Old Testament Theology

Notes on the “Image of God” (Imago Dei) and the Attributes of God: “Let us make”

Notes on the Imago Dei and the Attributes of God: “Let us make”
[for complete version with Hebrew terms, see The Image of God and the Attributes of God]

Stephen T. Hague 

Table of Contents

I. Introduction and background 1

II. The three main views of the image 2

III.         The Creator/creature, Redeemer/redeemed distinctions  3

IV. The image of God in the Bible 4

V. The image of God in humans summarized 5

VI. Practical implications of the image of God 6

  1. Creativity 6
  2. Family and community (social) 6
  3. Prophetic and priestly roles 6
  4. Dominion/work/labor/leisure 7
  5. The glory of God is his image 7
  6. The apologetic value of a biblical theology of the image of God 7
  7. The impact of the fall on the image of God 7
  8. The need for redemption to realign and restore the image of God 8

VII.       Westminster Shorter Catechism and the image of God   9

VIII.      John Calvin’s comments on Jesus as the image of God:

IX. Some sources: 9

I. Introduction and background

In the beginning of the book of Genesis, Moses described the creation of humans in the “image and likeness of” God. Many attempts over the centuries have been made to understand what this means, and what bearing this might have on the rest of human life. The following are some notes to define and suggest some possible ways of expanding our understanding that collates various themes from the Old and New Testaments, and therefore these reflections are not based solely on Gen 1:26.

Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness;

וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֱלֹהִ֔ים נַֽעֲשֶׂ֥ה אָדָ֛ם בְּצַלְמֵ֖נוּ כִּדְמוּתֵ֑נוּ Gen 1:26

Some call this phrase, “Let us make . . . ,” the “the plural of majesty” (see also Gen 1:26-28; 3:22-24; Isa 6:8). Though this is disputed, and others propose the following:

  • the angels present?
  • the Trinity?

[See The New international Dictionary of Theology (in full version), fnn. 1-2.]

II. The three main views of the image

The debate on definitions is whether/what the substantive, functional, or relational views express as intrinsic (ontological?) elements or as consequential aspects of being made in the image of God. Some argue that aspects of the relational and functional convey consequences of being made in the image of God, not the essence of the image of God itself as it is substantively constituted in humans. For the purposes of discussion, it may be helpful to distinguish consequent from intrinsic, but in reality these categories seem to overlap. Indeed, there are substantive, relational, and functional aspects of the image that interrelate and work to define image of God as it is expressed in human life. The word essence may be what clouds the debate, since to say something is strictly functional or essential, consequential or essential, or relational or substantive, may exclude other options. To state that the image of God is either essential or consequential, may exclude the possibility that being made in God’s image means we are substantively, functionally, and relationally that image. I suggest it is better to state that the image has aspects (attributes) of being relational and functional, that are substantive or intrinsic to the nature of being made in the image of God. For example, some argue a distinction between being made in the image of God and God’s command to have dominion. Nevertheless, could it not be argued that being made in the image of God may intrinsically mean having dominion (among other aspects)? To be made in God’s image is to be co-regent in royal dominion over creation. A tool made for a particular purpose may not be distinguished from its intrinsic nature as a tool: a hammer is made to hammer, that is what it is/does, though we may talk about a hammer’s diverse uses as a hammer, its “essential” nature is functional, relational, and substantive.

The image of God in humans is in substance, essence, and function related to the so-called communicable attributes of God: will, life, intelligence (rationality), knowledge, emotions, love, benevolence, compassion, power, morality, spirituality, personality, self-consciousness, self-transcendence (independence), self-determination, faithfulness, righteousness, holiness, wisdom, goodness, truth, justice, mercy. It is important to note that only God is “infinite, eternal, and unchangeable” (Shorter Catechism) (in reference to all his attributes), and thus only God bears all of the attributes denoted as communicable/incommunicable in any absolute sense, and these all relate to his glory.[3]

God is not an abstraction, but his attributes are expressed in reality/history, and thus God is known through his expression of his attributes. Even though we may discuss in the abstract God’s attributes, we only can do so consistently by considering his expression of those attributes in generals and special revelation. Attributes unexpressed (functionally/relationally) are unknowable.

III.   The Creator/creature, Redeemer/redeemed distinctions

  • The fundamental differentiation of mankind from God, mankind from animals and nature enables believer to know who and what he is. The modern world (particularly materialistic science) cannot determine if man is animal, machine, angel, or devil. This is the root problem of most world religions and philosophies: failure to make the proper distinctions between God and creation. To lack an image of God theology is to lack a foundation to all theology and to life in this world as humans. “The fact that man is the image of God distinguishes him from the animal and from every other creature.”[4]
  • God’s nature: He exists, as one God, omnipotent creator, absolutely distinct from creation: personal/infinite, immanent/transcendent. Presence is absolute and immediate before the fall, absolute though mediate after. That is, God is immanent and transcendent.
  • Human nature: exists as created, one person, body and soul, image of God and sinful nature (complex nature).
    • Some scholars propose that there are bodily aspects to the image of God: classified as “theomorphism” (Von Rad). Van Leeuwen comments:

Early in the century, some scholars considered the image to refer to the human body as physically resembling God (cf. Isa 6:1, 5; Ezek 1:26; Dan 7:9-10), a form of “theomorphism” (von Rad, 145-46). Such a view is too simple. The image is properly understood as referring to the entire human, not a part or property. In recent research, Stendebach discerns two main lines of interpretation of the image. First, humankind is God’s representative upon earth, given the task of dominion over the nonhuman creation. The second model sees humankind as God’s counterpart (Gegenüber Gottes), so that a dialogical relation between God and humankind exists (Stendebach, 1051-52). Both models are valid, in that they express aspects of being “in the image of God.”[5]

    • Others, on the other hand, like J. Calvin understand the image of God as spiritual not physical: “the likeness of God extends to the whole excellence by which man’s nature towers over all the kinds of living creatures”;  right understanding, affections within bounds of reason, senses tempered by right order (Institutes, 1. 15. 3).
  • First Adam was the “crown of creation” in the image of God. The Last Adam is Jesus Christ who is The True Image (1 Cor 15:21-22).
  • Nature in humanity: each person is a unified body and soul, whereas God is one Triunity.
  • After the Fall of humanity, humans became “a glorious ruin” of divided body and soul, dividing God and humankind, etc.
  • Redemption: is the restoration of the damaged image to the perfect image of God in Christ.
  • Salvation is rooted in creation and always highlights the Creator/creation, Savior/redeemed distinctions.

