All posts by randymccracken

I am a teacher at Calvary Chapel Bible College York and the author of "Family Portraits: Character Studies in 1 and 2 Samuel".

Insights from Family Portraits, The Book of Samuel

Sovereignty and Free Will in 1&2 Samuel

November 24, 2014 randymccracken 2 Comments

Sovereignty and Free Will

The debate between sovereignty and freewill will probably continue until the Lord returns. This is part of the classic controversy between what is known as Calvinism and Arminianism (for a comparison of these two belief systems click here). Simply put, the issue is, does God’s sovereignty overrule people’s ultimate freedom to choose, or can there be freedom of choice while maintaining that God is sovereign? The traditional Calvinistic position maintains that complete freedom to choose negates God’s sovereignty. Therefore within reformed theological circles (i.e., those who espouse a Calvinistic theology) it is affirmed that people have choice, but that choice is ultimately controlled by God’s sovereignty (For a fuller explanation click here for Wikipedia on Calvinism or click on the link above). The classic Arminian position advocates that it is possible for human beings to have complete freedom of choice without impinging on God’s sovereignty (for a defense of this position click here to read Jack Cottrell’s article entitled, “Sovereignty and Free Will”).

Piper's "FIve Points" is a contemporary look at the 5 points of Calvinism including sovereignty and free will. — Piper’s “FIve Points” is a contemporary look at the 5 points of Calvinism including sovereignty and free will.

Sovereignty and free will has been a hotly contested issue for many centuries and continues to be passionately debated within the church today (the popularity of books by John Piper, among others, has created renewed interest in this topic). It has been my experience that the topic of sovereignty and free will is often discussed in an atmosphere where each side pulls out their favorite scriptures supporting their viewpoint. It becomes a “prooftext” debate. I think a more productive approach is to look at this topic through the lens of a biblical book. Understanding the overall message(s) of a biblical book helps to fit the topic of sovereignty and free will within its biblical context. This post is not an attempt to solve the debate “once and for all,” but to look at how these ideas are addressed within the canonical context of 1&2 Samuel.

Sovereignty and Free Will in 1&2 Samuel

Hannah's prayer/song celebrates God's sovereignty — Hannah’s prayer/song celebrates God’s sovereignty

The Books of Samuel begin with a very strong statement regarding God’s sovereignty. Hannah’s prayer/song in 1 Samuel 2:1-10 repeatedly emphasizes God’s power over His Creation and creatures. In the heart of this passage Hannah utters the following words: “The Lord kills and makes alive’ He brings down to the grave and brings up. The Lord makes poor and makes rich; He brings low and lifts up (1 Sam. 2:6-7). Chapter 2 continues by contrasting the wickedness of Eli’s sons (Hophni & Phinehas) with the godly growth of Samuel. After Hopni & Phinehas reject their father’s rebuke, we are told, “Nevertheless they did not heed the voice of their father, because the Lord desired to kill them” (1 Sam. 2:25). This statement reaffirms the words of Hannah’s prayer, “The Lord kills and makes alive.” Such strong statements at the beginning of 1 Samuel may lead the reader to conclude that the sovereignty of God determines a person’s destiny without any regard to their free will. However, this understanding is immediately balanced in the text by the words of an unknown prophet who comes to Eli and rebukes him and his sons for their disobedience (1 Sam. 2:27-36). In the midst of this prophetic utterance, the man of God enunciates a principle which holds sway over all of the characters mentioned in 1&2 Samuel. Speaking as the Lord’s mouthpiece he proclaims, “‘I said indeed that your house and the house of your father would walk before Me forever,’ But now the Lord says, ‘Far be it from Me; for those who honor Me I will honor, and those who despise Me shall be lightly esteemed‘” (1 Sam. 2:30–my emphasis). This significant statement demonstrates that the Lord’s decisions to “kill and make alive,” or “bring low and lift up,” are not arbitrary decisions, but are based on people’s response to Him. This pattern of lifting up or bringing low is evidenced throughout 1&2 Samuel (e.g., Eli and Samuel, Saul and David, David and Absalom), and is consistently based on the actions of people who either honor or despise the Lord. What follows is an excerpt from my book “Family Portraits: Character Studies in 1 and 2 Samuel.” Sovereignty and free will are significant issues in the discussion of Absalom’s revolt. This excerpt (with a small amount of editing) is taken from the introduction to chapter 24 entitled, “Absalom: The Rebel.”

Absalom’s Rebellion in the Context of 1 and 2 Samuel (2 Sam. 13-20)

Purchase at Amazon USA / UK, or get the ebook from westbow press.com — Purchase at Amazon USA / UK in hardback, paperback, or kindle, or from westbow press.com

In 2 Samuel chapters 13–20 the “strong” house of David (2 Sam. 3:1–5) unravels in fulfillment of the prophetic word announced in 2 Samuel 12:10–11. There the prophet Nathan, who formerly had announced to David an enduring house (2 Sam. 7:11–16), proclaims that the sword will never depart from his house, and that God will also raise up “evil” from his own house.
Within this framework, the sinful actions of Absalom and others recounted in these chapters become viewed as the repercussions of David’s own sin with Bathsheba and Uriah (2 Sam. 11). Viewed from this perspective, the events are a divine judgment. David recognizes this in his flight from Absalom, when he rebukes Abishai over Shimei’s cursing and says, “Let him alone, and let him curse; for so the LORD has ordered him” (2 Sam. 16:11b). One writer has even entitled these chapters: “David Under the Curse” (Carlson, David the Chosen King)

Although David suffers greatly in these chapters, he is ultimately vindicated. While one might be hard-pressed to describe this as a “happy ending,” nonetheless it is a positive ending for David. Paradoxically then, David’s road becomes one of blessing and curse in these chapters. How is this to be explained? Furthermore, does David’s sin provide an excuse for Absalom? Can Absalom say in defense, “It’s not my fault; daddy made me do it”? Can he blame his rebellion on divine determinism which had decreed problems in David’s house? The story will clearly show that Absalom is responsible for his own decisions and bears the weight of his own guilt, but how does the text perceive this interlocking of divine sovereignty and free will?

