The Institutes of the Christian Religion

Translated by Henry Beveridge

     14. Another objection is founded on a mode of speaking which is constantly observed both in Scripture and in common discourse. God works are said to be ours, and we are said to do what is holy and acceptable to God, just as we are said to commit sin. But if sins are justly imputed to us, as proceeding from ourselves, for the same reason (say they) some share must certainly be attributed to us in works of righteousness. It could not be accordant with reason to say, that we do those things which we are incapable of doing of our own motion, God moving us, as if we were stones. These expressions, therefore, it is said, indicate that while, in the matter of grace, we give the first place to God, a secondary place must be assigned to our agency. If the only thing here insisted on were, that good works are termed ours, I, in my turn, would reply, that the bread which we ask God to give us is also termed ours. What, then, can be inferred from the title of possession, but simply that, by the kindness and free gift of Gods that becomes ours which in other respects is by no means due to us? Therefore let them either ridicule the same absurdity in the Lord's Prayer, or let them cease to regard it as absurd, that good works should be called ours, though our only property in them is derived from the liberality of God. But there is something stronger in the fact, that we are often said in Scripture to worship God, do justice, obey the law, and follow good works. These being proper offices of the mind and will, how can they be consistently referred to the Spirit, and, at the same time, attributed to us, unless there be some concurrence on our part with the divine agency? This difficulty will be easily disposed of if we attend to the manner in which the Holy Spirit acts in the righteous. The similitude with which they invidiously assail us is foreign to the purpose; for who is so absurd as to imagine that movement in man differs in nothing from the impulse given to a stone? Nor can anything of the kind be inferred from our doctrine. To the natural powers of man we ascribe approving and rejecting, willing and not willing, striving and resisting--viz. approving vanity, rejecting solid good, willing evil and not willing good, striving for wickedness and resisting righteousness. What then does the Lord do? If he sees meet to employ depravity of this description as an instrument of his anger, he gives it whatever aim and direction he pleases, that, by a guilty hand, he may accomplish his own good work. A wicked man thus serving the power of God, while he is bent only on following his own lust, can we compare to a stone, which, driven by an external impulse, is borne along without motion, or sense, or will of its own? We see how wide the difference is. But how stands the case with the godly, as to whom chiefly the question is raised? When God erects his kingdom in them, he, by means of his Spirit, curbs their will, that it may not follow its natural bent, and be carried hither and thither by vagrant lusts; bends, frames trains, and guides it according to the rule of his justice, so as to incline it to righteousness and holiness, and establishes and strengthens it by the energy of his Spirit, that it may not stumble or fall. For which reason Augustine thus expresses himself (De Corrept. et Gratia, cap. 2), "It will be said we are therefore acted upon, and do not act. Nay, you act and are acted upon, and you then act well when you are acted upon by one that is good. The Spirit of God who actuates you is your helper in acting, and bears the name of helper, because you, too, do something." In the former member of this sentence, he reminds us that the agency of man is not destroyed by the motion of the Holy Spirit, because nature furnishes the will which is guided so as to aspire to good. As to the second member of the sentence, in which he says that the very idea of help implies that we also do something, we must not understand it as if he were attributing to us some independent power of action; but not to foster a feeling of sloth, he reconciles the agency of God with our own agency, by saying, that to wish is from nature, to wish well is from grace. Accordingly, he had said a little before, "Did not God assist us, we should not only not be able to conquer, but not able even to fight."

15. Hence it appears that the grace of God (as this name is used when regeneration is spoken of) is the rule of the Spirit, in directing and governing the human will. Govern he cannot, without correcting, reforming, renovating (hence we say that the beginning of regeneration consists in the abolition of what is ours); in like manner, he cannot govern without moving, impelling, urging, and restraining. Accordingly, all the actions which are afterwards done are truly said to be wholly his. Meanwhile, we deny not the truth of Augustine's doctrine, that the will is not destroyed, but rather repaired, by grace--the two things being perfectly consistent--viz. that the human will may be said to be renewed when its vitiosity and perverseness being corrected, it is conformed to the true standard of righteousness and that, at the same time, the will may be said to be made new, being so vitiated and corrupted that its nature must be entirely changed. There is nothing then to prevent us from saying, that our will does what the Spirit does in us, although the will contributes nothing of itself apart from grace. We must, therefore, remember what we quoted from Augustine, that some men labour in vain to find in the human will some good quality properly belonging to it. Any intermixture which men attempt to make by conjoining the effort of their own will with divine grace is corruption, just as when unwholesome and muddy water is used to dilute wine. But though every thing good in the will is entirely derived from the influence of the Spirit, yet, because we have naturally an innate power of willing, we are not improperly said to do the things of which God claims for himself all the praise; first, because every thing which his kindness produces in us is our own (only we must understand that it is not of ourselves); and, secondly, because it is our mind, our will, our study which are guided by him to what is good.

16. The other passages which they gather together from different quarters will not give much trouble to any person of tolerable understanding, who pays due attention to the explanations already given. They adduce the passage of Genesis, "Unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him," (Gen. 4:7). This they interpret of sin, as if the Lord were promising Cain that the dominion of sin should not prevail over his mind, if he would labour in subduing it. We, however, maintain that it is much more agreeable to the context to understand the words as referring to Abel, it being there the purpose of God to point out the injustice of the envy which Cain had conceived against his brother. And this He does in two ways, by showing, first, that it was vain to think he could, by means of wickedness, surpass his brother in the favour of God, by whom nothing is esteemed but righteousness; and, secondly, how ungrateful he was for the kindness he had already received, in not being able to bear with a brother who had been subjected to his authority. But lest it should be thought that we embrace this interpretation because the other is contrary to our view, let us grant that God does here speak of sin. If so, his words contain either an order or a promise. If an order, we have already demonstrated that this is no proof of man's ability; if a promise, where is the fulfilment of the promise when Cain yielded to the sin over which he ought to have prevailed? They will allege a tacit condition in the promise, as if it were said that he would gain the victory if he contended. This subterfuge is altogether unavailing. For, if the dominion spoken of refers to sin, no man can have any doubt that the form of expression is imperative, declaring not what we are able, but what it is our duty to do, even if beyond our ability. Although both the nature of the case, and the rule of grammatical construction, require that it be regarded as a comparison between Cain and Abel, we think the only preference given to the younger brother was, that the elder made himself inferior by his own wickedness.

