WHAT IS TRUTH

Derek Cooper, Basics of Latin: A Christian Grammar

October 15, 2021 / 2 Comments on Derek Cooper, Basics of Latin: A Christian Grammar

In conjunction with the Christian and classical Latin college course discussed here, I am working my way through Dr. Derek Cooper’s Basics of Latin: A Grammar with Readings and Exercises from the Christian Tradition (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 2020). (Learn how you can make charitable donations at Amazon.com when you buy books there by clicking here, and learn here how to save money on Internet purchases in general.)

<br />

Dr. Cooper and Zondervan were kind enough to supply me with a complementary review copy of his grammar, as well as of his Dr. Cooper’s video lectures on his grammar:

<br />

although, with CDs going the way of the dinosaurs, I had to find a way to get the material off the CDs and believe that I will find the videos of his lectures on Logos Bible Software much more user-friendly. (You can also purchase his book on Logos–I got it there as well as utilizing the physical copy he supplied to me.) There was no compulsion or pressure at all to write a positive review in exchange for a copy of his book.

Positives about Derek Cooper’s Basics of Latin: A Grammar With Readings and Exercises from the Christian Tradition

First, Derek Cooper knows Latin well. He is associate dean of the faculty and associate professor of global Christianity at Reformed Episcopal Seminary. He is also managing director of Thomas Institute. A long-term foreign language instructor, he has taught Latin, Spanish, and Biblical Greek. Dr. Cooper is the author of many books, and has offered professional Latin translations for the Reformation Commentary on Scripture, the Martin Luther Handwriting Font Book, and is the translator of Philip Melanchthon’s Commentary on Proverbs. I was looking forward to meeting Dr. Cooper as part of a faculty tour of Greece with Tuktu Tours, but that tour, unfortunately, got cancelled because of COVID. (By the way, Tuktu Tours does a great job getting extremely knowledgable scholars to lead their tours. We have done faculty tours of Egypt and Turkey with them, and they were excellent. If you want to visit Bible lands, you would do well to go with Tuktu. Lord wiling, I will get posted on the KJB1611 YouTube channel relatively soon videos from Dr. James Hoffmeier, our tour guide in Egypt and a leading evangelical Egyptologist, discussing a variety of fascinating things relating to the intersection of Israelite and Egyptian history that he kindly allowed us to record during our tour of Egypt with him.) So Cooper’s grammar is written by someone who knows what he is talking about.

Second, the grammar covers the Latin of Christendom–which is what interests me in the Latin language. It is fine to be able to read Virgil in Latin, but I am interested in Latin as the language of Christendom for most of Christian history, as the language of the Old Latin and Latin Vulgate Bibles, of John Owen and Augustine of Hippo, of John Calvin and Thomas Aquinas, of the confessions of the Reformation and the polemics of Tertullian. In addition to focusing on the Latin of professing Christianity, I appreciate that he does not limit himself to Catholic Latin. A work like John Collins’ A Primer on Ecclesiastical Latin (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1985) will cover the Latin of the Vulgate, of the patristic writers or so-called “Church Fathers,” and of the Roman Catholic medieval tradition, but Reformation and post-Reformation Latin is excluded. Cooper certainly does not exclude Catholic authors, but neither does he exclude Protestants who rightly identify the Roman Catholic “Church” as the Whore of Babylon associated with the Antichrist.

Third, all of Cooper’s exercises are from actual Latin writers; he does not include made-up sentences to learn Latin. This is a great way of doing things, and it copies the method that William Mounce uses in his Basics of Biblical Greek, where all the exercises are from the New Testament, the LXX, or other Koine sources, instead of being made up.

Fourth, Cooper’s Latin text is appealing in its formatting. Zondervan has done a good job making the book look nice. The exercises, with an answer key, are included in the volume. Useful chapter summaries are included. The book is well laid out and a pleasure to read.

Fifth, Cooper’s lessons begin with an interesting historical notice illustrating the Latin to be learned in that chapter and ends with a Latin prayer. The historical information keeps students’ interest as they work through the book.

In summary, there is much to commend in Dr. Cooper’s Latin grammar.

Areas to Improve Derek Cooper’s Basics of Latin: A Grammar With Readings and Exercises from the Christian Tradition

There is only one major area of improvement I would suggest for Dr. Cooper’s Latin Grammar. There are not nearly enough exercises after each lesson to actually learn the Latin in the chapter. The exercises that are present are from actual Latin sources and are very interesting, but there simply are not nearly enough of them. As a comparison, in the Lingua Latina Per Se Illustrata series, which I am working through in conjunction with Dr. Cooper’s grammar, chapter 12 discusses 3rd declension adjectives and 4th declension nouns. There are 23 sets of exercises (combining the exercises in the textbook and the exercises in Exercitia Latina I), each exercise generally having ten or more questions. One is in no danger of not having enough exercises–it may not be necessary to complete them all, but if you do complete them all, you will actually know the new grammatical material in the lesson of the Lingua Latina series. By way of contrast, there are only fifteen questions, total–three groups of five–to learn the material in chapter 12 of Cooper’s grammar. The exercises are interesting ones connected to extant historical Latin sources–that is great. But there simply are not nearly enough of them to actually learn the Latin.

An experienced Latin teacher could use Dr. Cooper’s Basics of Latin as a stand-alone text only if he supplied many exercises of his own to supplement those contained in the grammar. Perhaps a genius linguist could learn Latin from Cooper’s grammar on its own, but for the rest of us, it would simply not be possible. Thus, unfortunately, despite is many positive qualities, I cannot recommend Basics of Latin: A Grammar with Readings and Exercises from the Christian Tradition as a stand-alone Latin textbook, at least unless Dr. Cooper writes a supplementary workbook or in some other way provides students with a lot more exercises.

However, I do recommend, and recommend highly, utilizing Cooper’s grammar as a supplementary text to those who are actually learning Latin some other way. For example, one could (as I am doing) actually learn Latin grammar from the Lingua Latina series and then use Cooper’s grammar to review grammatical material already learned, with Cooper also serving as a transitional text from the classical Latin of the Lingua Latina series to the Latin of Christendom. For those who are actually interested in Christian Latin, the interesting historical material spanning the millennia of the use of the Latin language in Cooper’s grammar is interesting and motivating. Reading Cooper is a motivating reward for working through the material in the classical Latin textbook.

Concluding summary: my view of Derek Cooper’s Basics of Latin: A Grammar With Readings and Exercises from the Christian Tradition

So, in light of all of the above, how would I view Derek Cooper’s Basics of Latin: A Grammar With Readings and Exercises from the Christian Tradition? As a supplementary text to Latin grammar learned through another method, I recommend Cooper highly. As a stand-alone text to learning Christian Latin, I cannot recommend it, because it does not include enough exercises.

<br />

–TDR

Note: Links to Cooper’s grammar at Amazon are affiliate links.

