Author: Papa Giorgio

Augustinian Determinism Was Not In the Early Church

Published by Papa Giorgio

In discussion with a friend who seemed like he did not watch the below video, I noted:

Calvinistic historian, Loraine Boettner, concedes that the concept of individual effectual election to salvation “was first clearly seen by Augustine” in the fifth century. John Calvin admits that his theology was first clearly seen in Augustine. Many reformers stood against many of these ideas… the scholar/Greek reader of the bunch, Phillipe Melanchthon, as well. Others were killed, like my homeboy Hubmaier.  

We know currently – not standing in heaven after we pass, by Scripture  –  that God has allowed His prevenient grace to work thru Scripture [sharper than any two-edged sword] to change minds.

For the word of God is living and effective and sharper than any double-edged sword, penetrating as far as the separation of soul and spirit, joints and marrow. It is able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

In the 5-point system God chooses wholly who believes and who does not. In other words, I do not believe God chose before creation who would be saved and who would not. It would be like the evil guy in the Incredibles – Omnidroid – who made the evil robots to destroy them in order to look like the good guy. When people realize the 5-points do this to the God of the Bible [Augustinianism], they understand how shallow the God of those points are.

Dr. Leighton Flowers, Director of Evangelism and Apologetics for Texas Baptists, gives a history lesson on the soteriological influence of Augustine and the Reformers in contrast to the Earlier church leaders and apologists. For more on Dr Ken Wilson’s work: Did the Early Church Fathers teach “Calvinism?”

There has been an attempt to respond to this, however, as you will see some misquoting is going on

Dr. Leighton Flowers, Director of Evangelism and Apologetics for Texas Baptists, is joined by Dr. Ken Wilson to discuss the history of Determinism in the church.

Here are quotes from Reformed historians who validate the foundational claims of Wilson’s work:

Herman Bavinck:

  • In the early church, at a time when it had to contend with pagan fatalism and gnostic naturalism, its representatives focused exclusively on the moral nature, freedom, and responsibility of humans and could not do justice, therefore, to the teaching of Scripture concerning the counsel of God. Though humans had been more or less corrupted by sin, they remained free and were able to accept the proffered grace of God. The church’s teaching did not include a doctrine of absolute predestination and irresistible grace.

Loraine Boettner:

  • “It may occasion some surprise to discover that the doctrine of Predestination was not made a matter of special study until near the end of the fourth century….They of course taught that salvation was through Christ; yet they assumed that man had full power to accept or reject the gospel. Some of their writings contain passages in which the sovereignty of God is recognized; yet along side of those are others which teach the absolute freedom of the human will. Since they could not reconcile the two they would have denied the doctrine of Predestination… They taught a kind of synergism in which there was a co-operation between grace and free … this cardinal truth of Christianity was first clearly seen by Augustine…“

Robert Peterson and Michael Williams of Covenant Theological Seminary:

  • “The Semi-Pelagians were convinced that Augustine’s monergistic emphasis upon salvation by grace alone represented a significant departure from the traditional teaching of the church. And a survey of the thought of the apostolic father’s shows that the argument is valid… In comparison to Augustine’s monergistic doctrine of grace, the teachings of the apostolic fathers tended toward a synergistic view of redemption” (36).

Louis Berkhof [in The History of Christian Doctrines]:

  • “Their representations are naturally rather indefinite, imperfect, and incomplete, and sometimes even erroneous and self-contradictory. Says Kahnis: “It stands as an assured fact, a fact knowing no exceptions, and acknowledged by all well versed in the matter, that all of the pre-Augustinian Fathers taught that in the appropriation of salvation there is a co-working of freedom and grace.”

Berkhof goes on to admit that “they do not hold to an entire corruption of the human will, and consequently adhere to the synergistic theory of regeneration…” (130).

In other words, despite Calvinists claims and assertions to the contrary, there were no “monergists” before Augustine.

Dr. Leighton Flowers, Director of Evangelism and Apologetics for Texas Baptists, answers a listener submitted question about whether Calvinism is a form of Gnosticism.

Against the Tide: The Story of John Lennox

Published by Papa Giorgio

We live in a post-modern world that denies any existence of intelligent design or A Creator of the universe that has also created human beings in His likeness. Throughout history man hasn’t been able to answer the questions of who put us here, why do we die, and what happens when we die. The God of The Bible has inserted himself into human history and given us the answers many are looking for.

Candace Owens Gets Fact-Checked on Israel by Ami Kozak

Published by Papa Giorgio

I wanted to post some more recent videos that include critiques of Candace Owens. Her views on Israel have been emboldened by [maybe?] contact with Kanye, or others who hold to view of Israel that seems like they are siding with anti-Jewish forces – even if they are themselves not anti-Jewish. So with that spotty intro, enjoy

Ami Kozak educates Candace Owens & Dave Smith

Candace Owens Gets Fact-Checked on Basic Israel Facts by Jewish Comedian

Dave Rubin of “The Rubin Report” talks to CJ Pearson and Ian Haworth about Candace Owens being corrected on-air about basic Israel facts by Jewish comedian Ami Kozak.

The FULL STORY of Candace Owens & Ami Kozak

A Green Beret RESPONDS to Dave Smith’s Question

In the wake of Dave Smith’s viral appearance on Joe Rogan, everyone’s talking about warfare, morality, and Israel. But most of the loudest voices—comedians, commentators, influencers—have never seen combat. In this clip, former Green Beret and military expert Nick Freitas explains why so many takes on Gaza and Israel—from Dave Smith and others—are not just wrong, but dangerously naive. He breaks down the real dynamics of asymmetric warfare, how groups like Hamas operate, and why civilian casualties aren’t always what they seem.

Dave Rubin Gives a Walking Tour Between Two of the Holiest Sites on Earth

Dave Rubin of “The Rubin Report” gives a beautiful walking tour between two of the holiest sites in the world, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and the Western Wall of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.

Why Israel Attacked Iran – Elica Le Bon (PLUS: Mahdi “Stuff”)

Published by Papa Giorgio

Here is a 10-minute clip from the fuller interview via Triggernometry

(Full Interview) The Real Reason Iran Wants to Destroy Israel – Elica Le Bon

In an email that lead me to that first video at the top, I responded with this [in part]:

(I am attaching a PDF of chapter 4 from a book titled “Mideast Beast: The Scriptural Case for an Islamic Antichrist” – I personally do not think the anti-Christ will be “Islamic” per-se, but he will have to woo the Muslim world… which is why knowing about Islamic eschatology is important)

In a post on discussing Obama’s “Islamic ties” in a post dated July 23, 2008 (on my old Blogspot) — I noted the 2nd head of The Nation of Islam cult discussing the founder of NOI as the Mahdi (in other words, cults in America have known of the topic for a long time):

  • The Nation of Islam claims that God is a man. “God is a man and we just cannot make Him other than man” (Elijah Muhammad, Message to the Blackman in America, [Chicago: Muhammad’s Temple No. 2], p. 6). The NOI teaches that Fard was Allah in physical form (Elijah Muhammad, The Fall of America, p. 236, as reprinted in “The Mother Plane,” The Final Call 15, no. 25 [July 16, 1996]: 19). According to Elijah Muhammad, Fard told him, “My name is Mahdi; I am God” (Elijah Muhammad, Message to the Blackman, p. 17). The NOI continues to teach that Fard is Allah. The current NOI statement is published in every issue of their weekly newspaper, The Final Call, in an article titled “What the Muslims Believe.” It states, “12. WE BELIEVE that Allah (God) appeared in the Person of Master W. Fard Muhammad, July, 1930; the long-awaited ‘Messiah’ of the Christians and the ‘Mahdi’ of the Muslims.” The NOI denies that God is spirit. The NOI claims that Christians worship an “invisible spook somewhere in space” (Elijah Muhammad, Message to the Blackman, p. 5). According to Elijah Muhammad, “God is in person, and stop looking for a dead Jesus for help, but pray to Him whom Jesus prophesied would come after Him. He who is alive and not a spook” (Ibid., p. 3). (via The North American Missions Board)

I posted this short interview on my new website back in 2016: “Pastor Youssef Speaks About the Anti-Christ and Mahdi” (under thirteen minutes):

One of the best articles on the topic is this one:

Iran built a highway from the Jamkaran well, where the Mahdi is suppose to emerge from, to the airport – based on this apocalyptic idea:

Ahmadinejad would give special importance to the Jamkaran Mosque, which hosts the Well of Jamkaran, where some Shi’a Muslims believe the 12th Imam will return. Ahmadinejad’s administration would allocate $17 million in state funds to Jamkaran Mosque as well as expand its facilities, transforming it from a small mosque to a multimillion-dollar shrine. His administration would also spend around $8 million on refreshments for pilgrims visiting the Jamkaran Mosque for the celebration of Mahdi’s birthday.

Ahmadinejad would go as far as constructing the Jamkaran Highway to connect Jamkaran Mosque directly to Imam Khomeini Airport in Tehran. In a meeting with the supreme leader, the president reportedly insisted on its construction so that “in case Imam Mahdi reappears he could travel directly from Jamkaran to Tehran’s airport without getting stuck in traffic.” (Middle East Institute – MEI – above link)

There is a cult of the Mahdi being here (video to the right). His name is Abdullah Hashem, who openly claims to be “the successor to Simon Peter, the successor to Jesus Christ, and the true and legitimate Pope,” as well as the anticipated Mahdi.

Um, yeah, no.

Here is an old video about the Mahdi and Iran on CBN about a novel series:

Iran’s president believes Allah has chosen him to prepare the world for the coming of the Islamic messiah… The Christian Broadcasting Network CBN (Oct 19, 2010)

A friend and mentor sent this Facebook post to me — which is related to the Mahdi tradition via TIM ORR:

When I studied for my MA in Islamic Studies at the Islamic College in London, I was given the opportunity to learn about Shia Islam from within, not through the filter of Western headlines or ideological caricatures, but through rigorous academic engagement. The college was not hardline, nor was it interested in grooming political operatives. It was a place of learning, characterized by careful scholarship, where professors encouraged students to think critically and engage respectfully. Yet through the texts I read, especially those authored by clerics who shaped Iran’s modern identity, I began to grasp just how deeply theology and politics are fused in the Islamic Republic. In particular, the concept of Wilayat al-Faqih, or Guardianship of the Jurist, stood out as central. Ayatollah Khomeini argued that in the Mahdi’s absence, a qualified jurist should rule the Islamic community. That may sound reasonable within a religious framework, but the consequences of this doctrine have been disastrous. It effectively turns the Supreme Leader into a divine deputy, granting him not only political control but also religious infallibility. That’s not just dangerous, it’s theocratic absolutism dressed up in sacred language.

