Why Read From (Or Preach On) Leviticus?

This past Sunday I preached from the book of Leviticus; specifically, I preached on the purification (or sin) offering described in Leviticus 4:1–5:13. Most people gave me a look like the photo below when I told them (a) I’m preaching from Leviticus and (b) I’m excited about it. 

Image Source

But there are good reasons for preachers to tackle the book of Leviticus (or at least portions at a time) with their congregations.

1. Leviticus is Scripture and all Scripture is God-breathed. One of the constant refrains in Leviticus—and one that the book introduces right away—is the phrase, “And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying…” Thirty-four verses begin this way emphasizing that Leviticus records the words of God (Lev. 1:1; 4:1; 5:14; 6:1, 8, 19, 24; 7:22, 28; 8:1; 11:1; 12:1; 13:1; 14:1, 33; 15:1; 16:1; 17:1; 18:1; 19:1; 20:1; 21:16; 22:1, 17, 26; 23:1, 9, 23, 26, 33; 24:1, 13; 25:1; 27:1). The sheer volume of the phrase reminds us that this is not merely an instruction manual that mistakenly found its way into Scripture. Leviticus is just as much divine speech as the Psalms, the Gospel of John, or Romans. As such, it is “…profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16–17).
   
2. Leviticus teaches about holiness— God’s and ours: God repeatedly tells the Israelites, “Be holy, for I am holy” (Lev. 11:44–45; 19:2; 20:7; 21:8). God is holy; therefore, his people must strive for holiness. Leviticus communicates to us that God takes his holiness so seriously that his people must keep themselves holy if they are to enjoy his presence. In an age where holiness (or the pursuit for holiness) is taken lightly and disparaged, Leviticus offers a much needed corrective.
   
3. Familiarity with Leviticus will aid in reading the rest of Scripture: Both in the Old and New Testaments the authors work under the assumption that readers are familiar with the sacrificial language of Leviticus. Throughout Scripture there are additional references to burnt offerings, drink offerings, and the like. Leviticus will help you properly understand the nature and purpose of these events.
   
4. Leviticus helps us see the work of Jesus more clearly: Having pointed us to the holiness of God and our need for holiness, Leviticus explains that God has made a way for sinners, unholy people, to be brought into his presence once again. The sacrificial system provided the grounds for the Israelites to enjoy God’s presence and live; however, the sacrificial system was only a signpost pointing toward the later, greater work of Jesus. Jesus comes as the unblemished sacrifice to satisfy God’s wrath against sin (Leviticus 1) and to purify impure worshippers (Leviticus 4:1–5:13). He is also the perfect priest, the one who needs no sacrifice for sin himself (Leviticus 4:3f; Hebrews 7:26). Leviticus anticipates the satisfying, purifying work that Jesus our High Priest would come to do (Hebrews 9).

Something to pass on...

Here's a great way for parents to show their children the importance of a life spent in the Word of God (I'm not sure where the idea came from, but it's not original to me).

1. Buy a wide-margin Bible. The ESV Journaling Bible would be an especially appropriate choice. The ESV Journaling Bible is designed with extra wide lined margins that is ideal for writing notes. 
2. Commit–either by yourself or with your spouse–to reading from that Bible on a regular basis. Either use it for your personal devotions, family or mealtime devotions, or simply to read for five or ten minutes a day on top of your personal devotions. 
3. As you read, write notes in the margins about the passage you're reading. You may want to write a quick sentence summary of what you've read, jot down a reference to a related sermon, article, or book you've come across, recall how this passage has been important to you in the past, or suggest an application to the Christian life that's worth noting in the future. Your comment does not have to be brilliant or long. Be honest. Be thoughtful. 
4. Continue marking up this Bible with notes for a year or more. Try to have notes littered throughout [don't Martyn Lloyd-Jones the book of Romans for a year and consider yourself finished (and yes, I used the good doctor as a verb)]. 
5. Give the Bible to your child or teen when there's an appropriate opportunity. This may be at a profession of faith or when your child is making the transition from reading a children's bible to reading an regular bible. 

