Douglas Wilson Archives - Page 113 of 180

Surveying the Text: Psalms

Joe Harby on January 25, 2015

Introduction

It would be difficult to overstate the impact and influence of the Book of Psalms on the history of Israel, and on the subsequent history of the Christian church. As Luther once said, the Psalms are a “Bible in miniature,” and the way the Psalms are given to us, they are asconstructive as they are retrospective. But more on that shortly.

The Text

“Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: The sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre. Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: Therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee With the oil of gladness above thy fellows” (Ps. 45:6–7).

Summary of the Text

Psalm 45 is a triumphal wedding day psalm, celebrating the marriage of the king. The author of Hebrews picks up on a phrase from the psalm, telling us that it represents God speaking to His Son, the Messiah. “But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom” (Heb. 1:8). Note that the Son is the bridegroom in the psalm, and that God the Father addresses Him as God. We will come back to the importance of this kind of thing shortly.

The Structure of the Book

The Book of Psalms is actually a collection of five psalters, each one ending with a doxology. Some of the psalms in the collection are ancient, going back to the time of Moses (Ps. 90), for example, but the majority are from the time of David and shortly after. The principal poet and musician represented is David (73 psalms are attributed to him), while other composers include Asaph, the sons of Korah, Solomon, Ethan, and Heman.

The five books are set up as follows: Book One (Ps. 1-41), Book Two (Ps. 42-72), Book Three (Ps. 73-89), Book Four (Ps. 90-106), and Book Five (Ps. 107-150). The doxologies that conclude each book are: Ps. 41:13, 72:18-19, 89:52, 106:48, 150:6. The first book is overwhelmingly from David. The second contains psalms from three sources—David, sons of Korah, and Asaph. The third is largely from Asaph and the sons of Korah. It is good to remember that the last book contains a section known as the Psalms of Ascent (120-134). Because of the murky history of how these books were assembled, we are not really in a position to use these divisions practically, although it is good to know that they are there.

A Translating Faith

A commonplace notion is that poetry cannot be translated. If a great poet wrote in a language not your own, then you are simply out of luck. Now certain things cannot be brought across with the same effect—that is true enough. We commonly signal the presence of poetry in hymns by means of rhyme, which the Hebrews didn’t do at all. We use meter, and other languages don’t. We use meter differently than do other languages that use meter, although Hebrew poetry didn’t at all, and so on.

Nevertheless…

Some aspects of Hebrew poetry can be transferred across the language barrier. One of the use of thought rhymes in the common use of parallelism. In English, this technique is used in the blues, but rarely elsewhere. The parallelism can have variations— synonymous, contrasting, constructive, and so on.

Another technique that carries across, and is actually common to all high poetic expression, is the use of metaphorical imagery. Some of this imagery is quite striking and indelicate. Consider the psalm where God is compared to a warrior who is awakened while sleeping off a drinking binge (Ps. 78:65-66). Now was that quite necessary? Three very common images for God in the psalms would be God as king, God as warrior, and God as fortress.

God is a king on a throne (Ps. 93:2), and He rules over much territory (Ps. 47:6-7). He is a maker of laws (Ps. 93:5), and one who makes covenants with conquered peoples (Ps. 25). And we clearly see the kingship of God in the psalm of our text. At the end of the day, all Christians are necessarily monarchists. Jesus is Lord, Jesus is King. God is a great warrior. His artillery is fearsome (Ps. 18:12, 14). He parts the heavens and comes down to fight (Ps. 18:9). He trains us how to fight (Ps. 144:1). We do not worship a pacifist God. God is a fortress, a shield, a great protection. He defends His people from harm (Ps. 18:1-2). This also is a military image, albeit a defensive one.

But we find more than just images of God. Here are some images for the wicked, those against whom we must stand. They are snakes (Ps. 58:4), bulls (Ps. 22:12), bees (Ps. 118:12), dogs (Ps. 22:16), and those are just a few of the images. What is being done in the use of imagery and metaphor? You are learning more about what you do not know from what you do know. This means carries over.

