Special thanks to Jesse Hillman at Zondervan for the review copy of this book.

I received volume 5 of the Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary on the Old Testament (ZIBBCOT) a few weeks ago.  This volume covers the Minor Prophets, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs.  (You may also want to read Danny’s review of volume 3).  As my volume notes on the back cover, “Many today find the Old Testament a closed book.”  The purpose of this series of backgrounds commentaries, then, is to illuminate the cultural context in which the Old Testament was written.

Zondervan sets out to accomplish this goal with style:  thousands of pictures, maps, charts and other graphics are scattered throughout every glossy, full color page.  Each chapter (which covers an entire book) opens with a page or two of historical background before proceeding to the commentary proper.  As for the commentary itself, it is important to remember that this is a backgrounds commentary.  As such, it should be noted that these volumes are only one (essential) piece of the library one would consult when doing sound exegesis.

The information provided in my volume largely lived up to its promises, and indeed each page serves as a great start to uncovering the cultures in which the Old Testament books are couched.  I was particularly impressed by the “sidebars” that make frequent appearances.  These dive deeper into a particular concept, and are immensely helpful.  Consider, “To Whom do Hosea’s ‘The Ball’ and ‘The Balls’ Refer?” (pp.16-18), “The Early Days of the Persian Empire” (p.207), or “Community Lament in the Ancient Near East” (p.356).  Taken with the commentary text, they are an excellent addition that is often lacking in other background commentaries.  One would miss a large benefit of these commentaries if they were ignored.

Although all of the pictures are interesting, at times, I couldn’t help but feel that many of them were the commentary equivalent of eye candy.  That is, they’re fun to look at, but ultimately contribute little in the way of nutritional value to the text.  Do several pictures of various ancient clay tablets with indecipherable writing add much in the way of understanding?  Perhaps one or two do, but the return in small, in my opinion.  The graphics do add an overall sense of approachability to the text:  It’s far less overwhelming to open to a colorful page full of interesting pictures than a page of plain text.  They also contribute to an overall atmosphere that some may find helpful, albeit in a subconscious way.  If the graphics are the nudge that an otherwise hesitant reader needs to consult a commentary, then they’re worth it.  If you’re unintimidated by hundreds of pages of plain text, and you’d rather the sandwich without the parsley garnish, this may not be the commentary for you.

That said, many of the pictures are very helpful (e.g., a threshing sledge (p.60), a lamp (p.271), or the modern reconstruction of the Israelite view of the cosmos (p.264)).  As for the maps and charts, they’re often worth their weight in gold.

As Danny noted, the text can sometimes be uneven, since there are so many contributors, but I doubt I’d notice if I used the commentary as a reference (as I would), rather than reading it through.  Given the wide range of genre in my volume, differences should be expected anyway.  In all, I was very pleased with the choice of authors (especially the excellent Duane Garrett for Ecclesiastes & Song of Songs), and what they had to say.

Finally, I should mention something about the price tag.  Colorful glossy pages aren’t cheap, and neither are these volumes.  All 5 are selling for $158 on Amazon, and when I consider that IVP’s 800+ page single volume OT backgrounds commentary is $24, it makes it a hard sell for me.  The pictures and illustrations are indeed helpful, and I won’t deny that they set Zondervan’s commentary apart from others, but are they $134 more helpful?  The answer is ultimately a subjective one that likely enjoys direct proportion to your annual book budget, and how you best engage with a book.  If you have the money, and vanilla text makes you cringe, these are a great addition to your library.  Pastors, teachers and students alike will certainly benefit.  If you’re on a tight budget (financial, shelf space or both), and text alone will scratch most of your itch, I would look elsewhere.

One of the things I marvelled at when reading The Da Vinci Code was author Dan Brown’s claim that the early church, (in a power grab, of course), shrouded Christ’s humanity in a veil of divinity, thus obscuring His humanity.  This created the need for the church as a mediator of Christ’s revelation, otherwise Jesus would be incomprehensible.  Brown’s claims are backed up by several gnostic “gospels,” such as those found at Nag Hammadi.

What was amazing to me about this view, (aside from the fact that it is historically puerile and hopelessly inconsistent to the point where one wonders if Brown even bothered to read a gnostic text, or even look up the word “gnosticism”), was that Brown made such an effort to assert Christ’s humanity, and emphasize his human ministry.  This was interesting to me merely on a personal level, because for the bulk of my Christian life, I have had far greater struggles convincing non-Christians of Christ’s divinity.