Hopefully your notes will show a vibrant life spent in the Word and will even prompt your children to ask questions about notes you've made (e.g. 'Dad, why did you say...' or 'You said x, but what about...'). Plus, there's something to be said for giving a Bible that has been used; that has seen rejoicing, wrestling, confusion, and sorrow.

Here's a look at the ESV Journaling Bible's format.

Image source

The Canaanite Objection: Clay Jones on the Destruction of the Canaanites

One of the Bible stories that I learned as a child was about the Battle of Jericho. The Battle of Jericho, as told to us then, was tidied up considerably from the way it actually appears in the Bible. The book of Joshua, which reports the events of Jericho, describes things more violently than the cheery tune we sung about Joshua fighting the battle of Jericho. The Joshua account reads (emphasis mine): 

^"On the seventh day they rose early, at the dawn of day, and marched around the city in the same manner seven times. It was only on that day that they marched around the city seven times. ¹⁶ And at the seventh time, when the priests had blown the trumpets, Joshua said to the people, “Shout, for the Lord has given you the city. ¹⁷ And the city and all that is within it shall be devoted to the Lord for destruction. Only Rahab the prostitute and all who are with her in her house shall live, because she hid the messengers whom we sent. ¹⁸ But you, keep yourselves from the things devoted to destruction, lest when you have devoted them you take any of the devoted things and make the camp of Israel a thing for destruction and bring trouble upon it. ¹⁹ But all silver and gold, and every vessel of bronze and iron, are holy to the Lord; they shall go into the treasury of the Lord.” ²⁰ So the people shouted, and the trumpets were blown. As soon as the people heard the sound of the trumpet, the people shouted a great shout, and the wall fell down flat, so that the people went up into the city, every man straight before him, and they captured the city. ²¹ Then they devoted all in the city to destruction, both men and women, young and old, oxen, sheep, and donkeys, with the edge of the sword" (Joshua 6:15–21).

This was the beginning of the conquest of Canaan. The book of Joshua continues to report the Israelites’ military conquest of the land of Canaan, a conquest commanded by earlier by God during Israel’s desert wanderings

“When the Lord your God brings you into the land that you are entering to take possession of it, and clears away many nations before you, the Hittites, the Girgashites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations more numerous and mightier than you, ² and when the Lord your God gives them over to you, and you defeat them, then you must devote them to complete destruction. You shall make no covenant with them and show no mercy to them. ³ You shall not intermarry with them, giving your daughters to their sons or taking their daughters for your sons, ⁴ for they would turn away your sons from following me, to serve other gods. Then the anger of the Lord would be kindled against you, and he would destroy you quickly. ⁵ But thus shall you deal with them: you shall break down their altars and dash in pieces their pillars and chop down their Asherim and burn their carved images with fire” (Deuteronomy 7:1–5).

And God commanded later, when due to Israel’s disobedience in conquering the land they were submerged in Canaanite idolatry and sin, in 1 Samuel 15 (emphasis mine):

² Thus says the Lord of hosts, ‘I have noted what Amalek did to Israel in opposing them on the way when they came up out of Egypt. ³ Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey'" (1 Samuel 15:2–3) 

Clearly this aspect of the account wasn’t stressed in children’s Sunday school. Both non-Christians and Christians struggle to make sense of these passages. Why did God command the destruction of the Canaanite nations? Fervent atheists like Richard Dawkins have seized on these passages and said that the God of the Bible that Christians worship is a fictive, genocidal lunatic. How are Christians to make sense of, and explain, God’s directive to destroy the Canaanites?

Clay Jones, professor of apologetics at Biola University in California, addresses this question in his article “We Don’t Hate Sin So We Don’t Understand What Happened to the Canaanites.” Jones’ argues that (a) we do not hate sin in the same way that God does and so we struggle to understand his directive to destroy the Canaanites (p. 53) and (b) that the destruction of the Canaanites was not an instance of racially-motivated ethnic cleansing but was an act of corporate capital punishment in response to deeply-rooted evil (p. 68).

