Limits - Zophar Speaks

By Joseph Parker circa 1910 or earlier

Job 11:8 (ESV)
8  It is higher than heaven — what can you do?
Deeper than Sheol—what can you know?

     These questions were put by an extraordinary contradiction of human manner. They were put by Zophar, a citizen of the fair Naamath — a lovely place, full of flowers: a place that the summer might have haunted, and have lingered until the last beam of light faded behind the hills. Yet this was one of the most rough-spoken men of his day; in this respect the environment and the man were mismatched. Zophar was an accuser, a man of rough tongue; he could not be civil until after he had been rude. He told Job that he, the wasted one, was ‘a man of lips,’ in the Hebrew tongue, a word-chopper, a gabbler in the face of heaven’s patience, and that Job knew nothing about his own case. The ideal and poetic Eliphaz had spoken, and Bildad — the sort of middleman that interprets poetry to prose, and makes the dull dog try to understand a word here and there — and Zophar comes up with the climax of brutality. There is a candour that is not lovely, there is an outspokenness that had better have choked itself before it began to speak. Yet every now and then — for we have called the man a self-contradiction — Zophar comes squarely down on the bedrock of fact and experience, and treats the whole deitic question with wonderful pith, setting it out in glittering generalizations and stunning Job as if by new proverbs.

     I. Zophar called Job back to beginnings, to realities, to limitations. Said he in effect, See thee, this is the length of thy tether; thou hast seen a dog straining his neck as if he would get beyond the length of his iron chain, and he could not do it, but he nearly choked himself in the process; be wise; this thing deitic is higher than heaven; what canst thou do? deeper than hell; what canst thou know? ‘Do,’ ‘know’ — nearly all the verbs in one couplet.

     II. We cannot know the Godhead, for it is higher than heaven, deeper than Hades; it belongs to all the unmeasured space, all the infinite intellectual territory, which has not yet been crushed into maps and made part of some elementary geography. But though I cannot measure the sun, I can enjoy the sunlight. That is my province, then; I cannot measure his diameter, but I can hail his summer and welcome his morning and bathe my cold life in his warm radiance. That is what we can do, and that we are called upon to do. We cannot count the sands upon the seashore, but we can walk over the golden path, and let the blue waves break in white laughter on our feet as we traverse that highway of beauty and vision. We cannot put the Atlantic into a thimble, but we can traverse it, sail upon it, turn it into a highway, utilize it, and make it not the separater, but the uniter of the nations.

     So our not knowing and our not being able to do need not prevent our enjoyment and our service and our discipline. Do not imagine that you can get rid of religion by any intellectual act: there still remain the moral duties, the ten commandments, the eternal Sinai. Fool is he who thinks that there is no field beyond his own hedge, and that he has really nothing to do with religion because he cannot find out unto perfection the Almighty Father and Creator of all. To know that we do not know, that is wisdom; to know just where we ought to end, that is understanding.

     ‘What canst thou do? What canst thou know?’ We can know Jesus; He speaks the language of little children; we have heard Him say, ‘Come unto Me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest,’ and it was just like our mother talking.

     ‘What canst thou do?’ We can do the commandments; at least, we can begin to do them; it will take us a long time to penetrate into their metaphysic, but we can begin to do their practical commands at once; we can make an effort in that direction. If Christianity had scented pillows to offer on which the head of weariness could rest, and if it could have some comfortable provision made on its return from slumber, Christianity would become quite a popular religion, but it is known by the badge called the Cross; its home is in Gethsemane and on Golgotha; its command is, Do justly, love mercy, walk humbly with God.

     Let us not, therefore, think that we are called upon to give great intellectual answers to unfathomable questions, but we are called upon to do good according to our opportunities, and to redeem the time, and to wait patiently for the Lord, who will give us wider horizons and more enduring suns. --- Joseph Parker, City Temple Pulpit, vol. II. p. 98.

W. Robertson Nicoll, Jane T. Stoddart, and James Moffatt, eds., Expositor's Dictionary of Texts Volume One Genesis To St. Mark (New York: Hodder and Stoughton; George H. Doran Company, 1910), 328–329.

