Speaking God's Words - Book Review

            I've just recently noticed that there is a section at Westminster Bookstore entitled CLEARANCE BOOKS. If you are a person with scarce financial resources this section is of your greatest interest. Among the titles on sale is Speaking God's Words: A Practical Theology of Preaching by Peter Adam. I had to read this book for a course called The Reformed Pastor taught by Rev. William Sishko. I heartily recommend the book for those who love preaching and who are seeking to learn more on the subject through biblical-theological lenses. And the price is really a bargain.

             In spite of the small appearance, Adam’s book on the theology of preaching is full of information. The book is dense but its logical progression and thorough biblical approach makes it easy to understand what the point of the author is. The book is divided into two major portions: in the first one Adam’s lay out the foundation of preaching and in the second he applies the foundations to the ministerial life enforcing his argument from examples of the great preachers in the history of the Church.

            The main lesson I learned from this book was to understand the broad extent of the expression “ministry of the word.” Adam helped me to see that preaching is not the only way to exercise this ministry. Although he does not detract anything from the authority and necessity of pulpit preaching, his broad and biblical definition of the term made me think how important it is every moment of instruction of the sheep our Lord grant to his ministers.

            I also greatly profited from his defense of expository preaching. Not that I was not convinced before, but the way he approaches the necessity of application (using graphs and charts), the importance of making our sermons relative for cotemporary listeners along with the example of the puritans and of Calvin served to trigger a greater in me a greater desire to develop all the elements of an expository sermon with excellence.

            I am very glad that I’ve read this book. I will certainly come back to it in the years to come during pastoral ministry. Especially in those moments when the impression that the exposition of the word of God is being ineffective nocks my door, along with the temptation of adding something extra to feed the flock.

Book Review - Berkouwer on General Revelation

G. C. Berkouwer, General Revelation, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1971. 336pp., hardcover.

     Berkouwer’s book on general revelation is a classic on the subject. A famous professor of the University of Amsterdam, Berkouwer’s own doctoral dissertation was on the subject of revelation (entitled Faith and Revelation in Recent German Theology) and this particular book on general revelation was first published in 1955. The book is divided in eleven chapters. The first four chapters are devoted to apologetical engagement. In them, Berkouwer investigates Karl Barth’s view of general revelation and refutes it through the work of Barth’s friend, Emil Bruner, and another German scholar, Paul Althaus. Still in his apologetical material, Berkouwer analyses and refutes the modern understanding of general revelation embrace by the Roman Catholic Church, especially after the Second Vatican Council. In the remaining of the chapters, Berkouwer develops his own idea of general revelation.

            Berkouwer situates his readers in the discussion in the very beginning of the book. He reminds the readers that the idea of general revelation has been abused to the point that “the unique significance of revelation in Christ was relativized and endangered” (11). According to him, a true and valid formulation of the doctrine must offer not threat to the unique revelation in Jesus Christ. “There may be no competition between God’s general and special revelation, and every conception of general revelation which is the result of doubt as to the absoluteness of the revelation in Christ is to be condemned” (14). The result of such commitment will prove to be the affirmation of natural revelation. The next question Berkouwer wrestles with is if from general revelation there must flow a natural theology. “We must discuss”, he affirms, “the background of natural theology and ask whether general revelation and natural theology are indissolubly united” (15).

            The chapter on Karl Barth’s theology of revelation is clear and insightful. Berkouwer clearly spells out Barth’s view or revelation, setting him on a kind of vendetta against both Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. Berkouwer explains that, for Barth, everyone missed the train concerning revelation. No one really understands it. And as a fruit of this lack of understanding a mortal enemy has been created: natural theology. “Barth’s rejection of natural”, Berkouwer affirms, “is motivated by his conception of God’s revelation in Christ as the unique and exclusive revelation in the world” (22). Anything apart for Christ may be labled as signs or witnesses, but never as revelation. For Barth, there is no revelation apart from the incarnation. God cannot be known apart from his grace. It was exactly this narrow view of revelation that granted Barth’s theology the “christomonistic” classification.

