Editor’s Note: April 2012

by Stephen Rodgers

I know you were probably expecting a BOB article today, and I’d liked to have delivered one. The problem is that the guy who writes the BOB series is the same guy who needed to make you aware of a number of housekeeping issues around the Beacon. After all, it does no good for us to fix and update things behind the scenes if you don’t know that they’ve been fixed and updated.

Anyways:

  • SC 2012 Audio – Just to let you know, the Shepherds’ Conference resources that I referenced in this article are now available online (previously the folks at GCC had not uploaded General Session III; that has been corrected)
  • Baptism Hub – For some reason, I’ve been fielding a lot of questions about baptism lately.  I don’t know why…it must be something in the water. (Get it? In the water?  Heh…I’m hilarious…anyhow). I’ve updated the Baptism Hub to include a number of resources in addition to Richard’s series.
  • DTR Hub – The DTR Hub has been updated with Austin Duncan’s excellent seminar from the 2012 Shepherds’ Conference
  • Recommended Resources – I’ve updated the Recommended Resources page to include Kategoria, Creation Magazine, and The Journal of Creation
  • Chronological Index of Tabletalk – The Tabletalk index has been updated to include the most recent issue
  • Topical Index of 9Marks eJournal – The eJournal index has been updated to include the most recent issue
  • Canon Fodder – Since this is taking the place of BOB, I wanted to pass along a recent addition to the Christian blogosphere: Michael J. Kruger’s blog Canon Fodder (in particular, his recently-begun series on Misconceptions about the NT Canon)

Lessons from a Child’s Heart: Passion

by Elder Mike Chon

As my children grow up they begin to develop a passion for certain activities or toys more than other ones. If you mention certain games or sports you can see and feel the excitement in my kids’ eyes as they begin screaming and yelling. They have so much fun playing that they can literally play until the next day unless one of us tells them that they need to stop. Their passion to play can be attributed to their age and being children, but it reminds me of how easily we allow our age or our sophistication to prevent us from having passion for those things that we should be passionate about.

When it comes to our relationship with our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ are we excited or passionate about the things that He is passionate about? Maybe we don’t run around screaming and yelling, but do we get excited about coming to worship Him on a Sunday, or reading about Him in the pages of Scripture, or the opportunity to share about Him to a friend that does not know Him? When my children receive a new toy they are excited to play with it, but once they realize that it isn’t as much fun as they imagined, they lose interest rather quickly. Some time I wonder if some of us got excited when we first understood the gospel then after realizing the cost of following Christ, we lost interest and lost our passion to follow Him in the same way my children lost interest in a toy. Our Passion statement at LBC is “to love God and love people.” It was not meant to be something we just proclaim but it is something that we are called to live out, not just by our church, but by our Lord (Matt. 22:37-40). No one can just say that they love God and not live it out with passion. No one can just say “I love people” without showing love to people.

Our passion for God starts with having a passion for His Word.

  • It is in His Word that we find the one and only God.
  • It is in His Word that reveals to us the merciful and gracious Savior.
  • It is in His Word that reveals to us the omnipotent, omniscient God who controls and holds all things together.
  • It is in His Word that reveals to us the love of God in redeeming sinners like you and me.
  • It is in His Word that reveals to us God’s justice and wrath toward the unrighteous.

When we start and stay in His Word, we begin to marvel and be excited about our God who is beyond our comprehension. Along with that excitement comes the passion to live out our lives to the glory of God in all that we do. Whether in our work place, while we study, when we have an opportunity to evangelize, when we share prayer requests, during Sunday morning worship, or when we are alone, our passion for God should continue to grow and not grow old. We live knowing the creator of the universe, how can we not be passionate about the things of God?

Thy Good Spirit

by Charles Haddon Spurgeon

From Nehemiah 9:20

Common, too common is the sin of forgetting the Holy Spirit. This is folly and ingratitude. He deserves well at our hands, for He is good, supremely good. As God, He is good essentially. He shares in the threefold ascription of Holy, holy, holy, which ascends to the Triune Jehovah. Unmixed purity and truth, and grace is He.

