Category Archives: Pensees
Foundational Biblical Principles to Classroom Management
Some initial thoughts as to some Biblical principles that ought to shape the way Christian schools and Christian teachers order their classrooms. These thoughts are not meant as exhaustive, but instead are meant to be a Biblical foundation upon which a philosophy of Christian education can be built.
1. The interaction with students, from instruction to discipline, must be built on the principle that students bear the image of God (Genesis 1:26), and though that image was twisted and deformed as a result of the fall through the entrance of sin and death (Romans 5:12), the image of God was not lost in the fall (Genesis 9:6). Thus, a large part of the role of Christian education is that of “straightening” the fallen person—helping to restore the person in such a way that they accurately reflect the image of God. As Christ is the perfect reflection of the invisible God (Colossians 1:15), it is into the image modeled for us by Christ that we seek to direct the transformation of our students. The life and well-being of the child is seen by scripture in a special way (Psalm 127:3; Matthew 19:14; Mark 9:42). How we handle sin in the classroom as well as education in the classroom must be seen in this context, and teachers are to understand that they are to be held to a higher standard than others (James 3:1).
2. Education is a divinely ordained responsibility of parents, but particularly that of the Father as the covenant head of the household (Ephesians 6:4; Genesis 18:19; Deuteronomy 4:10; 6:7, 20-21; 11:19; 32:46; Psalm 78:5; 2 Timothy 1:5). It is also noted in scripture that the Levitical priests were to come alongside of the parents for the purpose of educating their children (Leviticus 10:11; Deuteronomy 33:10; Judges 13:8; 1 Samuel 12:23; Ezekiel 44:23; 2 Chronicles 15:3) as part of the larger covenantal community of believers (Exodus 6:7; Leviticus 26:12; Matthew 2:6; Romans 9:25; 2 Corinthians 6:16). There are also occasions where others within the covenant community who had particular gifts and skills were gifted to teach (Exodus 35:34). While it is recognized that God’s people can learn things from non-believers (1 Kings 5:6; Acts 7:22), the Bible presents teaching as an activity to be undertaken by the covenant community. Though the Levitical Priesthood has fallen away and been replaced by Christ (Hebrews 7), all believers are now priests (1 Peter 2:9; Isaiah 66:20-21) and thus responsible to fulfill the Levitical functions which are not a part of the sacrificial system as that role has been fulfilled by Christ alone (Hebrews 10:10-14). Hence, Christian parents must not only seek to oversee the education of their children, but they also have a Biblical mandate that the education of their children is done by Christians, and not by non-believers. In turn, teachers must be mindful that they are serving as proxies for the student’s parents, not as replacements and are to instruct in such a fashion as to honor the parents for whom they are acting.
3. The teacher must understand that the Biblical end of education is to equip the students to obedience to God’s commands so that their days may be long in the land (Deuteronomy 5:33; 11:9). Hence, children are also commanded to honor their parents (which implies an honoring of their instruction) so that their days may be long in the land (Exodus 20:12). The Biblical idiom of “living long” does not so much refer to long physical life in the land as it refers to the life and essential health of the covenantal community of the faithful in the land which God had given them. This language, though, is later applied to the church (Ephesians 6:3) under the auspices of living faithfully in the world. To accomplish this, teaching is to include the law for righteous living (Exodus 24:12; 2 Kings 17:27) and also instruction in more mundane areas (2 Samuel 1:8; Exodus 35:25; Isaiah 28:23-29). In addition, scripture mandates the teaching of the history of God’s acts (Exodus 12:14; 2 Samuel 1:18; Psalm 66:5). Thus, teaching that is scriptural (and hence mandated to be done within the community of faith) is teaching that covers every discipline of life and is designed so that the believer may walk in reverence and obedience to the commands of God (Deuteronomy 14:22; Micah 4:2; 1 Peter 1:16). The implication of this marks Christian teaching as being something distinct from secular (the Greek model) education. For the heathen, religion and faith have no bearing on one’s thinking, philosophy, or ordinary life; for the Christian, knowledge of God lived out in faith is everything—there is no aspect of life that religion is not meant to touch and inform. Hence, the Christian classroom needs to reflect that principle.
4. Discipline is a God-given tool by which education is furthered (Hebrews 12:5-11; Psalm 50:16-23; Proverbs 12:1; 13:24; Revelation 3:19). It is designed to keep children from vicious teachings and error, to suppress feelings of bitterness of students who have been wronged, to punish wrongdoing, and to show the repulsive nature of sin and the pains that are associated with it. Said discipline should be non-preferential and balanced to suit the infraction. Discipline also should not be designed to break, humiliate, or discourage the child from a pursuit of a God-honoring life. It should be firm, but delivered with a spirit of kindness and not vengeance or anger. Ultimately discipline should build up not only the student being disciplined, but the entire class as well. Finally, once discipline is administered, the student is to be considered as justified as to the law of the classroom and should be reinstated to the covenantal community of the class in question without lingering reminders of said sin.
A few final thoughts about the childhood education that Jesus would have received:
- Synagogue schools were funded by the parents of the children attending. The education of poor students was funded by donations given in the temple or at Sabbath worship.
- Teachers were salaried by the synagogue and were not allowed to accept money from wealthy families lest favoritism be given.
- Teachers were forbidden from losing their patience with students for not understanding concepts, but were expected to be able to make them plain to all.
- Kindness was encouraged and schools used the strap in discipline, not the rod.
- Parents were prohibited from sending their children to schools in other communities for the purpose of eliminating rivalries and to maintain the educational level of the town.
- Leviticus was the first book taught to children (particularly Leviticus 1-8).
- Other passages of scripture that were found in Children’s primers were: the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4-9; 11:13-21; Numbers 15:37-41); the Hallel Psalms (Psalms 113-118); and The Creation and Flood narratives (Genesis 1-11).