17. They appeal, moreover, to the testimony of the Apostle Paul, because he says, "It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy," (Rom. 9:15). From this they infer, that there is something in will and endeavour, which, though weak in themselves, still, being mercifully aided by God, are not without some measure of success. But if they would attend in sober earnest to the subject there handled by Paul, they would not so rashly pervert his meaning. I am aware they can quote Origin and Jerome [184] in support of this exposition. To these I might, in my turn, oppose Augustine. But it is of no consequence what they thought, if it is clear what Paul meant. He teaches that salvation is prepared for those only on whom the Lord is pleased to bestow his mercy--that ruin and death await all whom he has not chosen. He had proved the condition of the reprobate by the example of Pharaoh, and confirmed the certainty of gratuitous election by the passage in Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy." Thereafter he concludes, that it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy. If these words are understood to mean that the will or endeavour are not sufficient, because unequal to such a task, the Apostle has not used them very appropriately. We must therefore abandon this absurd mode of arguing, "It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth;" therefore, there is some will, some running. Paul's meaning is more simple--there is no will nor running by which we can prepare the way for our salvation--it is wholly of the divine mercy. He indeed says nothing more than he says to Titus, when he writes, "After that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us," (Titus 3:4, 5). Those who argue that Paul insinuated there was some will and some running when he said, "It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth," would not allow me to argue after the same fashion, that we have done some righteous works, because Paul says that we have attained the divine favour, "not by works of righteousness which we have done." But if they see a flaw in this mode of arguing, let them open their eyes, and they will see that their own mode is not free from a similar fallacy. The argument which Augustine uses is well founded, "If it is said, It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth,' because neither will nor running are sufficient; it may, on the other hand, be retorted, it is not of God that showeth mercy,' because mercy does not act alone," (August. Ep. 170, ad Vital. See also Enchirid. ad Laurent. cap. 32). This second proposition being absurd, Augustine justly concludes the meaning of the words to be, that there is no good will in man until it is prepared by the Lord; not that we ought not to will and run, but that both are produced in us by God. Some, with equal unskilfulness, wrest the saying of Paul, "We are labourers together with God," (1 Cor. 3:9). There cannot be a doubt that these words apply to ministers only, who are called "labourers with God," not from bringing any thing of their own, but because God makes use of their instrumentality after he has rendered them fit, and provided them with the necessary endowments.

18. They appeal also to Ecclesiasticus, who is well known to be a writer of doubtful authority. But, though we might justly decline his testimony, let us see what he says in support of free will. His words are, "He himself made man from the beginning, and left him in the hand of his counsel; If thou wilt, to keep the commandments, and perform acceptable faithfulness. He has set fire and water before thee: stretch forth thy hand unto whether thou wilt. Before man is life and death; and whether him liketh shall be given him," (Ecclesiasticus 15:14-17). Grant that man received at his creation a power of acquiring life or death; what, then, if we, on the other hand, can reply that he has lost it? Assuredly I have no intention to contradict Solomon, who asserts that "God has made man upright;" that "they have sought out many inventions," (Eccl. 7:29). But since man, by degenerating, has made shipwreck of himself and all his blessings, it certainly does not follow, that every thing attributed to his nature, as originally constituted, applies to it now when vitiated and degenerate. Therefore, not only to my opponents, but to the author of Ecclesiasticus himself (whoever he may have been), this is my answer: If you mean to tell man that in himself there is a power of acquiring salvation, your authority with us is not so great as, in the least degree, to prejudice the undoubted word of God; but if only wishing to curb the malignity of the fleshy which by transferring the blame of its own wickedness to God, is wont to catch at a vain defence, you say that rectitude was given to man, in order to make it apparent he was the cause of his own destruction, I willingly assent. Only agree with me in this, that it is by his own fault he is stript of the ornaments in which the Lord at first attired him, and then let us unite in acknowledging that what he now wants is a physician, and not a defender.

19. There is nothing more frequent in their mouths than the parable of the traveller who fell among thieves, and was left half dead (Luke 10:32). I am aware that it is a common idea with almost all writers, that under the figure of the traveller is represented the calamity of the human race. Hence our opponents argue that man was not so mutilated by the robbery of sin and the devil as not to preserve some remains of his former endowments; because it is said he was left half dead. For where is the half living, unless some portion of right will and reason remain? First, were I to deny that there is any room for their allegory, what could they say? There can be no doubt that the Fathers invented it contrary to the genuine sense of the parable. Allegories ought to be carried no further than Scripture expressly sanctions: so far are they from forming a sufficient basis to found doctrines upon. And were I so disposed I might easily find the means of tearing up this fiction by the roots. The Word of God leaves no half life to man, but teaches, that, in regard to life and happiness, he has utterly perished. Paul, when he speaks of our redemption, says not that the half dead are cured (Eph. 2:5, 6; 5:14) but that those who were dead are raised up. He does not call upon the half dead to receive the illumination of Christ, but upon those who are asleep and buried. In the same way our Lord himself says, "The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God," (John 5:25). How can they presume to set up a flimsy allegory in opposition to so many clear statements? But be it that this allegory is good evidence, what can they extort out of it? Man is half dead, therefore there is some soundness in him. True! he has a mind capable of understanding, though incapable of attaining to heavenly and spiritual wisdom; he has some discernment of what is honourable; he has some sense of the Divinity, though he cannot reach the true knowledge of God. But to what do these amount? They certainly do not refute the doctrine of Augustine--a doctrine confirmed by the common suffrages even of the Schoolmen, that after the fall, the free gifts on which salvation depends were withdrawn, and natural gifts corrupted and defiled (supra, chap. 2 sec. 2). Let it stand, therefore, as an indubitable truth, which no engines can shake, that the mind of man is so entirely alienated from the righteousness of God that he cannot conceive, desire, or design any thing but what is wicked, distorted, foul, impure, and iniquitous; that his heart is so thoroughly envenomed by sin that it can breathe out nothing but corruption and rottenness; that if some men occasionally make a show of goodness, their mind is ever interwoven with hypocrisy and deceit, their soul inwardly bound with the fetters of wickedness.

