If you are tired of trying to use Ecclesiastes as if it were written from an unbeliever’s perspective, or if you are feeling guilty that you would really rather not read Song of Solomon to your wife as a love poem, the recordings of this conference will help you. Not only will you learn more about how Wisdom literature fits in the Bible and the Christian life, but also you will learn a great deal about the rest of Scripture—because these speakers end up talking about the whole Bible in the process of explaining one or more of the wisdom books.

Ecclesiastes is arguably one of the most mysterious books in the Bible. Jordan assembled a dream team of exegetes and preachers to address the meaning of these Wisdom books and the role of Wisdom literature in general in Biblical redemptive history. The result is a conference that gives listeners both a real boost in Biblical literacy and plenty of guidance in practical Christian living.

What the speakers brought to the table is not often utilized in Evangelical discussions of this topic –real attention to Biblical history and the importance of corporate worship in Scripture. It is no accident that the Psalms of David were used first, and then Solomon was able to articulate true wisdom. It is no accident that the Song of Solomon was written after the establishment of a royal dynasty. The speakers give listeners a new grasp of how the Bible works as a book of books written at different points in history.

Additionally, the conference includes lectures by Dr. Peter Leithart on some of Shakespeare’s plays.

…the identification by Paul of the concept of law with that of the Jewish-synagogical nomism does not mean that Paul attributed this conception to Moses. Paul sometimes seems to appeal to Moses for this conception, for example, when he says, in Romans 10.5, that Moses defines the righteousness of the law thus: “the man who does [these things] shall live thereby” (c.f. Galatians 3.12). But this is no more than appearance. For this cannot mean that Moses himself was the promoter of this righteousness by the law. Without regard to the places where Paul appeals for the opposite principle (the righteousness by faith) to “the law” (of Moses)—for which see above—such a view is contradicted by the verse that follows Romans 10.5, in which the righteousness that is by faith is defined with a pronouncement likewise derived from Moses. Now, some have wished to resolve this in such a way that Moses himself, as it were, is said to have posited two possibilities, of which the first (righteousness by the law) was intended by him as a way impossible for the sinner. But not only is such certainty not the intention of Moses in Leviticus 18.5—who after all sets “this do and live” as the rule of the covenant—but it also does not appear from the context that Paul wishes here to attribute this conception to Moses (namely, that the law cannot be fulfilled by sinful man). What Paul means to say is this, that he who strives after the righteousness that is by the law is then bound to the word of Moses, that is, to do what the law demands. Likewise the wrong use of the law, to be zealous for the law without understanding, finds in the law itself the standard to which, if it is to have a chance of success, it must measure up. In that sense it can be said that Moses (or the law itself) “defines” the righteousness that is of the law. This is not an appeal to Moses in support of “a false position,” but a binding of this position to its own point of departure: he who seeks righteousness in the law faces, as appears from the law itself, the requirement of doing (cf. Galatians 3.10, 12).

p. 155, 156

Sound familiar?

We will never understand the unity of the Bible until we understand that the great covenant made with Israel at Mount Sinai was not a covenant of works. Here’s what I mean. There are many Bible teachers today who say that this covenant (Mosaic) pictures God as an employer, the covenant people as employees, the ten commandments as the job description, and the covenant blessings as the wages paid to those who earn them by obedience. In other words, they say, this is not a covenant based on God’s mercy but on Israel’s merit. The blessings promised are not freely given, they are earned.

The covenant made with Abraham, they say, and the new covenant sealed by the blood of Jesus are based on grace, and the blessings promised in those covenants are given freely to faith. But the covenant made on Mount Sinai is not based on grace, and its blessings were not to be received by faith. It is a covenant of works because God only pays its blessings to people who perform duties valuable enough to earn or merit God’s blessing.

Generation after generation of Bible believers have been trained to believe this view by the footnotes of the Scofield Reference Bible and now the Ryrie Study Bible. But I appeal to you to be your own careful, humble reader of the Scripture. Will this view stand up in Exodus 34? When God says in verse 10, “Behold, I make a covenant!” right after declaring himself to be a God who is merciful and who forgives iniquity, transgression, and sin, can we really believe that this covenant is not based on mercy? Can we really believe that the covenant has no merciful provision for forgiveness in it? And if it is based on mercy and does provide forgiveness, how can it be a covenant of works? If a person sins under this covenant and flees to God for mercy and finds forgiveness, how can we say the covenant is based on merit? Is it merit we offer to God when we plead his mercy and ask for forgiveness?

READ THE WHOLE THING

The irony is that, at the same time I was made aware of this sadly necessary reply to John MacArthur, I also saw this brilliant post from the Jollyblogger.

…the primary identifying mark of the Christian is not his theology, his convictions, or even his morals – it is his love. And this primary identifying mark is not love for all men in general, it is love for believers in particular. In other words, if professing Christians don’t love one another then the world outside the church has no compelling reason to believe they are truly Christian.

I’m tempted to say the spirit of Francis Schaeffer lives on, but I know that is not true. It is the Spirit of Jesus who reminds us of who we are called to be. He used Schaeffer in his classic The Mark of the Christian, and the Jollyblogger is being used now.

John Armstrong, of ACT 3, is another person whose wisdom continually reminds me of our calling. If you haven’t read John yet, or you have heard the false accusations that some make, please do yourself the favor of reading his blog and his other writings.

I see Justin Taylor has republished Lee Irons’ Eulogical statements about the late Meredith Kline (here and here). For some reason I feel inspired to link to this great sermon by John Piper so, while we mourn the dead, we can also take a moment to be comforted by delighting in the law of God.

We Should Delight in God’s Law and Sing of Its Value

In conclusion, then, the points are these: first, the law is fulfilled in us when we love our neighbor as ourselves. Second, love is the outworking of genuine, saving faith. Third, therefore, the law did not teach us to try to produce meritorious works, but only taught us to trust the gracious God of the exodus and to live out the obedience of faith. Fourth, therefore, the Mosaic covenant is not fundamentally different from the Abrahamic and New Covenants, for we should obey the commandments of all three from the very same motive—not to win God’s favor, but because we already depend on his free grace and trust that his commands will lead to full and lasting joy. The final point, then, is that we should delight in God’s law, meditate on it day and night (Psalm 119:97), and sing of his value to all generations (Psalm 19:7–14).

Amen and amen.