The word Scripture simply means writings. Of course the only writings that are fully the words of God are those found in the Torah, Prophets and Writings of the Old and New Testaments. But the word Scripture only tells us they are writings. The more I study the structure of Scripture the more I realize that the shape of the book is an apologetic for the importance of the book. In fact, the third section of the canon in the Old Testament is called the Writings. Actually, we might as well call them the Scriptures. Thus just as the Torah (Deuteronomy) is a name we apply to the first section, so the Writings is a name we apply to all the Bible.

The shape of Scripture is an apologetic for the importance of Scripture study. You can see this clearly at the seams of the three sections: Deut 34, Josh 1, Malachi 4, and Psalm 1. It is the reason we are so passionate about The Book.

In any case, the Writings are in conversation (though not in an oral but written form) with the rest of Scripture. The Prophets interpret Torah for a new generation. The Writings are reflections on the Torah and Prophets. Likewise in the New Testament, the New Testament writings are interpreting the significance of the death and resurrection of Christ (Gospels, NT Torah) and the giving of the Spirit on Pentecost (Acts, NT Prophets).

And the Writings are in conversation with each other. The first three: Psalms, Job, and Proverbs are all accented as poetry for chanting in Hebrew. The next five were chanted at festivals during the year: Ruth, Song of Songs, Qoheleth (Ecclesiastes), Lamentations, and Esther. And then the last three are Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, and Chronicles. The ones chanted at festivals form a chiasm -- Ruth the heroine, Song of Songs is erotic poetry, Ecclesiastes in the middle, Lamentations is sad poetry, and Esther the heroine. Thus with three before and three after these five the whole of the Writings makes a chiasm.

The sections within the Writings are stitched together when we realize that Proverbs ends with the poem about the ideal wife (Prov 31:10) and Boaz says that everyone knows Ruth would be the ideal wife (Ruth 3:11). In Hebrew the phrase is identical. Song of Songs gives us another example of the ideal wife, as does Esther parallel to Ruth. Also Esther in many ways is a female Daniel, which bridges those two books together. But already you should be able to see that the Writings are in conversation with one another.

One common literary form in the Writings is the alphabetic acrostic poem. One reason that you would do an alphabetic acrostic is to speak comprehensively. Thus the alphabetic acrostic par excellence is Psalm 119, with eight lines for each letter of the Hebrew alphabet (making it also the longest chapter in the Scriptures). The book of Lamentations consists of six alphabetic acrostics. The poem about the ideal wife in Prov 31:10ff is another example. It is a comprehensive description of the ideal wife from A to Z (for the English alphabetic equivalent). This is in conversation, as Longman notes in his Proverbs commentary on the ideal wife poem, with Psalm 112. Psalm 112:1-10 is an alphabetic acrostic about the ideal husband. The fear of YHWH, like at the end of Qoheleth (Ecclesiastes 12:13) is the preeminent trait of both the wife (Prov 31:30) and husband (Psalm 112:1). The point of Ecclesiastes is to explain the limits of wisdom and this seems to be a favorite feature of this conversation. Job makes a similar point. The limit on wisdom is that we should fear God and keep His Torah.

Thus the Writings make the point about Writings, "My son, beware of anything beyond these. Of making many books there is no end, and much study is a weariness of the flesh" (Ecclesiastes 12:12). We must keep this in conversation with how the delight of the blessed is in the written Torah of YHWH and on this Torah he meditates day and night (Psalm 1:2). Thus we should study (even toil until we are weary) the word of God. But this ending to the central book of the chiasm of the Writings is fitting. It is similar to ending the New Testament with the Book of Revelation given how Revelation ends warning about adding or subtracting from it. The effect of Ecclesiastes 12:12 is to say, the Writings are now complete until prophecy resumes, beware of adding to or subtracting from them.