__________________________________________________________________

[178] The French is, "Mais c'est comme si un capitaine assembloit force gens qui ne fussent nullement duits ? la guerre pour espouvanter son ennemi. Avant que les mettre en oeuvre, il feroient grande monstre; mais s'il faloit venir en bataille et joindre eontre son ennemi on les feroit fuir du premier coup." But it is as if a captain were to assemble a large body of people, in no wise trained to war, to astonish the enemy. Before coming into action they would make a great show; but if they were to go into battle, and come to close quarters with the enemy, the first stroke would make them fly.

[179] August. Enchir. ad Laurent. de Gratia et Liber. Arbit. cap. 16. Homil 29, in Joann. Ep. 24.

[180] Joel 2:12; Jer. 31:18; Deut. 10:16; 30:6; Ezek. 36:26; Jer. 31:18. Vid. Calvin. adv. Pighium.

[181] The French is, "Et de fait cette raison a grande apparence humainement. Car on peut deduire gue ce seroit une cruauté de Dieu,"&c.--And, in fact, humanly speaking, there is great plausibility in this argument. For, it may be maintained, that it would be cruelty in God,

[182] The French adds, "Veu qu'en cela il fait le profit de ses serviteurs et rend les iniques plus damnables;" seeing that by this he promotes the good of his servants, and renders the wicked more deserving of condemnation.

[183] The French is "Où est-ce que sera cette facilité, veu que notre natute succombe en cet endroit, et n'y a celui qui ne trebusche voulant marcher?" Where is this facility, seeing that our nature here gives way, and there is not a man who in wishing to walk does not tumble?

[184] Orig. Lig. 7 in Epist. ad Rom.--Hieron. Dial. i in Pelagium.--For the passage in Augustine, see the extract in Book 3. chap. 24 sec. 1.

__________________________________________________________________

     Christian Classics Ethereal Library / Public Domain

     Institutes of the Christian Religion

John Webster on the Church’s relationship to the triune God

By Jake Belder 1/12/17

     ‘How do we move from the doctrine of God to the doctrine of the Church?’ John Webster asks in his book, Holiness. That the life of God and the life of the Church are intimately connected is without question, but Webster seeks clarity on that relationship, particularly given the way social trinitarianism has been used ‘for our understanding of human common life, both politically and in the Church. He writes,

     The relatedness of Father, Son and Spirit is canvassed as the ground or model for the Church, and the Church is therefore conceived as the realisation in time of the human vocation to society, and so as the social extension of reconciliation through its gracious participation in the triune life of God (54-55).

     While acknowledging there is much to say on this, Webster admits to two hesitations with social trinitarian theologies. The first is that it gives ‘insufficient attention to the free majesty of God’ and his perfection and sheer distinction from his creatures (55). But he continues:

     A second, related, hesitation concerns the way in which such accounts of the Church’s relation to the triune life of God betray a drift into divine immanence. This can be seen in the way in which such ecclesiologies characteristically stress the continuity between the action of God and the action of the Church, in a manner which can easily jeopardise our sense of the freedom and perfection of God’s work. Such ecclesiologies can place excessive emphasis upon the Church as agent, and, correspondingly, underplay the passivity which is at the heart of the Church as a creature of divine grace. For if the being of the Church is a participation in the life of the triune divine society, then it is in the work of the Church that the work of the triune God finds its realisation, and, in an important sense, its continuation. In effect, this constitutes an orientation in ecclesiology that makes the work of the Church an actualisation of or sharing in the divine presence and action, rather than a testimony to that presence and action.

     The concern Webster has here in relation to his subject is that we do not lose sight of that fact that the holy life of the Church is entirely an act of grace, something which the ‘social trinitarian language of participation, [as it] emphasises the continuity, even coinherence, of divine and ecclesial action’, can obscure. Suggesting there is wisdom in continuing to speak of the Church’s sanctity as something ‘alien’, Webster concludes,

Click here to go to source

The Latin Versions

By Gleason Archer Jr.

A Survey of Old Testament Introduction

Francis Schaeffer and the Arts: A Retrospective

By Dr. William Edgar 1/10/17

     He is an easy target. Known for his shoot-from-the-hip generalizations, his rapid surveys of long periods of history, and his occasional mistakes, Francis Schaeffer has been subjected to all kinds of scrutiny, friendly and otherwise, from amateurs and professionals alike. The fact that so much attention has been devoted to this seemingly obscure figure who spent much of his time in a small Swiss mountain village talking with individuals makes the attention he garnered all the more remarkable. Or does it? Counter-intuitively, Francis Schaeffer turns out to have been one of the most significant evangelical Christians in the mid-twentieth century. His ideas are still buzzing around in all kinds of places.

     Two equal and opposite errors have often been made about the legacy of Francis A. Schaeffer (1912-1984). The first is to praise him uncritically, and defend most or all of what he said as beyond improvement, whether in his scholarship or his informal discussions. He has been called a “genius who cares for ideas.” A major book compares him to C. S. Lewis, calling them the two most influential apologists of our time (IVP, 1998). Most of us would agree that the word “genius” should be used sparingly, if at all. Schaeffer was brilliant, but a genius? And a fair comparison with C. S. Lewis is bound to show up so many differences as perhaps to make such an accolade simply unhelpful.