A Different Kind of Power

By John Hutchinson 9/1/2008

     I had just moved to the Washington D.C. area when the call came from a Christian organization on Capitol Hill, asking if I would be the evangelical along with a Jewish rabbi, Roman Catholic priest, and members of Congress in a press conference intended to foster support for a bill coming before the Senate. I thought that if ever there were an issue to which I should speak, surely this was it. I said “yes!” But then I thought that it might be wise to get counsel from one of our church members, who at the time was a sitting senator. He called back immediately and said, “John, I’m not going to tell you what to do, and I share your convictions on a subject that is very important. But as you pray about your decision, remember that you will have no control over how the press will quote you, and you will be labeled as a conservative advocate. You have been called here to be a minister of the Gospel of the kingdom that transcends political conservatism or liberalism. And as a minister you will have the opportunity over the years to give that Gospel to both conservatives and liberals.” Now, ten years later, I realize how wise his counsel was.

     Our calling to preach and teach the Gospel of the kingdom from the whole counsel of God to a complex and broken world, especially to the world of politics, involves living and ministering in the tension of a difficult and delicate balance. We must teach and preach that we live in two kingdoms. Augustine described it as living in two cities — the city of God and the city of man. As Christians we are citizens of the kingdom of God (Phil. 3:20) but are also called to be responsible citizens in our native countries (Rom. 13:1–7). Accordingly, we live in the often painful reality of the imperfect and broken present world, while longing for and looking forward to the perfect and blessed future world of the new heavens and new earth (Rev. 21: 1–5). This balanced tension of two-kingdom living should make Christians both passionately hopeful for their certain future and practically helpful in their present context. One day there will be “heaven on earth” but not now — not yet.

     So, in the meantime, we must faithfully teach Christians to be helpfully involved in the public square without becoming over-involved and intoxicated with the political power. There is no question but that our Savior expects us to be “the salt of the earth” and the “light of the world” (Matt 5:13–14). Thus, it would be unfaithful and disastrous for Christians to be absent from the public square. But on the other hand, we must resist the temptation to become obsessed with the power of politics and begin to think that we can usher in the king’s kingdom. Though politics is a worthy pursuit, Christ’s kingdom is not dependent upon who’s elected and/or which laws are passed or repealed. In Washington D.C. it’s easy to catch “Potomac Fever,” and Christians are not immune to such a distorted view of power. The power of the Gospel of the kingdom of heaven, though weak in this world’s eyes (Matt 13:31–32; 1 Cor. 1:27) is more powerful than the power of any nation. It’s a different kind of power — the power of the Spirit of God through the Word of God in the people of God. As a pastor in D.C. over the years I have been “lobbied” by Christian interest groups to support their worthy causes. But often I have concluded, that though I may personally share their convictions, it would be imprudent and unbiblical for us as a church to join their cause. Sadly, I’ve gotten an “earful” from very disappointed Christians who even questioned my commitment and faithfulness to Christ.

     Certainly we must be bold and careful to teach the clear principles of the Word of God, but we dare not teach and preach what Scripture does not teach. We must teach and preach the absolute truth of the Word, though we may not be absolutely clear about how those principles apply in the complex world of political platforms and public policy. Recently as I was preaching through the Sermon on the Mount, I was on the text: “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, do not resist the one who is evil” (Matt. 5:38–39). I explained in my exposition that Jesus was addressing individuals, not institutions. The lex talionis was not intended to justify personal retaliation. As I was greeting worshipers after the service one said to me, “Thanks so much for the sermon, now I just need to go figure out how it applies to the war on terrorism.” So, we urge our people as responsible citizens of this earthly kingdom to vote and become involved in the public square with biblically informed conviction.

     Finally, as a pastor I must realize that I wear “two hats.” I’m an individual Christian and a leader of a congregation that includes the full political spectrum. Thankfully, faithfulness in preaching the gracious Gospel of the kingdom of heaven enables me to minister to both, which is why I’m now glad I called back and declined to participate in that press conference ten years ago.

Click here to go to source

     Dr. John R. Hutchinson is senior minister of McLean Presbyterian Church inside the Capital Beltway in McLean, Virginia.

Respectable Sins

By Keith Mathison 9/1/2008

     Have you ever found yourself so caught up and concerned with the rampant sinfulness of our culture that you forget about the subtle sins in your own heart? If so, Jerry Bridges has written a book for you. Respectable Sins: Confronting the Sins We Tolerate takes aim at the sins many Christians consciously or unconsciously consider “acceptable” behavior. For those who take the lordship of Jesus Christ seriously and seek to be like Him, this book is required reading.  By the way, this web page has several video messages by Jerry Bridges.

