My article in JETS arrived yesterday. Here is the info and a link to it:
“Finding Lady Wisdom: The Excellent Woman (אשת חיל) as a Synecdoche for the Order of Creation and Interpreting Ecclesiastes 7:28” JETS 66, no. 1 (March 2023): 53–71.
Purity Culture, Pledges, and the Song of Songs
One of the hallmarks of the purity culture from twenty years ago was the oath. Fathers gave their daughters purity rings; singles covenanted that they would save themselves until marriage; Joshua Harris wrote I Kissed Dating Goodbye; and Rebecca St. James sang Wait for Me. At least that is how I remember it. Today, purity culture is being attacked. Joshua Harris has canceled and recanted his book; children of the movement have grown and attacked the movement; even the secular world has taken notice. Rebecca Joy Welcher has published Talking Back to Purity Culture: Rediscovering Faithful Christian Sexuality (2020: IVP Press) where she rejects the sexual license of modern culture, but writes critically of the purity culture which failed her. Brenda Marie Davies has published On Her Knees: Memoir of a Prayerful Jezebel (2021: Eerdmans) and tells her story of how purity culture failed her. She now has a podcast and YouTube channel which is a “guide to becoming an inquisitive, fearless, sex positive, free thinking Christian in the modern world.” While purity culture definitely had some problems, there were several things that were correct—like purity. And in the haze being created by these sources, true Christians need to recall what the Bible teaches about sexuality and not be persuaded by “Christian” writers and publishers which argue from worldly philosophies and personal experience.
Purity culture encouraged singles to take an oath, saying that they would save themselves until marriage. This oath has garnered particular animosity from the secular world and the children of purity culture alike. Welcher, still a strong proponent of purity, while not outright condemning rings and pledges, looks skeptically at the movement and the oaths sworn. Davies outright mocks her own purity oath experience, “In my doe-eyed ignorance—and I say this with compassion toward my sweet, young self—I planned a purity ceremony for my evangelical youth group. My girls and I had the rings. All we needed was to make our pledge official. One Friday night, while my peers were somewhere indulging in hard lemonade and indiscriminate hand jobs, we Christian teens were dressed in white, promising our purity to the Lord. I signed a virginity contract in the presence of my parents.” Davies’ book is profane and crude. The message for youths today is clear—oaths and rings are naïve and out.
Christian authors have unfortunately let their culture and experience guide them instead of the specific instruction from the Word of God. The female lover of the Song of Songs exhorts singles (i.e., the daughters of Jerusalem) to take an oath not to awaken love. This refrain is repeated three times in the Song of Songs (2:7; 3:5; 8:4). The text reads, “I charge you, O daughters of Jerusalem, by the gazelles or by the does of the field, do not stir up nor awaken love until it pleases” (NKJV). A primary audience of the Song of Songs is single virgin girls, identified in the refrain as “the daughters of Jerusalem.” This adjuration, however, is not directed solely to single girls. The “you” in “I charge you” is a masculine pronoun. The primary audience of the adjuration is single girls, but the exhortation is directed to all. The verb “charge” is literally “to swear an oath.” In Gen 24:37, Abraham’s servant explains, “Now my master made me swear, saying, “You shall not take a wife for my son . . .” The word for “swear” is the same verb in Song 2:7; 3:5; and 8:4. Mocking oaths to purity as Davies does is not only unbecoming of Christian writing, it is antithetical to it (e.g., the mocker of Proverbs). The tagline for her website and podcast—a voice to inform and awaken—is the exact opposite message the Song of Songs teaches. The woman of the Song of Songs explains that an appropriate time to awaken love exists (Song 8:5). But the message for singles is clear, let love sleep.
