September Q & A Session
1. What does the Bible teach us about knowing God's will?
See: 1 Thess. 4:3, 7; 5:18; Rom. 12:1-2; 1 Pet. 4:2; 1 John 2:17; 4:9. See also 1 Cor. 10:31; Col. 3:17.
2. Why is Judas of James listed as one of the twelve disciples in Luke 6:14-16 (and Acts 1:13) but not included in the list of the twelve disciples in Mark 3:16-19?
3. Why does Matthew (Matt. 8:28-34) say that two men were possessed in the country of the Gergesenes when Mark 5:1-20 and Luke 8:26-39 only talk about one possessed man?
4. Was the golden calf of Exodus 32 flat or three dimensional?
See Exod. 32:4 and Exod. 32:24.
5. Did Jesus carry the entire cross or just the cross beam?
Psalm 32 – Forgiven
I want to begin with a quote that I think best embodies the spirit of this psalm.
It is told of Luther that one day being asked which of all the Psalms were the best, he made answer, “Psalmi Paulini,” and when his friends pressed to know which these might be, he said, “The 32nd, the 51st, 130th, and the 143rd. For they teach that the forgiveness of our sins comes, without the law and without works, to the man who believes, and therefore I came them Pauline Psalms; and David sings, ‘There is forgiveness with thee, that thou mayest be feared,’ this is just what Paul says, ‘God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.’ Rom. 9:32. Thus no man may boast of his own righteousness. That word, ‘That thou mayest be feared,’ dusts away all merit, and teaches us to uncover our heads before God, and confess gratia est, non meritum: remissio, non satisfactio; it is mere forgiveness, not merit at all.”1
What Luther meant was that the Pauline doctrine that we are so familiar with is clearly displayed in these psalms. So much so that Paul even used the 32nd psalm a basis for part of his argument for justification by faith alone in Romans 4:6-8. What a blessing it is for us to see that it was not only Paul that believed in this justification by faith but that David also believed this full heartedly by putting it the doctrine to song. David even expands upon the thought by singing of the joy of the forgiven man, contrasts it with the man who keeps his sin, displays a true confession, shows the manner of life that follows and in an invitation for praise.
The psalm also belongs to a group of seven psalms known as penitential psalms (i.e. Pss. 6, 32, 38, 51, 102, 130 and 143). They become known as such because they were sung by the early church on Ash Wednesday.2 The 32nd psalm bears a lot of resemblance with the 51st psalm. Both share the same author and both talk about confessing sin. This has caused a lot of individuals to think that they are somehow correlate with each other. The superscription in psalm 51 states, “To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David, when Nathan the prophet came unto him, after he had gone in to Bath-sheba,” and therefore causes us to think that David is confessing for the same sin in Ps. 32, or perhaps a sequel to Ps. 51. However, David’s affair with Bathsheba is not the only time that David had needed to repent of sin in his life.
32:title. “Maschil” appears in the superscription of 13 psalms and once in Ps. 47:17 translated as “understanding.” The word is transliterated from מַשְׂכִּיל (maśkîl) and comes from the verb שָׂכַל (śāḵal) meaning understanding in the sense of complex reasoning.3 Therefore the best we can understand for “maschil” is a musical term referring to “a skillfully constructed poem.”4 However, the verb שָׂכַל does occur in v. 8 translated as “I will instruct thee.”
32:1-2. The first two verses start with the word “Blessed” which are the Hebrew אַשְׁרֵי (ʾās̆rê) very simply meaning happy or bliss.5 The Christian life is an enigma. We deal with a lot of turmoil but at the same time it is said that we live a blessed life. How can this be? The Christian still deals with sickness and hardship just as much or even more than the rest of the world. It is because the Christian does not find his joy in “good times” but in his position in Christ. We see for David that the cause of his joy is not from being in a good situation or being prosperous but from having his transgression forgiven, sin covered and acquitted of iniquity.
David uses three words to describe his wrong doings, i.e. transgression, sin and iniquity. Together as a whole, these words represent the entire spectrum of wrong doings. “Transgression” is from פֶּשַׁע (pes̆aʿ) meaning “a rebellion, a breach in a relationship.”6 In this context it speaks of the breach of a relationship with God due to rebellion through disobedience. This shows that the wrong action was intentional. “Sin” comes from חְַטָאָה (ḥăṭāʾâ) meaning “to miss the mark.”7 This is best illustrated in Rom. 3:23, “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” It is a failure to meet a standard, and in this case a failure to achieve the glory of God. “Iniquity” is from עָוֹן (ʿāôn) having two possible understandings based upon its etymology. The first means “to go astray,” and the second means “to twist, bend.”8 Again, David is not trying to specify his kind of sin; he trying to leave nothing out of the picture to describe his wrongful actions.
For each of the descriptions for wrongful actions, David shows what God had done with them. “Forgiven” is from נָשָׂא (nāśāʾ) which means usually means to “lift up” showing that the sin was taken away.9 “Covered” is כָּסָה (kāsâ) meaning to conceal, hide from sight.10 There is often debate concerning how dealt with the sins of the OT saints. The Old School opinion was that God merely “covered” their sin until the Son could make the ultimate sacrifice. Yet from the context of this psalm, God removed the sin contemporaneously with the saint. The next word conveys this well. “Impute” is from חָשַׁב (ḥās̆aḇ) meaning “to reckon, account or charge.”11 The word was used in the same sense when Abraham believed the LORD and He accounted it to him for righteousness (Gen. 15:6). Now understand that David is not saying that God does something specific for each type of wrong action. David is simply using words that have a similar range of meaning to help convey the idea of total forgiveness for all kinds of wrong actions. Yet studying each of the words in detail helps us to understand how God treats sin for the repentant believer.
