This week has been one of the most fun weeks I've had all year, particularly since I entered seminary in June. It started out with no small amount of trepidation; I had my Greek in Exegesis final exam to study for (Greek in Exegesis is the more advanced Greek course here at Covenant). I was concerned because the exam was a pretty big deal. We had to take a passage from Colossians and write what amounted to a mini-commentary on it. We had to deal with the cultural backgroud, Old Testament motifs, grammatical concerns, words that needed closer study, and more. All this had to be done in three hours, which was not easy. I managed it in the end, though, and came out feeling pretty good about it. I don't think I'm destined for an 'A' (thought I dare to dream...), but I think I studied well and 'left it all on the field,' to use a sports metaphor. Perhaps 'left it all in the exam room' would be better, but exams ended on a high note in any case.
Another plus that comes with the end of classes is a shortened work day. For those who don't know, I make my living scrubbin' toilets for The King's Cleaning Service. I work on the Seminary's campus, which has been reduced to a virtual ghost town since the semester ended. No Classes + Christmas Holiday= Empty Campus, which means few people are using the facilities here. I can zip through the campus in a fairly short amount of time and still have a little energy left at the end of the day.
And speaking of Christmas, that has only added to my good spirits. The prospect of seeing our families back in West Virginia is exciting, but that means we won't be able to have our own Christmas celebration here in St. Louis. That being the case, we're going to let the boys open their presents this Friday before we leave town. Our four-year-old, Max, is getting his first bike, so I'll be putting it together tonight (pray for me)!
Mary Ann and I, on the other hand, couldn't resist opening our presents. We tore into them last night, and I must say I'm pleased with the results. Mary Ann was pleased with the presents I got for as well, I think. In case you're interested, here was my haul:
1. Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (Movie)
One of two Harry Potter movies missing from my collection.
2. Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (Movie)
This is the other one. It completes my Harry Potter DVD collection!
3. The Waiting: The Waiting
Definitely The Waiting's best CD.
4. The Pilgrim's Progress
This one was probably the crowning touch of the night. It is an illustrated edition from 1891. Veeeerrry cool. To say I was excited is putting it lightly.
The boys and I watched The Chamber of Secrets this morning, which put me in a Harry Potter kind of mood, so I checked MuggleNet to see if there was any news. To my delight, I saw some more good news that made this week even a little better. J.K. Rowling has released the title of book seven!!! I will reveal it at the very end of this post so I won't spoil it for you. Go to her website to find out (MuggleNet has instructions on how to find it out). Anyway, it's been a great week and it only promises to get better (we're getting a used Grand Caravan this Friday in Louisville which will actually reduce our car payment!).
I think that's it. I'll try to post again soon. Now for the title to book seven:
SPOILER!!!!!!
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows
Excellent!
Thursday, December 21, 2006
Friday, December 15, 2006
Back After a Long Hiatus
It's been a long time since I posted anything here, but both my brothers have been blogging lately so I couldn't let them get a leg up on me. My first two posts here are both papers written for my Covenant Theology class here at Covenant Theological Seminary. The second post, a defense of inerrancy, is definitely more readable, so I would recommend starting there. I know that will only whet your appetite for my writing, so then you can move on to my analysis of the Bronze Serpent story in Numbers. It's scintillating! I hope to be able to write a bit more over Christmas break, but we'll see. I certainly make no promises once classes start this January!
Understanding The Bronze Serpent Story in Numbers
Explore Your Assumptions About the Text
The bronze serpent story in Numbers 21:4-9 is one of the more famous stories in the Old Testament. I have heard many sermons on this text, yet I still do not have a good grasp on its significance. Most if not all of those sermons focused on the story's relation to the crucifixion of Christ. As the semester has progressed I have become very interested in understanding Biblical narratives in their original context. Why would Moses have included this story if its only significance was as a picture of the crucifixion? There must have been an original intent, and I want to find it.
As I read the story I noticed the importance of following God's commands in faith. Those who were bitten by the serpents would die if they did not look at the bronze serpent, but there is no sensible connection between the act of looking and physical healing, or at least not from a 21st Century perspective. In order to live, the ancient Israelites had to believe God's Word and obey.
Maligning God's provision is also an important aspect of the story. In verse 5 the Israelites call the manna God sent "worthless food." God sends the fiery serpents in response, and it is difficult to understand how to apply this punishment. Vague answers warning us not to treat God's provision as worthless do not satisfy because they do not grapple with the text. This first application is obvious, but what more is there to be said? Is the fact that God sent fiery serpents significant? I know that I have treated God's provision lightly, and that others have as well, but we have not all suffered the fate of these Israelites. What made that situation different? What sort of help might be provided by investigating the context into which this story was delivered?
Another interesting aspect of the text is the bronze serpent itself. A cursory reading of the text provides no clue as to God's reason for commanding Moses to forge it, yet I have difficulty believing no such reason exists. The only clue is that there were also serpents involved in the chastisement, but that does not provide much help.
Preliminary Summary: Numbers 21:4-9 served to warn the Exodus community against grumbling against what God has provided, or else chastisement will occur. It was also an encouragement, however, because it showed that God is merciful to those who repent and trust His Word.
Examine the Text With Guidance Toward its Original Significance
Clarify Your Understanding of the Original Setting and Purposes of the Book.
It seems that the presuppositions of the commentator are one of the most important factors in how he or she dates the book of Numbers. For instance, in his commentary, John Sturdy subscribes to source-criticism theory. Proceeding from an assumption of its accuracy he dates the J source at about 950 BC, and P around 450 BC.[1] Gordon Wenham's commentary, however, presents a very different picture. Rather than assuming a source-critical methodology, Wenham engages a number of arguments to establish a probable date range for the book's composition. He particularly attacks the late date for the so-called 'P material.' He points out that a number of institutions that figured prominently in the P material, such as the ark and the Urim and Thummim, had disappeared by the post-exilic era. He also points out that much of the technical terminology of the P material was obsolete after the 7th century. Comparison with Ezekiel and Deuteronomy lead Wenham to choose the 7th century as the latest date for Numbers.[2]
Wenham push for an even earlier date for Numbers by producing no fewer than thirteen arguments for its antiquity. For example, the Hebrew encampment was square with the Tabernacle, which was the divine king's tent, in the middle. This was the practice of 13th century Egyptians, and not for later nations like the Assyrians. The descriptions of cultural artifacts and literary forms were also more in line with a second-millennium date. Taking all this into consideration, Wenham suggests that we give the tradition of Mosaic authorship the benefit of the doubt.[3]
In determining the original pastoral purposes of Numbers it is now obvious that we cannot side with the proponents of source-criticism. The author was Moses, not J or P, and the audience was an ancient one. The question is, however, was the audience the Exodus generation or their children? The best answer to this question is provided by the text itself. Numbers contains the stories of the failures of the Exodus generation and the resulting judgments. This indicates that it is the children's generation Moses had in mind. This generation was actually entering the Promised Land and needed first to be assured that God was on their side. Just because their parents' generation died didn't mean God had abandoned the entire nation. They also needed to be reminded of the price of disobedience. There are a number of laws given in the book of Numbers and the book also provided examples of the cost of disregarding those laws.