The problem with purity culture was not their emphasis on purity or oaths, but the failure to define the oath and equip singles to fulfill it. Singing “Wait for Me” at a concert while ones’ peers are pledging to “wait for” their future spouses is not exactly the setting to make a solemn oath. How many promises were made more because of shame than personal conviction? Biblical oaths were serious arrangements that were not entered into thoughtlessly or emotionally. Furthermore, the oath purity culture promoted was to “wait for your spouse,” “to be pure,” or some other imprecise and malleable language that an individual with a wicked heart could easily redefine to fit the passion of the moment. As a result, singles participated in all kinds of immoral behavior that came just short of “all the way” so they could claim they were still “pure.” Purity culture also failed to address the heart desires of singles. The reason singles fail miserably is because they want to sin. The adjuration refrain of the Song, however, encourages singles to not “awaken love.” The Song of Songs does not say to “not have sex,” nor “go pastsecond base.” It says not to awaken love. Rather than tell you what this means, I would encourage you to consider what it means. Talk about it with your physical family and church family. Study it out and take the adjuration refrain of the Song seriously.
Finally, if you are single and reading this article, maybe you are even being convicted that you need to swear not to awaken love, I would encourage you to not swear an oath, at least right now. I’ve actually never encouraged a young person to swear this oath. Not because I don’t think there is value to it, but because I don’t think they know what they are swearing. Love is a powerful force (Song 8:5–7), and you probably don’t know what it is. Much less do you know how to go about fulfilling the oath. Davies was correct about one thing; in her youth, she made an oath in “doe-eyed ignorance.” Yet the problem was not the oath, the problem was the ignorance.
The Thinklings Podcast
Two friends and I have started the Thinklings Podcast and I would encourage you to subscribe. C. S. Lewis wrote, “The little knots of friends who turn their backs on the world are those who really transform it.” I have been blessed with good, godly friends who have encouraged me, pushed me, and sharpened me. The “Thinklings” took shape when Charlie Carter became the assistant dean of men at Faith Baptist Bible College. Charlie, Andy Stearns, and myself are friends and Charlie saw to it that we would get together on a semi-regular basis where we would discuss books and think together. We chose the name “Thinklings” after C.S. Lewis and his friends’ group, the Inklings. Sometimes one of us may write something, and we would “think” through what was written. At this time, our musings are composed of thinking more than inking; so, the name “Thinklings” fits us. This time of iron sharpening iron has now galvanized into a podcast which is headed up again by Charlie Carter. I show up and talk. Charlie and Andy are the brains behind this operation. I don’t know how many Marco Polos and text messages I have rolled my eyes over. I don’t know how many times I have said, “Good Enough.” You can thank these men for a much better product. In fact, this blog post is coming because I have been reminded on a few occasions that I needed to write it! Yet, I write it gladly because after recording several episodes, I truly believe the things we discuss will be helpful to our students and anyone who listens in. I would encourage you to subscribe and listen to the weekly Thinklings Podcast.
Episodes usually follow a specific pattern. We want to encourage our students (and anybody else) to be better thinkers, and thinkers are readers. So we start by discussing various books we have read or are reading. Next we share a content piece which is led by one of us. The content will vary depending on whatever one of us happens to be studying, learning, or thinking about at that time. One of the things listeners will notice is that we do not have everything figured out. The Thinklings Podcast is a conversation. We want to encourage the listener to get into the conversation and think! Sometimes the content piece is not directly related to a biblical text. In those instances, we close with a short devotional thought. The primary place of thinking needs to be the Bible; so, we never want to have an episode that does not draw the listener to the ultimate guide of correct thinking, the Scriptures.
Visit the website or subscribe through Apple Podcast. You can like our Facebook page and/or follow us on Twitter. Google Play is coming soon!
Israel’s Eschatological Enemy
My first book, Israel’s Eschatological Enemy, released this month! This post is a guide to its content and how it may benefit the Lord’s people. Most Christians are unfamiliar with the oracle against Babylon in Isaiah 13–14. Many, however, are familiar with Isaiah 14:12–14. Isaiah 14:12 states, “How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning” (NKJV). Verses 13–14 contain the five “I will” statements supposedly uttered by Satan when he rebelled against God. The climactic statement at the end reads, “I will be like the Most High.”Israel’s Eschatological Enemy argues that this “Lucifer” is not Satan but Israel’s eschatological enemy, commonly known as the Antichrist.
