Biblical Theology XVIII: The Song of Songs

The “Song of Songs,” otherwise known as the “Song of Solomon,” is an example of ancient Near Eastern love poetry that has been utilized to symbolize YHWH’s relationship with His people. The title, “Song of Songs,” is actually a superlative in Hebrew, meaning “The Greatest Song.” It is this superlative that helps decide the question concerning whether the Song is meant to be a literal description of desire between a man and a woman or it is to be understood as a symbolic description of God’s pursuit of His people and their pursuit of Him. Along these lines, what aids us in understanding that it is the latter rather than the former is the fact that, if taken literally, the Song is only about a couple of really good looking people who are lusting after one another. This is because the desire of the man for the woman is only in terms of her physical appearance. The only characteristic mentioned of her beyond the physical is that she is chaste. Likewise, the main characteristics of the man that the woman desires are physical, although she mentions a few other attributes concerning his riches. Although there is nothing wrong with lifting up the physical desire of a couple for one another, it hardly would be titled, “The Greatest Song” in a culture and Scripture that has numerous songs about God’s love and protection for His people. The greatest song in a religious context such as this would be a song about God. Hence, it is far more likely that it is being used in Scripture as a symbolic representation of the relationship between God and His people (a metaphor used quite often throughout Scripture). What would also be problematic is that the young couple seems to have sex before marriage, which would not have been talked about as a good thing in ancient Israel. However, it makes for the perfect analogy of God and His people who passionately pursue one another, not willing to wait until the day of the wedding.

Theology: What the text seems to do instead is display God’s relentless pursuit of His people. He pursues them as an infatuated young man pursues a young woman he is in absolute lust and love for. He seeks to marry her and make their relationship permanent. He prepares a place for her to dwell with Him in intimate fellowship. He chooses her over all of the other maidens. She is His jewel. He, therefore, has set His love upon her. Because of this, even the other maidens, i.e., other nations, exalt God because of His love and faithfulness to His people. However, sometimes God is hidden, and the way to find Him is through the shepherds. If one lives by them they will eventually find God and be found by God.

Ethics: God’s people respond to God’s love by exalting Him as the most desirable of all things. They praise Him for His pursuit of them. They exalt Him for His great strength to protect them. They, therefore, desire to be with God as a young woman desires and pursues a young man with whom she is infatuated. She, therefore, relentlessly pursues Him, looking for Him everywhere, inviting Him to take her into an intimate communion with Him. She finds the greatest of pleasures in communion with Him.

In her pursuit of Him, she also finds Him mysteriously not there sometimes when she looks for Him. She remains faithful nonetheless, rather than letting her affections run off after another. Likewise, when God seems absent His people are to remain faithful and not pursue the world in these times, but rather continue to pursue Him by holding Him up as their ultimate love. Eventually, they will see their beloved God again if they stay close to His shepherds, and never give up the search.

The biggest lesson to take from the book is that a relationship with God is reciprocal. It is not just about God pursuing His people. It is also about their pursuing God. Without one or the other, there is no relationship with Him. In other words, a relationship takes two parties pursuing one another. God will relentlessly pursue those who He sets His sights on, but that will be proven out by those who relentlessly pursue Him in return. One who does not pursue another never really belongs to the other. This is the lesson of “The Greatest Song.”

Hypercalvinism as Antinomianism

Hypercalvinism is nothing more than antinominism. It removes the necessity of secondary causes as the means of the primary cause. In essence, therefore, it argues against obeying God since that would be a work. It is monergistic in all causes, primary and secondary, and completely removes any responsibility of the man. Orthodox Calvinism, however, is not monergistic in all causes of salvation, but it is monergistic only in terms of the primary cause. What this means is that God is the ultimate/primary cause of all things, but He uses secondary causes, like man’s choices and actions, to bring about His decisions. God decides you will be nourished and you therefore choose to go get something to eat. God chooses to give you a child and you therefore choose to participate in procreative activity. God chooses to save you and you therefore repent and believe. Two decisions/choices are being made, not one; but one is a secondary cause that responds to the primary as the means by which the primary is accomplished. This means that preaching the gospel that calls people to repent and believe, and their right response to it, is a necessary means to their salvation. Both of these are in contrast with synergism, which sees the choices of two or more parties as primary. 