Labels: acrostic, alphabetic acrostic, chronicles, daniel, ecclesiastes, esther, ezra-nehemiah, job, lamentations, proverbs 31, psalms, qoheleth, ruth, scripture, song of songs, writings

Generally in a literary-canonical approach we do not dive into questions of multiple authors but simply study the text as we have it. Usually such lines of inquiry have been laden with faulty presuppositions and with agendas to undermine the word of God as we have it (look no further than the bogus JEDP theory, which has torn apart Scripture without any benefit to the church and honest scholars today would admit that it is highly speculative and is the product of particular biases). But it is helpful for those who hold Scripture to be fully the word of God to note what lines in Deuteronomy are the product of a later human hand so that we can see what this finished product of the Spirit is teaching us today.

Aside from the additional poem and epilogue by the editor(s) [hereafter simply, 'editor'], there are few indications of a later hand in the text. The "these words" are not only faithful to Moses but are his very words (as noted in an earlier post, the vocabulary was updated later but this does not change the meaning). And the bulk of the book has this early origin. (As fitting with what I have said above, the whole book when completed is fully the word of God even in the choice of words). But there are a few places where we see the editor's hand.

In particular we see this in the remark "to this day" in Deut 2:22 and Deut 3:14. We already noted that this phrase points us to the editor in the second epilogue and it often does so in other places in the Torah as well. Most of the editorial comments explain geographical issues (people groups and places). These comments interrupt the flow of the passage so much that English translations usually put them in parentheses. For example Deut 3:9 and Deut 3:11 are editorial additions. In particular, verse 11 shows us the main interest of the editor -- King Og was one of the Rephaim (from the size description it is obvious that Og was one of the giants). McConville explains that Canaanite giants were called Anakim [sons of Anak from the Nephilim according to Num 13:33] (Deut 1:28, 9:2), Moabite giants were called Emim (Gen 14:5, Deut 2:10-11), Ammonite giants were called Zamzummim (Deut 2:20, perhaps also Zuzim in Gen 14:5), but Rephaim was the generic title for all such giant races (cf. Deut 2:11). One only needs to read the text in English to see all of these parentheses about giants. Interestingly, the editor also made comments about giants in the book of Joshua (Josh 14:15, 15:13, 21:11 all mentioning that Arba was the father of Anak).

As an aside, I think it is unhelpful to dismiss these editorial comments as less than Scriptural or to think of them as extrapolations and interpretations in later preaching. These additions are inspired of God -- they come from a later human hand -- but they tell us something God wants to teach us.

So why is the editor obsessed with these giants? For one thing, this is why the previous generation (save Joshua and Caleb) were not prepared to enter the land but here we see the next generation defeating a renowned giant even before entering the land and they defeated peoples who had defeated giants. This also helps us understand as well why the people of the land were so afraid when they heard that Israel had defeated King Og. It is also worth noting that we can trace the theme of giants in Scripture to Goliath and to Satan (maybe the reason for the word choice of Rephaim in as much as other texts use the term for those living in the underworld -- McConville cites Psa 88:11, Job 26:5, Isa 26:14 for this meaning but admits that we do not currently know if the two meanings of Rephaim are related). Are there any other reasons you think the editor would be so interested in giants? Aside from what I said above, perhaps they help the text preach to a new generation that is facing metaphorical giants? One of the major concerns of Deuteronomy, shared by the faithful editor, is the preaching of Torah to a new generation. So there may be something to this.

Labels: deuteronomy, giants, jedp, scripture

Apparently there has been a debate lately on the question of whether the Reformation is over. I heard Carl Trueman speak eloquently about how it most certainly is not. Let me add the following observations to the debate (though I suspect I am saying nothing especially new and this should complement my earlier post about what it means to be "Reformed"):

1. The Reformation was a recovery of the centrality of Christ. This recovery can never be complete in this life because we constantly have to remind ourselves that Jesus Christ is our Savior and not we ourselves. I recently heard someone make the preposterous claim to be "really Reformed" because they held that God could save those whom He chose to save no matter what religion they professed. This is in desperate need of reformation according to Scripture - Christ alone is the way, the truth, and the life and not just because one verse says so but because the entire Bible says so. This missing emphasis on Christ alone is also what sets us apart from most monotheists - mosques and synagogues do not proclaim the divinity of Christ or that He is the way. Grace cannot be separated from Christ.