Berkouwer masterfully describes Barth’s position on the biblical texts that refer to a special revelation like Romans 1 and places him against the great French reformer John Calvin. When both are compared, Berkouwer affirms “Barth’s exegesis of Romans 1 is radically different” (31). Barth acknowledges that the text speaks of a revelation of God in nature but such revelation is not in the eyes of the natural man, of the pagans who reject Christ; but in the eyes of the apostle Paul, a regenerated man. Because of whom Paul is in Christ he can see God’s revelation in nature, he gazes at God in creation “in the light of the revelation in Christ, in the light of the cross and the resurrection” (31). Barth’s calls this a “reading-into”. Paul is not speaking of a general revelation that every man in the world has access to but he is interpreting nature through his redeemed eyes. Berkouwer reveals Barth problem and affirm that this awkward and unique reading of Paul is due to Barth’s fear in creating a competitor to God’s revelation in Christ. In Barth’s mind, if there is any other kind of revelation except that of the incarnate Son, than redemption is compromised. “Such a second source of knowledge would, he thinks, be in sharp conflict with the redemptive character of God’s revelation” (32).

Berkouwer does not himself refute Barth’s position. Instead, he summons one of the Barth’s best friends, Emil Brunner, and another German theologian, Paul Althaus. Both man appealed to a clear reading of the scriptural evidence concerning general revelation. Brunner rejects Barth notion that Christ is the only source of God’s revelation and affirms that, in this point, “Barth is in direct conflict with Scripture” (38). For Brunner, the Bible does affirm that God reveals himself in creation, the problem is how this general revelation relates with special revelation in Christ. Creation declares that there is a God that is knowable only through a Christian theology. With the theology of the 16^th Century, “Bruner maintains that it is at this point that the Reformation differs fundamentally from Rome: there is general revelation but no natural theology” (43). Paul Althaus approach, in spite of his affirmation of general revelation was very different from Bruner’s. Going on the road built by Rome, Althaus affirmed a salvific natural theology as a product of general revelation. On the basis of the natural theology, Althaus stressed the close relationship between other religions and the Christian faith to the point of “denying that Christianity was the absolute religion and hold that it was only a special form of the general ‘revelation which lay behind all religions’” (48).

Berkouwer devotes a whole chapter to refute the Roman Catholic position on general revelation. He explains that the idea of a natural knowledge of God and a natural morality as fruits of God’s general revelation is not a new concept for Rome. But it was in the Vatican Council that natural theology was crowned with the status of “rational knowledge and carefully distinguished from the knowledge of faith” (62). For Rome, natural theology means “a natural knowledge or theology derived from the created things by means of reason” (64). Through this knowledge, Rome affirms, man can know God certainly and truly. Berkouwer explains that what is behind Rome’s is an unbiblical “anthropology or view of man, which lifts the so-called rational soul out of the sin-depraved life of man, and then by way of this non-corrupt reason considers man capable of true knowledge of God” (67).

On the issue of sources of revelation, Berkouwer wrestles with the question of revelation being exclusively in Christ and sets a distinction between christocentrism and christomonism. Revelation is christocentric, he affirms. Every speaking of God points to Christ, but this is “entirely different from revelation commencing with him” (106). He accuses neo-orthodoxy of creating a “once-and-for-all” idea of revelation in Christ which is contrary to Scripture when it speaks of God’s revealing voice everywhere, particularly in the Old Testament narratives. Berkouwer affirms, appealing to 1 Peter 1:11, that either God indeed revealed himself apart from the incarnation or the Israelites never truly new God. If Abraham, Moses, and David did not know God the Old Covenant was just an illusion.

Is there a knowledge transmitted by God’s general revelation? If there is one, what kind of knowledge is that? Berkouwer considers the positions of Troeltsch and Barth on this subject but seems to embrace a “third way” found on the thought of Kuyper. Berkouwer recognizes the problem of false religions and adopts the explanation for their existence in the general revelation found in creation. The reason why these religions depart from the truth of Christianity, according the Kuyper, lies in “man’s corrupted natural knowledge of God” (166). Therefore, general revelation indeed produce a kind of natural theology. However, “the perversion of man’s natural knowledge of God plus a given people’s natural disposition and history produce a particular kind of false religion” (167). Different from Rome, Berkouwer affirms with Kuyper that the natural theology drawn from general revelation is enough for man’s condemnation but never for his salvation.

Berkouwer spends a great deal of time dealing with the controversy around article II of the Belgic confession. He first considers Barth’s disagreement with the text of the confession and the reactions of three theologians: Koopmans, Haitjema, and Polman. After considering the strengths and weekenesses of their positions, Berkouwer moves on to a positive and detailed explanation of what exactly is the meaning of the Belgic confession when it talks about “two-sources” of revelation. He, first, affirms that the goal of the confession is not “to give a dissertation on general and special revelation, neither does it deal with man’s situation before and after the fall” (276). The confession’s intention is only to affirm the existence of two means of revelation, completely different from the counter-reformation Romanist two-source-theory (Scripture and tradition) and also different from the universalist idea of the Vatican Council of a natural theology. Given that the confession expresses a thoroughly Calvinistic view of the fall of man, the text of Article II simply affirms “the majesty and goodness of him who is not the hidden God, but the God who reveals himself in such an abundance of evidence, that this glory can be passed by only out of utter blindness” (278).