The regime in Iran has taken this idea and run with it, creating a system where dissent becomes heresy and where one man claims to speak on behalf of a hidden, infallible messianic figure. I saw how this unfolded through the writings I studied, not in abstract theory, but in the lived theology of a state that views itself as ordained to rule in the Mahdi’s absence. What’s more alarming is that some clerics, particularly hardliners, believe that chaos and conflict can help usher in the Mahdi’s return. That kind of thinking isn’t just fringe; it has implications for Iran’s foreign policy. It helps explain the regime’s militant posture toward Israel, its persistent support for destabilizing proxy wars, and its willingness to tolerate unimaginable economic suffering at home. As one analyst put it, “Iran doesn’t just endure crisis, it needs it.” When I read that, I remembered the texts I encountered in my coursework that seemed to blur the line between divine preparation and calculated political unrest. It gave me a deeper understanding of how apocalyptic thinking is not just present in the regime’s worldview, it is part of the machinery.

One area where this theology becomes particularly toxic is in Iran’s obsession with Israel. On the surface, their hostility may seem like typical geopolitical tension, but it runs much deeper than that. In Shia eschatology, which I explored through classical and modern texts, Israel is often portrayed as a symbol of corruption and injustice in the end times. Some traditions suggest that the Mahdi will liberate Jerusalem, making it a central arena in the apocalyptic drama. That makes Iran’s anti-Zionism more than just political; it’s cosmic. I never heard this explicitly preached in my courses, but it was clear in the literature. This isn’t about the two-state solution. It’s about a theological script in which Israel’s destruction becomes a necessary step toward redemption. When leaders like Khamenei couch their hatred of Israel in religious terms, they’re not being metaphorical. They are positioning themselves as actors in a divine narrative, and that narrative leaves no room for coexistence or compromise.

The regime’s use of martyrdom fits this pattern as well. I studied the deep significance of Karbala in Shia thought, and I came to appreciate how the memory of Husayn’s sacrifice has shaped centuries of devotion, grief, and moral resolve. But Iran has politicized that tradition. Figures like Qassem Soleimani are not just eulogized as patriots—they are sanctified as martyrs in the Mahdi’s struggle. I remember seeing images after Soleimani’s death that portrayed him not just as a fallen commander, but as a saintlike figure bathed in heavenly light, sword in hand, poised to strike down the enemies of Islam. The message was unmistakable: dying in service to the regime’s goals is not just heroic—it’s holy. That’s the kind of narrative that makes violence sustainable. It elevates warfare into a sacred duty, blurs the lines between faith and fanaticism, and prepares a population to sacrifice themselves not for justice, but for the glory of a regime that claims divine endorsement.

I am deeply critical of this regime, not just because of its human rights abuses or its brutal repression of dissent, but because of how it wraps those abuses in sacred justification. Studying at the Islamic College did not make me sympathetic to this system. Quite the opposite. It gave me the intellectual tools and firsthand exposure to understand it on its own terms, and then to challenge it more effectively. I did not come away impressed by the regime’s theology. I came away alarmed. The Islamic Republic claims to govern in the Mahdi’s absence, but in practice, it governs through coercion, censorship, and calculated eschatology. Its leaders don’t just see themselves as administrators—they see themselves as agents of the end times. That belief drives decisions that cost lives, fuel conflict, and suppress truth. And no amount of religious language can disguise that reality.

Farshid Rezaee, in comments on Facebook under the above notes a joke told by Iranians:

Iranians have a joke about the followers of the current supreme leader which though funny does indeed reflect the reality.

They ask an ardent follower of the supreme leader to define “parallel lines”

He says “Parallel lines are two lines which never meet unless the supreme leader says so!”

More via Tim Orr…

For many evangelicals, Iran represents hostility, not hope. We associate it with fiery slogans, persecution of Christians, and threats against Israel and the West. However, upon closer examination, I discover a spiritual narrative yearning for redemption—a tale marked by profound reverence for martyrdom, a theology shaped by suffering and injustice, and a longing for divine justice through the awaited return of the Mahdi. These themes reflect a people intensely aware of spiritual struggle and deeply engaged in questions of ultimate meaning. Their annual remembrance of Husayn’s martyrdom, their philosophical engagement with good and evil, and their belief in God’s future intervention all speak to this longing. It’s not just that Iran is religious; it’s that its people hunger for a justice that feels personal, moral, and cosmic. That hunger, although shaped by a different theology, points to the kind of fulfillment found only in Christ. That’s why, as a Christian, I see opportunity in their spiritual intensity. Iran’s story invites us to speak clearly about the cross, the resurrection, and the true Redeemer who has already come. Iran is a theologically rich society, shaped by suffering, apocalyptic hope, and a deep concern for justice. Beneath its authoritarian structure lies a people who ask real questions about God, mercy, and truth. That’s why I believe Iran is not just a closed nation—it’s a nation God is opening. And if we care about the Great Commission, then Iran should be on our hearts, in our prayers, and part of our strategy.

A Nation Shaped by Revelation and Redemptive Longing

Iran’s religious roots run deep. Long before Islam, Persia followed Zoroastrianism, a religion centered on moral dualism, divine justice, and the coming of a savior-like figure (Boyce, 2001). These ideas would profoundly influence later Islamic theology, especially Shi’a eschatology. When Islam entered Persia in the 7th century, the Persians infused it with their intellectual and mystical traditions, producing some of the greatest minds in Islamic philosophy and Sufism. By the 16th century, the Safavid dynasty made Twelver Shi’ism the official state religion, solidifying Iran’s distinctive role in the Muslim world (Arjomand, 1984). Central to Shi’a theology is the belief in the hidden Imam—al-Mahdi—who will return to bring justice to the world, a theme that mirrors Christian hope in Christ’s return. Yet, unlike our hope in Jesus, who has already secured salvation through the cross and resurrection, their hope is still anticipatory, incomplete, and uncertain (Nasr, 2006). From a Christian perspective, Shi’a eschatological hope lacks the assurance of atonement through a once-for-all sacrifice. Their awaited savior, the Mahdi, is still hidden, and the fulfillment of justice is seen as future and conditional.

In contrast, Christians believe the work of redemption is finished, anchored in Christ’s death and resurrection, and accessible now by faith. This means our assurance rests not in future events or hidden leaders, but in the revealed and risen Savior. The Shi’a framework offers a longing for justice, but it cannot satisfy the human need for reconciliation with a holy God. That is why the gospel speaks uniquely and powerfully into this kind of eschatological uncertainty. As evangelicals, we must see that longing not as a threat, but as a bridge to the gospel. …

(read it all)

James White and Jeff Durbin’s Horrendous 5-Point View of God

Published by Papa Giorgio

James White and Jeff Durbin exemplify just how 5-point Calvinism can destroy a good apologetic. It allows for an easy refutation of a Mormon apologist to show the God of Christianity is an evil god.

This defining sovereignty as some “determinism” creates a god more in line with a Muslim view of god than a Judeo-Christian view. 5-Pointers admit infants are created for destruction in Calvinism:

  • “We may rest assured that God would never have suffered any infants to be slain except those who were already damned and predestined for eternal death.” — John Calvin

The same in ISLAM: Babies CAN Go To HELL In Islam | Not only that, but we are more moral than the god of Calvinism or Islam.

In other words, the god of Calvinism is, as Lewis aptly notes, this thinking “may thus turn Christianity into a form of devil-worship.” Yup:

Any consideration of the goodness of God at once threat­ens us with the following dilemma.

On the one hand, if God is wiser than we His judge­ment must differ from ours on many things, and not least on good and evil. What seems to us good may therefore not be good in His eyes, and what seems to us evil may not be evil.

On the other hand, if God’s moral judgement differs from ours so that our ‘black’ may be His ‘white’, we can mean nothing by calling Him good; for to say ‘God is good’, while asserting that His goodness is wholly other than ours, is really only to say ‘God is we know not what’. And an utterly unknown quality in God cannot give us moral grounds for loving or obeying Him. If He is not (in our sense) ‘good’ we shall obey, if at all, only through fear—and should be equally ready to obey an omnipotent Fiend. The doctrine of Total Depravity— when the consequence is drawn that, since we are totally depraved, our idea of good is worth simply nothing— may thus turn Christianity into a form of devil-worship.

The escape from this dilemma depends on observing what happens, in human relations, when the man of infe­rior moral standards enters the society of those who are better and wiser than he and gradually learns to accept their standards—a process which, as it happens, I can describe fairly accurately, since I have undergone it. When I came first to the University I was as nearly with­out a moral conscience as a boy could be. Some faint dis­taste for cruelty and for meanness about money was my utmost reach—of chastity, truthfulness, and self-sacrifice I thought as a baboon thinks of classical music. By the mercy of God I fell among a set of young men (none of them, by the way, Christians) who were sufficiently close to me in intellect and imagination to secure immediate intimacy, but who knew, and tried to obey, the moral law. Thus their judgement of good and evil was very different from mine. Now what happens in such a case is not in the least like being asked to treat as ‘white’ what was hitherto called black. The new moral judgements never enter the mind as mere reversals (though they do reverse them) of previous judgements but ‘as lords that are certainly expected’. You can have no doubt in which direction you are moving: they are more like good than the little shreds of good you already had, but are, in a sense, continuous with them. But the great test is that the recognition of the new standards is accompanied with the sense of shame and guilt: one is conscious of having blundered into soci­ety that one is unfit for. It is in the light of such experi­ences that we must consider the goodness of God. Beyond all doubt, His idea of ‘goodness’ differs from ours; but you need have no fear that, as you approach it, you will be asked simply to reverse your moral standards. When the relevant difference between the Divine ethics and your own appears to you, you will not, in fact, be in any doubt that the change demanded of you is in the direction you already call ‘better’. The Divine ‘goodness’ differs from ours, but it is not sheerly different: it differs from ours not as white from black but as a perfect circle from a child’s first attempt to draw a wheel. But when the child has learned to draw, it will know that the circle it then makes is what it was trying to make from the very beginning.