David flees Absalom while Shimei curses and throws stones at him.

I suggest the answer to all of the questions above is found in the introductory chapters of 1 Samuel (here I explore in more depth comments I have made when introducing this post). In a key statement made to Eli in 1 Samuel 2:30 God declares, “Those who honor Me I will honor, and those who despise Me shall be lightly esteemed” (cursed). In Nathan’s rebuke of David he asks, “Why have you despised the commandment of the LORD, to do evil in His sight?” (2 Sam. 12:9). We have already noted that David accepts Shimei’s “cursing” because he believes it comes from the Lord (2 Sam. 16:11). The word used for “curse” in this passage is the same word translated “lightly esteem” in 1 Samuel 2:30. Thus, following the logic of 1 Samuel 2:30, the reason for David’s divine punishment (curse) in these chapters is because he has despised the Lord. Likewise, the sin of Absalom dishonors both David (the Lord’s anointed) and the Lord Himself, as we shall see (this is examined later in the chapter). As a result, Absalom experiences divine punishment too (2 Sam. 17:14b).

Judgment, however, is only part of the story. As we have noted, David also receives blessing from the Lord. This is explained by David’s humble submission to the Lord throughout the ordeal of Absalom’s revolt (e.g., 2 Sam. 15:30–31; 16:11). In fact, 2 Samuel chapters 15–18 alternate between David and Absalom, contrasting their actions and words just as 1 Samuel 2:11–36 shifts the focus between Samuel and Eli and his sons, comparing them. This contrast highlights David’s humility which results in his vindication, and Absalom’s ungodliness which results in his defeat.

Although the biblical text says that Absalom caught his head in the tree, it is probably a reference to Absalom's hair. — Absalom’s defeat is decreed by the Lord (2 Sam. 17:14)

In conjunction with 1 Samuel 2:30, Hannah’s prayer (1 Sam. 2:1–10) also provides the proper background for understanding Absalom’s revolt and its outcome. 2 Samuel 17:14b: “For the LORD had purposed to defeat the good advice of Ahithophel, to the intent that the LORD might bring disaster on Absalom,” is a direct reflection of Hannah’s words, “The LORD kills and makes alive; he brings down to the grave and brings up” (1 Sam. 2:6). Absalom’s self-exaltation resulted in the Lord bringing him down. Similarly, David’s low point was the result of his sin, but his final vindication was based on his humble response to the Lord’s discipline which, in turn, resulted in the Lord lifting him up (1 Sam. 2:7). Putting these two passages together from 1 Samuel 2 (vv. 1–10 and v. 30) helps us to understand the themes of divine sovereignty and free will and how these two seemingly contradictory principles work together. It also explains how David walks the road of cursing and blessing in these chapters. God is sovereign. It is he who “brings low and lifts up” but God’s actions are not arbitrary. They are based on the decisions of people who either choose to honor or despise him. (End of excerpt).

Hopefully this brief treatment of the David and Absalom story in 2 Samuel 13-20 provides an example of how sovereignty and free will work together to accomplish God’s purposes. For a further treatment of this subject see the rest of the chapter on Absalom in “Family Portraits: Character Studies in 1 and 2 Samuel.”

Character Studies, Insights from Family Portraits, The Book of Samuel

2 Samuel 2–Asahel:Running into Trouble

November 10, 2014 randymccracken Leave a comment

2 Samuel 2–Asahel:Running into Trouble

Many people are unfamiliar with Asahel. He was the youngest brother of the more famous Joab, David’s army commander. Asahel only appears in one narrative, found in 2 Samuel 2. The story is about his vain pursuit of Abner, commander of Saul’s army, during the civil war between David and the house of Saul, resulting in his premature death. Asahel’s death is told in gruesome detail in 2 Samuel 2 and often leaves readers wondering why this story was related by the writer in the first place. The following post is an excerpt from chapter 20 of my book Family Portraits: Character Studies in 1 and 2 Samuel. In this chapter, I look at 3 men who shared several similarities: 1) they were all nephews of David and thus cousins; 2) they were all warriors; and 3) they all appear in limited roles in 2 Samuel. Although a first reading of Asahel’s death may leave the reader puzzled, a more careful examination reveals some important truths for all of us. I hope you enjoy this excerpt and consider purchasing a copy of Family Portraits for yourself or a friend. (For another excerpt from Family Portraits click here to read about Peninnah).

Asahel: Running into Trouble (2 Samuel 2:18–23, 30–32)

When the initial contest between 12 soldiers from Israel and Judah resulted in the death of all, a full-scale battle erupted resulting in a great victory for David's men, but at the expense of Asahel — In 2 Samuel 2:14-17, when an initial contest between 12 soldiers from Israel and Judah resulted in the death of all, a full-scale battle erupted resulting in a great victory for David’s men, but at the expense of Asahel (painting by James J. Tissot, 1896-1902).

“Brave, impetuous, and ready to kill,” are the words we used to describe Abishai’s introduction in 1 Samuel. These same words are perhaps even truer of Asahel, proving him to be Abishai’s brother and a genuine son of Zeruiah. Together with Joab, all three brothers appear in 2 Samuel 2:18 in the midst of a conflict between Israel and Judah. The conflict was precipitated by Abner, who had marched his troops to Gibeon where he was met by Joab and “the servants of David” (2 Samuel 2:12–13). When an initial competition, also proposed by Abner, failed to produce a victor, the confrontation erupted into a full-scale battle, with Abner’s troops experiencing a sound defeat at the hands of David’s men (2 Samuel 2:14–17).
The victory, however, was not without great cost to the men of Judah. In a flashback of the battle, the author follows Asahel as he pursues Abner. The outcome of this altercation not only results in the death of Asahel one of Judah’s valiant warriors, it also sets the stage for a blood feud between Abner and the two remaining brothers (Joab and Abishai), culminating in the murder of Abner (2 Samuel 3:27, 30).