     The opposite error, though, is to demean his work as being substandard, replete with errors, and generally shoddy. Serious criticism was lodged at many of his views by Reformed apologist Greg Bahnsen. He sharply disagreed with Schaeffer’s view of antithesis, his view on reason and faith, his interpretation of Hegel, and several other basic tenets of his position. One review of The God Who Is There, states, “We use Francis Schaeffer as an example of how not to do philosophy.”

     The purpose of this brief article is to try to forge a third way. No one, even Francis Schaeffer, who ventures into the world of ideas and is bold enough to publish, should be exempt from thoughtful scrutiny. In my profession we call it peer review. At the same time, they should be given a fair hearing. In Schaeffer’s case that is challenging, since he so often ventured outside the box, both in form and in content. Thus, to evaluate his work fairly requires a degree of generosity, though not excuses. Schaeffer was a pastor and an evangelist. There was a delightful informality to the way he treated major thinkers and trends. If he had occupied an academic chair in a major research university he most likely would not have been well-received. But he did not. He was a popularizer in the best sense. As an academic myself, I spend a good deal of my time with footnotes, carefully crafting my writing in order to conform to the highest standards of our science. And I am unashamed to do so. But I do sometime rather envy those who are free from such a model. Not because they are welcome to make mistakes; of course not. But because their style allows more contact with a whole range of people, including academics, but also including laypeople, young and old, working class and upper crust alike. Schaeffer was able to do that, and thus to have the influence that he did.

     My test case is very limited, in one sense, but I hope it is interesting: I want to see if some of Schaeffer’s judgments about the arts stand up to scutiny. I have chosen this particular realm because it is one Schaeffer himself particularly loved. His son, Frank, movingly recounts how his Dad took him around to visit museums and was privileged on that occasion to see a different Francis Schaeffer. “I never saw Dad so happy than when he was looking at and discussing art. His face literally changed. He looked younger.”

Read The Psalms In "1" Year

Psalm 8

1 O LORD, our Lord,
how majestic is your name in all the earth!
You have set your glory above the heavens.
2 Out of the mouth of babies and infants,
you have established strength because of your foes,
to still the enemy and the avenger.

3 When I look at your heavens, the work of your fingers,
the moon and the stars, which you have set in place,
4 what is man that you are mindful of him,
and the son of man that you care for him?

Why a Beautiful Sunset Argues for God's Existence

By Lenny Esposito 1/10/17

     Have you ever seen a beautiful sunset or had your breath taken away by a stunning vista? Such experiences leave us with a sense of awe. They also feel a bit hallowed; people are a bit more reverent when taking in the natural beauty of the world. The delicate symmetry of a snowflake or the glistening of a spider's dew-dropped web awakens a sense of beauty in our souls, prompting believers to thank God for His amazing handiwork.

     But is that last move valid? Can we infer God simply from something we ourselves find beautiful? Actually, we can.

     Last week, I was discussing the various arguments for God's existence with Dr. Robert Stewart and Dr. Sean McDowell. Most Christians who are interested in apologetics are familiar with arguments from the existence of the universe, the fine-tuning of the universe, and the reality of moral values and duties. Some have heard the argument from consciousness or the argument from reason. But there is another argument that many people don't hear about and that is the argument from beauty.

     What is the argument from beauty? Richard Swinburne explains it this way:

     If there is a God there is more reason to expect a basically beautiful world than a basically ugly one. A priori, however, there is no particular reason for expecting a basically beautiful rather than a basically ugly world. In consequence, if the world is beautiful, that fact would be evidence for God's existence. Philosophy of Religion: An Anthology

How to care about social justice (without losing the gospel)

By Russell D. Moore

     Some evangelicals talk as though personal evangelism and public justice are contradictory concerns, or, at least, that one is part of the mission of the church and the other isn’t. I think otherwise, and I think the issue is one of the most important facing the church these days.

     First of all, the mission of the church is the mission of Jesus. This mission doesn’t start with the giving of the Great Commission or at Pentecost. The Great Commission is when Jesus sends the church to the world with the authority he already has (Matt 28:18), and Pentecost is when he bestows the power to carry this commission out (Acts 1:8).

     The content of this mission is not just personal regeneration but disciple-making (Matt 28:19). It is not just teaching, but teaching “them to observe all that I have commanded you” (Matt 28:20).

     This mission is not inconsistent with what we have seen already in the life of Jesus. His mission is defined by Old Testament expectation (for instance, Ps 72), and in the gospel accounts in terms of redemptive love for the whole person, both body and soul. From the literally embryonic moments of the Incarnation, such terms are present in Mary’s prayer about the coming of her Messiah (Luke 1:46-55), and then in Jesus’ own inaugural words about his kingdom’s arrival (Luke 4:18-19).

     This mission is summed up in the gospel as a message of reconciliation that is both vertical and horizontal, establishing peace with both God and neighbor. The Scripture tells us to love neighbor “as yourself” (Luke 10:27-28). This is not simply a “spiritual” ministry, as the example Jesus gives us is of a holistic caring for physical and economic needs of a wounded person, not to mention the transcending of steep ethnic hostilities.

By John F. Walvoord

Prophecy In 2 Samuel and 1st Kings
The Prophetic Anointing of David as King

      Long before Saul was killed, Samuel was instructed to anoint David as the future king of Israel ( 1 Sam. 16:12–13 ). Though the anointing itself was not a prophecy, it was nevertheless prophetic of the future reign of David, which began only after years of fleeing from Saul, who wanted to kill David to prevent him from assuming the throne. Once Saul was dead, the men of Judah recognized David as their king ( 2 Sam. 2:3–4 ), but the remaining tribes recognized Ish-Bosheth, a son of Saul. It was recorded in  2:12–4:12 that a divided kingdom continued for seven years, but after Ish-Bosheth’s death ( 4:1–12 ) David was able to assume control over all twelve tribes of Israel.