SEE MORE IN MY POST TITLED:

Challenges To Strict 5-Point Calvinism | Tozer/Winger/Geisler/Lewis

Children and Depravity – Two Shorts

(Left video) 5-minutes plus; (Right video) 15-minutes plus

(See more about who introduced such “determinism into the church in a previous post, HERE)

As I am studying this, I wonder if a few of the Reformers borrowed the fatalism of Allah. At any rate, you can watch James and Jeff (and other Calvinistic theologians/pastors, but not always stated as clearly) say that the god of the Bible authored sex trafficking and the Holocaust. Bravo to the Mormon in slapping these two down. Mormons are easy to discuss issues with… unless you posit a god thru the rose colored lenses of the Calvinistic systematic. [See my using lower case for “god” — the Calvinistic god is too small. Like the Mormon god… not the God of the Bible] BTW, these are all arguments a healthy view of a theistic God used against philosophical naturalism – atheism.

Observe How Calvinistic Determinism Undermines Christian Apologetics

Dr. Leighton Flowers interacts with a recent video where a young Mormon picks apart the Calvinistic determinism of James White and Jeff Durbin making their perspective seem completely irrational and untenable. Theistic determinism is an unnecessary burden that some Christians have adopted making it virtually impossible to rationally defend scriptural truths against the false teaching of groups like Mormons. Theology will drive your methodology and one’s apologetic suffers when they adopt a deterministic theology, as witnessed in this video. (Full Video Here)

John Calvin, for which the systematic is named, explains more ~ via an excerpt from The Potter’s Promise: A Biblical Defense of Traditional Soteriology:

If you do not already know what Calvinism is all about, I recommend that you study the teachings of Calvinists themselves and keep in mind that not all Calvinists are the same.[2] Learn from my mistake, you should always study the opposition’s viewpoint for yourself.

Back when I was a Calvinist, I had so saturated myself with Calvinistic preachers and authors that the only thing I knew of the opposing views was what they told me. Thus, I had been led to believe the only real alternative to Calvinism was this strange concept of God “looking through the corridors of time to elect those He foresees would choose Him.” Notable Calvinistic teachers almost always paint non-Calvinistic scholars as holding to this perspective. Once I realized I had been misled on this point, I was more open to consider other interpretations objectively. So, just as it is only fair to learn Calvinism from actual Calvinists, it is also only fair to learn Traditionalism from a Southern Baptist Traditionalist.[3]

With this in mind, here is a direct quote from John Calvin which most clearly reveals the Traditionalist’s major point of contention with our Calvinistic brethren:

“By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God, by which He determined with Himself whatever He wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of those ends, we say that he has been predestined to life or death…[4] Some are predestined to salvation, others to damnation… Regarding the lost: it was His good pleasure to doom to destruction… Since the disposition of all things is in the hands of God and He can give life or death at His pleasure, He dispenses and ordains by His judgment that some, from their mother’s womb, are destined irrevocably to eternal death in order to glorify His name in their perdition… All are not created on equal terms, but some are predestined to eternal life, others to eternal damnation…”[5]

The very thought of a creator making human beings, with real conscious feelings and emotions, for the sole purpose of pouring out His everlasting wrath so as to manifest His glory leaves even Calvinists pondering.[6]

The “dreadfulness” of such a decree may accomplish some measure of terror filled “thankfulness” in the hearts of those who happen to be rescued from this unthinkable fate, but no one can objectively claim that they are not on some level troubled by such a doctrine.[7] If the Scripture clearly teaches us to adopt these doctrines and the emotional abhorrence that typically follows, then we certainly must submit ourselves to it. However, suppose that was not the intention of the biblical authors at all? Think of what damage such interpretations impose upon the church and the believer’s view of God if the “dreadfulness” of these doctrines are simply untrue.

[….]

John Calvin forthrightly reveals where his own systematic leads:

“A distinction has been invented between doing and permitting, because to many it seemed altogether inexplicable how Satan and all the wicked are so under the hand and authority of God, that He directs their malice to whatever end He pleases, and employs their iniquities to execute His judgments…

How foolish and frail is the support of divine justice afforded by the suggestion that evils come to be, not by His will but by His permission… It is a quite frivolous refuge to say that God otiosely permits them, when Scripture shows Him not only willing, but the author of them… Who does not tremble at these judgments with which God works in the hearts of even the wicked whatever He will, rewarding them nonetheless according to desert? Again it is quite clear from the evidence of Scripture that God works in the hearts of men to incline their wills just as He will, whether to good for His mercy’s sake, or to evil according to their merits.”[32]  

Many modern day Calvinists would not go so far as to candidly admit what John Calvin does in the quote above. Yet, can the Calvinistic systematic avoid the necessity of this logical end? Their namesake does not think so.

FOOTNOTES:

[2] Examples of other points where Calvinists simply do not agree among themselves: (1) Atonement: Phil Johnson, President of Grace to You ministries, writes, “But second, don’t imagine that there is just one view for the Limited Atonement position and another view for the Unlimited Atonement position. As if there are two polar opposites here and they compete against each other. This is not really an either/or position even among Calvinists. And in fact, historically, the most intense debates about Limited Atonement have come over the past 400 years, they’ve all been intramural debates between Calvinists, among Calvinists… There are at least six possible Calvinists’ interpretations of it [Scripture]…” Phil Johnson, The Nature of the Atonement: Why and for Whom did Christ die? Quote taken from: http://www.bible-bb.com/files/MAC/SC03-1027.htm; [date accessed: 4/2/15] (2) God’s Love for All, see John MacArthur, Does God Love the World? (3) Lapsarian Controversy (4) God’s genuine desire for all to be saved (5) The “order salutis” (the temporal vs. logical order).

[3] Non-Calvinistic Southern Baptists have been using the term “Traditionalist” to describe the most commonly held Southern Baptist view of salvation taught by leaders over the last one hundred years or so. In 2012, a document was produced to better articulate the scholarly non-Calvinistic soteriology of Southern Baptists, whose primary author was Eric Hankins, and was entitled A Statement of the Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of God’s Plan of Salvation. The word “traditional” was again used for the basic Baptist view of non-Calvinists. This term has never been meant to suggest that all Southern Baptists have been non-Calvinistic because it is clear there have been two clear streams of soteriology throughout Baptist history. […]

[4] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge (Grand Rapids: Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 2002), sec. 5, 1030–1031.

[5] Gilbert VanOrder, Jr. Calvinism’s Conflicts: An Examination of the Problems in Reformed Theology (Lulu Publishers, 2013), 99.

[6] John Calvin, pg. 124: “How it was ordained by the foreknowledge and decree of God what man’s future was without God being implicated as associate in the fault as the author or approver of transgression, is clearly a secret so much excelling the insight of the human mind, that I am not ashamed to confess ignorance…. I daily so meditate on these mysteries of his judgments that curiosity to know anything more does not attract me.”

[7] John Calvin himself admitted the dreadfulness of this teaching: “Again I ask: whence does it happen that Adam’s fall irremediably involved so many peoples, together with their infant offspring, in eternal death unless because it so pleased God? Here their tongues, otherwise so loquacious, must become mute. The decree is dreadful indeed, I confess. Yet no one can deny that God foreknew what end man was to have before he created him, and consequently foreknew because he so ordained by His decree.” Quote taken from: http://postbarthian.com/2014/05/31/john-calvin-confessed-double-prede-stination-horrible-dreadful-decree/; [date accessed: 3/25/15]

[….]

[32] John Calvin, The Eternal Predestination of God; 10:11, [emphasis added.]

4-more examples of this evil god:

THEODORE ZACHARIADES

CONSISTENT CALVINIST

JOHN PIPER

CALVINISM ON RAVI’S FALL

 

Illegal Immigrant Said Leninist/Marxism Good … Sorry Charlie

Published by Papa Giorgio

Ra-Tardness is not just an occupational job of leftist white women. This was one of the dumbest things I have heard!

  • I used OpenArt for the opener to add animation to the picture (also adding the music and the sound FX via Vegas 22) before the video I cobbled together.

Hat-tip to Cal Thomas for the inspiration:

This is just another opener that I will use in the future… 21-seconds long:

What Love Is This? Calvinism’s “Evil” Problem | Determinism

Published by Papa Giorgio

(𝕍𝕆𝕃𝕌𝕄𝔼 𝕎𝔸ℝℕ𝕀ℕ𝔾!) This is not Biblical. BTW.

I have argued against philosophical naturalism for decades because of deterministic values. How could the determinist know he is correct. Example:

“He thus acknowledged the need for any theory to allow that humans have genuine freedom to recognize the truth. He (again, correctly) saw that if all thought, belief, feeling, and choice are determined (i.e., forced on humans by outside conditions) then so is the determinists’ acceptance of the theory of determinism forced on them by those same conditions. In that case they could never claim to know their theory is true since the theory making that claim would be self-referentially incoherent. In other words, the theory requires that no belief is ever a free judgment made on the basis of experience or reason, but is always a compulsion over which the believer has no control.”

Roy A. Clouser, The Myth of Religious Neutrality: An Essay on the Hidden Role of Religious Belief in Theories (Notre Dame, IN: Notre Dame University Press, 2005), 174.

You could not argue that “evil” is really “evil.” Eastern philosophies run into the same problems as the atheist’s/evolutionist’s issue I just noted above. SEE:

The Logic of Reincarnation

The Calvinist runs into the same issue. And it is a distortion of Christianity (T.U.L.I.P.):

Ephesians 1:11 goes even further by declaring that God in Christ

“works all things according to the counsel of his will.” Here the Greek word for “works” is energeø, which indicates that God not merely carries all of the universe’s objects and events to their appointed ends but that he actually brings about all things in accordance with his will. In other words, it isn’t just that God manages to turn the evil aspects of our world to good for those who love him; it is rather that he himself brings about these evil aspects for his glory (see Ex. 9:13-16; John 9:3) and his people’s good (see Heb. 12:3-11; James 1:2-4). This includes—as incredible and as unacceptable as it may currently seem—God’s having even brought about the Nazis’ brutality at Birkenau and Auschwitz as well as the terrible killings of Dennis Rader and even the sexual abuse of a young child: “The LORD has made everything for its own purpose, even the wicked for the day of evil” (Prov. 16:4, NASB ).14 “When times are good, be happy; but when times are bad, consider: God has made the one as well as the other” (Eccl. 7:14, NIV).

John Piper and Justin Taylor, eds., Suffering and the Sovereignty of God (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2006), 42.

And God’s love is limited greatly.

  • When we say that God is Sovereign in the exercise of His love, we mean that He loves whom He chooses. God does not love everybody. — A.W. Pink

Dr. Flowers plays a recent teaching released by Dr. John Piper on Ephesians 1:11-14 in order to demonstrate the error of the Calvinistic interpretation.

