The following article was in todays Melbourne ‘Herald Sun’ newspaper. It is a worthwhile read.  

NINE months after being elected with a sweeping mandate to transform the nation, Kevin Rudd risks losing the goodwill of the people.

While Labor’s vote and the PM’s ratings remain strong, a sense of disappointment is taking hold across the electorate.

Voters are looking for more flair from a leader who sometimes seems to be going through the robotic motions of a clueless bureaucrat. There is no panic from within the Government, of course.

.. Article continues.

Alternatively, you can cut and paste this link into your browser:
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24295771-5000117,00.html

One of my earliest posts was titled “Tracking the Taxes” where I intended to list all the places our PM happened to be at Tax payers expense.

After Kevin Rudds ‘third’ overseas trip, I abandoned the idea as it was obvious that it would be an all consuming exercise to ‘follow’ his every move. I think that had I persisted with it, I would be even more annoyed with our ’show pony’ Prime Minister.

Here is another insight courtesy of Andrew Bolts blog:

What is this – Rudd’s seventh or eighth trip overseas, in just nine months of office? I’ve honestly lost count:

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and Foreign Minister Stephen Smith are expected to head to New York next month to attend the United Nations General Assembly.

What a strange addiction Rudd has for strutting the international stage, doing almost nothing at all of any note. As I’ve suggested before, I suspect Rudd may be toying with a tilt for UN secretary general, but perhaps the explanation is much simpler. Overseas, he gets feted; here he gets roasted. Overseas, he need only sign papers; here he actually has to find something meaningful to do – and damn well do it.

It’s time Rudd announced a trip to Australia.

A Link to Andrews Blog:   http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/

 I was recently asked for a paper on, “the developing concept of ‘covenant’ in the Old Testament”.

Here is a copy of that work…

Introduction

In the beginning God created. The most important aspect of all that was created was humankind, created beings that were created to be in relationship with their creator, God Elohim.

Incorporated, down to the smallest of details and essential to fulfillment of God’s divine plan was the concept of ‘covenant’. Covenant from the outset was the ‘means’ by which God would hold together his purposes, regardless of any interference or non-compliance, by the one He was in covenant with.

From the dawn of time, through the times of the Patriarchs, into the Promised Land and on, the concept of Covenant was and is a remarkable gift that God gave, not once, but many times. Each ‘newer’ covenant enhanced and reinforced the preceding edict, not because God didn’t get it right the first time, but because in any relationship, intimacy is a process of discovery, a journey.

My purpose here, is to look at the developing concept of Covenant within the Pentateuch, and on the journey discover what ‘covenant is’, where ‘covenant began’, ‘why covenant’ and who is ‘party’ to the covenant, why Israel? In the process I will endeavor to also look at the ‘detours’ such as ‘the fall’, the ‘curse on Canaan’, and how does God’s ‘idea of covenant’ stay on course?

What Covenant Is

The word covenant simply means ‘a contract or an agreement between two parties.’ ‘It formalizes the difficult process of people trying to live together’ (Hepler, 2004: 15). A covenant is a binding agreement (Booker, 1981: 26). ‘The Hebrew word for covenant is berith. Berith-making is a solemn process of ratification’ (Kline, 2000: 1).

 ‘The mark of devotion to a covenantal partner, either divine or human, is selflessness of allegiance; it is dedication to the other for who the other is rather than for what the other can give’ (Moltz, 2001: 9).

‘A covenant creates a sacred boundary not to be encroached upon’ (Ortland, 1996: 30) ‘Covenant is a central theme in all of Scripture’ (Lasor, Hubbard and Bush, 1996: 50) ‘The Bible is divided into two divisions: the Old Testament and the New Testament. The word testament comes from the Latin word, testamentum. The more proper name for these two divisions; however, is covenant’ (Booker, 1981: 26)

 Where Covenant Began

 ‘The covenantal relationship of God and humanity had its origin in the very act of creating human beings. For the Creator to adorn humankind with his image in the beginning was, from the biblical perspective, to create humankind in a covenant of marriage, as bride of the Maker – Lord, with all the commitment of promise and obligation inherent in such an alliance’ (Kline, 2000: 17).

‘God’s kingdom embraces all creation’ (Kline, 2000: 40). The ‘day’ is in covenant as is the night (Jer 33:20). The length of a week, the duration of a lunar cycle, one season to another, an age to an age is all examples of covenantal creation. Kline says, ‘The very fact that the Genesis creation prologue is cast in sabbatical form tells us that the creation of the world was a covenant-making process’ (Kline, 2000: 20).

