through my union with Christ – and frees me to be married to Christ and bring forth fruit to God (Rom. 7:4-6).
• On the cross Jesus bore in his body the punishment my sins rightly deserved so that I need never experience that punishment (1 Peter 2:24)
• The cross is the basis of my justification (Gal. 2:16-20).
• The cross provides me with a righteousness I could never acquire on my own (Phil. 3:9; 1 Peter 2:24)
• The cross frees me from sin’s control (Romans 6:1-7:6)
• The cross is the means by which the world has been crucified to me and I have been crucified to the world (Gal. 6:14).
• The cross leads to resurrection and new life.
• The cross is the basis for the believer's entire sanctification (actualizing my union with Christ’s death to sin) and all ongoing growth in Christlikeness (Rom. 6).
• The cross points to the sacrificial blood which now cleanses those who walk in the light from all unrighteousness (1 John 1:7).
• The cross removed the barrier to the holy of holies – the temple veil was torn from top to bottom when Jesus cried it is finished.

Hallelujah for the cross!

A Valuable Resource for Child Rearing

Several years ago, some of my friends highly recommended Ted Tripp's book Shepherding a Child's Heart. I purchased it and read it. I didn't find it significantly helpful. Probably that's a commentary on me, though Tripp's style tends to be repetitious, and I don't do repetitious well.

Recently, Lizzy Stetler posted a link to a series of five lectures by Tripp on Child Rearing. Marianne viewed the lectures and encouraged me to. The lectures are fabulous. I particularly resonated with his second lecture "Giving Kids a Vision for God's Glory." Powerful stuff!

I heartily recommend any dad (and mom) who is serious about inculcating a Christian worldview (modern term for Scripture's "wisdom") into their children to absorb all you can from these lectures.

Here are the links to the five lectures:
Session 1: The Call to Formative Instruction
Session 2: Giving Kids a Vision for God's Glory
Session 3: Helping Kids Understand Authority
Session 4: Helping Kids Understand the Heart
Session 5: Overview of Corrective Discipline

As usual, my recommendation does not constitute an endorsement of everything Tripp says. We are always responsible to search the Scriptures to verify the accuracy of any teaching.

He is able ...

• to guard what I’ve deposited with Him δι᾽ ἣν αἰτίαν καὶ ταῦτα πάσχω• ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἐπαισχύνομαι, οἶδα γὰρ ᾧ πεπίστευκα καὶ πέπεισμαι ὅτι δυνατός ἐστιν τὴν παραθήκην μου φυλάξαι εἰς ἐκείνην τὴν ἡμέραν. (2 Tim. 1:12)

• to do exceedingly abundantly above what we are asking or thinking Τῷ δὲ δυναμένῳ ὑπὲρ πάντα ποιῆσαι ὑπερεκπερισσοῦ ὧν αἰτούμεθα ἢ νοοῦμεν κατὰ τὴν δύναμιν τὴν ἐνεργουμένην ἐν ἡμῖν (Eph. 3:20)

• to cause all grace to abound unto me. δυνατεῖ δὲ ὁ θεὸς πᾶσαν χάριν περισσεῦσαι εἰς ὑμᾶς, ἵνα ἐν παντὶ πάντοτε πᾶσαν αὐτάρκειαν ἔχοντες περισσεύητε εἰς πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαθόν, (2 Cor. 9:8)

• to help those who are being tested ἐν ᾧ γὰρ πέπονθεν αὐτὸς πειρασθείς, δύναται τοῖς πειραζομένοις βοηθῆσαι. (Heb. 2:18)

• to save to the uttermost those who come to God through him. ὅθεν καὶ σῴζειν εἰς τὸ παντελὲς δύναται τοὺς προσερχομένους δι᾽ αὐτοῦ τῷ θεῷ, πάντοτε ζῶν εἰς τὸ ἐντυγχάνειν ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν. (Heb. 7:25)

• to guard us from stumbling and present us blameless before his glory with great joy. Τῷ δὲ δυναμένῳ φυλάξαι ὑμᾶς ἀπταίστους καὶ στῆσαι κατενώπιον τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ ἀμώμους ἐν ἀγαλλιάσει (Jude 1:24)

• to subdue all things to himself. ὃς μετασχηματίσει τὸ σῶμα τῆς ταπεινώσεως ἡμῶν σύμμορφον τῷ σώματι τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ κατὰ τὴν ἐνέργειαν τοῦ δύνασθαι αὐτὸν καὶ ὑποτάξαι αὐτῷ τὰ πάντα. (Phil. 3:21)

• to heal blind eyes. ἐλθόντι δὲ εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν προσῆλθον αὐτῷ οἱ τυφλοί, καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς• πιστεύετε ὅτι δύναμαι τοῦτο ποιῆσαι; λέγουσιν αὐτῷ• ναὶ κύριε. τότε ἥψατο τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν αὐτῶν λέγων• κατὰ τὴν πίστιν ὑμῶν γενηθήτω ὑμῖν. (Matt. 9:28-29)

Lord Jesus, I rejoice that you are able! You are more than able to enable me with overcoming power, more than able to give victory again! I rejoice in your ability!

I'm really enjoying using Bagster's Daily Light in BibleWorks 8. This resource offers thematically selected Scripture readings for morning and evening. In BW 8, they can be read in Greek and Hebrew as well (see below).

God sanctifies Himself (Ezek. 38:23)

Last Sunday I shared a SS lesson with the combined Adult and Young Adult classes at Burlington Bible Methodist Church. I attempted to answer three questions:

1. What does it mean for God to sanctify Himself (Ezek. 38:23)?
2. What does it mean for us to sanctify God?
3. How do the answers to the first two questions relate to the first petition of the Lord's pattern prayer, "Hallowed by thy name?"

In this post I share my answer to the first question. As I journeyed through all the OT texts on holiness, I was struck by the following verses.

Isaiah 5:16 But the LORD of hosts will be exalted in judgment, And the holy God will be sanctified in righteousness.

Ezekiel 20:41 "As a soothing aroma I will accept you when I bring you out from the peoples and gather you from the lands where you are scattered; and I will be sanctified among you in the sight of the nations.

Ezekiel 28:22 and say, 'Thus says the Lord GOD, "Behold, I am against you, O Sidon, And I will be glorified in your midst. Then they will know that I am the LORD when I execute judgments in her, And I will be sanctified in her.

Ezekiel 28:25 'Thus says the Lord GOD, "When I gather the house of Israel from the peoples among whom they are scattered, and will be sanctified in them in the sight of the nations, then they will live in their land which I gave to My servant Jacob.

Ezekiel 36:23 "I will sanctify My great name which has been profaned among the nations, which you have profaned in their midst. Then the nations will know that I am the LORD," declares the Lord GOD, "when I am sanctified among you in their sight.

Ezekiel 38:23 "I will magnify Myself, sanctify Myself, and make Myself known in the sight of many nations; and they will know that I am the LORD."'

Ezekiel 39:27 "When I bring them back from the peoples and gather them from the lands of their enemies, then I shall be sanctified through them in the sight of the many nations.

"Sanctified" appears to have the same basic information component in reference to God that it does in reference to things or human persons: separateness or set apartness. God is sanctified when He acts in a way that clearly separates Him, i.e., distinguishes Him, from the pantheon of ANE gods.

His name had been profaned ("made common, ordinary") by the exile of Israel. From the standpoint of the watching world, Yahweh turned out to be no more powerful than any of the other gods that Nebuchadnezzar's military juggernaut had toppled. Yahweh was, in fact, less power than the Babylonian gods, because the Babylonian gods had empowered Nebuchadnezzar to capture His city and destroy His temple.

This is what Yahweh will not tolerate: being made to look ordinary. Thus he promises that He will sanctify Himself (distinguish Himself from all others), magnify Himself (demonstrate His greatness to the world), and make Himself known in the sight of many nations (Ezek. 38:23) by bringing Israel back from exile and reestablishing her in her land.

The statement that he "is sanctified in righteousness" (Isa. 5:16) deserves special attention. Righteousness in Hebrew, contrary to what many theological word books say, is "conformity to a standard." I am convinced that Lev. 19:35-36 and Deut. 25:13-15 provide the key texts for understanding what it means for something to be righteous: it measures up to the standard under consideration. A righteous scale is one that weighs a pound as a pound and not as a 1.5 lbs or .75 lbs. Righteousness in persons is their conformity to whatever standard is under consideration.

Righteousness in God is God's conformity to His own standards, i.e., His self-consistency. Since God's character sets the standard for righteous behavior in human morals, since character is the standard to which He always adhere. And this is one of the things that sanctifies Him, i.e., sets Him apart and establishes His incomparableness. If the ANE gods were anything, they were fickle and perfidious. This is precisely the opposite of the character of Yahweh. He is righteous in all His ways.

When we pray the first petition of the Lord's prayer, one of the things we are asking God to do is act in the world in a way that clearly manifests the unique excellence of His character and being thereby distinguishing Himself, setting Himself apart, from all others "gods."

Discovery: 1 Peter 1:16 quotes Leviticus 19

I was sitting in chapel a month ago and Dad was doing a great job preaching 1 Peter 1:13-16. This is a great text that demonstrates that NT apostles understood the Pentateuch to provide immediately applicable commands for NT believers.

Verse 16 is Peter's quotation from Leviticus that buttresses his apostolic injunction to be holy in all your conduct: because it is written, "YOU SHALL BE HOLY, FOR I AM HOLY."

I was sitting there with my copy of Biblia Sacra (combined Hebrew & Greek Bible), and I noticed the Greek syntax of the quotation placed "holy" in an emphatic position: ἅγιοι ἔσεσθε, ὅτι ἐγὼ ἅγιός.

Just out of curiosity, I decided to look at the syntax of the Hebrew text in the places in Leviticus where this statement is made (Lev. 11:44, 45; 19:2; cf. Lev. 20:7). What struck me as I looked is that Leviticus 19:2 is the only place where the Hebrew syntax exactly matches the Greek syntax of 1 Peter 1:16.

וִהְיִיתֶ֣ם קְדֹשִׁ֔ים כִּ֥י קָד֖וֹשׁ אָ֑נִי (Lev. 11:44)
וִהְיִיתֶ֣ם קְדֹשִׁ֔ים כִּ֥י קָד֖וֹשׁ אָֽנִי׃ (Lev. 11:45)
קְדֹשִׁ֣ים תִּהְי֑וּ כִּ֣י קָד֔וֹשׁ אֲנִ֖י יְהוָ֥ה אֱלֹהֵיכֶֽם׃ (Lev. 19:2)

What further piqued my interest was that Peter's "in all your conduct" fits Lev. 19 much better than it fits Lev. 11. Leviticus 11:44 is part of the conclusion of a section on clean and unclean foods and is followed by a chapter on purification of women after childbirth.

I have been slowly memorizing and meditating on Leviticus 19 for about 6 months. I had come to the conclusion that God's "be holy for I am holy" in v. 2 is not merely one command in a list of commands, but is the key command that controls the entire chapter.