     The first chapters of the book set the stage by describing the true nature of sin as God sees it. Tragically, the idea of sin has disappeared in many churches, and where the concept remains, it is sometimes deflected. In other words, we readily condemn those outside of the church for flagrant sins, all the while silently condoning our own sins such as gossip, envy, and discontentment. We do not realize that sin, all sin, is a malignant spiritual cancer that, left unchecked, will destroy us and corrupt those around us.

     Bridges, however, does not leave it at this. He does not stop with the bad news. He places his discussion of sin in the context of the Gospel of Christ — the only remedy for sin. He reminds us that the reason Christ died on the cross was in order to atone for the sins of His people. In order to deal effectively with sin, whether flagrant or “respectable,” Christians need to preach this Gospel to themselves every day. Bridges also reminds us that in order to deal with sin, we must depend on the Holy Spirit. This does not mean taking a quietistic “let go and let God” approach, because our action is still required, but our action apart from the work of the Holy Spirit will be ineffective.

     After dealing with these necessary introductory matters, Bridges moves to a chapter-by-chapter analysis of “respectable sins.” Bridges considers the root sin to be ungodliness: “living one’s everyday life with little or no thought of God, or of God’s will, or of God’s glory, or of one’s dependence on God.” Christians often live in this way, as if God is essentially irrelevant in their day-to-day lives. Bridges turns next to the common sins of anxiety and worry. Both are sin because both betray a basic lack of trust in God.

     Another sin that is widespread among Christians is the sin of discontentment, which arises from unchanging circumstances that we can do nothing about. Unthankfulness is also persistent among Christians, who sometimes do not realize how serious a sin it is. Bridges suggests that one reason for the decadence of our culture may be the judgment of God for our failure to honor and thank Him. An entire chapter is devoted to the sin of pride. Bridges focuses on four specific kinds of pride: moral self-righteousness, theological self-righteousness, pride of achievement, and the pride of an independent spirit. He then examines the sin of selfishness, which can also manifest itself in different ways. We can be selfish about our interests in conversation, about money, about time, and we can demonstrate selfishness by simply being inconsiderate.

     Self-control, as Bridges explains, is “a governance or prudent control of one’s desires, cravings, impulses, emotions, and passions.” Lack of self-control is another common sin among Christians. Bridges offers as examples our lack of self control in regard to food, tempers, personal finances, and activities such as watching television. Bridges then looks at those sins closely related to anger, sins such as irritability, resentment, and bitterness. Sadly, these sins are often directed at those whom we should love the most, including our spouses and our children.

     The final chapters deal with the “respectable sins” of judgmentalism, envy, gossip, slander, lying, and worldliness. Gossip is among the most prevalent “respectable sins” while at the same time being among the most destructive. Worldliness may require definition. It may be defined as “being attached to, engrossed in, or preoccupied with the things of this temporal life.” Bridges deals with three types of worldliness: a worldly attitude toward money, vicarious immorality, and idolatry of the heart.

     A word of warning is required when reading this book. If while reading you catch yourself thinking, “I really wish so-and-so would read this book,” then it is especially for you. We are all guilty of at least some of these sins some of the time. We all need reminding that every time we sin, we despise God (2 Sam. 12:9–10). Most of all, we all need reminding that Jesus died on the cross that all of our sins might be forgiven.

Click here to go to source

Per Amazon, Keith A. Mathison (MA, Reformed Theological Seminary; PhD, Whitefield Theological Seminary) is dean of the Ligonier Academy of Biblical and Theological Studies and an associate editor of Tabletalk magazine at Ligonier Ministries. He is editor of When Shall These Things Be: A Reformed Response to Hyper-Preterism and associate editor of The Reformation Study Bible. He lives in Lake Mary, Florida, with his wife and children.

Keith Mathison Books:

• 1     Postmillennialism: An Eschatology of Hope
• 2     The Shape of Sola Scriptura
• 3     Given for You: Reclaiming Calvin's Doctrine of the Lord's Supper
• 4     From Age to Age: The Unfolding of Biblical Eschatology
• 5     Dispensationalism: Rightly Dividing the People of God?
• 6     A Reformed Approach to Science and Scripture
• 7     Not a Chance: God, Science, and the Revolt against Reason
• 8     When Shall These Things Be?: A Reformed Response to Hyper-Preterism

Sweet Land of Liberty

By Gene Edward Veith 9/1/2008

     America is mad for liberty. Ours is a free country. We enjoy freedom of speech and of religion, the freedom of the press, and the freedom to bear arms. And rightly so. But though Americans love freedom, many of them have forgotten what it means.

