Earliest-Known Hebrew Text Discovered

The shard contains five lines of text divided by black lines

I thought this was interesting (from CNN):

An Israeli archaeologist has discovered what he says is the earliest-known Hebrew text, found on a shard of pottery that dates to the time of King David from the Old Testament, about 3,000 years ago. Professor Yosef Garfinkel of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem says the inscribed pottery shard — known as an ostracon — was found during excavations of a fortress from the 10th century BC. Carbon dating of the ostracon, along with pottery analysis, dates the inscription to time of King David, about a millennium earlier than the famous Dead Sea Scrolls, the university said.

Sometimes these “finds” proove to be false, but it is interesting nontheless.

John MacArthur’s Sermons are Finally Free

Download John MacArthur's Sermons Free

Just wanted to let you know the good news – you will soon be able to download all of John MacArthur’s sermons for free:

Next week, Grace to You will institute a new policy regarding the availability of John MacArthur’s sermons. On Wednesday, November 5^th, we will release our entire inventory of MP3s for free download via our website (http://www.gty.org). Until now, GTY has sold these sermons at $3.00/sermon. Beginning next Wednesday, our entire library of John MacArthur’s sermons will be freely available to anyone with an Internet connection.

This policy is not a temporary promotion or sales gimmick. This is a new and permanent policy, and we’re encouraging our friends and supporters to get the word out. John has made this decision because he believes that in uncertain times—an historic presidential election, a struggling economy, and multiplying threats to peace and stability around the world—there’s no call to restrict the message of eternal certainty to those who can afford to pay for it. Although Grace to You is making the same hard financial decisions you and your families are making, we firmly believe God has shown us this path, and that He always honors faithfulness to His will.

Feel free to forward this e-mail to your friends and family, and keep an eye on our website (http://www.gty.org) as November 5^th approaches. God bless.

Something to consider in the coming election…

Choose Life

Earlier this month, one of my good friends posted on his blog how he believes that the issue of abortion “needs to be even more central for Christians who believe the biblical Gospel.”

I agree.

And this coming election as Christians we need to evaluate who God would have us vote for to be the next president – and I believe the abortion issue should be a huge factor in our decision.

One of my fellow students at seminary gave this link – and I want to give you a quote:

“Barack Obama is the most extreme pro-abortion candidate ever to seek the office of President of the United States. He is the most extreme pro-abortion member of the United States Senate. Indeed, he is the most extreme pro-abortion legislator ever to serve in either house of the United States Congress.”

Can we in good conscience vote for such a man?

Read more for yourself: http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com

Yes on Proposition 8 – Another Reason

A quote from TownHall.com

“…changing the definition of marriage implies that marriage is just a matter of cultural definition. If so, then “marriage” is nothing in particular and can be restructured at the whim of the people. It’s privileges, protections, responsibilities, and moral obligations are all up for grabs. Even as I write, there are cases wending their way through courts in Utah challenging prohibitions on polygamy. Why not, if “marriage” is just a social construction?”

Vote yes on Proposition 8, and halt the moral regress.

What if Proposition 8 is not passed?

If Proposition 8 does not pass, your children will be forced to learn about gay marriage in school as young as kindergarten!

A quote from Protect Marriage FAQ:

In health education classes, state law requires teachers to instruct children as young as kindergarteners about marriage. (Education Code §51890.) If the same-sex marriage ruling is not overturned, teachers will be required to teach young children that there is no difference between gay marriage and traditional marriage.

This is a moral issue – vote yes on Proposition 8.

Vote Yes on Prop 8

I don’t normally get involved all that much with issues on our ballot – but I believe this to be a moral issue, and so I am posting this video from the Family Research Council:

Click here for the video

What Does it Mean to Fear God?

There are many different answers I’ve heard over the years as to what it means to fear God.  Some say it just means to revere God, or be in awe of Him.  But I read one definition of what it means to fear God today that I believe really captured the biblical meaning quite well:

To fear God means to acknowledge His superiority over man, to recognize His deity and thus respond in awe, humility, worship, love, trust, and obedience.  The Fear of God, “properly understood, was no mere ‘attitude,’ [it] involved the full range of humanity’s response to the deity.”  Such response to God results in wisdom, in wise, skillful living.

Quote from: “A Theology of the Wisdom Books and the Song of Songs” by Roy B. Zuck in A Biblical Theology of the Old Testament, page 215

Merrill Everlasting Dominion Readings (465-88)

Merrill points out the story of David bringing the ark to Jerusalem on the second attempt (p. 469), and how he told the priests to consecrate themselves and carry it in the way the Torah commands, is a great illustration on how the book of Chronicles differs from Samuel and Kings.  There are parts where the chronicler chose to give details that were not a part of any other book.  And even this even brings to mind David’s spiritual leadership of the nation – though I would not yet go as far as to say David assumes he is like Melchizedek, he was at least a spiritual leader.  Even the omission of the reference to punishment if David’s sons were disobedient (in the Davidic Covenant), Merrill points out, it most likely because of the postexilic period in which the book was written (p. 470).  David’s sons had already rebelled, and so the writer was looking to the ultimate fulfillment in the Messiah to come – therefore the misbehavior part was not needed, for his emphasis.  I had never really thought about the timing of the books, and it really is an important feature in order to get the right interpretation.