The last line of v. 2 ends with an exception of sorts to what was stated above. A man receive joy by being forgiven of his sin if his confession is not deceitful. Beware of the man who only says vain words only to try to rescue his own reputation. Many men will try to create a facade of penitence so that people will forget about the action and move on. A man who makes a deceitful confession is no confession at all. The man was not sorrowful about being sinful. The man was only sorrowful that he got caught in his sin and has to deal with the consequences. An absence of deceit is required in order to forgiveness to happen. The deceitful man will be easy to spot. He will return to his sin just as the dog returns to its vomit (Prov. 26:11).
32:3-4. These verse describe the personal agony a man endures when he does not bring his sin to God. The unrepentant man is signified by keeping silent. A invisible burden grows upon a man when he keeps his a secret to himself. The knowledge of his wrong stays at the forefront of his mind. Day and night the consciousness of hidden wrongs pester the man. The man has to watch over his shoulder to make sure that no one is watching. He has to watch his actions in public to make sure there is no hint of the wrong. He has to think over his words in conversation to be sure that no one will get the wrong idea. The man has to create a separate persona to make sure that he is never identified as a man with a dark secret.
David expresses the agony of keeping unconfessed sin by relating it to physical troubles. David compared bearing the burden of sin to the frame of the body growing old and weak. The bones, the strongest part of the body, were able to withstand the trauma. The unrepentant man anguishes in the pain of sin and cries out to complain of the situation. He may acknowledge that he is in a horrible place or that he is in bad circumstances but he will not acknowledge that his life situation was caused by his wrong actions. The sin of man caused God’s hand to become heavy upon him. We call this conviction. God leans in upon a man and causes the man to crumple under the load. God does this to teach the man that his sin is not getting him pleasure in life. Instead the man only feels guilt and remorse for his actions. Perhaps he has even hurt some people that he knew very well along the way. All of this leads to a man who is at the end of his rope.
This comparison with the summer heat (simile) is vivid; it drains the energy and immobilizes the will to live life to the full David’s zest is not there; he was not motivated. He felt drained all the time. Basically, he was depressed, and it affected his physical energy and health. God was not allowing the psalmist to live life to the full when he was in rebellion again him, for it was God who gave him the full life to begin with.12
The man is only a mere shell of what he is supposed to be. He is only a figure that is haunted by the pain of remorse caused by his own actions.
32:5. David states that he ceased from the pain by coming unto the LORD with his sin. David shows this single action in three ways: acknowledge, not hide iniquity, and confess. This shows a progression. The man first acknowledges that his actions are sinful. He does not make excuses but instead see them as God sees them. Then the man decides to bring his wrong actions into the public. Before, he was trying to hide (כָּסַה, “covered” in v. 1) his sin; this is something that only God can truly do. Finally the man decides to confess his sin unto the LORD. The word “confession” is יָדָה (yāḏâ) meaning “to make an admission, i.e., to publicly admit to something usually a wrong of some kind.”13
The result of the repentance was that David was able to be forgiven of his sin. The KJV states that he was forgiven the iniquity of his sin causing us to think that David was only delivered from current consequences of his sin. However, the Hebrew shows something unique.
God forgave the “iniquity of my sin” (עְַוֹן חַטָּאתִי). This could be interpreted in one of two ways. One would be to be take the two words as expressing a superlative genitive (like “king of kings or “Song of Songs”); this would stress the sinfulness of the sin. The other way, and the way I would take it, is to to define the word “iniquity” in one of its derived senses, “guilt” or “punishment.” This would mean that God took away all the effects of the sin when he took away the sin.14
The point is that God’s forgiveness removes all of the sin. Whether this be the worst of sins or the effects of the sin.
32:6-7. David speaks of God’s deliverance for the faithful. He states that the godly should pray unto God “in a time when thou mayest be found.” The Hebrew literally reads: “in a time of finding.” David is referring back to the point in time when he was refusing to confess his sin to the LORD. David was in a season of finding or looking for an answer to his sin problem. The answer to his problem was the forgiveness of sins from God. David is instructing others to follow suit. When you find that you have grown weary from sin; seek the LORD’s forgiveness.
The floods of great waters is a metaphor for the trouble caused by sin. The imagery is strong. David would have been familiar with seasonal downpours causing flash floods and thus damage and danger. Yet we have the opportunity to confess our sin and be rescued from the floods of life before they overtake us. We need only ask. There have been too many prideful men that have never asked for deliverance even though the flood water rise and take their life.
“Hiding place” is סֵתֶר (sēṯer) meaning “a place of shelter and refuge as a location where one can dwell, implying protection from a danger.”15 God also preserves from trouble as well. The word “songs” is also translated as “shouts” (ESV, HCSB) and is from רֹן (rōn) meaning to give a ringing cry; “it is often used for the jubilation of great victory.”16
32:8-9. The psalm turns toward a didactic section. The first person singular picks up in these two verses and it becomes uncertain who is doing the speaking. The LORD may be speaking because He is usually ascribed as the one that leads us in paths of righteousness. However, seeing how this psalm is so similar to psalm 51, it may be David speaking to others in need of instruction. “Then will I teach transgressors thy ways; And sinners shall be converted unto thee” (Ps. 51:13). David desires others to follow suit. He wants to share the joy he found in being forgiven of his sin.
