The final part of Walton’s sound advice (see part 1 here and part 2 here) when it comes to Bible study is labeled “values commitments.” It can be summed up by the title of this post, “It’s not about me.” While the advice given in the previous posts is generally applicable to all Bible study, the context in which Walton presents it is with regards to the place and role of women in leadership and what Genesis 2 contributes to this discussion. The values commitments that Walton lays out are particularly applicable to his discussion of Genesis 2 and the role of women. However, Walton’s advice certainly applies to more than the “role of women in the church” controversy. It is sound advice for any difficult issue we confront, especially when that issue might lead to a power-struggle within the Body of Christ. Here are Walton’s 4 points on values commitments:
We must determine that individual “rights” and the pursuit of them will not take precedence over more important values, as they have in our society at large.
We must resist any desire to hoard or attain power, though our society and our fallenness drive us to pursue it above all else.
We must constantly strive to divest ourselves of self, though we live in a “What about me?” world.
The proper approach to Bible Study: It’s not about me; it’s about integrity
If our goal in Bible study is the pursuit of truth, then it goes without saying that personal agendas need to be set aside. I get into trouble when my motive is about proving my point. Emotion and emotional issues can often blind me to what the text is saying. If I’m more concerned about my rights (1 above), my power (2 above), my ego (3 above), or my own fulfillment (4 above), then even if I am technically right on an issue, I am wrong. The path I follow to arrive at my view or conclusion must involve honesty, integrity, and humility as I study and listen to what God’s Word has to say on a particular topic. As Rich Mullins sang back in the 90s “I did not make it, no, it is making me. It is the very truth of God, not the invention of any man” (Creed) I do not have authority over the Word. The Word has authority over me. I do not seek to change the Word. I seek the Word to change me! As Walton makes clear in his final point (4 above), our ultimate goal is not self-fulfillment, but serving God and his people. Because of our humanity, we will never be right about every interpretation of Scripture. However, if we implement Walton’s sound advice, we will be more often right than wrong, and we will certainly reflect the image of Christ as we seek to study, understand, and teach his word.
Maintaining a godly perspective in Bible study means being able to disagree agreeably.
This post on maintaining a godly perspective is a follow up post based on the discussion found in my previous article entitled “Sound Advice for Bible Study.” In that post I shared some of John Walton’s advice (from his Genesis Commentary in the NIV Application series), regarding a sound approach to Bible study. As pointed out in that post, Walton breaks his advice down into three different categories: 1) methodological commitments; 2) personal commitments; and 3) values commitments. Having looked at Walton’s methodological commitments in the previous post, I would now like to examine what he calls, “personal commitments,” of which there are three:
We must be willing to preserve a godly perspective on the issue and accord Christian respect to those we disagree with, refusing to belittle, degrade, accuse, or insult them. Ad hominem arguments and other varieties of “negative campaigning” should be set aside.
We must not allow our differences of opinion to overshadow and disrupt the effectiveness of ministry and our Christian witness.
We must decry the arrogance that accompanies a feeling of self-righteousness and portrays others as somehow less godly because of the position they hold. (Walton, J. H. (2001). Genesis (p. 189). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.)
Reflections on Walton’s “Personal Commitments” When We Disagree
Maintaining a godly perspective includes not belittling or attacking another person for their views.
All three of these commitments are important if we desire to maintain a Christ-like interaction with others. Let’s look at them in order.
Regarding #1, it’s very normal to feel personally attacked (and sometimes the attack is personal!), when a dearly held interpretation or view of ours is challenged by someone else. As Walton shares, however, “We must be willing to preserve a godly perspective….” This includes refusing to engage in personal attacks, even if we perceive the other person has personally attacked us. We should do our best to remain focused on the issue and seek to present biblical (as well as archaeological, cultural, etc.) evidence for our belief and interpretation. When a discussion is downgraded to an argument that involves character assassination, no one wins.
Principle #2 addresses the pragmatic outcome of disagreements that become the pretext for a battleground. Ministry is seriously disrupted and affected. If we respond in an ungodly way it will also certainly affect our Christian witness. This is certainly part of the enemy’s plan. If he can cause Christians to focus on their differences to the point where they fight and divide over them and present a bad image to unbelievers, he has won a major victory. (These observations are presented with the caveat that we are not talking about the foundational truths of Christianity which, if changed, would destroy its distinctive message).