  • He is good benevolently, tenderly bearing with our waywardness, striving with our rebellious wills; quickening us from our death in sin, and then training us for the skies as a loving nurse fosters her child. How generous, forgiving, and tender is this patient Spirit of God.
  • He is good operatively. All His works are good in the most eminent degree: He suggests good thoughts, prompts good actions, reveals good truths, applies good promises, assists in good attainments, and leads to good results. There is no spiritual good in all the world of which He is not the author and sustainer, and heaven itself will owe the perfect character of its redeemed inhabitants to His work.
  • He is good officially; whether as Comforter, Instructor, Guide, Sanctifier, Quickener, or Intercessor, He fulfils His office well, and each work is fraught with the highest good to the church of God. They who yield to His influences become good, they who obey His impulses do good, they who live under His power receive good.

Let us then act towards so good a person according to the dictates of gratitude. Let us revere His person, and adore Him as God over all, blessed for ever; let us own His power, and our need of Him by waiting upon Him in all our holy enterprises; let us hourly seek His aid, and never grieve Him; and let us speak to His praise whenever occasion occurs. The church will never prosper until more reverently it believes in the Holy Ghost. He is so good and kind, that it is sad indeed that He should be grieved by slights and negligences.

2.16p

Weekly Links (4/6/2012) (Good Friday/Easter Edition)

The difference between Heaven and Hell is not a subtle one. When the Almighty God separates the sheep and the goats, at the end of the day, that judgment day, there will be no nuance. Light and darkness are too entirely different sorts of things—and children of light and children of darkness have entirely different points of origin. Children of God and children of the devil have different fathers. This is not an obscure point.

So what is an evangelical? I am not speaking about cultural evangelicals, or nominal evangelicals. What is a true evangelical? In short, an evangelical is someone who knows, on the basis of the substitutionary death of Jesus, and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, that nobody has God in a box.

James tells us that men have tamed and domesticated all kinds of wild animals. A man can get into a cage with a whip and a chair, and make a lion do tricks. Swimmers can stand on the tip of a killer whale’s nose and amaze the crowds at Sea World. Man can tame all kinds of things. But James goes on to point out that for all his prowess, man cannot tame his own tongue. Because he cannot tame his own tongue, he finds himself proclaiming formulae and composing liturgies which make the implicit claim that mankind knows how to tame God.

But God is the living God, and can be tamed by no one. Jesus became one of us, and knows exactly how we feel—He tamed restless humanity. He can sympathize with us in our weakness. But we do not tame Him. And that is what makes an evangelical—someone who knows—experientially knows—that because Jesus died, and because the Spirit was given, we can be tamed. We come to this point by repenting of our sins, and by believing in Jesus. (Douglas Wilson, “God Tamers”)

by Stephen Rodgers

So I guess I’m working with a theme this week: a rather long quote for a rather long Weekly Links.  I’ll try to keep my descriptions short, and I’ll break them into helpful categories, but I hope that you’ll take the time to seriously consider and avail yourself to the resources below. They’re for your benefit after all.  Enjoy!

Holy Week

Over at his blog, Justin Taylor has been posting (re-posting?) a series on what happened on each day of Holy Week:

Easter Apologetic Resources

We did this last year as well, which included linking to Triablogue then, as well as some other resources.

Free Monthly Resources for April

Some of these offers expire in April (the audiobook/Logos book), so move fast on them.

New Resources

Let me highlight a few resources that might be helpful to you:

  • Did you know that TGC has a journal published by Matthias Media (The Trellis and the Vine folks) that critiques the secular worldview.  It’s called Kategoria, and it looks very well done.
  • RC Sproul has a daily broadcast/podcast called “Renewing Your Mind.” Add Mohler and MacArthur to that, and you’ve got a very good day.
  • CMI actually makes a number of articles and back issues available for both Creation Magazine and The Journal of Creation.

Music

  • So…Sovereign Grace Music has a new website…and it has a large section of free music. If you’re a music minister, it also has simplified licensing info…but did I mention the free music?
  • CXVI put out a free Easter album.

Visual Theology

I’ve blogged before about Tim Challies’ “Visual Theology” series; he has a few new ones that I commend to you.

For the Seminarians

DG just completed this very thought-provoking series:

I’ll get the new resources added to the Recommended Resources page shortly.

See you at church tonight!