Eph. 1:11 is one of the most used proof texts to support the Calvinistic doctrine of theistic determinism, the concept that God has sovereignly and unchangeably decreed whatsoever comes to pass, including every sinful inclination and action.

 

“The Face of God” Michael Knowles and Dr. Jeremiah Johnston

Published by Papa Giorgio

Just as a pat on my back, I have been following this guy since his “infancy” in apologetics in the public (social media now) square. I am so stoked for Doctor J to be on the cutting edge of delivering and studying this stuff. (See my Previous Post on the matter via Doc J.)

Is the Shroud of Turin the real burial cloth of Jesus Christ—or the greatest mystery in Christian history? In this powerful episode of Michael &, Michael Knowles is joined by theologian and historian Dr. Jeremiah Johnston to uncover the mind-blowing discoveries surrounding the Shroud. From scientific analysis and historical evidence to theological significance, they explore what makes the Shroud one of the most studied and debated relics in the world—and what it could mean for believers today.

The Theme This Week? Courage & Hounds of Heaven | #GodIsGood

Published by Papa Giorgio

(First posted in October of 2023) Okay… two main themes came to my mind at the most recent Bible study at church… the first is the theme, “COURAGE.” The second is the idea of the “HOUNDS OF HEAVEN“

BTW, there is a sermon rolling around in here somewhere for you pastors/speakers

(Skip my linked contents to start reading)

JUMP DOWN TO:

UNDER – COURAGE

UNDER – HOUNDS OF HEAVEN (JUMP)

COMMENTARIES

  • Robert D. Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, vol. 7, The New American Commentary (Jump)
  • Herbert Livingston, “2191 רָעַע,” in Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (Jump)
  • Ronald F. Youngblood, 1, 2 Samuel, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 & 2 Samuel (Jump)
  • Walter Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, Interpretation, a Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching (Jump)

PDFs

  • The Significance of The Verb Love In The David-Jonathan Narratives In 1 Samuel (PDF)
  • Hamôr Lehem (1 Samuel 16:20): “So Jesse took a donkey loaded with bread, a skin of wine, and one young goat and sent them by his son David to Saul.” — Ass-Load (getting into the weeds of the Masoretic Text | PDF)
  • Old Testament Cross-Culturalism: Paradigmatic or Enigmatic? (PDF)

Paradigmatic: 1. Of or relating to a paradigm. 2. Linguistics Of or relating to the set of substitutional or oppositional relationships a linguistic unit has with other units, such as the relationship between (n) in not and other sounds that could be substituted for it in the same context, like (t) and (p). Together with the set of syntagmatic relations, paradigmatic relations describe the identity of a linguistic unit in a given language. (American Heritage Dictionary)
Enigmatic: Of or resembling an enigma; puzzling: a professor’s enigmatic grading system. See Synonyms at mysterious. (American Heritage Dictionary)

COURAGE

In Christian circles you often hear the term “confirmation” used. Not as in being confirmed in your salvation, or baptized…. but as in I had something I was thinking or praying for, and it was confirmed by the Lord. I would say my “tri-fecta,” or “hat-trick” to put it in hockey terms, was just that. It may have been merely coincidence, but even if not “divinely planned,” it was “divinely” applied to my walk by the Holy Spirit stirring in me Biblical truths.

  1. On October 12th I went to a Shelby Steele event, he spoke often of “courage” and “moral courage” (I uploaded my take on it on the 19th)
  2. This past Sunday (the 22nd) my Pastor ended his sermon speaking about courage.
  3. and on Monday (the 23rd), the men’s Bible study was going through 1st Samuel 17 and noted was David’s courage alongside Israel’s loss of it.

(1) SHELBY STEELE

On October 12th, I went to go see Dr. Shelby Steele at our local college… I wrote about my thoughts HERE. I have a section in that post on COURAGE.

Courage was a theme of Dr. Steele’s because he spoke of (A) the black culture not acting on their freedom, which takes courage; rather than the easy way out of the grievance culture where they receive handouts (emotional and/or monetary).

To communicate the following, publicly, but more importantly to act on it — takes courage:

“Racism is over with,” said Steele.  

In modern America, Steele feels free now.  

Smyth asked Steele what conservatism meant to him and he answered by saying that conservatism is a devotion to that freedom.  

“I say this to Blacks, you can be free, if you are not afraid to be free,” said Steele. 

A woman in the below video says she is on the fence when it comes to society allowing black folks freedom like the kind Shelby Steele was talking about. Her question relates to being held back… Shelby says whatever you feel like you are being held back in, do it (roughly adapted). He was saying, I think, test your theory.

To put yourself out like that and stand up to the narrative takes — courage.

(B) When one confronts the current laissez-faire use of pronouns and distortion of language, whites are labeled as racist, blacks as uncle Toms. One of the tactics of the Left is to silence the opposition by labeling them as: sexist, intolerant, xenophobic, homophobic, Islamophobic, racist, bigoted (S.I.X.H.I.R.B.). Overcoming the fear of being accused of these things, and confronting the lies of this “WOKE” culture takes what? COURAGE.

(2) MY PASTOR

I wrote a bit on Courage; Even though I saw Doc Steele on the 12th, I uploaded my post on it on the 19th. Sunday church service was on the 22nd, so “courage” was fresh in my mind. At the beginning of the service Pastor Todd spoke about a historical trip he went on during his sabbatical. He opened with touring the “behind the scenes war rooms, planning bunkers” Winston Churchill and others used to make battle plans…. Then at the end of the service he picked up the story again and tied is into the sermon.

The Apostle Paul was traveling on essentially unpoliced and dangerous roads for thousands of miles, having Jewish and Roman authorities looking for him ta’ boot — all to spread the Good News of Jesus — took courage.

So, in the below video I cobbled together a bit of a montage:

However, these are two of the three connecting themes….

I had a “hat-trick”…..

Enter…

(3) MEN’S BIBLE STUDY

At the recent men’s Bible study this past Monday, we went over 1st Samuel 16 and 17… Courage was part of the theme:

  • …When Saul and all Israel heard these words from the Philistine, they lost their courage and were terrified (17:11)….David said to Saul, “Don’t let anyone be discouraged by him; your servant will go and fight this Philistine!” (17:32).

David’s courage in battle against Goliath spread to his fellow Israelites who were infected with it.

I was then drawn to Hebrews 10:35-39 (HCSB)

35 So don’t throw away your confidence, which has a great reward. 36 For you need endurance, so that after you have done God’s will, you may receive what was promised.

37 For yet in a very little while,

the Coming One will come and not delay.

38 But My righteous one will live by faith;

and if he draws back,

I have no pleasure in him.

39 But we are not those who draw back and are destroyed, but those who have faith and obtain life.

….“If any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him.” Draw back means “to take in sail.”

  • But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul [Heb. 10:39].

The writer to the Hebrews did not consider that they had drawn back, but he is speaking of the danger of doing so, and he is giving them this warning. Since draw back means “to take in sail,” the believer is like a sailor who should let out all the sail. That is what the writer has been telling these folk—“Let us go on!” His thought is that a believer could reef his sails—become stranded because of discouragement, because of persecution, because of hardship, because of depression. But since we have a living Savior, let’s go on. Let’s open up all the sails. Let’s move out for God.

You remember the story of the French Huguenots. They were persecuted, and they were betrayed. When France destroyed them, it destroyed the best of French manhood and womanhood. The French Huguenots went into battle, knowing they were facing certain death, and their motto was: “If God be for us, who can be against us?” The nation of France has never since been the nation it was before it destroyed these people.

We believers today need a motto like the Huguenots. There is a lot of boo–hooing today among Christians. There is a lot of complaining and criticizing. There are a bunch of crybabies and babies that need to be burped.

Oh, my Christian friend, the whole tenor of this marvelous epistle is “Let us go on.” So let us go on for God!

Vernon McGee, Thru the Bible Commentary: The Epistles (Hebrews 8-13), electronic ed., vol. 52 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1991), 65–66.

So the speaker at the Men’s group had our tables discuss topics from the passages… using health or other trials as maybe needing some courage to survive, address, and the like. I shared with the men my “tri-fecta” culminating with this battle, and related it to the battle we currently face as Christians in this increasingly pagan and secular America.

We need courage to enter battle with it. To be able to withstand accusations, or the [as already noted] laissez-faire use of pronouns and distortion of language. (To get a taste of this “extent of language distortion” explained well, I excerpted a few pages from Mark Goldblatt’s book (PDF), “I Feel, Therefore I Am” — it is a must read I think.)

To stand up to all this takes courage.

Okay, pivot to my next topic….

HOUNDS OF HEAVEN

During Monday’s Bible study, as we got to this portion of 1st Samuel 16:14-23,

14 Now the Spirit of the Lord had left Saul, and an evil spirit sent from the Lord began to torment him, 15 so Saul’s servants said to him, “You see that an evil spirit from God is tormenting you. 16 Let our lord command your servants here in your presence to look for someone who knows how to play the lyre. Whenever the evil spirit from God troubles you, that person can play the lyre, and you will feel better.”

17 Then Saul commanded his servants, “Find me someone who plays well and bring him to me.”

18 One of the young men answered, “I have seen a son of Jesse of Bethlehem who knows how to play the lyre. He is also a valiant man, a warrior, eloquent, handsome, and the Lord is with him.”

19 Then Saul dispatched messengers to Jesse and said, “Send me your son David, who is with the sheep.” 20 So Jesse took a donkey loaded with bread, a skin of wine, and one young goat and sent them by his son David to Saul. 21 When David came to Saul and entered his service, Saul admired him greatly, and David became his armor-bearer. 22 Then Saul sent word to Jesse: “Let David remain in my service, for I am pleased with him.” 23 Whenever the spirit from God troubled Saul, David would pick up his lyre and play, and Saul would then be relieved, feel better, and the evil spirit would leave him.

(HOLMAN CHRISTIAN STANDARD BIBLE [HCSB])

I camped out a bit in the text using some commentaries I had open in my LOGOS APP. I include the extended section of the commentary below. (JUMP TO IT IF YOU WISH.) The part that I camped on was this: “Now the Spirit of the Lord had left Saul, and an evil spirit sent from the Lord began to torment him.”

I have already covered the larger topic at hand a bit: “Conversations with Lemmings: Did God “Create” Evil (Isaiah 45:7)“

However, the commentary reminded me of “The Hounds of Heaven” and how often they can feel lie the “hounds of hell.” God sent an Angel of Judgement (as I see it) to Saul… this is what troubled him to the point of agony. In those who are God’s elect, this Angel “The Hound of Heaven” chases us to Calvary. Was God — who wishes all to come to saving knowledge of Him — wanting the same for Saul? Giving him the opportunity to repent, but knowing [in His foreknowledge] he wouldn’t, opening the door to a man after His own heart.