This struggle, I learned, was actually much easier than describing what Christ’s divinity actually meant.  How was he God and man?  This difficulty could have been much reduced if only I had read Packer’s 5th chapter in Knowing God.  Here, with the simplicity and clarity that has made this book so popular, Pakcer tackles the incarnation:  Jesus as fully human and fully divine.

Particularly helpful in this chapter is Packer’s precision in expressing that Jesus was not God minus certain divine characteristics, but God plus humanity.  His explanation of Paul’s text in Php. 2:7 is helpful (p.60,63):

When Paul talks of the Son as having emptied himself and become poor, what he has in mind, as the context in each case shows, is the laying aside not of divine powers and attributes, but of divine glory and dignity…a volutary restraint of power; an acceptance of hardship, isolation, ill-treatment, malice and misunderstanding; finally, a death that involved such agony-spiritual even more than physical -that his mind nearly broke under the prospect of it.

As well as one may be able to describe Christ’s nature, we should note that it will always be mysterious and intrinsically baffling; there is nothing in the universe that serves as an accurate analogue for the Trinity.  God is our only example.  All we can do is express what the Bible teaches.

But even after understanding (best I could) the Bible’s teaching on Christ’s nature, I encountered a third struggle when I met with some Jehovah’s Witnesses to discuss the Bible.  Jehovah’s Witnesses deny Christ’s divinity, and instead claim that he was a created being, and while he may be ontologically superior to us, he is not divine.  As I labored to reason with them through the Scriptures that Jesus is indeed the God-man, a chilling question surfaced in my head:  What’s at stake?  Does it matter that Jesus was human and divine?  Am I still Christian if I deny this?

Packer hints at the ramifications of Christ’s nature in the beginning of his chapter.  Gallons of theological ink can be spilled to answer why it is crucial to Christianity that Jesus be divine and human.  Consider my very brief, very incomplete list:

1. Jesus as the God-man is the only adequate explanation for the information we have of him (i.e., Scripture).  It best accounts for his self-understanding, his actions, words, and teachings.  If he were not divine and human, Jesus was either a lunatic, an apparition, or a scoundrel.  None of these seems a plausible option.
2. Jesus’ nature as God-man means he is the perfect atoning sacrifice for our sins in kind (he is human) and quantity (he is infinite).  Even more, we might ask of Scripture:  Who alone saves?  Who alone forgives sins?  It is only and always God.  Jesus is no savior if he is not God.
3. Jesus’ nature explains the resurrection.  How could one die, yet raise himself up again by his own authority (see Jn. 10:17-18) if he were not both God and man?
4. Jesus’ nature cements the authority with which we understand his teaching.  If he’s just another guy with amazing, revolutionary things to say, why would we listen to him over and against the teachings of Siddhārtha Gautama or Karl Marx?
5. If Jesus were not human, we lose the awesome realization of how deeply God loves us, and the expanse of Christ’s humility.  C.S. Lewis says it this way in Mere Christianity (p.179):

The Eternal Being, who knows everything and who created the whole universe, became not only a man but (before that) a baby, and before that a foetus inside a Woman’s body.  If you want to get the hang of it, think how you would like to become a slug or a crab.

Packer concludes with the practical application of my point above, that as we model God, and “make our attitudes the same as Christ Jesus,” (2 Cor. 8:9), we too become poor, so that others might become rich.

Special thanks to Jesse Hillman of Zondervan for a review copy of this book.

Old Testament historical narratives can be among the most confusing portions of the Bible for the modern reader.  After all, it assumes customs far removed from the 21st Century and kings and nations some of us might remember from high school Ancient Civilization class if we scan the dusty files in our distant memory banks.  Pastors and teachers are no different from everyone else in this regard.

Zondervan, in partnership with editor John Walton (OT professor at Wheaton Graduate School), has attempted to help bridge the gap between the ancient and modern worlds with the publication of the 5-volume Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary on the Old Testament (ZIBBCOT).  This particular review will cover Volume 3, which contains the commentaries on 1-2 Kings, 1-2 Chronicles, Ezra-Nehemiah and Esther (shameless plug: more reviews coming in the near future).  As a side note, Zondervan ought to be commended as pioneers in the field of publishing aesthetically pleasing books.  In the last couple years they have published a number of volumes that include helpful photographs to aid the learning process (see my review of Clinton Arnold’s How We Got the Bible for an example).  Thus far, they have taken advantage of both our growing knowledge of the ancient world, and improving technology that can take high quality photographs for use in studying, teaching and preaching.