     According to  5:1–2, representatives of the eleven tribes came and made a pact with David and anointed him king over all Israel. When they came to David, they recited a prophecy, apparently given to David when he was anointed, “You will shepherd my people Israel, and you will become their ruler” (v.  2 ).

     In  2 Samuel 5:19–25, the Lord predicted David’s victory over the warring Philistines (cf.  1 Chron. 14:10–16 ). In connection with David bringing the ark to the City of David ( 2 Sam. 6:12–23 ), a  Psalm of thanksgiving was written by David ( 1 Chron. 16:7–36 ). The prediction was also given that David would have a great name ( 2 Sam. 7:9 ).

Background of the Davidic Covenant

     The Davidic covenant is one of a few major biblical covenants directly related to prophecy in its fulfillment. Like that of the Abrahamic covenant, interpretation of the Davidic covenant is determined largely by the decision to interpret it literally or nonliterally. In the case of the Abrahamic covenant, most of its provisions have already been literally fulfilled, and little room is given to question its literal interpretation.

     The major factor still debated in connection with the Abrahamic covenant is the question of whether the land promised to Israel was a literal prophecy, subject to future fulfillment, or whether this is not the correct interpretation. Amillenarians  (Most Catholics) tend to negate the Abrahamic covenant either on the basis that the promise will not be fulfilled because of Israel’s failure, or that the promise is fulfilled nonliterally, interpreting the land as a reference to heaven. In the case of the Abrahamic covenant, this question of interpretation has been answered by premillenarians interpreting the promise of the land literally and by amillenarians who interpret the promise in a nonliteral sense or at least not fulfilled literally. The Davidic covenant has the same problem.

     In connection with the promises given to Abram, God informed Abraham concerning Sarah, “I will bless her and will surely give you a son by her. I will bless her so that she will be the mother of nations; kings of peoples will come from her” ( Gen. 17:16 ). The same promise was mentioned in  Genesis 17:6, where God informed Abraham, “I will make you very fruitful; I will make nations of you, and kings will come from you.” The promise of inheriting the general Abrahamic blessings was later narrowed to Isaac, not Ishmael, and then to Jacob, not Esau ( Gen. 26:2–6; 28:13–15 ). The promise of kings was further limited in  Genesis 49:10 with Jacob’s prophetic statement of the future of his sons: “The scepter will not depart from Judah, nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet, until he comes to whom it belongs and the obedience of the nations is his.”

     With the background of prophecies concerning the future kingdom of Israel in  Genesis, the Abrahamic covenant was given more specific fulfillment in the covenant God made with David ( 2 Sam. 7:5–16; 1 Chron. 17:3–15 ). The subject of the Davidic covenant became, therefore, a major aspect of prophecy throughout the Old Testament.

     2 Samuel 7. The Scriptures record that David conferred with Nathan the prophet, expressing David’s concern that he lived in a magnificent house made of cedar and that the temple of the Lord was simply a tent (vv.  1–2 ). Without consulting God, Nathan told David to proceed (v.  3 ).

     That night, however, God corrected Nathan’s approval of David’s plan (vv.  4–16 ). Even a prophet needs to have his decisions confirmed by God. In His instructions to Nathan, God pointed out that He had never asked the people of Israel to build a house of cedar for Him.

     God first rehearsed how He had taken David from being a shepherd to being a king with great fame. God promised Israel would have a homeland (v.  10 ). Then God went beyond the plan of building a physical temple to that of establishing the house of David forever: “The LORD declares to you that the LORD himself will establish a house for you: When your days are over and you rest with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, who will come from your own body, and I will establish his kingdom. He is the one who will build a house for my Name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be his father, and he will be my son. When he does wrong, I will punish him with the rod of men, with floggings inflicted by men. But my love will never be taken away from him, as I took it away from Saul, whom I removed from before you. Your house and your kingdom will endure forever before me; your throne will be established forever” (vv.  11–16 ). The reference to the house of David was to his physical descendants, who would occupy the throne of David.

Specific Provisions of the Davidic Covenant in  2 Samuel 7

      Though not specifically called a covenant here, elsewhere it was called a covenant ( 2 Sam. 23:5; Ps. 89:3, 28, 34, 39; cf.  Ps. 132:11 ). At least four major provisions were involved in the Davidic covenant according to  2 Samuel 7. (1) David was promised a son, not yet born, who would succeed David on his throne (v.  12 ). Actually, this was fulfilled by Solomon. (2) This son would build the temple (v.  13 ). This was later fulfilled by Solomon ( 1 Kings 6:37–38; 7:1–51; 2 Chron. 3:1–5:14 ). (3) The throne of Solomon’s kingdom would continue forever ( 2 Sam. 7:13 ). If Solomon did wrong, God would punish him, but He would not take away the kingdom (vv.  10–15; 1 Kings 11:34 ). (4) David’s descendants and David’s kingdom would endure forever ( 2 Sam. 7:16 ). The promises of the Davidic covenant in  2 Samuel 7 were repeated precisely in  1 Chronicles 17:3–15 (cf. also  2 Sam. 7:19–29; 1 Chron. 17:15–27; 2 Chron. 6:7–10 ).

     In attempting to interpret the Davidic covenant, certain facts stand out. (1) David understood that the promises had to do with his physical descendants or “house.” (2) The prophecy is accurate in details as indicated by the fact that though Solomon’s throne was promised to continue forever, his descendants were not given this promise, as ultimately the line of Solomon was deposed ( Jer. 22:28–30 ). (3) The ultimate person to sit on the throne of David would be Jesus Christ. Mary’s genealogy ( Luke 3:23–38 ) was traced to Nathan, the son of David, instead of Solomon (v.  31 ). By contrast, Joseph’s genealogy was traced to Solomon ( Matt. 1:2–16 ), whose line was cursed, but Joseph provided the legal basis for Jesus Christ to claim the throne of David. (4) The language of the covenant in  2 Samuel 7 and  1 Chronicles 17, as it was certainly understood by David, referred to his physical lineage and to his political kingdom, not to an entity such as the elect, the saved, or the church. Premillenarians generally interpret the prophecy literally and find it fulfilled in the future millennial kingdom that will occur after the second coming of Christ.