IV. The image of God in the Bible

Gen 1:27  So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

Gen 9:6 Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man.

2 Cor 4:4 The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God (ὅς ἐστιν εἰκὼν του θεου).

Col 3:10 and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator.

1 Cor 11:7 A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.

The True image is Christ Jesus:

  1. holiness
  2. righteousness
  3. knowledge (cognizant) (of God, etc. is proper.
  4. will/volition
  5. love and faithfulness

In Colossians, Paul presents a theological exposition of who Christ Jesus is:

  • The image[6]  of God, not made “in the image of God” (1:15a) (contra Gnostics) (cf. 3:10).[7]
  • The firstborn over all creation, begotten of God not created, as pre-eminent over all (3:15b).

The image of God applied to Christ means his consubstantiality with the Father, Christ’s equality, essence, and identity as the Son with the Father. The word “image” in our modern “image based” society tends to connote insubstantiality (copy/fake) in this English word. Note: the ancient church called all Christian pictorial representations icons.

Creation of humanity was the creation of humans in the image of God. Redemption is the restoration, the completion of the image of God in man through the one Man Jesus Christ. The goal of our redemption is to be conformed to the image of the Son. “Redemption is the re-creation of our humanity.”[8] See also Col 3:10.

Rom 8:29 For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.

2 Cor 3:18 And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.

2 Cor 5:17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!

1 Jn 3:2 Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when he appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.

This promise in Romans 8 is intrinsic to the gospel of redemption and renewal of God’s image in us:

Rom 8:19-21 The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. 20 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.

  • See NT: Rom 8:29 conformed to his likeness (image,  Eph 4:24; Col 3:10). Redemption is restoration to the image of God in Christ. See P. Hughes, The True Image, J. Calvin,

Reasoning backwards from Eph 4:21-24 and Col 3:10, the image of God restored is that of original true righteousness, holiness, and true knowledge of God. As Raymond notes, in discussing C.Hodge’s views, that the renewed image virtues “are not religio/ethical abstractions, but rather are indicative of right relationships with God and neighbor.”[9]

V. The image of God in humans summarized

  • The image of God is universally present in all humans at all times. It is the defining quality and nature of what it means to be human. To be human is to reflect the glory of God himself. The image of God is therefore the fundamental “contact point” between all people, since we exist as creatures and we can only know each other through the reality of being made in his image.
  • The image of God was not lost due to sin (not obliterated in the doctrine of “total depravity” which refers to moral status before God). Many begin all gospel presentations with the sinful nature of humans, so as to highlight the need for redemption. I propose this is a backwards approach, even if sometimes effective in making people sense their guilt before God. Rather, we should typically begin with creation (in God’s image) as the starting point, the place we begin to outline the history of redemption is where that story-line begins historically.
  • The image of God is not simply a relational quality between man and God (as in Barth/Brunner), but rather substantive of each person’s very nature as a human. Thus, it does not vary in degree from person to person. As noted above, the issue is whether the substantive, functional, or relational views express intrinsic (ontological) elements or convey consequential aspects.
  • However we resolve the relation between intrinsic and consequence (we might argue that the lines are not absolute), the image of God in humans enables them to have true knowledge of God, to show justice towards the neighbor, covenant-faithfulness, to be living beings in relationship (to God and to both animate and inanimate creation), to have real personality, will (choice, determination), communication (love, truth), emotion (affections of the heart), spirituality (worship of communion with God), rationality (logos, mind, knowledge, logic, hermeneutics), morality (conscience), creativity (aesthetics, work, beauty), dignity (personality), goodness (though and deed), value (intrinsic due to image of God), dominion (vice regents, ambassadors, representatives) and authority (derived). As we live for God through Jesus Christ, we come to experience the fullness of our humanity.
  • In contrast to other ANE understandings, the image of God in humans does not primarily convey attributes that stress being created in order to serve the gods, but rather as a dominion of royal co-regency with God over/in the created order. Some suggest this conveys aspects of representation/agency of God himself, in which humans must fulfill God’s purposes on the earth.
  • Importantly, humans can be dramatically distinguished from all other created material creatures, while also being clearly distinguished from the Creator. Considering all the qualities listed above, humans are not beasts, and thus contrary to the widespread assumptions of evolutionary theory, humans are not evolved from the order of beasts who do not bear the image of God.
  • Idols,[10] worshipping images of rocks and trees made in the image of man, become a travesty of cosmic magnitude, for such worship reduces humans to worshiping something even less than what they themselves possess, which is the very image of God itself.
    “To project God in man’s image is therefore a heinous form of idolatry confounding the Creator with the creaturely (Rom 1:23).”[11]
  • Understanding that all people bear God’s image (though they are lost in the darkness of sin and deception, bound to folly and destruction of all that is good), we are thus compelled to evangelize the entire human race. There are none outside the compassion of God for us to seek to reclaim with the gospel of restoration to God and the renewal of the image of God in them through becoming conformed to the true image of God in Christ.

VI.            Practical implications of the image of God

A. Creativity

The aesthetic of the creation-order is the result of the creation of humans in the image of God. The Edenic “cultural commission” was to creatively build God’s kingdom on earth. Mankind’s creative abilities and knowledge were to be applied to having dominion over the created world. In some sense humans are co-creators with God (not ex nihilo, but out of what is there in creation). The dignity of work is thus affirmed. Jesus fulfills the Edenic mandate of work and creativity (Jn 5:17).  Believing the colossal lies of Satan, Adam and Eve introduced destruction and decay, ugliness and grotesque perversions.

B.  Family and community (social)

We were made for HOME and community. Home is the place for sexuality, love, community, learning, and the foundation of the church and society. Fathering/mothering of children in the home reflects God’s creation of Adam and Eve. The home and the church community are the place for the relay of truth and the gospel through language communication and demonstration (see E. Schaeffer’s, What is a Family and other categories). Neighborly love in the home and community is to be the rule. Believing the colossal lies of Satan led to division, alienation, death, and murder.

