Can We Investigate the Universe Like A Crime Scene?

By J. Warner Wallace 2/13/2017

     When a dead body is discovered, detectives must investigate the evidence to determine the most reasonable explanation. Did the deceased die naturally? Did he suffer some kind of accident? Did he commit suicide? Was he murdered? These are the four possible explanations at any death scene. Homicide detectives are concerned only with the last one. Of the four explanations, the first three do not require the involvement of anyone other than the victim. If his or her death was an accident, the result of some natural cause, or the result of a suicide, all the evidence we might find related to the victim’s passing will ultimately come from the very room where he or she died. Every death scene involves evidence of one kind or another, but intruders turn death scenes into crime scenes. For that reason, every death investigation begins as an intruder investigation. Without evidence of an intruder, deaths are likely to be the result of natural causes, an accident, or a suicide. One simple strategy in death cases, therefore, is to ask a foundational question: “Can I account for all the evidence in this room by staying in the room?”

     During most of my early investigative career, I was a committed atheist and resolute naturalist. I rejected supernaturalism thoroughly, denying both the existence of a supernatural God and the possibility of the miraculous. I truly believed everything I observed in the universe could be explained and attributed to natural, physical causes and processes. Thinking of the universe as a “room,” I didn’t believe there was any evidence pointing to anyone outside. I certainly didn’t believe anything “extra-natural” or “supra-natural” entered this natural realm. But I hadn’t yet looked at the evidence carefully; I wasn’t an experienced investigator. Over the years, I learned how to evaluate and assemble evidential cases, and along the way—at the age of thirty-five—I was introduced to the New Testament.

     I became interested in God’s existence only after investigating the gospels as eyewitness accounts. (I describe this investigation in detail in my book Cold-Case Christianity.) The New Testament accounts passed the same four-part test I apply to all my witnesses, yet I still rejected them on the basis of their miraculous stories. As a naturalist, I believed the accounts of miracles in the biblical narratives disqualified them as reliable history. But what if I was wrong in my anti-supernatural presuppositions? It was time for me to look carefully at the evidence for God’s existence. If a supernatural being did exist, the miracles in the Gospels would be possible and maybe even reasonable. The case for God’s existence was an integral part of the case for the reliability of the Gospels.

     Like many of my death scene investigations, my examination of the natural universe required me to look at the characteristics of the “room” and determine if they could be explained fully by what already existed within the “four walls.” Was there any evidence inside the universe pointing to the existence or intervention of a supernatural being outside the universe? My most important question was, “Can I account for all the evidence in this room by staying in the room?

     As I considered the natural “room” of the universe, I identified and listed four categories of evidence for consideration:

James "Jim" Warner Wallace (born June 16, 1961) is an American homicide detective and Christian apologist. Wallace is a Senior Fellow at the Colson Center for Christian Worldview and an Adjunct Professor of Apologetics at Biola University in La Mirada, California. He has authored several books, including Cold-Case Christianity, God’s Crime Scene, and Forensic Faith, in which he applies principles of cold case homicide investigation to apologetic concerns such as the existence of God and the reliability of the Gospels.

• Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels

• God's Crime Scene: A Cold-Case Detective Examines the Evidence for a Divinely Created Universe

• Alive: A Cold-Case Approach to the Resurrection

• Cold-Case Christianity for Kids: Investigate Jesus with a Real Detective

• Keeping Your Kids on God's Side: 40 Conversations to Help Them Build a Lasting Faith

• Forensic Faith: A Homicide Detective Makes the Case for a More Reasonable, Evidential Christian Faith

Logic: A Necessary Tool for Truth

By Kenneth R. Samples 1/31/2017

     As the nonscientist on RTB’s five-person staff scholar team, I sometimes feel like the odd man out. Because I’m a philosopher, I often look at things and think about things very differently than my science colleagues. The questions that I tend to ask, even about science, usually inquire about things from a very different perspective. I typically gravitate toward asking more philosophically oriented questions that focus more on logical relationships than science’s emphasis upon observational relationships. Yet I recently came across a provocative analogy that I think helps to show the broadly common way that my science colleagues and I both seek to discover knowledge and truth.

     Catholic philosopher Peter Kreeft draws this interesting comparison in his book on logic:

     Analogical Thinking | I view Kreeft’s comparison of the various instruments of knowledge and truth as functioning as a stimulating analogy.

     Here’s that instrument to discipline comparison outlined. Logic’s relationship to philosophy is like

telescopes to astronomy;
microscopes to biology; and
math to physics.

     In all of these academic fields, it is possible to engage in the discipline itself without specifically using the instrument. For example, ancient people practiced astronomy long before the telescope was invented, and studies in biology went on for many centuries before the microscope was designed. Similarly, it is possible to observe the general effects of physics without the formal use of mathematics, just as a person can ask common sense philosophical questions about life without appealing to the formal aspects of logic. Even the great philosopher Aristotle, who is credited as the “father of logic,” referred to logic as a “tool” or “instrument” (Greek, organon). However, the use of these amazing instruments—whether actual artifacts (telescope and microscope) or pure conceptual realities (math and logic) discovered via the human mind—produces an increase in information and knowledge that is seemingly exponential. Both the amount of data and the depth of potential understanding is exceedingly increased by the use of the instruments. And the more skilled you are at using the instrument, the better you are in your given discipline.

Philosopher and theologian Kenneth Richard Samples has a great passion to help people understand the reasonableness and relevance of Christianity's truth claims. Through his writing and speaking as senior research scholar at Reasons to Believe (RTB), he encourages believers to develop a logically defensible faith and challenges skeptics to engage Christianity at a philosophical worldview level.

     An intellectual even at a young age, Kenneth's journey to faith in Christ began in earnest during his teenage years as he wrestled with a deep sense of longing and restlessness. His older brother's suicide spurred his efforts to seek answers to life's "big questions." Eventually, he began reading the Bible and attending church, but it was his sister's gift of Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis that helped Kenneth to truly understand the Christian Gospel and to accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. From then on, he pursued an intellectually satisfying and deeply personal faith.