2. The Reformation was a recovery of the gospel of grace. This recovery can never be complete in this life because we constantly have to remind ourselves that we cannot earn our salvation but that it is a free gift from God. All too often I hear people say that Christianity is all about rules, the people who say this are often conservative Christians themselves and they see this as a good thing. The problem is that we must keep things in their proper place - grace and then thanksgiving. Jesus Christ has done everything necessary for our salvation and if that salvation has been applied to us by the Holy Spirit we should respond with thanksgiving in everything we do. The problem is especially acute when it comes to how the church treats children outside of the covenant community. We assume they should be able to be good, which they can formally, and we demand that kind of obedience instead of sharing the gospel and leading them to obedience from the heart. It is one thing to know this intellectually and another thing altogether to actually do. And part of the problem is the necessity for some formal obedience so that they can even hear the gospel in the first place.

3. The Reformation was a recovery of the doctrine of justification by faith alone. This again can never be complete in this life because we too often find ourselves telling others that they must do what we did in order to be saved rather than presenting the gospel of justification by faith alone. Some want to add to faith some of these things: cultural trappings (regulations on clothing, hair, make-up, no automobiles, no electronics, etc. - all depending on what culture they are trying to preserve), speaking in tongues, good works, responding to an altar call, etc. In other words, you have to do something in addition to faith alone by grace alone in Christ alone for salvation - you cannot be a Christian until you do these things. One of our youth recently said she has not been saved. I asked if she trusted in Christ for her salvation, she said yes. Why the discrepancy? Because too many people in our area believe you must have some kind of religious experience during a hymn that drives you forward for the "altar call." She may well already be a Christian but has been told something else is necessary for her to be a Christian. This is typical.

4. The Reformation was a recovery of the importance of Scripture. This again can never be complete in this life because if it were up to us Scripture would have disappeared long ago. We often believe the latest fads in psychology or other fields to be more important than Scripture in helping others (and I am talking here about even those who hold to the sufficiency of Scripture). We are more likely to read books about Scripture than to read the actual text of Scripture (and skim or skip the quotes included in them). And many conservatives hold to notions about Scripture that come more from their personal biases and from modernism than from Scripture itself. A helpful book in this regard is Inspiration and Incarnation by Peter Enns. If conservatives were to embrace the incarnational analogy this would go a long ways in helping moderates on Scripture. When I tell theological liberals that I believe that Scripture is fully the Word of God and fully the words of its human authors (the incarnational analogy), they have to stop and think because they have always thought it must be one or the other. Many of the moderates are also confused - they believe the Bible is the Word of God (the Spirit even is testifying in them that this is the case) they just see things they would not expect and that shakes their confidence on Scripture being the only rule of life and faith. The problem is that too often conservatives, moderates, and liberals all have the same presuppositions as they approach Scripture - such as, that it be precise like a science textbook, that it be fair and balanced like a history textbook (in theory, but never in reality) rather than ideological, etc. The point is they expect that an ancient book be a modern book rather than going to Scripture alone to discover what it is doing or even hide behind the motto 'Scripture alone' to avoid seeing it in the context of the ancient world and its human authors.

The point is that the solas are always in need of recovery and no church can go without continual Reformation according to Scripture alone and its message of Christ Alone, Grace Alone, and Faith Alone.

Labels: christ, faith, grace, justification, reformation, reformed theology, scripture

OT Canonical Order assumed in the NT: Jesus said,

"everything written about me in the Law of Moses [Torah] and the Prophets and the Psalms [Writings] must be fulfilled" (Luke 24:44).

The Psalms, the first and largest book of the writings section, is often used to refer to all of the writings. And Jesus said to the scribes and Pharisees,

"on you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of innocent Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sancturary and the altar" (Matt 23:35).

Jesus is refering to the first book Genesis (where Abel is the first death) and the last book of the Hebrew canon Chronicles (where this Zechariah is the last death). Thus he is using this as shorthand for all of the righteous saints who died in the Old Testament Scriptures. Jesus assumed the OT canonical order stated below.