     Today many of us assume that freedom means getting to do whatever we want. Any restrictions on our behavior — whether from the state, the church, or some other person — violate our freedom. And, for many of us, freedom above all means the liberty to sin.

     But, according to the Bible, this is the opposite of freedom. Sin has nothing to do with liberty. Sin destroys freedom. Sin enslaves.

     Jesus Himself makes that point: “Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin” (John 8:34). The apostle Paul also talks about how sin turns us into slaves (Rom. 6:16–22).

     If we are honest, we can see this truth in our own experience. An alcoholic may want to be free to get drunk. A drug addict may demand his liberty to take drugs. But alcoholics and drug addicts are not free. Their appetites enslave them. The same is true of people addicted to pornography or in thrall to some other sexual compulsion. As the sin takes away the sinner’s self-respect, his money, and his happiness, the sinner may even want to stop doing what he has been doing. But he cannot.

     On some level, all sins are like this. Anger takes us over. Pride prevents us from treating others as we should. Stealing, lying, disrespect, hate — you name it — they all enslave us.

     Though we might learn to control our worst impulses through external constraints — whether of shame, fear of discovery, or self-discipline — sin continues to lurk deep inside. We try to exert our will power. But what if the problem is precisely with our will?

     Luther wrote a book entitled The Bondage of the Will.   Note, this book is on this web site. It starts here, April 19, and there is a short daily reading every day after to the conclusion.  His point was that our will is in bondage to sin. What we want to do, if we give in to our primal desires, is to sin. The laws of church and state, our rational awareness of consequences, our conscience and other restrictions on our external conduct can make possible a social order made up of sinful human beings. But morally and also spiritually, we are slaves to sin.

     But after Jesus talked about how sinners are enslaved, He gives the good news: “If the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed” (John 8:36).

     Jesus, through the power of His sacrificial death and resurrection, frees sinners from the bondage of sin. By the power of the Holy Spirit through the Gospel, we are set free. Though while we are still in the flesh we may still struggle with sin, we are free from sin’s dominion. To the extent we are in Christ, through faith, we no longer even need the external Law to keep us in line. We voluntarily — freely — do God’s will, not out of compulsion or threats, but because we really want to please Him, and, because we are in God’s love, we really do love our neighbors.

     Luther also wrote a book entitled The Freedom of a Christian. “A Christian man is the most free lord of all, and subject to none,” he wrote. At the same time, “a Christian man is the most dutiful servant of all, and subject to every one.”

     In the Gospel, the Christian is spiritually free: “As regards kingship, every Christian is by faith so exalted above all things that, in spiritual power, he is completely lord of all things, so that nothing whatever can do him any hurt; yea, all things are subject to him, and are compelled to be subservient to his salvation.” And yet, in the Christian life, the man of faith voluntarily makes himself a servant to his neighbors:

     “Here is the truly Christian life, here is faith really working by love, when a man applies himself with joy and love to the works of that freest servitude in which he serves others voluntarily and for nought, himself abundantly satisfied in the fullness and riches of his own faith…. And as our heavenly Father has freely helped us in Christ, so ought we freely to help our neighbor by our body and works, and each should become to other a sort of Christ, so that we may be mutually Christ’s, and that the same Christ may be in all of us; that is, that we may be truly Christians.”

     The Bible exalts freedom. “For freedom Christ has set us free,” says the apostle Paul. “Stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery” (Gal. 5:1). Notice that He has set us free “for freedom.” Freedom is an end in itself. Furthermore, freedom is a sign of the Holy Spirit’s presence. “Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom” (2 Cor. 3:17).

     People who are slaves of sin require laws, authorities, police officers, and government control to prevent them from harming other people. But people who have been freed from sin do not need external controls on their behavior. They internalize the moral law. They voluntarily — of their own free will — do what they should. They govern themselves, freely directing their own behavior; therefore, they are capable of governing themselves in a free political order.