     Today, Kenneth focuses on demonstrating the unique compatibility of Christianity's great doctrinal truths with reason and logic. He is the author of several books, including God Among Sages, Christian Endgame, 7 Truths That Changed the World, A World of Difference, and Without a Doubt. He leads RTB's Straight Thinking podcast and also writes Reflections, a weekly blog dedicated to exploring the Christian worldview. Kenneth has spoken at universities and churches around the world on such topics as religion and worldview, the identity of Jesus, and Christian apologetics. He also makes frequent guest appearances on radio programs such as The Frank Sontag Show, Issues Etc., and Stand to Reason, lectures as an adjunct professor at Biola University, and teaches adult classes at Christ Reformed Church in Southern California.

     An avid student of American history, Kenneth earned a BA in social science with an emphasis in history and philosophy from Concordia University and an MA in theological studies from Talbot School of Theology. Prior to joining RTB in 1997, Kenneth worked for seven years as senior research consultant and correspondence editor at Christian Research Institute, where he regularly cohosted The Bible Answer Man, a popular call-in radio program founded by renowned apologist Dr. Walter Martin. In addition, Kenneth's articles have been published in Christianity Today, Christian Research Journal, and Facts for Faith, and he holds memberships in the Evangelical Philosophical Society, the Evangelical Theological Society, and the International Society of Christian Apologetics.

     Kenneth lives in Southern California with his wife, Joan. They have three children.

• 1     God among Sages: Why Jesus Is Not Just Another Religious Leader
• 2     A World of Difference: Putting Christian Truth-Claims to the Worldview Test (Reasons to Believe)
• 3     God among Sages: Why Jesus Is Not Just Another Religious Leader
• 4     Christian Endgame: Careful Thinking about the End Times
• 5     Christianity's Most Dangerous Idea (Ebook Shorts)

4 Dimensions of Exposing Faulty Worldviews

By Dave Jenkins

     Few issues today are as important as understanding the connection between the gospel, discipleship, missions, and apologetics. I’ve learned these truths through ministering on the streets of Seattle, being in college campus ministry, and at local coffee shops around my area. Engaging in discipleship, missions, and apologetics in a manner worthy of the gospel means understanding how they relate first to the gospel and then to the Church’s mission. I hope to trace out some of these vital connections and in so doing help readers understand that the story of Jesus exposes faulty worldviews. For example, in John 4, Jesus unveils the woman at the well’s faulty worldview. He asks her questions designed to draw her closer to understanding who he is. As the woman’s understanding grows, she sees her need for Jesus. She understands that Jesus is the Son of God. Then she becomes a disciple of Jesus and goes on mission for Jesus in reaching her neighbors and town for him. This is how the gospel works.

     Jesus exposes faulty worldview stories by showing us our need for his better and truer story,then he saves us by showing us the majesty of his death and resurrection. From there he grows our understanding of himself and sends us out on mission. Part and parcel of this mission is to show the truthfulness of his story in history in comparison to the faultiness of every other story.

     Gospel | As the Church, we come together on the Lord’s Day because of the gospel. We gather to be reminded of what Jesus accomplished in his death, burial, and resurrection. We assemble together because God has taken those who were formerly not his and redeemed us through the blood of the Lamb of God. The Apostle Peter calls us to “give an answer for the reason for the hope that we have but to do so with gentleness and respect” (1 Pt. 3:15) because we are honoring Christ the Lord as holy in our hearts (1 Pt. 3:15).

     Apologetics exist not because we know all the right answers but as a result of a life centered on Christ. This is what Peter emphasized in 1 Peter 1:13-17, namely that God who is holy has called us to be his own and as a result, we’re called to manifest godly character in keeping with our status as his beloved.

     Redeemed people long to see Christ formed not only in their own lives but in the lives of others and to share their stories with others. The real work of apologetics is sharing the stories of God’s grace, goodness, and work in our lives with others. Part of apologetics does deal with objections and responds to error, heresy, and false teaching, but, before we do that, Christ must be honored preeminently in our hearts as noted in 1 Peter 3:15. We’ve been called as a people because of the gospel to “grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ” (2 Pt. 3:16) and to have a Christ-like character being formed in our lives (2 Pt. 1:3-15).

Perichoresis In Aquinas: Fruit, Not Foundation

By Derek Rishmawy 2/14/2017

     “Perichoresis” or, in Latin, circumincessio, has been a fairly traditional term in trinitarian theology since at least the time of John of Damascus. Before he applied it to the trinitarian issue, it was used to speak of the mutual interpenetration of the human and divine natures of Christ in the incarnation. But in trinitarian theology, it speaks of the mutual indwelling of the persons of the Trinity. Scripturally, the taproot of the doctrine comes in Jesus’ discourses in John where he says things like, “I am in the Father and the Father is in me” and so forth (John 14:10-11). The point is that there is a “reciprocal interiority” of Father, Son, and Spirit in that they exist within the other persons in an unconfused, but ineffable unity.

     In recent theology the concept has become sexy and made to do a lot of work in broader theological systems. For instance, in the work of types like  The Trinity and the Kingdom,  the perichoresis of the persons has been used to secure the unity of the Trinity in a social doctrine of the Trinity, while at the same time speaking to the God-world relationship.  The One, the Three and the Many: God, Creation and the Culture of Modernity / The 1992 Bampton Lectures  has expanded it out as a “transcendental” that allows us to understand the deep, interpenetrating structures of reality. People have developed spiritualities, political and economic programs, and even marital models out of it, leaving theologians like Karen Kilby to wonder if the process of projection hasn’t been at work here.

     In any case, as I was reading Gilles Emery’s exposition  The Trinitarian Theology of St Thomas Aquinas,  he draws attention to the Thomas’ doctrine of perichoresis as something of a synthesis of his trinitarian doctrine as a whole. Given its contemporary importance, it seemed worth reviewing what this giant of Western trinitarianism had to say on the subject.

     To begin, it might seem like he has little to say, simply because neither the Greek term “perichoresis” nor the Latin term “circumincessio” appear in Thomas. But Emery notes that while the specific terms may not appear, a battery of other phrases demonstrate that the concept is deeply rooted in Thomas’ thought:

In presenting the ‘in being’ of the persons, he uses, rather, the expressions ‘union or intrinsic conjunction’, ‘interiority’, ‘intimacy’, ‘existing in’, ‘being in that which is the most intimate and most secret’ (this is how the Son is in the Father), ‘reciprocal communality of “in being,”’ ‘communal union’, etc. In every case, the communal presence of the persons excludes their confusion, because it is based in their real distinction. It rules out the ‘isolation’ of one person, since it implies a communal relationship of persons. The divine persons are not ‘solitaries’: they are ‘inseparables’. (302)

Read The Psalms In "1" Year

Psalm 22

1 My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
Why are you so far from saving me, from the words of my groaning?
2 O my God, I cry by day, but you do not answer,
and by night, but I find no rest.