C. Prophetic and priestly roles

At creation, sinless humankind bowed before and worshipped God. They guarded the sanctuary-garden of the Lord’s presence (see M. Kline, Kingdom Prologue, p 52-56). See Gen 2:15 – the imperative to WORK  (db() is joined with the imperative to GUARD, watch over, stand watch (rm$). The question is: what is man guarding against?  Satan?  Outside forces? To guide creation in God’s way by faithfully administering God’s imperatives?  In sum, to mediate God’s truth to God’s creation, properly interpreting and applying that truth to the created world. Believing the colossal lies of Satan, they failed in this role of conveying God’s truth. See also 1:28 – God’s imperatives to be fruitful, multiply, rule/govern. These were not options of “free”-will choice.

D. Dominion/work/labor/leisure

All creation is under Adam. The heaven’s are the Lord’s, the earth is the dominion of human hands. Work before the fall was intensive and extensive: they were keepers of the Garden. Freedom factor: before fall, after fall (Rom 8:21). Man was free within certain bounds;  outside those boundaries he was forbidden to go. What we usually call the exercise of mankind’s “free will” was really the exercise of mankind’s rebellious will in bondage to sin. The act of rebellion (eating of the tree) followed the volition of rebellion. Free and enabled to work (db() guard (rm$) the garden (2:15) involved being fruitful (three verbs involved: hrp, hbr, )lm [1:28]). This involved having dominion by ruling and governing in the garden over all creation (hdr[1:28]) (see dominion, p. 441). No indolence. Royal connotations?  Ruler of the earth under God. As the Lord tends to his creation his co-regents were to do likewise. “Fathering” and nurturing the creation. The imitation of God: love God and hate the evil one. Glorify God and enjoy him forever.. Thus they were to glorify God in all they did. Believing the colossal lies of Satan, joyous work became toil and sorrow.

E. The glory of God is his image

R.C. Newman correlates the image of God with the glory of God, and the glory of God with the moral excellence of God. As a person’s reputation is found in their image, their image is represented in whoever reflects their image. In this case, God’s image is his glory and is reflected in his creation morally.[12]

Rom 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

2 Cor 3:18 And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.

Jn 17:4 I have brought you glory on earth by completing the work you gave me to do.

1 Cor 6:20 you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body.

Jn 21:19 Jesus said this to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God. Then he said to him, “Follow me!”

F. The apologetic value of a biblical theology of the image of God

We have deep and true compassion for the lost and appreciation for their creativity (among other things), being made in God’s image. Man, alongside general revelation in creation, is the greatest proof and proclamation of God’s existence and nature (Ps 19; Rom 1). Every person we meet we already know to an incredible degree, since we know how they are constituted. The one primary thing that is new to us in meeting someone, and that encompasses their whole self, is their unique personhood (personality) as made in God’s image.

In terms of the image of God in those being sanctified, the fruit of the Spirit is goodness, virtue, and character, NOT “Worm Theology.” Rom 15:14, “I know that there is much good in you (full of goodness[NIV]), complete in knowledge, and competent to instruct one another.”

G.              The impact of the fall on the image of God

“Before the Fall, we saw ourselves as under God, bearing God’s image and deriving a sense of identity and coherence from God. But now we identify ourselves with creation instead of our Creator. Our whole orientation is downward toward what is less than ourselves, rather than upward toward what is greater. This change of orientation has many psychological results.” D.Keyes, Beyond Identity, p. 61.

Since the Fall, our integration point has been misdirected, misaligned, for it now is not in God himself but in idols, ourselves, and other such futile points of reference. In God, we have an infinite and personal reference point for our own identity and souls, but without a proper relationship to him, we have none that is sufficient for anything. All of the characteristics listed above to define/describe the image of God could be listed here with the deleterious impact of the fall upon them, not obliteration of them but distortion and perversion.

H. The need for redemption to realign and restore the image of God

In God, as those who are redeemed, we have an infinite and personal reference point for our own identity and souls. But, without a proper relationship to him, we have no point of reference that is sufficient for anything. All of the characteristics listed above to define/describe the image of God could be listed here with the deleterious impact of the fall upon them, not obliteration of them but distortion and perversion. This has practical significance in giving significance to all of life; it also gives us a point of reference for every concern of our lives in this world. We do have in Christ an infinite reference point to final integration for our whole being, our whole world, our whole future, our whole eternity. The word integration (often used in Mathematics) is an inadequate attempt in human language to convey the antonym of disintegration (or alienation from self, body, society). For humans, that which makes us whole, complete, full, unified in mind, heart, and character, can only come from the One who made us complete in Eden. The restoration of redemption is to wholeness and shalom, since it is a restoration to the proper relationship to God himself. Yet, how do finite creatures relate to an infinite God? Only through the Incarnate Son. Holiness and wholeness: the telos of God’s purposes. To be holy is to be WHOLE, complete, perfect, unblemished, unmarred. We will be made whole in God’s holy presence. Jesus’ healings of the un-whole and unholy pre-shadowed this new creation reality: the blind see and the lame walk!

VII. Westminster Shorter Catechism and the image of God

Q10: How did God create man?

A10: God created man male and female, after his own image,[1] in knowledge, righteousness, and holiness,[2] with dominion over the creatures.[3]

Q35:  What is sanctification?

A35:  Sanctification is the work of God’s free grace,[1] whereby we are renewed in the whole man after the image of God,[2] and are enabled more and more to die unto sin, and live unto righteousness.[3]

The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter IV: Of Creation

  1. After God had made all other creatures, he created man, male and female,[4] with reasonable and immortal souls,[5] endued with knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness, after his own image;[6] having the law of God written in their hearts,[7] and power to fulfill it:[8] and yet under a possibility of transgressing, being left to the liberty of their own will, which was subject unto change.[9] Beside this law written in their hearts, they received a command, not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; which while they kept, they were happy in their communion with God,[10] and had dominion over the creatures.[11]

VIII. John Calvin’s comments on Jesus as the image of God:

  1. Who is the image of the invisible God. He mounts up higher in discoursing as to the glory of Christ. He calls him the image of the invisible God, meaning by this, that it is in him alone that God, who is otherwise invisible, is manifested to us, in accordance with what is said in John 1:18,

— No man hath ever seen God: the only begotten Son, who is in

the bosom of the Father, hath himself manifested him to us.