 Why Covenant

‘The purpose of covenant is to ensure faithfulness and commitment to the Relationship’ (Intrater, 1989: 15). ‘It was through covenant that the loving God would reveal himself, his nature and character. Here was his purpose, to call his people into a loving relationship with him’ (Richards, 1994: 69). ‘Since, He made us; He understands our limitations’ (Booker, 1981: 25). “At the heart of all the laws and promises is a loving relationship that the Scriptures do not hesitate to describe as a “marriage”… In this marriage God remains faithful to his partner even in the face of human infidelity’. – Cardinal Ratzinger (Dulles, 2005: 20)

When Elohim breathed life into humankind, He gave them free-will, and the tragedy of Eden is that such a precious gift was used against the Giver of life (Lockyer, 1962: 42).

 Covenant Developed

 In Scripture there are many accounts of covenants between one person and another, one tribe and another, one nation and another. Suffice to say, for the purposes of this essay I will be focusing predominately on only the Divine – Humankind type covenants, as they model what “true” covenant is.

 However, an understanding of what was involved in “cutting a covenant” between two people / two nations may help at this point. ‘To “cut the covenant”, we are saying that we are dying to ourselves, giving up rights to our own life and beginning a new walk with our covenant partner unto death’ (Booker, 1981: 29).

‘The shedding of blood in sacrifice was a necessary accompaniment to the confirmation of significant treaties in ancient times’ (Youngblood, 1971: 39). ‘The concept and making of covenant was commonplace amongst the Hittites, Philistines, the Mari, the Nuzi and other peoples of the Near East’ (Youngblood, 1971: 38, 39). ‘Covenant was not a new idea to Noah’ (Smith, 1999: n.p.). In Booker’s book, he adds, ‘God approaches Abram in a way that he understands. He established a blood covenant with Abram. It’s the same covenant he established with Adam and Eve when he killed the animals in the garden, clothed them and promised a future redeemer. It is the same covenant, God reconfirmed with Noah’ (Booker, 1981: 44).

The concept of covenant formalised between God and a person or a people had its origins in the secular world of the ancient Hittites and the suzerainty treaties. ‘The three main features of a Hittite suzerainty treaty are all found in the description of the Abrahamic covenant in Genesis 15’ (Youngblood, 1971: 43).

‘The covenant relationship between God and the people was given by God and emphasised God’s absolute sovereignty’ (Hepler, 2004: 16). ‘God and His creatures do not come to the conference table as equals… the Lord of the universe does not abdicate His position of sovereignty when He enters into solemn agreements with His people’ (Youngblood, 1971: 41).

The Eight Covenants

 There are eight covenants mentioned in Scripture pertaining to covenants God has made with human beings, they are as follows;

Edenic, (Gen. 1:28 -30) Adamic, (Gen. 3:15) Noahic, (Gen. 9:1ff) Abrahamic (Gen. 12:1-3) Mosaic, (Ex. 19:25ff) Canaanic, (Deut. 30:1-10) Davidic, (2 Sam. 7:8-16; Ps. 89:3-4) New Covenant, (Jer. 31:31-34) (Macnaughtan, 1980: 5)

The common theme of all the covenants is “new life, a new start”. Covenants consist of a three fold promise;

- a promise of divine presence – “I will be with thee.”

- a promise of blessing – “I will bless thee.”

- a promise of territory – “I will give thee.” (Lockyer, 1962: 36)

 A conditional covenant carries the formula “if ye will”, and an unconditional covenant centres upon the divine “I will” (Macnaughtan, 1980: 6)

 ‘The covenants are progressive. Each covenant assumes the previous ones, and each unfolds God’s purposes step by step, and expands aspects of the previous ones and does not nullify them’ (Richards, 1994: 81). The covenant with Moses was added to the covenants already made with Noah and Abraham (Richards, 1994:60) Significantly, six of the eight covenants found in Scripture take place in the time frame of the Pentateuch.

 Who Is Party to the Covenants?

 ‘All the covenants except the covenant God made with Noah (& Adam), were made with Israel’ (Richards, 1994: 49, emphasis added). Israel is singled out as the Lord’s holy covenant community (Kline, 2000: 291). Those with the covenant must avoid the sin of pride, (Rom. 11:18-21) remembering that they did not choose; rather they were chosen (Lasor, Hubbard and Bush, 1996: 421). God’s love, then, primarily has to do with election and covenant. God formed a covenant relationship with the Israelites, so that they were special objects of his love. Nevertheless, Gentiles are not completely excluded. The creator and father of all people, is cognizant that there are those who fear him in every nation (Lasor, Hubbard and Bush, 1996: 418).

 ‘God operates with mankind through a process of covenant. If a person is ignorant of covenantal principles, he will find himself unable to approach God or to understand God’s desire to interact with him’ (Intrater, 1989: 12). It is worthwhile to remember that, ‘…Overemphasis on the New Testament leave the Old Testament as a “miscarriage of history”’ (White, 2007: n.p.), and that, ‘the New Covenant is not a simple abolition of the Old, but rather its fulfillment’ (Dulles, 2005: 19).