The first chapter briefly explains the historic interpretation of Isaiah 14; how the early church believed Isaiah 14:12–14 referred to Satan and how modern scholarship has preferred a historic or representative interpretation. In chapter two I discuss the “representative interpretation” view and argue through an analysis of the proverb genre (mashal genre) that the representative view is very unlikely. Isaiah 14:4–21 is a proverb, just like the book of Proverbs. Students of the book of Proverbs, I believe, would benefit from this genre analysis.
In the third chapter, I analyze Isaiah 13:1–14:4, 22–26, which is basically everything around Isaiah 14:4–21. I do a lot of things in this chapter, and some of it is a little technical. The average English reader may want to skip or skim the structure section (pp 42–64). The eschatology section (pp 65ff), however, is more readable. Here I explain that there are two battles described in Isa 13 and both of them are eschatological. Many people believe Isa 13:14–14:2 was fulfilled when the Medo-Persian army conquered Babylon and Cyrus allowed the children of Israel to return to Israel. I explain how that cannot be the case. This passage concerns a future eschatological destruction of Babylon and regathering of Israel. I present four contextual criteria for determining the identity of the king of Babylon in chapter three.
In chapter four, I first analyze the proverb (Isa 14:4–21) and explain eleven characteristics of the king of Babylon. Students of eschatology will find this section fascinating because it is basically a study of the Antichrist. Someone could incorporate these findings with what other passages teach about Israel’s eschatological enemy. Finally, I examine nine historic kings and explain how each one does not come close to meeting the criteria of the king of Babylon. If you believe, for example, that the king of Babylon is Nebuchadnezzar, then you should pay particular attention to this chapter.
I hope this book is a blessing to you. The king of Babylon will seek to be like the Most High (Isa 14:14) and exercise godlike authority over the earth, but only the Lord can do whatever he likes (Isa 14:24). I pray your confidence in the Lord is strengthened and your intellect is renewed through a study of this passage.
You can make a purchase through Amazon, Kindle, Wipf & Stock (the publisher), or preferably through our campus bookstore. If you purchase through our campus bookstore, you can note in the comments that you would like a signed copy and I would be happy to do that for you.
Becoming Baptist
I grew up a Baptist, but I did not learn what it meant to be a Baptist until I attended Faith Baptist Theological Seminary. Under the tutelage of Myron Houghton (Systematic Theology IV), I learned the scriptural and theological basis for Baptist theology. Under the tutelage of George Houghton (History of Baptist Faith and Practice), I learned the historical and practical outworking of Baptist theology. I also began attending Faith Baptist Church where I sat under the tutelage of a Baptist pastor who explained why the church was named “Faith Baptist Church.” The name meant something, and he taught the new members what that name meant. All of these influences revealed an unknown deficiency in my theological education: Baptist theology. The non-denominational Bible college I attended could not equip me in this way. Most of the students grew up Baptist, but at a non-denominational school, Baptist theology was not taught. As an arrogant and naïve Bible college student, I joined my fellow classmates in mocking the theology professor who repeated himself when pressed concerning certain theological questions. I now recognize that he may not have been at liberty to state much more than what he had said because of the school’s non-denominational stance.
Students attending a denominational school have the benefit of learning the theology of that denomination. This additional instruction should prepare better equipped members and pastors of the denomination. Even more important is the denominational position of a church. Every church is governed by a church constitution. Unfortunately, many members in the church lack a commitment to the church constitution and thus the denominational label which it represents. This lack of commitment is a sign of spiritual immaturity. Theology is not only studied, it is lived. Kevin VanHoozer explains, “Theology is about making disciples by teaching believers how to walk in this newness” (VanHoozer, Hearers and Doers, xxiv). Theological instruction is a vital part of discipleship and the church’s mission to fulfill the Great Commission. One cannot live as a Baptist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, etc. unless one has been taught the distinctives of the theological system. Church membership books like What is a Healthy Church Member? and I am a Church Member encourage church members to take an active and selfless role in the church, but they admittedly do not teach the specific doctrine of a church. While these books may be helpful, they are not sufficient. Biblically based theological (denominational) instruction is part of the Great Commission.