     A leading opposing view, however, is advanced by the amillenarians, who interpret the prophecy nonliterally as referring to Christ, not in His reign over Israel or over the world, but to Christ as the head of the church. In the amillennial interpretation, the throne of David is equated with the throne of God in heaven, and the reign of Christ is usually related to the present age or Christ’s spiritual reign in the hearts of believers. Some amillenarians, however, refer the fulfillment to the new heaven and the new earth in eternity. New light will be cast on the problem of interpretation by details confirming the covenant found later in Scripture.

The Sealing of the Abrahamic Covenant—15:1–21

Arnold Fruchtenbaum | 1. The Covenantal Promise—15:1–6

     1 After these things the word of Jehovah came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I am your shield, and your exceeding great reward. 2 And Abram said, O Lord Jehovah, what will you give me, seeing I go childless, and he that shall be possessor of my house is Eliezer of Damascus? 3 And Abram said, Behold, to me you have given no seed: and, lo, one born in my house is my heir. 4 And, behold, the word of Jehovah came unto him, saying, This man shall not be your heir; But he that shall come forth out of your own bowels shall be your heir. 5 And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and number the stars, if you be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall your seed be. 6 And he believed in Jehovah; and he reckoned it to him for righteousness.

     Verse 1 begins with a divine declaration, with the opening phrase: After these things, meaning after the events of chapter 14, after the war of the kings. This is now the third reaffirmation of the Abrahamic Covenant. At this point: The word of Jehovah came unto Abram. This is the first mention of the phrase: the word of Jehovah; God’s word first came unto Abram. This is now the fourth appearance to Abram, and this time it came in a vision. This is also the first mention of a vision in the biblical text. There is more than one Hebrew word for vision, and the word used here is machazeh, a word found only three other times in reference to a vision of God (Num. 24:4, 24:16; Ezek. 13:7). Literally, the Hebrew reads “in the vision,” a specific vision, a divinely initiated vision. It is the vision that will lead to the actual sealing of the Abrahamic Covenant. God’s initial declaration is: Fear not, Abram. This is the first mention of the phrase Fear not. God will say this again to Isaac (26:24) and to Jacob (46:3). So all three Patriarchs at one point in their encounters with God receive the message Fear not. For Abram, this is being said in light of his courage in attacking the far superior armies of the kings. Yet the word of Jehovah comes to him and declares: Fear not, Abram, and God then gives two reasons for not fearing. The first reason is: I am your shield. A shield, of course, is a soldier’s defensive protection. In addition, what God told Abram was that God is the One who protected Abram from the four kings. This is the first mention of God as a shield. The Hebrew word is magen, as in the term Magen David, or the Shield of David, sometimes mistranslated as the “Star” of David. However, the Bible itself never speaks of a Magen David, the Shield of David; but it does speak of a Magen Avram, the Shield of Abram. The second reason not to fear is because of your [Abram’s] exceeding great reward. The way this phrase reads in the Hebrew, it could be taken in one of two different ways. The first option is that God Himself is the reward. The second option is that Abram’s reward would be very great. While the Hebrew allows for both translations as far as the end product is concerned, it does not matter because both were true. God was the reward, and God also rewarded Abram. This promise of enrichment came in light of Abram’s refusal to accept the spoils of war from the king of Sodom.

     Abram, in Genesis 15:2–3, responded in two ways. His first response is in verse 2: And Abram said, O Lord Jehovah. In Hebrew it is Adonai YHVH, the first time in the Hebrew text that the Hebrew word for Lord, Adonai, and God’s four-lettered Name, YHVH, are actually combined. This combination is used twice in this very chapter; whereas elsewhere in the Mosaic Law, it is used only twice (Deut. 3:24, 9:26). Also found here is the first actual dialogue between God and Abram. In the past, God merely appeared to Abram, or the word came to Abram to give a message or a command, but no dialogue was recorded. In this dialogue, Abram revealed what his fear actually was: What will you give me, seeing I go childless. Materially speaking, Abram had enough prosperity; what he lacked was not prosperity but posterity. Therefore, what is the value of this great reward if it cannot be transmitted? The inheritor Abram had was one of his servants: He that shall be possessor of my house is Eliezer of Damascus, who was his chief servant. This statement is in accordance with the Code of Hammurabi and the Nuzi Tablets: A childless husband and wife were free to adopt their slave in order to have an heir to inherit their possessions. In the Hebrew text, there is a play upon words between the word for possessor, Ben-Mesek, and the word for Damascus, Damesek. Abram’s second response, in 15:3, again expressed his fear: Behold, to me you have given no seed; and the inheritor is going to be a servant: and, lo, one born in my house is my heir. Therefore, Eliezer of Damascus was his servant, born in the house of Abram, and he was the son of a servant from Damascus, not a natural son of Abram.