 A Deeper Look…

 Earlier in this paper, it was mentioned that “the concept of covenant… had its origins in the secular world of the ancient Hittites”. Several authors listed in the Bibliography, use this terminology when mentioning that Noah, Abraham, Isaac were familiar with the concept of covenant, as if to say God borrowed the idea of ‘cutting covenant’, from their culture and from those around them.

 It is important to remember that, when such terminology is used, is that pre – Gilgamesh Epic, “all” humankind were recipients of the Edenic and Adamic Covenants and post-flood “all” humankind were recipients of the Noahic covenant, thus it would be Gods idea “how covenant is instituted” as it was and is in creation.

Detours

 From the dawn of creation God was in ‘covenant’ with his people. Covenants “allow” for disobedience, for in his mercy, God also allows for restoration (Richards, 1994: 72). Nevertheless, human tendency is that we do not learn from ‘others mistakes’. Every human being since, has probably had a moment like Adam, ‘as he headed out to “till the ground” for the first time. On his way to the field, probably greeted his favorite mountain lion with, “Hi there, friend!” … his screams could be heard for miles…as his old friend – turned foe’ (Wilson, 1990: 61).

 Another Chance, another Detour

 ‘Noah was a new Adam, the covenant head of the new race. A new life, a new start, but…, the new race in Noah was a continuation of the old race in Adam (Smith, 1999: n.p.).

‘God’s faithfulness in preserving the covenant community through the pre-diluvium world was in evidence again after the Flood’ (Kline: 2000: 287). ‘The rainbow set in the cloud was given as the promise that the covenant made with Noah would stand’ (Lockyer, 1962: 35). ‘The Noahic covenant was unconditional and everlasting’ (Youngblood, 1971: 42).

An aspect of Gods covenantal commitment is the ordinance of Sabbath where man with his God-like endowment would move on in the way of obedience to the consummation of rest (Kline, 2000: 19). Here again, God has wiped the slate as it were and given humankind another chance to “rest”, but Ham (Noah’s son) changed the course of human history, disqualified – yet again.

Noah and his sons were twice given the command to “be fruitful and multiply” (Gen 9:1-7). And Genesis 9:19 – “from these the whole earth was peopled” (Bergsma, 2005: 35) Ham was the father of Canaan (Gen 9:18). Bergsma in his excellent article dissects the Hebrew meaning of words used to describe what happened between Noah, Ham and Noah’s wife, and why Hams fourth son Canaan was cursed.

The clan’s of Noah’s sons, within their nations spread out over all the earth, they had one language (Gen 10:32, 11:1) one worldview, one culture, the same concept of covenant. ‘The tower of Babel was a declaration of independence from God…The similarities and differences of archaic societies and their religions all stem from Babel…The judgment of God on the tower of Babel set up the world for a new covenant administration in which God would choose a special people to be his priestly representative’s amoung men’ (Smith, n.p.).

 Who to Covenant with?

 Shem was the father of all Hebrews and Noah’s covenant blessing on Shem was to be fulfilled in Shem’s descendant Abraham. The Shem-Terah line was the covenant line. Shem’s line is applied specifically to Abraham. It was with the Abrahamites that God’s name became identified. In the Abrahamic Covenant God promised to Abraham and his seed, royalty and a mediatorship of blessing to all nations. It also meant that the Abrahamic Hebrews were to execute Noah’s curse on Ham/Canaan (Kline, 2000: 140, 267, 285).

In the Abrahamic covenant only God lays himself under obligation…this covenant of promise depends only on the unchangeable character of the One who makes it (Lasor, Hubbard and Bush, 1996: 50). Abraham was put to sleep, so that he could not be a participant in the covenant, but could only be a recipient of a covenant (Macnaughtan, 1980: 10). The promise to Abraham had a cosmic sweep, including not just the territory of Canaan but the entire inhabited world (Holwerda, 1995:103). The Abrahamic covenant was conditional, and although it was everlasting from God’s standpoint it could be broken by disobedient human participants (Youngblood, 1971: 45).

The Ten Commandments (given through Moses) … more literally, “the ten words”… means specifically “covenant stipulations” (Youngblood, 1971: 49). The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God. The law was added… to add something is not to remove what was first there, but to include it in addition (Richards, 1994: 59).

Why Israel?

 ‘God chose Israel for a number of reasons. Firstly, they would record for all time the revelation of God in Scripture for all peoples. God chose the temperament, culture and worldview of the Hebrews to convey to us what he is like. He could have chosen another ethnic group, but he didn’t! For the Hebrews there was no division between the secular and the sacred. They had corporate values that we have exchanged for individualism. Secondly, the Jewish people were to be a light to the Gentiles.

Thirdly, they were to be ruled by the Lord of heaven and earth. Fourthly, they were to live out and demonstrate a holy relationship of love with God. Fifthly, they were chosen to be an example of God’s faithfulness. Finally and supremely, they were the people through whom the messiah would come… what a responsibility’ (Richards, 1994: 62, 63, 64).

