The Rev. Dr. Christopher R. Smith is an an ordained minister, a writer, and a biblical scholar. He was active in parish and student ministry for twenty-five years. He was a consulting editor to the International Bible Society (now Biblica) for The Books of the Bible, an edition of the New International Version (NIV) that presents the biblical books according to their natural literary outlines, without chapters and verses. His Understanding the Books of the Bible study guide series is keyed to this format. He was also a consultant to Tyndale House for the Immerse Bible, an edition of the New Living Translation (NLT) that similarly presents the Scriptures in their natural literary forms, without chapters and verses or section headings.
He has a B.A. from Harvard in English and American Literature and Language, a Master of Arts in Theological Studies from Gordon-Conwell, and a Ph.D. in the History of Christian Life and Thought, with a minor concentration in Bible, from Boston College, in the joint program with Andover Newton Theological School.
Q. I like that you translate the opening of the account as saying “sky” and “land,” since most people assume what’s being mentioned there is the creation of the universe.
Several people I’ve read have been fairly critical of the “Framework View” of this account, mainly because they don’t see the parallelism between the days. I would tend to agree that it does seem like day 2 is the better parallel for day 4 than day 1 (since, if I’m not mistaken, the Hebrews thought that the sun, moon, and stars were in the dome). It also seems like day 3 describes the space created for the sea creatures in day 5, not day 6. Finally, in day 3, there isn’t just a domain created for something to fill but there is also the simultaneous creation of plants to fill the land.
How would you interpret these observations?
My layout of the opening creation account in Genesis does follow what is customarily known as the “Framework View.” Here’s how I’d answer the criticisms of that view which you cite.
First, I see Day 4 as the clear counterpart to Day 1 because Day 4 provides the rulers for the realms created on Day 1. And the language is clearly reminiscent: On Day 1 God separates the light from the darkness, and on Day 4 God creates lights to “separate the day from the night,” to “separate the light from the darkness.” On Day 1 God calls the light “Day” and the darkness “Night,” and on Day 4 God creates two great lights to rule the day and the night. (As I explain in my Genesis study guide, that’s how this account operates. Each realm of creation has its sub-regents, under God’s authority. Humans are created at the end as God’s vice-regents, responsible for all of creation under God.)
Day 2 is the clear counterpart to Day 5 because on Day 2 God makes the dome to separate the waters below the dome from the waters above the dome, i.e. to carve out a demarcated space within the chaotic pre-existing waters. (See this post on the Hebrew view of these waters, which seem to us like eternally existing matter.) Then on Day 5 God populates this carved-out realm, the sea, along with the realm created by the dome itself, the sky.
Day 3 is not about the creation of the seas, it’s about the creation of the land—this is the clear purpose of God’s creative fiat: “Let what is dry appear.” But it is by contrast with the new thing, the land, that the sea is definitively differentiated and named—just as the already-existing darkness gets a name, “Night,” by contrast with “Day.” Sometimes to know what a thing is, you need to know what it is not!
Finally, the green plants are created in the second creative act of Day 3 (“The land brought forth greenery, plants that bore seeds according to their kind, and trees whose seed was in their fruit according to their kind”), and they are mentioned again, in parallel language, in the second creative act of Day 6: “ I have given to you humans as your food every seed-bearing plant that is upon the face of the whole land, and every tree whose fruit makes it a seed-bearing tree.” So we need to understand these plants, even though they are living things (in our view), not as part of the population of the land, but rather as part of that realm itself, making it habitable for people and animals, who are its population proper.
Thanks very much for your questions, and I hope these clarifications are helpful!
Land emerges from the sea as a new volcanic island is formed south of Japan. Land emerging from the sea is the concern of Day 3 of creation in the Genesis account, although a very different mechanism is envisioned.
I thought it would be good to start the new year with a fresh look at the start of the Bible.
As I explain in this post, one of my keen interests is to explore how we can illustrate the structure and composition of biblical writings by the way we lay out their text on the page. Here’s another one of my recent endeavors: a layout in twin columns of the Days of Creation from the beginning of Genesis. Click on the link just below to view or download a PDF of this layout so that you can follow my discussion of it in the rest of the post.