Principle #3 addresses pride. Here is the root problem of all divisiveness over “non-essential” issues in biblical interpretation. A steady, and frequent, dose of humility is always the best remedy when discussing different understandings of Scripture. It is pride and self-righteousness that leads to the personal attacks noted in Principle #1. Pride and self-righteousness also damages our Christian witness and always disrupts effectiveness in ministry. Thus Principle #2 also falls under the umbrella of this third principle.
In the third, and final part, of this series, we will look at what Walton calls, “values commitments.”
NIV Application Commentary on Genesis is available at Amazon USA / UK
Sound advice for developing good bible study methods and attitudes over confusing issues or passages is a must!
I am teaching Genesis once again this semester as I do every Fall semester. I absolutely love studying and teaching the Book of Genesis. It is full of many foundational truths and I am always learning something new. However, I must also admit that teaching Genesis is a challenge. There are certain passages that have been interpreted different ways throughout history. As rewarding as Bible study is, we all come upon certain issues or passages with a big question mark? What is this passage about? What does the Bible really teach on this particular issue? Some “experts” say this, some say that. What am I to believe? When we face these questions, we need a solid plan that contains sound advice. Here are some challenging issues and passages in the first six chapters of Genesis alone:
What does the expression “Let Us” mean in Genesis 1:26? (I share at least 5 different views with the class).
What does it mean to be made in God’s Image and Likeness? (There are many views)
What is the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? What quality is it that Adam and Eve don’t have, that they have after eating of its fruit? (I share the top 4 views)
Should the genealogies be added together to come up with the date of Creation or are there gaps in them?
Who are the sons of God and the daughters of men? (I share the 3 main explanations)
What do the 120 years of Genesis 6:3 mean? Is God putting an age limit on humankind or is it the time until He sends the Flood?
As you can see, you barely begin reading the first book of the Bible and a lot of questions arise within the first six chapters (and I haven’t included them all)! Beyond the Book of Genesis there are many other issues (and passages) that a sincere studier of the Bible struggles with. If you go to church regularly, or study the Bible regularly the following examples will be familiar to you:
The role of women in the church
Spiritual gifts (for today or not?)
The nature of the millennium (amillennial, premillennial, pre-trib, post-trib?, etc.)
Violence in the Old Testament (short commercial–see my series on this topic here).
Although the main storyline of the Bible is clear–God created the world, humans sinned, God chose Abram and his descendants to bring restoration, Jesus is God incarnate and died for our sins and rose again gaining victory over Satan and the forces of evil–there are a number of passages and topics which remain challenging. What is the way forward with these difficult topics and challenging passages of Scripture?
This semester I am working my way through John Walton’s Genesis commentary in the NIV Application series. While reading Walton’s comments on Genesis 2 in the “Contemporary Significance” section of the commentary, I came upon some sound advice for Bible study that I found myself agreeing with. Walton’s sound advice is broken into 3 categories: “methodological commitments,” “personal commitments,” and “values commitments.” In this post I would like to focus on the first category.
By methodological commitments, Walton simply means how should we approach the biblical text? His concern is that we not find ourselves “guilty of dressing up our own desires so that they look like the Bible’s teaching” (p. 188). His sound advice involves 5 principles:
1. We must allow the text to pursue its own agenda, not force it to pursue ours.
2. We must be committed to the intention of the author rather than getting whatever mileage we can out of the words he used.
3. We must resist overinterpreting the text in order to derive the angle we are seeking.
4. We must be willing to have our minds changed by the text—that is at least part of the definition of submitting ourselves to the authority of the text.
5. We must be willing to accept the inevitable disappointment if the text does not address or solve the questions we would like answers to (Walton, J. H., 2001, Genesis, p. 189, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
I’d like to briefly comment on each of these principles.