Attend to the Literary Shape of the Episode
Numbers 21:4-9 opens with a broad, fast-moving statement about the Israelites traveling around Edom. The pace is slowed and the scope is narrowed quickly when the opening problem of the passage is presented. This problem is the impatience of the people of Israel (v. 4). This impatience then leads to grumbling against God and Moses in verse 5. The people complain about the lack of good food and water, and say that the food they do have is "worthless." In response to their complaint, God sends judgment in the form of "fiery serpents" (v. 6). This is the turning point of the story. After this
judgment the people change dramatically. They are the only dynamic characters in the story, because they realize that they have sinned against God and Moses and are humbled. They look to Moses, who they had earlier criticized and asked him to pray for them.
The strength of Moses' character is revealed by his response to the request of the people. He does just as they asked without complaint. There is a contrast between Moses and the people: When in trying circumstances (v. 4-5) the people complain and question Moses' leadership and God's providence. Moses does not answer back in kind. In fact, only God acts in response to their complaint. Once the people are repentant, Moses does not allow their past attacks to stop him from praying for them. He makes no complaint, but does as they ask (v. 7). Though it is not specifically stated, from the narrator sets Moses as the example.
Further into the story, Moses acts in a godly fashion again by obeying the Lord's command. God resolves the conflict by telling Moses to make a bronze serpent and set it on a pole. Anyone who is bitten by a serpent need only look at the bronze serpent and they will live. This 'look and live' phrase is emphasized by repetition in vv. 8-9. Wenham suggests this repetition emphasizes the physical contact of looking as analogous to the touching of the sacrificial animal required in other Old Testament cleansing rituals. Without the physical contact, the sacrifice is ineffective.[4] At this point the scope has broadened and time has quickened again. The scope is focused on the nation as a whole and the time in which the remaining action takes place is nonspecific.
Summarize the Original Significance of the Story
It is difficult to determine how Numbers 21:4-9 serves the larger book of Numbers because at first blush Numbers does not seem to have much purpose. It can look like a smattering of legal texts and narratives that could not fit anywhere else. This is, however, a false impression. According to Wenham the book is highly structured, with the legal portions operating on several levels. First, they teach how Israel is to behave once they are in the land, and second, they function as evidence that the land promises will be fulfilled.[5] Why give a bunch of nomads a book of laws on how to live when they settle in a land unless it is certain that they are settling?
The narrative portions of Numbers describe the journey to the land itself. Specifically, 21:4-9 is the last instance of the Israelites complaining about their food.[6] This had occurred previously in Numbers 11 and judgment ensued. It did again, but God's grace was demonstrated because they were allowed to move forward with the campaign after their repentance.
The sinfulness of man and the graciousness of God are strong themes from the covenant relationship. As is always the case, it is God who works the reconciliation after we mess things up. Yet, as always, God is faithful to his promises. He told Abraham his descendents would have the land, and God took them there in spite of their failures.
Original Significance: The original significance of this passage was to show the continuing faithfulness of God and the continuing sinfulness of men. This is a repetitive cycle, but it also gave the audience a warning against such rebellion against God.
Trace Biblical Elaborations of the Text Through the Canon
There is not much specific reference to Numbers 21:4-9 in the other books of the Old Testament. The bronze serpent itself is mentioned in 2 Kings 18:4. Hezekiah destroyed the serpent, then called 'Nehushtan,' during his reforms because the Israelites had begun worshipping it. Beyond that I could find no mention of the story.
The three characters of the story, the Israelites, God, and Moses, are obviously mentioned throughout the Old Testament. The Israelites are often shown to be impatient and prone to complaint, as they are in the Numbers passage. In Exodus 16:2-3 and 17:1-3 the Israelites grumble for food and drink, respectively. Earlier in the book of Numbers itself the Israelites make a similar complaint. In 14:1-4 they again grumble against both God and Moses. This cycle of unfaithfulness calls into mind the cycle of rebellion in the book of Judges. Both occurred because of the persistent sinfulness of the Israelites.
These stories emphasize some facets of God's character as well. In all three instances God is shown to be merciful and two of three show God's judgment. In the Exodus passages the people grumble for lack of food (16:3) and water (17:2-3). They were certainly sinning in doing so, but God was merciful on both occasions, providing for their needs. Numbers 14 is heavy with judgment since this is the passage in which God tells the Exodus generation they will not enter the land (v. 20-23), but even here He shows His mercy. Earlier God shows what He could have done when He offers to disinherit the Israelites and make a nation of Moses (v. 11-12). After Moses' intercession (v. 13-19) God pronounces His judgment, but also promises to allow the children of the Exodus generation into the land. In Numbers 21 God begins His action with a judgment, the sending of the serpents (v. 6), but He ends with mercy, giving the people an opportunity for healing (vv. 8-9).
The compassion and intercession of Moses is featured prominently in two of the aforementioned stories. On all three occasions Moses comes before the Lord with the complaints of the people. He prays in Numbers 14 that God will not destroy the people of Israel even though God would have made him a great nation. In Numbers 21 the judgment of God has already fallen upon the Israelites, and when they are repentant Moses goes before the Lord with their request for deliverance. In all of these stories we see the mercy of Moses alongside the mercy of God. This gives legitimacy to Moses' role as God's messenger.