- To the Jew, the study of scripture was of greater importance than any other study they could pursue. The culture considered it profane to even learn a trade apart from a study of the scriptures. The study of trades did not replace scriptural study, but flowed out of scriptural study.
Part of a Traditional Jewish Morning Prayer:
“These are the things of which man eats the fruit of the world, but their possession continues for the next world: to honor the father and mother, pious works, peacemaking between man and man, and the study of the law, which is equivalent to them all.”
(Peah 1:1)
Thoughts on Structuring a Discipleship Program
Recently, I was asked for some input on how I would structure a discipleship program if I were to have about 6 months of fairly intensive time to work with a small group of men. I thought that I would share my initial thoughts here.
When I began doing homeless ministry, I spent some time looking at some of the sermons found in the book of Acts to gain some insight into a model to base evangelistic preaching/teaching on. The model I came up with covered things in this order: 1) God’s glory, 2) man’s fallen state, 3) the work of Christ, 4) the promise of salvation coupled with the hope of ongoing sanctification in this life.
Unpackaging this in terms of a longer study would look something like this:
I. God’s Glory
a. Who is God?
i. names of God which reflect God’s character
ii. character traits of God
b. What has God done?
i. Creation
ii. Ordaining and Governing history
II. Man’s Fallen State
a. What does it mean to be made in God’s image?
i. the doctrine of the Imago Dei
ii. human dignity as a result of the Imago Dei
iii. the doctrine of the Imitatio Dei (how do we imitate God?)
b. What happened when Adam and Eve sinned?
i. Genesis 3
ii. The promise of a redeemer in Genesis 3
iii. Inherited sin guilt and the impossibility of our paying God back that sin debt on our own merit
c. How has the fall corrupted and contorted the Imago Dei?
i. Our aversion to the things of God and suppression of the truth
ii. The problem of pain–why do bad things happen to good people?
III. The Work of Christ
a. Who is Jesus and why is a Savior important?
i. the person and character of Christ
ii. the names of Christ
iii. the Old Testament prophesies of Christ
iv. The work of a mediator and paraclete
b. How Did Christ save us?
i. the preexistence of Christ
ii. the humiliation of Christ in life and in death
iii. the exaltation of Christ and his ongoing work as mediator at the right hand of God the Father
IV. The Promise of Salvation and the Hope of Sanctification
a. Who is the Holy Spirit?
i. the person of the Spirit
ii. the work of the Spirit
b. What is Faith and how is that tied to salvation?
i. The nature of Faith (Hebrews 11:1)
ii. Regeneration, Conversion, Repentance
c. What does it mean to be saved?
i. Justification
ii. Adoption
d. What happens next once I am saved?
i. Sanctification as a means to prepare for glory
ii. Living all of life “Coram Deo” or “Before the Face of God”
iii. 2 Peter 1:3-11 and adding to the faith as “Partakers of the Divine nature” (untwisting the Imago Dei–like having broken bones set)
iv. The fruit of the Spirit
v. The gifts of the Spirit
vi. Glory
What does Church Architecture Point Toward?
With the coming of the reformation, particularly with the coming of Calvin’s reformation in Geneva, came a shift in the architecture of the Church building. In the architecture of the medieval Roman Catholic church, the central item in the front of the church—the area that everything in the church pointed, so as to direct one’s attention toward—was the altar. In the Roman Catholic service, it is the Mass that is central to worship, and since the altar was central to the Mass, the altar was made to be the focal point of the church.
Yet, for Calvin, it was not the Mass that was central—in fact, the Mass was done away with altogether as being unbiblical and in contradiction with Christ’s sacrifice being once and for all time as pointed out in Hebrews 10. For Calvin, the Holy Scriptures were central along with their exposition and proclamation. Thus, as a result of the Calvinistic influence, the pulpit and the scriptures were moved to the central part of the church symbolizing its importance and its centrality to worship.
This abovementioned transition is fairly well established in history, but I began to reflect recently on other changes that seem to be taking place in church architecture as churches move away from a traditional church model to a more non-traditional, assembly room/warehouse model of worship. Architecturally, what is center? In many instances, the stage has been cleared as to place nothing at the central point. One of the trends that ties in with this has been a move toward a translucent pulpit, almost as if nothing is there at all.
Now, I confess that I have a bias toward a traditional church worship and traditional church architecture with the Lord’s Sacred Desk (the pulpit) placed centrally in the church to visually make the statement, “This is the most important thing we do!” And, I suppose that by posting these views here I will be stepping on the toes of some folks even in my own denomination who have embraced a more non-traditional model. I know that when you are reaching out to unchurched folks, many times they feel intimidated by the traditional elements of church architecture and worship—then again, is church supposed to be about making people comfortable or is it supposed to be about pointing toward Truth (and Truth never makes people feel comfortable, not even me). The traditional architecture and the scriptures presented remind us that we are part of a tradition that is far older than we are.
But can we set our biases to the side for a moment and pose the question as to what this new, non-traditional architecture points toward? In other words, what does the eye focus on, what does the church layout communicate as being central? I would suggest that in the absence of the pulpit or the altar, what is presented as central is the man, whether that man be the pastor or the worship leader, it seems to be the man that all of the eyes turn toward. It is also worth noting, and this is where many more toes are going to be stepped on, that preaching has also reflected this change. The systematic and consecutive exposition of scripture has largely been replaced by topical and practical preaching. This does not mean that the preaching is not laced with scripture, it is, but the scripture becomes secondary to the topic and the topics tend to be very anthrocentric, dealing more with how to live in this world than with how God has revealed himself to this world.