Principle 1 is so important. How often have I found myself wanting to “prove a point” and finding a passage of Scripture that supports it. Context doesn’t matter, as long as it supports my point! We can be especially guilty of this if we have grown up in church and we have been taught to look at certain topics in certain ways or to interpret certain passages in certain ways. It’s difficult to break out of this mold, but so essential if our desire is simply to ascertain the truth.
Principle 2 involves a little labor on our part. To understand the author’s intention will involve a little background study of the ancient world, and will involve getting the big picture of what a given biblical book is about. We have to interpret the Bible in the cultural setting of the inspired author and we have to do it within the context of the book.
Principle 3 tests our integrity. OK, here’s what the passage means based on context, cultural setting. wordstudy, etc. But if I “tweak” it just a little I could use it to support my position!
Principle 4 is HUGE! Are we willing to let the Bible change our minds? It could potentially mean letting go of a cherished interpretation I have held since my youth. Is truth more important to me than tradition?
Principle 5 is just as HUGE as principle 4. If we honestly believe that the text leads to a different conclusion than the cherished belief we have held on to for so long, there will inevitably be a sense of disappointment. “Boy, I really wanted the text to back me up on this, but after studying the text thoroughly, I have to admit it doesn’t.” Making that admission is a sure sign of growth, and even more importantly, it is a way of honoring God and His Word!
Next time we will look at Walton’s advice regarding “personal commitments.”
P.S. For those of you who may be wondering, “Where have you been?” This is my first post in nine months. Five of those months have been spent with my mother and helping her through the passing of my dad. It was a special time and I am grateful for it. I am also grateful to be back in York, and as far as this blog is concerned, I’m glad to be “back in the saddle again!
This is one of 18 inscriptions from Egypt believed to contain the oldest Hebrew script.
Is it possible that ancient Hebrew writings over 3800 years old exist from Egypt? In other words, writings that date to the time that Joseph was reputed to be there? Is it also possible that these writings mention the biblical names Joseph, Asenath (his wife), Manasseh (son of Joseph), and even Moses? And could it be that the oldest Hebrew writings have been right under our noses for the past 150 years? These are some of the assertions of Douglas Petrovich of Wilfrid Laurier University in Waterloo, Canada. Petrovich is an archaeologist and epigrapher (one who studies ancient scripts). Petrovich made these claims in a paper presented at the recent ASOR (American Schools of Oriental Research) meeting in San Antonio (Nov. 17).
In total, their are 18 inscriptions from 4 sites in Egypt and the Sinai that Petrovich has translated and identified as ancient Hebrew. Scholars are well aware that the language is some form of ancient Semitic script but until now positive identification has eluded them. In the ASOR abstract (a summary of the session’s contents), Petrovich states, “After stumbling across the writing of the word “Hebrews” in a text that features the earliest attestation of a proto-consonantal letter, the present writer successfully has identified Hebrew as the language of the proto-consonantal script and translated 18 inscriptions of Egypt’s Middle Kingdom and New Kingdom eras.” Not all scholars are convinced however. According to Semitic language expert and Bible scholar Christopher Rollston of George Washington University, Petrovich’s identification is “starved for evidence.”
Petrovich’s Conclusion and the Exodus
Serabit el Khadim in the Sinai is one of the Egyptian sites believed by Petrovich to contain the oldest Hebrew writing.
Petrovich is not the first to suggest this ancient script is Hebrew. A German scholar in the 1920s made the same identification, but he did not have enough evidence to back up his claim. According to an article in ScienceNews, “Petrovich…combined previous identifications of some letters in the ancient alphabet with his own identifications of disputed letters to peg the script as Hebrew.” Unfortunately, any identification of anything Hebrew dating from 1800-1400 B.C. is going to be met with skepticism by the scholarly community. Part of the reason for this is the skepticism related to the Exodus. Many believe there was no Exodus, and others maintain that if there was, it consisted of a small number of people and was nothing like the event depicted in the Book of Exodus. Another scholarly dogma holds that if there was an Exodus, it probably occurred during the reign of Ramses II (1279-1213 B.C.). However, investigations by Bimson, Rohl, and others, recently highlighted in the film Patterns of Evidence, suggests there’s more evidence that needs to be considered (see my related article HERE). If Petrovich is correct in deciphering this script as Hebrew, it would have major implications for the biblical story of the Exodus.