What It Means to Sing Psalms

One of the most obvious things about the psalms is how they were born in acutely personal circumstances. Their origin is individual. David wrote Ps. 52 in response to Doeg the Edomite. But when God used His servants to place these psalms in the corporate worship of Israel (and afterwards the Church), the result necessarily was two- fold: one was identification with the plight of the original author—he is our father, and we are with him. The second was application of these words to our own circumstances. Who is your Doeg? The meaning of the psalms, the import of the psalms, was therefore meant to expand. This hymnbook was intended to grow in meaning. What David used to refer to battles a thousand years before Christ (Ps. 68) was rightly appropriated by French Huguenots who made it into their battle hymn. “God shall arise and by His might, put all His enemies to flight.”

Another way of saying this is that the Psalter is alive. It is living and active. Take care not to fall into a destructive liberal/conservative dichotomy. The liberals love living documents—that’s how they kill them. Too often conservatives love preserving dead documents–Scripture is not under glass in a museum behind the velvet rope, with a brass plaque saying it is “alive.” Now we are not denying inerrancy here—that is the baseline minimum—but we are saying something much, much more than that. The Word of God is seed. What does that image mean?

The apostle Paul tells us that Christian churches are called to sing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16). Some Christians overstate the case when they say we may sing nothing but psalms, but that is not our most widespread error. The most widespread error is that of singing songs of our own invention, without reference to God’s model for hymnody. Singing should be one of our central vocations as disciples.

The Politics of Sodomy II: Not Whether, But Which

Joe Harby on January 25, 2015

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Introduction

In many respects, we are like a man who lives in a house that is increasingly cluttered and trashed. When the day finally arrives when it becomes obvious that he must do something, it is equally obvious at the same time, that he has no idea what to do, or where to start. He is overwhelmed at the magnitude of the problem. It is the same with us as we consider the politics of sodomy. We want to put things right. Where do we go to begin? Do we go back to the sixties? The New Deal? The War Between the States? The Enlightenment? And the answer is yes.

The Text

“And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand: And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand? And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? therefore they shall be your judges. But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you. Or else how can one enter into a strong man’s house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? and then he will spoil his house. He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad” (Matt. 12:25-30).

Background

Jesus is speaking in the first place about the kingdoms of God and Satan respectively. He had been accused of fighting Satan even though His accusers said He was really on Satan’s side. Jesus responds by saying that a house divided cannot stand, and so Satan would not be so foolish as to do that (vv.25-26). Jesus goes on to say if His power over Beelzebub was a demonic power, then what power was being used by His adversaries’ children (v. 27)? But if Jesus was empowered by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God really had come to them (v. 28). And, continuing the argument, if the kingdom of God has come, why should anyone be surprised that the strong man’s house was being pillaged? The strong man was bound, wasn’t he? And then Jesus says what we all need to hear—one who is not with Christ is against Christ. One who does not gather with Christ is attempting to scatter (v. 30).

No Middle Ground

The claims of Christ are therefore total. There is no way to read through the New Testament and miss this. The claims of Christ are total. He is the King of kings, and the Lord of lords. He has been given all authority in heaven and on earth, and over any creature that can be named. Christ is King. Jesus is Lord. This is the basic Christian confession (Rom. 10:9-10). And here, if you are not with Him, you are therefore against Him. There is no spiritual equivalent of Switzerland. In the cosmic war between in light and darkness, there are no neutral parties, and there is no third way. There are only two activities in every realm of human existence, and those two activities are obedient gathering and disobedient scattering. Only two.

Hidden Assumptions

Obviously, these total claims on the part of Christ won’t do. We need to have our personal space. We need to protect our favorite forms of autonomy. But at the same time, those of us who are religious, particularly in the Christian Lite Community of Faith, need to give some sort of lip service to the language of totality that comes up so often in Scripture. We should want to bringevery thought captive, the apostle Paul says (2 Cor. 10: 5).

Obviously, we have to figure out a way to use this kind of total language while ensuring that it remains partial in effect. God calls this sort of thing by the name of hypocrisy.