     That free political order is not just for Christians, of course, and others who can, by whatever external means, govern their desires can also enjoy its liberties. But laws — and prisons — will still be necessary for those who refuse to govern themselves. Meanwhile, those who wish to preserve their freedom must be on guard against both tyrants and their own sin.

Click here to go to source

     Dr. Gene Edward Veith is provost emeritus and professor of literature emeritus at Patrick Henry College and director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary in Fort Wayne, Ind.

     Gene Edward Veith Books |  Go to Books Page

Elders for the Church

By Phil Newton 9/1/2008

     Over the past decade I’ve engaged a wide-range of Christians on the subject of elders. Some, in desperation, want to change dysfunctional church leadership structures. Others have grown tired of side-stepping the biblical teaching on elders. Some long to adopt elder leadership yet realize many of their congregants would resist change. A mission leader told me that elder plurality was a major issue in his region; nationals, unfamiliar with traditions and arguments against elder plurality, saw it in Scripture and wanted to obey.

     Christ gave elder leadership to the church for its growth, development, and unity. Yet tradition often tugs stronger than biblical order for those refusing elder leadership. Others have elders but neglect applying biblical standards to them. Paul’s letter to Titus offers great help for both cases (Titus 1:5-9).

     First, plural leadership is the norm for every church: “appoint elders in every city as I directed you.” “Elders” is plural and “in every town” is singular. It indicates multiple elders serving each church on Crete (1:5). Each reference to local church elders demonstrates plurality as the New Testament practice (see Acts 14:23; 15:22; 20:17 that show this same pattern of plurality). Paul’s reason for plurality within even small congregations makes sense. It provides accountability, support, and encouragement, increased wisdom, and diversity of gifts to increase ministry effectiveness.

     Second, elders are necessary for the proper ordering of the church. Titus was to “put what remained into order” (Titus 1:5). He would begin by appointing “elders in every town.” Elders would engage in the work of ongoing church reformation. What needed reforming? Slick teachers whom Paul called “empty talkers and deceivers,” undermined families “by teaching for shameful gain what they ought not to teach” (vv. 10–11). Elders must correct the false teaching, remove the false teachers, and reiterate the sufficiency of the Gospel. Some Cretan Christians were acting like “Cretans,” not Christians! “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons” (v. 12); elders must teach the right application of law and gospel to daily life, exemplify Christian living, and lead in discipline when necessary. Still others were turning away from the truth by “devoting themselves to Jewish myths and the commands of people,” defiling themselves in mind and conscience (vv. 14–15). Again, the elders must be the means of putting what remained into the order of sound teaching and godly practice.

     Third, elders set an example for the church at home, in personal conduct, and in relationships (vv. 6–8). An elder is to be “the husband of one wife,” singularly devoted to his wife, seeking to love her as Christ does the church (Eph. 5:25). His children are to be “faithful” (nasb; pistos seems best translated as “faithful” or “trustworthy,” see 1 Tim. 1:12, 15; 3:1; 4:9; 2 Tim. 2:11, 13; Titus 1:9; 3:8), “and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination.”

     In personal conduct, an elder is to be “above reproach” because he is “God’s steward” or manager over God’s flock. He is to be conscientious in conduct with no dangling areas discrediting Christ or the Gospel. Further, “he must not be arrogant or quick-tempered,” so he guards against trampling others with attitude or outbursts. He must not be “a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain,” so he exercises self-restraint in appetites, self-control in responses, and self-discipline in finances (v. 7).

     The elder also sets an example in relationships by being “hospitable” through accepting and befriending others; “a lover of good” by affirming what’s best; and “self-controlled” by keeping his head when life comes unraveled. In his dealings with others he is to be “upright,” in his personal piety — “holy,” and in his natural impulses — “disciplined” (v. 8). He keeps in mind that he is an “overseer,” not an owner, a servant not a lord (v. 7). Just as Jesus Christ came not to be served but to serve (Mark 10:45), even so must God’s steward be in the church.