“I will guide thee with mine eye,” is more commonly translated, “I will counsel you with my eye upon you” (NASB, ESV). The anthropomorphism is meant to show God’s continual watchful care for the faithful.
David uses two negative examples for a person not to follow: the horse and the mule. Both of these animals have to be forced by a harness that even goes into the mouth of the animal. The reason for the extent of the harness is because the animal will not listen to instruction. The animal has to be forcibly led to where it needs to go. A person must be humble and realize that God’s instruction is the best way to live life. God knows what He is doing. Do not provoke God so that He needs to grab the harness and pull you around to where you are supposed to be. “A whip for the horse, a bridle for the ass, And a rod for the fool’s back” (Prov. 26:3).
32:10. The familiar tones of wisdom literature continues in this verse. David contrasts what comes to the wicked against what comes to the repentant man. The wicked man will only receive sorrows for his actions. There is much irony in this. A greedy man thinks money will bring him happiness and will find that he is really enslaved to his desire to have more money. The one who trusts in the LORD though, will be surrounded by mercy/lovingkindness (חֶסֶד). The one trusts in his actions to bring joy and finds only sorrow. The other trusts in the LORD’s forgiveness of sin and finds that he is blessed/happy (v. 1 and 2) and that he is surrounded by God’s lovingkindness. The difference is where they have placed their trust. The difference is one has brought his sin to God. The one has confessed his transgressions to the LORD.
32:11. David closes the psalm with an invitation for those who have confessed of their iniquity and have even found righteousness. The proper response after having realized that you have committed sin, that you need to make it open, it cannot be hidden, that you have confessed to God and He in turn lifts away the sin, He truly conceals the transgression, He imputes righteousness unto us, we should praise Him. Praise Him for He has made us upright in heart.
___________________________________
1. Luther’s Table Talk; qtd. in Charles H. Spurgeon, The Treasury of David: Classic Reflections on the Wisdom of the Psalms ([1851?]; repr. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2011), 1:2:86.
2. Peter C. Craigie and Marvin E. Tate, Psalms 1-50, WBC, vol. 19, 2nd ed. (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2004), 91.
3. TWOT, 2236.
4. Allen P. Ross, A Commentary on the Psalms, KEL (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2011-5), 1:703n1.
5. TWOT, 183a.
6. TWOT, 1846.
7. TWOT, 638d.
8. Ross, A Commentary on the Psalms, 1:713n25.
9. DBLH, 5951.
10. TWOT, 1008.
11. Ross, A Commentary on the Psalms, 1:710n20.
12. Ibid, 713.
13. DBLH, 3344 II.
14. Ross, A Commentary on the Psalms, 1:715.
15. DBLH, 6260.
16. Ross, A Commentary on the Psalms, 1:716; cf. TWOT, 2179a.
Ps 29 – The Voice of the LORD
We will see that ultimately this psalm is a call to worship the Lord. Again, upon closer inspection, we will see that David uses great talent in his poetry. David uses a strategy in his writing of this psalm that we saw also in psalm 8 and 19. David is going to use the beauty of God’s creation to demonstrate the glory of the Lord. In psalm 8, David used the beauty of the night sky to make us ask why God was mindful of man (Ps. 8:3-4). In Ps 19, talked about the beauty of a sunrise to demonstrate how everyman sees the glory of God (Ps. 19:1, 4-5). This time David is going to show the beauty of a thunderstorm (possibly something stronger) to demonstrate that God is deserving of praise from all creatures.
The psalm easily breaks into three parts: vv. 1-2 is a call to worship for His holiness, vv. 3-9b describe the holiness of the Lord argued through the beauty of a thunderstorm, and vv. 9c-11 show the Lord established as Sovereign.
David may have done something quite interesting. It appears that David borrowed from a Canaanite psalm for Baal and modified it for use with the Lord.
The Canaanite/Ugaritic aspects of the psalm formed the basis of an hypothesis presented by Ginsberg in 1935, in which he proposed that Ps 29 may originally have been a Phoenician hymn, which found its way into the Hebrew psalter after suitable modification. This basic hypothesis has been developed and modified by several scholars since 1935; many scholars now consider the evidence for the original Canaanite/Phoenician character of the psalm (it is proposed that it was originally a hymn to Baal) is “conclusive.”1
There are two main reasons for the hypothesis. The first is that the geography mentioned in the psalm is not found in Israel but north, in Lebanon—a place dominated by worship to Baal. The second reason is that, “Baal, the Canaanite weather-god, was associated with the storm, thunder and lightning. He is portrayed in Ugaritic iconography with lightning as a weapon in his hand; in the Ugaritic texts, his voice is explicitly identified with thunder.”2 The hypothesis should not worry us but rather help us to see some of David’s creativity and talent. We do something similar today when we borrow a tune and replace the original words with our own words; Weird Al Yankovic makes a living doing this. How far the hypothesis is correct is uncertain. If the hypothesis is correct, even to the fullest extent, then we should realize that David created a polemic against Baal with his own hymn. Think of it as mocking a nation in song while using the tune of the nation’s own national anthem.
