Home » Biblical Theology » Page 4

Tag: Biblical Theology

Memories, Ebenezers, Nostalgia, and the Now

I enjoy, and often use, the resources at Mars Hill Audio (no relation to Mars Hill Church). I have written about the impact of their Audio Report on the life and thought of Michael Polanyi, especially his theory of Tacit Knowledge. Their Audio Report on courtship, dating, and marriage (see Audio Report link above) has also proved extremely helpful to me in conversations with young adults.

One of the more thought-provoking items I have purchased from Mars Hill was a collection of essays on the theme(s) of Community, Place and Memory. I am in the process of trying to work out a biblical theology of ‘memory,’ and a particular essay in this collection was quite helpful. The essay is by Gina Bria, and is titled, A Theology of Things. Her thesis is as follows:

Experiences and memories are composed of the place and things which populate them. Yet, in our hast to spiritualize experience, we are apt to lose these very memories by the loss of our sensual touchstones. The things that surround us have a theological power to lead us to recollection, thereby deepening our apprehension of the spiritual.

The author points out the mysterious fact that our memories are often ‘contained’ in objects or senses. I suppose everyone can relate to this fact. For me, the smell of freshly cut grass brings me back to football two-a-days and the sight of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles brings childhood memories of Saturday mornings and Christmas presents into my mind. Pictures do much the same thing. This is why they say a picture is worth a thousand words – a picture can evoke so many specific memories that might have remained dormant had the picture not been seen. Jamey Johnson’s song, In Color, comes to mind as an example of how this process rings true.

The author also cites the strange phenomenon that nursing home residents often rapidly lose their memory, even when no medically documentable change has happened to their brains. The issue is not usually that they have suddenly become senile. Rather, the issue is often that they have been removed from the objects which ‘hold’ many of their memories. Take the object away, the memory disappears.

Bria then engages an interesting line of thought about the Lord’s Supper. This is where the rubber meets the road theologically. And this is where I want to linger. But first, let me begin with an important Old Testament text on the subject of memory:

1 Samuel 7:12 ¶ Then Samuel took a stone and set it up between Mizpah and Shen and called its name Ebenezer; for he said, ‘Till now the LORD has helped us.’

The Israelites were living in fear of the Philistines. God came to their aid and provided deliverance and victory. Samuel wants to memorialize this event for future reference to God’s mighty act of deliverance. He raises up a memorial stone, a stone of remembrance (i.e. Ebenezer). Many other landmarks and acts are recorded in the OT as ‘reminders’ of God’s mighty acts. Jacob’s monument at Bethel comes to mind, as well as the institution of the Passover. These memorials were meant to ‘hold’ the memories of God’s revealing of himself and delivering his people.

Yet these monuments and rituals were not merely ‘memorials’ in the cold sense that we often use the term. They were not tombstones. They were not marking the end. They were marking the beginning.

The case is much the same in the Lord’s Supper. Jesus says that we are to eat and drink ‘in remembrance’ of Him. The Greek term anamnesis (‘remembrance’ or ‘reminder’) has been the subject of much debate, but it would be difficult not to conclude that this term entails remembering something with a view to the present. That is, the Lord’s Supper is not like a tombstone. We don’t simply eat and drink to remember a death. Rather, we eat and drink to remember the present ramifications of that death – namely, eternal life in the presence of the resurrected Christ.

Bria makes a profound observation in her essay (which I will paraphrase): The issue in ‘this is my body’  is not simply the age-old debate of Transubstantiation vs. Consubstantiation vs. Memorial vs. Real-Spiritual-Presence. Rather, the issue is this: ‘Is Christ present in the world at all?’ Communion is meant to point us to the ongoing power and presence of Christ now – not in the elements themselves, but in reality in general.