Israel is set apart from other nations for God’s service. The Covenant name Yahweh, first intimately associated with Israel. The people frequently needed to be reminded that they belonged exclusively to God. God did not belong exclusively to them (Lasor, Hubbard and Bush, 1996: 73, 252, 317).

 What about the Others?

 ‘How could God favour one people and not another’ (Richards 1994: 68)? In the study of any portion of the Bible it is first of all interpretation, not application. To apply indiscriminately to all peoples, the promises, prophecies and responsibilities of each group is to loose sight of the divine order and beauty of the divine plan, and to hopelessly confuse the divine interpretation of the Bible.

All, springing from Abraham – father of all who believe – are spoken of as his seed. Failure to distinguish between his three seeds, and the promises made to each, has resulted in confusion of interpretation.

• There is the National Seed, represented in Ishmael and his posterity.

• There is the Covenant Seed, seen in Isaac and his posterity.

• There is the Spiritual Seed covering all children of faith.

 ‘When God says that a particular blessing is for a Jew, then it is for him, and for no one else. In spite of the many backslidings of Israel, (Israel, which means ‘he struggles with God’ (Richards, 1994: 58)) divine promises concerning her have never been abrogated’ (Lockyer, 1962: 59, 60, 61).

 Justice and Mercy

 ‘The fact that we have seen Israel scattered on two occasions in their history and persecuted so much is because God has bound himself by oath to his covenant, to the promises of blessing as well as to its curses. Disobedience does not break God’s covenant promises, but brings upon Israel the sanctions contained in the covenant, (Richards, 1994: 72). ‘A covenant must, can and will be fulfilled’ (Murray, 1984: 6).

 ‘Yahweh knew that “his covenantal people” were capable of being “Canaanized”’ (Ortland, 1996: 44) ‘Israel’s warfare against Canaan was not just another skirmish in the secular round of wars and rumours of wars but a redemptive intervention of God’ (Kline, 2000: 266).

 ‘Being jealous for the covenant is actually the highest form of respect for the other partner’ (Intrater, 1989: 14). ‘God’s saving grace is no respecter of persons, rich or poor. Neither is his holy judgement’ (Kline, 2000: 286).

‘Not all Canaanites are reprobate. Not all Semites (Jews) and Japhethites (Gentiles) enter the kingdom. In each case, however there was to be some branch of the genealogical line in question a particular, notable experience of the predicated curse or blessing’ (Kline, 2000: 266). His discipline is always perfectly just (Booker, 1981: 26).

The central demand of covenant is, “obey” (Murray, 1984: 34). Entering the Promised Land, a land ‘flowing with milk and honey, It was to be a land of ‘rest’ (Richards, 1994: 67). As Murray aptly puts it, if we only knew that it is our unbelief that prevents us from entering into the possession of God’s promises (Murray, 1984: 11).

 In Romans 9:8, Living Bible, Paul writes, “…not all of Abraham’s children are children of God, but only those who believe the promise of salvation He made to Abraham” (Booker, 1981: 53).

 Conclusion

 From the very beginning of time, God instituted the concept of covenant. Throughout history Yahweh has initiated and held resolutely to his commitment to creation. Often times his devotion and love has been unrequited, but nevertheless he has remained true to his word.

 The Psalmist captures this most aptly in Psalm 111: 2 – 9 where he says;

Great are the works of the Lord…the Lord is gracious and compassionate…he remembers his covenant forever…The works of his hands are faithful and just…He provided redemption for his people…he ordained his covenant forever – holy and awesome is his name.

Yahweh is a God of love. He created humankind in his image. Yahweh is a God who desires relationship. Through his covenants he shows his mercy and grace. His covenant is ‘a shield and your very great reward’ (Gen 15: 1b).

Hallelu Yah

Bibliography

Bergsma, J and Hahn, S (2005). Noah’s Nakedness and the Curse on Canaan (Genesis 9:20-27) Journal of Biblical Literature 124/1 25-40

Booker, R. (1981). The Miracle of the Scarlet Thread. Bridge Publishing, Inc

Dulles, A. (2005) The Covenant with Israel. First Things: A Monthly Journal of Religion & Public Life; Nov2005 Issue 157, p16-21, 6p

Goldingay, J. (2000) The Significance of Circumcision. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament; [JSOT 88 (2000) 3-18]

Hepler, K. (2004) Great Themes of the Bible, Covenant: God’s Project-Effective Christians. Abingdon Press.

Holwerda, D. (1995) Jesus & Israel, One Covenant or Two? Eerdmans Publishing Co.