Asahel is described as one who is “as fleet of foot as a wild gazelle” (2 Samuel 2:18). It is Asahel’s running ability that provides the setting for the chase scene described in verses 19–23. However, Asahel’s greatest asset will prove to be his greatest liability––a liability perhaps hinted at in his description as a “gazelle.” While gazelles are fast and nimble, they are not known for their strength or predatory nature. Gazelles are not usually “pursuers” (v. 19): they use their speed to flee from danger, not to run towards it! What chance does a gazelle have if it pursues a battle-hardened warrior like Abner?

Furthermore, the word “gazelle” sounds a note of familiarity with a statement found in the previous chapter: “The beauty (gazelle) of Israel is slain on your high places! How the mighty have fallen!” (2 Samuel 1:19). The gazelle that David laments is probably Jonathan (see 2 Samuel 1:25) but could also include Saul. While Asahel’s equation with Jonathan may seem complimentary, it has an ominous ring to it. The previous gazelle (Jonathan) had been slain and had fallen in battle; likewise, Asahel the gazelle will soon be slain and “fall” in battle (2 Samuel 2:23).

The chase begins in earnest in verse 19. Two expressions characterize the dogged determination of Asahel. The first expression, “he did not turn to the right hand or to the left (vv. 19, 21), is language frequently used in Deuteronomy–2 Kings in reference to not deviating from the path of the Lord (Deut. 5:32; 17:11, 20; 28:14; Josh. 1:7; 23:6; 2 Kings 22:2). The second term is ʾaḥarē, occurring seven times in verses 19–23 and variously translated as “after,” “behind,” or “back.” It is also used frequently to express following “after” the Lord, or not following “after” other gods (Deut. 4:3; 6:14; 13:4; 1 Kings 14:8; 18:21; 2 Kings 23:3). Thus, Asahel’s pursuit of Abner uses language that articulates the resolve Israel should have in following the Lord. While pursuing the Lord leads to life (Deut. 5:32–33), Asahel’s single-minded pursuit of Abner ironically leads to his death (v. 23). An outline of 2 Samuel 2:19–23 demonstrates Asahel’s determination as it alternates between his pursuit and Abner’s warnings: Asahel pursues (v. 19); Abner turns and speaks (20–21d); Asahel continues his pursuit (21e); Abner speaks and cautions (22); Asahel continues (23a); Abner finally strikes (23b–d).

Asahel pursues Abner. Painting by James Tissot

Still at some distance, Abner turns “behind him” to see Asahel hot on his trail (2 Samuel 2:20). Wishing to confirm the pursuer’s identity Abner calls out, “Are you Asahel?” to which Asahel responds with one breathless word, “I.” It is the only word he speaks in the entire narrative, highlighting his resolute focus on pursuing his prey. He is not interested in conversation; he is interested in catching Abner. As his name implies, Asahel is all about “doing” (“God has done,” or “made”) rather than talking. The doing, however, seems to have little to do with God and more to do with Asahel himself. Hence, Asahel’s answer, “I,” takes on a deeper significance.
Although the language is reminiscent of one pursuing God, the fact is that Asahel is in pursuit of his own glory. What could bring greater honor to a soldier than to kill the commander of the enemy’s army? This quest not only makes Asahel mute, but also deaf to the sound advice Abner tries to dispense. Using language that parallels the narrator’s, Abner says, “Turn aside to your right hand or to your left, and lay hold on one of the young men and take his armor for yourself ” (2 Samuel 2:21). This is Abner’s way of telling Asahel to pick on someone his own size, or, in other words, to take on someone of his own skill level and not to tangle with a more experienced soldier like himself. Asahel is undeterred.

Next, Abner is more direct and makes Asahel aware of the deadly consequences he will face if he does not cease his pursuit: “Why should I strike you to the ground? How then could I face your brother Joab?” (2 Samuel 2:22). Abner interjects an emotional element into his plea (“your brother Joab”), hoping it will slow down the fleet-footed Asahel. The advice, threats, and emotional pleas are all to no avail, however, as the narrator reports, “He refused to turn aside” (2 Samuel 2:23a). It is the last decision he will ever make, and it is a deadly one.

Winding Up on the Wrong End of the Stick!

Abner kills Asahel — When Asahel refuses to stop, Abner stops him with the back end of his spear (2 Samuel 2:23–painting by Johann Christoph Weigel, 1695).

Asahel will not stop himself, so Abner must stop him. So far, Abner’s rhetoric has not caused his thick-headed opponent to “get the point.” Ironically, he will also not get the point of Abner’s weapon. Instead, with a thrust of the back end of his spear, Abner brings Asahel’s pursuit to an abrupt halt as the spear travels through his abdomen and proceeds out of his back (2 Samuel 2:23). It is ironic that with one blow of his spear, Abner did to Abishai’s brother what Abishai had wanted to do to Saul (1 Sam. 26:8). Asahel’s pursuit of glory causes him to “wind up on the wrong end of the stick.” Abner’s military prowess is so superior that it is not even necessary for him to assume the normal fighting posture of facing his adversary. This accords Asahel no respect. His death appears foolish and needless. Indeed, David’s lament over Abner in the next chapter (2 Samuel 3:33) could well have been sung over Asahel: “Should [Asahel] die as a fool dies?”
Asahel is the first of four characters to be stabbed in the abdomen in 2 Samuel. The first and the last (Amasa) to experience this fate are of the house of David, while the middle two (Abner and Ish-bosheth) are of the house of Saul, forming a deadly chiasm within 2 Samuel. Later in this chapter we will notice that the wording of Amasa’s death evokes images of Asahel’s, adding irony to the gruesome inclusio formed by their demise.