John 3:36, the Second “Believeth” (Apeitheo), and English Translation of the Bible

October 12, 2021 / 1 Comment on John 3:36, the Second “Believeth” (Apeitheo), and English Translation of the Bible

The King James Version (KJV) of John 3:36 reads:

He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

The English Standard Version (ESV) reads:

Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.

When you read the two, you see a few differences, one major one that may or may not affect or change doctrine, that being “he that believeth not the Son” versus “whoever does not obey the Son.” Which is the better translation or right? Or are they both right?

When you read the English of the KJV, you might think that the first “believeth” and the second “believeth” are the same Greek words translated into the same English word. That makes sense. However, they are not the same Greek words. The first “believeth” translates pisteuo and the second, “believeth not,” translates apeitheo. For that reason, the ESV and the NASV translate it “does not obey” and the NIV translates it “rejects.”

Can apeitheo be translated “believeth not”? Why would the KJV translators not translate apeitheo differently than pisteuo? How much does this translational difference matter?

In a very, very long post in which he mocks those who use the King James only, Mark Ward treats the difference very seriously, like a good reason to change the King James translation. You can know with great certainty that the King James translators knew that these were two different words in John 3:36. They, however, still translated them the same, “believeth.”

The modern version translators also sometimes translate apeitheo with “believe” and not “obey.” The next example of its usage is Acts 14:2 and all the modern versions translate it “unbelieving,” “disbelieve,” and “refused to believe,” the same as the KJV, “unbelieving.” They do not translate, “not obey” or “disobey.” The very next usage is Acts 19:9. The ESV translates the imperfect, “continued in unbelief,” the NIV, “refused to believe,” the KJV, “believed not,” and the NASV alone, “disobedient.”

In Romans 2:8, like all the modern versions, the KJV translates it, “do not obey.” I give you this last example because, it shows that the KJV translators knew they could translate apeitheo, “do not obey,” rather than, “believeth not.” In 1 Peter 3:1, the KJV and the modern versions translate apeitheo, “obey not,” but the NIV translates it, “believe not.”

Here’s what Friberg Lexicon, a modern lexicon, says apeitheo means:

(1) in relation to God disobey, be disobedient (RO 11.30); (2) of the most severe form of disobedience, in relation to the gospel message disbelieve, refuse to believe, be an unbeliever.

Thayer writes in his lexicon:

not to allow oneself to be persuaded; not to comply with; a. to refuse or withhold belief

The typical or normal Greek word translated “obey” in the New Testament is hupakouo. akouo is normally translated, “to hear,” but with the addition of the prefix hupo, it means “to obey.” Forms of that word are translated 21 times in the New Testament. It is the word used in Ephesians 6:1, “Children, obey your parents.” It is always translated, “obey.”

The Greek word peitho without the “a” prefix of apeitheo is translated “persuaded” in Matthew 27:20, the first usage in the New Testament, and the KJV and the modern versions all translate it, “persuaded.” If persuasion is negated, it would be “not persuaded.” If someone is persuaded, he believes. In Matthew 27:43, all the versions translate peitho, “trusts.” “Persuaded,” “convinced,” and “trusted” are normal understanding of peitho. You can see this in the translation in all the versions in its 55 usages in the New Testament.

When apeitheo appears in the Septuagint, the Hebrew word is translated a majority of the times “rebelled” or “rebellious” (Dt 1:26, 9:7, 23, 24, 21:20; Josh 1:18; Ps 68:18; Is 1:23, 36:5, 50:5, 63:10, 65:2; Ez 3:27), which is compatible with “unbelief.”

In the near context of John 3:36, John the Baptist preaches the superiority of the Lord Jesus Christ to his disciples, so they’ll follow Jesus and not John. In verse 28, John says, “I am not the Christ.” The gospel of John testifies that Jesus is the Christ. Why? So that people will believe that Jesus is the Christ and have eternal life (John 20:30-31). “The Christ” is the Messiah, a Kingly figure. John’s disciples needed to believe in Jesus Christ, that is, submit to Him, follow Him, or obey Him as the Christ. This is the same as believing in Jesus Christ and not being rebellious against Christ. Louw-Nida Lexicon, another modern lexicon, says concerning apeitheo: “unwillingness or refusal to comply with the demands of some authority.” This is not the same as “not obey.” It is a description of unbelief, especially referring to Jesus as Messiah, the Christ, in the context.

Jesus gives testimony or witness as to why He is the Messiah. John argues for this. He wants people to be persuaded by the testimony or witness of Jesus and his own testimony or witness. The greatest reason is that someone is granted everlasting life if he believes or is persuaded by the evidence or testimony or witness. In the near context, apeitheo means, “believeth not.” It is an example of a good translation.

The greater context of John presents the plan of salvation, the gospel. In the context of the gospel, apeitheo means, “believeth not.” Lexicons make note of this. Those not persuaded that Jesus was the Christ by the evidence and the testimony were not believing He was the Son, Who had come from heaven. The Son points back to many Old Testament Messianic allusions, including Genesis 3:16, Genesis 12:1-3, 2 Samuel 7:12-14, Isaiah 7:14, and Isaiah 9:6.

When preaching, I believe it is good to let people know that the second “believeth” of John 3:36 is a different Greek word. It expands on the understanding of the English word “believeth,” which is more than intellectual, but also volitional. Someone cannot remain rebellious against the Son, not be submitting himself to the Son, the Christ, and have everlasting life.

If the translators had translated apeitheo, “obeyeth not,” that would have resulted in a lot more necessary explaining. Today, it would be regularly used to argue for works salvation by those who teach that. They would say, “You’re saved by obeying the Son. So, if you don’t obey Him, you won’t have eternal life.” On the other hand, “believing” is not in contradiction to “obeying.” Unsaved people are said to “obey not the gospel of God” (1 Pet 4:17), and “obey not” translated apeitheo.

I was thinking about translators translating two different Greek words with the same English word in the same verse. One came to mind, James 1:17: “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above.” The two words translated “gift” are two different Greek words, dosis and dorema. They have two different nuances of meaning. The ESV translates it identically to the KJV. The NIV doesn’t even translate the first “gift, so it’s translation is “every good and perfect gift,” as if there weren’t even two words used. The NASV seems to take in the difference, “every good thing given and every perfect gift.”

The difference between the two Greek words is that dosis puts an emphasis on the giving of the thing and dorema on the thing given. The use of both words elevates the praise to the giving and gifts of and from God the Father. The NASV tries to show that difference, but I think very few people would catch the difference in the mere reading. There are two different adjectives used too, “good” and “perfect.” I know that this occurs elsewhere in the New Testament, two different Greek words translated with the same English word. I believe someone should rely on the original language understanding to define them. It’s very difficult for the meaning to show up in an English word. This will happen.

Ward strains so much to argue for modern versions from John 3:36, that I’m concerned he could pull or tear a muscle. It’s not worth 9 pages and over 4,500 words, like he uses. Let us rejoice that by the grace and providence of God the King James translators knew what they were doing in John 3:36 for the evangelism and then edification of English speaking people. May you be edified by reading this post in contrast to the fear and unbelief caused by that of Ward.