Pro Rege

Truly Unashamed of Christ

by Roger Alcaraz

In my last article, I shared about my time in seminary and the different trials God brought me through. I closed abruptly by mentioning that the article is connected to this year’s theme for the youth: “Unashamed of Christ.” Most people hear that phrase and think of someone boldly announcing the gospel, or Romans 1:15-16 where Paul says, “I am eager to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome. For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes.” He continues by giving the details of the gospel, how everyone is a sinner but that God saved us through sending Christ to die for us.

Proclaiming the gospel is certainly one of the signs of an unashamed Christian, but as I was working at McDonald’s, a recurring conversation brought to mind a different aspect of being unashamed. By the time I was working there, I had already graduated and so had all my Physics classmates. Most of them ended up attending UCSD graduate school or found a job nearby, which meant they would be stopping by McDonald’s for a quick meal (probably chicken nuggets). As they would come in, they would spot me in my blue uniform and hat and I would take their order. Eventually, they would always ask, “Did we have class together?” My response would always be the same run-on sentence: “Yeah…I actually graduated and will be going to school in LA soon so I needed a job to keep me in San Diego and I interviewed at a bunch of places but they didn’t seem to believe me that I could live and work in San Diego while attending school two days a week so none of them hired me except for McDonald’s but this place isn’t so bad.”

Okay, that wasn’t exactly what I would say, but the point is that I would always put up a defense for why I’m in that situation. Yet I would never mention my savior Jesus Christ and the hope I have in him. If there were no hope in his return or the everlasting life he gives, I would be attending seminary, driving back and forth from LA, working a low-end job, postponing my wedding, and serving the youth for nothing! I was convicted when a professor taught on 1 Peter 3:14-15 which says, “Even if you should suffer for righteousness’ sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled, but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you” (emphasis added). He pointed out that these verses have nothing to do with debating atheists and answering the question, “What proof do you have in God?” but it has everything to do with responding to trials and answering the question, “Why do you willingly suffer as you do?” Paul tells us how we should answer: by honoring Christ the Lord as holy, meaning He is the reason we are willing to endure hardship.

I was certainly prepared to make a defense for why I was working at McDonald’s but it did not present the hope I had in Christ, which meant I was ashamed of my circumstances and therefore ashamed of God, who placed me in them. While reading 2 Timothy 1:8 which says, “Do not be ashamed of the testimony about our Lord, nor of me his prisoner, but share in suffering for the gospel by the power of God,” I thought about how Paul would answer people who ask about why he’s in prison. Paul actually answers this by verse 11 where he writes, “I was appointed a preacher and apostle and teacher, which is why I suffer as I do. But I am not ashamed…” Why was Paul not ashamed? He continues, “…for I know whom I have believed, and I am convinced that he is able to guard until that Day what has been entrusted to me.”

Therefore, being unashamed of Christ is more than having a loud voice. It means rejoicing in the trials appointed by God and not making excuses for why you suffer. I made it a point from then on to answer anyone who asked why I endure hardships by expressing my love for Jesus and the hope I have in Him.

BOB – Song of Solomon

by Stephen Rodgers

SONG OF SOLOMON IN 10 WORDS OR LESS

“Married love is a beautiful thing worth celebrating.”

TITLE

I’ve been generally pleased with the way this section works when I quote MacArthur/MSB and/or Constable/NET…so I’m going to do that again.

From the MSB:

The Greek Septuagint (LXX) and Latin Vulgate (Vg.) versions follow the Hebrew (Masoretic Text) with literal translations of the first two words in Song 1:1—”Song of Songs.” Several English versions read “The Song of Solomon,” thus giving the fuller sense of 1:1. The superlative, “Song of Songs” (cf. “Holy of Holies” in Ex. 26:33, 34 and “King of Kings” in Rev. 19:16), indicates that this song is the best among Solomon’s 1,005 musical works (1 Kin. 4:32). The word translated “song” frequently refers to music that honors the Lord (cf. 1 Chr. 6:31, 32; Pss. 33:3; 40:3; 144:9).

From Constable’s notes:

In the Hebrew Bible the title of this book is “The Song of Songs.” It comes from 1:1. The Septuagint and Vulgate translators adopted this title. The Latin word for song is canticum from which we get the word Canticles, another title for this book. Some English translations have kept the title “Song of Songs” (e.g., NIV, TNIV), but many have changed it to “Song of Solomon” based on 1:1 (e.g., NASB, AV, RSV, NKJV).