Because of the information in the book of Hebrews, I have always thought there was some type of visible temple in heaven that the temple on earth was modeled after.  But I think Merrill is right, we should not take the “shadow” concept too far.  The temple was to be the house of God – so I do see the heavenly model in that – but since the idea of earthly things being a “pale reflection” of what exists in heaven comes from a Platonic idea, it is most likely wise to do more study in this area before saying there is a mirror copy of the temple in heaven (p. 473).  But I am not sure if I would go along with Merrill in saying that the temple, “must be a metaphor for paradise itself” (p. 475).
The nature of the historical writing in Scripture is important to look at, as Merrill points out (p. 477).  Though some secular scholars (and probably “Christian” ones as well) would say the history of the Bible cannot be trusted because it is biased, Merrill has a good point in saying it can be both historically accurate as well as being “biased” or rather filtered through a theological grid (p. 477).  It makes sense the writers would be writing with a purpose, and therefore would omit some things, because they did not fall within the purpose.  It really is the story of God – not a nation.  Though at times a nation fits in with his story.

Looking back into how much criticism has fallen on the Bible it really is amazing that anyone still criticizes it.  I remember reading at how no one thought the Hittites existed, but now everyone knows they did.  And in Ezra-Nehemiah in regards to letters recorded written by pagan kings, Merrill refers to the fact that “Skeptical scholarship refuses to take the texts of the letters of these pagan kings at face value” (p. 484).  You would think scholars would have learned their lesson by now, the Bible is true!  But it seems the fight will continue to go on.  For me, I agree with Merrill, that even though, “to this date no extrabiblical evidence exists to corroborate the biblical testimony…that by itself should cast no doubt as to the authenticity of the biblical record” (p. 485).

How to Share the Gospel with a Muslim

A great post over at Chaos & Old Night on how one can go about showing that Islam is inconsistent, and that Christianity alone is consistent:

“Allah as a monistic God cannot do what the Christian God can do. He can only reward obedience and punish wickedness but he cannot redeem and regenerate. This creates an ethical dilemma for Allah. According to Islam, Allah is holy and each person disobedient. But through the following the five pillars one can hope that Allah will show mercy. But nothing is done with the disobedience. Allah must simply ignore it if one is to hope to entern into heaven. But this cannot be done without Allah compromising his holiness. In Islam sin is not dealt with, it is punished in some and overlooked in others. In the Bible, however, we read of the progress of the triune God dealing with sin by conquering it and eliminating it, not simply punishing it and ignoring it.”

Merrill Biblical Theology of the Old Testament (157-205)

It is amazing to think of how God actually does “relate to His creation,” and, “in ways that are perceptible” (p. 159).  So often I take the Bible for granted, but I must constantly remind myself of the amazing truth, that it is God’s Word, His communication to me, that I might know Him intimately, and glorify Him for His great purposes.  This perspective that Merrill draws out for the book of Chronicles is a very good start, to get my mind right with the text.

The covenants in the Old Testament are very complex, but I have enjoyed studying them and observing new details that I had never seen before.  Merrill states the fact that in Chronicles, the writer does not emphasize the Sinaitic Covenant, but rather stresses the Davidic Covenant (p. 162).  This is interesting, because of the nature of the Sinaitic Covenant, being conditional in nature.  Its purpose “was to fulfill the promise to the patriarchs concerning a nation and to provide a kingdom over which the Judahite sovereign could reign” (p. 167).  The purpose was to create a nation who would model “what it meant to be the dominion of the Lord” (p. 167).  It was never meant for personal salvation – it was never a mode of gaining right standing before the Lord – this is critical!  So when Israel failed to provide this kingdom, the termination of the Sanaitic Covenant could be anticipated, but the purposes of the Lord to bring this kingdom would continue – and still through Israel for the promises were to Israel.  This is even brought out in how the names invoked in regards to God are “Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob” (p. 170).  The continuity between covenants is beginning to make sense.

The tracing of Adam to David in the genealogy in Chronicles is also an interesting element that I never thought about before (p. 169).  The whole concept of dominion as an overarching theme in the Bible really comes out.  I still am not fully able to see the connection in my mind, but it is beginning to make sense.  What other reason would the chronicler want to show the line from Adam to David?  This especially makes sense with Jesus being in the line of David, as being the second Adam.  Obviously, all humans are related to Adam, but to specifically bring out the point does seem odd unless there was a point to it.
Merrill’s understanding that David saw himself in direct relation to Melchizedek is somewhat difficult to see (p. 177) biblically.  Especially because of the connection those Psalms are used in the New Testament for Jesus and not so much for David (I always thought them to be prophetical, not about David).  “And the Lord said to my Lord,” I really do not think refers to David at all.  “My Lord,” would mean David’s Lord, not himself.  And yet Merrill thinks David is referring to himself (“my Lord [i.e., David]” p. 181).  I do not understand where Merrill gets that; especially with the New Testament in-depth explanations of that passage.

Again, Merrill’s understanding of David and the priesthood is not totally convincing.  This time he focuses on the wearing of the ephod (p. 180).  In regards to another king (Uzziah) being disciplined because of doing something a priest could do, he says, “His sin was not in functioning as a priest but rather in intruding into the domain of the priests of Israel” (p. 181)  I am not sure how that differs from functioning as a priest.  If  David did things that only priests were allowed to do, then why would Uzziah not be able to get away with it?