When we lay out the text in this way, we get a number of insights into it. (These features of the account have long been noted by interpreters, but I try to illustrate them visually here.)
First, we see that the account begins with a summary heading and ends with a summary conclusion. Each epitomizes the basic project of creation, which is to make “a place for everything” and then put “everything in its place.” At the start, the land has no “shape” (or structure)–no place to put anything. It has no “substance”–nothing upon it. But by the end, “the sky and the land” (realms of habitation) have been created, as well as “everything in them” (their inhabitants).
This layout uses my own personal translation of the Genesis creation account, which first appeared in the book I co-authored with Dr. Stephen J. Godfrey, Paradigms on Pilgrimage: Creationism, Paleontology, and Biblical Interpretation (now available free online through the link provided). I use the terms “sky” and “land” in the introduction and conclusion because these are the very same Hebrew terms used for the “sky” when it is created on the second day and the “land” when it is created on the third day, and for these locations everywhere else in the account. This translation brings out the fact that creation is being described from the perspective of an earth-bound observer.
I also follow the textual choices recommended in Biblica Hebraica Stuttgartensia, which are supported by ancient versions and some Hebrew manuscripts. These make the account much more regular and consistent in terms of what happens on each day and in what order. With slight variations along the way, this is basically: Divine creative command: “God said” Compliance report (summary): “It was so” Compliance report (detailed): “God made . . .” Divine approval: “God saw that it was good” Naming/blessing Refrain: “There was evening, and there was morning . . .”
This is, in other words, a royal command and compliance chronicle, much like the other places in the Old Testament where God’s commands are recorded and then the narrative is very careful to document how so-and-so did exactly what God had commanded.
This is what we see when we read each column down. When we read across, we see the parallels between opposite days. On Day 1, God makes day and night; on Day 4, God populates the day and the night. The language of Day 4 echoes that of Day 1: “God separated the light from the darkness”; “to separate the light from the darkness.” The same process of first creating realms and then populating them, with similar echoes of language, also happens on Days 2 and 5, and on Days 3 and 6.
When we read across the columns we also see that the first two pairs of days have one divine command, while Days 3 and 6 have double commands. This is a nice echo of a feature of Hebrew poetry: a third line, when used, typically is “weighty” and has an anchoring effect.
I’ve used italics to show how each day ends with the same refrain.
As you look at the text in this translation and layout, what else do you notice that you might not have seen in a more traditional presentation?
A reader interacts with the layout and I respond in this post.
Winslow Homer, “Eastern Point.” For me this painting captures well the elemental realms of creation: sea, sky, and land.
Q. Newsweek just published an article called “The Bible: So Misunderstood That it’s a Sin” — I found the article so loaded with half-truths that it needs to be addressed. Could you be so kind to take a look at this? I really enjoy your Blog!
Thanks for alerting me to this article, which I see was published provocatively only two days before Christmas! Its basic premises are summarized at the end:
“The Bible is a very human book. It was written, assembled, copied and translated by people. That explains the flaws, the contradictions, and the theological disagreements in its pages. Once that is understood, it is possible to find out which parts of the Bible were not in the earliest Greek manuscripts, which are the bad translations, and what one book says in comparison to another, and then try to discern the message for yourself. And embrace what modern Bible experts know to be the true sections of the New Testament.”
But these so-called “modern Bible experts”–only three of them–turn out to be skeptical, critical scholars like Bart Ehrman whose work reflects a strong bias against belief in the Bible as the inspired word of God and as a coherent and faithful reflection of God’s dealings and communications with the community of faith over the centuries. It’s no wonder that with sources like these, the article reaches the conclusions it does.
By relying only on sources that hold one view of the issue, the article violates one of the basic tenets of journalism, which is to tell both sides of a story objectively.
Others have had the space and opportunity to respond to this article at more length and in more depth than I will be able to. (Here, for example, is an articulate response by Albert Mohler, and here is another fine one from New Testament Greek scholar Daniel B. Wallace.) But let me at least acknowledge the accuracy of your perception that the Newsweek article is “loaded with half-truths.” Here’s just one example.