The most famous biblical reference to the Numbers 21:4-9 story is found in John 3. It is also the only New Testament reference to the story and Christ uses it as a picture of his crucifixion. In verse 14 Jesus says that he must be "lifted up" as Moses lifted the bronze serpent in the wilderness. It is plain that Jesus' focus is on the serpent's God-given power to heal because of his statement in verse 15: "…that whoever believes in him may have eternal life." Looking to the serpent brought physical life (Numbers 21:8,9), but believing in Jesus brings eternal life.
How Does the Episode You Are Studying Function in Relation to Other Chapters of the Biblical Storyline?
The biblical storyline should be viewed in a 'Creation-Fall-Redemption- Consummation' framework.[7] At least two of these 'chapters' throw light on the Numbers 21:4-9 narrative. The story begins with a confirmation of the Fall. The Israelites are characterized by impatience and complaint. They grumble not only against their leader Moses, but also against the God who appointed him. God had steadily provided for them, yet they called His provision "worthless" (v. 5). The result here is the same as the result of the original Fall: a curse. God sends poisonous serpents among the people, bringing death (v. 6). The people have no hope on their own, but they realize they have done wrong and ask Moses to intercede for them (v. 7).
Now the story moves from the confirmation of the Fall to the execution of redemption. Through the bronze serpent, God provides a means of delivery from death (vv. 8-9). In one small story we see both fall and redemption.
What Would Be Lost if Your Episode Did Not Appear in the Biblical Story?
If Numbers 21:4-9 did not appear in the biblical story there would be two major losses. First, the story completes a tripartite cycle in Exodus and Numbers that highlights man's continued sinfulness and God's continued grace.[8] Strictly speaking, both of these are present in other episodes, but the tripartite literary device adds beauty and emphasis. Perhaps the greatest loss, however, would be the loss of the rich redemptive imagery Christ uses in John 3. His use of the bronze serpent imagery certainly resonated with Nicodemus and provides us with insight on the nature of Christ's sacrifice on our behalf.
Come Under the Coaching of Other Christian Interpreters Who Apply this Text
Throughout the centuries it seems that Numbers 21:4-9 has only had a few types of application. I was interested to see that both Luther and Calvin applied this text with reference to sacraments. For instance, Calvin says that along with receiving manna and the water from the rock, the bronze serpent was a sacrament. He goes on to say that this regular variation should have told the Jews that they were not to hold on to these practices, but to wait for something better and more abiding. These better things are, of course, the two Christian sacraments of the Lord's Supper and baptism.[9]
Luther, while staying with the theme of sacraments, applies the text differently. He uses the brass serpent as a weapon against "sacramentarians." Accusing such people of seeking the Spirit apart from the Word, he says they would want to see the serpent held up on the pole but not bother with the Word of God that came with it.[10]
Not surprisingly, Catholic commentator Robert Culley takes a different approach to the text. Culley focuses on the "punishment…followed by a rescue or mitigation"[11] in the text. When the text is combined with other narratives in Numbers, one strong application is that God should never be provoked. His punishments are often deadly. Yet, this particular story intrigued Culley because the rescue actually draws more attention than the punishment.[12] He does not elaborate on that theme.
Gordon Keddie takes a similar approach as Culley. He claims the snakes were meant to teach the Israelites that rebelling against God will lead to their death, and that there was no hope for them to rescue themselves. Any salvation would be of grace and grace alone.[13] Keddie believes that "[t]he bronze snake preached gospel grace to Israel and speaks to us of Jesus, the only Saviour of sinners like ourselves."[14] Here, of course, Keddie is referring to Christ's use of Numbers 21:4-9 in John 3. It is useful to point out this both applications although the first was originally to Israel. Christians can still understand and appropriate the truth for our own context.
Unlike other sources I found, the Westminster Confession of Faith did not refer specifically to the Numbers passage. I was, however, able to draw an interesting connection between the Israelites in Numbers and the Church in the Confession. Both Israel and the Church represent the covenant community, and as such what is said about one will often apply to the other. Chapter 25.5 states "[t]he purest churches under heaven are subject to both mixture and error."[15] Israel in Numbers, like the church today, had people in the covenant community with rebellious hearts. This is what lead to the terrible offense when the Israelites called God's provision worthless. It should give us cause for thought as well because we are not so different from them. The book of Numbers shows over and over that mankind is marred by the Fall, so we are capable of just such a rebellion. When we cry out against God in our hearts, this one statement of the Confession should stand as a warning.
Evaluate Your Preliminary Summary of the Text's Significance
When I began this paper I wanted a deeper understanding of the significance of Numbers 21:4-9. I thought I had a superficial one, but was eager to see what deeper investigation might reveal. My original summary of the text's significance was: Numbers 21:4-9 served to warn the Exodus community against grumbling against what God has provided, or else chastisement will occur. It was also an encouragement, however, because it showed that God is merciful to those who repent and trust His Word.
I find that to be a fairly accurate assessment of the text. I would change the original audience from "the Exodus community" to "the children of the Exodus community." What has changed is my appreciation for the literary structure and the emphasis that it places on the sinfulness of men and the graciousness of God. I better understand the passage's place in the overall narrative of Scripture.
Taking the literary factors into consideration, I might word the significance like this: "Numbers 21:4-9 served to warn the children of the Exodus community of their own rebelliousness and sinfulness while also strongly emphasizing that God is gracious and faithful to keep His promises even in the midst of our sin." This does a better job highlighting the story's role in the larger biblical storyline because it takes the other stories of grumbling and rebellion into consideration, broadening the scope of application.
I am still curious about the significance of the serpent as a symbol in ancient Israel. I did find some intriguing theories about its significance, but I was not able to devote much time to that. I would also love to investigate the literary structure of Numbers and the Pentateuch as a whole in order to better grasp how it coheres.
Endnotes[1] John Sturdy, Numbers, The Cambridge Bible Commentary on the New English Bible (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1976), 4.
[2] Gordon J. Wenham, Numbers, The Tyndale Old Testament Commentary Series (Leicester, Eng: Downers' Grove, Ill.: Inter-Varsity Press, 1981), 22-24.
[3] Ibid., 24
[4] Ibid., 158
[5] Ibid., 14,15
[6] Ibid., 157
[7] Michael Williams, "Covenant Theology," class lecture notes p. 1, Covenant Theological Seminary, St. Louis, 20 October 2006.