What Is the Primary Cause of Division in the United States?

October 10, 2021 / 2 Comments on What Is the Primary Cause of Division in the United States?

Our country is divided. Many say it is more divided than any time since the Civil War. Most of you readers live here, so this is no surprise to you. Many articles and even whole books have been written in the last decade on the division in the United States, but the present situation provoked some to write in the last month on the subject. The following paragraph represents writing in the last month on severe division in America.

The City Journal published an article by Andrew Klavan, titled, “At the Heart of Our Divisions.” Klavan, part of Ben Shapiro’s Daily Wire, tries to explain the division as others have. Newsweek reports that a “Majority of Trump Voters Want to Split the Nation Into ‘Red’ and ‘Blue’ Halves.” The Las Vegas Sun reported it this way:

A new political poll offers an alarming look at the state of American unity and our population’s respect for some of the nation’s core values.

The poll, conducted by the University of Virginia’s nonprofit Center for Politics, shows that 52% of respondents who voted for former President Donald Trump were in favor of splitting the country into red and blue states, while 41% of voters for President Joe Biden agree with the idea. More than 2,000 voters participated in the poll, nearly equally divided between those supporting Trump and Biden.

Ed Kilgore at The Intelligencer, part of New York Magazine, writes, “No, We Can’t Get a National Divorce There’s growing sentiment for secession, particularly on the right. It should be rejected.” At Substack, Claremont senior fellow David Reaboi writes, “National Divorce Is Expensive, But It’s Worth Every Penny.” Karol Markowicz writes at the New York Post, “Sorry, but a national split up just won’t work.” Steven Malanga at the City Journal writes, “The New Secession Movement.” Conservative commentator Rich Lowry writes at Politico of all places, “A Surprising Share of Americans Wants to Break Up the Country. Here’s Why They’re Wrong.” Dan Rodricks writes at the Baltimore Sun, “Civil war unlikely, but the nation’s present course could still be disastrous.” Most of these were written in the last week, and there are more.

Okay, so there’s division. Everyone can agree with that. Putin of Russia and Xi of China smile. Why though? I’ve read or heard a lot of different reasons: media, tribalism, the education system, the deep state, and more. Klavan lists reasons in the first paragraph of his post. Those are typical, whole books written about them, but I believe these are surface reasons, I would call, non-worldview reasons, that are superficial and don’t dig deep enough.

My take on the acute and bitter division between states, people, and parties in the United States, I want to give credit, corresponds to something Nancy Pearcey writes about in her book, Total Truth. She explains a division portrayed by the lower and upper stories of a building or house with the lower story being “facts” and the upper story being “values.” Today you hear a lot about facts in the media, news, and schools. This is the “science is real” at the top of the leftist value sign. In this upper and lower story bifurcation, values are probably not what you think they are. Let me explain.

God is One. Truth, which proceeds from God, is also one. Pearcey’s proposition is “total truth,” the title of her book. There are not two stories that treat facts different than values, where values are constructed, personal and subjective. You can’t really know these with certainty. No, with God His natural laws, facts or science, are no different than moral laws. If you fall from the edge of a cliff, gravity sends you down to destruction. Breaking moral laws also destroys. Worse even. God is the Author of both.

Premoderns took a transcendent view of the world. Truth, goodness, and beauty, the transcendentals, all related to God. God transcending the world is the basis of the transcendentals. He’s not part of the world. He created it and having created it, He is separate from it. As James 1 says, that with God there is no shadow of turning. God is holy. He is Self-existent and immutable. Nothing affects Him. All meaning comes from God, so truth, goodness, and beauty, the transcendentals, are objective.

This world is God’s world. Even if someone doesn’t believe in God, they are living in His world. This is reality. The division breaks down into those who live in reality, recognition that this world functions according to laws according to which everyone must live, even if they reject the God of the Bible, and then those who don’t live in reality.

The ones not living in reality, which are one side of the division in the United States, see the top story, values, how they want to see them. It’s one reason they are called “values,” and not “morals” or “moral laws.” Using “values” is using language with power. Incidentally, part of critical theory is perfecting this language for use in reconstructing reality.

Looking at the world like two sides of the campus, religion, art, etc. on one side and then science, math, and engineering on the other, the blue part of the country thinks they can assign their own meaning on one side of the campus. They ultimately don’t want God in charge. They don’t want objective values that clash with what they want, so they make up their own and dismiss God or make up their own god that approves of their values. This is the basis for the Democrat party booing God when voting on their political platform in 2012. This is also how they justify killing babies.

The truth is that the blue states, people, etc. now assign their own meaning to science as well. They call it science like hanging out a shingle, pulling science out of a Cracker Jack box. Their subjectivity on the upper story, think of it as bad plumbing, has burst through into the lower story like a broken pipe. That side can’t tell you that a girl is a girl. This is one reason why many don’t want to go to college in this country anymore. They know it’s a racket that is not living in reality.

One side of the division in the country wants the nation to be called like it really is. Borders are representative of this. You can’t be a nation when you don’t protect, not just protect — how about acknowledge that you have a border. Whatever one thinks about the virus and masks and the vaccination, it’s understandable why a big chunk of the country doesn’t trust authority on this. I’m not going to even get into what Fauci has said. He doesn’t speak science and this is demonstrative on multiple occasions.

The government, the media that supports it, and now even corporations are all in on the lies. They allot whatever meaning they want and they expect you to receive it. If you don’t, now they’ll even prosecute you. They’ll fire you. If you don’t put on their particular pin, which supports whatever lie that they deem correct, you might lose your job.

I believe most churches too have succumbed to the two stories I’ve described. They put beauty, music, dress in the personal, the subjective, the top story. They capitulate on basic doctrine and practice to accommodate for popularity and numbers. Their targets see the world according to the lie of these two stories. They know it and they concede to it. This does not bode well for the country. Even if the nation does split into two parts, what will happen to the red side when the churches have taken the same basic approach to truth? This is the most fundamental aspect of worldliness in churches today.

Another metaphor to demonstrate what the division of truth, the two story view, does to the country is a rudderless ship. The country has no certain belief to hold it together or to give it direction. It moves according to whatever current or wind produced by the world, like a float or a bob on an aimless sea. The force of popularity, what scripture would call lust, the combined desires of the population, decides what is it’s truth, it’s goodness, and it’s beauty, whatever each of these is in their own eyes.

Everything above explains the division in the country. Maybe the next question is, what is the solution to this division? That, my friend, is much more difficult.

Binding and Loosing–What Are They? Matthew 16:19; 18:18; Catholic, Pentecostal, Keswick, and Bible Views

October 8, 2021 / Leave a comment

Do you know what it means that the church can bind and loose? The Bible reads:

Matt. 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Matt. 18:18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

The Roman Catholic Church claims that binding and loosing are associated with an infallible power their religious organization, led by the Pope when he speaks ex cathedra, from the chair of the (alleged) first Pope, Peter, to supposedly infallibly determine doctrine. Pentecostal, charismatic, Word of Faith and Keswick proponents claim to have the authority to bind Satan. What does Scripture teach?