Specifically, fearing one's parents (v. 3), keeping His sabbaths (v. 3), rejecting idolatry (v. 4), worshiping God according to His specifications (vv. 5-8), caring for foreigners and the needy (9-10), not stealing or lying (v. 11), not swearing falsely (v. 12), loving your neighbor (v. 18) ... in fact the entire chapter is an explication of what it means to be holy "in all conduct."

I couldn't wait for chapel to be over so I could go check the LXX to see if, in fact, the variations in Hebrew syntax had been maintained in Lev. 11 and 19. I was a bit disappointed to find that it wasn't.

Lev 11:44 ἅγιοι ἔσεσθε ὅτι ἅγιός εἰμι ἐγὼ κύριος ὁ θεὸς ὑμῶν
Lev 11:45 ἔσεσθε ἅγιοι ὅτι ἅγιός εἰμι ἐγὼ κύριος
Lev 19:2 ἅγιοι ἔσεσθε ὅτι ἐγὼ ἅγιος κύριος ὁ θεὸς ὑμῶν
1 Pe 1:16 ἅγιοι ἔσεσθε, ὅτι ἐγὼ ἅγιός

In Leviticus 11:44, the LXX doesn't reflect the Hebrew syntax and places "holy" before "you shall be." So ... the syntax really doesn't decide the question of what text Peter was quoting. I suspect that those identifying cross-references just picked Lev. 11:44 because it was the first place this command occurs. However, I did notice that the syntax of 1 Peter 1:16 does perfectly match Lev. 19:2 as far as it goes.

Bottom line: Both the syntax and the context of Leviticus 19 make it a much better fit as a proof text for Peter's command to "be holy in all your conduct."

Application: In AL this week, I preached a two part message on 1 Peter 1:14-16 and Leviticus 19:1-18. Lev. 19:15-18 was a message all of its own, and, wow, what a powerful text on holy living! In fact, even though conduct is on front stage of this chapter, vv. 17-18 powerfully demonstrate that the holiness God wants from His people has always been a heart holiness that manifests itself in one's life.

To be holy as God is holy is to have the same excellence of character and conduct distinguishing us from the world that distinguishes God from all others gods.

Deut. 6:6-7 -- Train them when you sit, walk, lie down, get up ... what am I supposed to say?

In Deuteronomy 6:6-7, God says,

6 These words that I am giving you today are to be in your heart. 7 Repeat them to your children. Talk about them when you sit in your house and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. (Holman Christian Standard Bible)

The KJV of v. 7 reads, "thou shalt teach them diligently." When I think of teaching, I think primarily of a setting where one person imparts information to others who do not have that information.

That needs to happen, but it isn't what God is talking about in this the classic passage on child training. The word translated "teach" in the KJV means "repeat." By using the word repeat God focuses on the method of instruction, not on the instruction itself.

Every teacher knows repetition aids learning. The Master Teacher commands parents to repeat His words (contextually, the Ten Words which are the Ten Commandments) to their children, not just daily, but all throughout the day.

I'm trying to take this to heart. So, my kids have learned the Ten Commandments Song, and Allan can accurately quote them and identify them by number. At almost five, he's showing a fairly decent understanding of what they mean.

But does Deut. 6:6-7 mean I'm supposed to quote the Ten Commandments at least four times each day to my kids? Three considerations suggest a negative answer to that question.

1. If there is any repetitive distillation of biblical wisdom that expounds the implications of God's Ten Words, it is the Book of Proverbs. Yet, Proverbs is far from being dull, monotonous, or inartistic. Its literary variety in vocabulary, syntax, and structure make its repetitions interesting and lively. Proverbs is, in fact, an explicit biblical model for parental obedience to Deut. 6:6-7. Say it over and over, but beware unvaried pattern.
2. The Ten Words themselves are actually applications of the two greatest words God has given us: Love God wholeheartedly, and love your neighbor as yourself. In and on these two commands hangs all God desires from us. Therefore, our daily repetitions must include them, flow from them, and point to them.
3. Although the Ten Words are the immediate context of Deut. 6:6-7, the entire book is a restatement of God's Torah (instructions) for His people. God promises success and blessing to those to memorize and meditate upon, not merely the Ten Words, but the totality of His Torah (Josh. 1:8; Psalm 1:1-3, etc.)

That means that the totality of God's word is to be the repeated object of conversation with our children when they rise, walk with us, sit with us, and when they go to bed. ... The problem is where to start.

Here's a few of the things I've been doing to implement God's method of child training. I welcome your ideas as well.

• I started quoting Psalm 23 (with appropriate hand motions) when I put the boys to bed. Thanks to Mark Cravens for this idea. Psalm 23 lead to Psalm 1 which has lead to Psalm 19--what I'm currently working on.
  
• When we eat breakfast together, Marianne or I play Scripture off biblegateway.com. Allan's favorite is the entire book of Jonah. But we vary the texts.
• Sunday we have nearly 2 hours of driving time in the car. So I am putting together a family radio program that is a mix of Scripture, children's songs (1, 2), familiar hymns (1, 2), and children's stories. This is also a part of my attempt to make the Sabbath a special day for the boys.
• We memorize verses during family worship.

I was reading William Law's A Serious Call to a Devout and Holy Life this afternoon. Chapter 18 is well-worth a parent's time reading, especially dads. Starting on p. 147 of the pdf version, William Law introduces "Paternus," a father who talks to his 10 year old son about God. I was struck by the solid, Scriptural advice Paternus gives his son. In fact, I intend to incorporate some of it (in modernized English) into my repertoire of key truths I want to inculcate in my sons. Here are a couple samples:

Aspire after nothing but your own purity and perfection, and have no ambition, but to do everything in so reasonable and religious a manner, that you may be glad that God is everywhere present, and sees and observes all your actions.

I can bring you food and medicines, but have no power to turn them into your relief and nourishment. It is God alone that can do this for you. Therefore, my child, fear, and worship, and love God. Your eyes, indeed, cannot yet see Him. But all things that you see are so many marks of His power and presence, and He is nearer to you than anything that you can see. Take Him for your Lord, and Father, and Friend, look up unto Him as the fountain and cause of all the good that you have received through my hands; and reverence me only as the bearer and minister of God's good things unto you. And He that blessed my father before I was born, will bless you when I am dead.

A Reader's Hebrew Bible: Appendix A Available For Download

Zondervan has given me permission to make Appendix A--the glossary containing all words occurring over 100x-- available as a free download. I have formatted the document so that it can be printed double-sided as a booklet. For the booklet version click here: http://apbrown2.net/rhbappendixa.pdf

If the booklet format is too hard to figure out how to print (it can be difficult), you can download a full-pageversion which you can then print in whatever way you prefer. For the full-page version click here: http://apbrown2.net/rhbappendixa_full.pdf

Tole, Lege!
Philip Brown

What does it mean to believe in Jesus?

Since I require my Advanced Homiletics students to preach either John 3:1-13 or John 3:14-21 as their third sermon, I’ve heard 7 messages on both passages within the last 2 weeks.

The frequent occurrence of the verb πιστεύω in John 3:1-21 has caused the issue of what it means to believe in Jesus to resurface in my thinking. The key phrases are
• Everyone who believes in him [the Son of Man] (John 13:5)
• Everyone who believes in him [the Son] (John 3:16)
• The one who believes in him [the Son] (John 3:18a)
• The one who does not believe has been condemned (John 3:18b)
• Because he has not believed on the name of the only Son of God (John 3:18c)

Theologically, I know that for faith to be saving faith it must bear the fruit of obedience to Christ (James 2:22-26). There is no Lordless salvation (Matt. 7:21). But “believe on Jesus” seems so cognitive, so cerebral, so non-heartish … it almost seems to lend itself to a religion of the head apart from the heart.

A common answer to my question—you must mentally affirm that Jesus is God’s Son, that he died for your sins, and rose again for your justification, and that He will save you from your sins if you ask him to—has in many parts of Christendom yielded a harvest of orthodox heads and adulterous hearts and lives.

Today I had a breakthrough. Baptism helps explain what it means to believe in Jesus.

Many Christians don’t realize that baptism is not a uniquely Christian rite. In the first century, baptism was a common practice among both Jews and Pagans. It was an initiatory ritual by which one signified one’s commitment to become an adherent to a religious sect. John the Baptist is the prime NT example of this (John 4:1). However, we find descriptions of similar rites from Qumran, in Josephus, and in Greek literature.

When one was baptized in the name of X, the one baptized was announcing his intention to be with and learn from X. In other words, it was common knowledge that getting baptized was a public declaration that you were becoming a disciple of someone or something.

Immediately following the calls to belief in John 3:1-21, John states that “After these things Jesus and His disciples came into the land of Judea, and there He was spending time with them and baptizing” (John 3:22). In other words, people who “believe” in Jesus get baptized in his name, thereby signifying that they are becoming His disciples, apprentices, followers—people who were going to pattern their whole lives after Him and His teaching.

“Believing” is a mental affirmation, but it more than mental affirmation. It means staking my whole life on Jesus’ claim that He is the way to God and there is no other way. It means willingly yoking myself to him so that I can learn how to do life His way (Matt. 11:29). It means decisively abandoning my old way of life and being baptized into apprenticeship to a new way of life—His way.

It means being willing to forsake father, mother, sister, brother, wife, houses, lands, and even my own life, in order to pattern the totality of my existence after Him (Mark 10:28-30). It means believing that Jesus is the Master of every facet of life, so I must be his disciple in every facet of mine.

That’s what it meant to the Philippian jailer when Paul said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved” (Acts 16:31). He recognized that belief required baptism in Jesus’ name, and baptism in Jesus' name symbolized his entrance into a brand new life of learning to think and act and react like Jesus.

That is what it means to believe in Jesus.

A Reader's Hebrew Bible: WLC-BHS Differences Clarification

I recently received a question about the Qere readings in 1 Sam 18:14, 22 that appear in BHS but do not appear in the Westminister Leningrad Codex (WLC) and therefore do not appear in A Reader's Hebrew Bible (RHB). The questioner wondered why the black dot that normally marks WLC-BHS differences in RHB did not appear there.

A fair question, and here, I hope, is a fair answer. According to the WLC 4.10 morphology, there are 56 instances where BHS adds a Qere that is not present in L. The Qere readings in 1 Sam. 18:14 and 22 are two such instances. Although I have not checked all 56 instances in BHS, the few I did check showed that BHS was following a note in the masorah in adding the Qere reading.

On page xvi of RHB's introduction, we said that RHB will mark with a supra-linear solid black dot all known instances where the editors of WLC read the text of L differently than the editors of BHS. Additions of Qere readings to L do not constitute a different reading of L's text as it stands. Therefore, such instances are not marked in RHB.

I suspect that many, if not most, users of BHS do not pay attention to whether Qere readings are marked as added to L by BHS, and thus would (wrongly) assume that RHB should reflect BHS at all points. Such is not the case.

Giving Thanks for God's Holiness (Psa. 97:12), Part 1

Jonathan Edward's The Religious Affections, John Piper's lecture on Preaching as Worship (TrinJ 16) and my study of holiness in the OT converged in a sermon this morning on Psalm 97.