3 Yet you are holy,
enthroned on the praises of Israel.
4 In you our fathers trusted;
they trusted, and you delivered them.
5 To you they cried and were rescued;
in you they trusted and were not put to shame.

Literal Interpretation and False Assumptions

By Rachel Marrow 1/8/2017

     Preconceived notions are among the largest obstacles to Christianity. Secular skeptics often cite literal interpretation such as the six days of creation, animals on Noah’s ark, or the absence of dinosaurs as sound reasons to reject the Bible and Christianity as a whole.

     In reality, conclusions like these reveal how blind we are to our biases rather than any actual intellectual short-comings of the Christian faith. What are some of these common false assumptions?

     Read for Yourself

     Many have misconstrued notions of what is actually stated in the Bible. Instead, their knowledge often comes from second-hand source like TV or movies. Hollywood tends to misrepresent reality: spies always meet on park benches, undiagnosed-PTSD military personnel only stop saying “sir” in order to salute, and Christians are science-hating hypocritical snobs with southern drawls. Even ‘news’ networks push stories of sensationalism to bolster ratings rather than create an informed populace. While entertainment serves its purpose, philosophies should be judged by their merits. Those merits should reference their source documents, rather than caricatures presented by others.

     Acknowledge Literary Genre and Style

A Survey Of Old Testament Introduction

By Gleason Archer Jr.

Aramaisms as a Criterion for Lateness (cont)

     In Kautszch’s Die Aramäismen im Alten Testament he listed about 350 words in the Hebrew Old Testament as being certainly, probably, or possibly of Aramaic origin. Concerning these 350 words, R. D. Wilson reports that 100 of them have never (as of 1926) been found in any Aramaic document, and of the remaining 250, a good 135 have never been found in an Aramaic document earlier than the second century A.D. Of the remaining 115 which have been found in documents from before that time, 75 are found in Babylonian, Arabic, Phoenician, or Ethiopic (as well as in Hebrew and Aramaic) — which leaves the question open as to who borrowed from whom (or were they all derived from the same parent Semitic language?). (Cf. SIOT, pp. 155, 156.) Wilson goes on to point out that 50 out of Kautszch’s 350 “Aramaic” words are found in the Pentateuch; but of these 50 words, only 24 are employed by Onkelos in his Aramaic Targum of the Torah. It would be natural to expect that authentic Aramaic words would be eagerly embraced for the translation into Aramaic, but it turns out that less than half of them were. To be sure, some of these so-called Aramaic words might have become obsolete by the time of Onkelos, but a 54 percent loss is well beyond the normal rate of vocabulary change in the course of six centuries or so. Moreover, the roots of 16 out of these 24 words in Onkelos occur also in Babylonian or Arabic.

     Considerable doubt must therefore attach to the great majority of these 350 “Aramaisms” listed by Kautszch. In most cases these words occur in Hebrew books older by seven centuries than their earliest occurrence in extant Aramaic documents. To be sure there is a regrettable paucity of Aramaic materials from the pre-Christian centuries, but the classification of Hebrew words as Aramaisms ought to be established upon more solid grounds than mere scholarly conjecture. When we remember that critics have on the basis of Aramaisms assigned about 1500 verses of pre-exilic literature to a post-exilic date, it is reasonable to demand written documentation to verify the Aramaic status of these words. To be sure, there are some linguistic tests by which a genuine Aramaism can be distinguished in Hebrew, even apart from such documentation. That is to say, if the word in question contains one of seven telltale consonants, and if that same root exists in other Semitic languages, it is usually possible to tell whether a word is authentically Aramaic and borrowed by the Hebrew author as a loanword.

     The significant consonants are listed below in Arabic (which usually preserves the most primitive Semitic pronunciation), Hebrew, and Aramaic, with a sample word to illustrate each shift. The meaning of the word is given at the commencement of the row. (Ḏ represents the sound of th in this; š is sh in she; ṯ is th in thing; ẓ is a deepthroated z sound which is close to a th in this; ṣ is an intense s that is close to a ts in quality; ṭ is a deep-throated t sound made slightly back of the position of ordinary t; d is a deep-throated sound resembling d followed by voiced th in a -dth combination; ˓ is a sort of grunt or snarl which is made deep in the throat as the throat muscles are tightened up; ḥ is a deep-throated kh sound like ch in Loch Lomond.)

A Survey of Old Testament Introduction

The Problem Of The Old Testament

By James Orr 1907

III. DIFFICULTIES OF CRITICAL THEORY ON AGE AND ORIGIN (CONT)

2. The next natural branch of inquiry relates to the testimony of the book itself as to the circumstances of its own origin. To the ordinary reader it might seem as if no doubt whatever could rest on this point. The book would appear in the most explicit fashion to claim for itself a Mosaic origin. Not only are the discourses it contains affirmed to have been delivered by Moses in the Arabah of Moab — this might be accounted for by literary impersonation — but at the close there are express attestations that Moses wrote his law, and delivered it into the custody of the priests for safe preservation. “And Moses wrote this law,” we read, “and delivered it unto the priests, the sons of Levi.… When Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book, until they were finished, Moses commanded the Levites, which bare the ark of the covenant of Jehovah, saying, Take this book of the law, and put it by the side of the ark,” etc. In view of these declarations, one does not well know what to make of the remarkable statement of Dr. Driver that, “though it may appear paradoxical to say so,  Deuteronomy does not claim to be written by Moses.” The paradox Dr. Driver defends is, at all events, not one accepted by the leaders of the critical school, who lay stress upon the fact that the writer obviously intended his book to be received as genuinely Mosaic, and in that way sought to gain authority for its teachings. It was undoubtedly as a genuine work of Moses — subject, of course, to any necessary revisional processes — that it was received by Josiah and his contemporaries.