In making this assertion, please do not think that I am rejecting application in a sermon—sermons must be laced with application, but I would suggest that application needs to be drawn out of the scriptures, while in the non-traditional model, the scriptures are used to support the application. In the first, the scripture is the primary focus, in the latter, the application is the primary focus. In a very real sense, this is reflected in the changed architecture where no longer is every eye drawn to the pulpit, but where every eye is drawn toward the man. Every decision we make carries with it ramifications, and I think that we must be careful in seeking new models and contexts for church worship, for when we change the focal point, oftentimes other changes follow as well.
Samson or Sampson
Growing up I remember being corrected on the spelling of Samson. “No ‘p’ in his name!” I would be told over and over. The interesting thing is not in that I was spelling the name incorrectly, but that so many people spell the name incorrectly. In addition, there are many people in our culture today whose surname is Sampson, which seems to reinforce the use of the letter “p” in the middle of the name.
This year, as I have been teaching through the book of Judges, I posed the question as to what is the cause for this phenomenon? Is this but a dialectical thing, or is there something in the original text that is not being carried over into our English transliteration? What I found was quite interesting.
The Hebrew spelling of Samson’s name is !Avm.v. (Shemshon). While there is some debate over the source of his name, it seems that it is derived from vm,v, (shemesh), which means “sun.” Since the Philistines worshiped the sun as one of their gods (the Mesopotamian god “Samsu” was revered as god of the sun), this seems to be a direct attack on their deity, much in the same way that the plagues in Egypt are attacks on the Egyptian gods of that day. Yet, this does not help us solve the mystery of the “p” in his name.
The “p” actually arrives from the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible. About 300 years before the birth of Christ, the Hebrews began translating the Bible into Greek. Greek was the “lingua franca” of the day and many Jewish people in the dispersion could no longer read Hebrew well. In addition, the Greek mind likes to engage in dialogue with other schools of thought and such a translation provided a medium for that discussion. This translation is referred to as the “Septuagint” or the “LXX.”
When the translators of the Book of Judges approached the name of Samson, they transliterated it as follows: Samyw/n (Sampson). This transliteration not only explains how the “Sh” transformed into a “S,” but also explains the importation of the letter “p” into the center of the word. Now, why they opted to use a psi (y) instead of a pi (p) is still clouded by the shadows of history, perhaps it was simply seen as an easier way to pronounce his name—there are a number of names that have been transliterated oddly both in the Septuagint and in our English translations.
Thus, the next time you happen to slip, and pronounce or spell Samson’s name with a “p,” and someone curtly corrects you, all you have to do is to put on as serious and scholarly a face as you are able and inform them that you simply favor the Greek spelling over the English one. That ought to get them scratching their heads for a while. :8)
Does Sin Crouch? (Genesis 4:7)
Genesis 4:7
Can Sin Crouch and can sin Desire?
Genesis 4:7 (ESV) “If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is for you, but you must rule over it.”
Literal Translation: “Will not, if you do good, to lift up? And if you do not do good, sin is laying at the door. And it’s longing is toward you, and you must rule over it.”
The question that was asked, is this passage simply personifying sin of does God’s word somehow suggest that sin is an entity which can act on its own volition? The simply answer to the question is that sin is being personified by God to emphasize the point that God is making with Cain. God wants Cain to truly understand the power that sin has over him, so the comparison that is being made is of a predator crouching in wait at the threshold of his home—ready to strike—and that it has a desire for Cain.
While the simple answer is that God is personifying sin for the sake of emphasis, perhaps the more interesting question is why might God have communicated in this way with Cain? To answer that question, we need to know something about what is literally being communicated.
First, as you can see above, the initial question, when translated literally, makes rather awkward and unintelligible English. And such is not overly unusual when going from one language to another—especially with idioms, so a few notes must be made up front. First of all, the Hebrew language often uses word order to add emphasis to those things that are found at the beginning of the sentence, though typically not as much so as Greek. In other words, what is being emphasized is God’s beginning question—“Won’t this take place…?” Oftentimes when my son has been disobedient, instead of just telling him that he was wrong, I will ask him a leading question so that he speaks the truth about his action. I might ask “Surely, you didn’t think that such and such was okay to do…,” and in doing so, add a great deal of emphasis on the word, “Surely.” Usually, when confronted in this way, my son responds by hanging his head and saying, “no, dad…” I think that the word order and structure of the initial question lends itself to this tone on the part of God. God knows that Cain knows right from wrong, God knows that Cain knows that he sinned, and God also knows that Cain knows that he needs to repent, but the leading question is designed to force Cain to respond properly—yet Cain’s heart is hardened and he refuses to repent.
The second thing that we need to note is the word af’n” (nasa), which means, “to lift up.” While this term broadly refers to picking or lifting up anything in particular, it is also sometimes used in a judicial sense to some being restored to favor before a king, as with the cupbearer being restored to his office in Genesis 40:13. That seems to be the context of its use in this particular pattern—if Cain does right (in this case, repenting of his heartless offering and make a proper offering, sacrificing what is first and best of his crops), then he will be forgiven. Thus, the concept that the ESV is seeking to capture as they translate this word as “be accepted” is this idea of Cain’s being restored to proper fellowship with God. Note too, that af’n” (nasa) is being used in it’s infinitive form, and thus carries with it no subject (as my translation above reflects), and though this makes awkward English, it is meant to remind us that in the repentance (doing what is good in God’s eyes), the process of lifting up—the process or legal restoration to his original position in the covenant community—takes place. Yet, of course, if he chooses what is not good, in comes sin.
This raises the issue with respect to what is “good” and what is the relationship between “good” and “sin.” The concept of “good” is understood in a number of ways, but in its absolute sense (from which we should derive our applications of the concept) only applies to God (Mark 10:18; Luke 18:19). Psalm 119:68 is the basis for this concept:
“You are good and you cause good to be;
teach me your statutes.”