What Does This Alphabet Look Like?
Reading from right to left, this chart shows the modern Hebrew letters with the ancient pictographic letters beneath.
This alphabet, which Petrovich calls “proto-Hebrew” (others call it “proto-Canaanite,”) makes the step from pictures (like hieroglyphics) to letters. However, the letters themselves are pictoral in nature (see the photo at right). The beginning of this form of the alphabet dates from somewhere around 1800-1500 B.C. (depending on who you ask!). By the time of Israel’s united monarchy (Saul-David-Solomon), the Hebrew alphabet had changed again. Four such inscriptions have been found so far in Israel dating from 1200-1000 B.C. The four inscriptions are the Qeiyafa Ostracon, the Gezer Calendar, the Tel Zayit Abecedary and the Izbet Zayit Abecedary. An Abecedary is an inscription that has the entire alphabet, much like a practice sheet from a child writing their ABCs. Of course it is debated by scholars as to whether these inscriptions are ancient Hebrew or ancient Phoenician (believed to be the predecessor to Hebrew). Once again, Christopher Rollston weighs in concluding they are Phoenician. He believes that the ancient Hebrew Alphabet did not develop until a little later. If, however, Petrovich (or others) can conclusively demonstrate that the writings found in Egypt are Hebrew, it would be revolutionary. It would mean that Hebrew was the first alphabet of the ancient world. It would also mean that the Hebrew writing system didn’t develop from Phoenicia, and it would suggest the four inscriptions from Israel are also Hebrew. In other words, a lot of sacred cows would be knocked over. Don’t expect this debate to go away without a fight! But because Bible believers want it to be so, or because skeptical scholars do not want it to be so, cannot be the criteria. Ultimately, it should not be prejudice, but honest painstaking scholarship that decides whether the inscriptions from Egypt are the oldest Hebrew writings.
Anti-Trump protest in Portland erupts in violence.
It’s been a difficult few years for America. The lines of division have been drawn sharply and the recent Presidential campaign has accentuated that division. Sadly, hateful rhetoric from a bitterly fought campaign, has now spilled out into the streets of America in the form of protests and violence. We are all aware, however, that this violence is not new. The riots sparked by the shootings of black men and the deadly assault on police officers provide the terrible proof that America was already deeply divided. Does division originate from the bottom up or the top down? In other words, what is the source of division? Some maintain that it comes from divided families and communities only to explode on a national level. Others attribute it to leaders. Perhaps apathetic leaders only concerned with keeping the status quo. Or perhaps leadership that uses harsh divisive rhetoric. Interestingly, the story of King Saul in 1 Samuel addresses this question.
A case can be made that division comes from the top and the bottom of society. In fact, the books of Samuel testify to this truth. When values are forsaken, families are damaged and when families are damaged, communities, and eventually the nation, is damaged. However, corrupt leadership also has a profound effect. “As goes the king, so goes the nation,” could be one way of summing up the stories contained in both Samuel and Kings. These truths were brought home to me a number of years ago as I researched and wrote a book on 1&2 Samuel entitled, Family Portraits: Character Studies in 1 and 2 Samuel. I was struck through my study that a book about leadership (i.e., kingship) was also a book about families. These two themes interact so closely in 1&2 Samuel that it is impossible to separate them.
What follows is an excerpt from my book Family Portraits. This excerpt is taken from the introduction of Saul’s family (pp. 100-102). It was written long before the recent election but some of the principles in it point to lessons that are timely. What I seek to do here is provide my original words (in italics) which I will then reflect on at the end of this post in light of the recent election.
The Divisiveness of King Saul
Saul’s kingship further divided the people of Israel.
Saul’s family is introduced in 1 Samuel 9:1 with a four-person genealogy, reminiscent of the introduction of Samuel’s family in 1 Samuel 1:1. This similarity, as well as the narrator’s glowing introduction of Saul and his family, leads the reader to expect great things. Saul’s father, Kish, is described as a “man of valor” (“a mighty man of power”—NKJV), while Saul is twice described in positive terms—“handsome” (literally, “good”) and “taller than any of the people” (9:2). If outward appearance can be trusted, then 1 Samuel 9:1–2 holds out great hope. The discerning reader, however, has learned from Eli not to jump to conclusions too quickly.
