Marital Multiplication

March 28, 2024 at 2:44 pm | Posted in I Chronicles | Leave a comment
Tags: , , , , , , ,

1 Now these were the sons of David, which were born unto him in Hebron; the firstborn Amnon, of Ahinoam the Jezreelitess; the second Daniel, of Abigail the Carmelitess: 2 The third, Absalom the son of Maachah the daughter of Talmai king of Geshur: the fourth, Adonijah the son of Haggith:

I Chronicles 3:1-2

David had seven or eight wives – it’s hard to be sure – and some concubines. From the account in II Samuel and here in I Chronicles we can see that some if not all of these marriages except for Michal, Abigail, and Bathsheba (Bathshua) were for the purpose of political alliances. Absalom was the son of the princess of the foreign king of Geshur, and she is the example given here to indicate that David most likely married her for political reasons.

This practice of “multiplying wives” was forbidden by God’s law, but David – and to a ridiculous extent his son, Solomon – violated this law. However, we should not take their doing so as a basis for trying to justify the sinful practice of polygamy. David had many sons (and a great deal of trouble) because of this. It wasn’t hard for Satan to figure out how to tempt David with Bathsheba. He simply watched and saw his obvious weakness. No man should ever believe that he is beyond temptation.

The Messiah descended directly from Solomon’s line, and Solomon was the son of Bathsheba. When the pattern of listing the descendants of each tribe in I Chronicles, starting with the father of each tribe, is interrupted, it signals to the reader that something noteworthy occurred in the history of God’s people, which the Chronicler injects to remind people that he is not listing mere natural descent, genealogy, and family lines, but is demonstrating the hand of God at work, controlling and guiding this process.

Funny Names in the Bible

March 25, 2024 at 2:20 pm | Posted in Biblical names, I Chronicles | Leave a comment
Tags: , , , , , ,

When I’ve taught through certain books of the Bible which have chapters containing long lists of names, it can be tempting to see a little humor in how some of the names translated or transliterated from Hebrew sound in modern English. However, it’s unlikely that the names listed in Scriptural genealogies or compilations of land inheritances or Temple vocations to the people who actually had those names or saw their ancestors listed there. In fact, the Holy Spirit included these sometimes lengthy genealogies and lists of names and roll calls in the eternal Word because:

1. Names are important to God.
2. Names are important to people.
3. Names sometimes have meanings.
4. Names establish connections to past generations.
5. History is “HIS-story,” and God’s history is accurate, and we need to know that the reporting in the Bible – even in the less spiritually instructive passages – is accurate and true.

And the sons of Jonathan; Peleth, and Zaza. These were the sons of Jerahmeel.

I Chronicles 2:33

The name Zaza (not one of the Gabor sisters) meant brightness or fulness. Perhaps he was born around noontime, or maybe his parents hoped he would be “bright.”

And Caleb the son of Hezron begat children of Azubah his wife, and of Jerioth: her sons are these; Jesher, and Shobab, and Ardon.

I Chronicles 2:18

Azubah meant forsaken (what an odd-sounding name for a child, to us!). Maybe her mother felt forsaken by her husband, or maybe she loved her other children better, we can only speculate, but it would be nice to think that she overcome her “forsakenness,” realizing that she was not forsaken by God, and, in fact,” would be included in His Bible.

And the sons of Shechaniah; Shemaiah: and the sons of Shemaiah; Hattush, and Igeal, and Bariah, and Neariah, and Shaphat, six.

I Chronicles 3:22

Hattush meant “assembled.” He probably made a good husband. His wife wouldn’t have needed an instruction manual to get him to work right. He came into the marriage already put together.

Or perhaps his parents hoped he would be a good organizer or leader – that one day he would put together an assembly of workers, or that he would speak or preach to an assembly of people and hold their attention.

Presently Chronicling the Past with an Eye toward the Future

March 21, 2024 at 11:59 am | Posted in Biblical names, I Chronicles | 2 Comments
Tags: , , , , , , ,

1 Adam, Sheth, Enosh, 2 Kenan, Mahalaleel, Jered, 3 Henoch, Methuselah, Lamech, 4 Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

I Chronicles 1:1-4

The Jewish people tended to think of Abraham as the father of their nation and heritage, but Chronicles reminded them that God traced their beginnings to THE beginning. Over the centuries Chronicles has sometimes gotten a bad rap as merely the leftover bits that were not included in I & II Samuel and I & II Kings. This is partly due to the name given to it in the popular Greek version of the Bible known as the Septuagint. In reality the Chronicles, although perhaps tedious to modern readers in the genealogical sections, have their own purpose. They offer commentary on, and motivation based on, the entire Old Testament.

The descendants of Shem are the ones that lead to Abraham, but Shem, in the verses shown above, is listed last after Ham and Japheth in order to highlight that Shem is the thread to follow, and to segue into the most key figures in Jewish history.

The sons of Shem; Elam, and Asshur, and Arphaxad, and Lud, and Aram, and Uz, and Hul, and Gether, and Meshech.

I Chronicles 1:17

27 Abram; the same is Abraham. 28 The sons of Abraham; Isaac, and Ishmael. 29 These are their generations: The firstborn of Ishmael, Nebaioth; then Kedar, and Adbeel, and Mibsam,

I Chronicles 1:27-29

These “generations” statements (“toldot“) are meant to the mirror the style of Genesis. While the original Hebrew name for Chronicles is something like “The Times of the Days” or “The Things that Went on in Those Days,” it is important to remember that they are more than a mere reporting of history. They are designed to highlight God’s directions to those He has chosen from the beginning, and to remind the people of the nation of Judah that, despite many setbacks, His ultimate promises would be fulfilled.