I have seen hypercalvinists argue that a person in sin should not be put on church discipline because only God will change his heart, and that no one should really urge anyone to repent and believe because he or she can’t unless God does those things. This is a confusion of causes. Certainly, if God does not choose to be the primary cause of their salvation they will not respond favorably as the secondary causes; but we don’t know what God has decided for any man, and therefore, are to preach the word in season and out of season. Hypercalvinism, therefore, is a pious sounding disobedience to Christ’s Lordship.

Feminist Complementarians

One of the problems that plague Christian families and churches is that Christians can hold to a theory without applying that theory to practice. The theory of what God commands is acknowledged, but there is a snake in our ear telling us how good the fruit that contradicts the command tastes.

It's likely due to our fallen nature that we can easily learn and profess an idea, but have great difficulty applying that idea in order to produce an obedience to the truth. What does not help is the fact that many people think that if they profess an idea they somehow have obeyed the idea. As long as one says, "I believe such and such," then we label them as being in this category or that. For instance, if one labels himself as a Calvinist, we all assume that he belongs to a particular group whether he is consistent with his idea of church and evangelism or not. There are many Calvinists, however, who claim that title, but have very Arminian looking ideas about church and evangelism. In this case, the label is only true of a theoretical belief and not a practiced one. This is certainly the case in terms of gender roles as well.

We somehow have the idea that if a couple has the theory of complementarianism in place that the couple will actually function off of that idea; but this couldn't be further from what often happens. Because there is an assumption that we must be good in that area because we affirm that men and women have different roles, and that women are to submit to the men in authority over them, what often happens is that one carries the label of being complementarian while actually living a lifestyle that is not only egalitarian, but even matriarchal.

The woman becomes the mother over the man. She becomes his judge as an authority over him, and if he does not do what she wishes, she will punish him in some way. This authority is not a stated one, but rather implied via manipulation. The punishment takes place in the form of breaking the relationship in some way, usually because the woman is mad that the man did not submit to her will. She will become very upset, shun the man, i.e., deny the relationship in some way to him, until he yields to her.

This all too common occurrence means that these families/churches are actually outside the will of God who will only lead the family according to the creational order He set in place, i.e., through the man. The woman is in a submissive advisory role. If her advice is not taken, she submits herself to God and her husband/elders with the belief that God leads her, not directly, but through them. To believe that God leads her directly is egalitarianism, and often even matriarchalism, but it is not complementarianism.

Even complementarianism in the West largely looks egalitarian, since Christians often contrast their more conservative take on family and church with the Western world's matriarchal ideas, but fail to apply a consistent obedience to those institutions.

If we believe, however, that God directs through the man in family and church alike, then the obedient woman will not only affirm the theory, but she will advise but not argue, yield and not punish, submit and not politic via slander and gossip in order to gather her mini-army so that more pressure can be put on the man to submit to her will/opinion, which is something that happens in both family and church quite often.

Our culture likes to believe that the devil works against authority by corrupting the authority, and this is true of wicked authorities, but he often works against authority through those who are to submit to it. There has been many an authority trying to do the right thing that has been blocked or ignored by those who have been divinely subjected to it. It is the ignoring of the command in practice that caused the world to fall in the first place. If this is true, then Satan's mode of conquering people will be to get them to ignore the authority structures set in place to protect them. Strike the shepherd and the sheep will scatter, and scattered sheep are the ones most easily devoured by the wolves.

The toppling of this authority in practice, then, is purposed to destroy everyone involved. The man will not fufill his role as the image by becoming a father, and the woman will not fulfill her role as the image of God by becoming a mother. She is left as the protector of the household, and she is not given the strength to do it, especially when in rebellion against God's design. With the guard removed, the treasure can be plundered to the ruin of all.

Men who are obedient will not allow this inconsistency to take place without rebuke. After all, we are the ones responsible for the garden. Eve might want to eat the fruit and be really fuming if Adam doesn't yield to her, but we understand that God has given him the direct command as the authority over her, and that, frankly, as is often the case, she may have a snake in her ear.