I am well aware in what manner the ancients were accustomed to explain this; for having a contest to maintain with Arians, they insist upon the equality of the Son with the Father, and his ( ) identity of essence, F42 while in the mean time they make no mention of what is the chief point — in what manner the Father makes himself known to us in Christ. As to Chrysostom’s laying the whole stress of his defense on the term image, by contending that the creature cannot be said to be the image of the Creator, it is excessively weak; nay more, it is set aside by Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:7, whose words are — The man is the IMAGE and glory of God. That, therefore, we may not receive anything but what is solid, let us take notice, that the term image is not made use of in reference to essence, but has a reference to us; for Christ is called the image of God on this ground — that he makes God in a manner visible to us. At the same time, we gather also from this his ( ) identity of essence, for Christ would not truly represent God, if he were not the essential Word of God, inasmuch as the question here is not as to those things which by communication are suitable also to creatures, but the question is as to the perfect wisdom, goodness, righteousness, and power of God, for the representing of which no creature were competent. We shall have, therefore, in this term, a powerful weapon in opposition to the Arians, but, notwithstanding, we must begin with that reference that I have mentioned; we must not insist upon the essence alone. The sum is this — that God in himself, that is, in his naked majesty, is invisible, and that not to the eyes of the body merely, but also to the understandings of men, and that he is revealed to us in Christ alone, that we may behold him as in a mirror. For in Christ he shews us his righteousness, goodness, wisdom, power, in short, his entire self. We must, therefore, beware of seeking him elsewhere, for everything that would set itself off as a representation of God, apart from Christ, will be an idol.[13]

 IX. Some sources

  • H.Baker, In The Image of God.
  • Athanasius, On the Incarnation, pp. 22-23. Christ is the True Image (same as P. Hughes in The True Image).
  • Erickson, Christian Theology, pp. 498-517.
  • Keyes, Beyond Identity, “Identity Lost,” pp, 32-40.
  • Raymond, A New Systematic Theology, pp. 425-429.
  • E. Hughes, The True Image (passim).
  • Newman, “Some Perspectives on the Image of God in Man from Biblical Theology.”
  • Sherlock, The Doctrine of Humanity, pp. 29-48, 49-91.
  • Berkhof, Systematic Theology, pp. 202-210.
  • Middlemann, Proexistence.
  • Keyes’ lectures on work
  • Marshall, Heaven is not My Home.
  • Macaulay and J. Barrs, Being Human.
  • A.Schaeffer, Art and the Bible.

[1] The New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis.

[2] Van Leeuwen¸ “Form, Image,” NIDOTTE, vol. 4, pp. 643-648.

[3] Note: there has been much debate about the usefulness of the categories incommunicable/communicable/ (or absolute/relative, transcendent/immanent, negative/positive, moral/natural, immanent (intransitive)/emanent(transitive), because they are only absolute when in reference to God and apply only analogously to humans: “no attribute of God is completely communicable, and there is no attribute of God that completely incommunicable” (Grudem, Systematic Theology, p. 156).

[4] Berkhof, Systematic Theology, p. 206.

[5] Van Leeuwen¸ “Form, Image,” NIDOTTE, vol. 4, pp. 643-648.

[6] ei)kw/n  eikwn€ei)/kw,  e)/oika I. a likeness, image, portrait, Hdt., Aesch. 2. an image in a mirror, Eur., Plat. II. a semblance, phantom, Eur., Plat., etc. an image in the mind, id=Plat. III. a similitude, simile, Ar., Plat. (Liddell and Scot Lerxicon).

[7] See Hughes, The True Image, pp. 3-65. See also Erickson’s critique of Barth’s and Brunner’s existential interpretation of the image of God (Christian Theology, pp. 495-517); Berkouwer, Studies in Dogmatics: Man the Image of God; Newman, Robert C. “Some Perspectives on the Image of God in Man From Biblical Theology,” Research Report # 21, Interdisciplinary Biblical Research Institute, Hatfield, PA, 1984.

[8] Hughes, The True Image, p. 27.

[9] Raymond, Systematic Theology, p. 428.

[10] See words related to idols and other forms of “representation” (from NIDOTTE): µl,x&, (statue, model, image, H7512);  ha,r“m’ ( mar’eh), appearance (H5260); tynIb]T’ ( tabnît), model or design for something built (H9322); hn:WmT] ( temûnâ), form (H9454)  and ls,P&,, hn:WmT], lm,s&, [H6166], tynIb]T’; lylia‘ (Nothing, H496); µyliWLGI (images, idols, H1658);  hr:vea} (wooden cult-object, pole, goddess, H895); lm,s&, (image, H6166); bx;[; (god-image, H6773); ls,P&, (cultic image, statue of a god, H7181; lysiP;, cultic image, statue of a god, H7178; ls’P;, carve, hew out of stone, dress, H7180);  µl,x&, (statue, model, image, H7512);  rm,T&o (scarecrow, H9473);  µypir:T] (figurines, mask, H9572).

[11] C.F.H. Henry, “Image of God,” The Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, p. 546.

[12] Newman, “Some Perspectives,” pp. 15-17.

[13] Calvin, Ephesians, The Ages Digital Library, Books for the Ages, Ages Software, Albany, OR.


Legalism or license?

“Love God and do as you please” is not an uncommon attitude (pagan “Christianity”) and philosophy (Gnosticism). Luther has been said to espouse a version of this idea in his oft quoted “sin boldly” refrain. Yet, there really is no option of disobedience to the law (obedience is possible), while on the other hand, there really is no option of legalistic presumption. The principle truth of the law is to have true love written on your heart. This leads to spontaneous obedience. The law was indirect in its promise. The covenant-promise was direct. The law shows us circuitously that there is a gap between God and man. The promise shows us plainly and directly that reconciliation will be accomplished. The law was conditioned. The promise had no ultimate conditions placed on the first Adam after his fall, only on the Last Adam, the Messiah. The conditions of faith are real, however, and freedom from the law in the new covenant never has meant license to disobey the law. The law is just and good, because it represents God who is good and just. God’s law compliments God’s promise. The law does not save, nor does the promise. The Lord’s promise is completed in the One who fulfilled the law. The One who said, “If you love me, you will obey my commandments.”


From where we stand now can we believe in myths and legends? Somber reflections on Kenneth Sparks’ “Historical” Revisions

downloadSome somber reflections on Kenton L. Sparks’ “Ancient Historiography” in Genesis: History, Fiction, or Neither?: Three Views on The Bible’s Earliest Chapters. Grand Rapids: Zondervan , 2015.