The article says of the pericope of the woman caught in adultery, “Scribes made it up sometime in the Middle Ages.” By contrast, Bruce Metzger, a universally respected expert in New Testament textual criticism, says in his Textual Commentary on the New Testament, “The account has all the earmarks of historical veracity,” even if it is not considered to have been an original part of the gospel of John. The international committee he served with to edit a critical text of the N.T. therefore decided, “in deference to the evident antiquity of the passage,” to include it “within double square brackets at its traditional place” in John. Virtually every other claim in the Newsweek article could be similarly examined and critiqued.
But I think that those who believe in the Bible as the trustworthy and inspired word of God can still take some legitimate challenge from this article. At the start it presents some research by organizations that, if anything, are favorable towards this view, rather than hostile to it, and who found the following:
“A Pew Research poll in 2010 found that evangelicals ranked only a smidgen higher than atheists in familiarity with the New Testament and Jesus’s teachings. ‘Americans revere the Bible—but, by and large, they don’t read it,’’ wrote George Gallup Jr. and Jim Castelli, pollsters and researchers whose work focused on religion in the United States. The Barna Group, a Christian polling firm, found in 2012 that evangelicals accepted the attitudes and beliefs of the Pharisees—religious leaders depicted throughout the New Testament as opposing Christ and his message—more than they accepted the teachings of Jesus.”
These findings, rather than the biased and inflammatory claims about the Bible, are what should really make us upset–with ourselves. If we truly love and honor the Bible, then let’s read it, become immersed in its teachings–supremely those of Jesus–and then live them out. In that sense I do accept a valid challenge from at least this small part of the Newsweek article.
Thanks again for your question!
The original questioner comments: My friend Stephen M. Miller (love his books) also commented on the Newsweek article — thought you would enjoy his blog entry. Blessed New Year to you!
Q. Why did God, through Isaiah, instruct King Ahaz to ask for a sign? It reads like God was weary with Ahaz for not asking. Do you know why?
We tend to think of asking for a sign as a negative thing because of Jesus’ statements in the gospels that, for example, “A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a sign.” But this refers to asking for a sign from God as a condition of belief or obedience, or as proof that God is really present with us. On other occasions God offers a sign, or even invites us to ask for one, as a token and pledge that He will keep a promise, and as evidence that He is already at work to fulfill it.
Jesus himself refused to ask for a sign as a condition of belief and obedience when the devil tempted him to throw himself off the heights of the temple to prove that God would rescue him. To reject this temptation, Jesus quoted what Moses said in Deuteronomy: “You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.” Moses was referring to what the Israelites had done in the wilderness when they reached a place where there was no water and asked, “Is the Lord among us or not?” In other words, the Israelites were making the miraculous provision of water there a condition of their continuing belief and obedience.
It may appear that Ahaz is simply following this same principle, because he also says, “I will not ask, and I will not put the Lord to the test.” But most interpreters agree that this is actually just a pious excuse, because Ahaz wants to continue on the course he has already chosen–not to trust in the Lord, but to make a military and political alliance with Assyria, which will require him to worship Assyrian gods instead.
God sends Isaiah to assure Ahaz that he can trust Him instead, and God even offers to let Ahaz ask for any sign he wants (“let it be deep as Sheol or high as heaven“) as a token and pledge that God plans to deliver him from the nations that are invading. But Ahaz declines, and that is why God is weary with him.
We see God offering this same kind of sign in other places in the Bible as well. For example, when King Hezekiah (Ahaz’s son, but a good and godly king) was ill, God promised him through Isaiah that he would recover. Isaiah offered, referring to the royal sundial, “This shall be the sign to you from the Lord, that the Lord will do the thing that he has promised: shall the shadow go forward ten steps, or go back ten steps?” Hezekiah chose the much more remarkable sign of the shadow going backward, and it was granted.