The conclusion of the battle underscores an important difference between Asahel and his brother Joab. After Abner pleads with Joab to, “return from following after his brothers” (2 Samuel 2:26—my translation), verse 30 informs the reader, “Then Joab returned from following after Abner.” The use of “after” reminds us of Asahel’s pursuit of Abner, and highlights Joab’s wisdom. Joab knows when to stop pursuing; he will wait for a more convenient opportunity. The contrast between the two brothers is stark. The body count for Judah says it all: nineteen men plus Asahel—the man who did not know when to quit. Asahel’s pursuit leads to a tomb in Bethlehem, while the wiser Joab lives to fight another day (2 Samuel 2:32).

Conclusion: Stop and Listen

The honor paid to Asahel by listing him first among David’s Thirty mighty men (2 Sam. 23:24) does not diminish the unnecessary tragedy of his death. Asahel proves himself to be much like his brothers: impetuous, hard, stubborn, and preferring violence to diplomacy. The one valuable quality of his brothers that he desperately lacks is discernment. McCarter rightly observes of Asahel that, “[He] appears in the present story as one so headstrong that he will not listen to reason even to save his own life.”
The Hebrew Scriptures frequently associate the act of listening with following the Lord. They are full of exhortations to listen, hear, heed, etc.; and the Scriptures record the consequences of those who do not (e.g., Exod. 15:26; Lev. 26:14–39; Judg. 2:17; 1 Sam. 15:22). Although Asahel’s story is not directly about listening to the Lord, the formulaic language used in the story recalls the frequent exhortation in Scripture to follow the Lord. Asahel’s wrong-headed pursuit took him down the enemy’s path and far from the safety of his comrades. Likewise, our pursuit of our own selfish goals can take us down the wrong path and lead us far from the safety of God’s people.

In one sense Asahel’s real-life tragedy becomes an analogy and warning to the nation of Israel, who often stubbornly chose to follow their own way (2 Kings 17:13–14) and closed their ears to God’s word and the way of wisdom (Isa. 6:10; Jer. 5:21). The same attitude is vividly portrayed in the New Testament, when members of the Sanhedrin refused to listen any longer to Stephen’s words. Luke reports: “Then they cried out with a loud voice, stopped their ears, and ran at him with one accord” (Acts 7:57).

Of course the story of Asahel is not just a warning to Israel, but to anyone who stubbornly pursues their own agenda while ignoring the wisdom of God and others. The grisly account of his death demonstrates how vain the all-out pursuit of glory is. If Asahel had stopped to consider Abner’s warnings, then he would not have been stopped by Abner’s spear. The message is clear: a stubborn refusal to stop and listen to good advice may have deadly consequences.

Helpful Suggestions for Bible Study

Bible Study: Can It Be Spirit-Led and Academic?

November 3, 2014 randymccracken Leave a comment

Bible Study: Can It Be Spirit-Led and Academic?

Academics can be intimidating! Can Bible Study be Spirit-led and academic?

Let’s face it, many Christians are intimidated by an academic approach to the Bible. In fact, some are very suspicious of an academic approach to Bible study. Doesn’t it leave out dependence on the Spirit? Aren’t academics “know-it-alls,” and full of arrogance? Don’t they reject the inspiration of the Bible? While these questions can sometimes be answered “yes,” I want to plead that it is possible, in fact, necessary for Bible study to be both Spirit-led and academic. Have you ever had a different understanding of a biblical passage than someone else? Do you always agree with family members, friends, pastors, and authors on their interpretation of a text? Does every Christian understand every biblical passage and doctrine exactly the same? The answer to all of these questions is clearly, “Of course not.” But if I am Spirit-led and disagree with a fellow-Christian that I also believe is Spirit-led, then how do I determine which interpretation is correct?

Our Presuppositions Require We Be Spirit-Led and Academic in Our Approach

Heiser argues for a Spirit-led and academic study of Scripture in his course, "Introducing Biblical Interpretation." — Heiser argues for a Spirit-led and academic study of Scripture in his course, “Introducing Biblical Interpretation.”

In his course on “Introducing Biblical Interpretation,” (which I am reviewing. See posts here and here), Michael S. Heiser says it this way, “Meaning is not self-evident….Getting meaning out of the Bible is far more than just sitting down, opening your Bible, and just reading it.” For example, we all bring certain presuppositions to the table when we interpret Scripture. As Heiser points out, some of these are conscious, but some are also unconscious. We naturally filter things through our own background and experience. For example, I have learned as an American living in England that certain expressions, or actions do not have the same meaning here in Britain as they do in the USA. If I do not make adjustments (recognizing my own presuppositions and substituting new ones), I will often misunderstand and be misunderstood. The same is true of bible study. No matter how sincere and reliant on the Spirit someone may be, a study of biblical culture, history, language, etc. is important, or else misunderstandings will develop. This means I must learn some ancient history, and something about ancient Near Eastern culture in order to understand the Scripture. Therefore, I must study, and studying brings me into the world of academics!

Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes, illustrates the importance of knowing background information (like culture).

The authors of “Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes” (see my review here) illustrate the problem I am referring to very well. They put it this way: “When we miss what went without being said for them [i.e., the biblical authors] and substitute what goes without being said for us, we are at risk of misreading Scripture” (p. 13). An excellent example of this is Jesus’ statement to the church at Laodicea, “I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. I could wish you were cold or hot” (Rev. 3:15). This statement has always puzzled many people. Why would Jesus want anyone to be cold, which to us implies a total lack of faith? Although I have heard many sincere, Spirit-filled teachers teach on this verse, their conclusion was wrong! The authors of “Misreading Scripture” explain that Laodicea lies between Colossae and Hierapolis (in modern-day Turkey). Colossae was well-known for its cold water, while Hierapolis was known for its hot mineral water. By the time waters from Colossae or Hierapolis reached Laodicea, however, they would be lukewarm. So the words “hot” and “cold” are both positive terms in Revelation 3:15-16, and this is why Jesus can say, “I wish you were cold or hot.” The Laodiceans were all too-familiar with lukewarmness! To arrive at the correct understanding of this passage, some knowledge of ancient geography is necessary (for a full explanation see pp. 10-11 of Misunderstanding Scripture).