     Finally, the shepherding role of elders is distinguished from deacons by requiring elders to be able to teach (Titus 1:9; 1 Tim. 3:1–13). Elders must be steadfast in knowing and applying the Word personally: “he must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught.” They live and breathe Gospel, delight in digging into Scripture, and test their grasp of doctrine by the Word. Elders must be committed to doctrinal teaching: “so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine.” Doctrine matters to elders. They recognize “sound doctrine” as the heart of biblical understanding, essential to the vitality of the church. Neglect it, and the church might still have an outward form of Christianity but inwardly dies, breeding all manner of deceit and sin. Elders must be ready and willing to reprove those opposing sound doctrine: “also to rebuke those who contradict it.” Anyone that enjoys confrontation has to be a little demented! Yet when the Gospel is at stake, when the health and unity of the church hangs in the balance, and when someone totters on the brink of spiritual or moral ruin, elders must rise to the challenge. Like a S.W.A.T. team, elders must remain doctrinally alert, ready to engage any that would threaten to divide or damage the body of Christ (Titus 1:9).

     As Christ’s gift to the church, elders value character as they focus on the church’s maturity and unity. Whether by denial or misuse, neglecting Christ’s design for elder leadership deprives the church of this priceless asset for its spiritual health.

Click here to go to source

     Dr. Phil Newton is senior minister of South Woods Baptist Church in Memphis, Tennessee, and is author of Elders in Congregational Life.

• 1     Elders in Congregational Life: Rediscovering the Biblical Model for Church Leadership
• 2     The Mentoring Church: How Pastors and Congregations Cultivate Leaders
• 3     Conduct Gospel-Centered Funerals: Applying the Gospel at the Unique Challenges of Death (Practical Shepherding Series)
• 4     Elders in the Life of the Church: Rediscovering the Biblical Model for Church Leadership (9marks Life in the Church)
• 5     Venture All For God: Piety in the Writings of John Bunyan (Profiles in Reformed Spirituality)

Deuteronomy 8

By Don Carson 6/4/2018

     Deuteronomy 8 provides an important theological perspective on the forty years of wandering in the wilderness. Because God is a personal God, one can tell the story of those years in terms of the interaction between God and his people: he meets their need, they rebel, he responds in judgment, they repent — and then the cycle repeats itself. On the other hand, one can look at the whole account from the perspective of God’s transcendent and faithful sovereignty. He remains in charge. That is the vantage offered here.

     Of course, God could have given them everything they wanted before they had even bothered to articulate their desires. He could have spoiled them rotten. Instead, his intention was to humble them, to test them, even to let them hunger before eventually feeding them with manna (Deut. 8:2-3). The purpose of this latter exercise, Moses insists, was that God might teach them “that man does not live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of the LORD” (Deut. 8:3). More generally: “Know then in your heart that as a man disciplines his son, so the LORD your God disciplines you” (Deut. 8:5).

     Why all this discipline? The sad reality is that fallen people like you and me readily fixate on God’s gifts and ignore their Giver. At some point, this degenerates into worshiping the created thing rather than the Creator (cf. Rom. 1:25). God knows that is Israel’s danger. He is bringing them into a land with agricultural promise, adequate water, and mineral wealth (Deut. 8:6-9). What likelihood would there be at that point of learning that “man does not live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of the LORD”?

     Even after these forty years of discipline, the dangers will prove enormous. So Moses spells the lessons out to them. Once the people have settled in the Promised Land and are enjoying its considerable wealth, the dangers will begin. “Be careful that you do not forget the LORD your God, failing to observe his commands, his laws and his decrees” (Deut. 8:11). With wealth will come the temptation to arrogance, prompting the people to forget the Lord who brought them out of slavery (Deut. 8:12-14). In the end, not only will they value the wealth above the words of God, they may even justify themselves, proudly declaiming, “My power and the strength of my hands have produced this wealth for me” (Deut. 8:17) — conveniently forgetting that even the ability to produce wealth is a gracious gift from God (Deut. 8:18).

     In what ways does your life show you cherish every word that comes from the mouth of God, above all the blessings and even the necessities of this life?

Click here to go to source

Don Carson is research professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois, and co-founder (with Tim Keller) of The Gospel Coalition. He has authored numerous books, and recently edited The Enduring Authority of the Christian Scriptures (Eerdmans, 2016).

     Don Carson Books |  Go to Books Page

Read The Psalms In "1" Year

Psalm 59

Deliver Me from My Enemies
59 To The Choirmaster: According To Do Not Destroy. A Miktam Of David, When Saul Sent Men To Watch His House In Order To Kill Him.

1 Deliver me from my enemies, O my God;
protect me from those who rise up against me;
2 deliver me from those who work evil,
and save me from bloodthirsty men.