I previously posted a well-known poem about the Hounds of Heaven by Francis Thompson in 1893, after comedian Jeff Allen’s testimony that I isolated. C.S. Lewis was surely familiar with this 1893 poem as he intimated God chasing him into the Kingdom of Heaven.

However, if you are unfamiliar with this poem, here is a more in-depth dealing with the grace that exudes from it, followed by a slight dive into the mention of The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe:

Tea with C.S. Lewis

….Francis Thompson died on this day, November 13, 1907. He famously wrote the 182-line poem “The Hound of Heaven” about the hound who single-mindedly pursues his catch across the countryside for as long as it takes. This was Thompson’s story. God never gave up on him even when he was living on the streets of London in the pits of opium addiction. God never stopped his pursuit. And even though Thompson’s grave today is overgrown, neglected and almost impossible to find in a cemetery on the outskirts of Manchester England, the rejoicing continues in heaven over one sinner who made his way home. Maybe Francis Thompson will be there, quietly sitting on the edge in quiet thanksgiving.

“I fled Him, down the nights and down the days;

I fled Him, down the arches of the years;

I fled Him, down the labyrinthine ways

Of my own mind; and in the midst of tears…

Naked I waited Thy loves’ uplifted stroke!”

[….]

Rise, clasp My hand, and come!’

Halts by me that footfall:

Is my gloom, after all,

Shade of His hand, outstretched caressingly?

‘Ah, fondest, blindest, weakest,

I am He Whom thou seekest!

Thou dravest love from thee, who dravest Me.’

“Dravest” means to drive away. Thompson’s last line holds his greatest insight, as he recounts a life of pain and loneliness he realizes that it was because he drove away the loving hand of God. To paraphrase, God is saying: “You drove love away from you when you drove Me away.”

Here is a short documentary on Francis Thompson

This one-way-love that never stops is what Christians call grace. “Grace is love that seeks you out when you have nothing to give in return. Grace is love coming at you that has nothing to do with you. Grace is being loved when you are unloveable” (Paul Zahl). Grace is what distinguishes Christianity from every other religion. All the other religions instruct us to do something: to climb an achievement ladder, to make certain pilgrimages, to quiet dissonant voices in order to show God our faithfulness and attention. Christianity emphatically says, “It’s not your faithfulness that counts, but God’s!” While other religions say, “you get what you deserve,” Christianity says we get what we don’t deserve because God is a gracious Heavenly Father who is kind to the ungrateful and wicked (Luke 6:35). He loved them to the end (John 13:1).

Only God knows how many people have come to see Jesus as loving Father by reading C. S. Lewis’s Mere Christianity or The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. Maybe there will be an afternoon tea in heaven where Lewis and Joy Davidman can meet with those who know and love God because God used them in this way. And perhaps Francis Thompson will be there too, quietly on the edges with a smile of thanksgiving.

Reckless Love

Which brings me to a song I was recently exposed to and absolutely love. It is called Reckless Love. The song explains God’s “Reckless Love” for those assured of salvation in the bosom of God. Where no one [or ourselves] can snatch us from his hand! The Gospel of John, 10:28–29:

  • I give them eternal life, and they shall never die. No one can snatch them away from me. What my Father has given me is greater than everything, and no one can snatch them away from the Father’s care. (American Bible Society, The Holy Bible: The Good News Translation, 2nd ed)

I view this song as a singing of Francis Thompson’s poem:

LYRICS

Before I spoke a word, You were singing over me
You have been so, so good to me
Before I took a breath, You breathed Your life in me
You have been so, so kind to me

Oh, the overwhelming, never-ending, reckless love of God
Oh, it chases me down, fights ’til I’m found, leaves the ninety-nine
I couldn’t earn it, and I don’t deserve it, still, You give Yourself away
Oh, the overwhelming, never-ending, reckless love of God, yeah

When I was Your foe, still Your love fought for me
You have been so, so good to me
When I felt no worth, You paid it all for me
You have been so, so kind to me

Oh, the overwhelming, never-ending, reckless love of God
Oh, it chases me down, fights ’til I’m found, leaves the ninety-nine
I couldn’t earn it, and I don’t deserve it, still, You give Yourself away
Oh, the overwhelming, never-ending, reckless love of God, yeah

There’s no shadow You won’t light up
Mountain You won’t climb up
Coming after me
There’s no wall You won’t kick down
Lie You won’t tear down
Coming after me

There’s no shadow You won’t light up
Mountain You won’t climb up
Coming after me
There’s no wall You won’t kick down
Lie You won’t tear down
Coming after me

There’s no shadow You won’t light up
Mountain You won’t climb up
Coming after me
There’s no wall You won’t kick down
Lie You won’t tear down
Coming after me

There’s no shadow You won’t light up
Mountain You won’t climb up
Coming after me
There’s no wall You won’t kick down
Lie You won’t tear down
Coming after me

Oh, the overwhelming, never-ending, reckless love of God
Oh, it chases me down, fights ’til I’m found, leaves the ninety-nine
And I couldn’t earn it, I don’t deserve it, still, You give Yourself away
Oh, the overwhelming, never-ending, reckless love of God, yeah

J. VERNON MCGEE

GOD’S “WOODSHED”

This excellent short treatise by J.D. GREEAR, of the idea of God having His claws in us via C.S. Lewis and his The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader:

Dragged Into the Kingdom, Kicking and Screaming

C. S. Lewis has one of the more intriguing stories of conversion. In his autobiography, Surprised by Joy, he called himself “the most dejected, reluctant convert in all of England . . . drug into the kingdom kicking, struggling, resentful, and darting his eyes in every direction for a chance of escape.” Somehow that doesn’t usually make the list of people’s favorite C.S. Lewis quotes.

It’s important to see what Lewis isn’t saying: he’s not saying that he regrets becoming a Christian. (Remember, it’s Surprised by Joy.) And he’s not trying to weigh in on the Calvinism/Arminian debate (though he does elsewhere). C.S. Lewis is saying that God often pursues us long before we have any inkling of what he’s up to. More often than not, we don’t like the pursuit.

A scene that beautifully captures Lewis’ experience is in his Voyage of the Dawn Treader. One of the main characters—a boy named Eustace—has developed an evil heart and becomes a dragon. He wants to be a boy again, so Aslan leads him to a pristine fountain of water. Listen to Eustace (and behind him, C.S. Lewis), describe his experience:

The water was as clear as anything and I thought if I could get in there and bathe it would ease the pain. But the lion [Aslan] told me I must undress first.

So I started scratching myself and my scales began coming off all over the place. And then I scratched a little deeper and, instead of just scales coming off here and there, my whole skin started peeling off beautifully. In a minute or two I just stepped out of it. I could see it lying there beside me, looking rather nasty. It was a most lovely feeling. So I started to go down into the well for my bathe.

But just as I was going to put my feet into the water I looked down and saw that [the skin on my feet was] all hard and rough and wrinkled and scaly just as it had been before.

[Eustace then repeats the process a second and third time, growing increasingly despairing.]

Then the lion said, ‘You will have to let me undress you.’ I was afraid of his claws, I can tell you, but I was pretty nearly desperate now. So I just lay flat down on my back to let him do it.

The very first tear he made was so deep that I thought it had gone right into my heart. And when he began pulling the skin off, it hurt worse than anything I’ve ever felt. The only thing that made me able to bear it was just the pleasure of feeling the stuff peel off.

Well, he peeled the beastly stuff right off – just as I thought I’d done it myself the other three times, only they hadn’t hurt – and there it was lying on the grass: only ever so much thicker, and darker, and more knobbly-looking than the others had been. Then he caught hold of me – I didn’t like that much for I was very tender underneath now that I’d no skin on – and threw me into the water. It smarted like anything, but only for a moment. After that it became perfectly delicious and as soon as I started swimming and splashing I found that all the pain had gone. And then I saw why. I’d turned into a boy again.

If you’re feeling God’s pursuit like the “claws” of a lion, know that while it may be painful, it’s not punishment. God never desires to pay you back, but to bring you back. Will you let him?

All this resonates with me as I was chased into an L.A. County super-max jail facility by my Savior. God’s Holy Spirit chased and judged righteously my actions and rejection of God. I responded only by the grace of God. I love because He first [and miraculously — through the Miracle of Calvary] loved me, 1st John 4:13-19,

13 This is how we know that we remain in Him and He in us: He has given assurance to us from His Spirit. 14 And we have seen and we testify that the Father has sent His Son as the world’s Savior. 15 Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God—God remains in him and he in God. 16 And we have come to know and to believe the love that God has for us. God is love, and the one who remains in love remains in God, and God remains in him.

17 In this, love is perfected with us so that we may have confidence in the day of judgment, for we are as He is in this world. 18 There is no fear in love; instead, perfect love drives out fear, because fear involves punishment. So the one who fears has not reached perfection in love. 19 We love because He first loved us.

(HOLMAN CHRISTIAN STANDARD BIBLE [HCSB])

Which continues the above in thankfulness that God saw in me something to be desired. Sought after. Brought to “the wood shed” over.

The beauty, wonder, and distinction of God is His amazing grace. There is no ambiguity with God. The Lord is not fickle but loves and holds tight even when we are unlovely and practice avoidance. When God pursues, God finds; when God holds on, there is no letting go.

This trustworthy saying of Scripture is a good, short, solid expression of theological truth to memorize, meditate upon, and say to ourselves repeatedly.  We belong to Jesus Christ.  God is with us.  The Hound of Heaven will always sniff us out and bring us to himself.

(REV. TIM EHRHARDT)

Amen?

One last “HOUND OF HEAVEN “drop” by Ben Witherington the III, from his Biblical Theology: The Convergence of the Canon:

One of the problems with discussions about covenant, in both OT and NT scholarly circles, is that the discussion doesn’t always, and in some cases doesn’t often, take into account history. It is an abstract theological discussion, based on a certain kind of view of God’s HESED or his tenacious loyalty to a covenant or covenants with his people. This, I would suggest, is a mistake, because covenants are always historical agreements, in this case between God and his people. The biblical writers did their theologizing out of their narrative thought world, but that thought world was not grounded in some idealized ver­sion of their story, but rather was based in their understanding of how that story worked out in the actual history of God’s people.