While there are some storm clouds on the horizon, the story of Saul seems to get off to a good start (1 Sam. 9–11) before things go wrong (1 Sam. 13–31). Saul inspired the fierce loyalty of many, such as the Ziphites (23:19–24) and the inhabitants of Jabesh-Gilead (31:11–13). On the other hand, he could strike out violently against his own people (the priests of Nob—chap. 22), including members of his family (Jonathan, 20:30–32). As a result, even Saul’s children are torn between loyalty to their father and the “beloved” David (18:1–4, 20). Both Jonathan and Michal struggle with remaining true to their father while protecting David (19:11–17; 20:31–32). However, it must be said that Jonathan remains with his father even in death (1 Sam. 31:2); and, in spite of everything, David’s eulogy is a moving tribute of his loyalty to Saul (2 Sam. 1:19–27). Even those whom Saul pushes away are drawn to him! This tug-of-war, which results in great tensions, is an important theme in the story of Saul. Consequent divisions are not only evident in his family, but also in the nation he ruled. With the death of Saul the nation erupts in civil war (2 Sam. 3:1).
A reader can find him or herself with conflicting emotions about Saul. In spite of his failings, he evokes sympathy. Saul is not so much the sort of character you “love to hate” as the kind you “hate to love.” Interestingly, commentators are as divided over Saul as his own nation was. Some see him as a victim of a predetermined fate, while others see him as a man whose disobedience cost him a kingdom. Saul remains a divisive character to this day! Any treatment of his family must therefore reflect this truth. Saul’s ability to polarize not only extends to Jonathan, Michal and David; division follows his family even after his death. Abner and Ish-bosheth become alienated from one another (2 Sam. 3:6–11), as do Mephibosheth and Ziba (2 Sam. 19:24–27). Another descendant of Saul, Shimei, is a vocal supporter of the division caused by Absalom’s civil war (2 Sam. 16:5–13).
Jesus said, “every…house divided against itself will not stand” (Matt. 12:25). This truth is part of the reason that the house of Saul deteriorates from strength (1 Sam. 9:1) to weakness (2 Sam. 3:1). The main reason, however, is Saul’s failure to honor the Lord.
(2 paragraphs omitted from original)
Along with David, Saul and his family dominate the narrative of 1 Samuel chapters 9–31. David and his family are the main focus of 2 Samuel, yet Saul’s family continues to play an important role. Although a lot of material is devoted to the reign of Saul, we learn of God’s rejection of his kingship and dynasty rather quickly (1 Sam. 13:14; 15:28). This means that a major portion of the story focuses on how Saul and his family deal with this rejection, and how they treat his future replacement. This theme raises an important question that everyone must confront at sometime. How should we respond when someone is chosen or favored over us, especially when that person ends up in the position we once occupied? In Saul’s case it is not simply a matter of David being favored over him, but one in which he disqualified himself through sin. The narrative teaches us that a response of pride, envy, and a refusal to repent, leads to a dead end for Saul—quite literally!
This kind of attitude can lead one to strike out blindly against his own family (1 Sam. 20:33), contributing to its breakdown and destruction. Not only can such a mindset affect an individual, it can permeate a family. Thus all those who follow in Saul’s footsteps—Abner, Ish-bosheth, Michal, Shimei, and other descendants of Saul—meet a similar fate. Saul’s obsession to destroy David leads to the destruction of many in his family, not to mention the political chaos and destruction that accompanies it. How true it is that the one consumed with hatred ends up destroying him or herself as well as the ones he or she loves.