[8] Wenham, Numbers, The Tyndale Old Testament Commentary Series, 16-17.
[9] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. by Ford Lewis Battles (Louisville, London: Westminster John Knox Press, 1960), 2:1447.
[10] Martin Luther, Luther's Works, trans. Theodore G. Tappert (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1967), 54:97.
[11] Robert C. Culley, "Five Tales of Punishment in the Book of Numbers," in Text and Tradition, ed. Susan Niditch (Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press, 1990), 30.
[12] Ibid., 31.
[13] Gordon J. Keddie, According to Promise: The Message of the Book of Numbers (Durham, England: Evangelical Press, 1992), 147-148.
[14] Ibid., 148.
[15]Westminster Confession of Faith (Lawrenceville, Georgia: Committee for Christian Education and Publications, 1990), 84.
Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. 2 vols. Translated by Ford Lewis Battles. Vol. 2. Louisville, London: Westminster John Knox Press, 1960.
Culley, Robert C., "Five Tales of Punishment in the Book of Numbers." In Text and Tradition, ed. Susan Niditch, 25-31. Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press, 1990.
Luther, Martin. Luther's Works, 55 vols. Translated by Theodore G. Tappert. Vol. 54. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1967.
Sturdy, John. Numbers, The Cambridge Bible Commentary on the New English Bible (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1976),
Wenham, Gordon J. Numbers, The Tyndale Old Testament Commentary Series. Leicester, England, Downers' Grove, Ill.: Inter-Varsity Press, 1981.
Westminster Confession of Faith. Lawrenceville, Georgia: Committee for Christian Education and Publications, 1990.
Williams, Michael. "Covenant Theology." Class lecture notes, Covenant Theological Seminary, St. Louis, 20 October 2006.
The bronze serpent story in Numbers 21:4-9 is one of the more famous stories in the Old Testament. I have heard many sermons on this text, yet I still do not have a good grasp on its significance. Most if not all of those sermons focused on the story's relation to the crucifixion of Christ. As the semester has progressed I have become very interested in understanding Biblical narratives in their original context. Why would Moses have included this story if its only significance was as a picture of the crucifixion? There must have been an original intent, and I want to find it.
As I read the story I noticed the importance of following God's commands in faith. Those who were bitten by the serpents would die if they did not look at the bronze serpent, but there is no sensible connection between the act of looking and physical healing, or at least not from a 21st Century perspective. In order to live, the ancient Israelites had to believe God's Word and obey.
Maligning God's provision is also an important aspect of the story. In verse 5 the Israelites call the manna God sent "worthless food." God sends the fiery serpents in response, and it is difficult to understand how to apply this punishment. Vague answers warning us not to treat God's provision as worthless do not satisfy because they do not grapple with the text. This first application is obvious, but what more is there to be said? Is the fact that God sent fiery serpents significant? I know that I have treated God's provision lightly, and that others have as well, but we have not all suffered the fate of these Israelites. What made that situation different? What sort of help might be provided by investigating the context into which this story was delivered?
Another interesting aspect of the text is the bronze serpent itself. A cursory reading of the text provides no clue as to God's reason for commanding Moses to forge it, yet I have difficulty believing no such reason exists. The only clue is that there were also serpents involved in the chastisement, but that does not provide much help.
Preliminary Summary: Numbers 21:4-9 served to warn the Exodus community against grumbling against what God has provided, or else chastisement will occur. It was also an encouragement, however, because it showed that God is merciful to those who repent and trust His Word.
Examine the Text With Guidance Toward its Original Significance
Clarify Your Understanding of the Original Setting and Purposes of the Book.
It seems that the presuppositions of the commentator are one of the most important factors in how he or she dates the book of Numbers. For instance, in his commentary, John Sturdy subscribes to source-criticism theory. Proceeding from an assumption of its accuracy he dates the J source at about 950 BC, and P around 450 BC.[1] Gordon Wenham's commentary, however, presents a very different picture. Rather than assuming a source-critical methodology, Wenham engages a number of arguments to establish a probable date range for the book's composition. He particularly attacks the late date for the so-called 'P material.' He points out that a number of institutions that figured prominently in the P material, such as the ark and the Urim and Thummim, had disappeared by the post-exilic era. He also points out that much of the technical terminology of the P material was obsolete after the 7th century. Comparison with Ezekiel and Deuteronomy lead Wenham to choose the 7th century as the latest date for Numbers.[2]
Wenham push for an even earlier date for Numbers by producing no fewer than thirteen arguments for its antiquity. For example, the Hebrew encampment was square with the Tabernacle, which was the divine king's tent, in the middle. This was the practice of 13th century Egyptians, and not for later nations like the Assyrians. The descriptions of cultural artifacts and literary forms were also more in line with a second-millennium date. Taking all this into consideration, Wenham suggests that we give the tradition of Mosaic authorship the benefit of the doubt.[3]
In determining the original pastoral purposes of Numbers it is now obvious that we cannot side with the proponents of source-criticism. The author was Moses, not J or P, and the audience was an ancient one. The question is, however, was the audience the Exodus generation or their children? The best answer to this question is provided by the text itself. Numbers contains the stories of the failures of the Exodus generation and the resulting judgments. This indicates that it is the children's generation Moses had in mind. This generation was actually entering the Promised Land and needed first to be assured that God was on their side. Just because their parents' generation died didn't mean God had abandoned the entire nation. They also needed to be reminded of the price of disobedience. There are a number of laws given in the book of Numbers and the book also provided examples of the cost of disregarding those laws.
Attend to the Literary Shape of the Episode
Numbers 21:4-9 opens with a broad, fast-moving statement about the Israelites traveling around Edom. The pace is slowed and the scope is narrowed quickly when the opening problem of the passage is presented. This problem is the impatience of the people of Israel (v. 4). This impatience then leads to grumbling against God and Moses in verse 5. The people complain about the lack of good food and water, and say that the food they do have is "worthless." In response to their complaint, God sends judgment in the form of "fiery serpents" (v. 6). This is the turning point of the story. After this
judgment the people change dramatically. They are the only dynamic characters in the story, because they realize that they have sinned against God and Moses and are humbled. They look to Moses, who they had earlier criticized and asked him to pray for them.