Covenants in antiquity, including biblical ones, were two- way streets. The very reason there were curse and blessing sanctions was because it was expected that God’s people would respond appropriately, and if they didn’t, they could expect punishment. A God of righteousness and holiness could not overlook or pass over sin forever. It had to be dealt with. And if the covenant was flagrantly, knowingly, and repeatedly broken by God’s people, God was under no obligation to: (1) keep the Old Covenant, or (2) renew that covenant, or (3) inaugurate an entirely New Covenant. It was entirely up to Yahweh how things would be going forward, or whether the relationship would go forward at all.

And this brings us back to the word HESED once more. As we have already noted in this study, the basic way this word is repeatedly translated in the LXX is “mercy.” Now, mercy is not an obligation, much less a covenantal obligation. Mercy is when you don’t get what you deserve, and in this case, that would mean when God does not enact the covenant curse sanctions or simply cut himself off from his wayward people. Hos. 11, a text we have already discussed, tells us that God is not like human beings, and he will have mercy on his wayward people. What needs to be stressed about this is that this is not because of a covenantal obligation to do so. Indeed, it is in spite of an extant covenantal curse sanction! Rather, this is an expression of God’s character! God is not obligated to have mercy on his sinful people. HESED means mercy or loving kindness, even on those who do not deserve it, and to whom God has no duty to show mercy.

The fact that God, again and again, like the proverbial “hound of heaven” in the famous poem by Francis Thompson, comes after his straying people, and renews his relationship with them again and again, speaks volumes about the character of Yahweh, but implies nothing about covenantal continuity, nor about whether or not the New Covenant is a renewal of some form of the Old Covenant. And in any case, renewal is not the same thing as fulfillment. Paul certainly does suggest in Gal. 4 that: (1) the Abrahamic covenant is fulfilled in Christ and in the new covenant he inaugurates, and (2) the Mosaic covenant is one of fading glory and increasing obsolescence (see 2 Cor. 3– 4 and also Hebrews), but the way he talks about these matters makes clear that at least the Apostle to the Gentiles does not see the New Covenant as a renewal of the Mosaic covenant at all.

So, the story of covenanting between the Fall and the Incarnation has various chapters.

There is a Noahic covenant, there is an Abrahamic covenant, there is a Mosaic cov­enant, there is a Davidic covenant, and the element of continuity which connects these various covenants is God’s merciful will to continue to have a chosen people who continue to be called to be a light and blessing to the nations. It will be useful if at this point if we work through these various covenants one by one, noting the differences in the covenants as well as their points of contact.

Ben Witherington, Biblical Theology: The Convergence of the Canon (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. 2019(, 290-291.

In some sense, we all have been brought into the Kingdom of God kicking and screaming.

WHAT TO NOTE: I add as many of the references found in the footnotes of The New American Commentary on Samuel as I can. So while the main commentary excerpt is just one, I provide the reader with access he or she may not have that I do, including a few PDFs. Enjoy:

COMMENTARY

16:14–20 David’s new status before the Lord stood in sharp contrast to Saul’s. When the Lord rejected Saul as king (15:23, 26; 16:1), “the Spirit of the Lord had departed from” (v. 14) him as well.[33] Saul had lost the empowering reality behind the anointing that had marked his selection for divine service earlier (cf. 10:1, 10). But Saul’s condition now was far worse than being without the Lord’s Spirit, for “an evil spirit from the Lord tormented him.” The Hebrew word translated “evil” (Hb. rāʿâ) has a wide range of meanings from “misery” to “moral perverseness.”[34] Thus, it is possible—and perhaps preferable—to interpret the text not to mean that the Lord sent a morally corrupt demon[35] but rather another sort of supernatural being—an angel of judgment (cf. 2 Kgs 19:35)—against Saul that caused him to experience constant misery.[36]

Saul’s tortured state was not an accident of nature, nor was it essentially a medical condition. It was a supernatural assault by a being sent at the Lord’s command, and it was brought on by Saul’s disobedience.[37]

The astounding declaration by the writer in vv. 14–15 reflects a worldview that bears further examination. God, the Creator of the universe, had issued a series of behavioral decrees applicable to all humanity, but especially to Israel, and these were revealed supremely in the Torah. The Torah was a path of life, and obedience to the Torah resulted in life and blessing. To disobey Torah requirements was to leave the path of life and enter into the realm of judgment and death. Through his repeated disobedience to the Torah requirements Saul had entered into a living, personal judgment that God brought against him. This punishment was carried out by a divinely created agent of judgment, “an evil [or “troubling”] spirit from the Lord.”[38]

This is the only time in the Old Testament that an individual is noted as being tormented by a troubling/evil spirit. Evidence that the writer considered Saul’s condition to be unusual is provided by the fact that the verb that describes Saul’s condition (Hb. bāʿat) is used nowhere else in a narrative framework clause in the Torah or Former Prophets; furthermore, the combination of grammatical and lexical features in this clause is rated as the most abnormal in the narrative framework of 1, 2 Samuel.[39]

Though Saul was the one being troubled by the spirit, the writer portrays him as being inert in dealing with it. It was “Saul’s attendants” (v. 15), not Saul himself, who correctly diagnosed his condition; it also was they who suggested an effective treatment for helping him “feel better” (v. 16). Their remedy was one known in Israelite circles to have power in the spiritual world (cf. 2 Kgs 3:15), the playing of harp music. By listening to harp music “when the [troubling]/evil spirit comes” (v. 16), Saul “will feel better.”

The suggestion seemed reasonable to Saul, and he immediately ordered a search for “someone who plays well” (v. 17). But even before a search party could be organized, an unnamed royal servant suggested that they seek “a son of Jesse of Bethlehem who knows how to play the harp” (v. 18). This individual—David—had numerous other qualifications that befit a person who would serve as a royal aide. Militarily, “he is a brave man and a warrior”; socially, “he speaks well”; physically, he “is a fine-looking man”; and spiritually, “the Lord is with him.” The mention of this last trait puts David in company with Isaac, Joseph, Joshua, and Samuel (cf. Gen 26:28; 39:2–3, 21, 23; Josh 6:27; 1 Sam 3:19).

On that recommendation Saul sent a message to Jesse ordering him to deliver his son over to the royal court. Dutifully, Jesse complied. The food that he sent—“a donkey loaded with bread,[40] a skin of wine and a young goat” (v. 20)—probably was meant to serve as David’s provisions since there was as yet no formal taxation system to support people serving in the nation’s political and military establishment.

16:21–23 David came to Saul at Gibeah and “entered his service” (lit., “stood before his face”), and it was not long before the king “loved [ʾāhab] him greatly” (“liked him very much”). So impressed was Saul with this well-recommended shepherd that he decided to make David a permanent member of his court. Saul assigned him a coveted role as “one of his armorbearers.” In this position David was kept close to the king and was thus able to respond immediately “whenever the spirit from God came upon Saul” (v. 23). Gordon cites Qumranic evidence to suggest that David’s songs were accompanied by singing as well.[41] Though David’s musical efforts were effective in providing relief for Saul, the writer understood that David’s success was due to the fact that the Spirit of the Lord was with him in power (vv. 13, 18).

David’s soothing remedy for Saul’s malady was simple yet effective. The Hebrew verb forms in v. 23 suggest that Saul was attacked numerous times by the tormenting spirit; Scripture records two such additional instances (18:10; 19:9), and likely there were others.

The three concluding verses of chap. 16 depict David’s first encounter with the one who would soon devote his life to trying to kill him. The verses play an important role in the larger scheme of 1, 2 Samuel, for they serve as the first evidence that David was a loyal, trustworthy servant of Saul who used his abilities to benefit the king. In spite of Saul’s repeated efforts to kill David, Israel’s next king made absolutely no efforts to bring down Saul’s dynasty. In fact, David performed feats in Saul’s behalf that no one else could, and the king initially appreciated David’s efforts. Any deterioration in the relationship between Saul and David would not be David’s fault.

NOTES

[33] D. Howard, Jr., understands the simultaneous transfer of the Spirit from Saul to David as not only a symbol of the transfer of political power but also a reflection of God’s disapproval of Israel’s manner of establishing the monarchy (“The Transfer of Power from Saul to David in 1 Sam 16:13–14,” JETS 32 [1989]: 473–83). [I uploaded it to be viewed – click to view the PDF]

[34] Cf. TWOT 2.856. [JUMP: I include the full portion of this commentary below, in “A”]

[35] Cf. Youngblood’s option, “alien spirit” (1, 2 Samuel, 688). [JUMP: I include the full portion of this commentary below, in “B”]

[36] The verb בּעת, translated “tormented,” has recently been examined more closely in J. Hoftijzer, “Some Remarks on the Semantics of the Root bʿt in Classical Hebrew,” in Pomegranates and Golden Bells, ed. D. P. Wright et al. (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1995), 777–83. He concludes that the word refers to an experience of extreme fear and incapacitation.

[37] W. Brueggemann suggests that Saul’s “disturbance has to do with alienation rooted in a theological disorder” and is “both theological and psychological” (First and Second Samuel, IBC [Louisville: John Knox, 1990], 125) [JUMP: I include the full portion of this commentary below, in “C”]

[38] This line of reasoning could also be used to explain the enigmatic word spoken to King Ahab by the prophet Micaiah (cf. 1 Kgs 22:19–23).

[39] The fact that the clause is so different from other biblical Hebrew narrative clauses meant that this clause would have been more difficult to process mentally and therefore would have required more attention by a Hebrew speaker reading or listening to the text. As a result the material would have seemed to be “highlighted.” This technique of encoding important and unusual information in grammatically exceptional structures is practiced in human communication of all languages. Cf. R. Bergen, “Evil Spirits and Eccentric Grammar: A Study of the Relationship between Text and Meaning in Hebrew Narrative,” in Biblical Hebrew and Discourse Linguistics (Dallas: SIL, 1994), 320–35.

[40] For a discussion of the phrase חֲמוֹר לֶחֶם cf. D. Tsumura, “ḥămôr leḥem (1 Samuel xvi 20),” VT 42 (1992): 412–14. [I uploaded it to be viewed – click to view the PDF]

[41] Gordon (I and II Samuel, 153), commenting on the apocryphal psalm 11QPsa27. [This is a link to a book, 11Q5 Psalms a (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2010), showing the Hebrew from the Dead Sea Scrolls of portions of Psalm: Col. XXVII, 2 Sam 23:7; David’s Compositions.]

Robert D. Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, vol. 7, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996), 182–184.