What We Call It

We have developed various intellectual tricks for doing this, and we may describe these tricks as forms of American individualism, gnosticism, constitutionalism, or rationalism. A man can pick one of the following, or mix up his own combinations. Disobedience can take many forms.

Individualism: in this view, Jesus is Lord of my heart, and not that which is outside the realm of my heart. This is not thought of as partialism because the heart is what counts, right? But Jesus is Lord of your toes as well as your heart, and your world as well as your toes.

Gnosticism: in this perspective, Jesus is Lord of spiritual things, not thought of as the Lord over foreign policy, sewage disposal, botany, law, and weed control. But Jesus is Lord of both heaven and earth, and every manifestation of culture.

Constitutionalism: this excuse points to the non-establishment clause of the First Amendment, misunderstanding that amendment in a grotesque fashion. But Jesus is the King of the United States.

Rationalism: this is the approach that appeals to natural law, but to a natural law that is sure to exclude the revelation of God in Christ. But natural law is fulfilled in Christ.

Not Whether, But Which

All culture is religious, and the only question to consider is whether it is faithfully religious or idolatrously religious. It has been said that all culture is religion externalized, but even this helpful insight can be interpreted in too weak a fashion. All culture is religion. Turning Henry Van Til’s insight around, we should say that all religion is culture internalized.

So the question is not whether our culture has a god, but rather which god it has.

The question is not whether we will impose morality, but rather which morality it will be. The question is not whether we will restrict blasphemy, but rather which blasphemy.

And it is not whether we will embrace sexual politics, but rather which sexual polis it will be.

The Politics of Sodomy I: The Real Sin of Sodom

Joe Harby on January 18, 2015

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Introduction

What could possibly be meant by the phrase, “the real sin of Sodom?” Isn’t it obvious? The sin of homosexual behavior draws its name from Sodom. What could be more obvious? And shouldn’t we be suspicious of any attempt to draw our attention elsewhere? As always, the answer to such questions is, “It depends.”

The Text

“Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good” (Eze. 16:49-50).

Background

The prophet Ezekiel is speaking the word of the Lord against the city of Jerusalem. In the course of his prophetic rebuke, he says that Samaria is Jerusalem’s older sister, and that Sodom is Jerusalem’s younger sister (v. 46). Samaria dwells at Jerusalem’s left hand and Sodom at her right. Moreover, the prophet denounces Jerusalem as far exceeding the sins of both these cities. Compared to Jerusalem, both these wicked cities seem righteous in comparison (v. 52).

Individual Sin

We are addressing the politics of sodomy, and consequently we are addressing the corporate nature of a certain form of sin. But it should be acknowledged at the outset that the rejection of individualism does not mean that individual sin and rebellion somehow disappear. They do not disappear at all—rather, they are placed in their proper context. But so that we may know what we are placing in context, it is true that the sin that was being attempted at Lot’s house was the sin of homosexual rape (Gen. 19:5). Lest any sophists snatch at this and say that the only problem was the rape part, the Bible says that it is wrong for men to desire men sexually (Rom. 1:27), as well as for women to desire women (Rom. 1:26). The Scriptures say that individuals who live this way will not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 6:9). This includes both sodomites and catamites, the two aspects of homosexuality mentioned here. All this is to say that by addressing the root cultural problems, we are seeking to understand individual behavior, and not to excuse it.

But Sodom Was a City

When Ezekiel mentions the sin of Sodom in an aside, many conservative Christians might be surprised at where he starts. Sodom was a degraded city, and they had gotten to the point where the rape of visitors was something that a number of people thought should be allowed in the public square. But how did they get there?

This was the sin of Sodom—pride, fullness of bread, abundance of idleness, neglect of the poor, haughtiness, and abominations. At the end of that list we find what caused Sodom to become a household word. But consider what went before, and ask yourself how America got to the place where the folly from our federal courts is taken even halfway seriously.

Trampling the Courts

To this we may add the word of the prophet Isaiah. The point here has to do with the combination of worship with iniquity, and the central point here is not liturgical form. We must guard against any form which seeks to make room for iniquity.

