E. G. Sewell on the Tabernacle (3)

In a follow-up article, "The Altar of Incense, the Brazen Laver, Etc.," which appeared in The Gospel Advocate for February 3, 1886, E. G. Sewell continued his Christian, symbolic interpretation of the biblical tabernacle. In his first article, he had written about the table of shewbread and the candlestick.

Altar of Incense

In his second article, he turns to another item in the Holy Place, the altar of incense. Sewell notes that the priests of ancient Israel were to burn incense on this altar "every morning and evening continually." In this way, they constantly sent up to the Lord, as it were, a fragrant scent. And what does this image typify? Sewell answers that "the general understanding is that the offering of incense was a figure of prayer," and he cites a handful of passages from both the Old and New Testaments in which the burning of incense and prayer are related. For example, in the first half of Psalm 141:2 the writer says to God, "Let my prayer be set before thee as incense." In Revelation 5:8 and again in 8:3, the offering of incense is analogous to the prayers of the saints.[1]

Brazen Laver

This item stood "near the door of entrance into the tabernacle of the congregation," but was "on the outside." There the priests washed themselves before entering the tent. And this, wrote Sewell, "is understood to be figurative of baptism. And as the priest upon washing entered . . . into the tabernacle, so now those who obey the gospel, enter Christ by baptism." Conversely, "as the priest was not allowed to enter the tabernacle without washing at the laver, so no one can enter the church now without being baptized into Christ." Sewell highlights an inference that can be drawn from this interpretation: baptism, represented by the laver on the outside of the tent, comes before prayer, represented by the altar of incense which was inside the tent. Any priest who burned incense on the altar had to first cleanse himself at the laver. "So also if any one wishes to attend at the altar of prayer in the church of God, he must be baptized, must have his body washed with pure water at the door of entrance" into the church. Baptism, which brings the penitent believer into the church, comes before the life of faithful prayer.[2]

Moreover, wrote Sewell, this indicts "those people who teach alien sinners to pray to God for pardon, without baptism, without washing first." Such teachers are guilty of "reversing heaven's order." Sewell goes so far as to compare them to Nadab and Abihu of Leviticus 10. They were two of Aaron's four sons and were thus among the first priests in ancient Israel. Nevertheless, when the brothers "offered strange fire before the Lord, which he commanded them not," they were destroyed by fire that went out from the Lord (Lev. 10:1-2). Again, wrote Sewell, preachers who promote "a reversal of God's order" can be compared to Uzziah, King of Judah. According to 2 Chronicles 26:16-21, though he was not a priest, Uzziah burned incense upon the altar. Consequently, he was stricken with leprosy, a skin disease he had for the rest of his life. Only when people are "washed" and thus "sanctified, justified" do they remove all doubt about their being prepared to officiate at God's altar in all spiritual things," including prayer to God through Christ.[3]

Here, Sewell clearly reflects significant differences between the doctrine of Christian initiation according to the Stone-Campbell tradition and that of most other conservative Protestants, like Methodists, Baptists, and Presbyterians. Much earlier in the nineteenth century, Barton Stone, Alexander Campbell, and like-minded leaders concluded that according to the New Testament, people who came to believe in Jesus as the Christ were to turn from their sins in repentance and be immersed into him for the remission of their sins.[4] Their teaching generated a noticeable change in the way that preachers in the Stone-Campbell Movement concluded their evangelistic sermons. Unlike many other Protestant preachers, whose sermons ended with an invitation for individuals to walk to the front of the assembly in order to anxiously pray for salvation at the mourner's bench, preachers among the Christian Churches and Churches of Christ invited those who believed the gospel message to come forward as an indication that they were turning from their sins and turning to the Lord in repentance, and that they desired to be immersed into Christ.[5] When emphasizing the significance of baptism, however, Sewell guarded against the idea of baptismal regeneration: "Not that baptism is the only prerequisite by any means. Faith and repentance must precede baptism, or no one is ready to be baptized. Everything in its proper place."

Altar of Burnt Offering

Nearing the end of his second article, Sewell refers to the Torah instructions regarding the altar of burnt offering: "two lambs should be offered to the Lord every day."[7]  This, writes Sewell, is "another indication of continued sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving and of prayer to the Lord on the part of Christians." The sacrifice of two lambs each day at the tabernacle was the standard under the Old Covenant. If that was so, then should not "we that enjoy the reality, the New Covenant, the fullness of God's love and mercy . . . with a loving, a joyful heart approach God daily with our sacrifices" of thanksgiving and praise?[8]

Apparently, Sewell did not notice or did not care that in making these comparisons he seemed to contradict the principle he had established earlier: it is only after being baptized that the believer, now a member of the priesthood, inside the Holy Place, can fittingly participate in spiritual activities. If confronted with this apparent inconsistency, Sewell would no doubt have clarified that it is altogether fitting for all people, in or out of Christ, to praise and give thanks to God. His earlier concern involved the virtual substitution of prayer for baptism. And it is baptism, according to his view, to which all penitent believers must submit in order to receive the forgiveness of sins, the gift of the Holy Spirit, and entrance into the church that Christ established.