Berkouwer’s book is a gem. It not only transmits the biblical view of general revelation and it relevance to both believers and unbelievers but also situates the reader in all the important debates, and important figures, concerning this issue not so long ago. The strength of the book is Berkouwer’s insistence in rejecting any theological idea that is not in accordance to Scripture. We must not be afraid to accept what Scripture has to say about a specific topic even if what it says may be wrongly used and interpreted by others. The principle of Sola Scriptura must always be held if one wants to embrace the whole counsel of God. There is no need to fear general revelation, as long as we keep with the biblical view of a completely depraved man, totally dependent on God’s grace. Thus, incarnational revelation is kept it is place of absolute glory!

1 Peter 5:1-4 - The Hight Calling of the Eldership

Senior sermon preached at Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary in April 2011.

Resisting your adversary - 1 Peter 5:8-9

One of the most fun things to watch in the entire world is a group of Brazilians cheering for their soccer team. No matter what their occupations are, they become professional coaches right there in that moment. They scream instructions to the players even if they cannot hear a thing. They are alert to all threats that the opposing team’s strategy offers. They jump and wave their hands in the air when they score a goal. All this hysterical and energetic behavior takes place for one reason alone: they want their team to win the adversary.

As we approach this passage in the first letter of Peter let us have this question in mind: how do we face the fact that we have a spiritual adversary who is willing to use all kinds of strategies to destroy us. What has been our preparation? Are we mindful of his existence and of his primary intent (which is to overcome the church of Christ)? In these two verses the apostle call his original readers attention to the existence of the devil as their personal adversary, to the strategy he uses in his attacks and of how to resist him.

The devil is the personal adversary of the Christian. Along with the indwelling sin in believers and the fallen world in which they live in, Satan personally plans and executes his plots aiming to make the sons of God fail in the progress of their sanctification and in their harmony and intimacy with their Saviour. This Peter expresses when he says “your adversary” (verse 8). Today, some say that the devil does not exist, that this is something Christians created in order to escape from the blame of their sins but you, young brethren, do not underestimate your adversary neither doubt his existence. Remember that your Saviour, Jesus Christ, personally engaged in combat against him, and so must you.

What is the devils strategy? Peter uses the illustration of a lion to describe his methods. First, Peter says that he “prowls around”. He circulates the Christian, being attentive to their weaknesses and to those things that might be useful in making them fall. Second, he “roars” against Christians, in the attempt to scare and terrorize them, to make them flee from their Shepherd straight into his trap! Third, he “devours” his pray. After he make the Christian fall in his trap, he feasts on him. He not only rejoices in that he accomplished his infernal intent, but he proceeds in destroying that Christian’s life with the particular sin (or sins) in which he is entrapped.

The solution to the coward attacks of the adversary, Peter says, is to “resist him” (verse 9). Christians need to oppose their adversary just as there are opposed and offer him unbearable resistance. How? “Stand firm in your faith.” Do not abandon what you have been learning from every sermon you hear, from all the bible studies you do, do not relax in your duty to pray and, most of all, do not relay on yourself. Your faith is not on your personal ability to fight against Satan, but as the hymn says: your “hope is built on nothing less than Jesus’ blood and righteousness.” This is your faith!

Young brethren, just as the young sheep are the preferred pray of a flock, so are you in the eyes of your adversary. As you fight against him be encouraged by the saying of another apostle: “I am writing to you, young men, because you have overcome the evil one” (1 John 2:13).

Who are Gog and Magog in the book of Ezekiel?

After reading this short article consider taking a look at the following resources:

           The identity of גּוֹג֙ and מָּג֔וֹג in the visions of the prophet Ezekiel has been for centuries the target of much speculation and uncertainty. Scholars have proposed the most different positions concerning this mysterious character of Ezekiel’s prophecy and this lack of consensus indicates how difficult and delicate the task is.