Note the structure of this psalm. God is described as good—where the idea of “good” is functioning as a predicate nominative. In other words, “good” is being portrayed as part of God’s essential character and reciprocally, “good” cannot be defined apart from a discussion of God and who he is. The psalmist continues, though, by stating that not only is God good, but God’s work is good. This second use of the term good, moves from the adjectival use of the word Good (a reflection of God’s character) to the participial use of the term, reflecting his ongoing actions. In addition, the Hebrew uses the Hiphil stem of the verb in this case, which reflects causative action—in other words, God is the one who causes all good to come about.
One note that we need to make in relation to this is the way in which we use the term “good,” because even as Christians we rarely use it in its absolute sense. We often express the idea of good in relationship to our preferences, other people, or our general comfort. And while they are all legitimate uses of the term, “good,” the general term must derive its meaning from some sort of inviolable standard. God is the only one who can set such a standard. This, of course, provides a problem for unbelievers who reject God’s presence, but in rejecting God, to where will they turn for the measure of what is good? If they determine that preference determines the meaning of good, all intellectual interaction is reduced to meaningless babble—one can turn to the beginning of Genesis 11 to see what happens to a culture that cannot communicate with one another in any meaningful way. If the unbeliever looks outside of himself, to perhaps the state, for a standard for good, they are reduced to excusing Nazi Germany for their execution of millions of people, for those in government saw themselves as doing good for the German people. If you look to the Nuremburg trials, they defined good in terms of that which preserved life (though one might ask from where they adopted that absolute definition). Yet many who would advocate such a definition would also advocate abortions, which terminate the life of an unwanted baby. The unbeliever is reduced to an endless cycle of confusion and frustration unless he can appeal on some level to a supernatural standard, and then he has trapped himself in an unwanted contradiction. If you don’t accept God as being who he is—and being the source of the definition of good—then you cannot use the term in any meaningful sense. At the same time, this causes a great deal of practical difficulty for many Christians, because if you accept that God provides the absolute definition of what is good, we must define what is good on that basis, not on the basis of our own comfort or preferences—and that causes Romans 8:28 and similar passages to be taken in a very different light compared to how most Christians look at the passage. Thus, while God does work all things for my good, what is ultimately good for me is not my comfort, health, or financial blessing, but being conformed into the image of his Son, Jesus Christ.
So, for Cain to do good, he must repent from his sin—and in this case, sin stands as the direct opposite of good. The term we translate as “sin” in the Old Testament is taJ’x; (chattath), and is derived from the verb aj’x’ (chata), “to miss the mark” or “to fail to hit the target” (see Judges 20:16). And then, what are we missing when we sin? We are missing God’s perfect standard (Matthew 5:48). This, of course, is why we needed a redeemer who could come and live a perfect life on our behalf as well as to pay the debt we owed on account of sin (retributive justice). Thus sin is not an entity wandering about on its own, but it is the result of our failure to live up to God’s perfect standard—and willful sin, being that God has revealed his law, is an intentional missing of the standard, and is thus outward rebellion against God’s holy and good character.
There is one more note that we need to make on this passage, and that is of the language of “desire.” The Hebrew term employed in this verse is hq’WvT. (tishuqah), which refers to a “longing” or a “desire” for something. What is particularly interesting is that while this term is only used in two other places in the Old Testament, one of those places is in the previous chapter: Genesis 3:16 (the second other place is in Song of Solomon 7:10). What is also interesting about this is that in both of these cases (Genesis 3:16 and 4:7) the word lv;m’ (mashal) is used in conjunction with it. The verb lv;m’ (mashal) refers to ruling over something or someone. In both cases, the desire is defined as something that must be ruled over—in the first case, Adam ruling over Eve in spite of her desire for him (or for his position as many understand it) and in this case, Cain ruling over sin’s desire for him (or to destroy his relationship with God as part of the covenant community).
The reality is that the struggle with sin, while an inward spiritual struggle, is like wrestling against a wild beast seeking to destroy, but instead must be dominated and ruled over. Not only is God using this language to emphasize the urgency of Cain’s repentance, but also to communicate to us the very real battle that we face—one that is not a battle against flesh and blood, but against powers and principalities and thus we must take up the whole armor of God (Ephesians 6:11-12).
Father Fred
FATHER FRED
Father Fred went on a religious crusade
To sunny California; to save the freaks he prayed.
He took the bus, then train, then air,
And then he hitch-hiked half the way there.
He looked for a hotel to stay the night,
But “no-vacancy” signs were all he could sight.
Finally he found a small barn out in the boondockies
That was used to house horses of great race jockeys.
The following day he hit the streets
In search of some rotten, dirty old thieves.
Wearing a hard rock T-shirt and faded blue jeans
No one believed him to be a priest it seemed.
He patrolled the beaches, both normal and nude,
Until he was stopped by a mean looking dude.
The man stood six-foot eight with a tatoo on his chest;
Large bags under his eyes showed his lack of rest.
Fred blessed the man and forgave his sins,
And pulled out his Bible, but before he could begin,
The large man laughed loudly, his mouth open so wide
That every cavity and filling could be seen inside.
With a his laugh the man halted Fred’s lofty recitation
And proclaimed that he was Arch-Bishop of L.A–on vacation.
Fred then started on his way back home with a sigh–
No wonder California has freaks, especially with that guy.
Have a blessed April Fools Day!
The Dating of the Exodus
There is a great deal of debate as to the dating of the Exodus. Some scholars, based on archaeological evidence, place the Exodus in the 13th century BC. Others, citing both Biblical and extra-Biblical evidence, place it in the 15th century BC. To support the later dating, scholars like John Currid cite the massive building projects that took place in the 13th and 14th centuries BC. They also note that one of the greatest of the builders was Rameses II, who reigned between 1290 and 1224 BC, who built a new capitol city in his honor, named Pi-Ramesse (“Domain of Rameses”). Exodus 1:11 records that the Jews were used to build the cities of Pithom and Raamses. It is also important to note that it was not until the 13th century that Egypt lost its control over Canaan as a province. There are also Egyptian reliefs that depict the Israelite conquest of Canaan that date between 1224 and 1214 BC.
