God's Sovereignty vs. Man's Will Part 2

I want to start out by saying that this warfare over predestination has taken a turn away from Scripture and into a misconstruction of Election. Whenever one says, "I believe that the Lord saves and man has nothing to do with his salvation", instantly the philosophical meanderings of John Calvin are brought up and debated on a non-Scriptural, philosophical plane. It seems that we care more about our disagreements and agreements with theologians than with the Word of God. However, if we are to understand what the Lord told us, we must throw Calvin, Arminius, and every other theologian and philosopher aside and merely look at Scripture. Not saying that all theologians are unhelpful, but rather that God's Word is all we need to be made wise, understanding His Will and Plan (Psalm 19:7-9).

With that in mind, let us go to the very beginning of time.

In the beginning was the God, the Triune Lord. In this state, the Father loved the Son and the Spirit, the Son loved the Spirit and the Father, the Spirit loved the Father and the Son. It was a perfect, loving, holy relationship within Elohim (Hebrew name for God, its plural ending emphasizes the three-in-oneness of God). It was in this state wherein the Father made a wondrous decree to the Son:

"You are My Son,
On that day I have begotten You,
Ask Me (note: a command in Hebrew), and I will surely give the nations as Your inheritance,
And the ends of the Earth as Your possession.
You shall break them with a rod of iron,
You shall shatter them like earthenware." (Psalm 2:7-9)

In this passage, we find the very goal of all creation, and specifically of all men: we are a gift to the Son. This is especially important to bear in mind throughout this entire discussion, for it colors all that we must know as Christians. 

Because the Son loves the Father and does all that He commands (John 14:31), Christ asked His Father for the nations and the World. Thus, God created the Heavens and the Earth.

In man's beginning, he was created as a son of God (Luke 3:38). Why was he created this way? Well, he was made to be the Image and likeness of God, specifically the image of the Son (thus, Adam was to be one of the many brethren which God predestined to be the Image of His Son, Rom. 8:28-29). If sin had not entered the world through the Fall of Adam, his descendants would all then be children of God.
Yet, this would not work in God's decree.

[Please remember, a decree is that which causes something to come to pass or into being ("Let there be light!"), it is not something that merely looks ahead at that which will come to pass on its own ("There will be light."). Thus, God's decree is a creative declaration which causes, by the merit of it being God's omnipotent command, all that it says to come into being. But I digress.]

If God's decree is to take place, man must fall. Please keep reading and paying close attention. Man must fall if Christ is to break him with a rod of iron and shatter him like a clay pot. It must take place. So, through God's decree, and not His authorship, sin entered the Perfect World. Man fell, and God had to kill him for his iniquity (Gen. 2:17). So, all the world was placed under a curse and judgement from God, leading to death (Rom. 3:9-18, 5:12, 6:23, etc.). 

However, what now was God to do? (I am speaking, as Paul did, in "human terms") If every man was evil, then Christ must destroy all of them. If this happens, Christ will not have an inheritance left. Yet God's decree reached beyond this seeming dilemma, for nothing can stop Him. 

Look again to the beginning of time with the Lord. Listen to the parable of the Wheat and Tares.

"Jesus presented another parable to them, saying, 'The kingdom of heaven was (Note: the original greek is in the past tense here) compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field. But while his men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went away. But when the wheat sprouted and bore grain, then the tares became evident also. The slaves of the landowner came and said to him, ‘Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?’ And he said to them, ‘An enemy has done this!’ The slaves said to him, ‘Do you want us, then, to go and gather them up?’ But he said, ‘No; for while you are gathering up the tares, you may uproot the wheat with them. Allow both to grow together until the harvest; and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers, "First gather up the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them up; but gather the wheat into my barn."'" (Mat. 13:24-30)

What does this passage say about our topic? Well, look at Christ's explanation:

"Then He left the crowds and went into the house. And His disciples came to Him and said, 'Explain to us the parable of the tares of the field.' And He said, 'The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man, and the field is the world; and as for the good seed, these are the sons of the kingdom; and the tares are the sons of the evil one; and the enemy who sowed them is the devil, and the harvest is the end of the age; and the reapers are angels. So just as the tares are gathered up and burned with fire, so shall it be at the end of the age. The Son of Man will send forth His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness, and will throw them into the furnace of fire; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Then the righteous will shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear.'" (Mat. 13:36-43)

Now we have the keys to understand the passage and its significance to our topic. Christ sowed good seed, the Sons of the Kingdom, into the World (not the Church, but the World). After Christ did this, Satan came in and sowed tares (weeds), those who are his sons, into the world amongst the wheat. These two plants, wheat and tares, are growing together in this world now, and both seem to look alike at times (cf. vs. 29). Nevertheless, these two plants are inherently different from the beginning, and are always different, even to the end. Once the end has come, the angels will gather both the wheat and the tares, the first to the Kingdom, and the last to Hell (Revelation 14:14-20, 20:11-15, etc.)