“Except the LORD of hosts had left unto us a very small remnant, we should have been as Sodom, and we should have been like unto Gomorrah. Hear the word of the LORD, ye rulers of Sodom; give ear unto the law of our God, ye people of Gomorrah . . . When ye come to appear before me, who hath required this at your hand, to tread my courts? . . . And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you: yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood” (Is. 1:9-10, 12, 15).

So Therefore . . .

In our corporate capacity as a nation, why are we dealing (very unsuccessfully) with this sin at the very end of Ezekiel’s list? The answer is that we have long since given way to the sins mentioned earlier. Not only have we succumbed to these sins, some of them are our pride and glory.

Corrupt worship: across our nation, worship is not understood rightly, as holy covenant renewal with a holy God. Every Lord’s Day, millions of Americans cry out to God. Why does He not hear?

Pride: our pride can be seen clearly, even in how traditionalists oppose these recent legal developments. We want salvation, and we want it although we refuse to acknowledge the only Savior, Jesus Christ (Matt. 28: 17-20; Ps. 2:12). Traditionalists point to certain verses in Romans 1, verses that ignore the overarching context. Who does not honor God as God? Who does not give Him thanks?

Fullness of bread: do we really need to say anything here? But remember, the problem is not the wealth in itself, the problem is forgetting God in that wealth (Dt. 8:17-18).

Abundance of idleness: a recreational mentality, demanding entertainment in everything, has crept into everything, including worship and study.
Haughtiness: how is this different from pride? Haughtiness is pride manifested, superciliousness. Haughtiness is seen in daughters of Zion, strutting their wares at the mall (Is. 3:16).

Neglect of the poor: this is one of the areas where our wickedness is great, precisely because of the hypocritical posturing of those who defend the welfare state. Judas was concerned for the poor, because he kept the money bag (Jn. 12:4-6; 13:29).

Homosexual abominations: and so, here we are.

Surveying the Text: Job

Joe Harby on January 18, 2015

Introduction

This book is widely regarded as a masterpiece of human literature, even by non-believers, and yet this high regard is not always accompanied by a high level of understanding. This is a very great book, and like many great things, our natural tendency is to get it down to a more understandable level, where we can piously misunderstand it. But one of the reasons this book shines so brightly is that there is no varnish on it. Job was an important figure. Consider Noah, Daniel and Job—two of the greatest men of righteousness in the Old Testament were not Jews (Ez. 14:14, 20).

The Text

“For I know that my redeemer liveth, And that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: And though after my skin worms destroy this body, Yet in my flesh shall I see God: Whom I shall see for myself, And mine eyes shall behold, and not another; Though my reins be consumed within me” (Job 19:25–27).

Summary of the Text

We do not know who wrote this book, and some scholars have taken our lack of information as a generous invitation to wild speculation. That said, my own view is that the beginnings of this book are found in distant antiquity, and that it took its place in the Wisdom literature around the time of Solomon—with the possibility that Solomon was the author. I believe the events that are the kernel of the poem were historical. Job is not an Israelite, but rather an Edomite, as will be discussed later. No explicit reference to the history of Israel is found in the book.

The book of Job is filled with unanswered questions, and things that human beings simply cannot know. But Job knows at least one thing, and it is stated here in our text—in the midst of his suffering, and in the midst of his wrongful complaint against God, we have this remarkable testimony of faith. This shining testimony sits in the midst of his complaints the same way the godly Job himself sat on the ash heap. Job knows that His redeemer lives, and that his redeemer is going to stand upon the earth at the latter day. Job also affirms his belief in the resurrection of the dead—after his body is destroyed by worms, Job affirms that in his body he is going to see God. Where did that come from?

The Structure of the Book

The first part of the book is the prologue in Heaven, where Satan challenges God with regard to Job’s motives. The result of this is a series of calamities that befall Job. The center of the book is made up of a series of debates that Job has with his three friends, cycling through three times. Then Elihu, a comparatively young man, enters the debate with his rebuke. After this God speaks to Job from the whirlwind, Job repents before God, and his prosperity is restored.