I discussed this question in a Greek class I taught going through William Mounce’s Basics of Biblical Greek, from 5:56-19:23 into the class video. Click here to watch the video on YouTube (and please feel free to subscribe to the KJB1611 YouTube channel, post a comment or “like” the video)

or watch the video embedded below:

Learn what Scripture teaches about binding and loosing!

–TDR

What Does “Led By or Of the Spirit” Mean?

October 5, 2021 / Leave a comment

If you are a professing Christian, you have heard such a sentence as, “I was led by the Spirit.” I’ve heard it in the form of a question, “Are you led of the Spirit of God?” It can be put in the negative, “He isn’t led of the Spirit,” very often speaking of a believer, implying that some believers are led of the Spirit and others are not.

“Led by the Spirit” or “led of the Spirit” are both in the New Testament, each one time.

Romans 8:14, For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

Galatians 5:18, But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.

The Greek words behind “led by” and “led of” are the same. “By the Spirit” and “of the Spirit” both translate one Greek word, pneumati. Even though the English translates them differently, they are the identical Greek words in both places.

The Greek word translated “led” is the same in both verses (ago), except in Romans 8:14 it is third person plural and in Galatians 5:18 it is second person plural. In Romans 8:14, those led are spoken about and in Galatians 5:18, they are spoken to. This does not change the meaning of “led.”

If the language is in scripture, which it is, the language of the above two verses is not intended to be vague, amorphous, or malleable in quality. It has a meaning and isn’t an instrument to be used in whatever way convenient. It isn’t to mean whatever someone wants it to mean. So what does it mean?

I very often hear “led of” or “led by” the Spirit to be the Holy Spirit speaking to someone directly. The Holy Spirit informs someone of what he is to do, where he is to go, or how he is to operate. This is separate from scripture. This is a common understanding of this phraseology today. Someone can just make “led by the Spirit” something equivalent to the Holy Spirit telling someone something.

If the Holy Spirit does talk to people and this is His leading, how does He do it? How does someone know it is the Holy Spirit doing the talking to him?

To be “led of the Spirit,” I’ve also observed of and from others, is about synonymous to be “filled with the Spirit,” very little to nothing differentiating the meaning of these two, filled or led. Do they mean something different?

I’ve found that the same people who think that being led by the Spirit means the Holy Spirit talks to you, also think that if He isn’t talking to you, then you are not led by the Spirit. If you were to say, the Holy Spirit doesn’t still talk to people, they might ask, and they’ve asked me, “Then how does the Holy Spirit lead you?” Many people don’t think the Holy Spirit can lead you without revealing something to you. In a technical way, that’s called revelation. They think revelation continues from the Holy Spirit today.

One historical occurrence that got me thinking about being “led by the Spirit” is the story of Joseph Smith and Mormonism. Part of the Mormon story is that God spoke directly to Joseph Smith, including what Mormons call his first vision in a grove of trees in New York. As you continue reading the history of LDS (the Mormons, the title: Latter Day Saints), continued revelation is a big part of their theology. Many Mormons say God has spoken directly to them. This is a big part of their understanding, that God can and does keep talking to people, even today. Almost every split in Mormonism, however, has also been between one group that says God did speak and the other rejecting that He did say something to them. How do you know?

Late nineteenth and early twentieth century Princeton Theological Seminary theologian, Benjamin (B.B.) Warfield, wrote a large chapter (pp. 151-179) on “The Leading of the Spirit” in his book, The Power of God Unto Salvation. I recently read an article online that quoted Warfield on this subject. I agreed. In that chapter, Warfield wrote about the usage in Romans 8:14:

In the preceding context Paul discovers to us our inherent sin in all its festering rottenness. But he discovers to us also the Spirit of God as dwelling in us and forming the principle of a new life. It is by the presence of the Spirit within us alone that the bondage in which we are by nature held to sin is broken; that we are emancipated from sin and are no longer debtors to live according to the flesh. This new principle of life reveals itself in our consciousness as a power claiming regulative influence over our actions; leading us, in a word, into holiness.

In this chapter, Warfield is saying that “led by the Spirit” is referring to or means “sanctification.” He says, “a synonym for sanctification.” He continues:

When we consider this Divine work within our souls with reference to the end of the whole process we call it sanctification; when we consider it with reference to the process itself, as we struggle on day by day in the somewhat devious and always thorny pathway of life, we call it spiritual leading. Thus the “leading of the Holy Spirit” is revealed to us as simply a synonym for sanctification when looked at from the point of view of the pathway itself, through which we are led by the Spirit as we more and more advance toward that conformity to the image of His Son, which God has placed before us as our great goal.

It is not that some believers are led by the Spirit and some are not. Every believer is led by the Spirit. Whoever the Lord justifies, He also sanctifies. Being led by the Spirit isn’t something mysterious and inexplicable. It isn’t a unique dosage of the Spirit’s power or a higher life with the Spirit. It is the normal Christian life. Every believer is led by the Spirit. It is not a unique experience that someone seeks for and receives as a special blessing for certain believers.

You do know that someone is saved because He is led by the Spirit. When someone is not led by the Holy Spirit, that is, he isn’t being scripturally sanctified, then he also isn’t justified. He’s never been saved. One of the ways you know you’ve been saved is that you are led by the Spirit of God. As Romans 8:13 says:

For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.

Being led by the Spirit in verse 14 is parallel to ‘through the Spirit mortifying the deeds of the body’ in verse 13. Those who live after the flesh, they die. Those who are led by the Spirit, they live.

How does the Holy Spirit sanctify? He does that through scripture. Like Jesus said, we’re sanctified by the truth, and God’s Word is truth (John 17:17-19).

Hearing voices in your head is not being led by the Spirit. The Holy Spirit does not continue giving new revelations. The Holy Spirit leads by your following the Words of Christ, which dwell in you richly (Colossians 3:16). Someone led by the Spirit is characteristically obedient to scripture. He has a living faith and walks by faith. Faith comes by hearing the Word of God.

Sleepy Habits

October 3, 2021 / Leave a comment

In the early 17th century, Puritan Richard Sibbes preaches a sermon entitled, “The Bruised Reed and Smoking Flax,” published in 1630 in a book with the same name, The Bruised Reed and Smoking Flax, in which he said:

Keep grace in exercise; it is not sleepy habits but grace in exercise that preserveth us. Whilst the soul is in some civil or sacred employment, corruptions within us are much suppressed, and Satan’s passages stopped, and the Spirit bath a way open to enlarge itself in us, and likewise the guard of angels then most nearly attend us; which course often prevails more against our spiritual enemies, than direct opposition. It stands upon Christ’s honour to maintain those that are employed in his works.