I've been listening to The Religious Affections in spare moments for nearly a year. At times it is brilliant. At others monotonously stuporific. His thesis is that true religion, in great part, consists in holy affections. His biblical-theological support for his thesis is unassailable. (Pdf copy of Religious Affections here.)

Edwards defines the affections as "the more vigorous and sensible exercises of the inclinations and the will." He clarifies this by noting that the inclinations and the will are actually the same thing, just viewed from two different perspectives. It is called "inclination" when viewed from the angle of desire; it is called "will" when viewed from the angle of decision and action.

Edwards asserts, rightly I believe, that "there never was any thing considerable brought to pass in the heart or life of any man, by the things of religion, until the mind was deeply affected by those things." Therefore, one of the chief aims of preaching is to stir up the affections so that the will is vigorously and sensibly active in responding to God's truth.

In Piper's language, preaching should "bring into sharp focus God as the all-satisfying Treasure of our lives." Our aim should be "that God would become so gloriously all-satisfying in our lives that nothing can lure us away from him."

What holy affections should God's holiness stir in me? How does God's holiness contribute to His being the "all-satisfying Treasure" of my life? In the Psalms alone I found the following:

Inspired responses to God's holiness

• give thanks for it (Psa 30:4; 97:12)
• worship Him for it (Psa. 29:2; 96:9; 99:5, 9)
• praise Him because of it (Psa. 99:3)
• exalt Him for it (Psa. 99:5, 9)

Inspired responses to God’s holy name

• it is the object of our trust (Psa 33:21)
• bless it (Psa. 103:1; 145:21)
• glory or boast in it (Psa. 105:3)
• give thanks to it (Psa. 106:47)

Most of these responses made immediate sense to me. However, giving thanks at the remembrance of God's holiness did not. Why is thankfulness or gratitude the response to God's holiness? I can't honestly say that my previous understanding of God's holiness has ever moved me to be thankful. What is it about God's holiness that should move me to thankfulness?

The answer to that question depends upon my understanding of what God's holiness is. Based on my study so far, here's my best understanding.

Holiness, when used in reference to God, normally denotes God's separateness from all things due to the unique excellence of His being and character. In this sense, God's holiness is not one moral attribute among His many. His holiness is not equal to His moral excellence. His holiness is a consequence of His moral excellence. He is separate from all things because He is superior in both His being and His character.

I conclude that separateness is the essential component of holiness, whether in reference to things, human persons, or God, for the following reasons:

1. With reference to things and human persons, all examples from Scripture involve the person or thing being separated from ordinary use, service, or purpose unto God for His possession, use, service, or purpose. For a fairly comprehensive list of the referents of holy and holiness, click here.

• Things: 7th day (Gen. 2:3); ground (Exod. 3:5), assemblies (Exod. 13:2), war (Jer. 6:4), a fast (Joel 2:5).
• Persons: 1st born (Exod. 13:2), Israelites (Exod. 19:10), Jesse and sons (1 Sam. 16:5), Jeremiah (Jer. 1:5).
  

2. Since God teaches us about His holiness by first acquainting us with holiness applied to things and persons, His holiness must be essentially analogous to the holiness of things and persons. Since separateness is the essential component of holiness with person and things, I assume it is the essential component with God.

3. My assumption that separateness is the essential component of divine holiness appears to be substantiated by texts that connect God's holiness with his incomparableness (Exod. 15:11; Isa. 40:25) and his transcendence (Psa. 97:9, 12; Isa. 57:15).

If God's holiness is His separateness from all things , what is it that makes Him separate? As I read the OT data, it is the unique excellence of God's being and character that separates him from all things.

The unique excellence of His being involves His attributes of omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, eternality, immutability, self-existence, self-sufficiency, infinity, and sovereignty. The unique excellence of His character involves His love, righteousness, justice, mercy, wisdom, goodness, wrathfulness, truthfulness, and jealousy.

In my next post, I'll develop the support for concluding that it is the unique excellence of God's being and character that separates him from all other things.

John Piper: Preaching as Worship

I found this address by John Piper this morning. It resonates with me and challenges me.

"Let me point to three biblical reasons for believing that preaching is meant to be and to kindle God-exalting worship.

First, I believe it because the Word of God says that everything is to be done in a worshipful, God-centered way: "Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God" (1 Cor 10:31); "Whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus" (Col 3:17). If everything is to be radically oriented on magnifying the glory of God and exalting the name of Jesus, how much more preaching. Whatever preaching deals with-and it is to deal with everything-it must be done with a view to begetting and sustaining worship-the valuing and cherishing and displaying of the glory of God.

Second, I believe that preaching is meant to exalt the centrality of God because the Word says that God himself exalts his own centrality in all that he does. And preaching is one of the great things that God does. God's Word in Isa 48:11 is like a great banner flying over all his acts from creation to consummation: "For My own sake, for My own sake, I will act; For how can My name be profaned? And My glory I will not give to another." He chose us and predestined us for his glory (Eph 1:6), he created us [believers] for his glory (Isa 43:7), he saved us for his glory (Eph 1:14); he sanctifies us for his glory (2 Thess 1:12). All God does he does to magnify his glory in the earth. Preaching is one of the great things that God does. It is God's work. And therefore the mission of preaching is the mission of God: "I will be exalted among the nations, I will be exalted in the earth" (Ps 46:10). Our aim is worship-the valuing and cherishing and displaying of the greatness and the glory of God.

Finally, I believe that preaching is meant to exalt the centrality of God because the NT teaches that the appointed end of preaching is faith, and faith is the primary covenant requirement of God, precisely because it humbles us and amplifies the trustworthiness and all-sufficiency of God. Repeatedly Paul lines up preaching with faith as its goal: "How shall they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? . . . So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ" (Rom 10:14, 17). "Since in the wisdom of God the world did not know God through its wisdom, God was pleased through the foolishness of preaching to save those who believe" (1 Cor 1:21). "My message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that your faith should not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God" (1 Cor 2:4-5; cf. also Rom 16:25f; 1 Cor 15:11, 14.) The aim of preaching is to beget and sustain faith. Why? Because faith magnifies the power and trustworthiness of God. This is why Paul loves the model of Abraham: Abraham "grew strong in his faith, giving glory to God, fully convinced that God was able to what he had promised" (Rom 4:20). The heart of saving faith is a spiritual apprehension of the glorious trustworthiness of God in Christ and an earnest embracing of all that God is for us in Christ to satisfy the hunger of the soul.

That is the way Jesus described faith in John 6:35: "I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst." Believing in Jesus means coming to him for the quenching of our souls' thirst. Faith in Christ is being satisfied with all that God is for us in Jesus. When we experience that, we magnify the preciousness and worth of God, because God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in him-which means we worship.

The aim of preaching, whatever the topic, whatever the text, is this kind of faith-to quicken in the soul a satisfaction with all that God is for us in Jesus, because this satisfaction magnifies God's all-sufficient glory; and that is worship. Therefore the mission of all preaching is soul-satisfying, God-exalting worship."

Rudolph Otto’s The Idea of the Holy: Worthless

Rudolph Otto was a German Protestant theologian and historian of religion. In 1923 the first English translation of his German work The Idea of the Holy appeared. It has become, as Victor P. Hamilton’s says, “one of the books most frequently referred to in this area [holiness].” I was reading Hamilton's Handbook on the Pentateuch today, and he referenced Otto. In fact, Otto was the only author he referenced in his discussion of holiness in Genesis 1-2 (short paragraph).

Frankly, I’m sick and tired of references to this book. Scholars regularly pay lip service to it as though it constitutes a signal contribution to a knowledge of holiness. Admittedly, Hamilton notes that “Otto does not address … the fact that God’s holiness gives the basis to his moral demands.” But the fact that his is the only work referenced by Hamilton suggests he is significant and worth reading. Today I looked up on the book on Google books and read around in it, particularly his chapter, “The Numenous in the Old Testament.”

The first thing I noticed is that the focus on the book is not on what holiness is in Scripture, but rather on the experience men have when encountering what they regard as holy. The subtitle of the book is significant: “An Inquiry into the Non-Rational Factor in the Idea of the Divine and its Relation to the Rational.”

John C. Durham accurately capture’s Otto’s understanding of holiness: “Otto characterizes the numinous as the holy (i.e. God) minus its moral and rational aspects. A little more positively, it is the ineffable core of religion: the experience of it cannot to be described in terms of other experiences. [Note that the German heilig can be rendered as either holy or sacred. The translator had to make a choice and chose holy. So in the context of Otto, for holy it is possible to read sacred: the religious experience he discusses is the experience of the sacred.]” (www.bytrent.demon.co.uk/otto1.html).

Second, Otto’s work assumes an evolutionary, Hegelian view of religious development from the primitive to the advanced. This perspective is completely unbiblical and at odds with the current movements in Western religion. We’re heading polytheistic again.

Otto's treatment of the OT is shot through with rationalistic, history of religions assumptions: Again, Durham captures it well: “In the chapter on the numinous in the Old Testament, Otto discusses the transition of the Old Testament God from an early Yahweh, still bearing traces of the 'daemonic dread' of the pre-god stage of the numinous , to an Elohim in whom 'the rational aspect outweighs the numinous' [p 75], though the latter continues to be very much present.”

Third, as Durham's site points out, Otto never uses the Latin phrase most commonly attributed to him (Hamilton cites it): mysterium tremendum et fascinosum [sic]. According to Durham, the et fascinans was added to Otto's mysterium tremendum by Ninian Smart. This observation suggests what I have long suspected: that few of those who cite Otto have read Otto, and that he is cited because he "must be."

My conclusion: The Idea of the Holy book offers the bible-believing scholar nothing of value for understanding the nature of biblical holiness. Biblical scholars should stop citing it, unless they intend to expose its worthlessness.

Defining Holiness: Where to start?

I find it a very common practice by theologians to insist upon beginning with God when defining holiness. With the resurgence of trinitarian theology, the focus has been on beginning with God’s trinitarian nature and relationships as the matrix for holiness. Some have gone so far as to assert that if one’s definition of holiness does not work within the Trinity before creation it is incorrect.

Logically, it makes sense to begin with God. Clearly, God is holy (Exod. 15:11). He is incomparable in holiness (Isa. 40:25). What interests me is that God does not start our understanding of holiness where theologians think He should. (Who knows where He started Adam’s?!) If we take the canonical order of the Torah as His chosen starting point for preserving His revelation for our understanding, then God starts teaching us about holiness with non-personal items: a day, some dirt, and an assembly.

A holy day
In Gen. 2:3 God makes the seventh day holy because in it He rested from all his labors. Several things are noteworthy here:
• “To sanctify” here denotes God’s action in setting the day apart from the other six days on which He worked unto a special purpose: rest.
• The sanctification of the day made it special. In other words, it is not an ordinary day but a special day by virtue of having been set apart (made holy) for rest.
• Without any preconceived idea of what the verb qadash means, it is clear that it involves separating something from the ordinary unto the special.

Holy dirt
In Exod. 3:5 God tells Moses that the dirt he is standing on is holy. What made the dirt holy? I take it that God’s special presence made the ground holy. I note here that …
• holy ground requires special treatment. Moses had to take off his sandals.
• the fact that it was “holy” meant it had been separated from ordinary use unto special use by God.
• Here again separation from the common/ordinary unto special use/treatment by God is at the core of the meaning of holy.