Jones makes his case by demonstrating from Ancient Near Eastern sources and secondary scholarship that Canaan was polytheistic (or, idolatrous) and that this polytheism was “theologically conducive to (if not motivational for) the formation of Canaanite practices, including the practices of incest, adultery, incest, child sacrifice, homosexuality, and bestiality, such that these practices are not incoherent with Canaanite idolatry” (p. 57). Polytheism in Canaan allowed for all sorts of evil practices that God detested.

After suggesting this connection Jones illustrates the nature of the aforementioned practices in Canaanite life. This is the largest portion of the article as Jones sketches out in vivid detail the morally reprehensible practices of Canaan prior to the Israelite conquest.

Jones also argues that the underlying motivation behind the destruction of the Canaanites was not ethnic cleansing.  God treated Israel, his chosen people, with great severity as well when they turned to Canaanite gods and committed similarly evil acts.

Finally, Jones provides numerous illustrations from contemporary Western culture that illustrate the evil in our own culture is eerily similar to Canaan’s sins. Websites and television promote adultery. Groups lobby for the legitimacy of pedophilia. Children are sacrificed for comfort, cost, and convenience. Pornographic websites featuring bestiality get thousands of hits per day. Our culture, blinded by sin, does not want to recognize the justness of God’s judgment against Canaan because to do so would also be an act of self-condemnation.

Jones sums up his article by writing:

“We do not appreciate the depths of our own depravity, the horror of sin, and the righteousness of God. Consequently, it is no surprise that when we see God’s judgment upon those who committed the sins we commit, that complaint and protest arises within our hearts: “This is divine barbarism!” or “This is divine genocide!” But studying these things over the years has led me to wonder if the Canaanites might not stand up at the Judgment and condemn this generation” (pp. 71-72)

Jones’ article is worth reading, not only because it answers a common obstacle to biblical faith, but also because it calls to our attention a similarity that existed between the people of God in the Old Testament and today. Similar threats to capitulate to the surrounding culture have faced the Church throughout the ages. The Church must resist these, stand firm in the faith, glory in holiness, and be sanctified through the Word so that through its witness many might be transferred out of spiritual darkness and into the light of Christ. Let us pray that the God will protect the Church, strengthen the Church, and use the Church to call the world to repentance through Christ while making the pleasures of serving him known.  

For those who desire a condensed version of Jones’ argument you should consult Greg Koukl’s article on it here (follow the link and download the pdf).

Make Your Thinking Count!

 "...let us remember that on the whole subject of religion one rule of modesty and soberness is to be observed, and it is this: in obscure matters not to speak or think, or even long to know, more than the word of God has delivered. A second rule is this, that, in reading the Scriptures, we should constantly direct our inquiries and meditations to those things which tend to edification, not indulge in curiosity or in studying things of no use. And since the Lord has been pleased to instruct us, not in frivolous questions, but in solid piety, in the fear of his name, in true faith, and the duties of holiness, let us rest satisfied with such knowledge." 

John Calvin, The Institutes of the Christian Religion. Translated by Henry Beveridge (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2008), 92. 

Exegetical Fallacies: Or, How to Avoid Embarrassing Mistakes and False Conclusions

Exegetical Fallacies is one book that has remained on my to-read list for some time. Once or twice I have even picked it up and began reading through it; however, the title rightfully evokes the sense that this is not a book of light reading and so the book remained incomplete for some time. This summer D. A. Carson’s book made it to the top of my reading list again and I was able to set aside the time and mental energy to complete it. It was certainly worth the effort!