The Actual Situation

The land of Uz is likely part of Edom (Lam. 4:21), to the east of Israel. Eliphaz was a Temanite, and Teman was one of the great chieftains of Edom (Gen. 36:15). Bildad is a descendant of Abraham through Keturah (Gen. 25:2), and they all settled to the east, where Edom was. Zophar lived in the same general area as the other two. Elihu is identified as a Buzite, and Buz was the nephew of Uz.

We know from Scripture that Job was an enormously important man, the greatest of the men of the east (Job 1:3). For all intents and purposes, he was the king (Job 19:9). The Septuagint contains an additional paragraph at the end of the book that identifies Job with Jobab (Gen. 36:33-35), the second king of Edom. This means that the well-being of that society was dependent on Job prospering, since he was the head. So picture Job as the leader of that society, now come to disaster, and his three friends as cabinet members, trying to talk him into taking one for the team. This is not an example of three friends as private busybodies. This is politics. The future wellbeing of their whole society was at stake, and Job refuses to admit fault. He refuses to be the scapegoat.

Prosperity Theology

The problem with Job’s counselors is not that they were wrong, but rather that they were rightwoodenly. The Bible does teach that God is not mocked—there is a correlation between what a man sows and what he reaps (Gal. 6:7). That correlation is real, and this is why the wisdom of Proverbs teaches us to look for such correlations. Do you see a lazy man? Look for poverty (Prov. 24:33-343). Do you see a drunkard? Look for hallucinations (Prov. 23:31-35). Do you see a skirt-chaser? Look for death (Prov. 7:27). But don’t look for these things within thirty minutes (Ps. 37:35), and don’t affirm the consequent (John 9:3). Just because it is a fact that sin leads to hard consequences, it does not follow that hard consequences mean that there had to have been sin.

We do live in a world where there is moral cause and effect, but we are cautioned by this book (as by little else) not to be too tidy about it. At the same time, how does the book end? Job has all his prosperity restored.

My Redeemer Lives

This passage is a great creedal statement. Job knows that it is going to be momentous, and wants what he is about to say to be graven on a rock with a pen of iron. This is important, what he is about to say. And given what he was saying earlier in the chapter, it appears to come from the wild blue random.

The word rendered redeemer here is the word for kinsman. Because Job has a kinsman- redeemer who will stand in the latter day upon the earth, Job is confident that he also is going to stand upon the earth. He is going to do so in his body after his body has been destroyed. Although Job is restored in this life by the end of the book, he has no expectation of that here. He is looking forward to something else, something outside, something beyond. This is the hope of the resurrection—and our great Justification has led the way.

Surveying the Text: Acts

Joe Harby on January 11, 2015

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Introduction

After the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus, this book represents the pivot of God. In this book, we move from the world of the Jewish to the world of the
Gentile church. We move from a largely agrarian world to an urban world. We move from God’s work in one nation to a cosmopolitan work among all nations. The book begins at the Ascension of Christ (c. 30 A.D.) and ends with Paul’s first imprisonment in Rome (c. 60-61 A.D.) The book begins in Jerusalem, and ends in Rome, and that is a fact filled with metaphorical significance.

The Text

“But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth” (Acts 1:8).

Summary

In this text we see two important things identified—the ruler, and the realm. First, the ruler is Jesus Christ, working in the power of His Spirit, poured out at the beginning of the book. The realm is the entire world. This verse contains, in effect, a table of contents for the expansion of the gospel through the rest of the book of Acts. First Jerusalem (Acts 2:14), then Judea (Acts 2:14), then Samaria (Acts 8:5), and then out to uttermost part of the earth (Acts 28:16).

In the previous book, Luke tells us that we had read about all that Jesus had begun to do and to teach (Acts 1:1). The implication is that here, in this second book, we will see what Jesus will continue to do and to teach by means of His body in the world. We see this reality also in the words that Jesus speaks to Saul on the Damascus road. Saul is persecuting Christians, and Jesus asks why he is persecuting Jesus (Acts 9:4). By means of His Spirit, Jesus is identified with His people, and continues His ministry on the earth. And in a very real way, we can find additional encouragement in the way the book ends so inconclusively. It is almost as though Luke said to be continued . . . And it has been, down to the present day.