The most convincing evidence, though, places the Exodus in the 15th century BC. Scholars like Keil and Delitzsch begin with the termination of the 70 year exile, which took place in the first year of Cyrus’ sole reign (536 BC). Thus, dating backwards, the captivity began in 606 BC. According to the chronologies in the book of Kings, Judah was carried into captivity 406 years after the year the building of Solomon’s temple began, placing its beginning in 1012 BC. 1 Kings 6:1 also tells us that the building of Solomon’s temple began 480 years after the Exodus from Egypt, placing it at the year 1492 BC. Their dating concurs with the traditional Christian and Jewish chronologies which date the Exodus. This also concurs with archaeological evidence which shows that the likely date of the destruction of Jericho was in the early 1400s BC.
How do we understand this earlier dating of the Exodus in light of modern archaeology? First, archaeology is not an exacting science, but a lens through which to view history. Archaeological facts are largely the result of educated deductions and scientific hypotheses, not divine revelation. In terms of the specific evidence, Exodus 1:11 speaks of the building of tAnK.s.mi yrE[‘ (store cities), not capitol cities. There was likely a store city of Rameses already in existence when Rameses II build Pi-Ramesse. With respect to Egyptian influence over Canaan, Israel would not have been considered a kingdom by the Egyptians until the enthronement of Saul. Given the upheaval in the land during the time of Joshua’s conquest and the time of Judges, the point where Egypt would have lost all of it’s influence in the land would coincide with the later accounts of the judges or that of Samuel, where some sense of identity was firmly established in the land.
To set this event in its larger context, it is worth recognizing what is going on in the world surrounding Egypt and the wilderness at the point of the Exodus. Assuming an early date of 1492 for the Exodus to have begun, the city of Sparta would be formed two years into the Israelite wilderness wanderings. In addition, the nations of Athens (1556 BC), Troy (1546), and Thebes (1493) had been founded at this point. What would later become the Olympian Games (then called the Panathenaean Games) also had its beginnings during this era (1495). The Areopagus was established in 1504 BC, and in 1493 Cadmus is credited with bringing the 15 Phoenician letters into Greece, which gradually changed in form to become the Romans letters used predominantly in Europe and America today. Though these events may not seem to bear very heavily upon the Biblical text, it is important to note that this era was a time when civilizations were being born and establishing themselves. Growing up in the Pharaoh’s household, Moses would have been aware, particularly of the politics of these (largely Greek) new nations. Who better than one trained in such legal codes to receive and teach the Law of God to God’s people? Who better to organize God’s people into a nation than one who had watched nations form?
The Horn of Salvation
“and he raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of David, his servant.”
(Luke 1:69)
The theme of the “horn of salvation” has important Old Testament Biblical-Theological implications, yet, before we delve back into the Old Testament history of this language, it is important that we set the context of the passage and make several observations:
- Note that this statement is part of the prophesy of Zechariah at his son, John’s, birth. It is prophetic in its scope, but note the use of the past tense with the verb “raised.” This is what is called the “prophetic past,” and it is a common element in Hebrew prophesy. Rather than speak of what God will do in the future tense (which the prophets do as well), the prophets speak of what God will do in the future but use past tense verbs to communicate the absolute nature of this event coming to pass. In other words, the prophet is saying that we can be so sure that God will fulfill this event that we can speak as if it has already taken place even though it is yet to take place. Such language is always used with prophesies that are unconditional and irrevocable. Here, Zechariah is prophesying about the reality of God having fulfilled all of his covenantal promises in the coming of Jesus—John being the forerunner; Zechariah is certain that even in the coming of this child in the womb, God would fulfill all of his plans through his Messiah and there was nothing that the enemies of God’s plan could do about it. Even the might of the Roman Empire is but a bug to be squashed under the heel of our God!
- Note for whom this promise is given: for “us.” How is this, when the coming of Christ will bring about the in-grafting of gentiles? Judaism was never meant to be an isolationist religion—a central temple, yes, but isolationist, no. They were to bring in converts from all of the nations, yet rarely worked to do so. One of the great Messianic promises is that this Messiah would bring in gentiles to the fold, that people from every tribe and nation would come to faith and be part of God’s covenant people. See the prophesies of Zechariah 14, for example, which speak of all the nations coming together to celebrate the festival of Booths together as one people—signaled by the coming of the Messiah. Even as far back as the creation account, where Adam and Eve were commanded to reproduce and fill the world with their kind (Genesis 1:28)—was this not for a purpose? Certainly, it was to subdue the creation so that God would be worshiped in every corner of the earth. This same commandment God gave to Noah and his children (Genesis 9:7), yet, in their sin they settled in Babel and God confused their language to force them into obedience. This is the great downfalls of mankind—refusing to give proper and right worship to God the creator—in Christ, once again, God is hardening the hearts of the Jewish people to bring in the gentiles—forcing them into obedience to the command to spread God’s worship throughout the earth. Thus the promise of the coming Messiah is for “us” from the Jewish perspective, for it is God fulfilling his plan for them.
- “in the house of David:” This communicates the agency by which God will fulfill this promise—by the line of David. We might as easily translate this Greek preposition (ejn) as “by” or “through.” It is not so much that the promise will be fulfilled within the house of David, but it will be fulfilled through one who is from said line. Note too that John the Baptist was from the line of Aaron, not the line of David. There is absolutely no confusion in Zechariah’s mind as to just what is going on with his son. It is interesting to see the change in Zechariah that has taken place in these past 9 months of his life. In the earlier account, he is seen as humble, but doubting God’s promise. Here he is boldly proclaiming the truth about what God is doing in the lives of the people of Israel. Sometimes, when God silences our lips from speaking, we can finally hear the truth that God is speaking to us through his word. We may be moving into some degree of speculation here, but I don’t think that it is too unlikely that Zechariah would have spent much of his imposed silence seeking out God’s face in prayer and the study of the scriptures—perhaps we would all do well to experience such a trial.