There is, however, the possibility of a mediating view, which must in justice be taken account of, though it is not one, it seems to us, which greatly helps the newer critics. First, we should say, as respects the scope of the above testimony, we entirely agree that the words, “Moses wrote this law,” cannot, in the connection in which they stand, be fairly extended, as has sometimes been attempted, to cover the whole Pentateuch. On the other hand, we see no fitness or probability in confining them, with Delitzsch4 and many others, to the “kernel” of the Mosaic law in chaps.  12–26 . The word torah must be taken here in its widest sense as covering the hortatory and admonitory parts of the book, not less than its strictly legal portions. The godly of later times, who found their souls’ nourishment and delight in the “law of Jehovah” (cf.  Pss. 1, 19:7 ff., 119, etc.), had, we may be sure, other material before them than the bare legal precepts of either the Deuteronomic or the Priestly Code. The notice can only fairly be understood as meaning that Moses put in writing, and delivered to the priests, the substance, if not the letter, of what he had just been saying; and such a statement, once and again repeated in the book (cf. in addition to the above, chap.  17:18 ), must, for those who recognise its honesty of intent, always have the greatest weight. But, this being granted, the question remains whether the words “this law” necessarily apply to the discourses precisely as we have them, i.e., in their present literary form. Assuming that Moses, as Delitzsch conjectures, “before his departure left behind with the priestly order an autograph torah to be preserved and disseminated,” may we not reasonably suppose that, in the book as we possess it, we have, not a literal transcription of that torah, but a “free literary reproduction” of its contents, in the form best adapted for general instruction and edification, with occasional developments and modifications suited to the time of its origin? So again Delitzsch and not a few others think. “The Deuteronomian,” he says, “has completely appropriated the thoughts and language of Moses, and from a genuine oneness of mind with him reproduces them in the highest intensity of divine inspiration.”

There will be little doubt, we think, as to the admissibility of this “reproduction” theory, if the circumstances are shown to require it. It implies no purpose to deceive, and stands on a different footing from theories which, under the name “development,” assume the attribution to Moses of ideas, laws, and institutions, not only unknown to him, but, if the critical hypothesis is correct, actually in conflict with his genuine legislation. Perhaps, also, in a modified degree, some recasting in form and language, in the sense of this hypothesis, must be admitted, if we suppose — what is very probable — that the script which Moses used was other than the ancient Hebrew, or grant that the discourses were written out rather in substance than in full detail — leaving it to the transcriber or interpreter to fill out, and give the living impression of scene and voice. If this was done (as we believe it must have been) when the remembrance or tradition of Moses and his time was still vivid and reliable, it would give us a book such as we have in  Deuteronomy. On the other hand, if so much is admitted about Moses, the question which must always recur regarding this theory, even to the very limited extent indicated, is—Cui bono? If, as Delitzsch supposes, the contents of Deuteronomy are substantially Mosaic, — if Moses really delivered testamentary discourses, and in some form wrote them down for posterity, — whence the necessity for this literary “double” to re-write and improve them? Why should the form in which Moses spoke and wrote them not be substantially that in which we have them? Shall we suppose that the actual discourses were less grand and sustained in style — less tender, glowing, and eloquent — than those we possess, — that they contained less recitation of God’s dealings, less expostulation, exhortation, and affectionate appeal, — or were less impressive in their counsels and warnings? Or that Moses, when he came to write them down — “till they were finished,” says the text — was not able to make as noble and powerful a record of them as any inspired man of a later date? We, at least, have a less mean idea of Moses, the man of God, and of his literary capabilities. We have a full and vivid picture of him, and specimens of his style of thought and pleading, in the history; we can judge of his lofty gifts, if the Ode at the Red Sea, or the Song in  Deuteronomy, 2 are from his pen; and we may well believe that, of all men living, he was the one most capable of giving worthy literary form to his own addresses. If the book, in substance, is from Moses, very cogent reasons must be shown for putting it, even in its literary form, at a much later date.

In reality, however, so far as critics of the newer time are concerned, such a hypothesis as we have been considering is wholly in the air. Possessed of quite other ideas of what must have been, these writers will hardly entertain even the possibility, either of Moses having written these discourses, or of his being able to write them. For them the Mosaic age is literally, as Duhm says, “wiped out.” Underlying their refusal of  Deuteronomy to Moses will generally be found the denial that we know anything definitely at all about Moses, or of his literary capabilities, or that he delivered any testamentary discourses, or that any of the laws or institutions ordinarily attributed to him — even the Ten Commandments — are actually of his age. In that case, Delitzsch’s hypothesis, with other mediating views, falls, and we are brought back essentially to the old alternative. The thorough - paced critic will have nothing to say to a hypothetical or traditionary basis for a book admitted to belong in its present shape to the age of the kings. Kuenen will allow no alternative between “authenticity” and “literary fiction.”

3. When, finally, from the external attestation, we turn to the internal character of the book — and it is here the strength of the critical position is held to lie — we find a series of phenomena which, so far from supporting, throw very great, if not insuperable, obstacles in the way of its ascription to the age of Josiah. On these the minifying end of the critical telescope is persistently turned, while the magnifying end is brought to bear in its full power on any difficulties that seem to tell against an earlier date. We have to remember that the book, on the critical view, was composed with the express design of calling into being such a reformation as that which followed its “discovery” in the reign of Josiah. The proof of its origin in that age is held to be its suitability to the conditions of the time, and the stress it lays on the demand for centralisation of worship. When, however, we open the book itself, we are forcibly struck by the absence of clear evidence of any such design on the part of the author, and by the numerous indications of unsuitability to the age in which it is believed to have been composed. The book and the history, in a word, do not fit each other.