The strength of Moses' character is revealed by his response to the request of the people. He does just as they asked without complaint. There is a contrast between Moses and the people: When in trying circumstances (v. 4-5) the people complain and question Moses' leadership and God's providence. Moses does not answer back in kind. In fact, only God acts in response to their complaint. Once the people are repentant, Moses does not allow their past attacks to stop him from praying for them. He makes no complaint, but does as they ask (v. 7). Though it is not specifically stated, from the narrator sets Moses as the example.
Further into the story, Moses acts in a godly fashion again by obeying the Lord's command. God resolves the conflict by telling Moses to make a bronze serpent and set it on a pole. Anyone who is bitten by a serpent need only look at the bronze serpent and they will live. This 'look and live' phrase is emphasized by repetition in vv. 8-9. Wenham suggests this repetition emphasizes the physical contact of looking as analogous to the touching of the sacrificial animal required in other Old Testament cleansing rituals. Without the physical contact, the sacrifice is ineffective.[4] At this point the scope has broadened and time has quickened again. The scope is focused on the nation as a whole and the time in which the remaining action takes place is nonspecific.
Summarize the Original Significance of the Story
It is difficult to determine how Numbers 21:4-9 serves the larger book of Numbers because at first blush Numbers does not seem to have much purpose. It can look like a smattering of legal texts and narratives that could not fit anywhere else. This is, however, a false impression. According to Wenham the book is highly structured, with the legal portions operating on several levels. First, they teach how Israel is to behave once they are in the land, and second, they function as evidence that the land promises will be fulfilled.[5] Why give a bunch of nomads a book of laws on how to live when they settle in a land unless it is certain that they are settling?
The narrative portions of Numbers describe the journey to the land itself. Specifically, 21:4-9 is the last instance of the Israelites complaining about their food.[6] This had occurred previously in Numbers 11 and judgment ensued. It did again, but God's grace was demonstrated because they were allowed to move forward with the campaign after their repentance.
The sinfulness of man and the graciousness of God are strong themes from the covenant relationship. As is always the case, it is God who works the reconciliation after we mess things up. Yet, as always, God is faithful to his promises. He told Abraham his descendents would have the land, and God took them there in spite of their failures.
Original Significance: The original significance of this passage was to show the continuing faithfulness of God and the continuing sinfulness of men. This is a repetitive cycle, but it also gave the audience a warning against such rebellion against God.
Trace Biblical Elaborations of the Text Through the Canon
There is not much specific reference to Numbers 21:4-9 in the other books of the Old Testament. The bronze serpent itself is mentioned in 2 Kings 18:4. Hezekiah destroyed the serpent, then called 'Nehushtan,' during his reforms because the Israelites had begun worshipping it. Beyond that I could find no mention of the story.
The three characters of the story, the Israelites, God, and Moses, are obviously mentioned throughout the Old Testament. The Israelites are often shown to be impatient and prone to complaint, as they are in the Numbers passage. In Exodus 16:2-3 and 17:1-3 the Israelites grumble for food and drink, respectively. Earlier in the book of Numbers itself the Israelites make a similar complaint. In 14:1-4 they again grumble against both God and Moses. This cycle of unfaithfulness calls into mind the cycle of rebellion in the book of Judges. Both occurred because of the persistent sinfulness of the Israelites.
These stories emphasize some facets of God's character as well. In all three instances God is shown to be merciful and two of three show God's judgment. In the Exodus passages the people grumble for lack of food (16:3) and water (17:2-3). They were certainly sinning in doing so, but God was merciful on both occasions, providing for their needs. Numbers 14 is heavy with judgment since this is the passage in which God tells the Exodus generation they will not enter the land (v. 20-23), but even here He shows His mercy. Earlier God shows what He could have done when He offers to disinherit the Israelites and make a nation of Moses (v. 11-12). After Moses' intercession (v. 13-19) God pronounces His judgment, but also promises to allow the children of the Exodus generation into the land. In Numbers 21 God begins His action with a judgment, the sending of the serpents (v. 6), but He ends with mercy, giving the people an opportunity for healing (vv. 8-9).
The compassion and intercession of Moses is featured prominently in two of the aforementioned stories. On all three occasions Moses comes before the Lord with the complaints of the people. He prays in Numbers 14 that God will not destroy the people of Israel even though God would have made him a great nation. In Numbers 21 the judgment of God has already fallen upon the Israelites, and when they are repentant Moses goes before the Lord with their request for deliverance. In all of these stories we see the mercy of Moses alongside the mercy of God. This gives legitimacy to Moses' role as God's messenger.
The most famous biblical reference to the Numbers 21:4-9 story is found in John 3. It is also the only New Testament reference to the story and Christ uses it as a picture of his crucifixion. In verse 14 Jesus says that he must be "lifted up" as Moses lifted the bronze serpent in the wilderness. It is plain that Jesus' focus is on the serpent's God-given power to heal because of his statement in verse 15: "…that whoever believes in him may have eternal life." Looking to the serpent brought physical life (Numbers 21:8,9), but believing in Jesus brings eternal life.
How Does the Episode You Are Studying Function in Relation to Other Chapters of the Biblical Storyline?
The biblical storyline should be viewed in a 'Creation-Fall-Redemption- Consummation' framework.[7] At least two of these 'chapters' throw light on the Numbers 21:4-9 narrative. The story begins with a confirmation of the Fall. The Israelites are characterized by impatience and complaint. They grumble not only against their leader Moses, but also against the God who appointed him. God had steadily provided for them, yet they called His provision "worthless" (v. 5). The result here is the same as the result of the original Fall: a curse. God sends poisonous serpents among the people, bringing death (v. 6). The people have no hope on their own, but they realize they have done wrong and ask Moses to intercede for them (v. 7).
Now the story moves from the confirmation of the Fall to the execution of redemption. Through the bronze serpent, God provides a means of delivery from death (vv. 8-9). In one small story we see both fall and redemption.
What Would Be Lost if Your Episode Did Not Appear in the Biblical Story?
If Numbers 21:4-9 did not appear in the biblical story there would be two major losses. First, the story completes a tripartite cycle in Exodus and Numbers that highlights man's continued sinfulness and God's continued grace.[8] Strictly speaking, both of these are present in other episodes, but the tripartite literary device adds beauty and emphasis. Perhaps the greatest loss, however, would be the loss of the rich redemptive imagery Christ uses in John 3. His use of the bronze serpent imagery certainly resonated with Nicodemus and provides us with insight on the nature of Christ's sacrifice on our behalf.