29:title. In the MT and the English translations, we only see that David’s name is listed as the author of this psalm. In the LXX, we find additional words (i.e. ἐξοδίου σκηνῆς)3 indicating that it was meant to be used at the Feast of Tabernacles. Perhaps this is due to v. 9, “And in his temple doth every one speak of his glory.” “But it is now a psalm for Pentecost, and may well have been so used in New Testament times. The Talmud prescribes it for this feast (Sopherim 18:3).”4 According to tradition, Pentecost, or the Feast of Weeks, is when Moses received the Ten Commandments on mount Sinai. I think the Talmud assigned this psalm to the day because of the scene that was observed when God’s speaking was likened to thunder and lightnings and the mountain quaked in His presence (Exod. 19:16, 18; 20:118-19; cf. Heb. 12:18-21). Perhaps David witnessed a storm and recalled the scene of mount Sinai which inspired him to write this psalm.
29:1-2. As already stated, the first three verses serve as a call to come and worship the Lord. The first line tells us to whom the call is addressed. The word “mighty” is the Hebrew בְּנֵי אֵלִים (benê ʾēlim) or “sons of the mighty.” “The expression is difficult but probably means ‘sons of God,’ even though elsewhere that is written differently (בְּנֵי אְֶלֹהִים). In the Old Testament these would be angels (Job 2:1). In the Canaanite texts the expression ‘the sons of El (God)’ refers to the pantheon of the gods.”5 Therefore, David is calling all of the creatures of heaven to join in giving praise to God.
We see the word “give” or “ascribe” is repeated three times in vv. 1-2. Two of the three times we are told to give glory unto God. It is even noted that this is “due unto his name.” The very character of God demands that we worship Him. We see this especially when Isaiah sees the Lord high and lifted up (Isa. 6:1-5). The seraphs constantly give praise to God (Rev. 4:8). All who see Him always fall prostrate before Him. They only have to look upon Him and they fall in worship. Yet David is not seeing the Lord like Isaiah did. He needs to explain that God’s character demands worship. Spurgeon noted well, “Surely men should not need so much pressing to give what is due, especially when the payment is so pleasant.”6 The unsaved is not aware that man was made to give glory to God (1 Cor. 10:31) and the saved need to be reminded on a regular basis.
The last line of v. 2 is a little tricky to understand. The word “beauty” is the Hebrew הְַדָרָה (hăḏārâ) which can also be translated as “worship garb.”7 Hence the NASB states, “Worship the Lord in holy array.”
Holy array is a perfectly possible translation of an expression which is literally “the splendor of holiness.” It is found also in 96:9; 110:3; 1 Chron. 16:29; 2 Chron. 20:21; and while it could be translated either way in all places, the last of them tips the balance toward the “literal” sense, understood as speaking of God’s holiness rather than man’s. Here, then, we should probably understand the line to mean “Worship the Lord for the splendor of (his) holiness”.8
Perhaps we should even see it as the Lord is arrayed in holiness. The same is observed by the seraphs in Isaiah 6:3 and Revelation 4:8.
29:3. David now turns in vv. 3-9b to explain why God deserves praise. David is going to use a metaphor equating the voice of the Lord to thunder. Remember, David may be borrowing from a previous source but David wanted to demonstrate God’s power and therefore needs to be worshipped. David creatively uses something that every man has seen in his life. Every man has been surprised a couple of times by the effects of thunder; if not as an adult then certainly as a child. David will show these effects of thunder and lightning as the storm moves across the land.
The fact that the voice of the Lord is over the waters may just have a simple connotation. It may just be that the storm is starting over the Mediterranean Sea.9 The other possible connotation has to do with David borrowing from the Canaanite hymn. “In the Ugaritic texts, Yam (‘sea’) is the ‘god of the mighty waters;’ yet the chaotic god, Yam, was conquered by Baal. An allusion to this mythological incident is already contained in the Song of the Sea, where the Lord is described as using ‘sea’ as tool of conquest (Exod. 15:8).”10 David is simply showing that such wonders of nature are not gods but only tools of the Lord’s power.
29:4. David simply ascribes power and majesty to thunder as it is equated to the voice of the Lord. This will be explained in the verses to come.
29:5. We know today that it is not thunder that breaks a tree as much as it lightning. However, David is using the language of appearances. Moreover, whenever there is lightning, thunder will follow. David demonstrates the power of the voice of the Lord by explaining that it is not a weak tree that is being destroyed. The voice of the Lord destroys even the mighty cedar trees of Lebanon fall prostrate before the Lord.
29:6. The first line of v 6 describes an earthquake. The violent shaking is like a calf skipping due to fear. What is most impressive is the object that is being shaken—Lebanon and Sirion. Lebanon is a metonymy representing a mountain range. We know this because Sirion is a mountain located in that range. Mt. Sirion is probably Mt. Hermon from Deuteronomy 3:9. The voice of the Lord is shaking the most massive object on the face of the planet. We have all experienced this when lightning strikes near us. The ground shakes. I have heard of lightning striking near hour and the window pane shatter from the thunder. This is power. “Unicorn” is from the Hebrew רְאֵם (reēm) which is a wild ox or aurochs. The animal is now extinct.11
29:7. The commentators are in agreement that this line is referring to lightning, “The voice of the Lord strikes with flashes of lightning.”12 The NIV states the same. This, again, brings up the imagery associated with Baal but David is still insisting that this of the Lord.