Each biblical book receives a short introduction covering topics such as the historical setting and literary setting of the book.  I found this to be one of the most helpful parts of this volume, because it contains in a relatively short space much of the information one needs to know for the book.  Within the commentary section itself, one finds pieces of information the writers deem helpful to understanding the background of the text. The authors of the individual sections did a great job of selecting texts to comment on and relevant background information to help illuminate the biblical text.  The numerous shadowboxes/sidebars contain informative nuggets on subjects such as The Cedars of Lebanon, Large Numbers in the Hebrew Bible and the Significance of Genealogies for a Postexilic Audience.

What will probably stand out the most, though, is the high number of striking photographs sprinkled on every page of this book.  For those who are visual learners, this book will not disappoint.  The pictures include everything from the famous Lachish Reliefs found in Sennacharib’s palace (1 Kings 18) to the Cyrus Cylinder (Ezra 1 and 2 Chronicles 26).  One of the great benefits of this particular volume is that it can double as a major help for teaching and preaching on the prophets.  Teaching on Hosea?  Check out the sections on the Northern Kingdom and its fall in 2 Kings (where you’ll see an awesome picture of The Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III on page 149).  Haggai and Zechariah?  You’ll find help in Ezra-Nehemiah.  In fact, pointing out these connections between the historical narratives and prophetical books will be a great benefit to any congregation.

There are a couple minor “hiccups” along the way.  As one might expect from a multi-author volume, the book can be slightly uneven.  I felt the section on Esther was the weakest (where are the shadowboxes that proved so useful throughout the rest of the book?).  The dates of Ezra’s work in Jerusalem could have been made much clearer, given the fact there is over a gap of over a half century between Ezra 6 and 7.  I found these dates in the introduction to 1-2 Chronicles in a chart of Persian Rulers.  The problem is that this book is not a novel, to be read from cover to cover, but a reference book.  There is, tucked in the comments on Ezra 7:26, a note referring to “the silence about Ezra’s activity between 458 and 445,” but even then it isn’t clear that 458 BC is the date of Ezra’s return to Jerusalem.  I’m assuming Edwin Yamauchi, the author of this otherwise excellent section, holds to that date, but I wouldn’t know it from reading the commentary.

Finally, I have to comment about a glaring error.  I’m not one to point out typos in reviews.  After all, in a 500+ page book there are bound to be a couple mistakes.  It’s understandable.  However, when the typo occurs on the front cover of the book, well… I’d be a failure as a book reviewer not to point it out.  It was actually the very first thing I noticed about the book when I took it out of the box.  In the upper right hand corner of the front cover, it reads, “1 & 2 Kinds” instead of “1 & 2 Kings.”  Seriously.  Now, the thought did occur to me that perhaps I only received an early printing that was sent out as a review copy, and that the volume sold online or in bookstores will be different.  But then I discovered that the picture of this book on Zondervan’s own website, as well as Amazon, had the typo.  Ouch.  If they had fixed this mistake, I imagine it would have been fixed on these websites, too.  Again, typos in the text of a long book are one thing, but on the front cover it’s embarrassing.

That mistake, of course, has nothing to do with the content contained within the book, which is quite good.  Those preaching and teaching on these historical narratives will benefit greatly from this book, as I’m sure they will from the rest of the ZIBBCOT series.  This volume, and I suspect the entire series, will prove to be a tremendous resource for the church for many years to come.

First things first, Happy Reformation Day (slightly belated)!  Dust off your Luther costume and enjoy this 492nd anniversary of Luther’s 95 thesis.  It’s way better than Halloween:  Several times more cultural importance with none of the empty calories!

A few weeks ago Danny had the great idea of paying homage to my favorite television show (and achilles heel?) The Simpsons, by way of a “138th Post Spectacular.”  So I don’t know what he was thinking when he posted on Tim Keller’s sermons, because technically, that is our 138th post.  I take solace in the fact that The Simpsons 138th Episode Spectacular is actually the 155th episode.  So who’s really counting?  Be that as it may, 139 is as arbitrary a number as any for us to celebrate meaningless, self-congratulatory milestones, and thank our tens of readers.