REFERENCES

FROM FOOTNOTE #34

רָעָה (rāʿâ). Evil, misery, distress, injury, wickedness. The feminine noun rāʿâ functions much like the masculine adjective, though somewhat more frequently. Often rāʿâ is an adjective too, and qualifies its nouns in terms of the negative function, or condition, and the injurious activity of the noun. God’s own character and attitude measures the value of things and people (II Kgs 8:12; Jer 29:11; cf. Jon 4:2, 6). The phrase “in the sight of the Lord” appears twice (I Sam 12:17; II Kgs 21:20). God’s view deals mostly with moral qualities, but man has his own standards and tends to evaluate his environment as rāʿâ in terms of the pain he experiences.

In a non-moral sense, things are counted as of inferior quality on the basis of their condition. The cows of Pharaoh’s dream were inferior (Gen 41:3–4, 19–20), also land (Num 13:19), and the figs of Jer 24:2–3, 8 were useless for food because of their condition. Beasts were evaluated in terms of their danger to human life (seven references), so also the sword (Ps 144:10). Verbal reports, the times/days, events of life may be bearers of distress and so are rāʿâ (some thirty-five times). The term may designate injury done to the body (over twenty times), or the sorrow one may experience (a dozen times). The feminine noun has the capacity to collectively denote the sum of distressing happenings of life (over twenty times).

This word rāʿâ can label men (Num 14:27, 35; Jer 8:3) or thoughts (Ezk 38:10), but a number of times it is an abstract for the total of ungodly deeds people do, or a person’s inner condition which produces such deeds. The term may label a variety of negative attitudes common to wicked people, and be extended to include the consequences of that kind of lifestyle.

In Jud 9:23; I Sam 16:14–16, 23; 18:10; 19:9 the word qualifies the noun, angels, not to indicate that they were demonic, but that they brought distress, or an abnormal condition to the person affected.

In harmony with the contrast between rāʿâ and ṭôb “good,” God acts with painful punishment against the rāʿâ kind of people (over seventy times; particularly prominent in Jeremiah). He also acts with mercy toward those who will respond to his exhortations (Eccl 11:10; Jer ten times; Jon 3:8), but man must confess (I Sam 12:19; Jer 17:17). On his part, God acts to save man from rāʿâ (Ex 32:14; I Sam 10:19; 25:39) as he promised (I Kgs 21:29; Prov 1:33; Isa 57:1; Jer 23:17; 36:3; Ezk 34:25). And there was advice to the believers on how to keep themselves free from rāʿâ (Ex 23:2; I Sam 12:20; Prov 3:29; 22:3; 24:1; 27:12).

Herbert Livingston, “2191 רָעַע,” in Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, ed. R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke (Chicago: Moody Press, 1999), 856.

FROM FOOTNOTE #35

The arrival of David in the court of Saul (16:14–23)

As noted above, the two halves (vv.1–13, 14–23) of chapter 16 are linked together in various ways and therefore constitute a literary unit. One link is the position of David’s name. “In each of its first appearances it is the object of a verb: in v.13 the spirit of YHWH ‘seizes’ (ṣālaḥ) David, and in v.19 Saul asks Jesse to ‘send’ (šālaḥ) David to him.… The two verbs are very similar in sound, being distinguished only as the two sibilants s and š are distinguished” (Walters, “The Light and the Dark,” pp. 572–73).

In addition, however, the hinge of the chapter underscores, as described in the title of an excellent article by David M. Howard, Jr., “The Transfer of Power From Saul to David in 1 Sam 16:13–14” (JETS 32, 4 [1989]: 473–83 [PDF VIEWABLE HERE]). “The movements of the figures here—YHWH’s Spirit, Samuel, the evil spirit—in relationship to each other effectively tell the story of the transfer of political power and spiritual power from Saul to David” (ibid., p. 477).

14–18 The relationships of four movements in vv.13–14 are clarified in the following chart, which exhibits an ABB’A’ pattern:

Howard summarizes: “When YHWH’s Spirit came upon David his anointer left, leaving him in good hands. When YHWH’s Spirit left Saul an evil spirit came upon him, leaving him in dire straits” (ibid., p. 481).

The Spirit’s coming on David and the Spirit’s leaving Saul were two climactic events that occurred in close sequence to each other (cf. esp. 18:12: “The Lord was with David but had left Saul”). Just as the accession of the Spirit by David was an expected accompaniment of his anointing as Israel’s next ruler (v.13), so the departure of the Spirit from Saul (v.14) should be understood as the negation of effective rule on his part from that time on. No longer having access to Samuel’s counsel, Saul eventually was forced to resort to the desperate expedient of consulting a medium because God had “turned away” from him (28:15; the Heb. verb is the same as the one rendered “departed” in v.14).

The “evil spirit” (v.14), the divinely sent scourge that “tormented” (lit., “terrified,” “terrorized”) Saul, returned again and again (18:10; 19:9). Just as God had sent an evil spirit to perform his will during the days of Abimelech (Judg 9:23), so also he sent an evil spirit on Saul—“both of whom proved to be unworthy candidates for the office” of king in Israel (Howard, “The Transfer of Power,” p. 482). In both instances it was sent in response to their sin, which in Saul’s case was particularly flagrant (13:13–14; 15:22–24). Although the “evil” spirit may have been a demon that embodied both moral and spiritual wickedness, it may rather have been an “injurious” (so NIV mg.) spirit that “boded ill for Saul, one that produced harmful results for him” (Howard, “The Transfer of Power,” p. 482 n. 36). It was thus doubtless responsible for the mental and psychological problems that plagued Saul for the rest of his life.

That God used alien spirits to serve him is taken for granted in the OT (cf. esp. 2 Sam 24:1 with 1 Chronicles 21:1). On occasion God’s people “were not very concerned with determining secondary causes and properly attributing them to the exact cause. Under the divine providence everything ultimately was attributed to him; why not say he did it in the first place?” (Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., Hard Sayings of the Old Testament [Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1988], p. 131; cf. also Gleason L. Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982], p. 180: “Saul’s evil bent was by the permission and plan of God. We must realize that in the last analysis all penal consequences come from God, as the Author of the moral law and the one who always does what is right [Gen. 18:25]”; cf. Fredrik Lindstrom, God and the Origin of Evil [Lund: Gleerup, 1983]).

As French marechal (“blacksmith”) developed into marshal, and as chambellan (“bedchamber attendant”) developed into chamberlain, so also ʿeḇeḏ (“servant”) came to mean “attendant,” “official” in royal circles in Israel, beginning during the days of Saul. The title was conferred on high officials and is found inscribed on their seals. It was also employed side by side with the use of the term as a conventional way of referring to oneself while addressing a superior (cf. conveniently Talmon, p. 64 and nn. 34–36). Thus Saul’s “attendants,” aware that their king was being tormented by an evil spirit (v.15), referred to themselves as his “servants” (same Heb. word) who were ready and eager to help (v.16; cf. v.17; 17:32, 34, 36; 18:5 [“officers”], 22, 24; 19:1; 28:7).

Perhaps sensing that “music hath charms to soothe the savage breast,” Saul’s attendants offered to look for someone to play the “harp” (kinnôr; cf. comment on 10:5) to make their master “feel better” (v.16). Pictorial representations of the asymmetrical harp or lyre ranging from the twelfth to seventh centuries b.c. can help us visualize what David’s harp looked like (cf. Biblical Archaeology Review 8, 1 [1982]: 22, 30, and esp. 34). Walters (“The Light and the Dark,” p. 582) points out that of the fifteen OT occurrences of niggēn (“play [an instrument]”), seven appear in this section of 1 Samuel (vv.16 [bis], 17, 18, 23; 18:10; 19:9) and thus serve at the outset to highlight the reputation of David as “Israel’s singer of songs” (2 Sam 23:1).

Saul agreed with his attendants’ counsel (v.17), and one of his “servants” (lit., “young men,” a different Heb. word than that rendered “attendants” in v.15 and “servants” in v.16) suggested that a certain son of Jesse would meet Saul’s needs admirably (v.18). In the course of doing so, the servant gave—in a series of two-worded Hebrew phrases—as fine a portrayal of David as one could wish. Understandably he began with a characterization of him as a musician and then continued by describing him as a “brave man” (the same Heb. phrase is used of Saul’s father, Kish, and is translated “man of standing” in 9:1), a “warrior” (translated “fighting man” of Goliath in 17:33 and “experienced fighter” of David in 2 Sam 17:8), a discerning and articulate speaker, and a handsome man as well. The servant’s final descriptive phrase—set off from what precedes by a major disjunctive accent in the MT (Masoretic text)—reminds us that just as the Lord was with Samuel (3:19), so also he was with David. This latter attribute becomes yet another Leitmotif for David (17:37; 18:12, 14, 28; 2 Sam 5:10; so Walters, “The Light and the Dark,” pp. 570–71; McCarter, “The Apology of David,” pp. 499, 503–4). Although unwittingly, Saul’s servant has just introduced us to Israel’s next king.

A modern assessment of David’s character and career sees him as “giant-slayer, shepherd, musician, manipulator of men, outlaw, disguised madman, loyal friend and subject, lover, warrior, dancer and merrymaker, father, brother, son, master, servant, religious enthusiast, and king” and then asks, “What are we to make of this enormous portrait? Where do we begin?” (Kenneth R.R. Gros Louis, “King David of Israel,” in Literary Interpretations of Biblical Narratives edd. Kenneth R.R. Gros Louis and James S. Ackerman [Nashville: Abingdon, 1982], 2:205). The rest of our commentary can only tentatively analyze these and other aspects of the personality and deeds of this most complex of all Israelite kings. For now, a gentle irony: Although Saul’s servant agreed with the positive contemporary consensus that kings and courtiers should be “fine-looking” (v.18), the same Hebrew word is preceded by a negative particle in its description of great David’s greater Son as one who had “no beauty” (Isa 53:2).

19–23 Again Saul, influenced by a servant’s suggestion, sent for the man described: Jesse’s son—here, for only the second time so far, identified by the name David (v.19). Saul’s reference to David as being “with the sheep” thus identifies him as a shepherd and uses “language which refers allusively to him as a kingly figure” (Walters, “The Light and the Dark,” p. 575). Like Jesse earlier (cf. v.11 and comment), Saul unwittingly characterizes David as Israel’s next king.