Notes

[1] E. G. Sewell, "The Altar of Incense, the Brazen Laver, Etc.," Gospel Advocate 28 (February 3, 1886), 65.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] See, for example, Barton W. Stone, "The Christian Expositor," Christian Messenger 1 (January 25, 1827), 56-63; Alexander Campbell, "Ancient Gospel--No. I. Baptism," Christian Baptist 5, no. 6 (January 7, 1828), 121-24; "Ancient Gospel--No. II. Immersion," Christian Baptist 5, no. 7 (February 4, 1828), 158-63.

[5] Thomas H. Olbricht, "The Invitation: A Historical Survey," Restoration Quarterly 5, no. 1 (First Quarter 1961), 6-16.

[6] Sewell, "The Altar of Incense," 65.

[7] Ibid. The reference is to Exodus 29:38-43 and Numbers 28:3-8, according to which a lamb was to be sacrificed every day, one in the morning and one at twilight.

[8] Sewell, "The Altar of Incense," 66.

Are We Living in the Last Days (2nd of 3)

Old Testament Teaching

The prophets of ancient Israel occasionally referred to the last days. In the New International Version, a common translation of the Bible, those exact words occur only in Isaiah 2:2, Hosea 3:5, and Micah 4:1.

Often, oracles of the prophets were scorching rebukes against sin, including threats of coming judgment. The positive side of their message was that a time was coming when people of all nations would eagerly seek God and his Messiah, a king like David. Hosea 3 provides a good example. At first, the prophet predicts the coming destruction of the northern kingdom of Israel:

For the Israelites will live many days without king or prince, without sacrifice or sacred stones, without ephod or idol (verse 4).

Having mentioned those consequences of sin, Hosea extends a promise:

Afterward the Israelites will return and seek the Lord their God and David their king. They will come trembling to the Lord and to his blessings in the last days (verse 5).

Similarly, Micah 4:1 points to a glorious future in the city of Jerusalem:

In the last days the mountain of the Lord's temple will be established as chief among the mountains; it will be raised above the hills, and peoples will stream to it.

The first of those two examples refers to a great king descended from David. The New Testament identifies this person as Jesus of Nazareth (Luke 1:29-33 and Acts 15:12-18). Passages like Hosea 3 were the basis upon which first-century Judeans beckoned to Jesus as "Son of David" (Mark 10:46-48).

The second passage mentions "peoples" streaming to the mountain of the Lord, a reference to the age of the Messiah, the time in which individuals from all nations could be made a part of Israel through faith in Jesus Christ. Note the large number of nations represented at Pentecost in Acts 2:5-11.

In the Old Testament, the expression "the last days" refers to the coming age of the Messiah, the Christ, and not merely the last weeks and months of earthly time.

Brevard S. Childs on the Message of Habakkuk

Brevard Childs was a first-rate biblical scholar, a real master of the various critical analyses so basic to his craft. But he did not consider any of the methods as an end. He understood them as means.

It seems to me that Childs was really a bit of a preacher, a believer in Christ who was convinced that the ultimate goal of even the most intricate Bible study was to reveal the message of the sacred text so that the people of God might be instructed and edified to His honor and glory.

I wrote that while preparing my Bible class for next Sunday. This is from the conclusion of Childs' discussion of Habakkuk:

"Righteousness is not judged by human capacity to understand the mind of God in world history, but rather in a faithful response of obedience which lives in God's promise. The prophet's testimony (3:18f.) witnesses to this faith which rejoices in God's salvation and awaits the end in spite of a human situation which oppresses the people of God (3:17)." --Introduction to The Old Testament as Scripture, p. 453.

From the Last Days of David to the Beginning of Exile: A Simple Introduction to the Book(s) of Kings

1 and 2 Kings in modern editions of the Bible originally formed a single book in the Hebrew Bible. In the Septuagint, the ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, the Book of Kings was divided into two books. This pattern was followed in Jerome's Latin Vulgate translation, and made its way into Christian editions of the Bible. In this study, I'm treating 1 and 2 Kings as a single book because that was its original form, the way it was packaged at first. Maybe the best way to introduce this book is by answering some basic questions:

What is the Book of Kings about?  What's in it?