Being Spirit-Led and Academic in Our Bible Study is no Different Than Exercising Other Gifts

Me just a "few" years ago. Music is a gift, but it takes practice! — Me just a “few” years ago. Music is a gift, but it takes practice!

I believe it is important that we understand that the Holy Spirit often uses some of our own sweat and toil to bring clarity and understanding. Let me illustrate it this way. I am a musician. I enjoy playing guitar and have played in Christian bands, written songs and recorded a couple of cds. I believe that the musical ability I have is Spirit-given. However, it is important for me to develop the gift that the Spirit has given me. When I don’t practice, I don’t improve! I have spent many hours in my life practicing my guitar, practicing with a band, taking voice lessons, piano lessons, music theory lessons, and classes on how to write a song. I’ve read a lot of books on music as well. All of these things have helped me grow as a musician. If I did not practice and study, but simply expected the Spirit to do all the work, I would be a poor steward of the gift He has given me and a poor musician as well. Bible study is no different. If I am a good steward of God’s Word then I will put in the study time. I will wrestle with texts, and ideas, and doctrines. Although God is gracious in giving us many wonderful gifts through the Spirit, one constant I find in all of life is that to really excel at something you have to work at it! Thus, I believe that Bible Study must be Spirit-led and academic.

Do You Have to Know Hebrew and Greek to be Saved?

The case for being Spirit-led and academic

I remember a number of years ago when I was in Bible College, one of my teachers told the following story: One day a Bible teacher was asked by a skeptical student, “Do you have to know Hebrew and Greek to be saved? To which the teacher replied, “No, but someone does!” This little story illustrates a valuable point. Certainly every Christian does not have to learn the original languages of the Bible. In fact, it’s not realistic to think that they will. However, in order for us to have a translation of the Bible in our own language, it is important that someone know the original language! It’s possible that some who know the biblical languages can at times come off as know-it-alls, but that bad attitude is not an argument against evangelicals learning Hebrew and Greek. Think about it. If no evangelical Christians learn Hebrew and Greek, then we will be leaving the interpreting of all of the Bible translations and writing of all the scholarly commentaries in the hands of those who don’t share our commitment to Scripture.

Doesn’t an Academic Approach to Bible Study Go Against the Belief that the Bible is Simple Enough for Anyone to Understand?

Longman certainly believes in a Spirit-Led and academic approach to Bible Study.

In one of the textbooks I use for my Genesis class (How To Read Genesis by Tremper Longman III), I recently ran across a response to this question that I would like to share. Longman identifies this idea as coming from the Reformers (Luther, Calvin, etc.). I am quoting him at length because his explanation is important. He writes, “The Reformers argued strongly for the clarity (perspicuity) of Scripture. They rightly held that the Bible was not written in a code. Further they defended the view that the Bible could be understood on its own terms (sufficiency of Scripture). We do not need the tradition of the church fathers to understand the Bible. When rightly understood, these doctrines are fundamentally important and crucial to defend. The problem is that the priesthood of all believers as well as the perspicuity and sufficiency of Scripture have been wrongly understood and applied in areas they were never intended to be applied. In short, what the Reformers understood the Bible to teach was that the message of salvation in the Bible is clear and understandable to all without the need of a priestly mediator or scholarly input….However, not everything is equally plain” (How to Read Genesis, p. 20). Longman goes on to give a list of questions raised by the Book of Genesis that require study and thoughtful reflection (e.g., “Who are the Nephilim?”).

Therefore to say that the Bible requires some academic elbow grease on our part is not to say that the message of salvation is hard to understand. Many who come to Christ know very little about the Scripture, but they still find the gospel message easy enough to understand. I am simply affirming that in order for us to continue to grow in our faith and knowledge of God’s Word, we will have to apply the same discipline to studying the Bible that we do to any other endeavor in life. Regarding the Reformers I would also add that all of them could read the Scripture in its original languages. Again this is not to say we all need to be able to do this, but simply to affirm that the Reformers saw the need for deep Bible study while acknowledging the simplicity of the gospel message.

In conclusion, Bible study is not an “either/or” proposition. We either are Spirit-led or we are academically minded. These two approaches are not opposed to one another. The real problem is motivation and attitude. Do I want to impress people with my knowledge? Does my study make me think that I am better than others? If my motivation to learn is driven by these ungodly characteristics, then clearly I have a problem. But if my motivation is to know God more and to be able to teach and disciple younger believers, then that is a motivation well pleasing to God. I am convinced that the Christian who desires to grow in the knowledge of God’s Word should seek the help of the Spirit and use every available academic tool that aids the believer in deepening his or her understanding of the Bible.

Logos Products Reviewed

Introducing Biblical Interpretation Part 2: Logos Mobile Ed

October 31, 2014 randymccracken Leave a comment

Introducing Biblical Interpretation Part 2: Logos Mobile Ed

Logos Mobile Ed Course: Introducing Biblical Interpretation. For a look at this resource in Logos, click anywhere on this link.

If you would like expert guidance on how to study the Bible, then you should consider the Mobile Ed course by Logos entitled, “Introducing Biblical Interpretation.” In my first post on “Introducing Biblical Interpretation” (which can be found here), I looked at the overall format of Logos’s Mobile Ed courses and provided an overview of what this course has to offer. In this review I will look more specifically at the first half of the course, detailing its strengths and weaknesses. Before proceeding, however, I would like to point out some exciting new developments with Logos. In my previous post, I noted how Logos Bible Study software has taken Bible study to a whole new level with Logos 5. No sooner were my comments “hot off the press” when Logos introduced its newest and latest version Logos 6! Logos 6 makes some gigantic leaps in Bible study and I can’t wait to procure a copy of it. For an introduction to Logos 6 click here (Now Logos 8!). Now on to the review!

In a brief introduction to the course, Michael S. Heiser announces that his task is threefold: 1) to alert the student to various obstacles interpreters face (hence why there are different interpretations of a biblical text); 2) to train the student to “see things in the text.” As Heiser states, “Bible study, Bible research is a lot more than Bible reading;” and 3) to act as a guide by showing how to analyze the text, as well as, introducing various resources that are available to help with Bible study.