29:8. The verse corresponds with v 6. The storm shakes the wilderness as well the mountains. The location of “Kadesh” is uncertain. “This is probably Kadesh on the Orontes River in the north. The word ‘Kadesh’ designates a shrine, a holy place, and so it would be a fairly popular name for cities with temples.”13 “Kadesh” means holy as well so it may simple mean holy wilderness.
29:9a-b. The first line has been met with some confusion. There is a desire to make the line parallel to cedars of Lebanon. Surprisingly, one could vocalize the consonants (אַילה) to be “oaks” instead of a doe. However, there is no manuscript support for “oaks” over a dear. The verb, to calve, is usually translated “to be in labor” but it could mean “to writhe” perhaps due to fear.14 There is still the possibility that there was enough fear for the doe that it cause a premature birth for the fawn but this meaning is uncertain.
The second line of v. 9 corresponds with the cedar trees of Lebanon. Most translations have, “And strips the forests bare.”
29:9c. The conclusion after witnessing the power and the effects of the voice of the Lord should be of praise. That should certainly be the case if you are in His temple.
29:10. The flood corresponds with the “many waters” of v. 3. The word “flood” is מַבּוּל (mǎbbûl). The word is only used 13 times in the OT and only occurs this once in the psalms. All other occurrences of מַבּוּל are found in Genesis relating to the deluge. Therefore we see that God is executing judgment and authority as He sits on His throne even in the midst of a deluge.
29:11. When God displays His power, His people receive blessing. His people receive peace. He is able to shake the mountains and He is also able to bless His children.
If we should give to God when we only see His storms, how much more glory will we give Him when we stand before Him?
Notes
1. Peter C. Craigie and Marvin E. Tate, Psalms 1-50, Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 19, 2nd ed. (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2004), 244.
2. Ibid, 247.
3. Ibid, 242n1a.
4. Derek Kidner, Psalms 1-72, Kidner Classic Commentary (1973; repr. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2008), 142n87.
5. Allen P. Ross, A Commentary on the Psalms, Kregel Exegetical Library (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2011-5), 1:656.
6. Charles H. Spurgeon, The Treasury of David: Classic Reflections on the Wisdom of the Psalms ([1851?]; repr. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2011), 1:2:29.
7. James Swanson, Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains: Hebrew (Old Testament) (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, 1997), 2079. (DBLH)
8. Kidner, Psalms 1-72, 145.
9. Ross, A Commentary on the Psalms, 1:659.
10. Craigie and Tate, Psalms 1-50, 247.
11. DBLH, 8028.
12. Craigie’s translation of v. 7 in Craigie and Tate, Psalms 1-50, 242.
13. Ross, A Commentary on the Psalms, 1:660.
14. Ibid, 1:660n17.
Bibliology: Divine Revelation
In the previous lesson, I quickly discussed that there are two major kinds of revelation concerning God. The previous lesson was concerned with General Revelation which consisted of examining the evidence found in nature to show that God exists and is verified by Scripture. I also stated that General Revelation is shown unto all people at all times. Divine Revelation, sometimes called Special Revelation, is defined as the Word of God communicated to specific people through various modes in order to express the nature of God, the will of God, and/or the works of God. “Special Revelation is redemptive revelation. It publishes the good tidings that the holy and merciful God promises salvation as a divine gift to man who cannot save himself and that he has now fulfilled that promise in the gift of His Son in whom all men are called to believe.”1 General Revelation was only able to communicate that God exists and that we are guilty of breaking His laws and therefore deserve His condemnation (Rom. 1:18-20). General Revelation does not explain how is to be rescued from God’s wrath. Divine Revelation picks up where General Revelation left off. Most importantly, but not only, it explains how one is to be reconciled to God.
There are some commonalities that occur every time when God speaks that should be pointed out. All of these commonalities will be examined further in later lessons because they can also be said of Scripture. 1) God’s Word is truth. Every time that God speaks to man, He speaks truth. Every message that He gives is consistent with any and all messages that He has given at any and all times. 2) God’s Word is authoritative. Multiple examples can be shown that when a person failed to be obedient to special instructions consequences soon followed. 3) God’s Word is understood. Examples can be shown of when God gave instructions and the recipient was able to follow through as prescribed. God’s words are not beyond the comprehensibility of man.
A false understanding of Divine Revelation tries to separate the message from the historical event surrounding the revelation given. “Eighteenth century rationalism revived the notion of pre-Christian Greek idealism that historical facts are necessarily relative and never absolute, and that revelation consequently is to be divorced from historical actualities and identified with ideas alone.”2 Men who are convinced of such rationalism have made statements such as, “In the Bible, God’s self-revelation is personal rather than propositional. That is to say, ultimately revelation is in relationship, ‘confrontation,’ communion, rather than by the communication of facts.”3 Such men would examine an event like Moses parting the Red Sea and claim that the event may not be 100% fact but the point still remains; God was working in the redemption of the Israelites from the Egyptians. The problem that arises from such rationalism is that the message loses its power when it is divorced from historical facts. God was not just with the Israelites but He was supernaturally overseeing Israel’s exodus. God made a promise to Abraham that his children would inherit a land and God made sure that no man would interfere with that plan. God also had Moses part the Red Sea to demonstrate to both Israel and Egypt that He is God and beside Him there is no one else.