Kings is an account of (what else?) kingship in ancient Israel. It includes the history of the monarchy from its high point in a mostly unified kingdom to its low point in the Babylonian Exile. One simple way of outlining the book presents it in three parts:

A.  The reign of Solomon (1 Ki. 1-11): his accession (chapters l-2), his successes (3-10), his failures (11).

B.  The divided kingdom (1 Ki. 12 through 2 Ki. 17): Judah under Rehoboam, and the majority of the northern tribes under Jeroboam who retain the title "Israel," separate from each other.  Israel comes under considerable pagan influence from the beginning and experiences many bloody coups before finally being exiled. Judah is less paganized, though only preserved because of God's faithfulness to his promise to David. The prophets Elijah and Elisha are heavily involved, especially in the story of Israel, the northern kingdom.

C.  The kingdom of Judah (2 Ki. 18-25): despite the reforms of Hezekiah and Josiah, the paganizing policy of Manasseh finally bears fruit in the fall of Judah too. But the conclusion of the book sounds a possible note of hope (25:27-30).

Where did the Book of Kings come from? Who wrote it and when?

This is one of those questions on which we have much less information than we would like to have. The last event to which Kings refers is the exiled king Jehoiachin’s release from prison in Babylon in 561 B.C. (2 Ki. 25:27). Clearly, the book in its final form comes from after this time. We do not know the name of the author(s) of Kings.

What sort of book is this? How does it "work"?

Kings proceeds as a reign-by-reign treatment of the history. During the period of the divided kingdom, the accounts of northern and southern kings are allowed to interweave. Each king is described and evaluated according to a consistent pattern, which can be seen by looking at the short accounts of the reign of Jehoshaphat (1 Ki. 22:41-50) or Amon (2 Ki. 21:19-26). But sometimes, this "description and evaluation" is the framework which is filled in by, and surrounded by, other material.  Sometimes the opening and closing statements are separated by several chapters. For example, the accounts of Solomon, Rehoboam, Ahab, Jehoram, Jehu and Joash, include a lot of material focused on various aspects of Israelite politics. Other sections focus on prophets, especially Elijah, Elisha, and Isaiah.

Why was Kings written? What's the message?

First, the purpose of Kings is to review the history which led up to the Exile, and to explain why the Exile happened. The Book also serves as a kind of extended national confession. The confession is that God had every reason to judge Israel and to send his chosen nation into exile.

Second, Kings also delivers a message of hope. For example, the end of the book seems to say, "Maybe God’s commitment to David still holds." It may be that the release of Jehoiachin--related in the final paragraph of Kings-- is there to keep Israel's hope alive. Although the Temple has been pillaged and burnt, prayer is still possible in the Temple (or towards it on the part of people who are cut off from it), and God has decided to hear such prayer. Although judgment has come in keeping with the warnings of the covenant, the same covenant allows for the possibility of repentance and restoration after judgment (see 1 Ki. 8:46-53 and compare Deuteronomy 30). Although the prophetic words which Israel ignored are another reason for her punishment, the fact that those prophetic words of judgment have come true may encourage hope: the prophetic promises of restoration will also come true.

Third, the Book of Kings pictures God’s involvement in political life, and warns against under-valuing the significance of political structures, and against over-emphasizing them. Kings reveals how God brings judgment on any kingdom. The book also displays the interplay of the free determination of human beings (who in various political situations makes their decisions and put their policies into effect) and the free decision of a sovereign God (who nevertheless effects his will through, or in spite of, human actions). To get a handle on this paradox, we might ask: Are individuals the masters of their own destinies? Or does God finally determine every outcome? The answer seems to be "Both." In fact, in Kings, any attempt to make it absolutely one or the other runs into problems. So where does that leave us? It leaves us with the confidence that God works out a purpose in history in spite of what people, even his people, might do.

Fourth, a basic teaching of the Torah, especially the Book of Deuteronomy, is that God blesses those who are faithful to him but brings trouble to those who disobey him (see, for example, Deuteronomy 28-30). This is a major theme in Kings. Thus the material concerning Solomon’s reign is arranged so that Solomon’s setbacks are understood as consequences of his association with foreign women (1 Ki. 11). On the other hand, Kings recognizes that God's justice does not work out this way in every case. The wicked Manasseh enjoys a long reign, and his apostasy only brings its fruit decades later (2 Ki. 21; 24:3-4). Josiah is responsive to God’s word, but dies a premature and tragic death (2 Ki. 23:29).