Heiser begins unit 1 with 10 obstacles to interpretation. Here is his list:

Obstacle #1: Presuppositions
Obstacle #2: The Author
Obstacle #3: The Reader
Obstacle #4: The Medium
Obstacle #5: The Meaning
Obstacle #6: Translation
Obstacle #7: Precedent
Obstacle #8: Context
Obstacle #9: Relevance
Obstacle #10: Validation

In order to conserve space, I will not take the time to go through each of these. Some are obvious. For example, “presuppositions” (#1). This involves being aware of our own experience and background and being careful about reading things into the text. Translation (# 6) is another obvious obstacle. I will focus on a few less obvious obstacles (or at least attempt to explain how Heiser sees certain things as obstacles). By “The Author” (#2) Heiser means that since we don’t know who wrote some of the books of the Bible and since we can’t get into the ancient author’s head, finding the author’s meaning is not always a fruitful approach. While it is true that we don’t know who wrote some of the books of the Bible, some of the methods that Heiser introduces later in the course are a reliable way of getting at the meaning of the text. Heiser himself will encourage us to find the author’s meaning and not substitute our own (in unit 2 under biblical context, he makes a point about the perspective of the author and the audience). Therefore, I must admit to a little confusion here. Perhaps he means we should not get side-tracked by pursuing a portrait of the author, but focus on the text itself.

Heiser is clearer on what he means by other obstacles. The Reader obstacle (#3), discusses an approach popular in some academic circles known as “reader response theory” which says the reader determines the meaning. In other words, “The text means what whatever I think it means.” Heiser rightly cautions the student against this view and offers a helpful critique. This particular obstacle is more likely to be encountered by the serious Bible student who is reading certain scholarly works (seminary students, pastors, etc.). While all can benefit from this course, an example like this points to the kind of audience that Heiser is addressing. Heiser refers to another obstacle as “Medium” (#4.) By “Medium” he means that the Bible is a written document and so we do not hear voice inflection, or experience body language when the text is being read. As a result, a written text is harder to interpret than a verbal communication where these things can be observed and heard.

The next section of the course (unit 2) is very short and acts as an introduction to what follows. Unit 2 consists of 2 parts. In part one Heiser discusses the importance of context. By context, Heiser does not simply mean the literary context of a passage, but rather, the social, cultural, and religious context in which a passage was written. It is important for us , as much as is possible, to get into the world and thinking patterns of the ancient biblical author (here again is where I find confusion with his obstacle #2 mentioned above). Heiser then goes on to introduce three contexts that the Bible student needs to be aware of. They are, the “Worldview context,” the Literary context,” and the “Linguistic context.” Each of these “contexts” are the focus of units 3, 4, and 5 respectively. We will proceed by looking at unit 3, the “Worldview context,” and save the others for our next review.

Unit 3, “Worldview Context” consists of the following subpoints:
The Historical Context
The Cultural Context
The Religious Context
Tools for Worldview Context
Primary Sources
Finding English Translations of Ancient Texts
Reference Works
Using Reference Works to Study Ancient Background Context
Academic Monographs
Monographs for Studying Ancient Background Context
Bible Commentaries
Devotional or Popular Commentaries
Expositional Commentaries
Scholarly Commentaries
Illustrating Different Types of Commentaries
Journal Articles
31. Finding Scholarly Journals in Logos
32. Software
33. Logos 5 Tools for Background Research
34. Online Resources
35. Using Online Resources for Biblical Interpretation

Logos Mobile Ed course, "Introduction to Biblical Interpretation." — Logos Mobile Ed course, “Introduction to Biblical Interpretation.”

Heiser begins unit 3 with a helpful breakdown of 3 subcategories that are important to understanding the “Worldview context”. These subcategories are: the historical context; the cultural context; and the religious context. Under the historical context Heiser discusses the importance of geography (knowing biblical places), knowing the broad historical context (history of the ancient Near East, especially Israel), and knowing the immediate context (the historical context in which the author wrote). Under the cultural context, Heiser lists 3 areas of importance: attitudes, morals, and daily living. Under religious context, Heiser (who likes to break things into 3 categories) talks about the importance of understanding cultural beliefs, supernatural and supersitious beliefs, and ritual purity.

But how does an average student gain some knowledge and competence in these areas? It can all seem a bit overwhelming. The rest of this unit is devoted to various tools and resources that are available to the student. Heiser acts as a guide (one of his purposes!) in showing the student not only the various types of sources, but the value, or lack thereof, of certain sources, and how to use them. For example, I found his discussion on the various kinds of commentaries to be a helpful guide to the lay person or beginning student. Heiser breaks commentaries down into (you guessed it) 3 kinds. Devotional or Popular (a one volume commentary with very general info), Expositional (more specific, English based, dealing with some textual issues), and Scholarly (based on research in the original languages, with more indepth discussion of the various issues raised by a text). Another helpful discussion concerns Internet resources such as Google Books and Google Scholar, as well as online journals and the pros and cons of various wikis.

Problems With “Introducing Biblical Interpretation”

"Introducing Biblical Interpretation" is an excellent course. But everything has its problems! — “Introducing Biblical Interpretation” is an excellent course. But everything has its problems!

Before delving into a few problems that I have found with “Introducing Biblical Interpretation,” I want to state that Heiser has pulled together a vast amount of helpful material and has, for the most part, presented it in a clear and logical way. This course is well worth the few shortcomings that I mention here.