Intrater, K. (1989) Covenant Relationships, A Handbook for Integrity and Loyalty. Destiny Image Publishers

Kline, M. (2000) Kingdom Prologue, Genesis Foundations for a Covenantal Worldview. Two Age Press

LaSor, W. and Hubbard, D. and Bush, F. (1996) Old Testament Survey: The Message, Form, and Background of the Old Testament. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

Lillback, P. (2001) The Binding of God: Calvin’s Role in the Development of Covenant Theology. Baker Academic, Grand Rapids, MI

Lockyer, H. (1962) All the Promises of the Bible. Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, MI

Macnaughtan, K. (1980) The Covenants and The Promises . The David Press.

Moltz, H. (2001) God and Abraham in the Binding of Isaac. Journal Article Continuum Publishing Group.

Murray, A. (1984) Covenants and Blessings. Whitaker House

Ortland Jr, R. (1996) Whoredom. Apollos (an imprint of Inter-Varsity Press), England

Richards, R. (1994) Has God Finished With Israel? Monarch Publications

Smith, R (1999) The Covenantal Structure of the Bible: Introduction to the Bible. Chapter Eight: The Noahic Covenant. Covenant Worldview Institute and Mitaka Evangelical Church of Tokyo, Japan.

(http://ovrlnd.com/Covenant/chp8.html) (2^nd May 2007)

White, R. (2007) 1102 Old Testament Introduction, course notes. Unpublished paper. Tabor College Victoria.

Wilson, P.B. (1990) Liberated Through Submission – the Ultimate Paradox. Harvest House Publishers.

Youngblood, R. (1971) The Heart of the Old Testament. Baker Book House Company

Recently, I was tasked with developing a tutorial on the following assignment:

Augustine stated; “Nothing is so much to be shunned as sexual relations”. Yet the Song of Solomon has been interpreted as a ‘poetic delight’ in the sexuality of a man and a woman. What are the implications of such an interpretation of the Song of Solomon for Christ-followers today?

Here is a copy of my tutorial paper!

 Introduction

In the NIV ‘introductions to the books of the Bible’ it simply states that the Song of Songs is a collection of love poems between a lover and his beloved. It is a beautiful picture of ideal human love and marriage. The Hebrew title is The Song of Songs – That is, the best, ‘the most beautiful of songs’. (Wright, 1983:64)

There are many that would disagree with that thought, and over the years have vigorously defended their viewpoint. Even as late as AD 90, there was still debate as to whether or not it should be included in the Canon at all. (Carr, 1984:16)

My approach to this broad subject will be to look briefly at, 1. What is the Song of Solomon? 2. Why it is still relevant for Christ-followers, and highlight some of the misguided teaching that has for many, caused self-imposed limitations on who God created them to be.

What is the Song of Solomon?

In Chris Wrights, Bible Study commentary on the Song of Solomon, he says that there are two main ways ‘the Song’is interpreted.

1. Allegorical. It is included in Scripture because Jewish Rabbis treated it as a description of the love relationship between God and his people. Christian interpreters embraced that idea, and related it as being about Christ and his Bride, the Church.

2. Literal. It was written about the passion of human sexual love…which presents physical love (Eros) and its accompanying emotions as things of intense delight, beauty and power. (Wright, 1983:64)

What has Solomon got to do with ‘the Song’?

No one knows who wrote the Song, Some would suggest that it is not about Solomon at all. Nevertheless, Solomon is mentioned in ‘the Song’ seven times, but that ‘the’ Solomon had an actual role in ‘the Song’ is a matter of conjecture and ongoing argument. (Gledhill, 1994:22)

 The Context for ‘the Song’

In Tom Gledhill’s book, The Message of the Song of Songs – “the Lyrics of Love” he says that “the Song of Songs is a literary creation. It is a love-song of haunting beauty; it was meant to be sung as a celebration of love, beauty and intimacy”. The song is cyclic and repetitious.

“A song creates an atmosphere in which we are invited to participate. In listening to the Song, we find that it is speaking not only to us, but about us”. (Gledhill, 1994:19)

Allegorical? Literal?

The Council of Constantinople in AD 550 outlawed the literal reading of the Song of Songs, insisting that an allegorical interpretation as the only right interpretation. (Provan, 2001:238)   Scholars like Gregory of Nyssa, Jerome, Rabbi Akiba ben Joseph, Theodore, Hippolytus, Origen and John Wesley each played their part in dismissing a literal understanding of the Song.

A man of deep conviction…

This Allegorization worldview held by the ‘church fathers’ ensured that earth and heaven, flesh and spirit, remained separated. Origen’s stance / actions regarding these reveal a man of deep conviction and provide the best insight into the worldview described here. (Provan, 2001:243)

Contrarily, ‘Hebrew people believed that they were to live their lives in the presence of a present YHWH’. ‘Hebrew people did not separate the sacred from the secular, YHWH was in everything’ (lecture by Ron White, 2007)

Unfortunately, men like Origen, Augustine and others, by means of their teaching have impacted humankind with their biased, narrow minded approach to human sexuality. So much so, that countless numbers of people through the ages have been caught up ‘condemned’ by ‘ungodly desires’, imprisoned by ill-informed choices, trapped in unwanted spinsterhood / bachelorhood or cloaked in the secrecy of undesirable addictions.