So we today should be on the lookout for any “sign” God may be offering us in token and pledge that He will fulfill His promises to us (including matters of individual guidance that we have received), and as evidence that He is already at work to this end. Perhaps we may even feel the freedom to ask for such a sign–not as a condition of belief or obedience, but as confirmation that we have heard correctly and are hoping and working for the right things, in cooperation with God’s purposes.
(This, I believe, was the nature of the sign that Gideon, for example, asked for using a fleece of wool. He was already actively involved in the mission God had assigned to him; when God granted this sign, it was simply to confirm the instructions and strengthen Gideon in his obedience.)
One “good question” I’ve explored in recent years, working with Bible publishers and translators, is this: How can we illustrate the structure and composition of the biblical writings by the way we lay out the text on the page? My most recent layout experiment has been with the episode in the book of Samuel-Kings that tells how Adonijah tried to claim the throne when his father David was dying.
As a rule, such episodes are the basic building blocks of that book—its “atoms,” if you will. This particular episode is one of several that make up the succession narrative that describes how Solomon followed David on the throne of ancient Israel. (Readers find out shortly afterwards how Solomon dealt definitively with the threat of Adonijah.) This narrative, in turn, is part of the long history of the Israelite monarchy in Samuel-Kings. But we can sometimes get a glimpse of literary “sub-atomic particles,” that is, even smaller pre-existing literary units that have been drawn into the composition to provide the structure and framework of an individual episode. I believe that’s the case here.
David swore an oath to Bathsheba that her son Solomon would succeed him. As was common in this culture, David made this a solemn pronouncement by speaking it in poetry. (I discuss that practice in this post.) David’s original poetic couplet is quoted five times over the course of this episode, guiding the narrative flow as the words move from the mouth of one character to another. The oath is quoted:
– By Nathan to Bathsheba;
– By Bathsheba to David;
– By Nathan to David (with a delightful ironic twist);
– By David to Bathsheba, reasserted in slightly lengthened form;
– By David to his officials, as a fresh assertion in renewed language, embedded in a series of instructions that will actually make Solomon king.
When we see the episode through this lens, we recognize that the concern is not just “Who will be king?” but “Will the king’s word be upheld?” This thematic perspective connects the episode to one of the largest concerns running all through the Bible, the memory of God’s sovereign words and the hope of their ultimate fulfillment.
To highlight the function of this oath within the narrative, in the layout below I’ve set it off as poetry in each case. Have a read through and see what you think. Particularly if you’ve read this episode before, does seeing the oath set off as poetry help you “catch the flow” any better?
(This is how the episode comes out in the WordPress template. A typesetter might decide to use different line spacing for a printed version, but I personally think this works well for online reading. Also, I’ve used the ESV translation because it presents the oath as a direct quotation in the first four cases. The Hebrew original could also be rendered as an indirect quotation in certain of these cases, as in other translations.)
– – – – –
Now Adonijah the son of Haggith exalted himself, saying, “I will be king.” And he prepared for himself chariots and horsemen, and fifty men to run before him. His father had never at any time displeased him by asking, “Why have you done thus and so?” He was also a very handsome man, and he was born next after Absalom. He conferred with Joab the son of Zeruiah and with Abiathar the priest. And they followed Adonijah and helped him. But Zadok the priest and Benaiah the son of Jehoiada and Nathan the prophet and Shimei and Rei and David’s mighty men were not with Adonijah.
Adonijah sacrificed sheep, oxen, and fattened cattle by the Serpent’s Stone, which is beside En-rogel, and he invited all his brothers, the king’s sons, and all the royal officials of Judah, but he did not invite Nathan the prophet or Benaiah or the mighty men or Solomon his brother.
Then Nathan said to Bathsheba the mother of Solomon, “Have you not heard that Adonijah the son of Haggith has become king and David our lord does not know it? Now therefore come, let me give you advice, that you may save your own life and the life of your son Solomon. Go in at once to King David, and say to him, ‘Did you not, my lord the king, swear to your servant, saying,
“Solomon your son shall reign after me, He shall sit on my throne”?
Why then is Adonijah king?’ Then while you are still speaking with the king, I also will come in after you and confirm your words.”