This parable can only fit with a complete recounting of all of history. In the very beginning, Christ sowed His people into the world. These are the ones who were predestined to be conformed to the image of Christ, making them brethren with Christ (Rom. 8:28-29). However, Satan infiltrated the world, by the fall of man, and thus sowed his own sons into the world (note: he did not create them, rather they are those who do just as He does and will never repent of their ways). All of this flows well with my last post, and I suggest reading my last one to better understand this difference between sons of God and sons of the Devil.

If you still do not know what I am getting at, here it is:

God, in the very beginning, decreed that His Son would inherit the world and mankind. Some of these men would be crushed, whilst others would be His brethren. So, God created the world. In this world, He sovereignly planned and placed His Sons (Christ's brethren). If sin had not entered, these sons would be the only one's created, and they would have inherited the world and ruled alongside Christ for eternity. However, God decreed that men must fall in order to be destroyed. Thus, God sovereignly decreed that Satan would introduce sin into humanity, causing his downfall. This sowed sons of the Devil into this perfect world, leaving tares among the wheat. Nevertheless, the wheat were still wheat. The sons of the kingdom were still sons of the kingdom, they never became tares. These wheat were destined, by nature of being wheat, to be gathered into the barns.

Yet, these wheat had to be destroyed for justice's sake, since they sinned, just like the tares. However, God was not stopped. He sent His only begotten Son to live and die in the place of the wheat, thus allowing them to enter Heaven through Faith. However, these wheat were much like the tares: without faith or anything good in them. Thus, God caused them to believe in Christ, granting the believing ones eternal life. This in turn ensured their eternal life, allowing God's judgement to pass over them and onto His Son.  

Now, the tares were never the sons of God. No, they are by nature sons of the Devil. As a result, they must inherit the judgement placed on their father: burning in Hell for eternity, crushed under the weight of Christ's wrath. This is their decreed doom, and it cannot be undone. 

Not everyone can be saved, nor can everyone go to Hell, since both would undermine God's Decree. Thus, God proceeded with His aforementioned plan.

This is why the Elect are elect, why they gain faith and no-one else does, why they cannot lose their salvation, why they are justified, and all other implications of the Gospel. 

I will be continuing on this subject later, since I have merely scratched the surface of this issue and much more needs to be addressed.

God Bless. 

"Jussive in Meaning": What is Proverbs?

      The book of Proverbs is a very interesting book and, by definition, deserves and demands our attention. It is an often neglected book or, worse, misinterpreted book. I would like to record a few facts that I have been learning of this book. This post can be considered a part of my Old Testament series.
       When talking to people about Proverbs with someone, or reading writing of the book of Proverbs, one statement I here a lot is that the teachings in Proverbs is "Jussive in meaning". Now you might not have heard that before, and in case you haven't I will explain it to you.
        Proverbs was written in Hebrew, and in Hebrew grammar there is a type of imperative known as a Jussive. A jussive is nothing more than a heart felt plea, example: "I really wish you would let me in." That sentence is an example of a Hebrew jussive. So, that means that there are no commands in Proverbs so you can take it or leave it, and Proverbs is nothing more than a bunch of good ideas that may or may not apply to you.
          Now, that, personally, would bother me because that means that there is no authority behind Proverbs and that it is nothing more than pithy sayings that have no more meaning than Aesop's fables, and do nothing more than help you live skillfully. But there has to be more in Proverbs, and what is the history of the book and how would the Hebrews understand the book. and also where did the good ideas in Proverbs come from?
         Now Proverbs, by itself, really isn't a very hard book to understand just to read it at face value. Much of it is somewhat easy to understand, example: "Whoever loves discipline loves knowledge but he who hates reproof is stupid." Proverbs 12:1, that is pretty straight forward but like all the books in the Bible, Proverbs is an inexhaustible well that needs to be laboured over to mine out its jewels, Proverbs 2:4-5. That is what we need to do.
        So let us consider the history of this book. Who was it written by? Solomon, Agur, and Lemual. The last two authors are unknown but we all know who Solomon is. Some say that this book is merely a compilation of wise sayings of wise men from before, and it is possible that a certain section of the book was such, but some have even said, lo, many teach that the proverbs are of Egyptian origin! Now that is absolutely ludicrous, that wicked pagan gentiles would be the origin of such a jewel in our own Bibles. Further more it makes little sense from what the book itself says, chapter 1:7 "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom; Fools despise wisdom and instruction." Now no one that knows anything of the Bible wouldn't doubt that the Egyptians feared God, although they had good reason to (one of these days I would like to write on the Exodus and its affect on Egypt), so then they could not have been the originators of the book of Proverbs. Also, it makes perfect sense that Solomon himself would write the book and that he personally thought of the proverbs by what I will write below.
          Think through what you know of Solomon. He was the son of David that inherited the throne of Israel. From early on he was characterized by wisdom, I Kings 2:9. Now there is certain event in his life that is very significant. I Kings 3:3-15, Solomon was at Gibeon which was where the tabernacle was thus he was worshipping and one night, while he was there, God told Solomon that He would give him anything that he wanted. Solomon, an example of showing some early signs of wisdom, Proverbs 2:1-6, asks for wisdom. God is pleased with Solomon for that requests and grants it and promises more. Solomon soon afterwards became internationally well known for his wisdom, I Kings 5:7. Now, how did God give that wisdom and is it possible for us to receive such wisdom?
        Now here is one of the most exciting things about Proverbs, I think, that is its origin. The origin will give us depth to the book and will answer our jussive in meaning predicament. So please turn to your Bibles to Deuteronomy 17:18-20. According to that section, what was the king to do with the Law, why was he to do that, and what is the beginning of wisdom? I will let you make the logical conclusions. Now, read Deut. 4:5-8.  The Law was to tutor men to understand wisdom, and to convict of sins, both of which happened to Solomon, Proverbs 20:9. This is why the imperetives in Proverbs is Jussive, because all the commands have already been given in the Law!
         Do you also want to know what is amazing about this book Proverbs. It leads those who read it to salvation, II Timothy 3:14-17! In verse 15, the word "writings" is what was used to explain the wisdom literature, mainly Proverbs. Then Paul continues to say "In fact, not only the Writings but all of God's Word is beneficial".
        Well this is an over view of the book of Proverbs, and again much more can be said. As you can see there is much more to Proverbs than just a bunch of pithy saying that the Hebrews learned from the Egyptian and reorded by Solomon, but is originated from the Word of God.
   