Exoneration

The book of Acts is filled with prisons. There are about twenty references to them, and in addition we find references to gates, doors, and guards. Because of the hostility of those who hated the gospel, trouble was stirred up everywhere the disciples (particularly Paul) went. The goal was to make it look as though they were the troublemakers. But Luke has a corresponding goal—he fills this book with exonerations, angelic and otherwise. The praetors of Philippi arrest Paul and Silas, but have to apologize for it (Acts 16:19ff ).

Gallio throws a case against the Christians out of court (Acts 18:12ff ). Paul is friends with the pagan Asiarchs at Ephesus, and the town clerk vindicates Paul against the charge of insulting Diana (Acts 19:31). Festus and Agrippa II agree together that Paul deserves neither death nor imprisonment (Acts 26:32). Luke wants to show, and does show, that the Christians are not that kind of threat to the empire.

A Question of Timing

As you are trying to arrange the books of the New Testament in some kind of order, one question that will arise is the placement of Galatians in the chronology of Acts. A problem is created by the fact that there were two Galatias, one ethnic and the other administrative. Are we talking about Dakota, a sub-tribe of the Sioux, or Dakota, as in North and South? So when Paul writes to the “Galatians,” who is he writing to? If he is writing to the Galatians of the Roman province, then this places his book in the chronology of Acts. If he is writing to the ethnic Galatians up north, then we don’t quite know how and when Paul got acquainted with them.

This is important for several reasons. One is that an early date for Galatians gives us a mature statement of justification by faith alone very early on in the history of the church. It was not a late “add-on,” a Pauline afterthought. Second, the details in Galatians blend very nicely with Acts on this view. For example, the “famine relief visit” (Acts 11:28-29) is the visit that was in response to a revelation (Gal. 2:2). And third, it explains why Paul didn’t appeal to the decision of the Jerusalem council in a letter dedicated to the very same controversy. He didn’t appeal to it because it had not yet happened. It also explains the heat of Galatians.

Stephen, the One Who Saw

At the very end of Stephen’s life, he saw a vision of the Lord Jesus in Heaven (Acts 7:55). At the very beginning of Saul’s Christian life, he saw a vision of the same Lord Jesus, shining like the sun (Acts 26:13). One of the central reasons why Saul came to see Jesus is because he had had an earlier encounter with Stephen. Stephen is actually one of the most important figures in church history. He was the first disciple to actually “get” the big picture. And his impact on Saul was enormous.

Stephen was ordained as a deacon, but had the power of working miracles and was a marvelous preacher. He came into a dispute with certain men who were
from the synagogue of the freedmen. They were from, among other places, Cilicia. The principal city in Cilicia was Tarsus, Saul’s home town. Stephen shut them all down, so they arranged for some men to falsely testify against him. The charge was that he was blaspheming Moses and the holy place (Acts 6:11,13). This, after Stephen was doing miracles, just like Moses had. And when they hauled him in, his face was shining like an angel’s—just like Moses’ face had. He defends himself masterfully—God was with Abraham in Mesopotamia (Acts 7:2), with Joseph in Egypt (Acts 7:9), and with Moses in Midian (Acts 7:33). Wherever God is, that is holy ground.

Now imagine an unregenerate Saul, seething with hostility and genius, losing an argument with a Christian deacon. It is hard to imagine him taking it well. But he would also be smart enough to know that killing a man is not the same thing as refuting him. The first appearance that Saul makes in the Bible is when he is holding the cloaks of the men that “others” had suborned, while they killed Stephen. He then went off in a fury, trying to shut up the voices in his head. In this relay race, Stephen had been struck down, and the baton clattered to the track. But in the wisdom and providence of God, the next man to pick it up—in order to run the good race—was an unlikely convert named Saul.