Robbed of God’s intention for human sexuality…

Mankind has been robbed since the Middle Ages of God’s intention for human sexuality, “through the well-meaning but sadly misguided teaching of a group of celibate men”. (Chant, 1983:114)

Sadly, had these so called ‘authorities’ hearkened to James’s instruction where he says; ‘Not many of us should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly’ (Jas 3:1 NIV), just maybe we would live a life, much more as God intended – in ‘true freedom’.

God is always about redemption…

Thankfully there have been other voices in the wilderness, who speak of a more balanced approach (without the extreme of self-harm) with regard to this delicate topic. One of those voices, Barry Chant says, ‘When the Almighty God created man & woman, he created them both with the capacity to enjoy their sexual relationship to the full!’ (Chant, 1983:114, emphasis added)

‘There is one book of the Bible that is devoted solely to the question of married love; it is the Song of Solomon’. In Barry Chants book, “Straight Talk about Marriage”, he goes on to say; ‘many people have gone to great lengths to avoid this notion. To them, it seems unspiritual, somehow, that a book of the Bible should deal exclusively with the sexual side of marriage’ (Chant, 1983:216)

One must not reject an allegorical or a literal interpretation of the Song of Songs outright, but the simplest view is that the book is a series of love songs between a human bridegroom and his young bride. (Chant, 1983:217)

The Reverend G. Lloyd Carr adds weight to this literal view: The believing Christian comes to the Bible with the faith that it is God’s Word to mankind. But we are more than merely ‘spiritual’ beings; we are human. If God is concerned about our human condition – and the incarnation makes it plain that he is – his revelation will be concerned with every aspect of that condition. And that includes human sexuality. (1984:9)

The problem with an allegorical interpretation of ‘the Song’ is that a believer needs to be rather careful in our use of such analogies. For the believer’s relationship with Christ is never at an erotic level. (Gledhill, 1994:33)

E.J. Young says: The Song does celebrate the dignity and purity of human love… it reminds us, in particularly beautiful fashion, how pure and noble true love is. This, however, does not exhaust the purpose of the book. Not only does it speak of the purity of human love, but, by its very inclusion in the Canon, it reminds us of a love that is purer than our own. (Provan, 2001:255)

Conclusion

It is relevant to Christ-followers because…

God created mankind with relationship in mind. He created male and female with not only emotional and spiritual means of connecting in relationship, but also the ability to procreate and connect biologically with joy.

As a Christ-follower it is important to be grounded in His ‘word’ written as instruction for life, including our sexuality and its expressions.

Bibliography

Augustine, Saint, Marriage and Virginity (New City Press, NY, published 1999)

Carr, G. Lloyd, The Song of Solomon (Tyndale Old Testament Commentary, IVP, 1984).

Chant, Barry, Straight Talk About Marriage (The House of Tabor, 1983)

Corothers, Merlin, What’s on Your Mind? (Kingsway Publications, 1984)

LaSor, William Sanford, Old Testament Survey – Second Edition (Wm.B.Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1996)

Pope, M.H., The Song of Songs (Anchor Bible, Doubleday, 1977)

Provan, Iain, The NIV Application Commentary – Ecclesiastes & Song of Songs (Zondervan Publishing House, 2001)

Sullivan, Clayton, Rescuing Sex from the Christians, (Continuum International Publishing Group, 2006)

Wright, Chris, Bible Study Commentary – Proverbs – Isaiah 39 (Scripture Union, London, 1983)

Young, E. J., An Introduction to the Old Testament (London: Tyndale, 1949)

From Og Mandino’s Book – “A Better Way to Live”

Rule Three / of Seventeen.

Whenever you make a mistake or get knocked down by life, don’t look back at it too long. Mistakes are life’s way of teaching you. Your capacity for occasional blunders is inseparable from your capacity to reach your goals. No one wind them all, and your failures, when they happen, are just part of your growth. Shake off your blunders. How will you know your limits without an occasional failure? Never quit. Your turn will come.

Rule Four – coming soon!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Og_Mandino

From Og Mandino’s Book – “A Better Way to Live”

Rule Two / of Seventeen.

Today, and every day, deliver more than you are getting paid to do. The victory of success will be half won when you learn the secret of putting out more than is expected in all that you do. Make yourself so valuable in your work that eventually you will become indispensible. Excercise your priviledge to go the extra mile, and enjoy all the rewards you receive. You deserve them! 

Rule Three – coming soon!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Og_Mandino

From Og Mandino’s Book – “A Better Way to Live”

Rule One / of Seventeen.