Come Under the Coaching of Other Christian Interpreters Who Apply this Text
Throughout the centuries it seems that Numbers 21:4-9 has only had a few types of application. I was interested to see that both Luther and Calvin applied this text with reference to sacraments. For instance, Calvin says that along with receiving manna and the water from the rock, the bronze serpent was a sacrament. He goes on to say that this regular variation should have told the Jews that they were not to hold on to these practices, but to wait for something better and more abiding. These better things are, of course, the two Christian sacraments of the Lord's Supper and baptism.[9]
Luther, while staying with the theme of sacraments, applies the text differently. He uses the brass serpent as a weapon against "sacramentarians." Accusing such people of seeking the Spirit apart from the Word, he says they would want to see the serpent held up on the pole but not bother with the Word of God that came with it.[10]
Not surprisingly, Catholic commentator Robert Culley takes a different approach to the text. Culley focuses on the "punishment…followed by a rescue or mitigation"[11] in the text. When the text is combined with other narratives in Numbers, one strong application is that God should never be provoked. His punishments are often deadly. Yet, this particular story intrigued Culley because the rescue actually draws more attention than the punishment.[12] He does not elaborate on that theme.
Gordon Keddie takes a similar approach as Culley. He claims the snakes were meant to teach the Israelites that rebelling against God will lead to their death, and that there was no hope for them to rescue themselves. Any salvation would be of grace and grace alone.[13] Keddie believes that "[t]he bronze snake preached gospel grace to Israel and speaks to us of Jesus, the only Saviour of sinners like ourselves."[14] Here, of course, Keddie is referring to Christ's use of Numbers 21:4-9 in John 3. It is useful to point out this both applications although the first was originally to Israel. Christians can still understand and appropriate the truth for our own context.
Unlike other sources I found, the Westminster Confession of Faith did not refer specifically to the Numbers passage. I was, however, able to draw an interesting connection between the Israelites in Numbers and the Church in the Confession. Both Israel and the Church represent the covenant community, and as such what is said about one will often apply to the other. Chapter 25.5 states "[t]he purest churches under heaven are subject to both mixture and error."[15] Israel in Numbers, like the church today, had people in the covenant community with rebellious hearts. This is what lead to the terrible offense when the Israelites called God's provision worthless. It should give us cause for thought as well because we are not so different from them. The book of Numbers shows over and over that mankind is marred by the Fall, so we are capable of just such a rebellion. When we cry out against God in our hearts, this one statement of the Confession should stand as a warning.
Evaluate Your Preliminary Summary of the Text's Significance
When I began this paper I wanted a deeper understanding of the significance of Numbers 21:4-9. I thought I had a superficial one, but was eager to see what deeper investigation might reveal. My original summary of the text's significance was: Numbers 21:4-9 served to warn the Exodus community against grumbling against what God has provided, or else chastisement will occur. It was also an encouragement, however, because it showed that God is merciful to those who repent and trust His Word.
I find that to be a fairly accurate assessment of the text. I would change the original audience from "the Exodus community" to "the children of the Exodus community." What has changed is my appreciation for the literary structure and the emphasis that it places on the sinfulness of men and the graciousness of God. I better understand the passage's place in the overall narrative of Scripture.
Taking the literary factors into consideration, I might word the significance like this: "Numbers 21:4-9 served to warn the children of the Exodus community of their own rebelliousness and sinfulness while also strongly emphasizing that God is gracious and faithful to keep His promises even in the midst of our sin." This does a better job highlighting the story's role in the larger biblical storyline because it takes the other stories of grumbling and rebellion into consideration, broadening the scope of application.
I am still curious about the significance of the serpent as a symbol in ancient Israel. I did find some intriguing theories about its significance, but I was not able to devote much time to that. I would also love to investigate the literary structure of Numbers and the Pentateuch as a whole in order to better grasp how it coheres.
Endnotes
[2] Gordon J. Wenham, Numbers, The Tyndale Old Testament Commentary Series (Leicester, Eng: Downers' Grove, Ill.: Inter-Varsity Press, 1981), 22-24.
[3] Ibid., 24
[4] Ibid., 158
[5] Ibid., 14,15
[6] Ibid., 157
[7] Michael Williams, "Covenant Theology," class lecture notes p. 1, Covenant Theological Seminary, St. Louis, 20 October 2006.
[8] Wenham, Numbers, The Tyndale Old Testament Commentary Series, 16-17.
[9] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. by Ford Lewis Battles (Louisville, London: Westminster John Knox Press, 1960), 2:1447.
[10] Martin Luther, Luther's Works, trans. Theodore G. Tappert (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1967), 54:97.
[11] Robert C. Culley, "Five Tales of Punishment in the Book of Numbers," in Text and Tradition, ed. Susan Niditch (Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press, 1990), 30.
[12] Ibid., 31.
[13] Gordon J. Keddie, According to Promise: The Message of the Book of Numbers (Durham, England: Evangelical Press, 1992), 147-148.
[14] Ibid., 148.
[15]Westminster Confession of Faith (Lawrenceville, Georgia: Committee for Christian Education and Publications, 1990), 84.
Bibliography
Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. 2 vols. Translated by Ford Lewis Battles. Vol. 2. Louisville, London: Westminster John Knox Press, 1960.
Culley, Robert C., "Five Tales of Punishment in the Book of Numbers." In Text and Tradition, ed. Susan Niditch, 25-31. Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press, 1990.
Luther, Martin. Luther's Works, 55 vols. Translated by Theodore G. Tappert. Vol. 54. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1967.
Sturdy, John. Numbers, The Cambridge Bible Commentary on the New English Bible (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1976),
Wenham, Gordon J. Numbers, The Tyndale Old Testament Commentary Series. Leicester, England, Downers' Grove, Ill.: Inter-Varsity Press, 1981.
Westminster Confession of Faith. Lawrenceville, Georgia: Committee for Christian Education and Publications, 1990.
Williams, Michael. "Covenant Theology." Class lecture notes, Covenant Theological Seminary, St. Louis, 20 October 2006.