- Finally, note the last clause in the passage. Normally, our English Bibles translate this word as “servant” (as I have translated above). Yet, in Greek, it is the term paivß (pais), not douvloß (doulos) as one might expect. The word paivß (pais) is related to the word pai/dion (paidion) and can also be translated as “child,” which is important to note. In speaking of one’s servant in language that would denote kinship, it communicates the idea that there is a significant level of affection that is found between the Master and the servant. A good example of this kind of affection is found in the account of Jesus’ healing of the Centurion’s servant (Matthew 8:5-13). Were this an ordinary servant, why would the Centurion have gone to such trouble to see the servant healed? Certainly it would have been a sign of disgrace for a Roman Centurion to go to a Hebrew Rabbi for healing. Clearly, there is great affection within this relationship. In the case of Zechariah’s prophesy, this concept of affection is especially pertinent. David is one whom scripture describes as being a man after God’s own heart (Acts 13:22) and it is to David that the promise comes to establish an eternal kingship (2 Samuel 7:12-16). Thus, we might even go as far to translate this clause, “in the house of David, his beloved servant” or even, “in the house of David, his child.” Either conveys the idea that Zechariah is communicating.
With the context of Zechariah’s prophesy before us, let us look at the passages that also communicate this idea:
- 2 Samuel 22:3. At the end of David’s life, he composes a song of praise to God that we find recorded here, in chapter 22 of Second Samuel. David sings of God’s fullness and of his provision even in the face of certain destruction. At the beginning of this song of praise, David uses a series of parallel statements that communicate the nature of God’s deliverance. God is described as deliverer, rock, refuge, shield, horn of my salvation, stronghold, refuge (a second time), and savior. What can be said about all of these images?
1. They are all defensive images—this speaks primarily of God’s redemption and not of his judgment upon his foes.
2. They are all passive images in terms of David. One is defended within the fortress or by the high and firm rock. One takes refuge within these safe places, the places do not move from here to there.
3. One may find rest in all of these places. One of the great themes in the Old Testament is that of seeking rest from one’s enemies. David is saying that as tumultuous as his life has been, rest has been given to him in the refuge of God alone.
4. The Hebrew term for “horn” that is used here is the term !r<q, (keren), and is normally used to describe an animal’s horn or something made in that general shape. In particular, it is also this term that is used to describe the four horns of the altar of burnt offering (Exodus 38:2). There are a number of things that are particularly interesting about this connection.
o While we don’t know the origin of the tradition, it seems that in Ancient Israel, people held the belief that clinging to the horns of the altar would provide them sanctuary and refuge from their oppressors. In 1 Kings 1:49-53, we find Adonijah, in fear of Solomon, running and clinging to the horns of the altar for protection. Soon afterward, as recorded in 1 Kings 2:28-35), we also find Joab doing the same. It seems that Solomon puts an end to this tradition, for while he pardons Adonijah, he has Joab slain while still clinging to the altar’s horns.
o In a similar vein, though this is a negative example, when God speaks through the prophet Amos, commanding him to speak of the judgment that is coming upon the people, one thing he states is that he will “cut off” the horns of the altar at the time of said judgment, implying that the presence of the horns on the altar was at least symbolic of God’s protection for his people—that in this judgment that is coming, there will be no place of refuge for the people to go (see Amos 3:14).
Note that this is not the term that refers to a musical horn made from the horn of an animal—that word is rp;Av (shophar) and the two words are not interchangeable.
- Psalm 18:2. This is the psalm that is based on the Psalm above, written by David as a praise to God for deliverance from his enemies, thus, even though the language varies slightly, the idea remains the same, the language of the “horn of salvation” is again used to describe taking refuge in the Lord.
Thus, how are we to understand Jesus as the “horn of salvation”? The answer should be fairly obvious at this point; the horn of salvation is a symbol of a place wherein one can find refuge from the assaults of this world—the greatest enemy we face being sin and temptation to sin. And, indeed, that is exactly the context in which Zechariah is speaking. In Luke 1:68, Zechariah speaks of God having redeemed his people, then in verse 69, he speaks of that redemption in terms of God having raised up the horn of salvation. As the praise song goes, “He is our refuge in days of trouble, he is our shelter in times of storm, He is our tower in the day of sorrow, our fortress in the time of war.” Oh, beloved, God is a strong fortress wherein which we can rest from the oppressors of this sinful world—he is our horn of salvation, clinging to which we cannot be destroyed and our sin before God is forgiven—we are truly redeemed. What a wonderful promise that God has given us in Jesus Christ! As David also wrote:
“Serve Yahweh with fear and rejoice with trembling!
Kiss the Son lest he become angry and you perish in the way!
For his anger will soon burn!
Blessed are those who take refuge in him!”
(Psalm 2:11-12)
How firm a foundation, ye saints of the Lord,
Is laid for your faith in his excellent word!
What more can he say than to you he hath said,
To you who for refuge to Jesus have fled?
-From John Rippon’s selection of hymns
And in the spirit of Zechariah’s prophesy of the coming Christ:
Say to those who are fearful hearted,
‘Do not be afraid,’
‘The Lord, your God, is strong, with his mighty arm,’
‘when you call on his name,’
‘He will come and save…’
-Fitts & Sadler
Metanoeo and Worldview
There are actually a couple words in the New Testament that are used to convey the idea of repentance and conversion, of which “metanoeo” is one. You always need to be careful in defining a term according to its constituent parts, as sometimes that will lead you widely astray. For example, if we were to go out to lunch and I ordered a “hotdog” to eat, you would not expect that I was talking about a fuzzy little animal that had been outside in the sun too long. There are more and better examples of misleading compound words, but you can get the point.