Understanding the Context of the Bible

    These are some notes I took of an essay by John Monson of Wheaton College which I felt, though I don't agree with everything he says (example: he is old earth and compares the Bible with ancient myths way to much), was helpful. Also I believe that an understanding of the context which the Bible was written in will protect one from faulty interpretations. This is a continuation of this post.  
     

    Never before has there ever been a time when knowledge of the biblical world has ever been as easily accessible as today, due to discoveries in language, archeology and geography. Yet at the same time there has never been a time when trust in biblical texts has ever been so low, in both the academia and the church. How can this be and how can contextual studies help correct this paradox?

The paradox may be explained by the philosophy prevalent in larger academic circles, which is everything in the texts must be doubted. The Bible must be deconstructed and contextualized to fit the presuppositions of the reader. That is extreme arrogance!
     It is even worse in the church as we search for a better and more satisfying religious experience, we displace the Scripture and archaeological and linguistic information that can help understand and appreciate the Scriptures even more. That is a great irony! This could be because for the past sixteen centuries the Christian community has been forced to interpret the Bible outside of its original context. That is because, until the late nineteenth century, very few extra-biblical resources. Though more likely, a widespread ignorance and faulty hermeneutic of the text itself is the cause.  But, nonetheless, whatever the origin, the paradox still exists, the Bible has been dismissed and decontextualized in a time when evidence that confirms the biblical text has abounded like never before!

     This essay argues the case for the necessity of contextual approach to interpreting the Bible. God has revealed through time, space, and culture, we must have proper prospective of those factors for a proper interpretation of His word.

Defining Original Context and Biblical Archeology

    

    The Original Context of the “Biblical World”

Doors used to enter into the “Biblical World” include:

     1)literary and non-literary sources, though mostly the texts including works of Josephus and Epic of Gilgamesh.. Those are fundamental sources for insights into the ancient world.

     1)Ancient artifacts also provide a enliven understanding of the context of the Scriptures

     3)And the geography of the Holy Land.

     This trio is essential for understanding the Scripture as the original readers would have understood it.

 

    What is Biblical Archeology?

    The basic definition of archeology is the study of human past from material remains. Biblical archeology is similar to other divisions of archeology, while focusing on the periods and places that are related to the Bible.

    “Evangelical ” Biblical Archeology?

     Biblical archeology has been used with strong apologetic motives and also to disassemble the Bible's reliability. Both have failed. The study of B.A driven for apologetic has failed for two reasons 1) the apologists themselves don't do field work. 2) Data can be interpreted both ways.

     It is better to enter the field of B.A for the purpose of understanding the Biblical world than to set out with a Bible proving agenda. For Pete’s sake, there is more to studying the Bible than trying to prove it.

   

Context in the History of Biblical Interpretation

    If B.A is the primary means of how to interpret the context of the text then it is fair to ask how the Jews and early Christians would have interpreted the text before the discipline of B.A. The clue to interpreting the Bible starts with understanding the author's perspective and how he chose to communicate it. The starting question should not be “What do I think or feel about this passage?” but rather “what does it actually say?” The text does, in fact, speak of the original context, it does speak for itself.