Consider this fact: our happiest memories are not happy. Rather, they are melancholy. They are like C.S. Lewis’ ‘Joy’ – they are a melancholy longing to enter into a certain state.  Happy memories are those memories that we wish we could reenter, or summon up, in the present. Memories remind us that we are temporal, finite, and mortal. The fact that the past is always ‘the good old days’ points us to the reality that the present is never as we would have it be.

Our kids grow up. Our parents die. Loves are lost. And, a second reference to country music, we ask, ‘Are the good times really over for good?’

Memorials, rituals, pictures, and memories in general, in their melancholiness, are meant to point us to a memory that is never truly a memory – an eternal Now. The risen Lord, Jesus Christ, is our Ebenezer, our Passover, our Communion. He is the ever-present Now.

He is the LORD – I am what I am, I will be what I will be.

He ‘was and is and is to come,’ the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last.

He is the memory that is always present in the present.

Grown up kids, lost loves, tombstones, faded memories, all point us to One who is Now, and will be. In Christ the family never parts, for there is a communion of the saints. In Christ lost love is never lost, for life is eternal. In Christ tombstones are markers for resurrections sites.

In Christ, memories have not only present power, but present reality. Ebenezer – ‘hither by thy help I’m come’ – extends to ‘his grace has brought me safe thus far, and grace will lead me home.’  Beware of nostalgia. Memories are not meant to terminate in the past. Those longings are meant to point us to the only One who can fulfill those longings in the present and future – they are meant to point us to the One who changes not. So don’t spurn your memories, but don’t idealize, or idolize, them either. Rather worship the One to whom all true longing points.

Strength for Today

  • John 6:32 Jesus then said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven, but my Father gives you the true bread from heaven.

God gave the children of Israel manna, yet only enough to last each day, that they might trust in his provision each day, one day at a time. Jesus is the true bread which comes down from heaven to sustain and energize our souls. As we depend upon him each day for sustenance and power we find that, ‘The steadfast love of the LORD never ceases; his mercies never come to an end; they are new every morning; great is your faithfulness’ (Lam. 3:22-23).

The bread was fresh for the Israelites with each new day that they might depend on God and not the flesh. The mercies of Christ are fresh for us each day that we might depend on Christ and not the flesh.

As Martin Luther put it, we should live ‘as if Christ died yesterday, rose this morning, and is coming again tomorrow.’

Snippets: The Wrestler

In the book of Genesis, the life of Jacob could very well be summarized as ‘the wrestler.’ From his mother’s womb, literally, he is fighting, scratching, clawing, cheating, wrestling his way to blessing. He grabs a heel hook in the womb, clutching at Esau’s leg. He plays the heel before his father’s death bed, lying his way into receiving the patriarchal pronouncement of blessing. He engages in a match of wits against his uncle Laban for the hand of his youngest daughter Rachel in marriage. And all this is summarized and epitomized in his great wrestling match of Genesis 32.

The wrestler, Jacob, is jumped from behind by a sneak attack in the pitch black of the night. He finds himself fighting for his life, only trying to cling and clutch to the one who was overpowering him. He wouldn’t let go. Until he received blessing. He wanted something he had been searching for, wrestling for, for his whole life – congratulations. He wanted to be praised, to be accepted, to be acknowledged. He wanted to be the one to have his hand raised.

His father wouldn’t congratulate him. He wouldn’t bless him. He had to pretend to be his older brother Esau to get Isaac’s blessing. The words of the man with whom he now wrestled resound: ‘What is your name?’ (32:27). He had been asked this question before. He had answered with a lie: ‘Your first born, Esau.’ But now he comes clean: ‘I am Jacob.’

Jacob was transformed in this encounter. He would walk with a limp the rest of his life. The sun would now shine on him. When he left his homeland for fear of Esau, we are told,

  • Genesis 28:11 And he came to a certain place and stayed there that night, because the sun had set.

But things were changing, and now,

  • Genesis 32:31 The sun rose upon him as he passed Penuel, limping because of his hip.