Order Versus Organization

Whenever I teach about being creational I inevitably have someone confuse the concepts of order and organization. If I say that we should pursue order, one will often take that to mean that we should pursue organization. As is the case with all misunderstood ideas, there is a pinch of truth and a couple liters of distortion here.

When the Bible speaks about order, it is talking about doing the things that create and preserve covenant human life. It is not talking about conducting your life according to a strictly regimented lifestyle. There are various personalities who would love for me to back up their preferences in this area, but this type of lifestyle often is really just a preference when it comes down to it. Some people are just OCD, and they need everyone else to be as well or they can't function in the world.

That is not to say that organization cannot aid the Christian in pursuing order. It can. However, the problem comes when people confuse the two, as many times organization gets in the way of pursuing order. For instance, I told my wife a long time ago that I did not want her to concentrate on having a perfect house, but rather on the biblical content of what our children were being taught and the discipline of poor behavior (i.e., actual sin). The former is organization that I saw as distracting from the true pursuit of order. There was simply too much time being spent on cleaning the house and organizing, and it took away from our true goals with the kids. The house will perish. Our children are what will remain forever.

However, the house cannot go by the wayside completely, as it needs to be clean enough so that disease is kept at bay as much as possible. However, this may mean that clothes may pile up a little, the floor isn't free of toys and vacuumed continually (with nine children it would have to be picked up and vacuumed every hour). As Ecclesiastes says, there is a time for all things. There is a time for cleaning. It just shouldn't be at all times.

One could say that there should be rules for children to not get toys out, or ever make a mess, but this is nonsensical, and I think it is actually bad for children to confuse godliness with organization. Martha was organized. Mary was ordered. They are not the same. Jesus rebuked the former for not being the latter.

A wife focused on cleaning her house may be constantly yelling at the kids and her husband, stressed out about organization, and therefore, lacking in her focus toward pursuing biblical order. I have seen many a sparkling clean household with children in egregious sin. Spotless houses with divorced couples, adulterous lifestyles, rebellious hearts.

This confusion is at the heart of the Pharisaic rebellion against Christ. They wanted to focus on external cleanliness as the manifestation of godliness/order (i.e., organization), and Jesus wanted to focus on the internal and the moral activity that came forth from the internal order of the mind.

His disciples' hands were filthy as they ate. They clumsily ate in the fields instead of observing an organized Sabbath meal. Hygiene wasn't the greatest in first century Palestine. The fishermen probably stunk the most. Likewise, John the Baptist, who came before them was a horrible dresser and lived like an unkept hermit in the wilderness. These people were disorganized in their externals.

In contrast, the Pharisees were very organized. They bathed regularly since they saw this as their form of religious devotion. Their clothes were fine linens, even dressing like priests. They were well groomed (unless they wanted people to see them as fasting). But this all stirred Christ to call them whitewashed tombs with rotting corpses inside.

The tombs may have been sparkling clean and organized, but their minds and moral lifestyles were disordered. "Nothing that goes into a man defiles a man," Jesus said. Yet, how could that be? Cleanliness is next to godliness afterall, except that it isn't.

Organization can be good. It can work toward preserving life, but if it gets in the way of discipleship, it becomes a lifestyle God rejects because it isn't a part of godliness. If it was, Jesus would never have said that the externals don't defile. He just would have said that they sometimes defile and they sometimes don't. But that isn't what He said. Being disorganized isn't sinful. Being disordered is. Being ordered is being creational toward covenant human life: having children, raising them to put their allegiance in Jesus Christ and be justified, and it is preservational: sustaining the lives of those children while they are raised to obey Jesus Christ in sanctification.

Organization may play a part in working toward creation and preservation, but it may also, and often does, get in the way. For the Pharisees, it got in the way in that they lost sight of their own moral rebellion because they were so fixed on pleasing God and others in the externals. They also rejected Jesus and His teaching because it was not focused on the externals, and His disciples did not observe the cleanliness laws that they did.

And that is, perhaps, the saddest part of their story. The focus on external cleanliness made them blind to their own sins. They wasted their lives on cleaning everything but their thoughts and moral actions. And yet, if they had concentrated on the latter, never would they have been rebuked for not observing the former. Martha may think Jesus is going to be on her side since she's all about cleaning up, but He isn't because He's all about discipleship, as the latter is what creates and preserves covenant human life par excellence. The former is just rearranging stuff that perishes. That, My Friends, is organization.