     Then came God’s promise, in Genesis 15:4–5, with verse 4 containing God’s declaration of the promise. For the second time in this context, it states: Behold, the word of Jehovah came unto him, saying, and God declared something to Abram, which was both negative and positive. Negatively: This man shall not be your heir; so Eliezer of Damascus will not be the heir of Abram’s wealth. The Hebrew text is quite emphatic, which literally reads as follows: “not your heir this one.” Positively: but he that shall come forth out of your own bowels [or loins] shall be your heir. The promise was that Abram would have a son directly out of his own loins. In addition, this reaffirms a previous promise about a seed. At this point, it was not stated that Sarai would be the mother, only that Abram would be the father. Then in 15:5, God gave him an illustration. The circumstance was: And he brought him forth abroad, and said. God sent Abram outside under the open sky, and what this shows is that the vision took place at night and inside a tent. But now God told him to come outside the tent where he could see the stars of the heavens, followed by the promise that his seed would become innumerable: Look now toward heaven, and number the stars. The reference to stars shows that the vision took place at night. God then points out the impossibility of counting them: if you be able to number them; and, of course, he would not be able to number the stars. That led to the promise: and he said unto him, So shall your seed be. Earlier, in 13:16, God compared Abram’s seed with the dust of the earth. Here the comparison is made with the stars of the heavens, but both illustrations mean the same thing. Some have tried to make a distinction by claiming that the dust of the earth represents the earthly seed, the Jewish nation, while the stars of the heavens represent the heavenly seed, the Church. But the Bible nowhere allows for such a distinction. In fact, in this context He was dealing with a literal son of Abram, not a spiritual son nor an adoptive son, when He gives this illustration of the stars of the heavens. God simply used two different illustrations to teach the same thing, and there is no biblical basis to teach that Israel is the earthly seed with earthly promises and the Church is the heavenly seed with heavenly promises. In fact, both Israel and the Church have earthly and heavenly promises. However, dust and stars are symbols of innumerability. In fact, three different illustrations are used to make the same point: dust (13:16, 28:14), stars (15:5, 22:17, 26:4), and the sand of the seashore (22:17, 32:12).

     Genesis 15:6 contains the declaration of Abram’s faith. This is a soteriological statement containing both the human requirement and the divine response. The human requirement is: And he believed in Jehovah. This is not sequential to verses 1–5. Obviously, Abram was already a believer as of Genesis 11–12 when he obeyed God to leave Ur of the Chaldees. This verse is a general statement concerning Abram’s life of faith, since his belief in Jehovah was already clear from 12:1 and probably even earlier, at the end of chapter 11. The content of Abram’s faith was what he heard and understood directly from God. The content of Abram’s faith was belief in the promises of the Abrahamic Covenant. There was no indication that the content of Abram’s faith was belief in the Messiah as such. There is a tendency to oversimplify the difference between the Old and New by saying the Old Testament saint looked forward to the death of Messiah and the New Testament saint looks back. That is an oversimplification, and the Bible simply does not allow for it. Indeed, there always was, always is, and always will be only one means of salvation: by grace through faith. That does not change. What changes is the content of faith. What is it that one has to believe to be saved? This changes based upon what God has revealed up to any given point. What was it that Abram actually believed? The Bible does not say that he believed in the coming of the Messiah; it does not say he believed that the Messiah was going to die for his sins. It states: He believed in Jehovah. In addition, in this context, what he believed was the promises of God in the Abrahamic Covenant. So concerning the salvation of Abram, the means was he believed; he exercised faith. The content of his faith was the promises of God. The object of his faith was Jehovah. The Hebrew word for believed is in the hiphil stem, and the same word will be used two more times in Genesis (42:20, 45:26). The human requirement leads to the divine response: and he reckoned it to him for righteousness; God imputed righteousness to Abram. Thus, Abram was saved by grace through faith, and the content of his faith was the promises of God. Here is the first mention of three key soteriological terms: “believe,” meaning faith in God; “reckon,” and “righteousness.”

     Before leaving this section, two general observations can be made. The first observation is that the promises of the Abrahamic Covenant were unconditional promises, and that very fact of the unconditionality of the Abrahamic Covenant was recognized by rabbinic commentaries as well. Soncino quotes Rabbi Nachmanides as saying: “Having received God’s assurance, Abraham now believed that the prophecy would certainly be fulfilled, and that he was not to fear that he might forfeit it through sin.” It was an act of grace that no matter what happened to Abram personally, God’s promise regarding his descendants would stand. The second observation concerns two major elements of the Abrahamic Covenant: the seed and the Land. The seed has been the concern of 15:1–6 and the Land will be the concern of 15:7–21.

     Finally, there are three New Testament quotations and applications. First, Romans 4:3, 4:9, and 4:22 make reference to this passage to show that Abraham was saved through faith and not through works. Second, Galatians 3:6 refers to this passage to show that Abram was saved through faith and not by the works of the Law. So the only way of salvation is still by grace through faith (Rom. 3:7–9). Third, James 2:21–23 makes reference to Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice Isaac to show that Abraham was justified by faith, because his willingness to sacrifice Isaac was the evidence of Abram’s faith as expressed in Genesis 15:6. The passage is cited to show that Abram’s willingness to sacrifice Isaac was evidence of his previously declared righteousness through faith. In other words, his actions were evidence of his faith in God and showed the maturity of his faith. Therefore, Abram was justified by faith, and his work of offering up Isaac was the evidence of that justification by faith.

The Continual Burnt Offering

By H.A. Ironside - 1941

January 14

What great provision God has made
In Jesus’ death on Calvary!
I hung with Him upon the tree,
And in His tomb I too was laid.

I rose with Him from out the grave—
And how shall I who died to sins
Continue still to live therein,
The victor living as the slave?

At God’s right hand He took His place,
And while for saints my Saviour pleads,
My heart for sinners intercedes
That they might know His saving grace.

Oh, what a name to me is given—
A son of God, by second birth!
I represent Him on the earth,
He represents me now in Heaven.