One counter-cultural way a church can teach denominational theology is to clearly identify with a specific denomination. Postmodernism fosters a culture of lies, deceit, ambiguity, and confusion. By not adhering to a denominational label, the church has acquiesced to the culture of ambiguity and confusion. Instead of transforming the culture, the church is conforming to the culture. While there may be times when a church should veil the purpose of their gathering (e.g. times of persecution), the free church often veils its identity for unbiblical philosophical reasons. The church should clearly identify itself instead of hiding behind a veil of ambiguity. Where politicians and reporters lie and others use deceit and trickery to manipulate or conceal the truth, the church needs to reflect the character of God, the God of truth. Learn what you believe and stand for the truth.
Below are some quotes and sources one may find helpful concerning denominational identity and Baptist distinctives.
Why Denominational Identity Still Matters – Nathan Finn
“Nearly all the signposts indicate our culture will become increasingly anti-Christian; biblically speaking, this shouldn’t surprise us. I’d suggest churches with a thick sense of denominational identity are in the best position to provide the sort of catechesis and discipleshipnecessary to live faithfully in American Babylon” (Emphasis mine).
What’s in a Name? – George Houghton
“The label, when properly used and understood, will attract those of like precious faith and practice and will direct those who disagree to other places where they can feel more comfortable.”
Baptist Distinctives and New Testament Church Order – Kevin Bauder
“Denominational labels are going out of style. I think that is unfortunate. Those labels are a kind of shorthand. They stand for sets of ideas. When people say, ‘I am Lutheran,’ or ‘I am a Presbyterian,’ they are not just identifying themselves with an organization or a social group. They are identifying themselves with a combination of convictions” (10).
“When it comes to church order, the whole counsel of God (as I understand it) has a proper name. That name is Baptist. Other constructs have different names, and I celebrate the use of those names even when I disagree with the constructs that they represent. I think that the use of the name is a simple matter of truth in advertising” (Emphasis his).
Biblical Basis for Baptists– L. Duane Brown & Daniel R. Brown
“A Baptist does not claim to be the only one who holds any truth but is one who sincerely believes that a Baptist church is the closest local church to the Bible teaching of what a New Testament church should believe and practice” (4).
The Doctrine and Administration of the Church– Paul Jackson
“A clear, identifying label is valuable and honest, that people may know the content of a bottle or an organization. Such a label is required by the food and drug laws of our nation. Surely we ought to be equally fair to people by identifying ourselves as Baptists. This is a name that is historically and Biblically significant. It is my conviction that the critical attitude sometimes manifested toward the title Baptistfrequently results from an unwillingness to accept the full, firm, doctrinal stand represented by the title” (152–53).
Social Justice in the Kingdom of God by Timothy Little
OT Ethics – Arranged Marriages – Goldingay
“The stability of community and family, and their future depend on the proper structuring of the family, with an established sense of how the generations relate. In a Western context, we emphasize the individual more than the family or the community, and the idea that I should subordinate my attraction and my longing to the need of the community seems odd.
That Western feeling lies behind our puzzlement at the idea of parents being involved in the arrangement of a marriage. This involvement need not mean that the parents made a decision that the boy or girl opposes, yet it worries us. It compromises the principle that’s so important to us, that I and I alone make the key decisions in my life in light of what seems best for me and seems to me most likely to make me happy. But our affirmation of that principle doesn’t seem to generate happiness for us. And it seems to produce fractured families and communities.“
John Goldingay, Old Testament Ethics: A Guided Tour(Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2019), 138.