A holy assembly
In Exod. 12:16 God designates the first and seventh day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread as days upon which a “holy assembly” was to be held. The text does not specify the purpose of the assembly, but Ezek. 46:3, 9 indicate it was for the purpose of worshiping Yahweh.

What is “holy” about this assembly? The text reveals that no work was to be done on these days, except for the work needed to cook. Again, God separates a day from ordinary days by prohibiting work and separates it unto a special purpose: assembly for worship. Holy in this context appears then to have the sense of “special as a result of a having been set apart by God.”

In each of the first three pentateuchal texts where God calls something holy, the meaning of the word holy involves the ideas of “separated from common use/activity unto special use/activity by God” or “special because of having been separated for a special purpose.”

Surprised by covetousness

On Tuesday, I was reading Romans 7 as part of my Scripture reading during my personal worship time. Verse 7 stuck out since we are teaching our son, Allan, the ten commandments.

Romans 7:7 Τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν; ὁ νόμος ἁμαρτία; μὴ γένοιτο· ἀλλὰ τὴν ἁμαρτίαν οὐκ ἔγνων εἰ μὴ διὰ νόμου· τήν τε γὰρ ἐπιθυμίαν οὐκ ᾔδειν εἰ μὴ ὁ νόμος ἔλεγεν· οὐκ ἐπιθυμήσεις.

What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never be! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, "You shall not covet." (NASB)

I was surprised to see that the noun “coveting” = ἐπιθυμία; the verb is a form of ἐπιθυμέω. The standard words for desire, strong desire, frequently translated "lust" by the KJV! Is that what coveting is--desire?

So I checked the LXX. It uses ἐπιθυμέω in Exod. 20 and Deut. 5. Then I checked BDAG, Louw-Nida, and Friberg. None of them list “covet” as a sense of ἐπιθυμέω! Then I went to the Hebrew: חמד is the verb translated “covet.” HALOT does not list ‘covet’ as a sense. It lists “to desire.”

So I looked up “covet” in the Oxford English Dictionary and it lists the 10th commandment under sense three “to desire culpably, to long for (what belongs to another). Sense 1 was ‘desire, eagerly desire.’ Sense 2 to desire with concupiscience or fleshly desire.

Conclusion: “Covet” is not a technical term distinct from other terms for desire. It is the normal word for desire.

This shifts my understanding of the commandment. You shall not desire your neighbor’s wife. You shall not desire your neighbor’s house. When something belongs to another, to desire that very item is wrong. To desire an item like it, then I assume, is not wrong. To desire a wife like one’s neighbor’s wife is ok.

Wow, this ties into 1 John 2:15-17 and worldliness. Since "the things in the world" are lusts -- ἐπιθυμία -- all worldliness is a violation of the 10th commandment as well as a violation of the 1st commandment.

Holiness through the OT looking glass

In He Gave Us Stories Richard L. Pratt calls the OT text a three-fold looking glass: a translucent window that opens upon events in the ancient world, a stained-glass window that presents a highly selective, ideologically focused drama, and a silvered mirror which shows us ourselves in others' garb. Pratt’s metaphor deserves the biblical theologian’s regular meditation. Most of us easily forget Scripture’s stained-glass nature and think only of it as a transparent pane, however circumscribed, for viewing God’s Kingdom plan unfolding step by step, phase by phase.

Such forgetfulness leads to serious exegetical error. First, we think that because the text does not say the ancients knew something, therefore they did not know it. This is a conclusion unreasonable and unsustainable.

The NT off-handedly attributes knowledge to OT characters of which there is not the slightest hint in the Hebrew Scriptures. For example, Jude tells us that Enoch prophesied Yahweh’s coming in judgment with multiplied thousands of his holy ones (Jude 1:14). While most would relegate any apocalyptic knowledge or interest to millenniums later, it in fact existed at least a mere seven generations from Adam, if it was not known from the beginning.

The bounds of inscripturated revelation have never compassed the totality of special revelation. That is to say, God revealed (many?) things to those who were His people that Scripture does not tell us.

What does this mean for a study of holiness? It means the biblical theologian must not assert that the near absence of holiness terminology in Genesis reflects a relatively great ignorance of its meaning and nature by the characters in Genesis. It also means that the biblical theologian should be refuse the temptation to trace boldly the historical development of this concept, since he have no way of knowing what was known when, unless the text tells him.

The second danger of such forgetfulness is the temptation to follow Scripture’s canonical sequence in the false assumption of chronological sequence. We do not know when, during Moses' lifetime, Genesis was written, but we do know that Exodus 1-13 was likely to have been written after Exodus 19-23.

How do we know this? Did Moses chronicle his birth, flight, the ten plagues, the Exodus before arriving at Sinai? I think it most unlikely. It seems far more likely that the 38 years of wilderness wandering provided Moses time for the inspired literary activity that gave us the narrative framing of Genesis, Exodus and Numbers.

What does this mean for a study of holiness? It means the biblical theologian who follows the canonical path through the Pentateuch does not follow the chronology of special revelation. He follows the literary path laid down by the Spirit's inspiration of theological narrative.

Survey of Holiness in the OT

I just finished, last night, a journey through every OT text that has any of the cognate Hebrew terms for holiness. There are 823 instances of the following cognates: the verb q-d-sh, the noun qodesh, and the adjectives qadosh and qadesh. I’ve been on the journey off and on for about a month.

Three things prompted my study. First, my SS class asked for a study on holiness and its related topics. Second, Dad and I have been discussing the nature of God’s holiness for a couple months. Third, in his book Portraits of God, Allan Coppedge asserts, “A survey of the data indicates that the meaning of holiness has six major components. They [are] the concepts of separation, brilliance, righteousness, love, power and goodness” (p. 51).

My previous studies of the concept of holiness had lead me to conclude that holiness at its essence is separateness. When applied to human persons, it is separation unto God from the common and ordinary as well as the sinful and defiling. When applied to God … well, I wasn’t exactly sure. I’d been taught it was his transcendence and moral purity or perhaps his moral excellence. But Coppedge’s statement challenged my previous understanding. Hence the current study.

I’m still sifting through the data, but several things stand out to me.

1. Having surveyed the data, I have not found any data that supports Coppedge’s assertion that the meaning of holiness includes the concepts of brilliance, love, power, or goodness. The data overwhelmingly points toward separateness as core to the meaning of holiness. I’ll say more about holiness and righteousness later.
2. I was reminded that the term “saint” or “holy one” is not coined by Paul in the NT, but used by Paul in the same way it is used in the OT (Psalm 16:3; 34:9).
3. Several texts jumped out at me as establishing the conceptual basis for Peter’s admonition to “sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts” in 1 Peter 3:15.
4. The first petition of the Lord’s prayer has roots in Leviticus, Isaiah, and especially Ezekiel that I’ve never heard articulated in the pulpit.
5. Jesus’ sanctification of himself (John 17:19) has a parallel in Yahweh’s sanctification of himself (Ezek. 38:23).

In subsequent posts, I plan, Lord willing, to develop these concepts.

RHB: 1st Printing Sold; 2nd Printing Has Arrived

I just learned from Zondervan that the first printing of A Reader's Hebrew Bible has completely sold out (hence the "out of stock" notice on Amazon.com).

The good news is that the second printing has arrived and will soon be shipping to suppliers. The second printing includes a significant number of corrections, including the unfortunate tsere-segel problem in Genesis. For a complete list of errata, including the corrections included in the second edition as well as those to be fixed in future printings, click here.

Man looks at the outward appearance, but God ... 1 Sam. 16:7

“Why do you have a class that addresses trivial external matters like modesty, gender-distinct clothing, or 1 Cor. 11:2-16? Don’t you know that ‘man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart?’” ~student

1 Samuel 16:7 But the LORD said to Samuel, “Do not look at his appearance or at the height of his stature, because I have rejected him; for God sees not as man sees, for man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart.”

1 Samuel 16:7 is often used to silence substantive discussion about externals in the life of a Christian and ranks among the most misunderstood and misused texts in Scripture.

The context of this verse is Samuel's mission to anoint a replacement for King Saul. When Samuel observed the excellent physical characteristics of Jesse's first son, Eliab, he assumed wrongly that he was God's choice.

God corrects Samuel's impression by informing him that whereas Samuel can see only the outside, God can see the inside and His choices are based upon the heart.

There are several reasons why this text does not imply that God is concerned only with heart issues and does not care about externals.
1. God does not say he cares only about the heart. He says that He can see the heart; whereas man cannot.
2. Both the Old and New Testaments give ample evidence that God does care about externals.

Old Testament
For example, God required Israelites to wear tassels on their outer garments to remind them of His commandments (Num. 15:38-39; Deut. 22:12). He required Israelite men not to cut their beards (Lev. 19:7; 21:5). This requirement made Israelite men standout significantly from their upper class ANE counterparts’ highly stylized beards (e.g., here or here). God designed garments for His priests to wear “for glory and beauty” (Exod. 28:2, 40).

New Testament
In Matt. 6:17 Jesus commands us to wash our faces and anoint our heads when fasting. In other words, make the outside look nice so that the discomfort of fasting does not appear.
In 1 Cor. 11:2-16 God clearly addresses men and women’s hair: long hair on a man is a shame; shorn or shaven hair on a woman is a shame, whereas long hair is a woman’s glory.
In 1 Tim. 2:9-10, the Holy Spirit inspired Paul to write about how women are and are not to adorn their outside.

The idea that teaching about outward appearances is necessarily unspiritual and legalistic flies in the face of Scripture itself. If we teach the whole counsel of God’s word, then we will teach the parts that address, whether explicitly or implicitly (e.g., Rom. 12:2), our “outward appearance.”

The whole counsel of God teaches that our outward appearance should be a consciously designed reflection of our inward love for God and passion for His glory. God looks upon both the heart and the outward appearance. Since man can see only the outward appearance, how much more zealous should we be to live out love’s obedience to our Father’s external commands, that men may see our good works and glorify our Father who is in heaven!

What the Bible Teaches about the Destiny of the Wicked

The destiny of the wicked in eternity is commonly referred to as Hell. The English word “hell” is used in the New Testament to translate three different Greek words: gehenna γεέννα (Matt. 5:22, 29-30; 10:28; 18:9; 23:15, 33; Mk. 9:43, 45, 47; Lk. 12:5; Jas. 3:6), hades ᾅδης (Matt. 11:23; 16:18; Lk. 10:15; 16:23; Acts 2:27, 31; Rev. 1:18; 6:8; 20:13-14), and Tartarus ταρταρόω (2 Peter 2:4). Other terms denoting the place where the wicked are punished include “the furnace of fire” (Matt. 13:42, 50), “eternal fire” (Matt. 18:8; 25:41; Jude 1:7), “the lake of fire” (Rev. 19:20; 20:10, 14, 15), “the outer darkness” (Matt. 8:12; 22:13; 25:30), and “the blackness of darkness” or “utter darkness” (Jude 1:13).