If anyone is interested,  the ASB’s, NIVSB, and NET all render it “Song of Songs,” whereas the ESVSB, MSB, and RSB all render it “Song of Solomon.”  This is in keeping with the translation standards that Constable mentions (with the NET in the former category and the ESV in the latter).

AUTHOR & AUDIENCE

There is division among scholars as to the issue of Solomonic authorship. Jewish and Christian tradition have long and uniformly held that Solomon is the author of Song of Solomon, and that this is likely the greatest of the 1,000+ songs he composed. However, even among conservative scholars, this is not a uniform view.  The ESVSB for example, cites the following reasons for doubting the traditional position on authorship:

First, Song of Solomon 1:1 is grammatically ambiguous: it need not mean that Solomon wrote the Song of Solomon, only that it was written in his honor. Second, what is known of Solomon himself from 1 Kings raises problems with the suggestion that Solomon was the author. For example, 1 Kings 2 gives a concise summary of how Solomon’s kingdom was established (cf. 1 Kings 2:46), which is followed immediately by the statement in 1 Kings 3:1 that “Solomon made a marriage alliance with Pharaoh king of Egypt.” Pharaoh’s daughter, however, could not have been the country girl (a Shulammite) who is the heroine of the Song of Solomon (though some hold that Solomon might have married the Shulammite before he married Pharaoh’s daughter). Likewise, Solomon’s full harem (1 Kings 11:1–8) makes him a very bad example of married love for Israel (though some have replied that the Song of Solomon reflects Solomon’s wisdom that came from his chastened perspective as he reflected on his own life). Third, the book mentions Solomon (Song 1:5; 3:7, 9, 11; 8:11–12), but generally as a distant, even idealized figure.

I’d like to take the opportunity to briefly rebut some of those objections if I may:

  • The claim that Song 1:1 is somehow completely ambiguous is not an opinion shared by all translators and scholars. As convinced as C. John Collins is that the inscription is dedicatory, John MacArthur is equally convinced that it is plainly authorial.  Richard S. Hess in turn is convinced that the author is completely anonymous, and possibly even feminine. There’s no clear winner here.
  • Quoting 1 Kings 2-3 will only get you so far.  It may be that the statement immediately follows in the text, but that does not mean that the event described immediately followed in history. Kings and Chronicles don’t present events as a strict chronology.
  • Even the generally-held claim that the Shulammite and Pharaoh’s daughter cannot be the same person has been questioned. (Victor Sasson, “King Solomon and the Dark Lady in the Song of Songs,” Vetus Testamentum 39:4 (October 1989):407-14.)
  • The claim that an idealized view of love can only be reconciled with Solomomic authorship if the book was penned reflectively doesn’t necessarily follow; there are obvious counter-claims. Given the lack of a strict chronology, Solomon could have penned the book prior to wedding Pharoah’s daughter.  Given the ANE honor culture, Solomon could have simply chosen to omit his  indiscretions from his own poetry. Since we’re speculating here anyway, Solomon could have been profoundly dissatisfied even in the midst of his excess, and longed for a return to simpler times. See how easy (and fun!) this is?
  • The references to Solomon are distant, but the information is personal and detailed, indicating knowledge of decorations, transportation, personal interests, prized possessions, emotional state, and property ownership. This can be argued either way.
Personally I see no compelling reason to break with the traditional view.

DATE

Regardless of the position one takes on authorship, dating the Song is a relatively easy affair. Those holding to the traditional view believe it was composed during Solomon’s reign (971-931 BC). Those holding to a non-traditional view of authorship date it to the exact same period. Per the ESVSB:

If it is not entirely certain that Solomon wrote the book, one can still argue that the book was written during Solomon’s reign (971–931 b.c.). The book mentions him and seems to assume his glorious reign as a known fact. At the same time, the heroine is a young Shulammite woman (Song 6:13); most take this to mean that she comes from the village of Shunem (Josh. 19:18; 2 Kings 4:8), which is in the tribal inheritance of Issachar. Furthermore, the town of Tirzah is mentioned along with Jerusalem in comparisons of beauty (Song 6:4). The towns of Shunem and Tirzah were located in what became the northern kingdom. These features make it likely that the book comes from the time before Israel was divided into the northern and southern kingdoms, which took place just after Solomon’s death (931 b.c.).