I was drawn to his words, “sleepy habits,” recently, their meaning and their historic usage. Sibbes preached, believing that some of the church members were not really saved, or some that he thought were saved, but really were not. Even though God keeps all of His own, the ones God kept would also endure or overcome. They would not endure with “sleepy habits,” but “grace in exercise.”

Another Puritan, Thomas Brooks, used the same language in a book published in 1670, entitled (you’ll like this one), London’s Lamentations Or, A Serious Discourse Concerning that Late Fiery Dispensation that Turned Our (once Renowned) City Into a Ruinous Heap. Also the Several Lessons that are Incumbent Upon Those Whose Houses Have Escaped the Consuming Flames. He wrote:

Secondly, God by severe Providences and by fiery trials designs a further exercise of his childrens graces; sleepy habits bring him no glory. nor do us no good. All the honour he has, and all the advantage we have in this world, is from the active part of grace.

On another page, he wrote:

Sleepy habits will do you no good, nor bring God no glory; all the honour he hath, and all the comfort and advantage you have, is from the active part of grace.

Another Puritan, Thomas Manton (1620-1677), wrote:

A man is not to keep grace to himself, but to exercise it for the glory of God and the good of others. Therefore is the presence of the Holy Ghost necessary, that the grace which he hath wrought may not lie dead in sleepy habits, but be continually acted and drawn forth, in such lively operations as may demonstrate the cause whence they do proceed.

He also wrote in his Sermons on the Twenty-Fifth Chapter of Matthew:

All Grace is stirring, and would fain break out into action; for ’tis not a dead and sleepy habit, but seeketh to break forth, and is called by the Apostle, “The Lustings of the Spirit,” Gal. 5.17.

Later in the same book, he wrote:

‘Tis not a naked and empty Profession, ’tis not sleepy habits, or a little Grace, but when Grace hath a deep power and sovereignty over our Hearts and Lives, that bringeth God into request, and commendeth him to the Consciences of men. The Knowledge of Christ is reproached as a low Institution by carnal men; but to the truly wise, no such excellent and noble Spirits, as they that are bred up under him.

Sleepy habits seem to be those when we are going through the motions, what we might call, “punching the time clock.” We are sleepwalking our way like a kind of mindless zombie with the aspects of our life. These writers call this something that does not resemble the grace of God or could not be fueled or energized by the grace of God.

Good habits sound good and bad habits sound bad. They are. What would be so bad about having habits in the Christian life? In a true relationship with God, the Christian life must be more than just a habit. “Sleepy habits” is a good way of describing when its only a habit. Habits aren’t bad, but there’s more to it when it’s a relationship. It’s not just doing what you’re supposed to do.

If the Christian life for you is a sleepy habit, maybe you’re not saved. As the Apostle Paul wrote, “Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith” (2 Corinthians 13:5).

Sermons on the Sabbath & Lord’s Day: Old and New Testament Evidence, and Seventh-Day Adventism Examined

October 1, 2021 / 4 Comments on Sermons on the Sabbath & Lord’s Day: Old and New Testament Evidence, and Seventh-Day Adventism Examined

I have had the privilege of preaching a series on the Sabbath and its relationship to the Lord’s Day. Topics covered include the Sabbath as Israel’s sign of creation and redemption; the way the Sabbath points forward to redemptive rest in the Lord Jesus Christ; Seventh-Day Adventist, Lutheran, Puritan, and dispensational Baptist views of the Sabbath; the question of whether churches in the New Testament era need to meet for worship on the Sabbath or on the Lord’s Day; and a careful study of the heresies, not just on the Sabbath, but on the doctrines of Scripture, God, Trinitarianism, Christ, salvation, last things, and many other areas of Seventh-Day Adventism, as explained in “Bible Truths for Seventh-Day Adventist Friends.”

To listen to the sermons and/or watch the preaching, please:

Click here to watch the series on the Sabbath

and feel free to add a comment, “like” the videos, and/or subscribe to the KJB1611 YouTube channel if you have not already do so.

There is probably one more message on the Sabbath coming, so feel free to check back. You can’t end a series with six messages instead of seven anyway, can you?

–TDR

Justification In Job, pt. 2

September 29, 2021 / 3 Comments on Justification In Job, pt. 2

Part One

Justification by faith is both an Old Testament and a New Testament doctrine. It reads like a major theme in the book of Job, the oldest Old Testament book. Job’s friends speak to him about justification and Job answers about justification. Is Job justified?

A related aspect to justification is a common Old Testament Hebrew word, mishpot, translated “judgment.” Forms of mishpot occur 23 times in Job. “Judgment” and “righteousness” both have been assessed as the theme of the entire Bible. I can’t disagree with either assessment. Over ten years ago I read a book by James Hamilton, God’s Glory in Salvation through Judgment: A Biblical Theology, which proposed judgment as the subject of all of scripture. Men are judged by God as to whether they are righteous. He judges a man righteous, who is justified. Men also judge other men as to their justification, which is what Job’s friends were doing.

Judgment, mishpot, by God is based upon His righteous nature and standard or law. A popular recent, contemporary concept is “authenticity” or “authentic.” Job was authentic, and the normal or plain understanding of authentic has been based upon an objective standard, so outside of one’s own self. Self-authenticity is a kind of oxymoron. Just because you’re consistent with your own understanding of who you are doesn’t make you authentic. Naugahyde couldn’t be said to be authentic. Leather is. And one can judge leather by an objective standard. It was at one time the outer layer or skin of an animal.

Was Job justified? Was he an authentic righteous man? He, his friends, and finally God have this discussion. Satan said he wasn’t. God said he was. So what is it?

One of Job’s friends, Zophar, starts his speech in chapter 11, asking and using the ninth of twenty-eight usages of a form of the Hebrew verb form tsadek (v. 2):

Should not the multitude of words be answered? and should a man full of talk be justified?

Zophar insinuates overt loquaciousness of Job, implying Job’s justification of himself with his words. Zophar is suggesting that rather than the words of Job justifying him, it be the consequences of his actions. In other words, someone facing the hardship of Job couldn’t be righteous. In weighing Job’s talk against the gravity of his situation, Zophar infers that the latter condemns him. However, Job’s guilt or righteousness could not be judged by the circumstances of his life. Job has been arguing against the false conclusion that his trials evidenced unrighteousness.

In a second chapter of Job’s answer to Zophar in Job 13:18, he says:

Behold now, I have ordered my cause; I know that I shall be justified.

Matthew Henry asserts that Job could say, “I shall be justified,” not because of his works, but because he knew that his “Redeemer liveth” (19:25). Job knew himself to be sincere in his faith in God, to lay hold on the justifying righteousness of his Redeemer, not a justifying righteousness in his own works.

Job had ordered his cause, that is, he had looked thoroughly over all that was occurring, and he says, “I know.” Certainty of justification comes from faith in the Lord, not in self. Paul commanded (2 Cor 13:5), examine yourself whether ye be in the faith. The trials of life necessitate reviewing our lives for the assurances of salvation. Job did.