            In order to establish the identity of Gog, affirms Block, “we are dependent entirely on this oracle.”[1] There is no mention of Gog and as a historical character in the OT. Attempts have been made to associate Gog with Gyges, the king of Lydia. Given the association of Gog with Meshech, Tubal and other parts of the region of Anatolia (supposedly Magog), Alan Millard affirms that: “There is no reason to doubt, therefore, that Gog and Magog in Ezek 38-39 are the King Gyges of Lydia and his realm.”[2] On the other hand, this association does not seem to fit neither history nor the character of Gog in the oracle. The prophecy describes Gog and his associates as a threat to the restored people of Israel; on the other hand there is no historical proof that Gyges or any prince from the region of Lydia has ever made any attempt against Israel after its restoration from Babylonian captivity. It might be argued that the association of Gog with Gyges was only illustrative and not literal. But even so the association is still inadequate given that Gog and his horde is described as a massive invincible super-power while Gyges was utterly defeated by the Assyrians. The historical Gyges does not represent the fearful Gog. According to Iain Duguid, “Gog of Ezekiel transcends historical categories and takes on mythical proportions, rather like the figure of Arnold Schwarzenegger in the movie The Terminator.”[3]

            Given the unique characteristics of Gog, Fairbairn seems to be right when he said that it is an “ideal name” and not a real person[4]. Block reinforces the old Scottish theologian affirming that the “combination of mystery and brutality made Gog and his confederates perfect symbols of the archetypal enemy, rising against God and his people.”[5] But who is this enemy? The answer lies in the redemptive-historical reading of the prophecy. Robertson wisely notes that “the names of the nations attacking Israel derive from the ancient table of nation in Genesis 10.”[6] Noah’s blessings to Shem and curses to Canaan were carrying over the enmity between the seed of the woman and the serpent (Gen. 3:15), between the sons of Seth and the sons of Cain (Gen. 5) and between the sons of God and the sons of man (Gen. 6). Gog, therefore, represents the archenemy of God and his people, Satan, along with all his allies (Magog) doing what he has been doing since creation: assaulting God’s children.

            There are other factors in the oracle which supports this biblical-theological reading. First, David is the king of the restored people, resurrected by God in Ezekiel 37, since David has been dead for quite some time when Ezekiel revealed this oracle to Israel, it is reasonable to assume that this new David is the Messiah. As Fairbairn says, “the new David, the all perfect and continually-abiding Shepherd, presides over them, and at once prevents the outbreaking of internal disorders, and shields them from the attacks of hostile neighbors.”[7] Therefore, while ultimately Gog’s war is against Yahweh, the oracle depicts the battle between Satan and the Messiah.

Second, the presence of elements of eschatological proportions (seven nations representing the totality of peoples of the earth, their scattered geographic location representing the whole world) forces the attentive reader to consider the redemptive-historical character of the prophecy. The gory description of the final battle and its unrealistic high number of dead soldiers along with the presence of a cataclysmic earthquake links this prophecy with others known passages in Scripture which are widely recognized as eschatological. The earthquake is found in Isaiah 29:6 and in Joel 3:16 and the great final battle engaged against an ideal enemy is found in Numbers 24:17-24, Isaiah 14:28-32, Joel 3 and Daniel 2:44-45. In fact, the prophecy itself issues a rhetorical question from Yahweh which demands an affirmative response (Ezek. 38:17) linking this conflict with Gog with the other prophecies from the past. Fairbairn writes: “It (the prophecy) appeared now only in a new form, but the thing in itself had been many times described by God’s servants.”[8]

Third, this eschatological battle finds its fulfillment in the Day of Judgment as revealed in Revelations 19-21. That John intended these chapters to depict the fulfillment of Ezekiel’s prophecy is clear from the similarities between the final vision of Ezekiel (chapters 37-48) and the celestial Jerusalem (chapters 20-21)[9]. The presence of Gog and Magog, the infinity number of nations (“as the sand of the sea”) associated with Gog, their destruction by fire before they can do any harm to the saints, all these elements follow the prophecy of Ezekiel and depicts it as being fulfilled here.

Given these reasons it seems extremely unwise to try to locate Gog and Magog in the history of human kind in any place else except in the return of Christ. Against fellow brothers who associated this super-villain with the Goths (Augustine), the Turks (Luther), or the communist Soviet empire (dispensationalists), we affirm that Gog and Magog are a figurative representation of Satan as his allies who strived against the Messiah and were utterly defeated and will be totally destroyed in the day when Yahweh will judge all.