As I see the Book of Kings, these seem to be the basic messages.

Online Resources for the Study of Biblical Hebrew

The Internet contains a good number of sites designed to help students of Hebrew.  The following is a list of some of the better ones for beginners. Happy studying!

http://prophetess.lstc.edu/~rklein/

This is the homepage for Dr. Ralph Klein of the Lutheran School of Theology in Chicago. Under his link to Biblical Studies, select Hebrew for some good links.

 

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0.htm

The entire Tanakh in Hebrew and English! Click on the book and then the chapter that you want to read. You can click on a tab to hear the passage read in Hebrew. So this site is great for practice.

 

http://www.animatedhebrew.com/

This looks to be a great website. It includes a comic-book version of the Book of Jonah with Hebrew text that you can see and hear. Lots of other interesting links too.

 

http://www.ualberta.ca/~ebenzvi/teaching.html

This is the homepage of Dr. Ehud Ben Zvi of the University of Alberta in Canada. Click on the “Hebrew Bible” link. Then go to “Studying Biblical Hebrew” for a list of several links that should prove helpful.

Sexy Scripture: Introducing the Song of Songs with Questions and Answers

Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth, for your love is more delightful than wine. --Song of Songs 1:2

"The Song of Songs"? I thought the title of this book was "The Song of Solomon. "

Actually the full title is, "The Song of Songs which is to Solomon" (1:1). The elaborate frontispiece shown here contains those words in Hebrew. "Song of Songs" is a typical Hebrew expression, much like "lord of lords" or "king of kings." This is the Hebrew way of saying, "the greatest __________." For example, "the holy of holies" means "the most holy place." So the title "Song of Songs" means something like, "The Greatest Song."

But doesn't the first verse identify Solomon as the author?

The expression at the end of verse 1, "to Solomon" can be translated in any number of different ways. "In the style of Solomon" and "for Solomon," are just two possibilities. At any rate, this expression, which serves as the title for the book, does not necessarily indicate that Solomon wrote it, although it might. Solomon may not have been the author. However, he is connected to the book in some way (1:5; 3:9-11; 8:11-12).

This book seems to be a collection of love poetry, and it never even mentions God. What's a book like this doing in the Bible?

Without a doubt, the discreet eroticism of the Song has raised the eyebrows of many a believer. This, along with its neglect of such topics and themes as Israel, God, the Torah, etc., has caused many people to treat the Song as though it were an allegory.

An allegory. What's that?

An allegory is a certain type of writing or speaking in which truth is presented symbolically, in the form of a story or picture. The Scriptures contain many examples of allegory. For example, Psalm 80 presents Israel as a vine from Egypt. When the prophet Nathan convicted King David of his adultery, the prophet told a story about two men. One was rich and had many sheep. One was relatively poor and had just one sheep that he dearly loved. Such examples indicate two important qualities of an allegory: First, true allegory is obviously figurative and not literal. If it's true (and effective) allegory, then somewhere along the line the hearers understand that the people or places and events in a story are symbols that point to other things that are real. When Nathan said, "You are the man," David knew that Nathan had not been talking about sheep, but about women.

How do allegorical interpretations of the Song work?

Since before the time of Christ, many Jewish interpreters of the Song have treated it as a figurative work expressing the love between God and Israel. Likewise, among Christian interpreters the Song has been seen as an expression of love between Christ and the church, or between Christ and an individual Christian. One motivation for presenting the Song in this way is obvious: it relieves the tension presented by a straight-forward reading of the text which comes across as "non-religious" and sometimes very sexy. Another reason for this time-honored way of reading the Song has to do with an ancient conviction about the fullness of the Bible. According to this view, Scripture can and does communicate at several different levels, not just the level of the literal sense of the text.

So is the Song of Songs really an allegory?

No. In fact, all of the interpretations of the Song which treat it like an allegory are really examples of what might be called "allegorizing."

Allegorizing? What does that mean?

"Allegorizing" simply means "ignoring the literal meaning of a text in order to discover its 'deeper,' symbolic meaning." Typical of allegorizing is that it comes up with all kinds of meanings that are not readily apparent, depending on the interpreter. In such cases, we find out more about the interpreter than we do about the text; more about the reader than about the author. I think we should be wary of the allegorizing approach to the Song of Songs.

If allegorizing isn't the best method of interpretation, how should we approach the Song?