Later, Eliphaz confronts Job in 15:12-16:

12 Why doth thine heart carry thee away? and what do thy eyes wink at, 13 That thou turnest thy spirit against God, and lettest such words go out of thy mouth? 14 What is man, that he should be clean? and he which is born of a woman, that he should be righteous (tsadek)? 15 Behold, he putteth no trust in his saints; yea, the heavens are not clean in his sight. 16 How much more abominable and filthy is man, which drinketh iniquity like water?

In general, his words ring true. “What is man, . . . which is born of a woman, that he should be righteous (tsadek)?” This conflict exists. In his natural state, no man is just, and yet Job is righteous. A man drinks iniquity like water, so how could he be justified before God? Only by faith. God can make an unclean thing into a clean thing.

Eliphaz then asks Job (22:3):

Is it any pleasure to the Almighty, that thou art righteous (tsadek)? or is it gain to him, that thou makest thy ways perfect?

It’s a rhetorical question with the implied negative answer, which is false. God does take pleasure in Job’s righteousness, which the first verse of Job (1:1) states. God has no pleasure in self-righteousness, but Job was a righteous man on account of God. Even Job’s friends knew he was righteous.

Bildad asks Job in 25:4-6:

4 How then can man be justified with God? or how can he be clean that is born of a woman? 5 Behold even to the moon, and it shineth not; yea, the stars are not pure in his sight. 6 How much less man, that is a worm? and the son of man, which is a worm?

Job was not justifying himself before God. Job knew that he was not justified by His own righteousness but by the imputed righteousness of God. Isaac Watts asks in his hymn, At the Cross, in the first stanza:

Alas! and did my Savior bleed?

And did my Sov’reign die?

Would He devote that sacred head

For such a worm as I?

Surely, Watts thought of Bildad’s words and Job would have been familiar with a necessary sacrifice for his own sins, resulting in a gracious provision of righteousness.

Job answers in 27:5-6, using tsadek twice, once translated “justify” and the other “righteousness”:

5 God forbid that I should justify you: till I die I will not remove mine integrity from me. 6 My righteousness I hold fast, and will not let it go: my heart shall not reproach me so long as I live.

Satan would tempt a righteous man to doubt. Paul said, put on the helmet of salvation (Eph 6:17), for one because Satan wants men struggling in their minds in their spiritual warfare. Job would not be swayed against the knowledge of salvation. He was putting on his helmet. He would hold fast, which is a standing in grace. Job would not justify his accusers by accrediting their denunciations of him. He does so in the same spirit that Paul later writes in Romans 8:33:

Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God’s elect? It is God that justifieth.

In his defense in 29:14, Job says:

I put on righteousness (tsadek), and it clothed me: my judgment was as a robe and a diadem.

Paul later writes in Ephesians 4:24, “Put on the new man.” This isn’t salvation language. This the breastplate of righteousness of Ephesians 6. Saving, justifying righteousness, no one puts that on. Sanctifying righteousness, someone must put on. That’s the righteousness that people see in your life, that Job put on.

When Job talked about how he lived a righteous life in Job 31, he requested (verse 6):

Let me be weighed in an even (tsadek) balance, that God may know mine integrity.

Rather than the unjust scales of his friends, Job wanted God to judge his righteousness by his own. He trusted God’s judgment. It’s easy for any of us to put our thumb on the scale in our judgment of others, but God is just in his dealings.

After Job’s long speech of the previous chapters, Job 32:2 says of Elihu:

Then was kindled the wrath of Elihu the son of Barachel the Buzite, of the kindred of Ram: against Job was his wrath kindled, because he justified (tsadek) himself rather than God.

Elihu thought Job to put greater efforts to justify himself than He did God, that is, Job should have been exalting God’s rightful judgment of him rather than his own righteousness. This is the first speech of Elihu and he, as a younger man, had waited through all of the speeches of both Job and his friends to bring his own observations of this matter of Job. Elihu spends more time confronting Job’s friends, but he accuses Job of putting less energy into defending God as he did himself. This criticism of Elihu is worth consideration.

Elihu does not call Job an unjust man. He speaks of this one violation, that Job was unjust in this one action of his defense. He continues this in the next chapter (33), especially observing verses 12 and 32, which contain the word, tsadek:

12 Behold, in this thou art not just: I will answer thee, that God is greater than man. . . . . 32 If thou hast any thing to say, answer me: speak, for I desire to justify thee.

In this one thing, Elihu says Job was not just, the action of Job in the repeated contention of his own innocence without the accompanying advocacy of God. Elihu does not speak to condemn Job, but to justify him. Righteous men struggle against sin too (cf. Romans 7:18-25).

As Elihu continues in chapter 34, as best he could he recounts Job’s words in verse 5:

For Job hath said, I am righteous (tsadek): and God hath taken away my judgment.

His representation of Job is that Job contends for his own righteousness and accuses God to have taken away his ability to defend himself. Even though he was just, God wasn’t vindicating Job with His treatment of him, a false charge.

In Job 35:2 and 7, Elihu uses tsadek again toward Job:

2 Thinkest thou this to be right, that thou saidst, My righteousness (tsadek) is more than God’s? . . . . 7 If thou be righteous (tsadek), what givest thou him? or what receiveth he of thine hand?

Elihu is asking Job whether by Job’s defending himself more than God, he was not guilty of saying that his righteousness is more than God’s? If Job was really righteous, which is not Elihu saying that Job isn’t, what was Job giving God compared to what Job had received from God? It’s a good argument. Shouldn’t a righteous man, which Job was, be defending God more than himself?

In Job 36:3, Elihu continues with Job:

I will fetch my knowledge from afar, and will ascribe righteousness (tsadek) to my Maker.

Elihu compares himself with Job. Rather than ascribe righteousness to himself, he does that to God, his Maker. It is more of the same line of criticism of Job by Elihu.

Elihu differed with Job’s other friends in their judgment (mishpot) of Job. Elihu uses this word nine times in his speech between Job 34-36. I commiserate with Job at least in his experience of judgment. The Apostle Paul was judged by false teachers and defended himself (2 Corinthians and Galatians). Job defended himself too, but it is fair for anyone who is judged to consider how much defending he does in comparison to how much his exaltation of God.

The last usage of tsadek in Job is in Job 40:8, as is the last usage of mishpot, judgment, dovetailing the two.

Wilt thou also disannul my judgment (mishpot)? wilt thou condemn me, that thou mayest be righteous (tsadek)?

Of all of the uses of tsadek, this is the only used by God Himself, and He is speaking to Job. God expresses His concern for Job’s communication of unjust treatment of himself by God. Rather than attempting to clear his self, He should defend God. Whatever God is doing, it is right. God has something to say about how Job has been talking about all he’s gone through.

Despite all that Job said, in the end God came down on his side against that of his friends. Job 42:7 says,

And it was so, that after the LORD had spoken these words unto Job, the LORD said to Eliphaz the Temanite, My wrath is kindled against thee, and against thy two friends: for ye have not spoken of me the thing that is right, as my servant Job hath.