So Bathsheba went to the king in his chamber (now the king was very old, and Abishag the Shunammite was attending to the king). Bathsheba bowed and paid homage to the king, and the king said, “What do you desire?” She said to him, “My lord, you swore to your servant by the Lord your God, saying,
‘Solomon your son shall reign after me, He shall sit on my throne’?
And now, behold, Adonijah is king, although you, my lord the king, do not know it. He has sacrificed oxen, fattened cattle, and sheep in abundance, and has invited all the sons of the king, Abiathar the priest, and Joab the commander of the army, but Solomon your servant he has not invited. And now, my lord the king, the eyes of all Israel are on you, to tell them who shall sit on the throne of my lord the king after him. Otherwise it will come to pass, when my lord the king sleeps with his fathers, that I and my son Solomon will be counted offenders.”
While she was still speaking with the king, Nathan the prophet came in. And they told the king, “Here is Nathan the prophet.” And when he came in before the king, he bowed before the king, with his face to the ground. And Nathan said, “My lord the king, have you said,
‘Adonijah shall reign after me, He shall sit on my throne’?
For he has gone down this day and has sacrificed oxen, fattened cattle, and sheep in abundance, and has invited all the king’s sons, the commanders of the army, and Abiathar the priest. And behold, they are eating and drinking before him, and saying, ‘Long live King Adonijah!’ But me, your servant, and Zadok the priest, and Benaiah the son of Jehoiada, and your servant Solomon he has not invited. Has this thing been brought about by my lord the king and you have not told your servants who should sit on the throne of my lord the king after him?”
Then King David answered, “Call Bathsheba to me.” So she came into the king’s presence and stood before the king. And the king swore, saying, “As the Lord lives, who has redeemed my soul out of every adversity, as I swore to you by the Lord, the God of Israel, saying,
‘Solomon your son shall reign after me, He shall sit on my throne in my place,’
even so will I do this day.” Then Bathsheba bowed with her face to the ground and paid homage to the king and said, “May my lord King David live forever!”
King David said, “Call to me Zadok the priest, Nathan the prophet, and Benaiah the son of Jehoiada.” So they came before the king. And the king said to them, “Take with you the servants of your lord and have Solomon my son ride on my own mule, and bring him down to Gihon. And let Zadok the priest and Nathan the prophet there anoint him king over Israel. Then blow the trumpet and say, ‘Long live King Solomon!’ You shall then come up after him,
And he shall come and sit on my throne, For he shall be king in my place.
And I have appointed him to be ruler over Israel and over Judah.” And Benaiah the son of Jehoiada answered the king, “Amen! May the Lord, the God of my lord the king, say so. As the Lord has been with my lord the king, even so may he be with Solomon, and make his throne greater than the throne of my lord King David.”
So Zadok the priest, Nathan the prophet, and Benaiah the son of Jehoiada, and the Cherethites and the Pelethites went down and had Solomon ride on King David’s mule and brought him to Gihon. There Zadok the priest took the horn of oil from the tent and anointed Solomon. Then they blew the trumpet, and all the people said, “Long live King Solomon!” And all the people went up after him, playing on pipes, and rejoicing with great joy, so that the earth was split by their noise.
Adonijah and all the guests who were with him heard it as they finished feasting. And when Joab heard the sound of the trumpet, he said, “What does this uproar in the city mean?” While he was still speaking, behold, Jonathan the son of Abiathar the priest came. And Adonijah said, “Come in, for you are a worthy man and bring good news.” Jonathan answered Adonijah, “No, for our lord King David has made Solomon king, and the king has sent with him Zadok the priest, Nathan the prophet, and Benaiah the son of Jehoiada, and the Cherethites and the Pelethites. And they had him ride on the king’s mule. And Zadok the priest and Nathan the prophet have anointed him king at Gihon, and they have gone up from there rejoicing, so that the city is in an uproar. This is the noise that you have heard. Solomon sits on the royal throne. Moreover, the king’s servants came to congratulate our lord King David, saying, ‘May your God make the name of Solomon more famous than yours, and make his throne greater than your throne.’ And the king bowed himself on the bed. And the king also said, ‘Blessed be the Lord, the God of Israel, who has granted someone to sit on my throne this day, my own eyes seeing it.’”