“From where we stand now, at the dawn of the twenty-first century, in a time when we’ve sequenced the Neanderthal genome and traced out in the DNA our shared genetic heritage with primates and other mammals, it is no longer possible for informed readers to interpret the book of Genesis as straightforward history. There was no Edenic  garden, nor trees of life and knowledge, nor a serpent that spoke, nor a worldwide flood in which all living things, save those on a giant boat, were killed by God. Whatever the first chapters of Genesis offer, there is one thing that they certainly do not offer, namely, a literal account of events that actually happened prior to and during the early history of humanity. If Genesis is the word of God, as I and other Christians believe, then we must try to understand how God speaks through a narrative that is no longer the literal history that our Christian forebears often assumed it to be.”[1]

Where does one begin with such a raw assertion of disbelief in the scripture which claims to come from the perspective that Gen 1-11 is the “word of God”?  Remarkably, Sparks then follows in asserting:

“Christians on all sides certainly agree that Gen 1 – 11 is the introduction to and sets many theological agendas for the larger canon from Genesis to Revelation.”[2]

What then if Gen 1-11 never even really happened? For this is what he is saying by writing that there is one thing the first chapters of Genesis do not offer and that is a “literal account of events that actually happened.”

Rather, he supposes a radical borrowing from ANE mythological forms and stories, and that the author(s) did not believe it was “historical in the strict sense of the word.”[2] Sparks simply conveys a recycled, classic source-critical view on the various origins of the biblical text, while imposing his post-modern historical assumptions on the biblical narrative as entirely inferior to the genre of history, and that it consists of mythic tales borrowed from Babylonians and Egyptians. While all the while claiming this as the foundation and source of our theology, he drives a hard-and-fast chasm between the historical and the theological, and thus perpetuates the Neo-orthodox myth that we can have sound and true theology based on false history that is full of errors and pagan notions about origins, meaning, and life.

In his proposal, he also assumes that anyone who does not agree with his revision of the biblical narrative in Gen 1-11 is unscientific, and even supposes the wildly unsustainable view that since we have traced our DNA to primates and mammals that we can no longer believe that Gen 1-11 is actual (“literal”) history as our Christian forbears did. In light of that thought, it is peculiar that he believes Christians have always believed the authors of biblical history were writing history, yet he states that those same authors believed they were writing mythology (as he defines it), not history “in the strict sense of the word” (whatever that means?).  I am not sure why he employs this latter phrase, since it implies that there must also then be history that is “in the strict sense of the word,” but it cannot really be known from ancient authors. Therefore, his conclusions only raise impossible questions like, what exactly is “history” that is also mythology? And, so it would appear, the biblical “authors” reworked ancient pagan myths to fashion a palatable theology on the foundation of “history” that is actually mythology, in the strict sense of the word.

For example, Sparks calls the OT narratives in Genesis “traditional stories” that simply reflect ancient attempts to make sense of life. These stories are mostly just “tales” that he calls “short fictional narratives” (such as creation, Cain and Abel, the Flood, the curse on Canaan, the Tower of Babel) that reflect the issues and questions that confronted these ancient people of God.[3] These stories are designed to convey important theological messages, in turn by rewriting ancient myths and tales to that exalted end. The Pentateuch is thus just an ethnic anthology of diverse ancient genres (legend, etiology, folktales, fables, etc.) re-worked from a monotheistic persuasion. [4]

In truth, his speculations are mostly just the creative reworking of contemporary legends and mythologies about the ancient world and the origination of the biblical text that have been imagined by the intelligent, historical-critical scholars he has studied under and read. The same problem faces us when interpreting his own words from his perspective: why is there any reason whatsoever to believe that his proposed tales, legends, myths, and fables actually convey any truth at all in regards to origins, history, the cosmos, or especially theology? How does the “reshaping” of ancient legends that were not intended to communicate actual events about actual people supposed to give us certain, actual theological truths? Indeed, one could be positively distrustful of any tale that would seem to be by design given to mislead its recipients into believing it was actual history, but is not, and that we should all-the-same believe the “moral of the story.” This is not only the worst form of spiritualizing and exemplorizing of the text, it is outright advocation of the virtue of deceit, even though the deceits may have not been always intentional since some of the Pentateuchal legends actually came to be thought of as historical by their authors. In any of these scenarios, about all that we can do is strive to strain some theological concepts and moral lessons out them: they were monotheistic and believed that humans had messed up their lives by sinning against God and consequently have lived in exile and disharmony. Thus, these ancient mythologists communicated these “truths” by revising ancient pagan fables in order to craft “a completely new myth.”[5]

I am left defeated and out of breath in trying to “suspend disbelief” in this fantastical and marvelously inventive post-modern mythologizing about how the biblical narrative originated, and what they might mean for us today. Also, I am puzzled (and troubled) by Spark’s assumptions that the authors of the Bible could somehow rationalize the use and revision of pagan mythologies and legends, that themselves are not “strictly speaking” historical, when in fact the very narratives he says originated in this fashion are those same narratives that would refute such a proposal, since they are at least in part polemical refutations of paganism and pagan myths and legends, whether we are considering creation, the Fall, or the Flood. Certainly, Sparks, in the least, fails to consider the radically polemical nature of the scripture against all paganism and its mythologies, as well as the Old and New Testament scriptures that forbid accommodations with them:

Deut 18:9–14 (NASB95) “When you enter the land which the Lord your God gives you, you shall not learn to imitate the detestable things of those nations. 10 “There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, one who uses divination, one who practices witchcraft, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer, 11 or one who casts a spell, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead. 12 “For whoever does these things is detestable to the Lord; and because of these detestable things the Lord your God will drive them out before you. 13 “You shall be blameless before the Lord your God. 14 “For those nations, which you shall dispossess, listen to those who practice witchcraft and to diviners, but as for you, the Lord your God has not allowed you to do so.

2 Pet 1:16 (NASB95) For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty.

1 Tim 4:7 (NASB95) But have nothing to do with worldly fables fit only for old women. On the other hand, discipline yourself for the purpose of godliness;

Most clearly, the Scripture draws social, spiritual, moral, legal, theological, religious lines between the realms of the pagans and that of Israel. This is especially so in the area of the “abominable practices” of the pagans surrounding Israel (Deut 18:9-14). It would follow that the brutal, bloody, fantastical world of diabolical deities and forces of the Babylonian and Egyptian mythologies would be poor source material, if the biblical authors were seeking compliance with God’s laws and character in teaching a holy people to be set apart altogether from the idolatrous  pagans.[6] Indeed, Israel’s entire mission was formed around God creating such a people who represented him to the pagan, idolatrous nations. Their consistent failure in that mission is the very reason the Lord carried them off into exile, and destroyed Jerusalem, by the very pagans they were guilty of imitating and emulating.