BACKGROUND & SETTING

Once the date has been established, the background and setting are quite clear: Solomon’s reign. The poem however, does not present a view of his entire reign.  It’s a long poem, but not that long.

The poem itself presents its own unit of time, which is imprecise at best: assuming a chronology without gaps, the courtship, wedding, and ensuing marriage takes place over the course of at least one year (time can be marked by seasonal shifts, and spring occurs initially in Song 2:11-13, then recurs in Song 7:12.

HISTORICAL & THEOLOGICAL THEMES

There are three obvious themes that present themselves in reading Song of Solomon.

  • Love is a beautiful gift from God. Above all, Song of Solomon is a love poem that articulates the relationship between a husband and wife. Their love is portrayed as precious (Song 8:7b), spontaneous (Song 2:7), and powerful (Song 8:6-7a).
  • Marital contentment. Despite Solomon’s life (or perhaps, because of it), Song of Solomon demostrates that contentment and fulfillment are found in the exclusivity (Song 2:16) of the marriage relationship.
  • Love is both pleasurable and painful. Joy is the dominant note of the Song, but the reader is warned that love is a powerful emotion that may bring disappointments (Song 5:2-6:3). Love has a dangerous side (Song 8:6), and should be treated with caution.

INTERPRETIVE CHALLENGES

In dealing with the Song of Solomon, one challenge stands out above all others: in a literary sense, how should the book be understood? Let me quote the MSB, then offer some of my own thoughts:

The Song has suffered strained interpretations over the centuries by those who use the “allegorical” method of interpretation, claiming that this song has no actual historical basis, but rather that it depicts God’s love for Israel and/or Christ’s love for the church. The misleading idea from hymnology that Christ is the rose of Sharon and the lily of the valleys results from this method (Song 2:1). The “typological” variation admits the historical reality, but concludes that it ultimately pictures Christ’s bridegroom love for His bride the church.

Let me tip my hand a little, and quote with great amusement and approval one particularly renowned commentator: “All things are possible to those who allegorize—and what they come up with is usually heretical.” (Warren W. Wiersbe, “Song of Solomon,” in The Bible Exposition Commentary/Wisdom and Poetry, p. 542.)

You see, this may be a bit of an oversimplification, but let me try to lay it out as I see it:

  • On one hand, you’ve got a historical weight of scholars and theologians who are seemingly desperate to allegorize the text: ancient Jewish readers saw it as a symbolic recounting of God’s relationship with Israel (Talmud, Targums, Midrashim, etc.); medieval Jewish interpreters thought it was an allegory for philosophy; Christians have taught that it is analogy of the love of Christ for the church (Hippolytus, Jerome), the love relationship between a human soul and God (Origen), or that it figuratively describes Solomon’s reign over Israel (Luther). Multiple Roman Catholic interpreters claim that Mary is the central figure of the allegory. As a professor of logic once told me in a different context, “They can’t all be right. They can all be wrong, but they can’t all be right. That’s the downside of competing explanations.”
  • On the other hand, you have a number of ultra-modern interpreters and commentators who seem to want to claim that the Song of Solomon is sort of Christian crypto-Kama Sutra. Some go so far as to make the claim that every poetic or figurative illustration is actually a metaphorical reference to a particular sex act. You can imagine the implications and arguments that ensue from that particular view.
  • Don’t even get me started on the Shepherd Hypothesis. Seriously. Don’t get me started.

So on one side we’ve potentially got the worst elements of allegedly-puritanical censorship (and I say “allegedly” because having read the Puritans, they really aren’t very “puritanical” at all in that sense), and on the other side we’ve potentially got the worst elements of pseudo-Christian sensationalism. How’s that old song go? “Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right…”

At the risk of punching well above my weight here, it seems plain to me that Song of Solomon is a love poem, depicting courtship, a wedding, and a honeymoon/marriage, between two human beings. No more, and no less. Let me finish that MSB quote I started earlier:

A more satisfying way to approach Solomon’s Song is to take it at face value and interpret it in the normal historical sense, understanding the frequent use of poetic imagery to depict reality. To do so understands that Solomon recounts 1) his own days of courtship, 2) the early days of his first marriage, followed by 3) the maturing of this royal couple through the good and bad days of life. The Song of Solomon expands on the ancient marriage instructions of Gen. 2:24, thus providing spiritual music for a lifetime of marital harmony. It is given by God to demonstrate His intention for the romance and loveliness of marriage, the most precious of human relations and “the grace of life” (1 Pet. 3:7).