And the world is passing away no matter how shiny we make it. It is the duty of the Christian to preserve what can be preserved and to merely upkeep those temporary things that are necessary to accomplish that ultimate goal. That's where organization may play a role.

In the end, however, our house will crumble away into the dust, the clothes will all disintegrate, but we will fill up the new earth with the covenant children that we made and sustained; and that, My Friends, is order.

Biblical Theology XVII: Ecclesiastes

The Book of Ecclesiastes is a genre of literature called “dispute literature.” Dispute literature, like the Book of Job, sets up an internal argument that looks at different sides of the truth in order to come to a balanced conclusion about a subject, usually about life itself. Hence, the individual statements in the book should not be taken as absolute on their own, but rather as propositions that are true in a way, but also have other truths that clarify the limitations of that thinking. The “dispute” is usually between two or more people, but here, it is in the voice of one person pondering various truths. Hence, it is a monologue that speaks through the voice of Qoheleth, which may mean “one who proclaims to the assembly,” or "preacher," as it is often translated. Rabbis, early on, identified Qoheleth as Solomon, although no mention of Solomon exists in the book. If it does use Solomon’s life/voice to communicate the message, it would likely be due to his pursuits of everything to the fullest, yet coming up short in the end. It is highly probable that the speaker is not literally Solomon, since the language used is that of someone who knows Aramaic more than Hebrew.

Theology: The book argues that there is a truth and goodness to temporary pleasures in a sense, as they provide temporary relief and comfort from life’s hardships, but to pursue them as the ultimate priority is worthless, as death comes for all. In this regard, everything is meaningless, and there is no purpose to life when all of these things are pursued for their value in this life alone. There is no benefit to be even righteous or evil if the focus is purely on this life. In this regard, Qoheleth is arguing against any attempt to make the things of this life, or this life itself, valuable and worthwhile in and of itself apart from a consideration of God. The author seeks to say that the primary duty of man is to recognize God’s authority and keep His commandments whether the follower of God understands and can see the importance of this in his or her daily life or not. In other words, although everything may look futile from the human perspective, man has the duty to submit to God’s authority and always have the judgment to come in view.

Ethics: Hence, the supreme virtue is to recognize that all pursuits will be judged by God in the end, and therefore, they should all be evaluated in terms of whether they glorify God first. The “sense” that people have that nothing really matters in the end is negated by the idea that something very much matters than everything in the present, and that is to recognize God’s position as the only One who rightly judges all life and any, and every, decision a person makes, and the future judgment to come. The duty of man, therefore, is not to act upon what he views as a futile life from his own perspective, but to see all things from the judgment seat of God. Hence, it is the reverse sentiment of the modern misinterpretation of Carpe diem quam minimum credula postero "seize the day, trusting as little as possible in the future." Ironically, the original sentiment of Carpe diem was compatible with the message Ecclesiastes because it meant that one should do all he can now in light of the uncertainty of the future. Hence, Qoheleth warns, “Rejoice, Young Person, while you are young; and let your thoughts cheer you in the days of your youth. Follow the impulses of your heart and whatever is desirable to you, but know that God will judge your motives and actions alike. Banish vexation from your mind. Put away evil from your flesh because youth and prime of life are fleeting. So remember your Creator in the days of your youth before the days of evil come” (11:9–12:1). 

However, even this still has its setting in the temporary life. Ecclesiastes posits that since no satisfaction in this temporary life is of lasting value, all men should pursue God and His commandments instead. This is because the future life is of greater value, and the judgment of God is the gateway to that life. He ends, therefore, with the conclusion: “Fear God and keep His commandments, because this is the whole duty of man. For God will judge everything done, including every secret thing, whether good or evil” (12:13–14).