Hades is described in Luke 16:23ff as a place of (1) self-awareness, (2) torment/agony in flames, (3) memory and remorse, (4) perception of Paradise, and (5) separation from God and the righteous by a great chasm. It is the temporary holding place for the wicked dead until the Great White Throne Judgment. Hades is then cast into the Lake of Fire (Rev. 20:11-15).

Gehenna is described as a furnace of unquenchable, eternal fire where there is weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth (Matt. 13:41-42; 18:8; Mark 9:43-48). Jesus said eternal fire (Gehenna) was created for the punishment of the devil and his angels (Matt. 25:41). It is where God is able to destroy both the body and soul (Matt. 10:28)

The lake of fire is where the beast, the false prophet, the devil, death, Hades, and all those whose names are not written in the book of life are thrown (Rev. 19:20, 20:10, 14-15). It is described as (1) a place of eternal torment in fire and brimstone, and (2) the second death. Those who worship the beast and receive his mark are tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and the Lamb, the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever, and they have no rest day and night (Rev. 14:10-12). Although not explicitly called the lake of fire, the description of this place matches the lake of fire identically. Because of their similar descriptions, Gehenna and the lake of fire apparently refer to the same place.

The abyss. The abyss or bottomless pit (Rev. 9:1-2, 11) is a place demons on earth fear (Luke 8:12). It is where Satan will be bound for 1,000 years (Rev. 20:3). The abyss and the lake of fire are distinct places. The beast comes out of the abyss and goes to the destruction of the lake of fire (Rev. 17:8; 19:20), and Satan is loosed from the bottomless pit and is finally cast into the lake of fire (Rev. 20:7, 10). The abyss does not directly relate to the punishment of wicked humans. It appears to be a place of temporary punishment and imprisonment for wicked angels.

Scripture describes the eternal punishment (Matt. 25:46) of the wicked in terms of death, perishing, destruction, and banishment. Punishment as death/perishing. To understand spiritual death, one must understand the nature of spiritual life. According to Jesus, eternal life is being in right relationship with God (John 17:3). Eternal death, therefore, is not being in right relationship with God. Sinners are dead spiritually now (Eph. 2:1) and will experience the “second death” forever (Rev. 21:8). To “perish” is to “die.” The unsaved are perishing now (2 Cor. 2:15), and unless they repent they will perish eternally (Luk 13:3).

Punishment as destruction. In 2 Thess. 1:9 the wicked are punished with “eternal destruction away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his power.” Matt. 24:48-51 juxtaposes destruction and continued existence. The evil slave is cut in pieces, which would normally terminate conscious existence. However, the diced up slave is “assigned a place with the hypocrites where there is weeping and teeth gnashing.” This destruction encompasses both soul and body (Matt. 10:28), thus requiring the resurrection of the wicked’s body (John 5:28-29; Act 24:15). The phrase “whose worm does not die” may picture the never-ending corruption experienced by the wicked (Mark 9:42ff).

Punishment as banishment. The wicked are told to depart from Christ (Matt. 7:21-23) and are cast (Matt 8:12; 13:42, 50; 25:30; Mk. 9:42-48) into Gehenna/the outer darkness which is “outside” the New Jerusalem (Rev. 22:14). They are shut out of the marriage feast and refused entry (Matt. 25:10).

God and Hell. God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked (Ezek. 33:11). It is not his desire that anyone should perish (2 Pet. 3:9; Matt. 18:14). Some have asserted that God sends no one to hell (e.g., C. S. Lewis), but this cannot stand scripturally for it is Jesus as Judge who commands that men depart from him into everlasting fire (Matt. 25:41). From God’s perspective, according to Scripture, sin against Him deserves eternal punishment. This confirms our common sense awareness that the seriousness of a crime is, in part, a function of the importance of the person against whom it is committed. To insist a God of love could not punish eternally is to misunderstand God’s love, deny His revelation, and to imply that you are more merciful/benevolent than God Himself.

The question that surfaces most frequently when discussing eternal punishment in Hell is “Why is the punishment for a finite sinful act never-ending?” The Bible does not answer this question directly. However, the best answers I’ve found include the following elements: (1) God is just; therefore, whatever penalty he prescribes for sin must be just. (2) Sin is an offense against an infinite Being; therefore, it is not entirely finite in nature. (3) We cannot determine the extent of sin’s effects, so we do not know that sin’s effects are finite. Eternal punishment suggests that they are eternal. (4) Although Hell’s punishment is never-ending, all sinners do not receive the same level of punishment. In Luke 12:47-48 Jesus says those who knowingly do wrong will receive many stripes, but those who unknowingly do wrong will receive few stripes (cf. Rom. 2:12).

Our response. Fear God (Matt. 10:28) and do whatever it takes to avoid being cast into hell (Matt. 5:29-30). In eternity, hell is abhorrent to the saints and perhaps serves to remind them of the consequence of rebellion (Isa. 66:24). My study of this topic has again impressed on me
the horrors of eternal, conscious punishment in hell. No wonder Jesus told his disciples to do whatever it takes to avoid going to hell (Mark 9:43-48).

Brothers and sisters, let us fear God, depart from evil, and flee to Christ!

What Should I Think When I Hear of Sin in the Church?

1. I should mourn (1 Cor. 5:1-2). I mourn because of the shame that is brought upon God’s holy name. I mourn because of the stumbling block such sin is in the path of unbelievers. I mourn because of the damage to the body of Christ. I mourn for the families affected by the sin—families are never exempted from such suffering. I mourn because of the destruction that such sin produces in the lives of those deceived by it.

2. I should reject the temptation to gossip. Prior to the the enactment of church discipline, if another person is not part of the problem or part of the solution, I am gossiping if I share information with them that they do not have. I say, “prior to the enactment of church discipline,” because one of the purposes for church discipline is that believers would “hear and fear” (1 Tim. 5:20). What about people who already have that information? Eph. 5:12 says, “It is a shame even to talk of those things which are done of them in secret.” That means I do not discuss the details of sin with others.

If someone is offering to share information with me about a situation where believers have fallen into sin, I ask them if they think I am part of the problem or part of the solution to this situation. If they say no, I then inform that that it would be gossiping to pass that information on.

3. I pray for the repentance of those who have sinned—a full 180 degree turn around—and restoration to Christ, first, and then to the Body, second. Sin in enslaving (Rom. 6:16). Those involved need to be freed. Sin in destructive (Gal. 6:7). It takes a long time to rebuild after the destruction of sin in a life.

4. I pray for grace to be given to those who are involved in Galatians 6:1 restoring those overtaken in a fault. The human heart is extremely devious, and the enemy likes to use every opportunity to cause others to fall, especially those who are involved in restoring the fallen.

5. I pray that God would protect me from dwelling upon the sin and would keep me from stumbling in my mind.

6. I pray that God would increase my fear of Him so that I would always turn aside from evil. I recognize that apart from the grace of God, I too could be enslaved by sin.

7. I pray for the family, immediate associates, subordinates, and others directly affected by the fallout of the sin. The devil will be tempting them to be bitter, hateful, angry, resentful in their thoughts as well as their actions toward these people. If it is immorality, the devil will do his worst to destroy the family of those involved. I pray for God’s protection, comfort, sustaining grace to surround and support those who have been betrayed and wronged.

A Reader's Hebrew Bible: Errata Reports

I just received word from Stephen Salisbury at Westminster that he received his copies of A Reader's Hebrew Bible today. I'm delighted to hear that it is shipping earlier than expected.

I would encourage users to do two things: (1) read the introduction carefully, and (2) read the review of the volume I posted on January 23, 2008 here. The Genesis errata list promised there is now finished and available here.

I also welcome reports of errata. Please report them as comments on this post or to readershebrew@gmail.com. If errata is posted as comments to this post other users will be able to see what has already been reported.

Happy reading!

Update: 6/19/2008
Known issues:
1. Esther 1, footnotes 6-21 do not match the footnotes in the text. Beginning with ftnt 22, the footnotes are back in sync. Really odd database issue.
2. Deut. 5:21 the verb that should be the second word in the verse accidentally wrapped up to the previous line and appears in v. 16.
Update: 7/10/2008
A full errata list for A Reader's Hebrew Bible is available online here.

Thinking Like Jesus = Missional Living (John 4:34)

John 4:34 λέγει αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς· ἐμὸν βρῶμά ἐστιν ἵνα ποιήσω τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πέμψαντός με καὶ τελειώσω αὐτοῦ τὸ ἔργον.

“My food is that I might do the will of the One who sent me and that I might finish his work.”

This passage arrested me yesterday.

Food is what sustains and empowers life. Life, as we know it, revolves around food. Work schedules created by the reasonable inevitably make temporal room for food. Food is important!

Jesus’ life revolved around food as well: His food was doing the will of the One who sent him. Jesus had a clear perception of His sent-ness. Do you?

Scripture teaches that God brought each of us into this world for a purpose. Paul says, “We are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus, for good works which he prepared ahead of time so that we should walk in them” (Eph. 2:10). It’s the “prepared ahead of time” part of that verse that tells me that God has pre-planned a set of jobs He wants us to do. We, too, have been “sent” into this world on a mission. (And, no, that doesn’t imply the belief in the exist of pre-incarnate souls.)

Do you view yourself as having been sent? Jesus did. We should too. When I think of myself as having been sent by God into this world, my life—all of it—becomes missional. God’s plan is not just a framework within which I create my own mission. God’s plan, according to Psalm 139, involves every single day of my life (Psa. 139:16).

Thus the will and work of the One who sent me is to grade tests, instruct my children in the ways of God, husband my wife, prepare and give lectures, do academic research, write papers, publish, .... In other words, every part of my life that reflects God’s will (all of it!) is part of the work God has sent me to do.

This gives me purpose and meaning. It also sobers me to realize that I am responsible to finish the work He has given me. The “talents” the master has left me are not just the gifts and capacities he has bestowed. My “talents” also include my opportunities and my responsibilities.

Father, please help me to think like Jesus: “My food is to do Your will and complete the work You have sent me to do,” so that I may pray like Jesus, “I have glorified You on the earth, having accomplished the work which You have given Me to do” (John 17:4).

A Reader's Hebrew Bible: A Review by its Typesetter

It is unusual for the typesetter of a volume to review it. It is perhaps even more unusual for a volume’s typesetter to also be one of its principal editors. Both are true in my case. Although I obviously have a vested interest in A Reader’s Hebrew Bible, as the review below will demonstrate, I believe I am uniquely positioned to review the volume in a way that time constraints would forbid to most users.

Binding, Gilding, Thickness, and Paper
On Dec. 20, 2007, I excitedly opened the overnighted package containing the advanced author’s copy of A Reader’s Hebrew Bible (RHB). I was quite pleased with the Italian Duo-tone cover. The look and feel were pleasing, even elegant. The silver edging of the pages gives it a Biblesque look.

I had been unsure about how thick the volume would be, especially since I would eventually like to see it combined with A Reader’s Greek New Testament (RGNT). I was pleased that the volume was only 1 5/8 inches thick. When I placed my RGNT on top of it, the combined thickness wasn’t any greater than the NASB Inductive Study Bible that I regularly carry, so the potential for a combined edition still exists.