Danny also had the great idea of listing our “Top 10″ favorite posts (5 from each of us) with some comments for each.  They are in no particular order, but we hope you enjoy this walk down memory lane.

Brian’s Top 5

(1)  Happy Winter Solstice from the Humanists! This post is a year old, and has a close friend in my latest thoughts on popular atheism.  I list this among my favorites because humanism, which may go by many names, is very common in my present context.  The ultimate aim is “just be a good person,” which is nice enough, were it not for the fact that in the absence of God (or even a god), it is an incoherent, indefensible statement.

(2)  Facebook: You’re Dead to Me Now. This post has very little theological or cultural value, save that it was great catharsis for me.

(3)  Defending Apologetics. Apologetics has a special place in my heart, thanks in part to the fact that the work of apologists is what helped me see the truth of Christianity, and come to Christ.

(4)  What Would Jesus Play? (Posted on my son’s first birthday, no less.)  The interaction of Christianity and culture has always been a great interest to me.  After all, it is something that I have to confront every day.  I’m still waiting for a book of answers, but even if one came, I’d miss the discussion.

(5)  The Starting Point of Missions. In my experience, missions is very easy to talk about, and very hard to do.  In a way that is a non-statement, because much of Christian life falls into the same category.  None the less, Danny and I both attend a church with a strong missions focus, and I’m always reminded in this context where missions got its start, and why its important.

Danny’s Top 5

First, allow me to set the record straight about the BBG 138th Post Spectacular controversy.  I did say something to Brian about writing this in honor of the Simpsons.  He, however, never replied and I figured it fell by the wayside of his packed schedule of engineering, bacon eating and tomfoolery on the drums.  After all,  it wouldn’t be the first time Brian went a prolonged period of time without posting on this blog (cheap shot).  Tim Keller stole Brian’s glory, so let that be a lesson to all of us.  Anyway, on with patting on our backs.  My top 5:

(1) I had a hard time deciding between Crafting a Crazy King and Why I Am A Premillennialist: Some Thoughts In Progress, but figured if I mention them I can get them both in here (cheating, I know, but Brian did it first).  I’ll go with the premillennialism post, mainly because it’s been debated recently on some prominent blogs and despite the fact that it isn’t a particularly well written post.  While I still maintain that all these positions have holes in them, I’m still convinced that premillennialism is the best option.  It seems to me that amillennialism is a theologically derived position rather than an exegetically derived position.

(2) Easter is my favorite holiday, and you can see why in What Are We Celebrating on Easter Sunday.

(3) Brian suggested I put this one in the list, so here you go.  It’s called The Spirit, the Law & Pentecost, where I take a look at how Exodus 19, Jeremiah 31, Ezekiel 36 and Joel 2 all intersect in Acts 2 and the Spirit’s coming on Pentecost.

(4) Back in June I wrote something regarding the potentially deceptive way we use the word “worship,” in post called Worship: A Most Dangerous Word.  Interestingly, in the Christian Carnival in which this post appeared it was attributed to Brian.  Nonetheless, I’ll include in my Top 5.

(5) Our most popular post was something I wrote called The Strange Comfort of the Rod and Staff, based on the ever popular Psalm 23.  Honestly, I never would have thought this would be our most read post.  I rarely write devotional type stuff, and I wasn’t necessarily intending to here, either.  I had just been pondering something for a few days, and had only been writing about books for a couple weeks and thought I’d throw this on our site.  I’m glad I did.

While the fourth wall is down, I (Brian) did want to make a few comments other about this blog:

Danny and I do take God’s Word seriously, even as we take our faith and its interaction with the world seriously.  Writing posts that interact with matters of supreme importance (i.e., God) is not something we take lightly.  Our mission states, “We are a website devoted to equipping and edifying Christians around the world to understand God’s Word more fully, and thoughtfully apply it to their daily lives and cultural context.”  We cannot judge our success in this matter, but it is certainly our hope that we’ve not strayed too far from this purpose.  There is a sarcastic quote about blogs from despair.com: “Never before have so many people with so little to say said so much to so few.”  Hopefully this does not apply to us…entirely, at least.

Also, please note that we do appreciate your comments and suggestions, be they favorable or not.  In fact, civil, thoughtful exchanges of differing views can be some of the most enlightening.  Muscles do not grow unless they are challenged, so please call us on something if you disagree.