(1) It is extremely doubtful if “centralisation of worship,” in the critical acceptation of that phrase, was the dominant motive in Josiah’s reformation at all. The idea of the unlawfulness of worship — even of Jehovah — on high places need not have been absent; it had, we believe, been in the background of men’s minds ever since the founding of Solomon’s temple. But it was not that which so strangely moved Josiah to alarm and action. His reformation from beginning to end was a crusade against the idolatry which had everywhere infected Church and state—central sanctuary included, — and the “high places” were put down as part of this stern suppression of all idolatrous and heathenish practices. Of a movement for unity of worship as such the narrative gives not a single hint. On the other hand, when we look to  Deuteronomy, we find little or nothing that points directly to a consuming zeal against the “high places” — in Josiah’s time the crying sin, because the chief centres of idolatry, in Judah. There are warnings against falling into the idolatries and other abominations of the Canaanites, when the land should be possessed, and in chaps.  7:5, 25, 12:2–4, injunctions to “utterly destroy” the sanctuaries, altars, pillars, Asherahs, and graven images of these former inhabitants. But there is nothing peculiarly Josianic in this — it is all there already in the older Book of the Covenant. Still further, while  Deuteronomy gives prominence to the idea of the centralisation of worship at the sanctuary, it is far from correct to say that this is the dominating idea of the book — the one grand idea which inspires it. It has its place in chap.  12, and recurs in the regulations for feasts, tithing, and priestly duty; but the preceding discourses have nothing to say of it, and in the Code it appears with a multitude of other laws, some of them more fundamental than itself. The bulk of the laws in the book, as will appear below, are taken from the Book of the Covenant; others are from a priestly source yet to be investigated.

(2) Here already is a puzzling problem for the critics — to account for the relevancy of this wide range of laws, many of them dealing with seemingly trivial matters, in a book assumed to be specially composed to effect a reformation in worship. The irrelevancy of the greater number of the precepts for such a purpose is obvious at a glance. But the incongruity of the Code in structure and contents with the supposed occasion of its origin appears in other respects. The most favourable view of the book is that it is a corpus of old laws reproduced in a hortatory setting with special adaptation to the circumstances of a late time. Yet in point of form everything is thrown back into the age of Moses. The standpoint of the speaker is the East of Jordan, with the prospect of the people’s immediately entering Canaan; Israel is treated in its unbroken unity as a nation (“all Israel”), and there is not a hint anywhere of the great division that, centuries before Josiah’s time, had rent the kingdom into twain, and had ended in the destruction of one of its branches (Ephraim). What is even more remarkable, the laws frequently are, not only long obsolete, but of a character ludicrously out of place in a reforming Code of the end of the seventh century. We need not dwell at length on these anachronisms of the Code, which have been so often pointed out, — the law, e.g., for the extermination of the Canaanites, when no Canaanites remained to be exterminated; the injunction to destroy the Amalekites; the rules for military service (inapplicable to the later time), for besieging of foreign cities, for arrangements in the camp; the warnings against choosing a foreigner for a king, and causing to return to Egypt, the friendly tone towards Edom, so strangely in contrast with the hostile spirit of the prophets; and the like. These things may seem as the small dust of the balance to the critic, but they may not appear so insignificant to others. Dr. Driver’s answer, that the injunctions against the Canaanites and Amalekites are repeated from the older legislation, and “in a recapitulation of Mosaic principles addressed ex hypothesi to the people when they were about to enter Canaan, would be naturally included,” only corroborates our point, that they were suitable to the times of Moses, but not to those of Josiah. The difficulty is not touched why a writer in that age should go out of his way to include them, when they did not bear on his purpose, and had no relevancy to existing conditions. But even in the matter of reformation of worship, it is important to observe that the laws in  Deuteronomy were not of a kind that could be, or were, enforced by Josiah in their integrity. In the Code, e.g., it is ordained that idolaters of every degree, with all who secretly or openly entice to idolatry, are to be unsparingly put to death. Josiah, it is true, slew the priests of the high places of Samaria upon their altars. But he did not attempt any such drastic measures in Judah. He brought up, instead, the priests of the high places to Jerusalem, and allowed them to “eat of the unleavened bread among their brethren.” It is one of the most singular instances of the reading of a preconceived theory into a plain text, when, in face of the law ordaining death for all idolatry, these “disestablished priests” of the high places are regarded as the Levites of  Deut. 18:8, for whom provision is made out of the temple dues. Of course, there is not a syllable hinting at “disestablished priests” of the high places in the provisions of  Deuteronomy for the Levites. The latter, besides, were permitted to minister at the sanctuary, while Josiah’s priests were not.

The Problem of the Old Testament

The Cure For Despair (2005)

By Richard S. Adams

Articles

     Richard S. Adams | Lover of Christ, husband of Lily, father of four, grandfather of eleven, Masters in Divinity and Certificate in Spiritual Direction. On staff at George Fox Evangelical Seminary 1/2009 to 7/2018.

• Jan 23     Potholes (2021)
• Jan 24     The Hornet
• Jan 26     Dealing With Disappointment
• Jan 27     Lost (2014)
• Jan 28     Life Support, A Non-Stop Flight
• Feb 5     Prosperity and the Camp Fire
• Feb 7     Job 6:14-23
• Feb 10     Spontaneous Generation
• Feb 14     Hindsight
• Feb 18     The Cure For Despair
• Feb 22     RE: Job's Friends
• Feb 23     Job 23:14
• Feb 25     No Time To Text
• Mar 5     Polemics and Caricature
• Mar 6     Ecclesiastes 3:14 | Grace
• Mar 17     A Walk In The Rain
• Mar 25     The Corona Virus
• Apr 20     Death and My Master's Voice
• Apr 26     The Unexpected Blessing Returns
• May 10     Ruth | Relationships
• May 25     Jesus and the Passover
• June 2     Extension Cords
• June 18     Lincoln City 6/2/18
• July 14     Tom - Gen andRevelation
• July 15     Knowledge and World Peace
• July 16     The Church as Lobbyist
• Aug 3     Have You Noticed
• Sept 1     Branches Ran Over The Wall
• Sept 2     1 Cor 9:1-2
• Sept 2     Many Young Folks Get This
• Sept 13     Reading God's Word
• Nov 27     The Way The World Is
• Nov 30     The Renewal Of Israel
• Dec 09     December 22
• Dec 11     Open Door
• Dec 20     Replacement Theology

The Pilgrim's Progress From This World To That Which Is To Come;
Delivered Under The Similitude Of A Dream

By John Bunyan 1678

THE TENTH STAGE

This done, they compassed them round on every side; some went before, some behind, and some on the right hand, and some on the left, (as it were to guard them through the upper regions,) continually sounding as they went, with melodious noise, in notes on high; so that the very sight was to them that could behold it as if heaven itself was come down to meet them. Thus, therefore, they walked on together; and, as they walked, ever and anon these trumpeters, even with joyful sound, would, by mixing their music with looks and gestures, still signify to Christian and his brother how welcome they were into their company, and with what gladness they came to meet them. And now were these two men, as it were, in heaven, before they came to it, being swallowed up with the sight of angels, and with hearing of their melodious notes. Here also they had the city itself in view; and they thought they heard all the bells therein to ring, to welcome them thereto. But, above all, the warm and joyful thoughts that they had about their own dwelling there with such company, and that for ever and ever; oh, by what tongue or pen can their glorious joy be expressed! Thus they came up to the gate.