Scripture tells of multiple modes of Divine Revelation that God has used to communicate to man. However, it is assumed that not every occurrence of Divine Revelation is recorded in Scripture. For example, Scripture never explains how king Melchizedek had a knowledge of God when he lived before the books of Moses were written (Gen. 14:18). There were even numerous miracles that Christ performed that are not recorded in Scripture (John 21:25). The following are different modes by which God communicated His word unto man.
Prophets and Apostles
God spoke to men known as prophets who were then in turn to speak the message they received from God. Prophets are found in both the Old and New Testaments. They knew that received the Word of God and their carried authority (Deut. 18:18-20; 1 Sam. 10:10-11; 2 Sam. 23:2; Jer. 1:9). Their messages would vary. It is unknown how many of their messages are not recorded. There is mention of a group of prophets but nothing is said about who they are or what their message is (2 Kings 2:5).
The apostles had a similar function to the prophets but they also were eye-witnesses of the resurrected Jesus Christ (Acts 1:21-22). They were also responsible for building the church (Eph. 2:20). Like the prophets, only a few apostles wrote anything down.
Decrees
“A decree of God is a word of God that causes something to happen.”4 The best example of a decree is when created the heavens and the earth just by simply speaking them into existence (Gen. 1:3; Ps. 33:6). Another example would be when Christ commanded the wind and the waves to be still. He spoke and creation obeyed (Mark 4:39-40).
Visions and Dreams
God used dreams to communicate to men (Num. 12:6). They could be experienced by believers and unbelievers (Dan. 2:1, 28-45). These were sometimes filled with imagery (e.g. Gen. 37:5-10). Other times these dreams contained a message communicated clearly (e.g. Matt. 1:20-24; 2:13).
Visions are very similar to dreams with the exception that the recipient is awake and able to make some participation (e.g. Ezek. 11:24; Dan. 8:16-17, 26; Acts 11:5-10).
Angels
God also uses angels to communicate His word unto people (Dan. 9:21-27; Luke 1:11-12, 19, 26-38). The word “angel” actually means messenger.
Audible Voice
There are times when God speaks to people directly without the use of any vehicle of communication (e.g. dreams, prophets). This was the case when God gave the Law to Moses (Exod. 20:1-2; cf. Num. 12:6-8). God also spoke directly when He called Samuel (1 Sam. 3:4-14). This also occurred three times during Christ’s earthly ministry (Matt. 3:16-17; 17:5; John 12:28).
Urim and Thummim
This mode of communication may see odd to us today but God used two stones called Urim and Thummin by the hand of a high priest. They were placed inside of the breastplate worn by the high priest. Most speculate that they were used to determine God’s will in the form of an answer to a yes or no question. For example, Joshua would inquire by the priest if he should overthrow such-and-such a place. The priest would then reach inside the pouch pull out one of stones which would then correspond with a negative or positive answer; something akin to casting lots. However, the Bible never gives instructions on how they are to be used. We only see references to the stones that show an understanding that they were used to determine the will of God (Exod. 28:30; Num. 27:21; Deut. 33:8; 1 Sam. 28:6; Ezra 2:63).
Jesus Christ and Theophanies
Jesus Christ is the Word of God made flesh (John 1:1, 14, 18; cf. 1 John 1:1; Rev. 19:13). Jesus made it clear that His words and the words of God are of equal value and that Jesus displayed an exact representation of the Father (John 14:9-11).
A theophany is a visible manifestation of God (Isa. 6:1-4; cf. Rev. 5:5-13). In the Old Testament, there appearances of the angel of the Lord. These appearance are really Jesus Christ before His incarnation. “Clearly the Angle of Yahweh is a self-manifestation of Yahweh, for He speaks as God, identifies Himself with God, and claims to exercise the prerogatives of God (Gen. 16:7-14; 21:17-18; 22:11-18; 31:11-13; Exod. 3:2; Judg. 2:1-4; 5:23; 6:11-22; 13:3-22; 2 Sam. 24:16; Zech. 1:12; 3:1; 12:8).”5
Scripture
The last mode of Divine Revelation is Scripture. I have mentioned how all of these modes of revelation are communicating the Word of God. Scripture is the Word of God put down in written form (Exod. 17:14; Jer. 30:2). The Bible contains records of the other methods of revelation, but Scripture itself is a mode of Divine Revelation. The commonalities that were mentioned earlier can be said of Scripture.
The rest of the unit will focus on what the Bible says about itself.
________________
1. Walter A. Elwell, ed., Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1984), 945-8.
2. Ibid.
3. C.F.D. Moule, “Revelation,” in The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible (New York: Abingdon, 1976), 4:55; quoted in Charles C. Ryrie, Basic Theology: A Popular Systematic Guide to Understanding Biblical Truth (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1999), 74.
4. Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), 48.