Lesslie Newbigin and B.B. Warfield: A Mini-Dialogue on Inerrancy
The doctrine of inerrancy is not popular. Many evangelicals hold to it, but it is assailed on all other sides. For instance, the certainty inherent in the doctrine is off-putting to many postmodernists. To them, it seems nothing more than a power grab. Theological liberals and humanists, on the other hand, find inerrancy foolish. Biblical criticism has demonstrated many biblical errors, they think, so the matter is settled.
If the first two attacks weren't enough, another has joined the fray. Lesslie Newbigin, in his book Proper Confidence levels an attack that purports to be neither modern nor postmodern. Newbigin's attack is supposed to be biblical, or at least from a biblical worldview. How should evangelicals defend against such an attack? We must begin by examining how Newbigin understands inerrancy, and then we must analyze that understanding to see if it matches what we actually believe. This last step will involve delving into the works of one of the most brilliant inerrantists of all time, B.B. Warfield.
Newbigin defines inerrancy by asserting that anyone believing in inerrancy "affirms [the] factual, objective truth of every statement in the Bible", and believes that any factual error would destroy biblical authority.[1] Newbigin's use of the term 'objective' in the definition reveals his opinion of inerrancy. In Proper Confidence Newbigin thinks of the modernist's quest for objectivity as an attempt to rid oneself of all subjective prejudices and presuppositions, which is impossible.[2] For him, inerrancy is necessarily shackled to this illusion.[3]
Newbigin levels these accusations at evangelicals because he believes we hold an Enlightenment epistemology. In fact, he believes this to be the common ground we share with liberal Christians. The difference, in his view, is that evangelicals try to make the Bible meet Enlightenment criteria for knowledge while liberals are happy to say it does not. He refers to these criteria as "alien norms" which take our focus off a proper biblical epistemology. In this way, according to Newbigin, evangelicals end up placing their confidence in human rationality rather than the personal God of the universe.[4] This is Newbigin's error, and a proper understanding of Warfield will expose it.
Princeton theologian B.B. Warfield was perhaps the greatest defender the doctrine of inerrancy ever had. The greatness of his defense is doubted by many, however, because his writing is not easy to comprehend. Many have erroneously called Warfield a modernist, thereby making him appear vulnerable to Newbigin's criticism. From there it is easy to extend the reasoning: if Warfield is the best defender of inerrancy, then most other inerrantists will follow in his footsteps. Therefore, whatever criticism is true of him must also be true of the whole lot. A fair reading of Warfield tells a different story.
In his book The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible, Warfield states that the
proper way to approach the Bible is to assume its accuracy.[5] Problematic passages are 'innocent until proven guilty.' This is not in line with the Newbigin's conception of inerrancy. If Warfield was a modernist he should have used the principle of critical doubt here. Instead he approaches the text in faith, which is exactly what Newbigin desires.
Warfield also rejects the view that it is impossible to trust Christ because he can only be known through history. The modernist aversion to arguments from history is well known. Historical events cannot be proven by reason, so they are suspect. While Warfield agrees in Revelation and Inspiration that historical study is not enough to give someone full confidence in Christ, he still asserts that such confidence should be given.[6]
These two facts (presumption of accuracy and full confidence in Christ without deductive certainty) demonstrate that Warfield was not mired in the Enlightenment when he defended inerrancy. On the contrary, one could say that Warfield's understanding of Scripture was in the same ballpark as Newbigin's. Newbigin says, "the locus of our confidence (if one may put it so) is not in the competence of our own knowing, but in the faithfulness and reliability of the one who is known."[7] Warfield would have added a hearty 'amen' to this statement, but would want to take that confidence even further.
One must not assume, however, that Newbigin and Warfield are in complete agreement, regardless of the similarities we previously noted. Though some disagreements are without merit, others remain. As one reads the two theologians side by side an interesting dynamic emerges. Both acknowledge that Scripture involves interaction between the human and the divine, and they agree that humans are fallible creatures. The difference is in which side of the revelatory partnership they emphasize.
Newbigin emphasizes the effect the fallibility of man has on Scripture. He states, "at every point…we are dealing with the interaction of men and women with God. At every point human judgment and fallibility are involved…"[8] To Newbigin the debate is over at this point. Once humans enter the picture fallibility follows. This assumption is made more plain by another statement: "The idea that at a certain point in this long story a line was drawn before which everything is divine word and after which everything is human judgment is absurd."[9] Perhaps, but which inerrantist proposed such a line? What of the role of the Holy Spirit?
Warfield provides the answer. In The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible he points out that the Church has always believed that the Holy Spirit superintended the wording of the divine revelation. He did so because, in Warfield's opinion (which is likely correct), falsehood is inconsistent with the divine nature.[10] If I may, I will supplement Warfield with a quote from Sinclair Ferguson's essay, "How Does the Bible Look at Itself?":
The nature of God and the nature of language conspire to make verbal inerrancy not only a viable doctrine, but also a needful one. As a result, evangelicals should not fear to believe in the inerrancy of Scripture. This is proper confidence indeed.
[1] Lesslie Newbigin, Proper Confidence (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1995. p. 85
[2] Newbigin, Proper Confidence, p. 45
[3] Newbigin, Proper Confidence, p. 85
[4] Newbigin, Proper Confidence, p. 85-6
[5] B.B. Warfield, The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible," 215-16 quoted in Michael Williams, "Covenant Theology," class lecture notes 16, Covenant Theological Seminary, St. Louis, 4 October 2006.
[6] B.B. Warfield, Revelation and Inspiration," 67 quoted in Michael Williams, "Covenant Theology," class lecture notes p. 16, Covenant Theological Seminary, St. Louis, 4 October 2006.
[7] Newbigin, Proper Confidence, 67
[8] Newbigin, Proper Confidence, 86
[9] Newbigin, Proper Confidence, 86
[10] Warfield, The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible, 296 quoted in Williams "Covenant Theology" lecture notes, 16
[11] Sinclair Ferguson, "How Does the Bible See Itself?," in Inerrancy and Hermeneutic, ed. Harvie Conn. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House Co., 1998), 47-66.
If the first two attacks weren't enough, another has joined the fray. Lesslie Newbigin, in his book Proper Confidence levels an attack that purports to be neither modern nor postmodern. Newbigin's attack is supposed to be biblical, or at least from a biblical worldview. How should evangelicals defend against such an attack? We must begin by examining how Newbigin understands inerrancy, and then we must analyze that understanding to see if it matches what we actually believe. This last step will involve delving into the works of one of the most brilliant inerrantists of all time, B.B. Warfield.