     Now when they were come up to the gate, there was written over it, in letters of gold,

     “BLESSED ARE THEY THAT DO HIS COMMANDMENTS, THAT THEY MAY HAVE RIGHT TO THE TREE OF LIFE, AND MAY ENTER IN THROUGH THE GATES INTO THE CITY.”

     Then I saw in my dream, that the shining men bid them call at the gate: the which when they did, some from above looked over the gate, to wit, Enoch, Moses, and Elijah, etc., to whom it was said, These pilgrims are come from the City of Destruction, for the love that they bear to the King of this place; and then the pilgrims gave in unto them each man his certificate, which they had received in the beginning: those therefore were carried in unto the King, who, when he had read them, said, Where are the men? To whom it was answered, They are standing without the gate. The King then commanded to open the gate, “That the righteous nation (said he) that keepeth the truth may enter in.”

Isa. 26:2 Open the gates,
that the righteous nation that keeps faith may enter in.   ESV

     Now I saw in my dream, that these two men went in at the gate; and lo, as they entered, they were transfigured; and they had raiment put on that shone like gold. There were also that met them with harps and crowns, and gave them to them; the harps to praise withal, and the crowns in token of honor. Then I heard in my dream, that all the bells in the city rang again for joy, and that it was said unto them,

     “ENTER YE INTO THE JOY OF YOUR LORD.”

     I also heard the men themselves, that they sang with a loud voice, saying,

     “BLESSING, AND HONOR, AND GLORY, AND POWER, BE UNTO HIM THAT SITTETH UPON THE THRONE, AND UNTO THE LAMB, FOR EVER AND EVER.”

     Now, just as the gates were opened to let in the men, I looked in after them, and behold the city shone like the sun; the streets also were paved with gold; and in them walked many men, with crowns on their heads, palms in their hands, and golden harps, to sing praises withal.

     There were also of them that had wings, and they answered one another without intermission, saying, Holy, holy, holy is the Lord. And after that they shut up the gates; which, when I had seen, I wished myself among them.

     Now, while I was gazing upon all these things, I turned my head to look back, and saw Ignorance come up to the river side; but he soon got over, and that without half the difficulty which the other two men met with. For it happened that there was then in that place one Vain-Hope, a ferryman, that with his boat helped him over; so he, as the other I saw, did ascend the hill, to come up to the gate; only he came alone, neither did any man meet him with the least encouragement. When he was come up to the gate, he looked up to the writing that was above, and then began to knock, supposing that entrance should have been quickly administered to him; but he was asked by the men that looked over the top of the gate, Whence come you? and what would you have? He answered, I have ate and drank in the presence of the King, and he has taught in our streets. Then they asked him for his certificate, that they might go in and show it to the King: so he fumbled in his bosom for one, and found none. Then said they, Have you none? but the man answered never a word. So they told the King, but he would not come down to see him, but commanded the two shining ones, that conducted Christian and Hopeful to the city, to go out and take Ignorance, and bind him hand and foot, and have him away. Then they took him up, and carried him through the air to the door that I saw in the side of the hill, and put him in there. Then I saw that there was a way to hell, even from the gate of heaven, as well as from the City of Destruction. So I awoke, and behold it was a dream.

CONCLUSION

Now, reader, I have told my dream to thee,
See if thou canst interpret it to me,
Or to thyself, or neighbor: but take heed
Of misinterpreting; for that, instead
Of doing good, will but thyself abuse:
By misinterpreting, evil ensues.
Take heed, also, that thou be not extreme
In playing with the outside of my dream;
Nor let my figure or similitude
Put thee into a laughter, or a feud.
Leave this for boys and fools; but as for thee,
Do thou the substance of my matter see.
Put by the curtains, look within my veil,
Turn up my metaphors, and do not fail.
There, if thou seekest them, such things thou’lt find
As will be helpful to an honest mind.
What of my dross thou findest there, be bold
To throw away, but yet preserve the gold.
What if my gold be wrapped up in ore?
None throw away the apple for the core:
But if thou shalt cast all away as vain,
I know not but ’t will make me dream again.

     Pilgrim's Progress (Illustrated): Updated, Modern English. More than 100 Illustrations.

The Continual Burnt Offering

By H.A. Ironside - 1941

February 18

Jesus, these eyes have never seen
That radiant form of Thine;
The veil of sense hangs dark between
Thy blessed face and mine.

I see Thee not, I hear Thee not,
Yet art Thou oft with me;
And earth hath ne’er so dear a spot
As where I meet with Thee.

Yet though I have not seen, and still
Must rest in faith alone;
I love Thee, dearest Lord, and will,
Unseen, but not unknown.

When death these mortal eyes shall seal,
And still this throbbing heart,
The rending veil shall Thee reveal,
All glorious as Thou art.
--- Ray Palmer

