Why is The Book of Chronicles Important? A Word from Matthew Henry

Today, while sitting in my Old Testament History & Poetry class, we began to discuss the book of Chronicles and our teacher showed us how important and great the genealogies and the rest of the book are, and it was very helpful. I became more curious and decided to see what my good friend, Matthew Henry, had to say concerning the books of Chronicles. Here is his introduction to the book of First Chronicles from his commentary on the entire Bible:

In common things repetition is thought needless and nauseous; but, in sacred things, precept must be upon precept and line upon line. To me,says the apostle, to write the same things is not grievous, but for you it is safe, Phil. iii. 1. These books of Chronicles are in a great measure repetition; so are much of the second and third of the four evangelists: and yet there are no tautologies either here or there no vain repetitions. We may be ready to think that of all the books of holy scripture we could best spare these two books of Chronicles. Perhaps we might, and yet we could ill spare them: for there are many most excellent useful things in them, which we find not elsewhere. And as for what we find here which we have already met with, 1. It might be of great use to those who lived when these books were first published, before the canon of the Old Testament was completed and the particles of it put together; for it would remind them of what was more fully related in the other books. Abstracts, abridgments, and references, are of use in divinity as well as law. That, perhaps, may not be said in vain which yet has been said before. 2. It is still of use, that out of the mouth of two witnesses every word may be established, and, being inculcated, may be remembered. The penman of these books is supposed to be Ezra, that ready scribe in the law of the Lord, Ezra vii. 6. It is a groundless story of that apocryphal writer (2 Esdr. xiv. 21, &c.) that, all the law being burnt, Ezra was divinely inspired to write it all over again, which yet might take rise from the books of Chronicles, where we find, though not all the same story repeated, yet the names of all those who were the subjects of that story. These books are called in the Hebrew words of days—journals or annals, because, by divine direction, collected out of some public and authentic records. The collection was made after the captivity, and yet the language of the originals, written before, it sometimes retained, as 2 Chron. v. 9, there it is unto this day, which must have been written before the destruction of the temple. The LXX. calls it a book Paraleipomenon—of things left, or overlooked, by the preceding historians; and several such things there are in it. It is the rereward, the gathering host, of this sacred camp, which gathers up what remained, that nothing might be lost. In this first book we have, I. A collection of sacred genealogies, from Adam to David: and they are none of those which the apostle calls endless genealogies, but have their use and end in Christ, ch. i.-ix. Divers little passages of history are here inserted which we had not before. II. A repetition of the history of the translation of the kingdom from Saul to David, and of the triumph of David's reign, with large additions, ch. x.-xxi. III. An original account of the settlement David made of the ecclesiastical affairs, and the preparation he made for the building of the temple, ch. xxii-xxix. These are words of days, of the oldest days, of the best days, of the Old-Testament church. The reigns of kings and dates of kingdoms, as well as the lives of common persons, are reckoned by days;for a little time often gives a great turn, and yet all time is nothing to eternity.

Here is what he also had to say in his introduction to Second Chronicles:

 This book begins with the reign of Solomon and the building of the temple, and continues the history of the kings of Judah thenceforward to the captivity and so concludes with the fall of that illustrious monarchy and the destruction of the temple. That monarchy of the house of David, as it was prior in time, so it was superior in worth and dignity to all those four celebrated ones of which Nebuchadnezzar dreamed. The Babylonian monarchy I reckon to begin in Nebuchadnezzar himself—Thou art that head of gold, and that lasted but about seventy years; The Persian monarchy, in several families, about 130; the Grecian, in their several branches, about 300; and 300 more went far with the Roman. But as I reckon David a greater hero than any of the founders of those monarchies, and Solomon a more magnificent prince than any of those that were the glories of them, so the succession was kept up in a lineal descent throughout the whole monarchy, which continued considerable between 400 and 500 years, and, after a long eclipse, shone forth again in the kingdom of the Messiah, of the increase of whose government and peace there shall be no end. This history of the Jewish monarchy, as it is more authentic, so it is more entertaining and more instructive, than the histories of any of those monarchies. We had the story of the house of David before, in the first and second books of Kings, intermixed with that of the kings of Israel, which there took more room than that of Judah; but here we have it entire. Much is repeated here which we had before, yet many of the passages of the story are enlarged upon, and divers added, which we had not before, especially relating to the affairs of religion; for it is a church-history, and it is written for our learning, to let nations and families know that then, and then only, they can expect to prosper, when they keep in the way of their duty to God: for all along the good kings prospered and the wicked kings suffered. The peaceable reign of Solomon we have (ch. i.-ix.), the blemished reign of Rehoboam (ch. x.-xii.), the short but busy reign of Abijah (ch. xiii.), the long and happy reign of Asa (ch. xiv.-xvi.), the pious and prosperous reign of Jehoshaphat (ch. xvii.-xx.), the impious and infamous reigns of Jehoram and Ahaziah (ch. xxi.-xxii.), the unsteady reigns of Joash and Amaziah (ch. xxiv., xxv.), the long and prosperous reign of Uzziah (ch. xxvi.), the regular reign of Jotham (ch. xxvii.), the profane and wicked reign of Ahaz (ch. xxviii.), the gracious glorious reign of Hezekiah (ch. xxix.-xxxii.), the wicked reigns of Manasseh and Amon (ch. xxxiii.), the reforming reign of Josiah (ch. xxxiv., xxxv.), the ruining reigns of his sons, ch. xxxvi. Put all these together, and the truth of that word of God will appear, Those that honour me I will honour, but those that despise me shall be lightly esteemed. The learned Mr. Whiston, in his chronology, suggests that the historical books which were written after the captivity (namely, the two books of Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah) have more mistakes in names and numbers than all the books of the Old Testament besides, through the carelessness of transcribers: but, though that should be allowed, the things are so very minute that we may be confident the foundation of God stands sure notwithstanding.

May we remember that God's Word is exactly that, God's Word. It all transforms us into the image of Christ more.

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent equipped for every good work. - 2 Timothy 3:16-17

Is It Justifiable To Interpret The Song of Solomon Allegorically?

There has been much controversy of late between scholars whether the Song of Solomon is about Christ and the Church, as has been the historical position of the Church for 2000 years. Many are now saying that the Song of Solomon is simply nothing more than a love poem on the love between a man and a woman. Personally, I hold the historical interpretation, that it is an allegory made up of parables and metaphors and allegory showing the relationship between Christ and the Church/individual believer. My reason for posting this will be to give a defense of the historical allegorical view.

First off, before even trying to argue for an allegorical interpretation of Song of Solomon, we first need to see if interpreting any part of Scripture allegorically is justifiable. I would argue yes, considering that the apostles themselves did this. One example of the apostles interpreting Scripture allegorically is 1 Timothy 5:17-18, where it says,

"Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching. For the Scripture says, 'You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,' and, 'The laborer deserves his wages.'"

As you can obviously see, within a normal reading of those OT passages, which are Deut. 25:4 and the second OT quote from Paul is a combination of a few OT & NT Scriptures, probably, Deut. 24:15 and Luke 10:7. As seen in context, the only one that could possibly pertain to preachers is the second quote, "The laborer deserves his wages." But the first quote, "You shall not muzzle and ox" & cont. would in no way be interpreted about preachers of the Gospel, considering that they are speaking about oxen. Thus, it is interpreted allegorically. I'm aware that some may try to explain that as not allegory but as the "shadow of the things to come" and the "copy" finally pointing to what they truly intended.

Which is why I have a second example of the apostles interpreting allegorically, and this one cannot be explained away so easily. In Galatians 4:24-26 it says,

"Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery, this is Hagar. Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother."

The apostle Paul says outright that this can be interpreted allegorically. Some translations say figuratively, but the more literal translations, such as the ESV and NASB, both say allegorically. So, this implies that allegory is acceptable at some times, maybe even necessary.