Job said some things wrong, but God judges him in general as saying what was right, that is, Job was righteous. The friends were wrong about that. The word “right” in this verse means “the truth,” that Job was telling the truth and they weren’t. Verse 9 says that God accepted Job and not Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar. He leaves out Elihu.

Job was justified before God, not because of his works, but because of the righteousness that was imputed to him by faith.

Justification In Job, pt. 1

September 26, 2021 / 3 Comments on Justification In Job, pt. 1

When someone thinks of Job, the book of Job from the Old Testament of the Bible, maybe he doesn’t think of “justification.” I’ve taught through the whole book twice, once fast and the second fairly slowly. Recently I was reading through it the second time this year, moving through the Bible twice in this year, and the word, “justify,” stuck out this time to me.

When I taught slowly through Job, I taught the theme was the security of God. God kept Job. Job passed the test because of God. I taught that Job was about God and what He did, not about the person, Job. When we look at the names of the books of the Bible, we can think about the men of the Bible. However, the whole Bible is about God.

The Hebrew word, tsadek, that is translated, “just” or the forms of it, “justify,” “justified,” etc. is found at least twenty-eight times in Job. In this post or maybe a series of two of them, I want to look at all of those usages and how they fit into the book of Job. The word refers to something that is according to a standard that is of the nature and the will of God, so it is just, right, or righteous. It doesn’t fall short of the glory of God. The word applies to God. The standard for right or righteousness is God. Whether someone is righteous or just compares to God, not a human standard.

A big part of Job is whether Job is right with God. You could ask, Is he saved? To be saved, you have to stand before God as righteous. Apparently, Job was righteous, but not according to everyone. How righteous did he need to be? Whatever trials he went through, was it because he was not righteous or because he was? These are important questions. Everyone needs to think about them still. Here’s a last one. If God is the standard, His righteousness, how is Job or anyone else to be justified before God? This brings in the doctrine of justification. How is someone justified? Churches and religions differ as to the answers to these questions, and there is only one right answer.

I’m going to assume that you know, that in the story of Job (chapters 1-2), he is put through one of the most difficult trials ever for any human being in all history, losing all his children, his wealth, and his health. God allows Satan to put Job through this test to prove whether he’s really a righteous man. Satan says, no. God says, yes. While going through these severe circumstances, certain so-called friends of Job give him speeches, also casting doubt on his righteousness.

In Job 4, one of the friends, Eliphaz, talks to Job and argues essentially that people go through things like Job out of judgment for their sin. It had to be his sin. As further evidence, Eliphaz recounts in verses 12-16 that a spirit had given him (we know none sent by God gave him the message) the following message (verse 17), which is also the first usage of tsadek in the book of Job:

Shall mortal man be more just than God? shall a man be more pure than his maker?

It’s the word, “just.” Through the use of these questions, the message to Job is that he shouldn’t be justifying himself before God. Even though no angelic spirit communicated or even would communicate those questions to Eliphaz — you can’t be more just than God — it introduces the subject matter.

Job speaks in Job 6 and says in verse 29:

Return, I pray you, let it not be iniquity; yea, return again, my righteousness is in it.

Job is saying to the friend, back away from this conclusion you’re making that iniquity is the cause of my suffering, and come back to righteousness as the reason. Job isn’t saying that he is justified as righteous before God, but righteous in particular as related to the reason behind these trials. Between iniquity and righteousness, these circumstances for Job are not due to iniquity.

In chapter 8, Bildad confronts Job with an accusation common to the book. In verse 3, he uses tsadek in application to God, asking, “Doth God pervert judgment? or doth the Almighty pervert justice?” “Justice” translates the form of the word. He continues in verse 6:

If thou wert pure and upright; surely now he would awake for thee, and make the habitation of thy righteousness prosperous.

Bildad concludes that God would have made the habitation of Job prosperous if he were righteous. It does sound like Bildad may have believed in justification by works too. God “would awake,” respond to Job with tangible rewards, if he were “pure and upright.” It’s actually the opposite, we don’t wake God up. He wakes us up.

Job answers Bildad in the next two chapters (9-10), and deals with this theme of justification in four of the verses. Verse 2 is classic:

I know it is so of a truth: but how should man be just with God?

What Job knows is a truth is that God is just, so God couldn’t be unjust to him or anyone else. Job’s rhetorical question says that through anything that a man could do on his own or by himself, he could not be just with God. Any man on his own or according to his own merits, could not stand before God as just.

Job says in verse 15:

Whom, though I were righteous, yet would I not answer, but I would make supplication to my judge.

Even if Job were righteous, he would not argue with God about it. When God accused him of some sin, he wouldn’t answer. Instead, he would make supplication, which is to ask for grace or mercy. Job knows he’s not worthy before God. His justification can’t be by works, but by grace, depending on God for justification.

Job continues in verse 20:

If I justify myself, mine own mouth shall condemn me: if I say, I am perfect, it shall also prove me perverse.

If he used his mouth to justify himself, his mouth would be condemning him. He would by lying. A mouth justifying self is a sinful one. Saying you are perfect just proves you to be perverse. He would be saying that in him is no sin, which is false. Even if he were righteous, Job says in 10:15:

If I be wicked, woe unto me; and if I be righteous, yet will I not lift up my head. I am full of confusion; therefore see thou mine affliction.

He would not lift up his head, that is, be proud about it. Abraham could not glory in his righteousness, because it was not by works (Romans 4:1-5). The Apostle Paul, as a genuine believer, would glory or boast in Christ Jesus, putting no confidence in the flesh (Philip 3:3). Job would know that whatever righteousness he had, it wasn’t because of him. It was nothing to be proud of. He wouldn’t want to take credit for it.

The word “confusion” is the reproach or shame that Job feels, especially at the accusations of his friends. Rather than continuing to lay on him more pummeling, he’s asking that they see his affliction. Show some sympathy. He’s going through enough without their further hurtful words about him.

(To Be Continued)

The Psalter Headings–Infallibly Accurate Scripture, Correctly Ascribing Authorship to David, etc.

September 24, 2021 / 2 Comments on The Psalter Headings–Infallibly Accurate Scripture, Correctly Ascribing Authorship to David, etc.

Many today question whether the headings of the Psalms are inspired Scripture, and whether they accurately ascribe authorship to David, Asaph, and so on. The headings to the psalms are inspired, just like the rest of the Bible, and when they say that a psalm was composed by David, Asaph, Heman, or Moses, they record God’s inspired truth. A “Psalm of David” was actually written by David. A “Psalm of Asaph” was actually written by Asaph.