Finally, do know that it is humbling for us both to consider that a few dozen people check in here every day.  It encourages us to think that others find our thoughts worth reading, and we hope the exchange is mutually beneficial.  I can say from personal experience that having to write about something can certainly benefit the author as much as the reader.  Codifying and expressing a thought without the body language or feedback of a conversation is challenging, helping one to think more clearly about the subject matter, and better articulate their views in the future.

From all of us (read: both of us) here at BBG, thanks again.

This has already been thrown around a bit in the blogosphere, but I’m already playing catch up on this site from being inactive (sick) for 2 weeks, so I may as well finally post this.  Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City has made available 150 Tim Keller sermons for free.  I confess I haven’t listened to much of Keller, but I’ve read The Prodigal God (see Brian’s review here) and thought it was great.  At any rate, Keller’s one of the most respected evangelical pastors around today, so I highly recommend checking out his stuff.  Some of his “classics,” such as his Prodigal God series are available here.  Happy listening!

In preparing for my own teaching, I’ve been listening to some more lectures from Dr Douglas Stuart’s OT Survey course, provided free by Biblical Training.  He has one lecture in particular called Three Kings, contrasting David with Saul and Solomon.  In it, he argues that when the Bible says, “The LORD has sought out for himself a man after his own heart” (1 Samuel 13:14), it is referring to David not being a syncretist, unlike the other two.

My immediate reaction was, “where is there evidence that Saul was a syncretist?”  After all, it isn’t obvious in the narrative.  There are many faults of Saul explicitly detailed, but worshipping other gods isn’t one of them.  Stuart, however, argues that this was the case.

In 2 Samuel 2, Saul’s son, Ish-bosheth, was crowned king and set up as a rival to David.  “Ish-bosheth” means “Man of Shame.”  Stuart’s argument is that no one would name their son “Man of Shame,” that this is a later scribal change to his real name.  His real name is to be found in 1 Chronicles 9:39, “Ishbaal.”  This name means “Man of Baal.”  This, of course, could be taken to mean “Man of the Master/Lord,” referring to God himself.  Or it could be taken to refer to the Canaanite deity, Baal.  Stuart’s argument is that the latter is more likely, since it helps explain why he is called “Man of Shame” in Samuel (scribal change, possibly to avoid the use of the name of Baal in one of the king’s sons, though I think very well could be debated).  Thus, Saul himself was a Baal worshipper, going so far as to name one of his sons in honor of the pagan god.

Proving Solomon’s syncretism proves to be a much easier exercise.  1 Kings 11:4 says, “As Solomon grew old, his wives turned his heart after other gods, and his heart was not fully devoted to the LORD his God, as the heart of his father David had been.”  Here Stuart sees a clear echo of the description of David in 1 Samuel 13, and I’m inclined to agree.

So what set David apart from these two kings, what made him a man after God’s own heart, was the fact that he held “exclusive trust” (Stuart’s term) in YHWH.  For all of David’s faults, and there are many, he never wavered from his faith that God alone was his hope.

Thanks for Chris at Zondervan for a review copy of this book.

This post is designed to be a summary of my thoughts on Bruce Waltke’s excellent book, An Old Testament Theology.  I’ve opted not to cover every detail of this book in my reviews, but have tried to sample a bit of what Waltke does and how I’ve found it helpful.  Because you check out my other reviews (go to the Book Reviews page), I will keep this relatively short and sweet.

Let me approach this critique by using the subtitle of the book: An Exegetical, Canonical, and Thematic Approach.  It’s generally a good habit to critique a book based on the goals of the author rather than what the reader thinks they should have said.

The greatest strength of this book is the exegesis contained within it.  Time and time again I came away learning something new and being challenged to rethink some positions I’ve previously held.  In Part II of this review I mentioned his take on the “us” in Genesis 1:26 being the heavenly court.  His grammatical insights are fairly persuasive, in my mind.  His ability to link stories throughout the Old Testament through related concepts (see Part I) helped me realize the internal coherence of the Old Testament.

But one of the great aspects of this book, though, is how the exegesis flows well into theological reflection.  The reader doesn’t simply come away with notes on details of the text, but how the biblical authors were reflecting on the character of God and its impact on the reader.  In Part IV I highlighted his helpful treatments of the post-exilic historical narratives, in particular the Ezra-Nehemiah narratives, and how they highlight the loving providence of God.  Waltke excels in this regard.