It is the order found in Jewish Bibles. Thus, the Hebrew Scriptures are often called the Tanakh (in Hebrew, T is for Torah, N for Prophets, K for Writings). Here the Westminster Confession of Faith could use some reformation as it lists the Old Testament books in a different order reflected also in English language translations of the Bible. Notice that the New Testament follows the same God-given pattern...

Torah: In the beginning (Genesis); Exodus; Leviticus; In the wilderness (Numbers); and These are the words (Deuteronomy). The phrases are the Hebrew titles (the first word in the Hebrew text).

Prophets: Joshua; Judges; Samuel; Kings; Isaiah; Jeremiah; Ezekiel; The Book of the Twelve (Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi).

Writings: Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Ruth, Song of Songs, Qoheleth (Ecclesiastes), Lamentations, Esther, Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, Chronicles.

New Testament Torah: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John

New Testament Prophets: Acts

New Testament Writings: Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, Revelation.

Eugene Peterson suggests that Acts is partially Torah and partially Prophets, making the fifth book of NT Torah. Then he makes most of the epistles Prophets while James and Revelation are writings. Sometimes I am persuaded by this argument.

Early comments: As you might guess, you can compare the Books of Moses to the gospels and Joshua to Acts. And putting them this way helps you see why Daniel and Revelation have so much in common -- they are both apocalyptic (genre) writings (section). Nevertheless, do not flatten the Bible and ignore the historical nature of special revelation.

First observation: Old Testament books that have been divided in the English Bible into two should be read as one book. For example, 1 Kings and 2 Kings is one book as is 1 Chronicles and 2 Chronicles. One you might not realize is that Ezra-Nehemiah is also one book. And it is very important to read the so-called minor prophets instead of as separate books as The Book of the Twelve. They have been edited together to be read as a single book. It would also be appropriate, though divided in the order of the New Testament, to read Luke and Acts as one book. The reason that the gospel of John divides them in our canon is that John is assuming that you already know the stories we can find in Matthew, Mark & Luke. Thus he writes a book that reflects much more theologically on the life of Christ.

It is worth noting, unlike in the OT the 1 Letter, 2 Letter, 3 Letter designations in the NT are indeed separate letters and should be read as such but putting them next to one another also encourages you to see the connections between them. In this order the authors of the epistles are separated: Romans through Philemon are by Paul, Hebrews is by an unknown author, James, Peter, John, and Jude are as the names suggest.

Second observation: You should read Scripture according to these divisions (Torah, Prophets, Writings, Old and New). How you read the OT Torah is different than how you read the OT Writings.

To build on this observation: Each book needs a unique reading strategy and knowing where they fall in the canoncial order helps. One thing that is necessary for interpretation is to identify the kind of writing (the genre) that you are reading. You read a grocery list differently than a love letter and a fable different than a history textbook. And so you should read Matthew differently than Revelation and Psalms differently than Isaiah. Not every scholar will agree on the genre of a text. For example, one person might say that you should read Deuteronomy like you would read the gospels. It contains his speeches but it also includes information that is likely told by someone telling us the story. Another will mention that the book resembles an ancient treaty formula. Actually both of these observations are helpful for Deuteronomy, especially the former given our discussion. Knowing which section of the canon a book falls into will help you to identify the genre. For another example, Daniel is a wisdom book (found in the writings alongside other wisdom books) and not one of the prophetic books. This does not mean that Daniel does not include prophecy but it does mean that you should read it differently than one of the prophetic books. It is a failure to recognize this truth that has led to all sorts of interpretive mistakes.

Third Observation: And when we read the books in order we should also interpret them in order, thus Ruth and the woman in Song of Songs are examples of the virtuous woman of Proverbs 31 (in the Hebrew order it is Proverbs, Ruth, Song of Songs).

May you read Scripture afresh. Amen.

Labels: bible, book of the twelve, canon, daniel, deuteronomy, ezra-nehemiah, hebrew scriptures, prophets, proverbs 31, psalms, ruth, scripture, song of songs, Tanakh, torah, writings