Here are some reasons why the psalm headings should be trusted:

[Theological liberal] Brevard Childs says, “A wide consensus has been reached among critical scholars for over a hundred years that the titles are secondary additions, which can afford no reliable information toward establishing the genuine historical setting of the Psalms.”⁵ As a result, psalm studies for more than a century have been adrift in conflicting opinions about their dates and meaning[.] … Fortunately, the tide of academic opinion concerning the antiquity and reliability of the superscriptions is slowly changing under the gravity of evidence. … Sumerian and Akkadian ritual texts dating from the third millennium contain rubrics corresponding to elements in the superscription,⁸ and so do Egyptian hymns from the Eighteenth Dynasty and later.⁹ Some psalms ascribed to David contain words, images, and parallelism now attested in the Ugaritic texts (ca. 1400 BC).¹⁰ Though many technical terms in the superscriptions were obscure to the Greek and Aramaic translators (which suggests a loss of a living tradition and an extended gap of time between their composition and the Tannaitic period, 70–200 AD), they neither alter nor omit them. No ancient version or Hebrew manuscript omits them. With regard to the antiquity of some psalms, there can scarcely be a question. … Linguistic, stylistic, structural, thematic, and theological differences are so great between the Psalter and its imitative thanksgiving psalm at Qumran as to leave no doubt of the far greater antiquity of the Psalter. … Authorship of the Psalms and of their historical backgrounds depends in part on the meaning of the Hebrew preposition l^e with a proper name, usually David.¹¹ Though l^e can mean “belonging to a series,”¹² it commonly denotes authorship in the Semitic languages.¹³ Within other literary genres l^e in superscriptions signifies “by” (cf. Isa. 38:9; Hab. 3:1). In the Old Testament as in other ancient Near Eastern literature, poets, unlike narrators, are not anonymous (cf. Exod. 15:1; Judg. 5:1). The meaning “by” is certain in the synoptic superscriptions of 2 Samuel 22:1 and Psalm 18:[1].

Other Scriptures abundantly testify that David was a musician and writer of sacred poetry. Saul discovered him in a talent hunt for a harpist (1 Sam. 16:14–23). Amos (6:5) associates his name with temple music. The Chronicler says that David and his officers assigned the inspired musical service to various guilds and that musicians were led under his hands (i.e., he led them by cheironomy—hand gestures indicating the rise and fall of the melody—as pictured in Egyptian iconography already in the Old Kingdom; 1 Chron. 23:5; 2 Chron. 29:26; Neh. 12:36).¹⁴ The Chronicler also represents King Hezekiah as renewing the Davidic appointments of psalmody. Hezekiah directed the sacrifices and accompanying praises in which the compositions of David and his assistant Asaph were prominent (2 Chron. 29:25–30). J. F. A. Sawyer says, “In the Chronicler’s day … it can scarcely be doubted that the meaning was ‘by David.’ ”¹⁵ This was the interpretation of Ben Sirach (47:8–10), the Qumran scrolls (11QPs^a), Josephus,¹⁶ and the rabbis.¹⁷ The interpretation is foundational for the New Testament’s interpretation of the Psalter as testimony to Jesus as the Messiah (Matt. 22:43–45; Mark 12:36–37; Luke 20:42–44; Acts 1:16; 2:25, 34–35; 4:25–26; Rom. 4:6; 11:9–10; Heb. 4:7). …

This royal interpretation of the Psalter affects biblical theology in several ways. (1) It allows the reader to hear the most intimate thoughts of Israel’s greatest king. (2) It validates the New Testament attribution of select psalms to David as their author. And (3) it provides the firm basis of the grammatico-historical method of interpretation for the New Testament’s messianic interpretation of the Psalter. …

According to their superscriptions, Psalms 34, 52, 54, 56, 57, 59, 142 date from the time of David’s exile (1 Sam. 16–31); 18 and 60, from the time he is under blessing (2 Sam. 1–10); and 3, 51, 63, from when he is under wrath (2 Sam. 11–20). Psalms 7 and 30 are unclassified as to their precise dates (cf. 2 Sam. 21–24; for this threefold division of David’s career, see chaps. 22–23). In addition to the arguments given above for the credibility of the superscriptions, we ask, Why, if they are secondary additions, are the remaining fifty-nine Davidic psalms left without historical notices, especially when many of them easily could have been ascribed to some event in David’s life?²² Also, why would later editors introduce materials in the superscriptions of Psalms 7, 30, and 60 that are not found in historical books and not readily inferred from the Psalms themselves? Finally, why should it be allowed that psalms in the historical books contain superscriptions with historical notices (see Exod. 15:1; Deut. 31:30 [cf. 32:44]; Judg. 5:1; 2 Sam. 22:1; Jonah 2; Isa. 38:9) but those in the Psalter do not, even though the syntax is sometimes similar? (Bruce K. Waltke and Charles Yu, An Old Testament Theology: An Exegetical, Canonical, and Thematic Approach [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2007] 871–874).

So don’t doubt the psalm inscriptions. Receive them as infallible truth, just like you do the rest of the Bible.

–TDR

⁵ Brevard S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 520.

⁸ Gerald H. Wilson, The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter (Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1985), 13–24.

⁹ ANET, 365–81.

¹⁰ Mitchell Dahood, Psalms 1:1–50, AB (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1995), xxix–xxx.

¹¹ Moses (Ps. 90), David (73 times), Solomon (Pss. 72, 127), Korah, 42–49, 84–87), Asaph (50, 73–83), Heman (88), and Ethan (89).

¹² BDB, 513, entry 5b.

¹³ GKC, 129c.

¹⁴ J. Wheeler, “Music of the Temple,” Archaeology and Biblical Research 2 (1989).

¹⁵ J. F. A. Sawyer, “An Analysis of the Context and Meaning of the Psalm,” Transactions 22 (1970): 6.

¹⁶ Josephus, Antiquities, 9.13.3.

¹⁷ Charles A. Briggs, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Psalms (New York: Scribner, 1906–7), liv.

²² Gleason L. Archer, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction (Chicago: Moody, 1964), 28.

The link to Waltke’s OT theology is an affiliate link with Amazon.com.

Recent Posts

INDEX FOR WHAT IS TRUTH

Derek Cooper, Basics of Latin: A Christian Grammar

Positives about Derek Cooper’s Basics of Latin: A Grammar With Readings and Exercises from the Christian Tradition

Areas to Improve Derek Cooper’s Basics of Latin: A Grammar With Readings and Exercises from the Christian Tradition

Concluding summary: my view of Derek Cooper’s Basics of Latin: A Grammar With Readings and Exercises from the Christian Tradition

John 3:36, the Second “Believeth” (Apeitheo), and English Translation of the Bible

What Is the Primary Cause of Division in the United States?

Binding and Loosing–What Are They? Matthew 16:19; 18:18; Catholic, Pentecostal, Keswick, and Bible Views

What Does “Led By or Of the Spirit” Mean?

Sleepy Habits

Sermons on the Sabbath & Lord’s Day: Old and New Testament Evidence, and Seventh-Day Adventism Examined

Click here to watch the series on the Sabbath

Justification In Job, pt. 2

Justification In Job, pt. 1

The Psalter Headings–Infallibly Accurate Scripture, Correctly Ascribing Authorship to David, etc.

Post navigation

AUTHORS OF THE BLOG

Pages

Recent Comments

Archives

Meta