Then all the guests of Adonijah trembled and rose, and each went his own way. And Adonijah feared Solomon. So he arose and went and took hold of the horns of the altar. Then it was told Solomon, “Behold, Adonijah fears King Solomon, for behold, he has laid hold of the horns of the altar, saying, ‘Let King Solomon swear to me first that he will not put his servant to death with the sword.’” And Solomon said, “If he will show himself a worthy man, not one of his hairs shall fall to the earth, but if wickedness is found in him, he shall die.” So King Solomon sent, and they brought him down from the altar. And he came and paid homage to King Solomon, and Solomon said to him, “Go to your house.”
Q. In the opening part of the book of Job, how can a totally evil being like Satan be allowed to enter directly into the presence of God? I’ve always been told that God is so holy that He can’t tolerate any evil in his presence.
To state the matter simply, the character in the book of Job commonly called Satan in English translations isn’t exactly the same as the devil or Satan described in the New Testament.
As I explain in my Job study guide, in this opening narrative, “Satan” is not actually a name. The Hebrew word satan literally means “adversary,” and in the book of Job it’s always preceded by the word “the,” so this is actually a title: “The Adversary.” (Many Bibles, the ESV and NRSV for example, have footnotes explaining that the Hebrew actually reads “the Accuser or the Adversary”; others like the NIV explain the meaning of the term: “Hebrew satan means adversary.”)
The word satan is used many times in the Old Testament to describe a determined and persistent opponent, as in the account of Solomon’s reign in Samuel-Kings: “Rezon son of Eliada . . . was Israel’s adversary as long as Solomon lived.” As a noun, the root satan is used in a specialized way to describe the accuser in a legal proceeding; as a verb, it describes the act of accusing, as in Psalm 38: “My enemies . . . lodge accusations against me.” Here in the book of Job, the Adversary is both a determined opponent of God and an accuser of anyone who seeks to follow God faithfully.
While this character is similar to the devil or Satan described in the New Testament, the portrait isn’t drawn as fully in the book of Job. The book doesn’t account for where he came from or how he became opposed to God. It does portray him as a crafty and malicious player within the complex moral web of the universe, but not necessarily as a consummately evil being who could never be allowed into the presence of a holy God.
A Medieval illustration of Satan scourging Job, with Job’s wife urging him to “Bless [i.e. curse] God and die”–just the outcome the Adversary is hoping for. But the depiction of the Adversary as just like the devil is anachronistic, not quite true to his identity in the book of Job.
Q. In the book of Daniel, King Nebuchadnezzar says several times that the “spirit of the holy gods” is in Daniel. In my Bible there’s a footnote that says this could also be translated as the “Spirit of the holy God.” Which is right?
It might appear that the translation should be determined by whether the word for “God” (or “god”) is singular or plural in the original. But things are actually a bit more complicated than that. This account is written in Aramaic, and in that language, as in Hebrew, there’s a “plural of excellence.” If something is the supreme example of its own class, it’s put in the plural, even though it’s just one thing, not more than one. The name for the supreme God in the Old Testament is therefore plural: Elohim in Hebrew, Elohin in Aramaic. But the same word can also be used to refer to multiple “gods.” So in what sense is Nebuchadnezzar using the term when he refers to Daniel in this account?
The vast majority of English Bibles translate it as “gods.” For example, almost all of the approximately forty English versions (not counting multiple editions of the same translation) that can be surveyed on BibleGateway render the expression this way. This likely reflects the reasonable assumption that Nebuchadnezzar is a pagan and a polytheist and so would naturally talk like this.
Only four of those versions—the NKJV, Amplified Bible, Jubilee Bible, and Modern English Version—instead have Nebuchadnezzar say that the “Spirit of the holy God” is in Daniel. However, the ESV, RSV, NASB, and Good News Bible all provide this as an alternative translation in a footnote. And I think that the possibility should at least be acknowledged to that extent.