He was hurt, but he was healed. He had finally admitted who he really was, only to be told that he was now a new person. He had always been the loser, but  now his hand was raised in victory:

  • Genesis 32:28 Then he said, “Your name shall no longer be called Jacob, but Israel, for you have striven with God and with men, and have prevailed.”

What can change a man’s life in such an astounding way? The true Wrestler, the great Wrestler.

The Hebrew word abaq, which we translate ‘wrestled’ in vv. 24, 25 literally means, ‘to get dusty.’ The implication is that one rolls around on the ground and his body is covered in dirt . This is what it takes for a man to be transformed in such a way – to be reborn, to be blessed, to be crowned with victory – God must become dirty.

Who was it that wrestled with Jacob that day? He tells us in 32:30:

  • So Jacob called the name of the place Peniel, saying, “For I have seen God face to face, and yet my life has been delivered.”

God, covered in dirt.

This is why the incarnation of the Lord Jesus Christ happened – so that we all could could prevail through his humanity. He was born in a dusty barn, plied in the dusty trade of carpentry, washed the dusty feet of his disciples, smeared mud on the eyes of the blind, died the death of the unclean upon the cross, so that in his wrestling, our hands might be raised. He is the Wrestler, and his crown is our salvation.

Do not let go of him until he blesses you.

What’s the Point of Song of Solomon?

My actual title for this post is: Can an Allegorical Interpretation of Song of Solomon be Justified Biblically? It’s too long and not pithy enough, so let’s go with What’s the Point of Song of Solomon?

____________________________________________________________________

This is a question I have meditated upon for some time. I have dealt with those who disdain the idea of allegory. Allegorical interpretation is, for them, a gross misuse of Scripture that was particularly, and regrettably, popular among the church fathers. Of course, we cannot escape the idea that some Scripture should (and indeed must) be taken allegorically (see Gal. 4:24).

This issue is particularly relevant when dealing with Song of Solomon. In recent years the book has become more increasingly understood as a manual in erotic love. I must confess I’ve always found this line of interpretation difficult to swallow. I will admit that many of my initial issues with such thinking is on account of certain presuppositions:

For starters, I find it difficult to imagine that a poem/song should serve as a manual. Don’t get me wrong here. I understand the instructional value of songs quite well. The Psalms certainly instruct us, as does the Song of Moses, and other biblical songs. But they’re not how-to manuals.

Second, I have a hard time, personally, taking love-advice from Solomon. This is probably my shortcoming, but to me, he doesn’t exactly personify the quintessential lover if you know the rest of his history as recorded in the Bible. And yes, I know some folks don’t believe Solomon is the author. I accept the traditional assumption that he is, and I accept that the book is inspired by the Holy Spirit, and that it can certainly be helpful in many respects because of that. Also, I respect Solomon, his wisdom, and his accomplishments – but these do not erase his flaws and sins (which are more shocking on account of his great wisdom). I don’t stand in judgment over Solomon, God’s anointed. I’m just sharing some thoughts.

Third, I’m the evangelical sort who tends to think that the whole Bible is about Jesus. When the Apostle Paul writes to Timothy, ‘…and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus’ (1 Tim. 3:15), Song of Solomon is a part of the ‘sacred writings’ he is referring to.

Follow the logic:
A. The Whole Bible is About Jesus
B. Song of Solomon is in the Bible
= Song of Solomon is About Jesus

So my presuppositions caused me to search. Is their biblical precedent, is there exegetical proof, is there a biblical-theological line that can demonstrate that a Christ-centered interpretation of Song of Solomon is valid?

For starters, I point you to the article by James Hamilton HERE from the Westminster Theological Journal. I found it extremely helpful when I discovered it a couple of years ago. His argument for a legitimate parallel to the story of the Song and the story of the gospel is as follows, in summary form:

The Song is about Israel’s shepherd king, a descendent of David,who is treated as an ideal Israelite enjoying an ideal bride
in a lush garden, where the effects of the fall are reversed
(James M. Hamilton Jr., The Messianic Music of the Song of Songs: A Non-Allegorical Interpretation).