Biblical Theology XVI: Proverbs

The Book of Proverbs is presented as the teaching of a royal father (and sometimes mother) to a son who might be king. The thrust of the book, and why it, perhaps, remains so relevant to the reader in any generation is that it focuses on not only how to be a good ruler, but how to be a noble person, and that the beginning of becoming a wise person is the fear of God (i.e., the recognition of God’s supreme authority). Proverbs are practical examples of how the law works out in every day situations. It is where the Torah meets life in all of its situations. Hence, law and wisdom are sisters, one conveying the ideal and one conveying the outworking in everyday life of that ideal; and the grounding of whether one listens to these ideals and lives accordingly has much to do with what life teachers to whom one listens (i.e., God or the devil, wise parents or the culture of the wicked world). The prologue sets the book’s purpose as follows.

The proverbs of Solomon son of David, king of Israel:

² for gaining wisdom and instruction;
    for understanding words of insight;
³ for receiving instruction in prudent behavior,
    doing what is right and just and fair;
⁴ for giving prudence to those who are simple,
    knowledge and discretion to the young—
⁵ let the wise listen and add to their learning,
    and let the discerning get guidance—
⁶ for understanding proverbs and parables,
    the sayings and riddles of the wise.

⁷ The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge,
    but fools despise wisdom and instruction.

Theology:  The Book of Proverbs sets up a contrast of tutors in the chapters that make up the prologue. The father (and sometimes mother) is placed in contrast to the wicked men forms the contrast on the human level, whereas wisdom personified as a woman that comes from God versus the whore who comes from death and the grave, and beckons young men to give their days to the evil one portrays the contrast on a spiritual level.  To seek wisdom, then, is to seek the Creator God and to honor one’s wise father and mother, but to do what is stupid is to seek death and chaos. Proverbs, therefore, continues the understanding of the Old Testament that those who fulfill the role of the image will be creational in both their larger and smaller decisions in daily life.

Ethics: An ethical contrast is created between the fool and the wise man, so that the fool is the wicked man in the book and the wise man is the righteous man. What the book conveys, therefore, is that there is more to being a righteous man and a wicked man than simply how one responds to the explicit law in the Bible. Instead, if one is a righteous man, he will conduct his life in a way that seeks after and employs wisdom in his daily decisions. Likewise, if one is a wicked man, he will evidence this in the foolishness of his life decisions that go far beyond just his response to the explicit legal commands in the Bible. As a side note, the book notes the pattern of a noble man’s life and ends with the pattern of a noble woman’s life, as if to say that one needs to become a noble man before he seeks out a noble woman. In any case, the book relates that those who would be God’s image will seek to be in harmony with His creative activity, and since He orders the world in wisdom, His people are to order their lives in accordance with it.

Michael Heiser, Federal Headship, and Original Sin

Heiser takes a Pelagian view of original sin. His brief discussion can be found here. This is the comment I left on this page.

He may disagree with the church, but it is not a misunderstanding on their part; and his pelagianism creates far more problems than simply seeing the virgin birth as a means to remove Christ from the equation. If God transfers the punishment (i.e., death) to those who are not guilty, He has unjustly condemned the innocent. He has given them Adam's punishment without their having Adam's guilt. This is also true of all of the children who are killed with their parents in the OT (e.g. rebellion of Korah, Canaanites, David's son, etc.). Heiser's view simply does not understand federal headship. If no one can transfer his guilt to another then Christ cannot take upon our guilt because He is "another." Likewise, Christ's merit, which Heiser ironically affirms in this, is due to the idea of federal headship; but if no one can transfer the innocence or guilt of one to another, then Christ's merit/righteousness cannot be transferred either. Federal headship solves all of this, and it also gives a further reason why the guilt of Adam that may be transferred through fathers in Adam's likeness is not transferred to an individual who does not have a human father (thus, he is connected to Adam's humanity through His mother, but not Adam's guilt through a father).
As a follow up, someone who understands federal headship will also be a paedobaptist and paedocommunionist, and also be able to look Christians straight in the face and tell them that their children are with Christ

I'm not sure what his view of punitive death may be, but it is essentially irrelevant (whether the punishment of death is active or passive), as God is preventing individuals from living either way.

I would also say that the issue whether the mother is a federal head is up for debate. However, if she is, it would only be in the absence of a father. Yet, Christ is not without a father. He is without a human father, but His Father is clearly said to be, time and again. God. Hence, He is not without a Father, and therefore, the situation where the mother would take upon that federal role would not be applicable.