I am not of course arguing what the early church fathers argued, that we can allegorize the entire Bible so that it can have completely different meanings. I reject that fully. I lean more towards the view of Scripture that the Puritans had. When the Puritans came along, they completely rejected the view that the early church fathers had in allegorizing absolutely everything. Because when that happens, the text has no real meaning anymore because it has every meaning. They argued for true meaning in Scripture, and so do I. But, they also interpreted Song of Solomon allegorically, as do I. Some may argue that the Puritans were prudes that wanted to be hush hush about sex and were extremely naive towards it, but, with a little research in their own writings and history, you actually come to realize that the Puritans, much unlike the early church, had high regards for sex, and even praised it, as long as it was within the context of heterosexual marriage. If they truly loved and praised sex, which they did, and if they truly were not embarrassed by it, which they weren't, they would have used Song of Solomon to no end to prove that sex was beautiful, glorious, and a God given gift. But they didn't. But, that is not an argument in itself. Let me get back to the Scriptures to make my point.

So, since we see that Scripture may be at times interpreted allegorically, how can we justify allegorically interpreting an entire book of the OT, particularly Song of Solomon? First we need to see what the authority on the Scriptures, Jesus Himself, had to say about Song of Solomon. That may seem absurd, considering He never once said something along the lines of “it is said in the Song…” But, in reality, Christ did speak about the Song, not explicitly, but implicitly.  In John 5:39, Christ says,

“You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me..”

Also, Christ says in Luke 24:44,

“These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.”

The first Scripture, John 5:39, is pretty obvious to understand. Jesus is saying that all Scripture points to Him. The second Scripture is a bit harder to understand unless you have a bit of knowledge concerning the culture and views of the Jews back then. Let me explain. By saying, "in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms,” Christ does not mean literally just those books. In the original Aramaic that He would have used, the words would have been Torah, Nevi’im, and Ketuvim. Torah means Teaching, Ketuvim means Writings, and Nevi’im means Prophets. These are the three main sections of the Hebrew Bible, or Tanakh. Each title stands for more than one book of the Bible.

For example, Torah stands for the Law of Moses, or the Pentateuch. Nevi’im stands for Prophets, which, for the Jews, were the books of Joshua, Judges, I-II Samuel, I-II Kings, and the Major and Minor Prophets, minus Lamentations. And the last one, Ketuvim, stands for Writings. Some may argue that the passage in Luke just says Psalms, and only means the book of Psalms, which is incorrect. Sometimes the Jews said a certain name of a book to mean the entire section that it was in. We even see that in some of Paul’s letters when he quotes a prophet by name, and it turns out not to be that prophet at all but a totally different prophet! So, for the Jews, the Ketuvim included the books Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Song of Solomon, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, and I-II Chronicles.

As we can see by that, it automatically groups in Song of Solomon into the Scriptures that Christ said spoke about Him. Christ didn’t say, “all the Scriptures except Song of Solomon are about me,” but, “all of them.”

Before I continue, I want to address something concerning what modern day scholars are saying concerning the Song of Solomon. Many modern day scholars and preachers, that I highly respect and learn much from, do hold the view that Song of Solomon is about the love between a man and a woman. They have a great many arguments to prove it, and all of them are very good. But, if at the end of the day we were to approve of everything that they had said, we could still say this: If Song of Solomon is a book about the love between a man and a woman, what is the love between a man and a woman about? God has made absolutely everything in creation as a teaching tool, an illustration about God and His relationship with His people. So marriage itself has been given unto men to teach men of the relationship between God and His people. So I believe their arguments are nullified.

Anyway, now to show that the book of Song of Solomon itself, with its own contents, declares that it is about Christ. Many are unaware that the Song is greatly alluded to in the New Testament. Ironside points out some allusions to the Song in the NT. To quote him,

“[Christ] declared the Hebrew Bible to be the Word of the Living God, and there are many figures from this little book in various parts of the New Testament; for instance, ‘the well of living water’ (John 4) ; ‘the veiled woman’ (1 Cor. 11) ; ‘the precious fruit’ (Jas. 5:7) ; ‘the spotless bride’ (Eph. 5:27) ; ‘unquenchable love’ (1 Cor. 13:8) ; ‘love strong as death’ (John 15:13) ; ‘draw me’ (John 6:44) ; ‘the Shepherd leading His flock’ (John 10:4. 5, 27) ; and ‘the fruits of righteousness’ (Phil. 1:11). Who can fail to see in all these allusions to the Song of Solomon?”