Nebuchadnezzar’s account is actually a letter “to the nations and peoples of every language,” in which he acknowledges repeatedly that “the Most High is sovereign over all kingdoms on earth and gives them to anyone he wishes.” Since Nebuchadnezzar acknowledges that Daniel speaks on behalf of the “Most High,” he may well be addressing him as someone in whom is the “Spirit of the holy God,” meaning the Supreme God.
It might be countered that “the holy gods” was a characteristic Babylonian way to refer to the entire pantheon of gods that were recognized in that culture. If the phrase is found with that meaning in ancient Babylonian literature or inscriptions (I’m not aware whether it is), then that would strengthen the case for the most common translation. But we can note that the phrase does not appear in the book of Daniel where it otherwise might if it actually were a formula for the pantheon. For example, Nebuchadnezzar challenges Shadrach, Meschach, and Abednego by asking, “What god will be able to rescue you from my hand?” He doesn’t say, “Which of the holy gods will be able to rescue you?” So once again, even if “the holy gods” is chosen as the translation, I think it’s wise to provide “the holy God” as an alternative.
Q. I was reading in Chronicles today and it references “the records of Samuel the seer,” “the records of Nathan the prophet,” and “the records of Gad the seer.” Are these books in evidence in the historical record anywhere? And what is a “seer,” from a biblical perspective?
There are no surviving copies of the actual books listed there in Chronicles. Nor do we have copies of other books mentioned as sources in the Bible, for example, “the book of Jashar” that is referenced in Joshua and Samuel-Kings. It’s clear, however, that these books once were available to the believing community and that they were among the sources that went into writing the long history of the monarchy in Samuel-Kings as well as the parallel history you’re reading now in Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah.
While we don’t have these books, the references to them within the Bible do show that the biblical authors used available written sources as they composed their own works. (To give another example, Luke explains in the dedication to his gospel that he has examined the “accounts” that others have undertaken to “draw up” about the life of Jesus and the early growth of the community of his followers.)
In other words, the biblical books didn’t just drop fully formed out of heaven. They are in many cases the product of the same kind of research that goes into scholarly historical works today. The statement you’re asking about, in fact, is the ancient equivalent of a footnote, acknowledging the sources that were used for a certain part of the history and referring readers to them for further information.
As for the meaning of the term “seer,” it is an older term that, as the narrative in Samuel-Kings explains, means the same thing as “prophet”: “Formerly in Israel, if someone went to inquire of God, they would say, ‘Come, let us go to the seer,’ because the prophet of today used to be called a seer.” So the titles in Chronicles actually mean, for example, ”the records of Samuel the prophet,” etc. The use of the archaic term “seer,” which has to be explained to later readers, suggests that the source books themselves are significantly older than the final products–more evidence that biblical books like these are the result of careful historical research. Here we see the human side of the Bible’s composition.
Q. When Paul was in Philippi, he commanded a fortune-telling spirit in the name of Jesus Christ to leave a woman who had been following his team for many days shouting, “These men are servants of the Most High God, who are telling you the way to be saved.” This raises a lot of questions. Couldn’t it have been considered that the spirit was doing good, in that the woman was announcing the way to ‘the Way’? If Paul were going to silence the spirit, why didn’t he do this sooner? On the other hand, why didn’t Paul just let the woman be, if he’d already put up with her for so long? Seems to be a good lesson here, insofar as “testing the spirits” is concerned. Can you think of other examples, perhaps where people might even claim that they “have a word from the Lord,” but those people should instead be silenced—some immediately, and others maybe after many days? Seems like a tall order for leaders of the church today—or any time for that matter—to be able to discern.
I think Paul finally silenced the spirit when he realized that all the attention was going to “that crazy woman shouting”—even though she was shouting a valuable truth—rather than to the message he and his colleagues were preaching. I think Paul waited as long as he did because he recognized precisely what you asked about—that the spirit might be considered to be making a positive contribution. But eventually, I believe, he recognized that it was doing more harm than good, distracting rather than attracting. I think that in all of this Paul showed both patience and discernment of exemplary quality.