Next, I point you to Psalm 45:1-7:

Psalm 45:1 TO THE CHOIRMASTER: ACCORDING TO LILIES. A MASKIL OF THE SONS OF KORAH; A LOVE SONG. My heart overflows with a pleasing theme; I address my verses to the king; my tongue is like the pen of a ready scribe. 2 You are the most handsome of the sons of men; grace is poured upon your lips; therefore God has blessed you forever. 3 Gird your sword on your thigh, O mighty one, in your splendor and majesty! 4 In your majesty ride out victoriously for the cause of truth and meekness and righteousness; let your right hand teach you awesome deeds! 5 Your arrows are sharp in the heart of the king’s enemies; the peoples fall under you. 6 Your throne, O God, is forever and ever. The scepter of your kingdom is a scepter of uprightness; 7 you have loved righteousness and hated wickedness. Therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions;

I remember hearing a very well known preacher say that you shouldn’t read Song of Solomon as being about Christ (if you’re a man) because that’s just weird, because, you know, he’s a dude. How then do you deal with Psalm 45? You could certainly make the point, and I agree, that Psalm 45 is not about erotic love. But consider the following:

Psalm 45 is explicitly called a ‘love song’ (I remind you that the superscriptions are actually part of the Scripture, not something added). And as a love song it is written by men (the sons of Korah) about, and for, a man (the king). This king is then called God. And as God, he has a God, who anoints him with ‘the oil of gladness.’  Though the author may never have imagined such an application, this is a crystal clear reference to the Trinity in the form of a love song. Perhaps the sons of Korah had King David specifically in mind, yet no sane commentator would miss the application of the psalm to Christ, regardless of the authors’ initial intention. It’s just too clear to miss.

Perhaps the application is not as clear in Song of Solomon, but I think it is equally as valid and relevant. Hamilton’s article makes a compelling case. The Son of David, Solomon in the case of the Song, is the messiah (lower case ‘m’), the anointed one of God. Jesus Christ is the greater Solomon, the true Son of David, the Anointed One (Messiah with an upper case ‘M’). He is the ideal Israelite with his ideal bride in his lush garden. That’s our future, Christians – with Jesus. ‘Yes, he is altogether lovely’ (Song 5:16).

On top of this you can add the Book of Hosea to the list of relevant biblical data. Here a real man and real woman get to live out God’s loving relationship with His idolatrous people. This real man and real woman have real children and each child’s name represents an aspect of God’s great plan of redemption for the nations. God is not above using allegory, even in the context of marriage, sex, and child-bearing – even with the use of real people as living illustrations.

Here’s the crux of the issue:

Ultimately, to use a phrase from Tim Keller, we must ask who the Bible – all the Bible – is about. Is it about Jesus, or about you? For you’ll read it in one of those two ways. If it’s about you then why not look at Song of Solomon as a textbook for love. If you become like Solomon you can really have a sizzling romantic life and happy marriage (see how that worked out for wise Solomon). But if it’s about Jesus, then you get to rejoice as a bride in your Groom, who unlike Solomon, will not forsake you for concubines and encourage your idolatry (see Nehemiah 13:26).

I may come across as snide, but I want to make clear that I love and appreciate Solomon the man. I am only pointing out the glaringly obvious fact that he is a sinner – just like me. And I certainly won’t be writing any love manuals any time soon (though I may write a love poem or two for my wife). I will however be happy to point people to our greater Solomon, the Lord Jesus Christ, the ‘lover of my soul.’ Get right with him, fall in love with him, rejoice in his beauty and grace and just see what that will do for your marriage – more than any manual could, that’s for sure.

Luke 11:31 The queen of the South will rise up at the judgment with the men of this generation and condemn them, for she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon, and behold, something greater than Solomon is here.