As Jesus dwells beyond the skies,
I dwell within this world of strife;
And as He lives within my life,
In Him I’m in the heavenlies!
--- Barbara E. Comet

The Problem Of The Old Testament

By James Orr 1907

The critical treatment breaks down the Biblical narratives, disintegrates them, causes them to crumble to pieces. But there are features in the narratives which resist this treatment, and constitute a standing protest against it. In the previous chapter we laid stress on the singular character of “teleology” in the Hebrew history. It is history dominated by the idea of purpose, and that a purpose of grace—of redemption. There is little, if any, recognition of this in the writers we have chiefly in view, though, to do them justice, they do not seek to get rid of the impression of the extraordinary and unique in Israel’s history. Still the necessity of explaining the development out of purely natural factors causes a very different picture to be given from that which the Old Testament itself sketches. One looks in vain in Kuenen, or Wellhausen, or Stade, or Gunkel, or in such an Old Testament History as that of Professor H. P. Smith, for any perception of the deeper ideas that lie in the Genesis narratives, or of their organic relation to the rest of Scripture. To a developing purpose of salvation they seem altogether blind. In this their criticism is already self-condemned; for what they fail to see is discerned by many others, as keenly critical as themselves. An example or two may be cited from such critical writers, if only to show that this idea of purpose is no hallucination of our own fancy, which we are seeking perversely to import into the narratives. Dr. Kautzsch, of Halle, in a lecture on The Abiding Value of the Old Testament, thus writes:  “The abiding value of the Old Testament lies above all in this, that it guarantees to us with absolute certainty the fact and the process of a divine plan and way of salvation, which found its conclusion and fulfilment in the new covenant, in the Person and work of Jesus Christ.”  Dillmann likewise sees in the Old Testament the development of God’s redemptive “plan.” “So soon,” he says, “as man becomes untrue to his original idea, and, forsaking the attitude of obedience to God, begins his self-seeking way, there comes also to manifestation the saving activity of God directed to this apostacy of the creature.… So soon as, and so long as, sin is in the world, there is also a saving activity of God.” Dr. Driver says of the narrator J: “The patriarchal history is, in his hands, instinct with the consciousness of a great future: Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are vouchsafed in succession glimpses of the divine plan.” Kautzsch, again, just quoted, says of his (two) J writers: “Both relate the primeval history from the standpoint of a history of redemption.”

To all this, so far as it is admitted, the reply which comes from the side of the criticism that seeks to get rid of the teleological element in the history is, that the Biblical representation is an unreal and artificial one: not a development in accordance with the actual history, but an imaginary development, the result of a reading back into the primitive legends of the ideas of the prophetic age. The appearance of development is superimposed on the historical tradition by the manner in which its materials are manipulated. Grant, it is said, the critical scheme—its analysis and partition of documents—and the illusion of teleology in the Old Testament story disappears; so far at least as any extraordinary cause is required to account for it. In the words of Professor Robertson: “What they maintain is, that the scheme of the Biblical writers is an afterthought, which, by a process of manipulation of older documents, and by a systematic representation of earlier events in the light of much later times, has been made to appear as if it were the original and genuine development.”

Now we do not wish to shirk any real difficulty: we do not really feel that there is any difficulty here that needs to be shirked. We shall not even at this stage, as before said, raise any objection to the currently-accepted critical view. We are prepared to assume provisionally that, within reasonable limits, that view is correct. But we ask—Is it the case that, if the general critical hypothesis be granted, this organic unity of the history, with the remarkable teleological character which we have seen to belong to it, disappears, or is shown to be an illusion? It is there in the Old Testament as it stands: can it be got rid of by any skilful dividing up, or re-dating, of documents, or supposed later touching-up, interpolation, or re-editing? We answer that question very confidently in the negative.

1. For, in the first place, this teleological character we speak of is not a thing upon the surface of the Biblical history,—not a thing that could be produced by any number of editorial touchings and interpolations, and ingenious piecing together of fragments,—but is ingrained into the very substance of the history, is part of its texture, is, to use the happy figure of Bushnell about the image of Christ in the Gospels, like a watermark in paper, which cannot be destroyed without destroying the paper itself. It is not the ingenuity of the writer in arranging his materials, but the facts of the history and development of the people, which work out this plan for us. It makes little difference how far we multiply the parts; the singular thing is that, when the parts are put together, this remarkable appearance of teleology should present itself. If the critic persists: “That depends on your way of arranging the materials: let me arrange them my way, and this appearance of development will be destroyed”; it is a fair reply to make that, if the Biblical way of arranging the materials brings out a manifest divine design, whereas his yields only confusion, this of itself is a good reason for thinking that the Biblical way is probably the right one. Take an illustration. The pieces of a child’s puzzle map are put together to form, say, the map of Europe. “Oh,” says a bystander, “that is because you have put the bits together in a particular way. Let me arrange them in another way, and you will have no map at all.” Possibly; but the fact that the pieces, when so put together, form the map is the best proof that this was the contriver’s intention. But the map of Europe is a small matter compared with this purpose of God wrought out in the history of Israel from patriarchal times, and culminating in Christ.

2. A second reason for our answer is, that, if the plan inwrought into the history of Israel is an artificial or invented one, we have to find the mind capable of inventing it. If anyone can bring himself to believe that the teleology we meet with in Scripture—the divine plan of grace which forms its connecting thread—is of so simple and superficial a character that it would readily and naturally occur to any casual collector of legends, or prophetically-minded man, in the ninth or eighth century B.C., so that he could sit down and work it into a whole history, and give it an appearance of naturalness there, we can only say of such an one that he has a very large faith,—a faith nearly as great as that of the theorists who suppose that the portrait of Jesus in the Gospels was created by a Church gathered promiscuously out from Jews and Gentiles, working on the legendary reminiscences of a good and wise teacher, when the real image of Jesus had been forgotten! The difficulty is tenfold enhanced if we accept the descriptions furnished us by the Wellhausen school of the state of prophetic orders in the age when the narratives are supposed to have originated; and further assume, with the newer critics, that the authors of these narratives were not, as formerly believed, individuals, but were “schools” of writers. This is how Wellhausen speaks of the prophets before Amos: “In the time of Ahab and Jehu the Nebiim were a widespread body, and organised in orders of their own, but were not highly respected; the average of them were miserable fellows, who ate out of the king’s hand, and were treated with disdain by members of the leading classes. Amos of Tekoa, who, it is true, belonged to a younger generation, felt it an insult to be counted one of them.” Truly a likely soil for the growth of such conceptions as we have in the Book of Genesis!

The Problem of the Old Testament