Among many practical applications from this great battle, Christian should be encouraged by at least two. First, the absolute and sovereign control that Jehovah possess over the forces of darkness. It is God who raised them for He himself predicted their coming. It is God also who restring their attack and control them in all that they do. And it is God who finally brings them to complete destruction. All these things should bring Christians courage to fight their battles and dependence on God knowing that only in Him they can overcome the enemy of their souls. Second, it also give Christians great assurance that nothing can take away from them the harmonious fellowship and peaceful relationship they have now with Yahweh in Christ. With Paul, they can be sure that nothing can separate them from the love of God in Christ Jesus (Rom. 8:31-39). According to Christopher Wright: “the destruction of Gog as the final great enemy of Israel and Yahweh thus stands as ultimate reassurance to God’s people that their future is secure, No enemy will disturb the peach of god’s people in God’s earth ever again.”[10]

---

[1] Daniel Isaac Block, The Book of Ezekiel, The New international commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich: W.B. Eerdmans, 1997), 432.

[2] New International Dict of OT Theology & Exegesis. Pradis CD-ROM:Topical Dictionary/G/Gog and Magog.

[3] Iain M Duguid, Ezekiel, NIV application commentary (Grand Rapids, Mich: ZondervanPublishingHouse, 1999), 447.

[4] Patrick Fairbairn, Commentary on Ezekiel (Grand Rapids, Mich: Kregel Publications, 1989), 429-430.

[5] Block, The Book of Ezekiel, 436.

[6] O. Palmer Robertson, The Christ of the Prophets (Phillipsburg, N.J: P & R Pub, 2004), 307.

[7] Fairbairn, Commentary on Ezekiel, 434.

[8] Ibid., 425N3.

[9] Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Academic, 2007). 1145.

[10] Christopher J. H Wright, The Message of Ezekiel: A New Heart and a New Spirit, The Bible speaks today (Leicester, England: InterVarsity Press, 2001), 317.

Preaching from Genealogies

It is often hard to preach from genealogies and preachers generally skip  them. But Rev. Marty Martin from Fellowship Presbyterian Church (who happens to be my pastor) did an magnificent job last Sunday on the genealogy of our Saviour registered in the Gospel of Matthew.

Here is the sermon:



Check as well this suggestions on the subject:

Does Psalm 150 allow worshiping God with dancing?

            Psalm 150 is part of the last collection of Hallel psalms in the Hebrew Psalter. This last collection starts in Psalm 146 and some theologians have notice a progression in this five psalms of the theme halelu yah (Praise Yahweh) in which the worship of God starts in the individual (Psalm 146), extends to the community (Psalm 147), until it encloses the whole creation (Psalm 150).[1] If this progression is questionable, the generalized imperative to the whole body of creation (celestial or earthly beings, live or lifeless entities, rational and irrational beings, Israel and other nations, all kinds of musical instruments) to worship its Creator is not.

1. Does it speak of dancing in this Psalm?

            The word מָח֑וֹל appears seven times in the Hebrew Bible: one time as a proper name[2], three times it is contrasted with the word “mourning” (מִסְפֵּד or אֵבֶל)[3], one time with the word שָׂחַק[4], and two times with the musical instrument תֹּף.[5]

English translations in their great majority translated מָח֑וֹל as “dancing”. This is also the position of the most known commentaries on the book of Psalms. The NIDOTTE associates this word etymologically to the root חול which means “to perform a whirling dance”.[6] In spite of affirming the possibility that in Psalm 149 and 150 the word may denote the idea of musical instrument, this meaning is not fruit of the original meaning of the word itself (in other words, of its root) but is consequence of a figurative usage (synecdoche). The enhanced edition of BDB also affirms the root of מָח֑וֹל as חול and, thus, its meaning as “dancing”. It seems that this root association was influence by an article written in 1981 by M. I. Gruber.[7] On the other hand, Gruber seems to have been influenced yet by another scholar. Julian Morgenstern, professor in the Hebrew Union College, wrote an article in 1916 in which he also affirmed that מָח֑וֹל was a development of חול.[8] If all this sources are correct and no doubt can be raised concerning the relationship between root and derivative word, then one is stuck with the rendering of מָח֑וֹל as “dancing”.

But among all the commentaries consulted in the composition of this paper one alone mentioned an alternative root for מָח֑וֹל. On Calvin’s commentaries on Psalm 149 there is a footnote, certainly not from Calvin[9], which affirms that the root of מָח֑וֹל is the Hebrew חל which means, to make a hole or opening.[10] According to someone named Parkhurst[11], the translation of מָח֑וֹל to English should be “some fistular wind instrument of music, with holes, as a flute, pipe, of fife”. The footnote also mentions the observation made on the translation on the word מָח֑וֹל by the Methodist Rev. Dr. Adam Clark who said: “I know of no place in the Bible that מחוֹל, mechol, or מחלת, mechalatah, mean dance of any kind; they constantly mean some kind of pipe.”[12] It is important to remark, although, that I could not find the root חל in modern lexicons.