When I opened the volume, the first thing I noticed was the paper on which it was printed. It appeared to be the same as the RGNT. The whiteness allowed more bleed through than I would have preferred, but in good lighting the text is easily readable, and the bleed through quickly ceased to be distracting as I put the volume to use. (I’m in dialogue with Zondervan about the possibility of using the same paper type used in Biblia Sacra: Utriusque Testamenti or BHS. However, the first lot of books has already been printed, so any changes will come in subsequent printings.)

Suspended Letters, Inverted Nun’s, and other Masoretic Esoteria
After looking at the craftsmanship of the volume, I had a short list of items that I wanted to check on: suspended letters, inverted nun’s, the large letters in the Shema‘, and the small print in Joshua 21:36-37—the Leningrad Codex does not contain these two verses that most other Masoretic manuscripts contain. I had included them because they are included in Westminster’s electronic version of L, and they are included in BHS.

All the suspended letters came through nicely (Jdg. 18:30; Job 38:13, 15; Ps. 80:14), but I was distressed to see the masoretic accent telisha parvum in the two texts where inverted nun’s occur (Num. 10:35-36, and Psalm 107:21-26, 40 [RHB pages 1220-21]).

I checked the PageMaker files, and the inverted nun’s were present. I checked the PDFs I sent to Zondervan, and sure enough the inverted nun’s were missing! Further checking revealed that PDF generator I used will not embed any character of any font located in the position I had assigned to that character! Item one for my errata list.

The large letters in Deut. 6:4 came through nicely, as did the other large and small letters (Lev. 11:42; Num. 27:5; Prov. 16:28; Isa. 44:14; Jer. 39:13). When I checked the small print of Joshua 21:36-37, it occurred to me that I had not included an explanation of the brackets used there in the introduction. The brackets indicate that these two verses do not appear in the Leningrad Codex. Item two for the errata list.

An Unfortunate Set of Spelling Errors in Genesis
Earlier this month, as I was reading Genesis 1:20, the unusual spelling of nephesh caught my attention. I looked up the verse in BibleWorks, and confirmed that the word was indeed mispelled in RHB. Upon investigating, I found that an error in the typesetting code (i.e., the VBA program I wrote to handle the layout and typesetting) had, unbeknowns to me, corrupted the spelling of 322 words in Genesis, before it was caught and corrected. Fortunately, this error affects only Genesis. Most unfortunately, it affects Genesis!

The precise nature of the error is as follows: four instances of segol + a sub-linear accent were replaced with tsere + a different sub-linear accent. Specifically, the segol + accent combinations shown in the upper row of the chart below were replaced by the tsere + accent combinations below them.

The first column’s error will be the most noticeable since all first year Hebrew students learn that the silluq is the accent that normally occurs on the last word in a Hebrew verse. The segol + silluq combination was replaced with a tsere + tebir combination in 84 instances, thus there will be 84 instances of a tebir at the end of a verse that should be a silluq. The errors represented by last three columns occur respectively 111 times, 108 times, and 19 times. A complete list of this these spelling mistakes in Genesis is available here. Items 3–324 for the errata list.

HALOT as a Gloss Source
I have reservations about the accuracy of HALOT’s glosses. Having glossed over 48,000 of the 60,650 instances of Hebrew/Aramaic words found in RHB, I found myself surprised on more than a few occasions by the infelicity of the glosses supplied in HALOT. At times, some of these were the result of a poor or mistaken translation from the German HALAT into English. Other times, it appeared that whoever had written the particular entry I was working with had not given adequate consideration to the context when they listed a given verse under a particular sense.

Nonetheless, HALOT is considered the foremost Hebrew lexicon in English, and therefore, deserves to be represented, if for no other reason than to bring its glosses into closer scrutiny by Hebrew scholars. For this reason alone, I would encourage those Hebrew scholars whose knowledge of Hebrew vocabulary allows them to read unhindered in any part of the Hebrew Bible to make use of the volume nonetheless. HALOT deserves more scrutiny than it has received to the present.

Screening of Proper Nouns in Gray
There a number of places where prefixed prepositions were improperly screened in gray (Gen 2:8; 13:5; 1Kgs 21:23; 2Kgs 2:15; Jer. 32:8; Est 9:15; 2Ch 1:13; 14:12). In all of these cases, it should be contextually clear to the reader that the initial character is not part of the name but is a preposition. More items for the errata list.

Typesetting of Vowels & Accents
Proficiency in reading and exegeting Hebrew has little bearing on a comprehensive understanding of the appropriate placement of Hebrew vowel-points and accents. I discovered the complexity of the issue and the inadequacy of a single TrueType font to handle all the potential combinations about half-way through the project.

Despite all the progress made in unicode fonts, I was not comfortable typesetting Hebrew with unicode in MS Word 2003, the word processing program I used to layout the project, and PageMaker 7.0 does not handle unicode fonts at all. (I know about InDesign, but decided to stick with what I knew.) More importantly, I specifically wanted the font face to make shifting back and forth from BHS relatively easy. As a consequence, I developed eight additional TrueType font sets, based on the BibleWorks Hebrew font, to accommodate the varieties of vowel-point + accent positioning. It was also necessary to write code to find these combinations in the text and properly position the vowel-points and accents.

The most noticeable placement error I have found in RHB is the placement of hireq + yetib. It is wrongly placed to the right side of the letter under which it occurs, rather than centered underneath it. See, for example, the preposition ‘im in 1 Kgs 1:7, 9 or the preposition ki in Eccl. 4:15. Once this is fixed in the typesetting code, it will no longer be an issue.

Another accent placement issue involves the occurrence of a meteg or silluq on a patach furtive. My code did not account for this combination and, therefore, the accent was not appropriately shifted to the right along with the patach furtive. See, for example, Psalm 132:15.

Those who are highly attuned to the masoretic accentuation system will note with frequency an accent anomaly caused by a coding mistake. All instances of a tsere + munah appear as tsere + mereka. See, for example, metey in Isa. 5:13, which should have a munah rather than a mereka.

A niggling issue that has bothered me enough to note it is that the size of the holem is inconsistent. With the holem vav, the size is fine, but the holem by itself strikes me as too small. I will enlarge it for better readability.

Line Breaks in Poetry
For the most part, I have been satisfied with the poetic line breaks of RHB. I have encountered a few places so far where a more felicitous line break is possible. For example, in Isaiah 2:2, the first line would break better at the zaqef qaton, rather than its current break. I welcome user feedback to identify such places.

WLC-BHS Differences
The Westminister Leningrad Codex (WLC) morphology notes around 500 instances where the WLC differs from the 1983 edition of BHS. When compared the 1997 edition of BHS, there was a much greater uniformity between the two texts. My comparison identified only 27 instances were WLC disagrees with BHS. However, when making this comparison I did not factor in instances in which BHS suggests a Qere reading that is not offered in the Leningrad Codex. See, for example, haksheyr in Eccl. 10:10 where neither WLC or L offer a Qere reading, but BHS does. The Westminster morphology (4.8) identifies 58 instances concerning which they say, “We have abandoned or added a ketiv/qere relative to BHS. In doing this we agree with L against BHS.” These instances have not yet been completely verified.

Conclusion
Even though I had 4 years of Hebrew in grad school and teach Hebrew on the undergraduate level, I still find my knowledge of Hebrew vocabulary sufficiently limited to make reading through Proverbs or Isaiah vocabulary-vexing.

The foremost reason motivating my desire to create RHB was that I wanted to be able to read Hebrew Wisdom Literature devotionally without constantly having to resort to a lexicon, and I didn’t want to have to be bound to my computer so that I could mouse over unknown vocabulary for a gloss. This purpose is more than adequately accomplished in RHB.

Having ranged through a healthy sampling of the Hebrew Bible in the month since I have received my copy, I recognize it is not a perfect volume. It will, however, enable its users to accomplish the objectives for which it was produced: develop skill in reading Hebrew through regular exposure to large portions of the Hebrew Bible.

I recommend that professors of Hebrew who have their classes read through portions of Genesis as well as users whose Hebrew skills are not sufficient to identify immediately the instances in Genesis where a tsere wrongly occurs instead of a segol print off a copy of the errata sheet soon to be provided and carry it with them. For those for whom this does not constitute a challenge, I believe you will find the volume a valuable means to achieving and maintaining a reading fluency in Hebrew.

Wisdom in Ecclesiastes

The noun "wisdom" (chokmah), adjective "wise" (chakam), and verb "to be wise" (ch-k-m) occur a total of 58 times in Ecclesiastes.

My best understanding of Ecclesiastes' core message is Permanent meaning and satisfaction are not found in any of life's components, but only in life's Creator. ~Jim Berg

Solomon (Qoheleth) drives this wisdom-nail firmly into place (cf. Ecc. 12:11) by consistently juxtaposing the positive and negative sides of any topic he addresses. His treatment of wisdom is no exception.

What follows is my best attempt to summarize Ecclesiastes' explicit teaching on wisdom.

Wisdom comes from God, and He gives it to those who please Him (2:26). Wisdom is attainable to those who set their hearts to know it (1:13, 16-17), but one cannot know all the wisdom there is to know (7:23; 8:16-17). There is more profit in wisdom than in folly just as light is better than darkness (2:12-13), for wisdom enables the wise to see where he is going, whereas the fool can't see his path (2:14). However, wisdom does not enable one to see the future (9:1), and it takes only a little folly to outweigh the benefits of wisdom and honor (10:1).

It is better to listen to the rebuke of a wise man than to listen to the song of fools (7:5). It is better to be young, poor, and wise than old, rich, and foolish (4:13), but the wisdom of the poor is despised (9:16). Wisdom with an inheritance is good and profitable for those who see the sun (7:11). In fact, wisdom is better than money; though both offer protection, wisdom can save your life (7:12). However, wisdom can't save one from death, for all die (2:16). Further, wisdom is useless in the grave, so make vigorous use of it you can while you're alive (9:10). And beware for wisdom improperly displayed (being "over wise") can destroy you (7:16).

Wisdom gives more strength to a wise man than ten rulers give to a city (7:19). Wisdom is better than strength (9:16), for it can help to win a war with a small force, but the poor wise man is soon forgotten once a crisis passes (9:15) and his wisdom is despised (9:16b) . Wisdom is better than weapons of war, but one sinner destroys much good (9:18).

A wise heart knows the right time and procedure (8:5). Wisdom has the advantage of giving success (10:10), but the appetite is never satisfied, so in this regard there is no advantage to the wise over the fool (6:8). Wisdom gives success, but the race is not always won by the swift, bread is not always to the wise nor is wealth always to the discerning, but time and chance (under the sun perspective) happen to all (9:11). Wisdom makes a man's face shine (8:1), but in much wisdom there is much grief (1:18), and the reality of oppression is maddening to the wise (7:7). Wisdom may enable one to do accomplish great things, but it cannot guarantee that the one who inherits its profit will use it wisely and not squander it (2:19-21), nor can it ensure that its possessor will not be forgotten, for there is no lasting remembrance of the wise (2:14).