Most seriously, Sparks gives us an example of the problem at hand, that so many scholars propose alternative readings of the Bible, and sometimes radically so, without reckoning with the irresolvable theological contradictions they create for our reading of the rest of biblical history. This is especially so in regards to the vital and inseparable relationship between creation and redemption, between Creator and Redeemer. This is not the only serious concern raised by such (de)mythologizing of scripture, but it is my focus here.

The creation and fall story, instead of falling, as Sparks suggests “squarely within the mythic tradition of the ancient world,” it rather falls entirely outside the mythic tradition of the ancient world. For example, the biblical creation story, in radical divergence from those mythic traditions, uniquely presents creation as follows (and this is a short-list):

  • The beginning of the creation of finite matter and time (temporal not eternal) on a linear continuum of six actual, solar days.
  • The creation of the heavens, the earth, and humankind ended on the sixth day with God declaring the seventh day holy and one of rest. Eventually, one of the signs of the covenant of redemption is the Sabbath which denotes that God is Lord of all creation signifying “creation rest,” that work is a gift and calling, and that worship of God is preeminent.
  • A creation out of nothing.
  • Creation by the spoken command/word of God.
  • Creation entirely at God’s independent initiative and without the help of any intermediary forces or substances.
  • A space-time creation that is entirely distinct from the Creator (and thus the Creator has absolutely no dependence on creation).
  • The creation is always in the immanent presence of the Creator who is yet always transcendently present (no animism, pantheism, panentheism, deism).
  • The space-time creation has both unity and distinction reflecting the very (triune) nature of the Creator (no “chaos” or pagan gods involved).
  • All animated and unanimated creation have unity/coherence as well as distinction.
  • No inanimate creation is animated by spiritual forces or persons of any kind (no animism, pantheism, panentheism, deism).
  • All of creation has a coherence and predictability as designed by a coherent God who is not capricious nor arbitrary, but acts always in accordance with his perfect and holy, loving character.
  • All of creation is very good by God’s declaration (no evil components or malevolent demiurge).
  • All creation is crowned by the exalted creation of man/woman in God’s own image, and as male and female. The image of God privileged humanity over creation-cosmos: dominion. Dominion (subduing and multiplying) reflected sinless subjection to God.
  • Adam was created by God from the dust and God created Eve from Adam’s side, and placed them together in Eden to work and care for the Garden
  • Adam and Eve were to have a complimentary, loving, monogamous relationship toward common tasks and labor and procreation (family) in the Garden. This procreational dimension of a truly theocratic community was to be expanded into to all the earth. Adam is considered the federal head of all humanity. There was patriarchal authority in family and creation.
  • Adam and Even were given the vocational dimension of cultivating, subduing, stewardship, cultural and pro-creational artistry. The master gardener reflects the Master Gardener as “world shaper” and “architect of space.” Practically-speaking, Adam had taxonomic (naming), cultivating, and protecting the Garden roles (guarding Eden against evil). Theologically-speaking, being thus guardians of the sanctuary of Eden they had priestly-witness functions regarding the unveiled (unmediated) Presence of God, as well as prophetic roles of interpreting unmediated revelation from God in and through creation, as well as kingly roles of dominion in governance. These roles included knowing and learning the central principles of God’s laws in a creation-ethic (typifying later Mosaic laws for holiness) that included unconditional, spiritual eternal blessings with a potential for eternal life (Tree of Life) and everlasting shalom. Important in this regard, was the reality of the internal and external law of God by the indwelling of God’s Spirit. The probationary (testing/tempting) aspects of their commission and mandate to obey included a conditional covenant (Eden-land/Presence/Life) and the temporal blessings/cursings: prosperity, progeny, and God’s presence.
  • In contrast to all ANE mythologies, the Edenic relationship with God was based entirely on God’s initiative, it was bilateral, probationary, and preservative.

I propose that all of these biblical distinctives are uniquely polemical revelations from God that do not borrow from ancient pagan conceptions, traditions, motifs, legends, or myths. In contrast, wherever Sparks believes there is some similarity between biblical stories and mythic legends and fables, he presupposes that parallels prove borrowing and revisions. Despite the fact that none of his proposals are confirmed borrowings, as such, more important is the fact that his methodology is faulty in presuming (and most uncritically) that formal similarities prove origins, borrowing, and redactive revisions. It should also be noted that Israel eventually lost the land, the temple, and their homes when they accommodated themselves to the mythologies of the Canaanites and pagan idolaters.

The question is, does Sparks acknowledge anything in the biblical accounts that departs from their mythic and legendary pagan sources?  In regards to this question, Sparks remarkably contradicts himself on his creation/fall myth assertions. After stating that the biblical legend falls “squarely within the mythic tradition of the ancient world,”[7] he then says that “the biblical paradise/fall story is especially unique when compared with other ancient exemplars” (sic).[8] If the biblical creation/fall story is both “squarely within” the “standard repertoire of mythic beliefs,” and yet is “especially unique” (sic) and “a completely new myth,” then he has repudiated his own assertions within the space of two pages. In further undermining his first assertion, he correctly acknowledges that some of the unique features of the biblical accounts diverge from the A.N.E. mythologies (such as monotheism, humankind’s propensity to break God’s law, a “literal” week, the image of God in humans, and the Sabbath). Nevertheless, I suggest that this sufficiently subverts his previous claims that the biblical accounts are just mythical revisions that fall “squarely within the mythic tradition of the ancient world” by having “exploited the standard repertoire of mythic motifs.”[9] In fact, I would restate that the short-list I presented above is sufficient evidence that the biblical creation account is not a revision of ancient, pagan Mesopotamian or Egyptian legends, but is in the least a radical polemic against them.

Having said all this, does it really matter whether our theology is based on actual historical facts and events, since scholars like Sparks assume not? For starters, I propose that it would be very concerning if we are to fashion a theology on supposed, and reconstructed (only possible), pagan mythologies and legends that might have some “historical” (but not “in the strict sense of the word”) ideas behind them, and that were but revisionary imitations of pagan mythologies and cosmogonies.