As far as the thematic aspect of this book, Waltke focuses on the “theological center” of the Old Testament: “irruption (breaking-in) of the Kingship of God.”  “To put it another way, the Bible is about God bringing glory upon himself by restoring Paradise after humanity lost it through a loss of faith in God that led to rebellion against his rule” (p144).  Thus, the unifying theme is God’s redemption of a fallen world and bringing his kingdom onto this earth.  Thankfully, Waltke doesn’t try to fit everything into this theme, understanding that there are points in the Old Testament where this is not particularly highlighted.  Nonetheless, Waltke rightly sees the theme of God’s rule spread throughout the books of the Old Testament.

My main criticism of the book is in the “canonical” insights, specifically how a theme or story is traced throughout the rest of the Old Testament and into the New Testament.  Waltke openly admits that an NT scholar would be better equipped to discuss the NT developments, but he still ventures to offer some thoughts.  Unfortunately, though, I don’t think he tackles the most important issues and texts.

In Part III of my review, I point out how Waltke doesn’t adaquetly trace the Abrahamic and Davidic Covenants throughout the rest of the canon.  Regarding Abraham, he spends most of his time dealing with Romans 9-11, and almost no treatment of how the prophets recall God’s covenant with Abraham.  And when it comes to God’s promise to David in 2 Samuel 7 and how that helps us understand the coming of the Son of David, Jesus, well… I came away disappointed.  He actually focuses on the genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke rather than how God fulfills his promise to David in Jesus.  This seems completely out of place given Waltke’s own goals.  I understand he isn’t a New Testament scholar, but he is as well equipped as anyone to give us some substance to the NT references to these covenants.  The reader is left searching elsewhere for these insights.

But I don’t want to give the impression that this defincency in any way takes away from the important contribution Waltke makes in this book.  I’ve read other Old Testament theologies; I don’t think there is a better and more thorough treatment out there.  It’s true you can’t cover everything, even in a book this size, but Waltke does as well as can be expected.  Don’t let the size (and price) scare you away- An Old Testament Theology is so well structured and written that the reader will find it easier than its size might make you think.

Bruce Waltke is to be commended for his lifelong contribution to evangelical scholarship.  This book reflects decades of wrestling with the text and being challenged to reckon with the God of heaven and earth.  We ought to be thankful that Dr Waltke has given himself to the study and application of the word of God, and be thankful that he has given us such a masterful treatment of the Old Testament.  In the end, one gets the sense that Bruce Waltke has been profoundly changed by the God of the Bible and wants others to be as well.  The fruit of his labor will bless the church for many years to come.

A friend of mine is taking Dr Douglas Stuart’s OT Survey course at Gordon-Conwell right now and is studying for the final (you can actually access these lectures for free here).  One of the questions on the final is regarding the allotments of land for each tribe.  My friend’s question was regarding whether Benjamin is considered a southern or northern tribe (I vote south, since that’s where they ended up in the split- 1 Kings 12:21-24).  But then he brought up the tribe of Simeon, who geographically is in the southern portion of Israel, but seemed to end up siding with the north in the split.

So then, what happened to them?  Clearly they couldn’t takes sides with the north but keep their land in the middle of Judah, the powerful tribe of the south.  I think the answer can be seen in 2 Chronicles 15:9, when it says Asa, King of Judah, “assembled all Judah and Benjamain and the people from Ephraim, Manasseh and Simeon who had settled among them, for large numbers had come over to him from Israel when they saw that the LORD his God was with him” (TNIV).  This implies that the people of Simeon probably relocated to the north when the 12 tribes split into 2 kingdoms.  Some of those people came back when they realized they were on the wrong side.

If we were paying attention back when we were reading Genesis, we may have forseen something like this.  Before Jacob died, he “called for his sons and said: ‘Gather around so I can tell you what will happen to you in days to come’” (Gen 49:1).  Here are the appropriate verses for our topic (vv5-7):

Simeon and Levi are brothers- their swords are weapons of violence.  Let me not enter their council, let me not join their assembly, for they have killed men in their anger and hamstrung oxen as they pleased.  Cursed be their anger, so fierce, and their fury, so cruel!  I will scatter them in Jacob and disperse them in Israel.