Hatred and bitterness will destroy a family (and a nation); but just because a family becomes consumed with animosity does not mean that every member must conform. The books of Samuel continually affirm our freedom to choose. No matter what the circumstances in which we find ourselves, our attitude and response are still our choice. While Samuel has godly parents and follows the Lord, and David’s sons have a godly father but do not follow the Lord, Jonathan stands alone in these books as a godly son with an ungodly father. Ungodly parents are no excuse for children to continue down the same path. Each must make his or her own choice. Jonathan is an example to all that the cycle of ungodliness can be broken. This beautiful example, followed by his son Mephibosheth, is the silver lining in a family clouded with self-assertion and pride. While it is true that Jonathan’s loyalty leads him to die beside his father, his humility and selflessness point the way to a future for Saul’s family. Jonathan’s love and devotion to David turn the family’s fortunes from a path of hatred and death to one of life and hope. Jonathan’s example points the way for us as well.
Reflections
Unlike King Saul, America has a tradition of the peaceful transfer of power.
Although I certainly have strong political opinions like most Americans regarding the recent election, my aim here is to note some of the principles enunciated above. These biblical principles can help guide our response to, not only this election, but future behavior.
Don’t judge a book by it’s cover. Saul looked good for the nation but turned out to be a disaster. The lesson of not being deceived by first impressions is an important message in 1&2 Samuel (I have written about it elsewhere on this blog. See HERE). Just because someone “looks good,” doesn’t mean they are. Conversely, sometimes people who make unfavorable impressions can surprise us. Admittedly, neither candidate in this recent election made a good impression. It was frequently stated that no matter which candidate won the presidency, they would go down in history as the most unpopular president ever elected. Now that the election is over, I suggest that we not jump to conclusions, but allow our judgment on the future president to be based on his performance. Does he keep his campaign promises? Does he treat others fairly? Does he seek justice? Does he promote the welfare of the country? Only the days ahead can give us clear answers to these questions.
There are two reactions to losing power. One reaction is the Saul reaction–cling to power no matter what the cost. Even with a divine word to the contrary, Saul held tenaciously to power. The result was violence against individuals (David) and families (the high-priestly family), and eventual civil war among the nation. One of America’s great traditions is the peaceful transfer of power. We were reminded of this the day after the election in President Barak Obama’s speech congratulating President-elect Trump on his victory (if you haven’t seen it or need a reminder, click HERE). This peaceful transfer of power was further symbolized by President Obama’s invitation to Donald Trump to visit him at the White House the following day. For those who believe Scripture, we know that God puts kings (or leaders) in positions of power (e.g., Daniel 4:17). The books of Samuel clearly announce this at the outset in the prayer of Hannah in 1 Samuel 2:6-8. A peaceful transfer of power is best for all. It is far superior to Saul’s way, and it recognizes that a Greater Power has ordained the earthly powers. America would do well to continue this tradition.
Corrupt government harms a nation (I know how obvious this statement is, but you wouldn’t know it was obvious by the way most governments are run!). Saul is pictured as a leader who begins humbly and achieves a certain amount of success (1 Sam. 11). However, as Saul becomes more self-consumed his actions and policies prove detrimental to the nation of Israel. No human government is perfect, this is why Christians look forward to the rule of Christ. However, leaders should strive for “justice for all” as the America pledge of allegiance puts it. In fact, it is likely this American slogan is derived from biblical statements about the just king (e.g., 2 Sam. 8:15; Ps. 72).
We need more Jonathan’s! Jonathan wasn’t worried about “what he deserved.” His humble approach was more about what was best for the nation. He was content with the position God had placed him in. His concern wasn’t winning or losing, but seeing justice and righteousness prevail. Americans would do well to follow this example and relinquish the “entitlement mentality.” As John Kennedy once said, “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.” As a Christian, it goes beyond even this, asking ourselves how we can reflect God in our attitudes and actions.
Beware of hateful intentions, words, and actions. Saul’s hateful response to those around him destroyed his family and caused havoc and destruction within the nation. Ironically, Saul struck out in hatred even toward those who were on his side! David was a loyal follower but became public enemy number one. Saul even threw a spear at his own son because Jonathan refused to condemn an innocent David (1 Sam. 20:32-33). All of this is evidence that hatred blinds people to the truth. Hatred destroys all in its path. If our nation is to survive, then we must be a nation that puts hatred behind us, seeking reconciliation and peace.
Consider Purchasing Family Portraits as a Gift This Christmas. Available at WestBow Press, Amazon USA / UK and various other internet outlets.