3 For behold, they lie in wait for my life;
fierce men stir up strife against me.
For no transgression or sin of mine, O LORD,
4 for no fault of mine, they run and make ready.
Awake, come to meet me, and see!
5 You, LORD God of hosts, are God of Israel.
Rouse yourself to punish all the nations;
spare none of those who treacherously plot evil. Selah

ESV Study Bible

By Gleason Archer Jr.

Reliability of the Hebrew  Psalm Titles

     The critics generally regard the Hebrew  Psalm titles as very late and unreliable, usually being derived by inference from the internal evidence of the  Psalms themselves. This conclusion is often based upon two lines of evidence: the occasional discrepancies between the  Psalm titles in the MT and those in the LXX, and the lack of correspondence between statements of historical background and the situation presupposed in the  Psalms themselves. An example of this supposed discrepancy is found in  Ps. 7, the title of which states that David sang this  Psalm to the Lord “concerning the words of Cush the Benjamite”; or again, the title of the title of  Ps. 34 is thought to accord very poorly with the mood and sentiments conveyed by the text.

     Mature reflection, however, should lead the investigator to quite an opposite conclusion. It is impossible to explain how any “later rabbis” would have ventured to attach titles of this sort to  Psalms whose text does not clearly reflect the situations in David’s life which are assigned as settings for the compositions. Many of the titles contain allusions to incidents in David’s career of which we have no other knowledge. For example, in  Ps. 60 biographical details appear concerning battles fought with Aram-naharaim, Aram-zobah, and Edom which are not recorded at all in the books of  Samuel. As Wilhelm Moeller points out (GATE, p. 273), the supplemental details constitute a powerful argument for the antiquity of the  Psalm title itself. A later editor would never have ventured to manufacture new details not contained in the books of  Samuel or  Chronicles. It is also significant that several of the “orphan”  Psalms (i.e.,  Psalms that bear no title) teem with historical allusions and references to recent events or contemporary situations which would have furnished ample ground for later rabbinical conjecture.

     The LXX furnishes conclusive evidence that the titles were added to the Hebrew Psalter at a date long before Hellenistic times. That is to say, there are several technical terms appearing in the Hebrew titles the meanings of which had been completely forgotten by the time the Alexandrian translation was made (ca. 150–100 B.C.). For example, the expression “to the choir leader” (lam-menaṣṣēaḥ) is nonsensically rendered by the LXX translator “unto the end” (eis to telos). (Cf., e.g.,  Ps. 44, equivalent to the LXX  Ps. 43 ). Apparently the Alexandrian scholar conjectured the vocalization to be le-min-nēṣaḥ — “to from the end.” Jerome in his commentary on  Daniel (par. 620) suggests that the proper translation of this Hebrew expression should be “to the victor”; he was probably influenced in this by the rendering of Theodotion, eis to nikos, “to the victory”; or else by Aquila’s tō nikopoiō, “to the victory winner”; or possibly even by Symmachus’s epinikion, “song of triumph.” Another example is the title of  Ps. 80, which contains el-šōšannɩ̂m, “to the lilies,” which is rendered by the Septuagint, “For those who will suffer alteration” (hyper tōn alloiōthēsomenōn) as if it had come from el-šeššōnɩ̂m (“to those who change”) — a mistaken interpretation followed by Jerome’s Commentary on  Daniel (par. 653). A third example is ˓al-˓alāmôṯ ( Ps. 46 ), which probably means “According to maidens,” that is, to be sung at a soprano pitch. The LXX renders it, “Concerning the hidden things” (hyper tōn kryphiōn) as if derived from the verb ˓ālam, “to hide.”

     The fact that these Hebrew technical terms were no longer understood can only lead to the conclusion that these particular words had fallen out of use so long before the second century B.C.; that the true meaning had been completely forgotten. In view of the fact that many scholars like Duhm, Eissfeldt, and Pfeiffer have confidently assigned many of the  Psalms to the Maccabean period (i.e., 165 B.C. or thereabouts), it is important to understand the significance of this evidence from the Greek version. Admittedly the  Psalm titles were added after the composition of the  Psalms to which they were attached; yet the titles themselves — at least those that contain the phrases above mentioned — must have been added so long before the Septuagint translation that their meaning was already forgotten. It necessarily follows that such  Psalms themselves must have been written long before the Greek period.