It's best to see this material for what it clearly is: a collection of love poetry which expresses the intimate relationship between a man and a woman, a celebration of physical love. As Hardeman Nichols said it: "The literal interpretation of the Song of Solomon declares that this is lyric poetry. . . . The primary object of the poem is to present ideal human love. Surely there is a place in the Bible for the most beautiful love song in all literature."

What's the best way to study the Song?

Begin by reading it all the way through. You should read it at least two or three times on different occasions. Also, you might try different translations. A complete reading of all eight chapters doesn't take long. (Note: Reading the Song with your husband or wife could result in your not making it to the end of the book). You might want to make a few notes as you read. Write down some of your thoughts as well as some of the questions that come to mind. How would you respond to these questions?

1. Why do you think the Song was originally composed?

2. Do you think that all of it was written by the same person, at the same time? Or, does the book seem more like a collection from different times, or even from different people?

3. What might have been some of the reasons why the Song was eventually included in the Jewish Scriptures?

4. What do you think that the Song is uniquely saying?

5. Based on your understanding of the book, what would you say that it contributes to the larger whole of the Bible?

6. If you were asked to present an overview of the Song, what would you include in that lesson?

The Old Testament: A Very Short Introduction

I had a fine time in Connecticut; made it back to Texas last night. This time around, instead of reading a little bit of this and that during my travel day, I decided to read a book from beginning to end. I picked something that I'd be sure to get through by the time I touched down in Amarillo. Here's a quick review. . . .

In 1995, Oxford University Press launched a new series called Very Short Introductions. About 200 of these little books have come out since then, everything from Ancient Warfare to Hinduism to Wittgenstein. Written by a recognized expert, each one is designed to provide "a stimulating and accessible way in to a new subject." Among the latest is The Old Testament, by Michael Coogan, Professor of Religious Studies at Stonehill College and Director of Publications for the Harvard Semitic Museum.

I teach a first-year college course on the Old Testament almost every semester. So I decided to read this book mainly because I wanted to pick up some ideas and strategies for taking on this task. I found a good bit of what I was looking for.

A fine teacher, Coogan is at his best when explaining, for example, the development and canonization of Tanak(h), sometimes called the Hebrew Bible (pp. 1-11); or how source analysis, form criticism, feminist readings, and the canonical approach might be applied to the first fifteen chapters of Exodus (43-47); or the contents of the book of Job and how that book represents a strong, dissenting voice among the many voices that can be heard in the Jewish Scriptures (106-110).

Conservative readers might be put off by any number of things in this book, like Coogan's assertion that the chronology of the Bible is often unreliable and sometimes just wrong (23), or his questioning of the existence of Abraham and the historicity of the Exodus (32). At times, I found his endorsement of Enlightenment culture a little over-the-top, like when he speaks of modern philosophy as critical thinking without presuppositions (21).

In spite of these and other possible sticking points, some of Coogan's simple categories and explanations are just so good, I plan to use them in my own teaching. Everyday Bible students might read this book to get a feel for how the Old Testament is usually studied in an academic setting. Preachers and teaching pastors can use it as a quick refresher, or to get a few tips on how to make the Old Testament not so intimidating to people in the pew.

And the winner is . . .

Two posts ago, I asked what sounded especially good to you from a list of courses being offered this summer. Several of you spoke up. Thanks. I really enjoyed hearing what you thought. I don't know if it was a "Great minds think alike" thing, or what. But to a one, your comments matched up with what I'd been turning over in my mind too. Anyway, I've decided to take the course "Foremothers in Faith: Women in the Hebrew Scriptures," taught by Dr. Carolyn Sharp. Here are some reasons, in no particular order:

First, the class taught by Christopher Beeley, "Pastoral Ministry in the Classical Tradition," is the one I took last summer. It was a great course. And I didn't flunk.

Second, over the years I've become more and more of an Old Testament person. And this course is about women in the OT. Oh, and I like women too.

Third, Dr. Sharp has already posted a reading list and daily schedule for her class. I like it when an instructor has a plan and a destination in mind.

Fourth, my sense is that the important women of the Bible haven't always gotten the attention they deserve in Christian teaching and preaching. I'm all for the transition from "Faith of our fathers" to "Faith of our parents."

Fifth, it's safe to say that there will be some card-carrying feminists in the class. I've discovered that I'm much more "Christian" in how I think about and how I treat a certain perspective if I actually know someone else who espouses it. (I know, the word "spouse" is in there, which could be all kinds of fun).

Don't you think the world would be
more of what God wants it to be
if more people who don't agree
would just spend a few days together?

I do. Next summer: Spelunking with Osama bin Laden!