That being said, metanoeo can be broken down. In Greek usage, “meta” functions largely as a marker of association and “noeo” (there is not a “noesis” in the Greek New Testament, but “metanoia” is the reciprocal noun) refers to the way in which one thinks. Nous is the Greek word that refers to disposition of thought and perhaps even to worldview. Thus metanoeo literally means, “having to do with one’s way of thinking” or “having to do with one’s worldview.” When used in its Biblical context, it reflects a fundamental change from the world’s way of viewing life to God’s way of viewing life.
Another term that is used in the context of repentance is epistrophe (see Acts 15:3 which translates this term as “conversion” in the ESV). What is interesting is that the term “strophe” was originally used to denote the movement from right to left made by a Greek Chorus. Thus, this picture of conversion, with epi, which means “on or above the surface” refers to more of a bodily re-alignment, a physical change in the outward way of life that reflects the change in thinking reflected above.
There is also the term “strepho”, which means to “turn around” or to “change position.”
The Hebrew term that is usually used is “shuv” (pronounced with an “oo” vowel sound), and means “to turn around” or “to turn away from.” This is the word that is found in 2 Chronicles 7:14 “and turn from their wicked ways…”
Bottom line is that it is safe to say that “repentance” reflects a complete change in worldview, and a complete change of worldview ought to bring a complete change in living, with both ideas bound together inseparably. One of the problems we face in our culture, though, is that most folks have such an inconsistent worldview or have such an impotent worldview that the change in worldview does not effect a change in living. Hence you have so many professing Christians nurturing deeply rooted sins.
Notes on Sabbath Use
In terms of how we are to celebrate the Sabbath day, God gives us five commands within the Pentateuch to guide our worship:
1) The Sabbath is given to us as a day to rest from our labors and reflect on their completion:
Gen. 2:1 ¶ Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and wall the host of them.
Gen. 2:2 And on the seventh day God finished his work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work that he had done.
Gen. 2:3 So God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it God rested from all his work that he had done in creation.
2) The Sabbath is a day for the commemoration of God’s creative work;
Ex. 20:9 Six days you shall labor, and do all your work,
Ex. 20:10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates.
Ex. 20:11 For min six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
3) The Sabbath is a day that commemorates God’s setting apart of a people to himself as holy and set apart:
Ex. 31:12 ¶ And the Lord said to Moses,
Ex. 31:13 “You are to speak to the people of Israel and say, ‘Above all you shall keep my Sabbaths, for this is a sign between me and you throughout your generations, that you may know that I, the Lord, sanctify you.
Ex. 31:14 You shall keep the Sabbath, because it is holy for you. Everyone who profanes it shall be put to death. Whoever does any work on it, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.
Ex. 31:15 Six days shall work be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the Lord. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day shall be put to death.
4) The Sabbath is a day for the gathering of God’s people:
Lev. 23:1 ¶ The Lord spoke to Moses, saying,
Lev. 23:2 “Speak to the people of Israel and say to them, These are the appointed feasts of the Lord that you shall proclaim as holy convocations; they are my appointed feasts.
Lev. 23:3 “Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest, a holy convocation. You shall do no work. It is a Sabbath to the Lord in all your dwelling places.
5) The Sabbath is a day that commemorates God’s redemption of his people:
Deut. 5:12 “ ‘Observe the Sabbath day, to keep it holy, as the Lord your God commanded you.
Deut. 5:13 Six days you shall labor and do all your work,
Deut. 5:14 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter or your male servant or your female servant, or your ox or your donkey or any of your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates, that your male servant and your female servant may rest as well as you.
Deut. 5:15 You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God brought you out from there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the Lord your God commanded you to keep the Sabbath day.
Jesus said of the Ten Commandments that not a yod or a seraph (smallest letter and smallest mark in Hebrew) would pass away until his second coming.
Matt. 5:17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
Matt. 5:18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.
Matt. 5:19 Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
We still need the Sabbath:
1. The Christian Sabbath is still a needed rest from the labors of the week.
2. Not only do we commemorate God’s creative work, which was begun on a Sunday, but we anticipate God’s re-creative work in the new heavens and the new earth, which was secured on a Sunday, as it is Christ’s resurrection that secured for us an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading (1 Peter 1:4).
3. We commemorate God’s election, setting us apart as a holy priesthood (1 Peter 1:14-16).
4. We gather as a people in the name of the Lord.
5. To commemorate God’s redemption of His people, not only through the history of redemption, but also in the saving work of Jesus, through which we have been redeemed from our bondage to sin and are being prepared for eternity with Christ in heaven. Because Christ is resurrected, we have the hope of resurrection as well (Romans 8:29, Colossians 1:18).
Testimony and Psalm 119
The word in Hebrew that is translated as testimony is tWd[e (eduth), and is derived from d[e (ed—note that both of these words are pronounced with an “ae” sound in English). Both words carry similar meanings, though the connotations vary somewhat in terms of how they are used.
The first word, tWd[e (eduth), refers to a witness or testimony, but is normally used in terms of legally binding stipulations or laws. The Tabernacle is for example, called the Tabernacle of Testimony (Numbers 17:4) because the tablets of the Ten Commandments were contained within. This becomes very pronounced when you get to verse 10 of the same chapter for Moses is told to put the staff of Aaron before the testimony—ultimately something that was kept with the 10 commandments. Thus, when Psalm 119 speaks of testimony in this sense, it is speaking most specifically of the Moral Law (10 Commandments) but also carries the implication of the rest of the law of God—in essence, all of God’s word. This word is found 9 times in the 119th psalm (which should say something right there), and is located in verses 14, 31, 36, 88, 99, 111, 129, 144, and 157.