If we agree with Sparks’ assertion noted already that “Christians on all sides certainly agree that Gen 1 – 11 is the introduction to, and sets many theological agendas for, the larger canon from Genesis to Revelation,”[10] then we should seriously take pause at his proposals. Indeed, it is arguable that even Gen 1-3 can be said to set the entire theological trajectory for all of the rest of the Bible, and of course 4-11 continue and expand on this. If this is so, the kind of approach Sparks proposes requires us to relinquish the long-held view that our faith, and all of its theology, depends upon the veracity of its historical origins and contexts.

Indeed, in these modern “historical” approaches, there is an underlying assumption that the modern historian is an objective, scientific reader of ancient history who stands in stark contrast to the ancient mythologists who could only by nature regularly confuse/conflate history with legend and fantasy with fact, and who had no moral quibble in doing so. If this be so, then the entire subsequent history of redemption in the Old and New Testaments stands or falls on the thin ice of our modern, evolved interpreters who have no quibble with basing our entire faith on ancient deceptions, confusion, paganism, fantastical mythologies and their re-workings by ignorant, pre-scientific revisionists who happened to be sometimes monotheists. And all of this, he proposes, is to point us to Christ!

In relation to this problem of the ancient biblical authors, he further writes that the authors of Scripture are like a room full of elders who do not all agree, and each have “a unique voice in relation to God,” and are broken and sinful (suggesting their words are also?), but he concludes that “It is through this communal reading experience that God points us to his one and only solution for our broken condition: Jesus Christ.”[11]  Of course, we can earnestly agree that all of Scripture points us to Christ, but we must as zealously defer from such post-modernist revisions of biblical revelation that depend upon both pagan origins and a total absence of any actual historical veracity.

Sparks calls his approach “reading Scripture responsibly” by “careful readers.”[12] Yet, just as the ancient writers who were so confused that they believed that serpents could talk and that the confusion of languages occurred at Babel, he says “we will look as confused in a thousand years as they do now.”[13] Rather, I submit that he is the one presently confused by his “careful” reading, while the ancient and divinely inspired authors never were in their carefully recorded texts of history and theology.

Though he does not carry over this reading strategy to the New Testament (in the essay that I am discussing), I am left wondering what is to hinder us (who now know the Flood never happened, since we now know how to write “dependable history” with the “insights of modern geology and evolutionary biology,” what he calls “modern science”[14]), from imagining the same kind of mythological reconstructions for Christ and his life that he does for the entire Old Testament text? Will it take a thousand years before we blithely chuckle that the New Testament authors believed that serpents and devils could talk, and that people could speak miraculously in foreign languages (Pentecost), and that a man could raise people from death by his word alone, and feed thousands upon a few fish and loaves?

In conclusion, “From where we stand now,” what good reason do we have to believe in the confusion Sparks proposes to resolve his failure to believe the record of revelation? Are we to believe in, or about, something (as important as the entire history of revelation of God’s works) that never really “happened” except in the imagination of ancient mythologists and idolators who were trying to “make sense” of their world, and who often contradicted one another in their redacted efforts to do so? Or, are we to believe in the musings of a modern historian who himself hopes to entirely revise those pre-scientific mythological redactions? Either option appears to me as nihilistic for biblical faith and the gospel, for in both cases they may be but “cleverly devised tales.”

[1] Sparks, “Ancient Historiography,” p. 110.

[2] Sparks, “Ancient Historiography,” p. 115.

[3] Sparks, “Ancient Historiography,” p. 126

[4] Sparks, “Ancient Historiography,” p.130.

[5] Sparks, “Ancient Historiography,” p. 137.

[6] Sparks, “Ancient Historiography,” p. 126.

[7] See also Gen 6:9, 17:1, Ex 22:18, Lev 18:24, 19:26, 31, 20:6, Deut 9:5, 12:31, 2 Ki 21:6, Jer 27:9–10, Mal 3:5, Mt 5:48.

[8] Sparks, “Ancient Historiography,” p. 125.

[9] Sparks, “Ancient Historiography,”p. 126.

[10] Sparks, “Ancient Historiography,”p. 126.

[11] Sparks, “Ancient Historiography,”p.115.

[12] Sparks, “Ancient Historiography,”p. 51.

[13] Sparks, “Ancient Historiography,”p. 112, 132.

[14] Sparks, “Ancient Historiography,” p. 139.

[15] Sparks, “Ancient Historiography,” p. 139.

“Before YHWH”

To read the entire essay, click here: Before the LORD

“Before the LORD” (liphne YHWH) — The meeting/dwelling presence of YHWH[1]Tribes and tabernacle

Abstract: A brief survey of a major historical-critical issue in biblical studies, and the subject of my doctoral dissertation, is that of the OT theology of the presence of YHWH in the sanctuary, and the supposed “tensions” and polarizations assumed “behind” the formation of the Pentateuchal narrative. The prevailing critical view is one which assumes theological polarizations/tensions between “Deuteronomistic” and “Priestly” traditions (that is, between name-theology and glory-theology) which serve as a compass for exegesis of presence passages. Within tradition-historical analyses, polarization of transcendent meeting-dwelling from immanent abiding-dwelling reflects tradition pre-histories which are coalesced to serve the ideology of the priestly viewpoint of a lost sanctuary during the exile. Underlying this dialectical polarization and synthesis idea are notions of YHWH’s enthronement (ancient ark ideas and later D “name-theology”), while manifestation notions correspond to the tent of meeting (later priestly “glory-manifestation theology”): that is, such polarities are considered by tradition-historical critics as “mutually repellent” motifs until coalesced in the so-called “Priestly” redaction.

The complete lack of consensus about this supposed “priestly” interpretation of the presence in the tabernacle (abiding or temporary), as well as the relationship of “deuteronomistic” notions to Exodus, has made room for alternative, and much more positive, proposals. Indeed, a closer consideration of some of the relevant texts indicates a remarkable theological/textual unity (coherence and cohesion) that supports the view that the presence theology of the OT is a unified one with many complementary and congruent motifs that convey the expected complexities and dynamics of an infinite and personal Creator who manifested himself in various profoundly creative ways to the ancient people called Israel. This presence theology is best understood from the Mosaic period of the tabernacle, and not from the post-exilic period priests of the returning nation.

[1] Stephen T. Hague, adapted selection from YHWH’s Glorious Presence: Covenantal and Cultic Presence in Exodus 25-40 [unpublished dissertation, 2001].