The Institutes of the Christian Religion

Translated by Henry Beveridge

     5. When it is asked then how Christ, by abolishing sin, removed the enmity between God and us, and purchased a righteousness which made him favourable and kind to us, it may be answered generally, that he accomplished this by the whole course of his obedience. This id proved by the testimony of Paul, "As by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous," (Rom. 5:19). And indeed he elsewhere extends the ground of pardon which exempts from the curse of the law to the whole life of Christ, "When the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law," (Gal. 4:4, 5). Thus even at his baptism he declared that a part of righteousness was fulfilled by his yielding obedience to the command of the Father. In short, from the moment when he assumed the form of a servant, he began, in order to redeem us, to pay the price of deliverance. Scripture, however, the more certainly to define the mode of salvation, ascribes it peculiarly and specially to the death of Christ. He himself declares that he gave his life a ransom for many (Mt. 20:28). Paul teaches that he died for our sins (Rom. 4:25). John Baptist exclaimed, "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world," (John 1:29). Paul in another passage declares, "that we are justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: whom God has set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood," (Rom. 3:25). "Again, being justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him" (Rom. 5:9). Again "He has made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him," (2 Cor. 5:21). I will not search out all the passages, for the list would be endless, and many are afterwards to be quoted in their order. In the Confession of Faith, called the Apostles' Creed, the transition is admirably made from the birth of Christ to his death and resurrection, in which the completion of a perfect salvation consists. Still there is no exclusion of the other part of obedience which he performed in life. Thus Paul comprehends, from the beginning even to the end, his having assumed the form of a servant, humbled himself, and become obedient to death, even the death of the cross (Phil. 2:7). And, indeed, the first step in obedience was his voluntary subjection; for the sacrifice would have been unavailing to justification if not offered spontaneously. Hence our Lord, after testifying, "I lay down my life for the sheep," distinctly adds, "No man taketh it from me," (John 10:15, 18). In the same sense Isaiah says, " Like a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he opened not his mouth," (Is. 53:7). The Gospel History relates that he came forth to meet the soldiers; and in presence of Pilate, instead of defending himself, stood to receive judgment. This, indeed, he did not without a struggle, for he had assumed our infirmities also, and in this way it behoved him to prove that he was yielding obedience to his Father. It was no ordinary example of incomparable love towards us to struggle with dire terrors, and amid fearful tortures to cast away all care of himself that he might provide for us. We must bear in minds that Christ could not duly propitiate God without renouncing his own feelings and subjecting himself entirely to his Father's will. To this effect the Apostle appositely quotes a passage from the Psalms, "Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me) to do thy will, O God," (Heb. 10:5; Ps. 40:7, 8). Thus, as trembling consciences find no rest without sacrifice and ablution by which sins are expiated, we are properly directed thither, the source of our life being placed in the death of Christ. Moreover, as the curse consequent upon guilt remained for the final judgment of God, one principal point in the narrative is his condemnation before Pontius Pilate, the governor of Judea, to teach us, that the punishment to which we were liable was inflicted on that Just One. We could not escape the fearful judgment of God; and Christ, that he might rescue us from it, submitted to be condemned by a mortal, nay, by a wicked and profane man. For the name of Governor is mentioned not only to support the credibility of the narrative, but to remind us of what Isaiah says, that "the chastisement of our peace was upon him;" and that "with his stripes we are healed," (Is. 53:5). For, in order to remove our condemnation, it was not sufficient to endure any kind of death. To satisfy our ransom, it was necessary to select a mode of death in which he might deliver us, both by giving himself up to condemnations and undertaking our expiation. Had he been cut off by assassins, or slain in a seditious tumult, there could have been no kind of satisfaction in such a death. But when he is placed as a criminal at the bar, where witnesses are brought to give evidence against him, and the mouth of the judge condemns him to die, we see him sustaining the character of an offender and evil-doer. Here we must attend to two points which had both been foretold by the prophets, and tend admirably to comfort and confirm our faith. When we read that Christ was led away from the judgment-seat to execution, and was crucified between thieves, we have a fulfilment of the prophecy which is quoted by the Evangelist, "He was numbered with the transgressors," (Is. 53:12; Mark 15:28). Why was it so? That he might bear the character of a sinner, not of a just or innocent person, inasmuch as he met death on account not of innocence, but of sin. On the other hand, when we read that he was acquitted by the same lips that condemned him (for Pilate was forced once and again to bear public testimony to his innocence), let us call to mind what is said by another prophet, "I restored that which I took not away," (Ps. 69:4). Thus we perceive Christ representing the character of a sinner and a criminal, while, at the same time, his innocence shines forth, and it becomes manifest that he suffers for another's and not for his own crime. He therefore suffered under Pontius Pilate, being thus, by the formal sentence of the judge, ranked among criminals, and yet he is declared innocent by the same judge, when he affirms that he finds no cause of death in him. Our acquittal is in this that the guilt which made us liable to punishment was transferred to the head of the Son of God (Is. 53:12). We must specially remember this substitution in order that we may not be all our lives in trepidation and anxiety, as if the just vengeance which the Son of God transferred to himself, were still impending over us.

6. The very form of the death embodies a striking truth. The cross was cursed not only in the opinion of men, but by the enactment of the Divine Law. Hence Christ, while suspended on it, subjects himself to the curse. And thus it behoved to be done, in order that the whole curse, which on account of our iniquities awaited us, or rather lay upon us, might be taken from us by being transferred to him. This was also shadowed in the Law, since twm`a

, the word by which sin itself is properly designated, was applied to the sacrifices and expiations offered for sin. By this application of the term, the Spirit intended to intimate, that they were a kind of kaqarmavton (purifications), bearing, by substitutions the curse due to sin. But that which was represented figuratively in the Mosaic sacrifices is exhibited in Christ the archetype. Wherefore, in order to accomplish a full expiation, he made his soul to !`

, i.e., a propitiatory victim for sin (as the prophet says, Is. 53:5, 10), on which the guilt and penalty being in a manner laid, ceases to be imputed to us. The Apostle declares this more plainly when he says, that "he made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him," (2 Cor. 5:21). For the Son of God, though spotlessly pure, took upon him the disgrace and ignominy of our iniquities, and in return clothed us with his purity. To the same thing he seems to refer, when he says, that he "condemned sin in the flesh," (Rom. 8:3), the Father having destroyed the power of sin when it was transferred to the flesh of Christ. This term, therefore, indicates that Christ, in his death, was offered to the Father as a propitiatory victim; that, expiation being made by his sacrifice, we might cease to tremble at the divine wrath. It is now clear what the prophet means when he says, that "the Lord has laid upon him the iniquity of us all," (Is. 53:6); namely, that as he was to wash away the pollution of sins, they were transferred to him by imputation. Of this the cross to which he was nailed was a symbol, as the Apostle declares, "Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: that the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ," (Gal. 3:13, 14). In the same way Peter says, that he "bare our sins in his own body on the tree," (1 Peter 2:24), inasmuch as from the very symbol of the curse, we perceive more clearly that the burden with which we were oppressed was laid upon him. Nor are we to understand that by the curse which he endured he was himself overwhelmed, but rather that by enduring it he repressed broke, annihilated all its force. Accordingly, faith apprehends acquittal in the condemnation of Christ, and blessing in his curse. Hence it is not without cause that Paul magnificently celebrates the triumph which Christ obtained upon the cross, as if the cross, the symbol of ignominy, had been converted into a triumphal chariot. For he says, that he blotted out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross: that "having spoiled principalities and powers he made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it," (Col. 2:14, 15). Nor is this to be wondered at; for, as another Apostle declares, Christ, "through the eternal Spirit, offered himself without spot to God," (Heb. 9:14), and hence that transformation of the cross which were otherwise against its nature. But that these things may take deep root and have their seat in our inmost hearts, we must never lose sight of sacrifice and ablution. For, were not Christ a victim, we could have no sure conviction of his being ajpoluvtrwsi", ajntivlutron, kai; iJlasthvrion, our substitute-ransom and propitiation. And hence mention is always made of blood whenever scripture explains the mode of redemption: although the shedding of Christ's blood was available not only for propitiation, but also acted as a laver to purge our defilements.