Context as Catalyst and Constraint for Biblical Interpretation

    Context as Catalyst

    The three components of context must be taken into consideration-text, artifact, and geography.

(1)   Geography

Geography is very valuable and useful when studying the Bible, it offers a fresh and informative look into the Bible.

Regional “dynamic” (Benjamin's territory). Benjamin's territory has been for a long while, a melting pot. It has been a very historic area, with much significance. It, among other things, was the buffer between Ephraim and Judah's territory. To the original reader the mention of the territory of Benjamin would be very significant! There are also very many examples of the assistance of geographical familiarity.

              Regional perspective. Geography can help one understand a difficult passage or understand the full meaning of a passage with the help of geography. Both Testaments use the regional geography to illustrate a fact, for example.

               Summary. Geography is a untapped but useful tool in the hand of the Bible interpreter.

(2)   Archeology

    Archeology yields more information about the biblical world than any other source (question: What other sources are there to describe the biblical world?). Archeology can greatly increase your understanding of the Bible. It will help you understand the world which the author and original audience lived.

(3)   Extra-Biblical Literature

Extra-biblical literature can also give us insight into the Biblical world. For the New Testament we have had a wealth of resources but for the Old Testament, we have had resources available only recently through the decipherment of ancient written languages. Extra-biblical literature, like archaeology, gives one insight into the ancient in which the Bible was written in.

      Thankfully the Bible is written in such a way that it is not impossible to comprehensibly understand it without an exhaustive understanding or knowledge of ancient history. If it was then we could only start to understand it recently due to the recent advancements in archaeology. It is also very important to understand, especially if you do any more study in ancient history as it relates to the Bible, two concepts; the first is that there are more differences in the ancient myths of the cultures in the Levant and the Bible than similarities. Many Biblical historians love to compare the Bible to ancient beliefs common in the ancient middle east, though they seem to forget to emphasize the differences of the Bible with the surrounding cultures. The second fact to remember is this 

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

Dr. William Barrick

   Remember that one especially.

 

The Old Testament and the Israelites

      It has been a very long time since I have written, and I have been convicted. Some repent when convicted, others make excuses about school work... JK. I am going to at least attempt to pick up the slack a little bit, I want to write often about the historical aspects of the Bible, especially in the Old Testament. Hopefully, I will be able to find time in my week and a vacant computer to borrow that is connected to the Internet, to write at least a short post of something!
      Understanding the historicity of the Bible is important. It assists you in translation, gives more understanding to why a certain author said something, and it also affects your interpretation. Understanding that the Bible is an ancient Middle Eastern document, written by Middle Eastern men, to be understood clearly by those who were to read it, only encourages a literal and grammatical interpretation of what is actually being said. One thing you learn when studying the ancients and their language is how down to earth kind of people they were, the concept of types and mystical allegories, which butchers the Bible today, was alien to them. So I think that my first post on the history on the Old Testament will be a broad history of the Old Testament as a whole.
     The OT takes up the majority of your Bible, which indicates it's importance. It took a little longer than 1000 years to write the whole OT, versus the 52years to write the New Testament, in the hands of roughly 30 authors. Most OT is written in Hebrew, though there are a few sections written in Aramaic, a common language in the Middle East, similar to what Arabic is to the Middle East today or what is English to the world.
     The OT can be divided into 3 sections, the Law, the Prophets, and the Wisdom Literature. The last two sections are based on the first section, the Law, thus if you know well the Law the whole Bible will open its meaning up to you, for the NT is based on the OT, which, as I have said before, is based on the Law. By the way, that is a hint to the road to understanding the relationship between the OT and the NT.
     The OT was written to the Israelites, God's chosen nation. The Israelites were an actual nation that was officially formed about 1445 BC, when they walked out of Egypt, then one of the most powerful nations at the time. From them, came the seed prophesied in Genesis 3:15 that would crush the seed of the serpent, it was them that were to bless the nations Genesis 12:1-3, they also had the job to wield God's wrath upon the nations Genesis 9:25-27 Deuteronomy 9:4-5 Deuteronomy 25:17-19. They incompletely conquered the Promise Land, which ended up being their doom for they apostatized ultimately because of the negative influence of the nations that they were to destroy (which is a good lesson for Christians today, stay away from evil people) and were brought to captivity by Assyria and Babylon and have only recently been an independent nation.
     So there is much more I could write on but that will have to do. What I have written is VERY basic. The Bible is full of history and historical information that would take lifetimes to understand a little of it, not to mention the theology, wisdom, and doctrine. Lord willing, we will start looking at the history of the Promise Land, the Israelites, the nations surrounding them, and the OT itself in addition to its content soon but, until then...