5. Ryrie, Basic Theology, 275-6.
Bibliology: General Revelation
Introduction
A rough definition of revelation is content that explains something that was unknown. The word is usually used within the context of theology signifying something being made known about God’s character, works, or decrees. General Revelation is the first of two major categories of revelation. The second category of revelation is Divine Revelation. General Revelation is defined as “That disclosure to all persons at all times and places by which one comes to know that God is, and what He is like. General revelation mediates the conviction that God exists and that He is self-sufficient, transcendent, imminent, eternal, powerful, wise, good, and righteous. General, or natural, revelation maybe divided into two categories: (1) internal, the innate sense of beauty and consciousness, and (2) external, nature and providential history.”1
These two forms of General Revelation can be used to form a branch of theology known as Natural Theology. Natural Theology is a set of proofs used to demonstrate the existence of God using evidence from General Revelation. “The traditional proofs for the existence of God that have been constructed by Christian philosophers at various points in history are in fact attempts to analyze the evidence, especially the evidence from nature, in extremely carefully and logically precise ways, in order to persuade people that it is not rational to reject the idea of God’s existence. If it is true that sin causes people to think irrationally, then these proofs are attempts to cause people to think rationally or correctly about the evidence for God's existence, in spite of the irrational tendency caused by sin.”2
A lot of criticism falls on these proofs that try to demonstrate the existence of God. The main reason people argue is that these proofs are not expressly given in Scripture. Another is that the Bible never tries to demonstrate that God exists. The Bible starts with the assumption that God exists from the beginning, “In the beginning God created” (Gen. 1:1). While these criticisms make a good point it should be noted that the Bible does verify these proofs that are used by alluding to them. Of course the Bible will not give these arguments the same name as we would today. One should also notice that these arguments were even used by the Apostle Paul on three separate occasions. Lastly, God gave us a mind so that we could use to glorify God. Man is not an animal with only brutish needs. Man was created in the Image of God and is meant to use his faculties that God has given him through the Image of God (i.e. reason).
External Proofs
The following three arguments or proofs are broader categories of arguments that are used to demonstrate the existence of God using evidence from nature. Both the believer and the unbeliever observe the same facts of nature (e.g., gravity, motion, complexity of life, etc.) but yet come to different conclusions. The point of all of these arguments is that if one were to observe and deduce correctly from these facts of nature, then the denial of God’s existence becomes absurd.
The verification for these arguments comes from Psalm 19:1-6. All of nature shows forth His handiwork (v. 1). Every man upon the earth has seen His handiwork (vv. 2-4). There is beauty in His handiwork (vv. 5-6).
Cosmological Argument
“The cosmological argument is a family of arguments that seek to demonstrate the existence of a Sufficient Reason or a First Cause of the the existence of the cosmos.”3 In short, something or Someone must have caused the universe to come in to existence. You can not get something from nothing.
The cosmological argument has been broken down further into three basic types. 1) The kalam cosmological argument which, “Aims to show that universe had a beginning at some finite past and, since something cannot come out of nothing, must therefore have transcendent cause, which brought the universe into being.”4 2) The Thomist cosmological argument “named for the medieval philosophical theologian Thomas Aquinas, seeks a cause that is first, not in the temporal sense, but in the sense of rank.”5 Thomas did this in his “five ways:” motion, efficient cause, contingency, gradation of value, and unintelligent object move in ways that have a purpose.6 And finally, 3) Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz used an argument based upon contingency, like one Thomas Aquinas’ five ways but Leibniz did it without Aristotelian metaphysics. Leibniz wrote, “The first question which should rightly be asked is this: why is there something rather than nothing?”7
Teleological Argument
The teleological argument is the most popular of the three. The teleological argument states that because there is an design in the universe, there must have been an ultimate Designer. Its popularity has increased over the recent years to due advances from Christian scientists being outspoken in their field. These Christian Scientists have paved the way for the Intelligent Design movement which is an alternative theory for the origin of species as opposed to Darwin’s theory of evolution.
The teleological argument was first made popular by William Paley in his book titled, Natural Theology, which he presented the example of a watch that was found in the middle of the field. A watch has parts that move and parts that signify something. The purpose of a watch is to keep track of time. By examining a watch, one would agree that a watch was designed for that purpose. Therefore because the watch was designed, there must have been a designer of the watch. It is absurd to think that the watch came into existence in the middle of field for the express purpose that it should keep track of time by mere chance.
Today, many scientists in the field of biology are helping to further demonstrate the point of the teleological argument. Michael Behe, an associate professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University, helped with his discussion on irreducibly complex systems.
By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. An irreducibly complex system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution.8
Behe then goes to give multiply examples. The most intriguing is the body’s ability to have blood clot when in need.
The thought of the teleological argument can be seen in Scripture. There is the allusion to it in Psalm 94:9-10. The ear was designed to hear, therefore the designer had that end in mind when He made the ear. Paul told the people of Lystra that, “He left not himself without witness, in that He did good, and gave us rain from heaven, and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness” (Acts 14:17). God designed the earth to support life. All of the systems on earth depend each other. Man depends on his crops for food. The crops depend on the rain to grow.
Ontological Argument
Of the three external proofs, this is the most ill received and the most philosophical. The ontological argument is based upon the study of ontology, that is the study of the nature of being. The ontological argument was originally conceived by Anselm. The point of his argument is that one can prove God exists because the nature of God’s being–self evident and necessary. “Anselm argued that once a person truly understands the notion of a greatest conceivable being, then he will see that such being must exist, since if it did not, it would not be the greatest conceivable being.”9
The criticism for the this argument has been that just because one can conceive of the greatest possible being, does not mean that greatest possible being actually exists. There is a difference between conception and the real world. We can think of many things, but those do not necessarily exist.