 

Image Source

Exegetical Fallacies is a small, semi-technical book geared towards pastors and seminary students. Dr. Carson, a distinguished New Testament scholar, addresses the numerous ways students of the Scriptures run afoul when doing exegetical work (exegesis refers to the act of finding or interpreting the meaning of a text. Carson provides his definition on p. 23). Exegetical Fallacies gives interpreters the tools necessary to probe points of conflicting when two interpreters of Scripture arrive at contradictory conclusions from a text. When a situation arises where two diligent, sincere interpreters come to opposite, contradictory interpretations, it may be the case that (1) one interpreter is correct and the other has erred (2) neither is correct or (3) both interpreters are partially right and partially wrong, and they must both make changes to their position to better align themselves with the truth. When such disagreement happens, Carson says, “…what is important is that the two interpreters are involved in critical exegesis, exegesis that provides, or attempts to provide, adequate justification of all conclusions reached and of every opinion held” (p. 14). Interpreter must ask what evidence exists to support their interpretation of Scripture. Is there strong evidence to support their conclusions? Could their evidence be stronger? It may be the case that producing such evidence will not resolve every theological conflict, but it will at least allow us to separate the wheat (solid evidence) from the chaff (baseless theological traditions, poor exegesis, or other conclusions arrived at improperly). Exegetical Fallacies exists to shine light upon the chaff, exposing the poor arguments that lead to poor conclusions and in the process strengthening our confidence in the processes that lead to true conclusions and strong convictions. Carson writes, “By exposing our exegetical fallacies, we may become better practitioners of critical exegesis” (p. 14).

Dr. Don Carson

The book is divided into four categories: word-study fallacies, grammatical fallacies, logical fallacies, and presuppositional and historical fallacies. In each section, Carson provides a list of fallacies, describing each fallacy and then illustrating the fallacy in action by highlighting where someone has committed the particular sin against reason in print. The illustrations are particularly helpful to students who should note how subtle such errors can be when inserted amidst countless other paragraphs of written work. They also serve to reinforce the need for a volume such as the one Dr. Carson has produced for us.

Readers should not feel obligated to follow the chapter divisions (I skipped grammatical fallacies and only returned to it when I had finished everything else). Also, the chapter on grammatical fallacies is only useful to those who have an elementary knowledge of Greek. One shortcoming of Exegetical Fallacies is that it does not deal with any issues related to Hebrew exegesis. This would have served to increase the value of an already profitable work for those aspiring to teach the Scriptures.

A (Rare) Protestant Defense of a Catholic Pope

On Monday, Pope Benedict XVI announced that he would be stepping down as pope on February 28. This, of course, caused quite the stir as papal resignations are few and far between. Many have, and many more will, comment on Pope Benedict—both in terms of his resignation and his legacy as pope. One of the early commentators in the Toronto Star was columnist Rosie DiManno. In terms of the pronounced verdicts on Pope Benedict XVI, DiManno’s opinion is in the critical camp. In her article “Pope Benedict XVI Pushed the Catholic Church Backward”, DiManno says that Pope Benedict XVI did a poor job as pope because, under his leadership, the Roman Catholic Church “regressed into a monk’s cellar of orthodoxy, bluntly conservative and reactionary” and “made [faith] too hard” for moderns. DiManno’s column is worth commenting because it exhibits a fundamental worldview difference that will make all the difference in assessing Pope Benedict XVI’s legacy. 

Image Source

DiManno gives several reasons for why Pope Benedict ought to have been given the ol’ heave-ho. The one of particular interest is that Benedict made the Roman Catholic church more theological conservative, “[reversing] every hint of theological liberalism.” To this effect, Benedict continued to “alienate women” (DiManno doesn’t give her reasons for this assertion) and continued to uphold the Roman Catholic Church’s ban on homosexuals in the priesthood. Another reason why Benedict ought to be scolded, according to DiManno, was his behavior on the religious playground. The Bishop of Rome didn’t exhibit a sufficiently ecumenical spirit when he made it possible for Episcopalian clergy to defect from their sinking ship and he didn’t act nice towards the other major monotheistic religions. 