So Jacob predicted these tribes would be dispersed, but this was fulfilled in different ways.  For Levi, his descendents became the priests of Israel.  Levi wasn’t alloted a specific plot of land, but cities throughout the land from which to minister.  Simeon, on the other hand, was alloted a plot of land in the middle of the tribe of Judah.  Some might consider that a fulfillment of Jacob’s words, but I think there’s more to it than that.  The tribe of Simeon, as implied by the 2 Chronicles passage mentioned above, seemed to scatter themselves by leaving their land and joining the northern tribes.

For me, checking into this was a good reminder of the coherence of the Old Testament.  It also reminds me of how Jacob’s prophesies in Genesis 49 sets the stage for some of what happens in the rest of the Old Testament narrative, but that’s another post for another day.

Note: I got the picture from eBibleteacher.com, which offers up images for free.  I checked the site to make sure I could use it, but it was hard to find that kind of info on the site.  At any rate, the site offers free images; I highly recommend checking it out.

Chapter 4 of Knowing God is always one of the most interesting to discuss.  It is here that Packer deals with the second commandment and proper worship of God.  His basic premise is that the 2nd commandment, which is a prohibition of idols, is talking about making an idol or representation of God Himself.  Many Christians take it as setting up an idol and worshipping it instead of God, but Packer argues this would be nothing more than repeating the first commandment.  For the sake of conversation we’ll go with Packer’s notion here, with the caveat that not all agree with him.

Regarding physical images of God, Packer states two reasons why this commandment is given: 1) Images dishonor God, for they obscure his glory, and 2) Images mislead us, for they convey false ideas about God (45-46).  In essence, we can’t capture the glory of God in an image, so we’re creating false (or incomplete) impressions about him that do not honor who God truly is.

Truthfully, I don’t really have an issue with Packer here.  Where most people get tripped up is on the next section, regarding mental images.  The idea is the same as the previous point, that our mental images dishonor God and mislead us about him.  Our mental images cannot capture the fullness of the glory of God, so making those images is breaking the second commandment.

I have a number of thoughts on this chapter, so let me run down the list.  NB: these mostly deal with the mental images portion of the chapter.

1)  I wish Packer would have handled the issue of the Son separately from the Father.  The fact is that Jesus did come in a physical form.  He is seen after his resurrection in a physical form.  Is there significance to the fact that Jesus is desribed in physical terms in Revelation 1, whereas the Father is not in Revelation 4?  It would have been nice for Packer to address this.

2) If we cannot ever have a picture of God in our mind, then I feel like God has played a cruel joke on us.  Were the original hearers really expected not to picture a shepherd when they heard Psalm 23?  What about when God talks about his “right arm” stretching out to save Israel?  Is one to repent for having a picture of an arm pop into their mind?

3) I hear Packer’s concern for not capturing the fullness of God in an image, whether physical or mental.  But, can’t we say the same thing about using words to describe God?  If I say God is a loving Father, which is certainly biblical, am I sinning because I’m not emphasizing the fullness of God’s character?  How would one ever capture all who God is accurately, in any form of communication?  I’m reminded of Haddon Robinson’s words: “every sermon borders on heresy.”  His point- you can’t capture everything in a sermon, thus you run the risk of short-shrifting God.  If you are preaching on the love of God, you naturally will not focus on the wrath of God.  That, of course, means you might mislead your listeners to think that God has no wrath.  Welcome to the challenge of living with human limitations!  I’m not sure why a mental image is any different from these other potential problems.

4) I’m not sure Packer adaquetly accounts for sanctification here.  The Bible teaches that believers go through a process of sanctification- being made holy.  What may be used for evil can now be used for good.  For instance, my mouth as an unbeliever may speak lies.  But as a believer, the Lord sanctifies me and uses my mouth to proclaim truth.  This process includes the sanctification of the mind.  So couldn’t an image in that sanctified mind be good?

I do have some strong agreements with Packer, lest anyone think I dismiss this chapter easily.

1) There is, even with my caveat about sanctification, a serious danger of imagining God as we would like to imagine him rather than the biblical revelation of him.  You don’t have to talk to a Christian very long to realize that God is often spoken of in limited terminology: Father, Savior, Friend, etc.  Those are all true and good, but they often reflect what that person wants God to be rather than what he fully is.  Often times the picture of God one has reveals more about the person than it does about God.