“Introducing Biblical Interpretation,” like other Mobile Ed courses from Logos, contains recommendations for reading material. After each section, there is a link to various sources in Logos for further reading. Some of the material in the quiz sections (including Midterm and Final exams) are based on these readings. This is what you’d expect in any course. However, if you are taking a University course, you have access to all the books in the University library. The problem with Logos Mobile Ed courses is that, unless you have one of the top of the line packages in Logos, there are a number of resources that you won’t have access to. While it would be great to have the best Logos package available, sometimes that’s just not possible. My particular package is the Logos 5 Gold package, plus I have supplemented this with other resources over the years. In spite of that, I frequently found that I only had access to a small portion of the recommended reading material–usually 1 of 2 or 1 of 3 sources. This, of course, creates quite a handicap for passing the quizzes and exams. It is also very frustrating when you would like to do the recommended reading. What is the solution? Obviously being able to purchase the sources would be ideal, but what if you can’t? I’m wondering if there is a way that Logos could create access to a certain portion of the resource for the person who has purchased the Mobile Ed course? For example: there is an article in a Bible dictionary that is recommended reading. I don’t have the dictionary, or the money to purchase it. Could Logos give me access to that particular article without granting access to the entire dictionary? Is there a way to build that into the Mobile Ed course? I’m not a computer programmer and what I’m suggesting may be a technological nightmare, but I’m wondering if there isn’t some sort of compromise that would help the eager student. The upside for Logos is, if the student gets a lot out of a particular resource, it might provide the motivation to purchase that item.

I’ve discovered two other minor problems with “Introducing Biblical Interpretation.” The reason I call them minor is that they appear to be “one off” type problems. The first example involves using a tool that provides the wrong definition for what the teacher (Heiser) is discussing. Following Objection #6 Translation, at the end of the discussion, there is a link under “Guides and Tools” to “Translation.” Clicking on the link, you expect to read a definition or article that deals with the translation of biblical languages. Instead, what you find is a definition that relates to one being taken to heaven (ala Enoch, Elijah, or the rapture!), or being translated into the kingdom (Col. 1:13), but nothing about Bible translation! Another minor quibble is making sure all reading materials assigned are relevant. Objection #10 in unit 1 discusses “Validation.” Heiser notes that none of us are perfect and, therefore, even if we are equipped with the right tools and approach, we need to continue to recognize our limitations. I couldn’t agree more. However, one of the assigned readings for this segment is a Bible Dictionary article on “humility.” While it is true we need a large dose of humility when interpreting the Scripture, it doesn’t seem that reading a definition from a Bible Dictionary is particularly helpful (maybe that’s just me though). If the reading assignment doesn’t further the student’s knowledge, then it’s superfluous. If humility needs to be emphasized further, then a teacher’s exhortation is more motivating than a dictionary article.

Again, the problems encountered in “Introducing Biblical Interpretation” are minimal compared to the many gains that one will receive from the course. I look forward to getting into the second half of the course and sharing what I find in a future post.

To order “Introducing Biblical Interpretation” from Logos click here.

(Many thanks to Logos Bible Software for providing the review copy in exchange for a fair and unbiased review!)

Violence in the Old Testament

Fire From Heaven: Is God’s Judgment Just?

October 27, 2014 randymccracken 7 Comments

Fire From Heaven: Is God’s Judgment Just?

Elijah calls down fire from heaven (1 Kings 18:38). Image from http://michael2011.blogspot.com/

I am currently teaching through the Books of Kings and we have been looking at the ministry of Elijah. This portion of Scripture (1 Kings 17-2 Kings 2) contains a number of stories that disturb believers and unbelievers alike. One of the major themes of these chapters is idolatry. A number of the stories focus on Elijah’s battle to re-establish the worship of Yahweh, Israel’s God, over the worship of Baal. A number of violent incidents are recorded in these chapters. After Elijah calls down fire from heaven, demonstrating that “the Lord, He is God,” he commands the people to seize the prophets of Baal and execute them (1 Kgs. 18:40). Another story within these chapters relates how an unnamed prophet rebukes Ahab for showing mercy to Ben-Hadad King of Syria, insisting that he should have killed him (1 Kgs. 20:38-43). Returning to Elijah, we read of him once again calling down fire from heaven, this time to incinerate two companies of 50 soldiers each (2 Kgs. 1:9-15). Perhaps the “icing on the cake” in terms of violence, concerns Elisha’s (the successor to Elijah) curse of the young boys who are mauled by two she-bears (2 Kgs. 2:23-24). Not only do these stories raise the ire of many atheists, but one can also find certain Bible commentators who seem embarrassed by these stories, even offering apologies! What then are we to make of these stories? Are they examples of a brutal, unjust God? Do they give us just one more reason to reject the Bible as advocating “religious fanaticism?” I will look at the objections raised by some as I examine each of these stories (including future posts), while offering responses for you the reader to consider.

The Execution of the Prophets of Baal

Although this picture is supposed to represent Elijah's execution of the prophets of Baal, there is at least one inaccuracy. The story says nothing about burning any cities. The blogger also comments on the laurel wreaths worn by the slain as a symbol of peace--another inaccuracy. — While this picture is supposed to represent Elijah’s execution of the prophets of Baal, Derek Murphy makes two mistakes in his interpretation of it. First, it is not a fort being burned in the background as Murphy alleges, it is Elijah’s altar. Second, Murphy comments on the laurel wreaths worn by the slain as a symbol of peace. The prophets of Baal are not depicted with laurel wreaths, nor are they positively represented as “peaceful” in the story in 1 Kings 18.

As noted above, following the contest on Mount Carmel, when Yahweh rains down fire from heaven, Elijah orders the execution of the 450 prophets of Baal. One blogger commenting, not only on the story, but on an artistic rendering of it reproduced here (on the left), writes, “Elijah, being the most holy and most loyal, simply did what any conservative religious person of faith would do when threatened with extinction in the face of other, more popular religious movements: kill all trespassers. Israel was being punished by God because Israelites were worshipping Baal. Solution? Kill the priests of Baal. Burn their temples, destroy (or steal and put in Christian churches) their artifacts. This pattern is repeated throughout the history of the Jews and the Christians, who often did the same thing to Pagan counterparts” (Derek Murphy, read the whole article at http://www.holyblasphemy.net/elijah-kills-the-prophets-of-baal). There are several problems with Murphy’s objections. First, some of his comments are directed toward the artistic rendering of the account and do not accurately reflect what is written in the story (see my comments under the picture). It is one thing to take issue with the story, but basing an argument on artistic inaccuracies, or on a misinterpretaion of the picture itself, is no way to establish the validity of a position. Second, Murphy’s main point in the article seems to be that the motivation for slaughtering the prophets of Baal merely had to do with Baalism becoming more popular than worship of Yahweh. So when Christians and Jews feel that their religion is threatened, they respond by killing their opponents. However one interprets other events in history, such an argument distorts the context of this story. The issue is not “your religion’s becoming more popular than mine so I’ll kill you,” the issue is idolatry. I realize that to an atheist, idolatry is a poor excuse to execute people. I will deal with the rationale behind this later in this article.