As for today, you’re right, it calls for very fine discernment to know when a factually truthful message is being delivered in such a way that it’s doing more harm than good. We need to consider not just the content but the effect of words and their tone, expression, and spirit.
Here’s one example—I once attended a public prayer meeting where a participant went on and on, praying for valuable things, but essentially hogging all the time and not giving anyone else a chance to contribute. Finally one of the leaders respectfully asked him to stop and give others an opportunity to pray as well. The man realized his fault and immediately said “Bless you, brother” to the leader, very humbly, and went silent. That felt like good discernment all around.
Things get more complicated when it comes to matters like doctrinal disputes, social hot-button issues, and matters of practice on which the Christian community is divided. One person might feel compelled to speak (to “bear witness to the truth”), while others might feel they were doing more harm than good by the way they were speaking. A tall order for discernment, indeed, but a challenge that church leaders must try to meet, with fear and trembling, and with close reliance on the Holy Spirit.
Q. If what you say is true, then why doesn’t the Christian community periodically open debate/discussion on what additional Christian literature could be included in the present library (canon)? That is, additional (not to be read “supplemental”) literature that, as time rolls on, more and more contemporarily brings greater global value to the witness of that outworking of the divine-human relationship?
Even though I said in my last post that “God inspired the Bible while human authors were in the process of writing to address concerns that had arisen within the believing community,” and even though to this day the ongoing life of that community raises new concerns well worth addressing authoritatively, I would nevertheless argue that the canon of Christian Scripture should be considered closed. And I would argue this on the very same basis that I answered the original question about the uniqueness of the Bible.
Specifically, while I also said in that post that the human authors of the Bible “used their God-given abilities to a significant degree to shape not just the form but arguably even the content of the sacred books,” I also noted that “it can be recognized in retrospect that the impulse for them to do this actually came from God.” And this happened in such a way that, paradoxically, we can also say that much of the initiative behind the creation of the Judeo-Christian Scriptures was divine, even though the initiative behind the composition of the actual books themselves was ostensibly human.
Here’s what I mean. The biblical books, in terms of when and why they were written (as opposed to simply what parts of the story they tell), are actually clustered around significant redemptive-historical events: the exodus of ancient Israel from Egypt; the establishment of the Davidic monarchy; the exile and return; and—consummately—the coming of Jesus Christ to “fulfill” all that came before and bring the unfolding story of redemption to its climax. When we see the Bible in this light, we recognize that God’s contribution to the creation of the Scriptures was to initiate these events; the human contribution was to reflect on them under divine tutelage and express how the community should conduct and reorient its ongoing life in response to them.
Moreover, also when seen in this light, the biblical books, taken together, tell a story that has already reached its conclusion, that is, its dramatic resolution, even though it has not reached its actual ending. To borrow some images from the biblical story itself, the rightful king has now taken his throne; what remains is for his whole realm to acknowledge his authority. Alternatively, we might say that the marriage has already taken place; now the bride and groom must work out how to “live happily ever after,” which (as in a real marriage) will require significant character transformation, at least on the part of Christ’s bride the church—that is the part of the story we are in now.
And the ultimate ending, the return of Christ as acknowledged ruler of his entire realm, is already anticipated and depicted within the biblical story. So our part today is not to add more books to the Bible, as if its story needed more filling out. Rather, our part is to live out the section of the story between its dramatic conclusion and its actual ending—the section between the “already” and the “not yet.” This will necessarily involve more working out, including in writing, of concerns that arise within the believing community. But as valuable and worthwhile as many of these writings will be, they do not need to be added to the Bible. Its story is complete.
name of Jesus Christ to leave a woman who had been following his team for many days shouting, “These men are servants of the Most High God, who are telling you the way to be saved.” This raises a lot of questions. Couldn’t it have been considered that the spirit was doing good, in that the woman was announcing the way to ‘the Way’? If Paul were going to silence the spirit, why didn’t he do this sooner? On the other hand, why didn’t Paul just let the woman be, if he’d already put up with her for so long?
Good Question 