It is often stated that numerous inconsistencies, especially in matters of detail, exist in the early stories of David and Saul (for a typical list, see Emmanuel Tov, “The Composition of 1 Samuel 16–18 in the Light of the Septuagint Version,” in Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism ed. Jeffrey H. Tigay [Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1985], pp. 121–22). The appropriate response to such alleged discrepancies is not, however, to seek refuge in the fact that in chapters 16–18 “the Masoretic Text has 80 percent more verses than does the LXX” (ibid., p. 99) and thus to attribute the differences to an attempt by the standardizers of the present Hebrew text to include variant readings whether or not they could be harmonized. Nor should one assume the prior existence of two or more different narratives of how David rose to power, along the lines of the now discredited documentary hypothesis (for a lively survey of this approach, cf. North, “David’s Rise,” pp. 524–44). Much to be preferred is the method of examining each so-called discrepancy on its own merits in an attempt to determine whether it is more apparent than real.

A case in point: If Saul recognizes David as Jesse’s son in v.19, why does he later ask him whose son he is (17:58)? In the light of the differing contexts in the two chapters, a possible solution comes to mind. In chapter 16 Saul’s initial interest in David was as a harpist, while in chapter 17 he is interested in him primarily as a warrior (according to his customary policy, 14:52). Saul’s question in 17:58, in any event, is only a leadoff question; his conversation with David continued far beyond the mere request for his father’s name (18:1). He probably wanted to know, among other things, “whether there were any more at home like him” (Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, p. 175). It is of course not beyond the realm of possibility that Saul simply forgot the name of David’s father during the indeterminate period between chapters 16 and 17.

A firm believer in the truth later expressed in Proverbs 18:16—“a gift opens the way for the giver/and ushers him into the presence of the great”—Jesse sent David to take bread, wine, and a young goat (staple items; cf. 10:3) to Saul (v.20). Obviously impressing Saul (v.21), David “entered his service” (wayyaʿamōḏ lep̱ānāyw lit., “stood before him,” a common idiom in the ancient Near East [cf. v.22, “remain in my service”]; the Akkadian semantic equivalent is uzuzzu pani) as an armor-bearer. Although skilled men can expect to be pressed into service by kings (Prov 22:29), Saul also “liked” David personally (the same Heb. verb describes Jonathan’s relationship to David and is translated “loved”; cf. 18:1, 3; 20:17). At the same time the narrator may well be playing on the ambiguity of the verb ʾāhēḇ (“love”) in these accounts, since it can also have political overtones in covenant/treaty relationships (so J.A. Thompson, “The Significance of the Verb Love in the David-Jonathan Narratives in 1 Samuel,” VetTest 24, 3 [1974]: 335 [PDF VIEWABLE HERE]).

Obviously delighted with David, Saul engages him as one of his servants (v.22). Sandwiched between the two occurrences of the noun rûaḥ (“spirit”) in v.23 is the verb rāwaḥ (“relief would come”). The noun and the verb both come from the same root (rwḥ) and thus constitute an elegant wordplay, stressing that David’s skill as a harpist brings soothing “relief” that drives the evil “spirit” from the disturbed king (cf. similarly Walters, “The Light and the Dark,” p. 578).

The chapter ends with a gifted young man, Israel’s future king, coming to serve a rejected and dejected ruler who is totally unaware of the implications of his welcoming David into his court. Not just “a handsome yokel with a rustic lyre,” Jesse’s son is the anointed king (ibid., p. 581).

Ronald F. Youngblood, “1, 2 Samuel,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 & 2 Samuel, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 3 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992), 687–691.

FROM FOOTNOTE #37

1 Samuel 16:14–23

The initial anointing of David was a private, even secret, matter (vv. 1–3). Now it is time for David to become publicly visible. At the outset of his “reign,” David has only three constituents: Yahweh and Samuel, who are his relentless patrons, and Saul, who is to become a more ambiguous patron. He has been dealt with already by Yahweh (and Samuel); now it is Saul’s turn to deal with David.

There is a deep and intentional tension in the story of 16:14–23, requiring us to trace two story lines. Ostensibly this story is about Saul, Saul’s sickness and Saul’s source of health. But underneath that interest is the story of David’s road to power. Of this second story, Saul knows nothing. Conversely, David’s relentless road to power renders Saul (and the story line of Saul’s illness) fundamentally irrelevant and finally of no interest to the life and faith of Israel. How ironic that a story apparently featuring Saul is in fact interested in Saul only as a foil for David’s advance.

There are twin dangers in approaching the pathology of Saul. On the one hand, we can read his situation as though it were the result of a supernatural theological verdict without reference to the experiential reality of life. On the other hand, we can seek to banish such supernaturalism by reducing his ailment to psychology. We shall misunderstand, however, if we appropriate the sickness as mere theology or only psychology. Israel’s faith is much more embedded in living reality than to deal only with a theological conclusion. Conversely, the narrative itself guards against an absolute psychological assessment in verse 23. (The rsv does the interpreter a disservice through its translation of this section. In the rsv, “Spirit” is capitalized in v. 14 and is in lower case in v. 23, suggesting a theological and then a psychological reading. But that is only a translator’s inclination. In fact “the spirit” is the same at the beginning and at the end of the narrative, capitalized or not.)

Saul is indeed a disturbed man, and the disturbance has to do with alienation rooted in a theological disorder. The disorder must be seen, however, as both theological and psychological in order to understand the powerful ministration of David, who is Yahweh’s antidote for every ailment in Israel.

16:14–18. Saul’s problem is the visitation of an evil spirit (v. 15); the solution is healing music (v. 16). The problem is with Saul; the solution will be carried by David. It may trouble our positivistic minds that the disorder of Saul is attributed to an evil spirit, and it may trouble us more that the evil spirit is credited to God. We must remember that the world of biblical perspective is a world without secondary cause. All causes are finally traced back to the God who causes all, who “kills and brings to life” (2:6). This narrative simply assumes that the world is ordered by the direct sovereign rule of God. All the spirits that beset human persons are dispatched from this single source (cf. 1 Kings 22:19–23).

Saul is eager to be healed (v. 17). He orders immediately that help be secured. He is an influential person entitled to the best health care available. Through verse 17 there are no surprises in this episode. We have an ordinary sequence of illness, diagnosis, prescription, and instruction to get available help. Yet, lingering not too far below the story line of Saul’s illness, the David story line already begins to assert itself. Saul’s imperative “provide” (see, ra’ah, v. 17) is the same word Yahweh used in referring to the choice of David (v. 1). David is “provided” by Yahweh and now is “provided” to Saul.

It is verse 18 that claims our attention. The speaker who answers Saul is too eager and knows too much. It is as though this character in the narrative has memorized his long line and is waiting for a chance to speak it. He “overnominates” David, who is overqualified for the job of musician. The royal appointment of a “therapist” must be well qualified. He must be skilled as a player, of “good presence,” and it is fortunate if God is with him (v. 18). David overpowers the job—and the narrative. In addition to those qualifications, David is brave, a man of war, a man of good speech. The narrator is obviously presenting David’s credentials for more than court musician.

The narrative invites us to wonder how it is that a member of Saul’s company should have ready a nominee from an obscure Judean village. Verses 1–13 provide the answer to our wonderment, however. The present availability of David is because of the secret anointing. The anointing will govern David’s story in the way the blessing governs Jacob’s story (Gen. 25:23) and as the dream governs the story of Joseph (Gen. 37:7–9).

16:19–23. The story turns decisively with the appearance of David. After the nominating speech of verse 18, Saul responds in verse 19. He calls David by name. Notice the servant had alluded to David but had not named him. Saul knows and speaks David’s name. David had been named by the narrator in verse 13, but no character in the narrative has yet uttered his name. It is appropriate and compelling that Saul knows it and is the first to name him.

Moreover, Saul invites David into his court. Saul unwittingly summons the very one who now possesses the spirit and will in the end displace him. David is not an intruder. He does not force his way in but comes by royal invitation. Saul knows more than he should about David. He knows David is “with the sheep” (v. 19), a fact not announced in verse 18. We had known it in verse 11, but again Saul is privy to information not previously given him.

The relation between Saul and David is a positive one. “Saul loved him greatly” (v. 21). David is irresistible. Saul might have feared or resented David if he had known the end of the story. He knows only what he sees in David, however.

David’s ministry to Saul does all that Saul might have hoped. (The rsv translation of v. 23 is inadequate, because the text contains a double use of the word “spirit.” When David plays, not only does the evil spirit depart but the spirit comes to Saul. In the rsv this is rendered, “Saul was refreshed.”) Saul’s desperate concern was how to have the spirit of life available, rather than the evil spirit. The narrative makes clear that David makes the spirit of life available to Saul. Saul has life only because David mediates it to him. David is a life-giver, even to Saul!

Walter Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, Interpretation, a Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching (Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 1990), 124–127.

Three Nouns Used of God in the N.T. | Ben Witherington III

Published by Papa Giorgio

I found the “noun” thing very interesting. In the New Testament, there are only three nouns used of God:

  1. God is Love;
  2. God is Life;
  3. God is Light.

A Trinity… if you will.

I am capitalizing the nouns because in God these aspects are full, complete, perfect. In this video, Ben Witherington III here shares his reasons why he’s not a Calvinist.

History Keepers | Glenn Beck for Prager U

Published by Papa Giorgio

Saving History: The Case for Clay Pots

There is no guarantee that future historians will accurately depict the American story. In PragerU’s 2025 commencement address, ‪@glennbeck‬ warns that we all have an obligation to preserve history in our own “clay pots.” If we don’t, historical truth might disappear forever in a fog of political correctness.

The Fall of Minneapolis | 5-Year Anniversary

Published by Papa Giorgio

HOT AIR has a 5-year anniversary marker of the FALL OF MINNEAPOLIS. The entire post should be read and watched… but here is the documentary that busts holes in the narrative. It is long, but so is the depravity of the Democrat Party:

We have reached the 5-year anniversary of the George Floyd riots, which began here in my hometown of Minneapolis and spread throughout the country.

2020 was the year of unrelenting propaganda. By May 2020, you could just assume that anything you were told by the “experts” was a steaming pile of bovine excrement.

The whole point was to create hysteria, because hysteria makes people look to authorities for help. Fear about COVID was ramped up to such a level that only a few people had a decent grasp on reality.

When George Floyd, who died from a drug overdose and not asphyxiation, as we were constantly told, was videoed resisting arrest and dying while being restrained by a white police officer, it became a national obsession, and the world became even more insane. 

Liz Collins’ The Fall of Minneapolis carefully takes you through the facts of that and the subsequent days–something the news media never did–and conclusively demonstrates that Floyd was not “murdered,” that officials committed perjury to cover that fact up, and that Governor Tim Walz and other Minnesota officials allowed–you could even say encouraged–the destruction of the civil peace and of much of my city.