To read the entire essay, click here: Before the LORD

Psalm 23, life’s battles, and the gospel


To read the entire essay, click here: Psalm 23 and the Biblical Theology of God the Shepherd-King

(illustration left) by Emily Johnson

Psalm 23 is undoubtedly the most well-known psalm in the entire world. Isn’t that remarkable? There are various reasons for that, primarily because of its simplistic beauty and literary quality. It is a perfect length to memorize, and its shepherd and royal imagery speaks across all cultures and languages. It addresses succinctly the temporal fears of all humans in all times. It expresses succinctly all human longings for peace and righteousness and hope and protection and comfort and goodness, known to all humans in all times. It is also ironically a comfort to many who do not even profess faith in God or the gospel. Thus, this confirms a biblical theological interpretation that this psalm essentially conveys the Edenic, paradisal, heavenly picture of a restored relationship with God. That relationship is what all creation groans in travail for; all humans are trapped in the downward death-cycle apart from God the creator. The shepherd-king imagery of the Bible often is found in contexts that assume God as Creator. This is true of many OT psalms, OT prophets, proverbs, etc. We call this creation theology as the backdrop to redemption-theology. In the Bible, God the Creator is always God the Redeemer.

It is too easy to take the beautiful imagery of this psalm literally, thus failing to understand its redemptive-historical profundity: the Lord is indeed concerned with our daily needs, comforts, and rest of soul, but that is not what this psalm is primarily about. I believe it is primarily about the spiritual realities of redemption given to all true believers. As such, it also contains Messianic themes for all believers. As such, it thus gives all believers comfort and joy and encouragement in the midst of suffering, death, darkness, and want. But the comfort to the believer flows from God; it is dependent on the spiritual realities of those who belong to the Living God, Creator and Redeemer.

Psalm 23:1-6 A psalm of David.

The LORD is my shepherd,
I shall not be in want.
2 He makes me lie down in green pastures,
he leads me beside quiet waters,
3 he restores my soul.
He guides me in paths of righteousness for his name’s sake.
4 Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death,
I will fear no evil, for you are with me; your rod and your staff, they comfort me.
5 You prepare a table before me in the presence of my enemies.
You anoint my head with oil; my cup overflows.
6 Surely goodness and love will follow me all the days of my life,
and I will dwell in the house of the LORD forever.

To take this verse as strictly temporal-literal would reduce it to a comical assertion, for though the imagery evokes an Edenic longing for a place of peace and rest in a garden setting, it cannot possible be only about such universal temporal longings. Indeed, as in his proclamation that he shall not be in want, David is describing the true rest and peace his soul longs for. Indeed, in this sense the longing for such peace affirms the universal spiritual longing for true peace of heart, soul, and mind. This is of course pictured here in the poetic (Edenic) imagery of green pastures and quiet waters, but this imagery is metaphoric of the spiritual reality he knows with God, a true relationship, a true peace, a true freedom from deprivation. The deep desire of all people to return to the garden, to the waters of peace, speaks of our need for redemption, our need for restoration to God’s presence and fellowship. (I would qualify this assertion by adding that the Edenic themes may also include the hope for the final restoration-rest he will find in the new creation of the physical earth. In this case, David could have been speaking prophetically, or foreshadowing, of what was to come.)

Importantly, it is God who does this: it is his Shepherd who causes him to lie down (Hiphil imperfect). This lying down is obviously not simply about sleeping, though it can include the kind of assurance in God that he might have when he does sleep. It is the Lord who has himself made it possible for David to find true rest beside streams of water. The Lord is the one who leads him (Piel impf conveys the intensive aspect, stressing God who does this leading).

Water is a metaphor for a variety of things in the Bible (over 600 references), and in this case I believe it portrays well-being of soul that pictures a rest from striving and peace of heart. This describes the soul at peace with God. Remember also that Adam and Eve enjoyed in Eden the rivers that watered their garden-paradise. In contrast, unstill water would have brought memories of the Flood of judgment on the world. We especially find allusions of water to the all-defining experience in Israel’s history: the Exodus, which involved both deliverance through water (Red Sea and Jordan River later) and deliverance by water (water from the rock). Water was the most fundamental symbol for life in the A.N.E., for water was essential to basic survival, drought being the worst fear of all ancient peoples, drought meaning death.

In our era, poets are generally seen as the defeated beatniks of a lazy and lost generation. Nevertheless, historically poets and poetry were seen as the mainstay of civilization, giving voice to the deepest longings and hopes of the human heart. They played a very significant role in social life, politics, recording of history, conveying values and beliefs, and even in wars by preparing people’s hearts with courage to face death and destruction for what was thought to be necessary. In the ancient Old Testament context, emboldened with truth stated poetically, the heart could be strengthened in ways that strait prose can never do. To test this idea, just try and put any of the OT psalms into conversational prose! The same goes for our songs, hymns, and spiritual songs; not only have they historically provided comfort and strength to countless millions of believers, they also have prepared them for the spiritual battle. Thus, it is a historical travesty that many in our generation dismiss the great hymns and songs of the past, and replace them with soupy, touchy-feely, happy-clappy ditties lacking blood, sweat, and tears; lacking the themes of death and sorrow, thus truly lacking real comfort and encouragement. Indeed, entirely unlike David’s Psalm 23, such sentimentalism provides nothing for the battle raging around us and against us!

This is not so with any of the OT psalms, and certainly not for any of David’s psalms. David’s psalms must be read in light of his life, for it is there that they speak most clearly of his Lord, his Shepherd and Warrior-King. David lived under the Lordship of God, he trusted in God for his life in the face of unmanageable, indeed impossible, opposition from within and without. But, more importantly, we meet a man who completely trusted in God for his redemption. One thing that David’s psalms speak most emphatically to is the spiritual reality of being a sinner in need of a Savior. We too often remove the psalms from this historical context and squeeze them into what some call “temporal faith.” That is, we use the psalms to get temporal encouragement in the face of economic, personal, and national hardships. And, indeed they give us much of that kind of encouragement. But, taken thus far, they were never intended to leave us there: I believe that this psalm especially presents us with the much more important spiritual message of the gospel of redemption. As we all know, David’s life was a living testimony to that gospel, demonstrating in vivid colors the unmerited grace of God, but even more important than that is David’s proclamation of the gospel which redeemed his life. David consistently and extensively proclaims this good news through his psalms.

For a longer version of these thoughts, see Psalm 23 and the Biblical Theology of God the Shepherd-King