Benedict’s leadership in these areas, according to DiManno, returned the church to the 19^th century and made it too difficult to be a Catholic. DiManno’s point is that Benedict failed to lead the Catholic Church in a manner that will make it successful and relevant in the 21^st century; rather, Benedict’s failed ecumenism, his treatment of women, and upholding the ban on homosexual clergy actually made the Catholic Church even more irrelevant. 

DiManno and Benedict represent opposite understandings of the theological enterprise. DiManno bemoans defeats of liberal theology during Benedict’s papacy. Theological liberalism is religion made by human beings that is about human beings and is for human beings. Theological liberalism is not about God—either what God has done or is doing, neither about who he is or what he commands—but is about the experience located within human beings (I can think of no better work to commend on the subject than J. Gresham Machen’s masterful book, Christianity and Liberalism). DiManno’s problem with Benedict’s papacy is fundamentally an issue of worldview. At the root of DiManno’s worldview, as indicated by her article, is a results-driven, people-centered understanding of Christianity. The Catholic Church ought to accommodate itself to persons who are well intentioned, regardless of what they might believe, so that they can be part of this larger community; besides, most people who claim to be Catholic are “at best cafeteria-tray practitioners, selecting only those tenets deemed digestible.” If no one, DiManno says, is going to sign off on all the doctrines that the Church teaches, why be as rigorous as Benedict was? 

By contrast, Pope Benedict saw theology as a subject that begins with God first. Theology, and the ministry of church leadership, is to seek to be obedient to the God who speaks through his Son and through his divinely inspired Scriptures, the Bible. This is why Benedict upheld his ban on women clergy and maintained the stance that homosexual behavior is wrong—not because he wanted to preserve the Church of a previous century, but because the unchanging, eternal God has spoken. Thisis why Benedict made it possible for Episcopal clergy to become Catholic andwhy some Episcopal clergy did! They were leaving an Episcopal church that had no sense that their doctrine must conform to the apostolic teaching of God’s divinely inspired and inerrant word. Pope Benedict is correct in believing the Church’s doctrine is not to be determined by what makes faith easier, more rigorous, or more popular, but by what God has spoken. This is something that DiManno clearly does not see. 

Also worth noting is what DiManno sees as integral to Catholic identity. She writes, “And I do understand, truly, that the Church can’t ever cave to a sweeping liberalism. There are absolutes it is unable to sacrifice—abortion, an all-male clergy—because then it wouldn’t be the Catholic Church; it would be nothing, it would lose its soul.” Do you understand, Rosie? Really? Truly? Catholics don’t fight against abortion because their identity is at risk. Catholics fight against abortion because abortion is the murder of a human being and they believe, quite rightly, and in accordance with biblical teaching, that God loathes such murderous activity. Catholic theology does not reserve the clerical office for men because they’d lose their identity otherwise. They argue for that position, and with good grounds, because Scripture provides warrant for it. I’m not Roman Catholic, but I know enough about Roman Catholic theology to know they don’t uphold certain beliefs out of fear they might devolve into some lost and confused adolescence without any identity to speak of!
 
There is no mention, nor hint of understanding, in DiManno’s article that Christianity is informed and motivated by divine revelation. Popes do not teach unpopular things because they’ve become a necessary part of their identity. The absence of divine revelation in her framework for understanding religion is again part of the fundamental worldview clash between a theologically liberal understanding of religion and historic Christianity. The recognition that God had spoken clearly in the Scriptures and through the person and work of Jesus Christ is essential to the Christian faith—both Catholic and Protestant—and so long as this is overlooked there will be very different rubrics for assessing the work of Church leaders. Theological liberals and those who think as Rosie DiManno does in her article will judge Pope Benedict’s papal administration by any number of things—his charisma, decisions that brought or didn’t bring Catholic teaching more in line with contemporary thought, etc. Christians, however, have a different criterion that they must judge their leaders by: how well have they guarded the good deposit of the gospel message about Jesus Christ, which was entrusted to them? And in the end, when Christian leaders face the Lord Jesus as judge, that will be all that matters.