A bronze statue of Baal discovered at Ugarit from the 14th-12th centuries B.C. Baal was worshipped as the storm god who could rain down fire from heaven by hurling lightening bolts.

Several other responses are important to the objections raised by Murphy. First, the context of the story clearly shows that the initial aggressor (in terms of slaughtering prophets) is not Elijah, but Jezebel. 1 Kings 18:4 begins, “For so it was, while Jezebel massacred the prophets of the Lord, that Obadiah had taken one hundred prophets and hidden them, fifty to a cave, and had fed them with bread and water” (NKJV). This “cutting off” (literal rendering) of the Lord’s prophets forced those who were left to be hidden. When Elijah appears on Mount Carmel, he is outnumbered 450-1. If the prophets of Asherah had shown up (1 Kgs. 18:19–which apparently they didn’t), Elijah would have been outnumbered 850-1. At this point in the story, the people are not on Elijah’s side (1 Kgs. 18:21); he is clearly alone. Elijah is not operating from a point of numerical strength! These observations are important because the Israelites, or their godly leaders, are often pictured by atheists as the bullies on the block who outnumber and outgun their opponents, when actually, the opposite is true (not only here, but in other stories as well). To be clear, I am not arguing, “I better kill you before you kill me” to justify the execution of the prophets of Baal, I am only establishing the proper context. Again, the motivation behind the execution is more than self-preservation (although I would be surprised if even atheists would not seek to defend themselves against an aggressor!).

We should not be surprised when atheists attack stories like this when even some Bible commentators seem apologetic about Elijah’s actions. For example, Terence E. Fretheim seems to want to excuse God by blaming Elijah and his times for the execution of Baal’s prophets. He writes, “Yet human violence is in evidence here as well (v. 40). This should not be explained away, but neither should it be considered necessarily just, even if it is understood to obey the law (Deut. 13:1-5). Once again…God does not act alone; but God works in and through that which is available, with human beings as they are, with all of their flaws and foibles” (First and Second Kings, Westminister Bible Companion, pp. 106-107). Although I appreciate many of the insights from Fretheim’s books, I believe he has missed the mark here. He himself admits that the Law prescribes the death penalty for false prophets (see Deut. 13:1-11).

The Wisdom and the Folly is available at amazon.

Dale Ralph Davis’s remarks are more on target. Here are a few comments that he makes on this passage. “This Kishon slaughter [the river where the execution took place] was not an act of personal revenge but of capital punishment in line with the Torah [the Books of Moses]….Remember Israel was a theocracy; what we call church and state functioned as one. And here Elijah simply carries out Israel’s constitution, the provisions of Yahweh’s covenant law, relating to solicitation to apostasy” (1 Kings, “The Wisdom and the Folly,” p. 241). Davis continues, “The problem is not with Elijah or the Old Testament but with us. We react the way we do because, in our subliminal view, apostasy is not that big a deal. We simply don’t understand Yahweh’s violence against rebellion in his people. He uses surgery not breath mints on cancer. The problem is not God’s lack of refinement but our lack of sanctification….The nasty episode at the Kishon testifies that we have little horror of sin and calls evangelical Christians in particular to repentance” (p. 242).

I am in agreement with Davis on many points, but particularly his statement that we (meaning many in our contemporary western society) don’t see apostasy as a big deal. Certainly this is Richard Dawkin’s point of view when he writes about God breaking into a “monumental rage whenever his chosen people flirted with a rival god” which resembles “nothing so much as sexual jealousy of the worst kind” (“The God Delusion,” p. 243). Dawkin’s reaction demonstrates the naivete or the ignorance of the atheist who sees no harm in idolatry. In a previous post in this series entitled “The Necessity of Judgment: Violence in the Old Testament Part 5,” I examined in some detail the biblical concept that God is the Giver and Source of life. Since God is the source of life, any choice that excludes God is a choice for death (see the article for a more indepth treatment). This is why God is adamantly opposed to idolatry and the worship of false gods. Idolatry leads to death. Therefore, God seeks to protect people from idolatry by destroying those who, not only persist in idolatry themselves, but who also lead others into idolatry, such as the prophets that Elijah executed. Davis’s assertion that sin is no big deal to many today, is at the heart of the problem. Sin is tolerated, excused, denied, ignored, or glorified by many in our society, therefore, few are willing to hear the message that sin is dangerous and deadly. The title of an article by Clay Jones states the problem clearly: “We Don’t Hate Sin So We Don’t Understand What Happened to the Canaanites” (Philosophia Christi, vol. 11, no. 1, 2009, pp. 53-72. Click on the link provided to read the entire article). Jones pinpoints the problem on the first page of this article when he writes, “Could it be that because our culture today commits these same Canaanite sins we are inoculated against the seriousness of these sins and so think God’s judgment unfair?” (p. 53).

Looking at the immediate context of the Elijah story, as well as the overall biblical context, brings clarity to the story of Elijah’s execution of the prophets of Baal. It also challenges our passivity or acceptance of idolatry in our own lives. This story is not the only one that speaks of fire from heaven. In our next post, I will look at 2 stories: the unnamed prophet who condemns Ahab for sparing his enemy (1 Kgs. 20:38-43), and Elijah’s destruction of two companies of soldiers by calling down fire from heaven (2 Kings 1).