One allusion that Ironside failed to mention I would like to bring to light. The expensive nard carried in the alabaster flask that was poured out upon the Savior’s feet mentioned in John 12:3 and Mark 14:3 are allusions to Song. 4:13, 4:14, and most specifically 1:12. Also, Jesus refers to Himself quite a bit as the “bridegroom,” specifically in Matt. 9:15, 25:1, 25:5, 25:6, 25:10; Mark 2:19, 2:20; Luke 5:34; and John 3:29.

I would like to also add an unbiblical argument really quickly. Though it doesn’t hold much ground since it doesn’t come straight from the Bible, it still should be considered. If you go back to before the time of Christ when the Jews were the only people of God, they have always believed that Song of Solomon is about God and Israel. Then, when Christ came, as far back as we can go, it has always been shown that the early church always interpreted Song of Solomon as Christ and the Church, or individual believer. That interpretation has held for over 2000 years, and the marriage view is rather new and unique. My thoughts are this: If the Holy Spirit really is the Teacher that will lead all of God’s children into truth, as Jesus Himself stated in John 16:13, then why has the Holy Spirit chosen not to reveal to any of God’s children throughout the entire 2000 years of Church history the correct interpretation of an ENTIRE book? Yes, the Jews show that God’s people can get things very wrong, as they did concerning the coming Messiah, but we have the Spirit of God within us, and they didn’t. Like I said, this isn’t really a scriptural argument, just something to think about concerning the faithfulness of God. There’s more I could say about this, but this message is already way too long. These are mainly my reasons (though there are more) for holding to the allegorical view of Song of Solomon. 

John Bunyan Quote on Slothfulness

Friends, Solomon saith, that "the desire of the slothful killeth him;" and if so, what will slothfulness itself do to those that entertain it? (Pro. 21:25). The proverb is, "He that sleepeth in harvest is a son that causeth shame" (Pro. 10:5). And this I dare be bold to say, no greater shame can befal a man than to see that he hath fooled away his soul, and sinned away eternal life. And I am sure this is the next way to do it; namely, to be slothful; slothful, I say, in the work of salvation. The vineyard of the slothful man, in reference to the things of this life, is not fuller of briars, nettles, and stinking weeds, than he that is slothful for heaven, hath his heart full of heart-choking and soul-damning sin. - John Bunyan

Song of Solomon Is The Test Of A Man's Christianity - Robert Murray M'Cheyne

"There is no book of the Bible which affords a better test of the depth of a man's Christianity than the Song of Solomon. (1) If a man's religion be all in his head, - a well-set form of doctrines, built like mason-work, stone above stone,- but exercising no influence upon his heart, this book cannot but offend him; for there are no stiff statements of doctrine here upon which his heartless religion may be built. (2) Or, if a man's religion be all his fancy - if, like Pliable fromPilgrim's Progress, he be taken with the outward beauty of Christianity - if, like the seed sown upon the rocky ground, his religion is fixed only in the surface faculties of the mind, while the heart remains rock and unmoved; though he will relish this book more than the first man, still there is a mysterious breathing of intimate affection in it, which cannot but stumble and offend him. (3) But if a man's religion be heart religion - if he hath not only doctrines in his head, but love to Jesus in his heart - if he hath not only heard and read of the Lord Jesus, but hath felt his need of Him, and been brought to cleave unto Him, as the chiefest among ten thousand, and the altogether lovely, then this book will be inestimably precious to his soul; for it contains the tenderest breathings of the believer's heart toward the Saviour, and the tendereth breathings of the Saviour's heart again toward the believer.