LITERARY FEATURES

The literary features that one finds when reading a text are going to be largely influenced by the kind of text one supposes it to be.  However, assuming that Song of Solomon is best understood literally, then the ESVSB has this to say:

The best label that can be assigned to the book is love poetry, in which the lovers are shepherd and shepherdess and the setting is a flowery and fruitful rural landscape (of which a vineyard is the prime example). If a love poem celebrates the occasion of a specific wedding, it is called an epithalamion, and that is what takes place here.

OBJECTIONS

Apart from the issues of AUTHOR and INTERPRETIVE CHALLENGES (dealt with in the previous sections), there are no objections to the Song of Solomon that I am aware of, despite the controversy it has caused over the centuries.

NOTABLE QUOTABLES

  • Song 1:2
  • Song 2:4
  • Song 8:7

DID YOU KNOW?

  • Like the book of Esther, Song of Solomon never mentions the name “God.”

Other Works Referenced

  • Apologetics Study Bible, “Song of Songs”
  • Archaeological Study Bible, “Introduction to Song of Songs”
  • ESV Study Bible, “Introduction to Song of Solomon”
  • MacArthur Study Bible, “Song of Solomon”
  • NET Bible, Song of Songs
  • NIV Study Bible, Song of Songs
  • Reformation Study Bible, “Song of Solomon”
  • The Baker Illustrated Bible Handbook, “Song of Songs” (And might I add, their article on this book of the Bible is particularly shallow and disappointing)
  • Know Your Bible
  • Dever, The Message of the Old Testament (In contrast to BIBH above, Dever’s treatment is simply excellent, nuanced, and timely)
  • Driscoll, A Book You’ll Actually Read On the Old Testament
  • Knight, The Layman’s Bible Handbook

Satisfied and Unsatisfied

by Pastor Patrick Cho

One of my favorite scenes from C. S. Lewis’s classic, The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, is where Edmund first encounters the White Witch. In case you haven’t read the book or don’t remember the scene, this is where, in an attempt to gain his trust, she asks Edmund what he most desires to eat. He responds, “Turkish Delight, please, Your Majesty.” When she gives him his wish, he proceeds to stuff his face full of the deadly dessert, but the more he eats, the more it leaves him wanting more.

When the box is empty, Edmund stares intently at it desperately craving more. Lewis explains, “At last the Turkish Delight was all finished and Edmund was looking very hard at the empty box and wishing that she would ask him whether he would like some more. Probably the Queen knew quite well what he was thinking; for she knew, though Edmund did not, that this was enchanted Turkish Delight and that anyone who had once tasted it would want more and more of it, and would even, if they were allowed, go on eating it until they killed themselves.”

What a brilliant picture of what sin does to the human heart! The deadly bait of sin lures a person with the promise of complete satisfaction, and yet it leaves the soul feeling somewhat satisfied and unsatisfied. The craving is satisfied in that the individual gets a taste of his heart’s desire. But the soul is left deeply unsatisfied because he desperately wants more. All the pleasures of the world and the lusts of the heart promise the same satisfaction and fail to deliver. There is no such thing as the sinner who says, “I don’t need any more because I have received all that my heart desires.” This is one of the reasons for our propensity to continue to sin. We are left wanting more.

Interestingly, according to Scripture and in our own life experience, the believer’s heart for God also knows satisfaction yet with a desire for more. But this is in a vastly different and incomparable way. Unlike with sin, when the believer experiences the knowledge of God, there is the possibility of complete satisfaction. Nothing else in the world compares with knowing God and we are willing to lay aside all earthly things to know Him. Jesus taught that the kingdom of heaven was like a precious pearl, and that the buyer of pearls would sell all that he owned to obtain it (Matt. 13:45-46). There is true satisfaction in God that the world can’t successfully forge.

And yet we do not know God as fully as He could be known. We see Him in Scripture, but our vision is limited by our finiteness. He is the infinite, Creator God, and we will forever remain His creatures. His mind is infinitely greater than ours and we could never successfully attain to it (Ps. 139:6; Rom. 11:33-34). His holiness alone sets Him apart from the rest of creation (Isa. 6:3).