The second word, d[e (ed), is a massively important word in Hebrew and is found 118 times in the Old Testament even though it is not explicitly found in Psalm 119. It refers to the idea of witness in much the same way as the New Testament Greek term marturi/a (marturia—from which we get the term “martyr”) is used. This word refers to that witness which confirms the truth to be so. This is one’s testimony of faith before men, for example, as well as being a testimony in a court of law.
The connection between these two words is found in the concept of the covenant of God. God’s covenant with his people is his d[e (ed), but this d[e (ed) contains stipulations for those that would be in covenant with our Lord and King. Those stipulations are the tWd[e (eduth) of God.
What is also worth noting is that another word that is derived from d[e (ed) is the term hd”[e (edah), which means “congregation,” referring to a gathering of God’s people. God’s people are those that he has put into relationship with himself through his covenant, his d[e (ed), and regulates through his tWd[e (eduth). All very closely connected. This word is found 14 times in Psalm 119 (vs. 2, 22, 24, 46, 59, 79, 95, 119, 125, 138, 146, 152, 167, 168). So closely are these words and ideas related that in most if not all cases, when Psalm 119 is translated into English, they have translated it as “testimony” rather than congregation. This is probably a little misleading in the crossover to English, but at the same time, in the context of the Psalm, it appears that the Psalmist is doing much the same thing—wedding together these ideas. Or, to put it another way, the presence of the covenant people of God are God’s testimony to his own covenant faithfulness—his ds,x, (chesed—pronounced with a hard “ch” like in “Loch Ness”). The word ds,x, (chesed) is variously translated in our English Bibles, but refers to the covenantal faithfulness of God in spite of our covenantal unfaithfulness, and is found 7 times in Psalm 119 (vs. 41, 64, 76, 88, 124, 149, 159) and is often translated as “steadfast love.”
With this in mind, permit me to digress to Deuteronomy 6:4 for a moment, commonly called “the Shema” in Hebrew circles. The bulk of the book of Deuteronomy consists of Moses’ sermonic expositions of the Ten Commandments, forming a Constitution for the people of Israel. With this in mind, the Shema functions essentially as the preamble to the constitution for the people. In fact, in Judaism, Deuteronomy 6:4 is considered to be the single most important verse in the Bible and the very language that defines them as a people—giving them their national identity. It establishes their relationship with God as a covenant people and reminds them that they are a people who have been given a name, loved as such by their God. It is the first prayer that the faithful Hebrew prays when he wakes in the morning and the last prayer he prays before he goes to bed at night. It is also chanted at the beginning of a traditional synagogue service. What is especially interesting is the way it is written in the Hebrew Bible:
dx’a, hw”hy> Wnyheloa/ hw”hy> laer”f.yI [m;v.
Note that the last letter of the first and last words have been written larger and in bold print. These two letters, when taken out of the verse spell, d[e (ed)—or witness. In other words, the Shema itself is the witness of the Jewish people to their God, just as the covenant is God’s d[e (ed) to his people. Lastly, if you reverse the letters of d[e (ed), you end up with the word [;D: (da-a), which means “knowledge.” Just as fear of the Lord is the beginning of all wisdom (Psalm 111:10), so too is all true knowledge rooted in the covenant of God. Any pursuit of knowledge apart from God’s revelation through his covenant is vanity, Solomon reminds us in Ecclesiastes.
Covenant is, as we know, the context in which God interacts with his people. On the very first day that Adam was alive and placed in the Garden God established his covenant with Adam and set before Adam the tWd[e (eduth) of the covenant—don’t eat lest you will die-die. The punishments given out after the fall are the consequences of their failure to fulfill the covenant. Genesis 3:15, though reminds us that a Messiah is coming who will redeem his people from bondage to the one who led them into sin. Genesis 15 provides us with a foretaste of what would happen to this divine Messiah, though. In the context, God is confirming his covenant with Abraham and Abraham is sent to divide up the animals and separate them creating a bloody path to walk through. In ancient times, when covenants were made between Kings and their Vassals, they would divide up a group of animals like this, and then the Vassal, as a pledge of faithfulness to the covenant, would walk through the middle of the line of animals as if to say, “if I don’t fulfill my part of the covenant, may what happened to these animals happen to me also.” Now, some have suggested that there may be evidence that both the king and vassal walked through this line, but the evidence is varied and this proposition makes little sense as the vassal had no power to enforce this commitment upon the king, where the king certainly had the power to enforce it upon his vassal.
Either way, what is significant is that Abraham should have walked through the bloody pathway, but God puts him into a deep sleep (not unlike the sleep that God put Adam into before he took out his rib to form Eve), and God walked through the bloody pathway in Abraham’s stead. God was saying to Abraham, I will be your covenant mediator and representative for this covenant. If you or your line fail to keep this covenant, may what happened to these animals happen to me as well. And that is exactly what took place on the cross of Calvary. Jesus fulfilled what God promised, bloody and bruised, because we could not be faithful to the tWd[e (eduth) of God’s covenant.
In the context of Psalm 119, the psalmist completely understands that for one to be truly blameless and righteous before the Lord, one must first submit his life to the testimonies of our God—to the tWd[e (eduth) of God’s covenant. Thus, he sets the Law before him as a guide and instructor. We must understand that while the psalmist speaks at times of being blameless before his accusers, this is not to be interpreted in terms of a form of human self-righteousness. Instead, he also understands, as Abraham understood, that his redemption would be paid for by another—by God himself through the promised Messiah, and that his personal righteousness was based, through faith, in the coming of the promised one. At the same time, he understands the thrust of what Paul would say in Romans 6:1-2. In light of that, the psalmist both begins and ends the psalm focused on remembering (implying obedience) the Law of the Lord.
The Preacher's Study 