7. The Creed next mentions that he "was dead and buried". Here again it is necessary to consider how he substituted himself in order to pay the price of our redemption. Death held us under its yoke, but he in our place delivered himself into its power, that he might exempt us from it. This the Apostle means when he says, "that he tasted death for every man," (Heb. 2:9). By dying he prevented us from dying; or (which is the same thing) he by his death purchased life for us (see Calvin in Psychopann). But in this he differed from us, that in permitting himself to be overcome of death, it was not so as to be engulfed in its abyss but rather to annihilate it, as it must otherwise have annihilated us; he did not allow himself to be so subdued by it as to be crushed by its power; he rather laid it prostrate, when it was impending over us, and exulting over us as already overcome. In fine, his object was, "that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage," (Heb. 2:14, 15). This is the first fruit which his death produced to us. Another is, that by fellowship with him he mortifies our earthly members that they may not afterwards exert themselves in action, and kill the old man, that he may not hereafter be in vigour and bring forth fruit. An effect of his burials moreover is that we as his fellows are buried to sin. For when the Apostle says, that we are ingrafted into the likeness of Christ's deaths and that we are buried with him unto sin, that by his cross the world is crucified unto us and we unto the world, and that we are dead with him, he not only exhorts us to manifest an example of his death, but declares that there is an efficacy in it which should appear in all Christians, if they would not render his death unfruitful and useless. Accordingly in the death and burial of Christ a twofold blessing is set before us--viz. deliverance from death, to which we were enslaved, and the mortification of our flesh (Rom. 6:5; Gal. 2:19, 6:14; Col. 3:3).

8. Here we must not omit the descent to hell, which was of no little importance to the accomplishment of redemption. For although it is apparent from the writings of the ancient Fathers, that the clause which now stands in the Creed was not formerly so much used in the churches, still, in giving a summary of doctrine, a place must be assigned to it, as containing a matter of great importance which ought not by any means to be disregarded. Indeed, some of the ancient Fathers do not omit it, [255] and hence we may conjecture, that having been inserted in the Creed after a considerable lapse of time, it came into use in the Church not immediately but by degrees. [256] This much is uncontroverted, that it was in accordance with the general sentiment of all believers, since there is none of the Fathers who does not mention Christ's descent into hell, though they have various modes of explaining it. But it is of little consequence by whom and at what time it was introduced. The chief thing to be attended to in the Creed is, that it furnishes us with a full and every way complete summary of faith, containing nothing but what has been derived from the infallible word of God. But should any still scruple to give it admission into the Creed, it will shortly be made plain, that the place which it holds in a summary of our redemption is so important, that the omission of it greatly detracts from the benefit of Christ's death. There are some again who think that the article contains nothing new, but is merely a repetition in different words of what was previously said respecting burial, the word Hell (Infernis) being often used in Scripture for sepulchre. I admit the truth of what they allege with regard to the not infrequent use of the term infernos for sepulchre; but I cannot adopt their opinion, for two obvious reasons. First, What folly would it have been, after explaining a matter attended with no difficulty in clear and unambiguous terms, afterwards to involve rather than illustrate it by clothing it in obscure phraseology? When two expressions having the same meaning are placed together, the latter ought to be explanatory of the former. But what kind of explanation would it be to say, the expression, "Christ was buried", means, that "he descended into hell"? My second reason is the improbability that a superfluous tautology of this description should have crept into this compendium, in which the principal articles of faith are set down summarily in the fewest possible number of words. I have no doubt that all who weigh the matter with some degree of care will here agree with me.

9. Others interpret differently--viz. That Christ descended to the souls of the Patriarchs who died under the law, to announce his accomplished redemption, and bring them out of the prison in which they were confined. To this effect they wrest the passage [257] in the Psalms "He hath broken the gates of brass, and cut the bars of iron in sunder." (Ps. 107:16); and also the passage in Zechariah, "I have sent forth thy prisoners out of the pit wherein is no water," (Zech. 9:11). But since the psalm foretells the deliverance of those who were held captive in distant lands, and Zechariah comparing the Babylonish disaster into which the people had been plunged to a deep dry well or abyss, at the same time declares, that the salvation of the whole Church was an escape from a profound pit, I know not how it comes to pass, that posterity imagined it to be a subterraneous cavern, to which they gave the name of Limbus. Though this fable has the countenance of great authors, and is now also seriously defended by many as truth, [258] it is nothing but a fable. To conclude from it that the souls of the dead are in prison is childish. And what occasion was there that the soul of Christ should go down thither to set them at liberty? I readily admit that Christ illumined them by the power of his Spirit, enabling them to perceive that the grace of which they had only had a foretaste was then manifested to the world. And to this not improbably the passage of Peter may be applied, wherein he says, that Christ "went and preached to the spirits that were in prison," (or rather "a watch-tower") (I Pet. 3:19). The purport of the context is, that believers who had died before that time were partakers of the same grace with ourselves: for he celebrates the power of Christ's death, in that he penetrated even to the dead, pious souls obtaining an immediate view of that visitation for which they had anxiously waited; while, on the other hand, the reprobate were more clearly convinced that they were completely excluded from salvation. Although the passage in Peter is not perfectly definite, we must not interpret as if he made no distinction between the righteous and the wicked: he only means to intimate, that the death of Christ was made known to both.

     Christian Classics Ethereal Library / Public Domain

     Institutes of the Christian Religion