But it isn’t only our finiteness that limits our ability to know God to the fullest. Our sin also keeps us from our goal. We are too easily satisfied by lesser things (cf. Jer. 2:13). Our hearts are too easily led astray. Though our hearts would desire to know Him, our sinful flesh constantly sets itself up as a barrier. Even though God has filled our hearts, we still struggle with a lack of desire for Him.

Still, with the believer’s heart, there will always be a deep-seated desire to know God more. Paul wrote that this was ever his goal (cf. Phil. 3:10). He was willing to lay aside everything else in order to attain a greater knowledge of His Savior. Every believer should identify with A. W. Tozer’s prayer at the conclusion of the first chapter of The Pursuit of God: “O God, I have tasted Thy goodness, and it has both satisfied me and made me thirsty for more…O God, the Triune God, I want to want Thee; I long to be filled with longing; I thirst to be made more thirsty still.” Though we know Him really, we don’t know Him fully. There should always be an ongoing pursuit in our hearts.

Sin leaves us feeling somewhat satisfied and yet dissatisfied. It leaves us craving more and more without completely filling our hearts. God leaves us satisfied and yet somewhat dissatisfied in that our lives would be lived in a constant pursuit of Him. The Bible speaks truth when it says that both the backslider and good man will be filled with the fruit of their ways (Prov. 14:14).

But even though the two might seem similar, they are vastly different. If in nothing else, they are different in their ultimate outcomes. If a person pursues sin with all his heart, he will ultimately never be satisfied and his pursuit will end in death (cf. James 1:14-15). But when a believer pursues God with all His heart, he has an eternity of life to look forward to where his heart will be completely satisfied with the one he loves most (cf. 1 John 3:1-2).

No One Expects the (Shepherds’ Conference)!

by Stephen Rodgers

Welcome to another of our surprise Monday posts!

A couple weeks back I posted an article directing you to the Shepherd’s Conference resources. I just wanted to briefly, and I do mean briefly, follow up on that to let you know that the audio from the 2012 Conference is now up and online.

I’ve already included the necessary parameters in that link to filter it down to just the 2012 material, although the GCC web guy (or gal) isn’t quite on the ball, so the Spanish sermons are in there as well.  No biggie; it’s absolutely worth your time to give those recordings a listen!

Personally, I would recommend that you start with the ones labelled “General Session” (and listen to those in order), then branch out to the seminars that are of interest to you. If you don’t have time to take the comprehensive approach, or you just want a few recommendations, here are a few that I found extremely profitable:

Enjoy!

Pro Rege

I Have Learned, in Whatever State I Am, Therewith to Be Content

by Charles Haddon Spurgeon

From Philippians 4:11

These words show us that contentment is not a natural propensity of man. ‘Ill weeds grow apace.’ Covetousness, discontent, and murmuring are as natural to man as thorns are to the soil. We need not sow thistles and brambles; they come up naturally enough, because they are indigenous to earth: and so, we need not teach men to complain; they complain fast enough without any education. But the precious things of the earth must be cultivated. If we would have wheat, we must plough and sow; if we want flowers, there must be the garden, and all the gardener’s care.

Now, contentment is one of the flowers of heaven, and if we would have it, it must be cultivated; it will not grow in us by nature; it is the new nature alone that can produce it, and even then we must be specially careful and watchful that we maintain and cultivate the grace which God has sown in us. Paul says, ‘I have learned . . . to be content;’ as much as to say, he did not know how at one time. It cost him some pains to attain to the mystery of that great truth. No doubt he sometimes thought he had learned, and then broke down. And when at last he had attained unto it, and could say, ‘I have learned in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content,’ he was an old, grey-headed man, upon the borders of the grave-a poor prisoner shut up in Nero’s dungeon at Rome.

We might well be willing to endure Paul’s infirmities, and share the cold dungeon with him, if we too might by any means attain unto his good degree. Do not indulge the notion that you can be contented with learning, or learn without discipline. It is not a power that may be exercised naturally, but a science to be acquired gradually. We know this from experience. Brother, hush that murmur, natural though it be, and continue a diligent pupil in the College of Content.

2.16a