The Bible’s historical books, and the stories of its historical figures, from Adam to Noah to Abraham to Isaac to Jacob (Israel) to David, instruct us in the present and point us to the future, even as they chronicle the past.

The sons of Judah; Er, and Onan, and Shelah: which three were born unto him of the daughter of Shua the Canaanitess. And Er, the firstborn of Judah, was evil in the sight of the Lord; and he slew him.

I Chronicles 2:3

Ozem the sixth, David the seventh:

I Chronicles 2:15  

Now these were the sons of David, which were born unto him in Hebron; the firstborn Amnon, of Ahinoam the Jezreelitess; the second Daniel, of Abigail the Carmelitess:

I Chronicles 3:1

The Undisputed Champion

March 18, 2024 at 12:59 pm | Posted in Philippians | 1 Comment
Tags: , , , , , , ,

There is a poetic shift in perspective or a poignant contrast after Philippians 2:8 which segues from the the ideas of condescension and kenosis to exaltation and glory.

Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:

Philippians 2:9

The “wherefore” and the initiative of God in doing this – in exalting the Son and in giving Him this uniquely honorable name – lets us see this as partly a “reward” to Jesus for His obedience and self-humbling – for His kenotic life and His sacrificial death. And we can’t deny the reality of that, but we also can’t tip over into a purely ethical application, or else we will see our own glorification by God as a reward for our obedience and see our salvation as something earned rather than freely given.

There is some debate about whether this “name” given to the Son by the Father is “Jesus” or “Kyrios/Lord,” but it seems to me that the very next verse answers that question clearly while also reminding us that Jesus (“Savior”) is a name which was also His by right, and that we are “saved” by Him rather than contributing to our own glorification.

That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;

Philippians 2:10

This bowing is in some sense figurative, if we think of angels and demons as purely spiritual creatures without real, physical, material, anatomical knees, but I would not discount the likelihood that anyone with any kind of a knee will indeed be on them! An abjectly submissive kneeling may not sound, at first blush, all that joyful, but to those of us who rejoice in the togetherness of the Gospel this will be a very willing and joyful kneeling – a kneeling in awe AND love, a kneeling in submission AND joy.

And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Philippians 2:11

This confession will be made by those who love to make it, but it will also be made by those who hate it, and it will not be like the false confession of the victim of a playground bully who, arm twisted painfully behind his back, is compelled to say “uncle” despite his utter lack of actual “nephewdom.” No, this will be a true confession, and its veracity will be fully known even by those who will not want to say it. Jesus will truly be recognized as the “undisputed” champion of the world – and of Heaven and hell and all of existence.

Worldview Finder: Exclusivity

March 13, 2024 at 4:00 pm | Posted in Worldview Finder | 2 Comments
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

The Christian worldview looks to the Bible to establish that right and wrong, good and evil, are real. The opposing view, Nihilism, is a logically inconsistent system which denies the reality of shared experience and perceptions, as well as the existence of human conscience and innate knowledge of morality. Christians acknowledge God and His Word as the answer to the “by what standard” question concerning morality. But some people think that this leaves open the possibility that there may be other standards which seem to contradict God and His Word, but are just as valid. After all, doesn’t the Bible itself say:

1 Judge not, that ye be not judged. 2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

Matthew 7:1-2

What if the Bible is the right standard for Christians, but another religious tome such as the Koran is the right standard for someone else? Does one or the other have to be wrong? Can’t we just “COEXIST?” Like the blindfolded man unknowingly performing a tactile examination of an elephant, having never seen or heard of one before, and thinking that the trunk is a snake, the side is a wall, the tail is a rope, and the tusk is a spear, couldn’t objective truth and morality just be the subjective misperception of each person’s separate experiences, opinions, and preferences? And doesn’t the Bible itself caution us against jumping to conclusions before taking into account our neighbor’s contradictory viewpoint?

He that is first in his own cause seemeth just; but his neighbour cometh and searcheth him.

Proverbs 18:17

The problem with the sort of reasoning that would support the idea of subjective, relative, or personal-viewpoint-dependent morality has been previously addressed when dealing with the Biblical Christian worldview’s insistence and confirmation of objective truth. And the problem is really highlighted in the popular bumper sticker attempt at virtue signaling known as “COEXIST.”

The reality is that the groups represented in the “COEXIST” paradigm make exclusive and contradictory claims that can’t “just get along” – and at least one of them wants to kill a couple of the others!

The idea that contradictory religious beliefs can be true for different people at the same time is known as Pluralism. Although some people do “experience” the same things in different ways, or give them different names (like misidentified anatomical parts of an elephant), this does not mean that contradictory religious beliefs can both be objectively true. A British “football” player who challenges an American football player to a game might be very upset when the American suddenly tackles him, but the problem is not that they had contradictory but equally true views of football. The problem is that they did not have the same understanding of technical terms. And, like the Pluralist who finds it offensive to hear someone claim this one religion is the only true one, we must carefully notice who is really being arrogant, divisive, and intolerant here: the faithful religious person who interprets his own belief system as exclusively objectively true? Or the outsider who claims everybody (but him) is deceived or mistaken and only he can see the elephant?

A fool hath no delight in understanding, but that his heart may discover itself.

Proverbs 18:2

Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isaiah 43:10

Thus saith the Lord the King of Israel, and his redeemer the Lord of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

Isaiah 44:6

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

John 14:6

Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

Acts 4:12


Entries and comments feeds.