Count your blessings. Once you realize how valuable you are and how much you have going for you, the smiles will return, the sun will break out, the music will play, and you will finally be able to move forward toward the life that God intended for you… with grace, strength, courage, and confidence.

Rule Two – coming soon!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Og_Mandino

Recently, the Minister for the Environment in Australia, declared that he would legislate to ensure that plastic bags would no longer be ‘free’ for supermarket shoppers, in an effort to cut down the ‘problems’ that plastic shopping bags cause to the environment.

There is going to be a plethora of angry articles / comments over this ‘ban’ if it ever gets off the ground. (The Government has renounced the MP’s statement)

From time to time, I will share in this Weblog what others are saying.

Andrew Bolt in his column says:

in “Crossing a plastic border”

BORDERS has at last crossed a border of my own – demanding I pay 10 cents for a plastic bag to carry home their books.

This senseless green bullying is the last straw. For 10 cents it’s lost a customer who’s been worth hundreds of dollars a year.

I’m not easily put off by a shop like Borders, you should understand.

In this case, I’ve long tolerated its haphazard stacking of classical CDs and foreign DVDs, its books thoroughly thumbed by its coffee shop customers, and the disengaged, overworked staff, who rarely know much about what they sell.

But my last straw broke last week when I got to the register with another four books for my children, bought on impulse on the way to the movies.

“Would you like a plastic bag?” I was asked, in the disapproving tones I’ve learned to accept from sales staff of a certain age and taste for studs.

Why Borders should be so down on a little plastic bag is a mystery, actually, given its business is selling stuff made of murdered trees and plasticised oil.

But, ever placid, I sweetly replied, yes, please – I would indeed like to carry those books in a bag rather than cart them into the cinema in my arms. Not that I said that last bit, of course.

And then I was told Borders now charged 10 cents for each bag.

I pointed out that the bag should be given for free as a service to customers kind enough to buy armfuls of the shop’s wares.

But the sales assistant informed me in tones sanctimonious that this 10 cents was for “the environment” – going to Coastcare, a green group I’d never heard of.

As I told her, to the increasing mortification of my 14-year-old son, if I wanted to donate to Coastcare I’d do it myself, and I do not need or want Borders to bully me into it.

As I huffed off with books unbagged, I heard her protest to a colleague that I was wrong to object because the bag levy really was for “the environment”.

Rubbish. It’s for Borders’ preening, and a green group’s grooming.

I’ve since learned that Borders is far from alone in this green bullying of customers. IKEA does much the same, and Bunnings doesn’t even give customers the option of a bag.

Crazy. If plastic bags really were a public menace to rival cigarettes or a Tim Flannery, I could understand such finger-wagging and 10-cent fines.

But claims that the bags kill 100,000 animals a year have been completely discredited, and no study can swear they’re a big menace to wildlife or even the landscape.

Banning or restricting them is purely symbolic, and done at the cost not of retailers but customers.

Enough of this hectoring, moral show-boating and donating with other people’s money. It’s the principle of the thing: If Borders wants to donate to Coastcare, let it do so with its cash, not mine. And give me my damn bag.

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23469370-5000117,00.html

I couldn’t agree with him more!

Another article regarding ‘plastic bags’.

Fuel for the fire!

Andrew Bolt says in his column: 

“Plastic Bags choke Garrett” 

IF plastic shopping bags really are so bad, why must Peter Garrett make up so many fake excuses to ban them?

Here we go again – another green crusade in which facts are invented to scare you into doing something dumb.

This time our evangelical Environment Minister says he’ll this year take away your plastic shopping bags – the ones that are so useful that we use more than 4 billion of them each year to cart home our shopping.

What must we use instead to carry home the fortnightly shopping: suitcases? Rolls of green bin liners?

And how annoying not to have those plastic bags to reuse for everything from wrapping leftovers and wet clothes to picking up manure.

In fact, I could use one right now to hold the manure Garrett has used to justify this feel-good ban that will cost us millions and gain us zip.

Let me demonstrate, by fact-checking some of the claims Garrett has made to justify his ban.

Garrett claim #1:

“I think everybody agrees that having 4 billion plastic bags floating around Australia’s environment is not desirable.”

Pardon? We have 4 billion bags just floating around as if tossed out of a window? In fact, the Productivity Commission in 2006 reported that of the 4 billion shopping bags we use each year, just 0.8 per cent becomes litter.

The rest are buried in landfill, recycled or reused, and aren’t “floating” anywhere.

And how handy those bags are even when buried.

The Commission marvelled: “It appears that plastic bags may have some landfill management benefits including stabilising qualities, leachate minimisation and minimising greenhouse gas emissions.”

You really want some litter to clean up, Peter? Crack down instead on those billions of foul cigarette stubs.

Garrett claim #2:

“I remember that incredible story about a whale, I think it was beached somewhere in France, and it had 800 kilos worth of plastic bags and rubbish inside it, when they opened it up.”