2) The second commandment “is a summons to us to recognize that God the Creator is transcendent, mysterious and inscrutable, beyond the range of imagining or philosophical guesswork of which we are capable-and hence a summons to humble ourselves, to listen and learn of him, and to let him teach us what he is like and how we should think of him” (48).  Amen and amen.

3) There are cultures in which one would do well to heed Packer’s warning.  I think specifically of a place like India, where people are accustomed to worshipping an idol that represents a god.  To introduce images into a culture such as this could be extremely dangerous.

I enjoy rereading this chapter every year.  Part of the reason is because it forces me to step back and look at my life and ask myself whether or not I’m truly worshipping and recognizing God for who he is.  Am I guilty of only focusing on those aspects of God’s character that I find most palatable?  Do I create an image of God that I prefer, over against who God has revealed himself in the Bible?  While I know many people will read this chapter and easily dismiss Packer’s point, I think it offers a wise and valuable look into the idolatry of our hearts.

A series of ads funded by eight atheist groups are being posted in the New York subway system.  The ads will show a blue sky with the words, “A million New Yorkers are good without God.  Are you?”  It seems that this sort of thing makes news (or at least, this blog) every year.  This time, the ad appears to be less an attack on theism so much as an attempt to reach out to other non-theists.  Michael De Dora, one of the directors for an atheist group sponsoring the ad, expresses the intent to create awareness of the city’s secular community, and foster “talking and thinking about religion and morality.”

I personally don’t find the ad to be particularly offensive.  That is, it is no more offensive than other advertisements that litter our view.  Other advertisements promise that a new car will bring satisfaction, that a better paying job will bring about personal fulfillment, or that we deserve a luxury cruise.  A harsher critic might call these claims lies, and he’d be right.   So, is this ad also a lie?  Yes and no.

I could argue from my worldview, and claim that this ad is a lie because the million New Yorkers are not good.  They are actually sinners who bear real moral guilt for their thoughts and deeds, just like everybody else in the world.  This lie is amplified by two more lies:  (1) the presupposition that goodness can be achieved without God, and (2) the claim that real “goodness” actually exists without God.

I could also take a cue from De Dora, and do some thinking about morality.  Such thinking could lead me to argue that this ad is true, but desperately in need of an asterisk next to the word “good.”   The asterisk could be explained in fine print on the bottom of the ad: *that is, good as they define it.  However, that would make the ad a boring non-statement, since one can easily be good without God, because “good” is a meaningless concept that can be defined by the individual.  Therefore the ad is true.

In the interest of honesty, the ad might want to incorporate an additional footnote that being good without God may require the consistent thinker to live the rest of their days in despair over the absurdity of life without God.  Without God, our meaningless, purposeless life in the cold, uncaring, and dying universe makes the chemical accident of our existence cruel (that is, if such a thing as cruelty existed), and all of our striving for good (whatever that is), quite pointless, save perhaps that it can distract us enough to live in delusional happiness on our fleet journey to non-existence.  This sounds harsh, but life without God is harsh.  I’ve yet to hear a cogent argument for how life without God (or even a god) has any meaning, value, or purpose.

In my worldview, I can say that much of what the ad is striving for is good:  I commend the notion of people getting together, even more so when thoughtful dialogue is the goal, and even more when morality is the topic du jour.  I, too, do not want individuals to feel isolated, lonely, or persecuted because of their beliefs.  However, I cannot argue that the ad is good from the atheist worldview, because my thoughts are all predicated on the notion that there is such a thing as objective “good.”  The ad is therefore self-defeating, since by its own worldview, it cannot make any claims to objective good.  It could try, perhaps by an appeal to a collective, but the claims would ultimately fail because (1) living out such claims would require inconsistencies, as noted on this blog, and (2) the collective would change over time, making “good” today something different from “good” tomorrow.  If “today” were ancient Greece, for instance, the collective might condone the exposure of female infants.

Thankfully, we do not have to live in despair, because there is a God, and He is good.  The existence of a good God is also grounds for despair, since we are guilty of moral wrong before Him.  Thankfully, there is more good news, because Jesus Christ died and rose again to free us from our bondage to decay, and forgive us for our sins, such that those in Christ no longer stand condemned before God.  While this ad has the best of intentions (like many atheists in my experience), it cannot deliver on its promises, for there is no good without God, no hope without Jesus, and no turning to the good without the Holy Spirit.