It is agreed among the best interpreters of this book - (1) that it consists not of one song, but of many songs; (2) that these songs are in dramatic form; and (3) that, like the parables of Christ, they contain a spiritual meaning, under the dress and ornaments of some poetical incident." from Sermon 'The Voice Of My Beloved' Robert Murray M'Cheyne on Song Of Solomon 2:8-17.

Reflecting on God's Calling for My Life

I'm one of those people that reflect on things a lot, maybe even more than I should do at times. Recently, I've really been just thinking about God's calling on my life as a pastor. Thinking and reflecting on that really makes me realize just how much of a privilege/responsibility it is to have that calling. It's a privilege because God is allowing me to help others come to know Him better and to see them grow and share in that joy with them. It's a responsibility because I am gravely held accountable for the things I do and say. There are many Scriptures that absolutely terrify me. Here are just a few:

Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood - Acts 20:28

Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness. - James 3:1

I tell you, on the day of judgement people will give account for every careless word they speak, for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned. - Matt. 12:36-37

It's passages like that that make wonder "Oh God, what have You gotten me into!?" But at the same time I'm thankful. I'm thankful for a couple of reasons that God has given me this calling. One of them is that it really helps me feel my inadequacy of this calling and makes me rest entirely in God to do what He needs to do through me. I'm not going to lie, I really struggle with pride. I see many problems in American Christianity and, by the grace of God, I've escaped a good many of them, but, it puffs me up sometimes, and that isn't good. It can also give me a feeling of superiority over other Christians. But when I think about my calling and the implications of it and how every single thing I do or say will be judged harsher than normal Christians, I am humbled and tremble.

Another reason I'm thankful is because my calling really puts pressure on me (the good, encouraging kind) to really seek after God and get in the Scriptures. I hate to admit it, but I have a strong feeling that if I wasn't called to Pastoral ministry, I would be so lax in my spiritual life, especially when it comes to growth in holiness. Reflecting on the pastoral-ship and on the holiness of past preachers like Lloyd-Jones, Spurgeon, Whitefield, Wesley, Edwards, Pink, Owen, Ravenhill, Tozer and so many others, it really makes me realize that the Scripture is true when it says,

Strive for peace with everyone, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord. - Heb. 12:14

I'm really thankful that God has been showing me that what many consider to be holiness today in the Church (at least in the American Church) is extremely superficial and isn't holiness at all. Just as a clarifier, I'm not speaking of the holiness that comes with redemption. When we are regenerated and born again and are saved through faith in Christ, Christ's righteousness and holiness are imputed (transferred) to us. So then, when God looks at us, He sees Christ's righteousness and holiness, and not our filthy rags and failures. That holiness is very much real and I don't want to diminish it, but that is not the holiness of which I am speaking. The word holiness, I believe, is better translated sanctification in the above verse, which the New American Standard Bible does. So, in reality, that verse is saying that without sanctification, or growing in practical holiness, no one will see the Lord. I could write an entire blog on that issue itself. What it really all comes down to is whether or not you're crucified to the world or not (Gal. 6:14). Whether you love the world or not (I John 2:15). Whether you're a friend of the world or not (Jas. 4:4). Holiness is not an easy thing. And at times it isn't fun either. Many professing Christians (even born again ones!) will criticize you and judge you for separating yourself from the world. They'll call you legalistic and Puritanic (Which I take as a compliment. I love the Puritans!). When it comes to holiness, Christ's and Paul's words ring true:

Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you. - Matt. 5:11-12

Blessed are you when people hate you and when they exclude you and revile you and spurn your name as evil, on account of the Son of Man! - Luke 6:22

Indeed, all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted.." - II Tim. 3:12

The Lord has truly blessed me in these endeavors and persecutions, and I thank Him so graciously.  Because of my call to the ministry, I feel a deep sense of needing to be holy, whether people in my culture like it or not. If the Lord hadn't called me to the ministry, I probably wouldn't care so much about holiness and separateness from the world so much, if even at all. Thus, proving once again that "for those who love God all things work together for good..." (Rom. 8:28). I praise Him with all of my being and soul. I pray you do the same.