In 1894 this position on the root and meaning of מחוֹל as a musical instrument was still prevalent. The Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature, published in that same year, in its sixth volume, pages 763 to 773, presents a well researched article on music instruments in the Bible in which it asserts that “the word ‘dance’ is used in the AV for the Hebrew term machol, מחוֹל, a musical instrument of percussion supposed to have been used by the Hebrews at an early period of their history.”[13] The article also indicates the changing in meaning of the word mentioning “some modern lexicographers who regard machol as synonymous with rakod (Eccles. iii, 4), restrict its meaning to the exercise or amusement of dancing.”[14] In spite of the arising controversy, it reinforced its main proposition of מחוֹל being a musical instrument by recurring to the Semitic and Arabic[15] versions of the Old Testament and the Targumists rendering of that word. Among scholars, in addition to Dr. Adam Clarke and Parkhurst, it finds support in Rosenmuller who “in his commentary on Exod. xv, 20, observes that, on comparing the passages of Judg. xi, 34; 1 Sam. xviii, 6; and Jer. xxxi, 4, and assigning a rational exegesis to their context, machol must mean in these instances some musical instrument, probably of the flute kind, and principally played on by women.”[16] Another scholar mentioned in the article is Joel Brill, who wrote a preface to Mendelssohn’s Psalms, who comments precisely on Psalm 150 and affirms of it that “it is evident from the passage, “Praise him with the toph and the machol,’ that machol must mean here some musical instrument, and this is the opinion of the majority of scholars.”[17]

Therefore, given the existence of a different translation for the word מחוֹל, especially one that fits perfectly with the context of Psalm 150, it seems appropriate to affirm that this psalm is not refereeing to the activity of dancing but to another musical instrument that along with all other indisputable instruments mentioned in the pericope must be employed in the praise of Jehovah.[18] The necessity remains now of an investigation to discover why in around 22 years this meaning of machol was so neglected and rejected to the point that modern lexicons do not even mention it as a usage once employed. I suspect that at some point in the history of the study of Biblical Hebrew language, given the difficulty of the word, scholars simply embraced the meaning by the Septuagint to מחוֹל without asking too many questions. Gesenius seems to have adopted this position.[19] Another possibility is the imposition of a synonymity between מחוֹל and x, in Ecclesiastes 3:4, restricting the meaning of the former to the “exercise or amusement of dancing.”[20]

---

[1] Geoffrey Grogan, Psalms – Two Horizons Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 225.

[2] I Kings 5:11.

[3] Psalm 30:12, Jeremiah 31:13, Lamentations 5:15.

[4] Jeremiah 31:4.

[5] Psalm 149:3, Psalm 150:4.

[6] New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis, Pradis CDROM.

[7] M. I. Gruber, “Ten Dance-Derived Expressions in the Hebrew Bible,” Bib 62, 1981, 320-346. The text in the NIDOTTE affirms that it owes its definition of the root חול to him.

[8] J. Morgenstern, “The Etymological History of the Three Hebrew Synonyms for ‘to Dance,’ HGG, HLL, KRR, and their Cultural Significance,” JAOS 36, 1916, 321.

[9] On his commentary on Psalm 150, Calvin seems very secure in understanding the Hebrew words on verses 3 to 5 as instruments used in the praise of the Lord. Yet he affirms “I do not insist upon the words in the Hebrew signifying the music instruments.”

[10] John Calvin, Commentary on the book of Psalms, Vol. 2, Ages Software.

[11] In spite of all my efforts, I could not find anywhere who is this person.

[12] John Calvin, Psalms, Vol. 2, Ages Software.

[13] John M’Clintock and James Strong, The Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature, Vol. 6 (New York: Harper and Brothers Publishers, 1894), 772.

[14] Ibid., 772.

[15] The Arabic equivalent for the Hebrew מחוֹל refers to a drum with either one or two faces, not to a flute or pipe.

[16] M’Clintock and Strong, The Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature, 773.

[17] Ibid., 773.

[18] The most literal translations of Psalm 149 and 150 in the Portuguese language render מחוֹל as flute and also favor this position.

[19] Ibid., 773.

[20] Ibid., 772.