The response to the above criticism is that part of the definition of the greatest possible being is that his existence is necessary in all possible worlds. If there were a possibility that the greatest possible being could not exist, then he would not be the greatest possible being. His existence is necessary in every possible world and therefore is necessary in the real world and really does exist.10
There is a different argument for the existence that I would label as an ontological argument because it argues from the uniqueness of the being of mankind. It is also known as the anthropological argument. Man is very different from the rest of creation on earth. Only man philosophizes. Only man creates and appreciates different mediums of art (e.g. music, paintings, etc.). You will never see cheetah sit down argue about different theories of justice. There is something that is truly unique the being of man. This is of course due to the Image of God that man bares. The question then becomes, “How can man, a moral, intelligent, and living being, be explained apart from a moral, intelligent, and living God?”11 The creation of man therefore necessitates a Creator that had all of these same qualities at the very least.
Paul makes reference to the anthropological argument in his sermon to those at Athens. “For in Him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of you own poets have said, ‘For we are also his offspring.’ Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold or silver, or stone, graven by man’s device” (Acts 17:28-29). Because man has the qualities of love, reason, etc., God, who created man, must also possess these qualities as well or even better.
Internal Proofs
Paul wrote, “Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them” (Rom. 1:19). Many have taken this to mean that there is an innate sense of God within man. “That there exists in the human minds and indeed by natural instinct, some sense of Deity, we hold to be beyond dispute, since God himself, to prevent any man from pretending ignorance, has endued all men with some idea of his Godhead.”12 This may be the case. I understand what Paul wrote to mean that man knows that God exists but is willing to deny God’s existence so man can keep his immorality (Rom. 1:32).
C.S. Lewis talked of another internal proof for God using the “Law of Nature.” “This law was called the Law of Nature because people thought that every one knew it by nature and did not need to be taught it.”13 The idea is that all mankind has a sense of morality that is built into him. His secondary point was that we choose to not obey the Law of Nature. This lead him to the proposition that, “In the Moral Law somebody or something from beyond the material universe was actually getting at us.” He concludes with, “It is after you have realized that there is a real Moral Law, and a Power behind the law, and that you have broken that law and put yourself wrong with that Power–it is after all this, and not a moment sooner, that Christianity begins to talk. When you know are sick, you will listen to the doctor.”14
This is parallel to what Paul writes in Romans talking about the gentiles, “Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things. But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things” (Rom. 2:1-2). Man knows the law of God and continues to disobey them.
Effects of General Revelation
Paul states it clearly, “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened” (Rom. 1:20-21). Every man, in every place, at every time has seen the invisible things of God. But the vast majority of mankind has rejected God. This rejection of God condemns man.
As for these proofs that are made from the evidence of God’s existence in nature and in ourselves, they are useful. To what degree of use is subject to debate. Some state that the arguments are solid enough to show that unbelief in God is logically unsound. Others say that these arguments are only enough to show that theism has a high probability of being correct. Most are not willing to say that they demonstrate with absolute certainty that God exists.
Limitations of General Revelation
One of the limitations of these arguments is that they can only convince a person that monotheism is a correct worldview. There are still multiple religions that prescribe faith in only one God/god. Islam is a monotheistic faith. The kalām cosmological argument was originally used by muslims. Even though the arguments are convincing, they do not completely give us the God described in the Bible.
Another limitation is that a man will never be argued into believing the Christian faith. The Bible clearly states that a man coming to know salvation through Jesus Christ is a work of God (John 1:12-13). A person repenting of their sins requires the regeneration of the Holy Spirit (Tit. 3:5).
The last limitation with general revelation is that it is not enough. In order for a person to know the God of the Bible, the Trinity, the incarnation of Christ, the death, burial and resurrection of Christ, he must have the Bible. There is so much that general revelation does not explain about God. General revelation may show there is a God has written the “Law of Nature” that we have broken, but it does not explain how can be saved from the wrath of God for breaking His laws.
___________________
1. Walter A. Elwell, ed., Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1984), 944.
2. Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), 143.
3. J. P. Moreland and William Lane Craig, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 465.
4. Ibid. The kalam cosmological argument was originally used by Muslims and then adopted for the Christian faith. This argument has been popularized by William Lane Craig in his book, The Kalām Cosmological Argument. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1979.
5. Ibid. Thomas Aquinas summarized the “five ways” in his book Summa Theologica.
6. Peter Kreeft, ed., Summa of the Summa: The Essential Philosophical Passages of St. Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica Edited and Explained for Beginners (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 1990), 61-9.
7. Moreland and Craig, 466.
8. Michael J. Behe, Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (New York, NY: The Free Press, 1996), 39.
9. Moreland and Craig, 496.
10. This demonstration of God being necessary in every possible world comes from Alvin Plantinga.
11. Charles Ryrie, Basic Theology: A Popular Systematic Guide to Understanding Biblical Truth (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1999), 35.
12. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1:3:1.
13. C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, in The Complete C.S. Lewis Signature Classics (New York, NY: Harper Collins, 2002), 15.
14. Ibid, 33-5.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
-
Sermon on Luke 7:24–28 for the morning of Sept. 11, 2016. Last week, we encountered an episode where the disciples of John the Bap...
-
Introduction A rough definition of revelation is content that explains something that was unknown. The word is usually used within the c...