Newbigin defines inerrancy by asserting that anyone believing in inerrancy "affirms [the] factual, objective truth of every statement in the Bible", and believes that any factual error would destroy biblical authority.[1] Newbigin's use of the term 'objective' in the definition reveals his opinion of inerrancy. In Proper Confidence Newbigin thinks of the modernist's quest for objectivity as an attempt to rid oneself of all subjective prejudices and presuppositions, which is impossible.[2] For him, inerrancy is necessarily shackled to this illusion.[3]
Newbigin levels these accusations at evangelicals because he believes we hold an Enlightenment epistemology. In fact, he believes this to be the common ground we share with liberal Christians. The difference, in his view, is that evangelicals try to make the Bible meet Enlightenment criteria for knowledge while liberals are happy to say it does not. He refers to these criteria as "alien norms" which take our focus off a proper biblical epistemology. In this way, according to Newbigin, evangelicals end up placing their confidence in human rationality rather than the personal God of the universe.[4] This is Newbigin's error, and a proper understanding of Warfield will expose it.
Princeton theologian B.B. Warfield was perhaps the greatest defender the doctrine of inerrancy ever had. The greatness of his defense is doubted by many, however, because his writing is not easy to comprehend. Many have erroneously called Warfield a modernist, thereby making him appear vulnerable to Newbigin's criticism. From there it is easy to extend the reasoning: if Warfield is the best defender of inerrancy, then most other inerrantists will follow in his footsteps. Therefore, whatever criticism is true of him must also be true of the whole lot. A fair reading of Warfield tells a different story.
In his book The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible, Warfield states that the
proper way to approach the Bible is to assume its accuracy.[5] Problematic passages are 'innocent until proven guilty.' This is not in line with the Newbigin's conception of inerrancy. If Warfield was a modernist he should have used the principle of critical doubt here. Instead he approaches the text in faith, which is exactly what Newbigin desires.
Warfield also rejects the view that it is impossible to trust Christ because he can only be known through history. The modernist aversion to arguments from history is well known. Historical events cannot be proven by reason, so they are suspect. While Warfield agrees in Revelation and Inspiration that historical study is not enough to give someone full confidence in Christ, he still asserts that such confidence should be given.[6]
These two facts (presumption of accuracy and full confidence in Christ without deductive certainty) demonstrate that Warfield was not mired in the Enlightenment when he defended inerrancy. On the contrary, one could say that Warfield's understanding of Scripture was in the same ballpark as Newbigin's. Newbigin says, "the locus of our confidence (if one may put it so) is not in the competence of our own knowing, but in the faithfulness and reliability of the one who is known."[7] Warfield would have added a hearty 'amen' to this statement, but would want to take that confidence even further.
One must not assume, however, that Newbigin and Warfield are in complete agreement, regardless of the similarities we previously noted. Though some disagreements are without merit, others remain. As one reads the two theologians side by side an interesting dynamic emerges. Both acknowledge that Scripture involves interaction between the human and the divine, and they agree that humans are fallible creatures. The difference is in which side of the revelatory partnership they emphasize.
Newbigin emphasizes the effect the fallibility of man has on Scripture. He states, "at every point…we are dealing with the interaction of men and women with God. At every point human judgment and fallibility are involved…"[8] To Newbigin the debate is over at this point. Once humans enter the picture fallibility follows. This assumption is made more plain by another statement: "The idea that at a certain point in this long story a line was drawn before which everything is divine word and after which everything is human judgment is absurd."[9] Perhaps, but which inerrantist proposed such a line? What of the role of the Holy Spirit?
Warfield provides the answer. In The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible he points out that the Church has always believed that the Holy Spirit superintended the wording of the divine revelation. He did so because, in Warfield's opinion (which is likely correct), falsehood is inconsistent with the divine nature.[10] If I may, I will supplement Warfield with a quote from Sinclair Ferguson's essay, "How Does the Bible Look at Itself?":
Because words express meaning, and a particular word may possess different
meanings in different contexts, the meaning communicated depends on the
significance of all the words used. If Scripture is God-breathed at all,
that inspiration must extend to all the words that are employed.[11]
The nature of God and the nature of language conspire to make verbal inerrancy not only a viable doctrine, but also a needful one. As a result, evangelicals should not fear to believe in the inerrancy of Scripture. This is proper confidence indeed.
[1] Lesslie Newbigin, Proper Confidence (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1995. p. 85
[2] Newbigin, Proper Confidence, p. 45
[3] Newbigin, Proper Confidence, p. 85
[4] Newbigin, Proper Confidence, p. 85-6
[5] B.B. Warfield, The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible," 215-16 quoted in Michael Williams, "Covenant Theology," class lecture notes 16, Covenant Theological Seminary, St. Louis, 4 October 2006.
[6] B.B. Warfield, Revelation and Inspiration," 67 quoted in Michael Williams, "Covenant Theology," class lecture notes p. 16, Covenant Theological Seminary, St. Louis, 4 October 2006.
[7] Newbigin, Proper Confidence, 67
[8] Newbigin, Proper Confidence, 86
[9] Newbigin, Proper Confidence, 86
[10] Warfield, The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible, 296 quoted in Williams "Covenant Theology" lecture notes, 16
[11] Sinclair Ferguson, "How Does the Bible See Itself?," in Inerrancy and Hermeneutic, ed. Harvie Conn. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House Co., 1998), 47-66.
Bibliography
Ferguson, Sinclair. "How Does the Bible Look at Itself?," in Inerrancy and Hermeneutic, ed. Harvie Conn, 47-66. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House Co., 1998.
Newbigin, Lesslie. Proper Confidence: Faith Doubt & Certainty in Christian Discipleship. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1995.
Williams, Michael. "Covenant Theology." Class Lecture Notes, Covenant Theological Seminary, St. Louis, 4 October 2006.
Newbigin, Lesslie. Proper Confidence: Faith Doubt & Certainty in Christian Discipleship. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1995.
Williams, Michael. "Covenant Theology." Class Lecture Notes, Covenant Theological Seminary, St. Louis, 4 October 2006.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)