The wise value the house of mourning over the house of pleasure (7:4), for it reminds them of their mortality and the certainty of judgment (11:9). Wisdom doesn't value the past over the present (7:10), but whatever it finds to do, it does it with all its might (9:10).

The words of the wise heart in quiet are better than the shouting of a ruler among fools (9:17). The words of wise men are gracious (10:12), even though they are goads (12:11).

A Newly Discovered Well of Delight (Ephesians 3:18-19a)

On a Thursday in October, I finished teaching through Ephesians for the sixth time in six years. Having one student in Prison Epistles this year permitted me to employ Socrates’ teaching method extensively. It bears good fruit.

This year I dug deeper into Ephesians 3:17-18 and discovered a well of truth that has been delighting my soul. I hope it will yours as well. First the context.

Eph. 3:14’s “For this cause” is the closing parenthesis of the parenthetical statement Paul began in 3:2. The opening parenthesis is the “For this cause” in 3:1. The “cause” that motivated Paul to bow in prayer is found in 2:21-22. God is building us into a temple in which He will dwell by His Spirit.

Scenic Exegetical Detour: In Eph. 2:22 the word translated habitation (KJV) or dwelling (NASB) occurs 18x throughout the OT, but it is most frequently used (10x) in statements about Heaven as the habitation or dwelling place of God. Perhaps Paul had Solomon’s use of this term (1 Kings 8:39, 43, 49; cf. Psa. 33:14 [LXX 32:14]) in the back of His mind? Though Solomon had built a magnificent temple for worshiping Yahweh, he knew Heaven was Yahweh’s dwelling place. But Paul seems to be saying that God intends to have a change of residence some day: we will be His habitation!

Because God is in this building program, Paul prays that He would strengthen the Ephesians inwardly by His Spirit so that (purpose infinitive) Christ may dwell in their hearts (16-17a). Wait a minute, Paul. You said yourself that “he that does not have the Spirit of Christ is none of His” (Rom. 8:9). Why are you praying for Christ to dwell in their hearts when He already does?

I think Paul would say, “Notice that I used katoikeo, not oikeo or enoikeo.” The verb katoikeo can denote taking up permanent residence (cf. Mat. 2:23; 4:13). Louw-Nida offer, “to live or dwell in a place in an established or settled manner.” I don’t think the permanence of Christ’s dwelling is at issue here, for Christ does not enter and dwell in a new believer’s life only temporarily. He enters intent to stay eternally.

Rather, the focus of “dwell” in Eph. 3:17 seems to be on what dwelling in an established or settled manner implies: making oneself completely at home in the residence. Here then is the crux of the matter. In order for us to be the permanent dwelling place of God, we must first by strengthened by the Spirit so that Christ may make himself fully at home in our lives – by faith.

By faith! Whose faith? Surely, ours not Christ’s. And why faith? What additional faith/trust is requisite for Christ to make himself fully at home in our lives? Faith that gladly, willingly allows Him access to every room, attic and cellar, closet and shed of my life. Faith that believes any renovations of heart and life He wants are good and in my best interest. Faith that believes His plans are better than mine, His paths are perfect. Indeed, it is a profoundly strong faith that is needed, thus Paul’s prayer for inner strengthening by the Spirit.

And here is that joy-well I mentioned: v. 18-19a. “that you may be able to comprehend with all the saints length and breadth and height and depth and to know the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge ….”

To be honest, v. 18 never meant much to me before this semester. Most of the commentators I’ve read after like to soar eloquent on the height, depth, length, and breadth of Christ’s love. His condescension; the universal scope of his love; the cross as the measure of the length of his love. Don’t get me wrong. Those are all marvelous truths, but they didn’t resonate with me in this context.

Then it occurred to me that “to know” in Greek can indicate experiential knowledge and not just cognitive knowledge. That’s when the light turned on for me. Paul is talking about experiencing the unlimited love of Christ in all of its dimensions! That’s why he opened v. 18 with a “that” (KJV) or “so that” (NASB)—this verse indicates the purpose for Christ’s dwelling in our hearts.

Christ wants to make himself fully at home in our hearts so that He can fill all the “rooms” of our lives with His limitless love. Even though his love surpasses knowledge (cognitively), it can be known experientially! Ah, here is a joy-generating thought: If I, by faith, grant Christ unhindered access to every dimension of my life, He, whose love always has my best interest and his greatest glory at heart, will allow me to experience His unfathomable love in all of its limitlessness!

Herein lies the beauty of Christ in us, “the hope of glory.” It glory now and greater glory yet to come! Who wouldn’t want to experience the limitless love of Christ?

O Father, would you not by your Spirit strengthen me mightily that your Son may make himself fully at home in my heart so that I might come to know experientially the vastness of his love. Amen.

Galatians 5:17 Breakthrough!

Galatians 5:16 Le,gw de,( pneu,mati peripatei/te kai. evpiqumi,an sarko.j ouv mh. tele,shteÅ ¹⁷ h` ga.r sa.rx evpiqumei/ kata. tou/ pneu,matoj( to. de. pneu/ma kata. th/j sarko,j( tau/ta ga.r avllh,loij avnti,keitai( i[na mh. a] eva.n qe,lhte tau/ta poih/teÅ <sup>18</sup> eiv de. pneu,mati a;gesqe( ouvk evste. u`po. no,monÅ (If this looks like gibberish, download the Greek font bwgrkl.tff from my left sidebar)

For years Galatians 5:17 has bothered me.

On a straightforward reading, it has always seemed to me to contradict verses 16 and 18. My way around the problem has been to say, “Whatever v. 17 means, it can’t be a denial of verses 16 and 18.” Yesterday, during the yearly Brown family Theology Fest, we had a breakthrough!

This year our family theology fest is focusing on the NT’s use of “flesh,” particularly those passages in which it is used in a morally negative sense. We started with Romans on Tuesday afternoon and we made it to Galatians 5:16-18 by yesterday afternoon.

Verse 16 is an incredible promise. An expanded translation helps give its full import. “But I say, be walking in the Spirit and you will never fulfill the desire of the flesh.”

Paul uses a double negative construction to make his negation as emphatic as possible. His point is that a Christian can and will resist fulfilling the lusts of the flesh, if he constantly submits to the Spirit’s control in his life. A life free from willful sin is every Christian’s privilege!

However, everything that verse 16 promises seems to be snatched away with verse 17. “For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.”

It’s that last phrase that seems so strange. For years I have read it as asserting that there is a statemate between the flesh and the Spirit and, as a result, the flesh wins by default. It almost seems to be Rom. 7:25 in different words.

Nathan voiced this observation, I concurred, and Dad flatly disagreed. He argued that v. 17 is saying the exact opposite of what we were saying. There is indeed a conflict of desires between the flesh and the Spirit, but it is not a stalemate; the Spirit wins! We were both incredulous. We had never heard this interpretation from Dad, from whom both of us have learned much of what we know.

No way! Where in the world did you come up with that? Dad seemed to think it's what he had “always” said. Nathan grabbed Grace in Galatia by Ben Witherington III for a third opinion, and Witherington shocked us by concurring with Dad.

As I sat looking at the Greek text, I began to see how that interpretation actually fits the text better than what I had previously regarded as a “straightforward” reading of the text.

1. Verse 17 starts with "for" (ga.r) indicating that verse 17 is a logical extension of verse 16. It is not contrast; it is continuation. The second "for" in v. 17 is a parenthetical explanation of why the flesh and the Spirit have opposite desires.

2. As Witherington points out, there are three possible ways to take v. 17c: (1) you cannot do the good things you (by the Spirit) want to do, (2) you cannot do the bad things you (by the flesh) want to do, or (3) you cannot do either the good or the bad. The third option is nonsense, so that leaves (1) and (2).

Since v. 17 is a logical extension of v. 16, it doesn't make sense to say, "Walk in the spirit and you won't fulfill the lusts of the flesh, for you cannot do the good things you want to do." That leaves only option (2).

3. The KJV translation "you cannot do the things you would" is, at best, misleading. The Greek text says nothing about ability. It does not use dunatai or other similar verbs that deal with capacity or ability. The two verbs in 17c are subjunctives and should be translated to reflect that mood: "...with the result that you may not be doing whatever things you may be desiring."

4. The phrase "whatever things you may be desiring," then, refers to the desires of the flesh. We can paraphrase this last part of verse 17 this way: "so that you by walking in the Spirit may not be doing whatever things your flesh may be desiring."

To recap: verse 16 identifies the solution to the problem of the flesh: walk in the Spirit. Verse 17 explains why this solution is necessary: the flesh and the Spirit are opposed to one another, and the only way to avoid fulfilling the flesh's lusts is by walking in the Spirit.

Verse 18 reinforces this conclusion from a different angle. If you are being led by the Spirit, which is another way of talking about walking in the Spirit, then you are not "under law." The Galatians were being told by Judaizers that they must be under the Mosaic convenant, through circumcision, to be saved. Paul refutes this idea by pointing out that what is begun by the Spirit cannot be completed by something done to the flesh. Being led by the Spirit is the antithesis of living according to the flesh, which places a person under the law.

Degrees of Holiness, Degrees of Reward

I was recently asked, “Do degrees of holiness here on earth result in degrees of reward in Heaven?”

The question assumes there are degrees of holiness. Is that true? When we consult the OT, we see degrees of holiness in the tabernacle. The courtyard and all its equipment were holy, the “holy place” was more holy than the surrounding tabernacle, and the holy of holies was the most holy of all.

Are there degrees of holiness in people ? When we are saved we are made holy (1 Cor. 1:2). This holiness is real, but it is limited. It has not been integrated into every facet of our thoughts and behavior. Thus, it is often the case that new believers who are holy, act unwittingly in unholy ways. The Corinthians are a classic example (1 Cor. 1:2; 3:1-3). The more our minds are transformed to think as God thinks, the more holy our lives become (cf. 2 Cor. 7:1). Holy living flows from holy thinking that is motivated by love for God.

About five year ago I read A Life God Rewards by Bruce Wilkinson. It revolutionized my thinking on the topic of rewards. I found things to disagree with, but I would heartily recommend (most of) this book to all for prayerful, scriptural examination.

To answer the question posed to me, I did a quick examination of the New Testament’s teaching about rewards. Here’s what I found. Jesus taught that God rewards those who

• love those who do not love them (Mat. 5:46-48),
• do what is right without seeking to be noticed by men (Mat. 6:1),
• give to the poor without public acclaim (Mat. 6:3-4),
• pray in private (Mat. 6:6),
• fast without calling attention to their fasting (Mat. 6:16-18),
• receive a prophet or a righteous man (Mat. 10:41),
• or give even a cup of cold water to a child (Mat. 10:42; Mark 9:41).

Jesus promises “great reward” (degrees of reward!) to two groups: those who are persecuted, lied about, hated, ostracized, insulted, or scorned as evil for Christ's sake (Mat. 5:12; Luke 6:23), and those who love their enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return (Luke 6:35). In fact, Jesus commands us to "leap (for joy)" because of the great reward persecution secures for us in Heaven (Luke 6:23).