Wow, a whale that can fit almost a tonne of plastic bags in its stomach must be so gargantuan as to make Moby Dick seem a tadpole.

But lets peer more closely into the gut of Garrett’s giga-whale, which washed up on a beach in Normandy in 2002, and count all those shopping bags found inside by researchers from the University of Caen.

Here we go: One, two . . . Er, two.

Two. Yes, that’s Garrett’s incredible 800kg of plastic bags. Oh, and then there was that other unspecified “rubbish” he mentioned: two English plastic-and-foil crisp packets, seven bin liners, bits of seven transparent plastic bags and one food container.

Total wet weight: 800 grams, not Garrett’s 800kg.

Conclusion: Ban bin liners instead.

Garrett claim #3:

“There are some 4 billion of these plastic bags floating around . . . ending up affecting our wildlife . . .”

Here Garrett refers to the greatest hoax of all – those endless claims that a Newfoundland study found plastic bags killed more than 100,000 marine mammals every year.

This claim – originally made by environmental consultants Nolan-ITU in a report commissioned by the then Howard government – was accepted as true by a credulous Senate environment committee inquiry in 2002, and has been hyped ever since by green groups such as Planet Ark.

South Australia’s Labor Government even peddles the claim today on its Zero Waste website to justify its own planned ban on bags.

Small problem: the claim is completely false. As Nolan-ITU belatedly admitted four years later, it had misread that Newfoundland study, which actually said 100,000 animals might be killed – or injured – by discarded fishing nets and lines, and not by plastic bags, which it hadn’t mentioned at all.

Conclusion: Ban fishing nets instead.

Yet how fast that fake story of the mammal-choking bags raced around the world.

The reason so many green campaigners greedily repeated it was that no other study has to this day linked plastic bags to widespread animal deaths, no matter how hard those little Garretts looked for proof.

And, my, how hard they did look. Judge that by Planet Ark’s founder, Jon Dee, who two years ago claimed he’d been “inundated” with calls from farmers whose calves had died after grazing on plastic bags. In fact, the National Farmers Federation last week said it knew of no such thing.

Judge it also by Clean Up Australia’s Ian Kiernan, who claimed a Bryde’s whale found dead near Cairns had in its stomach “33 different items made up mainly of plastic bags”.

In fact, as that Senate inquiry was told, most of the plastic in the whale’s gut comprised food packages, bait bags, fragments of garbage bags and three large sheets of plastic.

Enough! How many more times must we have green campaigners puff up their causes with scares, wild claims, half-truths and exaggerations?

That’s the culture of hype that’s produced Garrett himself – with his claim, for instance, that the Chernobyl nuclear accident “caused the deaths of more than 30,000 people”, when the true figure is about 50.

It’s this kind of scaremongering – now seen with global warming – that dismays even a Greenpeace marine biologist in Britain, David Santillo.

“It’s very unlikely that many animals are killed by plastic bags,” he said last week. “It doesn’t do the Government’s case any favours if you’ve got statements being made that aren’t supported by the scientific literature that’s out there.”

So what does that scientific literature actually say?

Fact: Ban these bags and people will probably switch to stuff even worse for the environment, such as paper bags, said the Productivity Commission.

A study by Allen Consulting agreed, adding that it took five times more greenhouse gases to make paper bags than it did plastic ones.

Fact: Switching to biodegradable plastic bags could be worse still, said the 2002 Nolan-ITU report. People would probably litter more, thinking it didn’t matter, and their bags would release chemicals in breaking down.

Fact: People love plastic bags too much to give them up even if made to pay. Ask Ireland, which imposed a levy on bags only to find more than ever were being used, with only a small cut in the number turning up as litter.

And the Productivity Commission warned a levy or ban wouldn’t work any better here: “A cost-benefit study commissioned by the governments shows that the benefits of a phase out or a per-unit charge would be significantly outweighed by the costs.”

It concluded: “A more cost-effective approach would be to target littering directly.”

How about that? Just hit the naughty litterer, not the struggling shopper, the food-wrapping clean fiend and the civic pooper-scooper.

But think such reason works against the religious green zeal of Old Testament types like Garrett? No, their hatred of the bag comes from a place that mere facts cannot reach.

If plastic bags were used only to gather morning dew and wild berries, no green would rage against them as they rage now. But they are instead the ultimate symbol of wicked capitalism – a product made by oil and used to carry home factory-made goodies from bulging shops.

No wonder they must be banned, and let us choke on that, we loathsome mammals of the mall.

Join Andrew on blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt

Author Unknown

“I bargained with life for a penny

and life would pay no more.

How ever I begged at evening when

I counted my scanty store.

For life is a just employer,

it gives what you ask.

But once you have set the wages,

Why, you must bear the task.

I worked hard for a menials hire,

only to learn dismayed,

that any wage I had asked of life,

Life would have willingly paid”.

Something to ponder!!!