Jesus also teaches that those who make profitable use of the capacities God has given them will be rewarded. The parables of the talents and minas (Matt. 5:14-30; Luke 19:11-27) are interesting because the master rewards faithful servants with administrative responsibility—“I will put you in charge of many things” (Matt. 25:21); “you are to be in authority over ten cities” (Luke 19:17).

I infer from these passages that the rewards of Heaven are not primarily, if at all, monetary. Jesus rewards faithful servants by increasing their responsibility and breadth of service. Eternity is not about sitting on clouds, strumming harps, nor it is simply an endless praise service. Earthly work is preparation for eternal service for our King on a much grander scale. Work in Heaven?! Don’t be disheartened! You can be confident that our Designer will so fit our heavenly service to our design that we find it incomparably enjoyable and satisfying.

When we examine Paul's writings, he teaches that God rewards believers according to their works:” We must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ so that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad” (2 Cor. 5:10; cf. Rom. 14:10). The word “bad” in 2 Cor. 5:10 does not mean sinful. It means worthless or unprofitable. God will test the produce of our entire life by fire in order to reveal its quality (1 Cor. 3:13). Those whose works survive the fire of Divine scrutiny will receive reward (1 Cor. 3:14). Those who works are burned up, will “suffer loss”; however, they will be saved (1 Cor. 3:15).

Paul commands Timothy to teach that those who do good, are rich in good works, generous, and ready to share, store up for themselves “the treasure of a good foundation for the future” (1 Tim. 6:18-19). The reward of a “crown” appears several places in the NT. All those who have loved Jesus’ appearing, will receive a “crown of righteousness” when he appears (2 Tim. 4:8). Those who persevere under trial (Jam. 1:12) and those who are faithful unto death will receive the crown of life (Rev. 2:10). Elders who shepherd the flock well will receive an unfading crown of glory (1 Pet. 5:1-4). Jesus warns the Philadelphians to "hold fast what you have, so that no one will take your crown" (Rev. 3:11).

My favorite passage on rewards is Ephesians 6:5-8. “Whatever good thing each one does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether slave or free.” In other words, everything you and I do as to the Lord, even if it’s slave-labor, will be rewarded in Heaven! (See also Col. 3:22-24.)

The NT concludes with Jesus promising marvelous rewards to him who overcomes. The one who overcomes will:

• eat of the tree of life which is in the Paradise of God (Rev. 2:7).
• not be hurt by the second death (Rev. 2:11).
• receive some of the hidden manna, a white stone, and a new name written on the stone which no one knows but he who receives it. (Rev. 2:17).
• receive authority over the nations, rule them with Christ, and receive the morning star (Rev. 2:26-28).
• be clothed in white garments; his name will not be erased from the book of life, and Jesus will confess his name before His Father and His angels (Rev. 3:5).
• be a pillar in the temple of God, he will not go out from it anymore; and I [Jesus] will write on him the name of My God, and the name of the city of My God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from My God, and My new name (Rev. 3:12).
• sit down with Me [Jesus] on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne (Rev. 3:21)
• inherit the new heaven and new earth, the new Jerusalem, and the spring of the water of life (Rev. 21:1-7).

My quick survey has by no means exhausted the NT’s teaching on rewards, and it hasn’t even touched the OT. Perhaps the most thought provoking OT passage on rewards is Daniel 12:3, “Those who have insight will shine brightly like the brightness of the expanse of heaven, and those who lead the many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever.” This statement by Daniel’s angelic interpreter seems to indicate that glorified saints shine with varying degrees of intensity depending on the level of their reward or perhaps as part of their reward.

So in answer to the original question: When we understand that holiness involves not only the absence of that which is sinful, but also the presence of that which is godly, then, yes, degrees of holiness here affect the level of our reward in the next life. The more our lives are filled with the fruit of holiness, the greater our rewards will be.

When David was a Man After God's Own Heart (1 Sam. 13:14)

"A man after God's own heart." That is probably the phrase most commonly associated with King David in many people's mind.

Unfortunately, that phrase is frequently misused and even misunderstood. At issue is this: Precisely when in David's life did God regard him as a man after His own heart?

The answer: 1 Sam. 13:14 and Acts 13:22.

1 Sam. 13 recounts the story of Saul's choice to offer sacrifice to God without a priestly representative present. Because he violated God's word and did not wait for Samuel to be present, Samuel tells him,

You have acted foolishly; you have not kept the commandment of the LORD your God, which He commanded you, for now the LORD would have established your kingdom over Israel forever. But now your kingdom shall not endure. The LORD has sought out for Himself a man after His own heart, and the LORD has appointed him as ruler over His people, because you have not kept what the LORD commanded you.

There it is! David was a man after God's own heart, BEFORE he was anointed king of Israel. It was the shepherd boy David of whom God said he is a man after my heart. God did not say this about David after his adultery with Bathsheba. This was not an end-of-life analysis of David. It was the early, pre-Goliath David who was a man after God's own heart.

Acts 13:22 expands on this passage a little: "After He had removed [Saul], He raised up David to be their king, concerning whom He also testified and said, 'I HAVE FOUND DAVID the son of Jesse, A MAN AFTER MY HEART, who will do all My will.'

Here then is apostolic commentary on what it means to be a man after God's own heart: one who will do all His will. I emphasize the "all" because it was Saul's selective obedience that God considered disobedience. God longs for those who will do all His will, not just the parts they like.

Since David began as a man after God's own heart, but failed to remain such a man, there is both promise and warning in this passage.

The promise: we can be men & women whose hearts beat with God's. To be such requires whole-hearted obedience to His will we know.

The warning: we can cease to be men & women after God's own heart. When we deliberately choose our way over His way, we are headed Saul's way. David knew he had followed Saul's path through adultery and murder. That why he prayed so fervently, "take not your Holy Spirit from me." He had seen what happens when God's Spirit leaves.

The difference between Saul and David was not perfect performance. It was repentance. Saul was sorry, but not repentant. David, after confrontation, was both sorry and repentant.

Father, I want to be and live as a man after your heart. Grant me grace to do all your will, even the parts that are hard and painful. For Christ's sake, Amen.

Caleb's Concubines (1 Chron. 2:46, 48)

Just read 1 Chron 2:18-4:4 and learned that Caleb, the man who wholly followed God (Deut. 1:36), had two concubines: Ephah and Maacah (1 Chron. 2:46, 48)!

From what we know about the Ancient Near East (cf. Nuzi) concubinage was a specific, legal status that was public—a kind of sub-wife position. Being a concubine was not to be a private ‘mistress’ at all.

What am I to learn from this? First, that God's assessment of Caleb as a man who "wholly follows God" is a statement about Caleb's obedience to the light he had. It is not a statement about his full conformity to the character and will of God. Caleb, apparently, was walking in all the light he had – but in his culture, a culture shaped by sin, concubinage was an acceptable practice for men of means. (David apparently had enough concubines that they aren’t even named, see 1 Chron. 3:9.)

I can imagine someone decrying the worldliness of Caleb or David, articulating the doctrine of marriage from Gen. 1-2 which Jesus himself would later teach, and then separating from these individuals as disobedient to God’s will and plan, compromisers with worldliness.

Would such a person be wrong? No, they would be right. Concubinage was (and is) contrary to God’s will, assimilated from the sinful world, and it brought with it all the consequences of violating God’s will. But the “problem” (for the person who recognizes that concubinage is contrary to God’s will) is that God worked with Caleb and David anyway. In spite of their blindness to the sins of worldliness in their lives, their hearts were wholly set to please God in view of the light He had given them.

I think this should tell me that God will work with people as long as they are wholly set to follow Him. The fact that they are compromised by worldliness, unconsciously, will not mean that God cannot or will not use them. The wrong conclusion to draw from this is that God doesn’t really care about what we do as long as we follow Him.

The lesson for me is that my heart must be wholly set to follow God. I must walk in all the light that He has given me. Others aren’t responsible for my light. I am. When I meet or observe modern Calebs, I should keep in mind that the fact God is using them does not mean God approves of the areas of their lives where they are living in violation of His word. It just means that God will bless and use anyone whose heart is wholly set to follow Him to the best of their knowledge.

Father, help me to be such a person!

Joy Unspeakable and Job

I had these thoughts in response to Phillip Dickinson's comments on my May 2006 How to Fight for Joy post.

Have you perhaps had something like the following calico account of two of my experiences?

I received news that a donor had agreed to give approximately $100,000 each year over the next ten years to a fund for the establishment of a seminary here at GBS. I was overjoyed, elated.

My wife comes into my office to inform me that her mother is experiencing excruciating pain and has been taken to the hospital. My wife is in tears. Upon hearing the news from my wife, my sense of joy vanishes or at least dissipates rapidly. I'm distressed and seek to be a comfort to my wife.

Did I lose my joy?

Most certainly not! Upon the first opportunity that my mind had to return to the contemplation of the donor's pledge, my inward rejoicing and delight (aka joy) resumed its singing and simmered over time to a happy hum.

My best short description of joy, at present, is that joy is the emotional result of a mental focus. That's the short version. The extended version is: Christian joy is the emotion of happy satisfaction that results from a mental focus on the persons, promises, and character of our Triune God.

This definition identifies joy as an emotion. My best study of the biblical words for joy has led me to this conclusion, so far. Like almost all emotions, we cannot directly manipulate them. Most emotions are the consequence of a pattern of thinking, that is, they are a consequence of our mental focus. Mental focus is the result of the questions we ask ourselves and the assertions we make to ourselves.

For example, to generate the emotions of confusion, depression, blackness, even despair, repeatedly ask yourself the questions, "Why this? Why me? Why now?" when you encounter some negative circumstance. Oh, and insist upon the answer being empirically verifiable and fully comprehensible by your mind. This is how Job got in the pit.

The fruit of Joy produced by the Spirit is really the Spirit granting us desire and power to choose to focus our minds upon the person and promises of God in Christ. The more we do, and consequently the better we "see" Jesus, the greater our joy.

I think I see in this an analogy to the Spirit fruit, love. Love (for others) is a self-sacrificial commitment to seek their highest good as I seek my own and as Christ sought my good. This fruit is in evidence in our lives when we engage our wills to seek others' good self-sacrificially.

Just as God wants such good-seeking to be the character of our life, so He wants it to be our mental habit, our continuous disposition to focus our minds upon His person and promises that our joy may be full. This is how Job got out of the pit. God presented Job a series of questions that changed his focus from himself to God. Same medicine worked for Elijah.

Solomon reveals that there is a time to weep (Eccl. 3:4). It is not appropriate for a Christian to experience joy as the dominant ascendant emotion at all times. Sorrow, anger, compassion. These emotions were ascendant in our Lord at times, but the foundation of joy was always present: a full knowledge of the person and promises of His Father. All that was needed to bring joy streaming back to the forefront was to focus His mind upon His Father.

Fighting for Joy is fighting to see and understand the person and promises of God in Christ more clearly. The clearer our vision, the greater our joy. The steadier our gazing, the steadier our joy.

Father, grant me to see you in Christ more clearly and to gaze upon you in Christ more steadily that I may glorify you more fully by revelling in the joy that attends such attention.