     In regard to the once favored theory of Maccabean origin of the  Psalms, it is interesting to note that in 1 Macc. 7:17 a passage from  Ps. 79:3 is quoted as Holy Scripture. This would indicate that there was already a canonical collection of  Psalms in the Hebrew Bible by the time of the Maccabees. The more recent trend among rationalist critics has been away from the extremes of late dating. Bentzen states: “The result of the investigations carried on since the beginning of the twentieth century must however be that we have to leave behind us the a priori presupposition that the  Psalms were post-exilic. Psalmody was known in Israel from its earliest days. The oldest Israelite poem which we are able to date approximately, the Song of Deborah ( Judg. 5 ), is a  Psalm, and  Psalms were composed in the Old Testament style in other parts of the Near East before we know anything of Israel” (IOT, 2:167). Engnell adds, “Speaking candidly, there is merely one  Psalm in the whole Psalter of which I am quite convinced that it is post-Exilic: number 137. And as far as I can determine, no other psalm is comparable p 493 with it in contents and style. Should this be a mere coincidence?”4 In his Fresh Approach to the Psalms (1957) Oesterley cites numerous Babylonian and Egyptian parallels to the Psalms as indicating the necessity of finding a pre-exilic origin for much of the Psalter.

     The most significant evidence of the antiquity of the Psalms as a literary genre comes from the poetry of ancient Ugarit. Perhaps the most reliable listing of their parallels in poetic phraseology and verse structure is to be found in the footnotes of the Ugaritic portion of Pritchard’s ANET. Typical examples are:

     Psalm 104:3: “Who maketh the clouds his chariot”; cf. the common Ugaritic title of Aleyan Baal: rkb ˓rpt (i.e., rākib ˓urpāti or “Rider upon the clouds”).

     Psalm 6:6: “I water my couch with my tears” resembles Krt 28–30: “His tears are shed like shekels earthward, like fifth-shekels on the bed as he weeps.”

     The Ugaritic “Thou wilt take thine everlasting kingdom, thy sovereignty of generation (after) generation (d-r-k-t d-t d-r-d-r-k)” (Text 68:10) is quite similar to Ps. 145:13: “Thy kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and thy dominion endureth throughout all generations.”

     “O El, haste thee, O El, come to my help” is very similar to Ps. 40:13: “Make haste to help me, O Yahweh.”

     These are but samples of the very large number of striking parallels in Ugarit poetry and they lead to the conclusion that the Hebrews adapted a poetic genre which they found already highly developed among the Canaanite peoples whom they conquered.

     A Survey of Old Testament Introduction

The Continual Burnt Offering (Matthew 13:3)

By H.A. Ironside - 1941

June 4

Matthew 13:3 And he told them many things in parables, saying: “A sower went out to sow.   ESV

     This parable of the sower and the seed should be both a warning and an encouragement to all who endeavor to labor in the gospel: a warning against the folly of taking at face value every profession of faith in Christ, but an encouragement when many who profess prove unreal. We remember that even when the divine-human preacher was the sower of the gospel seed there were many who heard in vain and who never brought forth fruit unto perfection. It is our business to sow under all circumstances (Ecclesiastes 11:6), knowing that the seed is incorruptible (1 Peter 1:23). Though many give but momentary thought to the message, it will accomplish the purpose of God (Isaiah 55:11) and all who hear in faith will be saved (John 5:24).

     The Word tests as well as saves. Where the heart is occupied with other things — such as the cares of this world or the deceitfulness of riches — there will be little appreciation of that message that speaks of another life altogether and of riches that can never pass away. Where possible, the preacher is to break up the fallow ground and sow not among thorns (Jeremiah 4:3). On the other hand, he is to be ready in season and out of season (2 Timothy 4:2) even though this involves some seed falling on hard, unprepared hearts, only to be devoured by the birds of the air. These birds are fit pictures of Satan and his demon host, who are ever on the alert to hinder the gospel.

Ecclesiastes 11:6 In the morning sow your seed, and at evening withhold not your hand, for you do not know which will prosper, this or that, or whether both alike will be good.


1 Peter 1:23 since you have been born again, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God;

Isaiah 55:11  so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth;
it shall not return to me empty,
but it shall accomplish that which I purpose,
and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it.

John 5:24 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.


Jeremiah 4:3 For thus says the LORD to the men of Judah and Jerusalem:

“Break up your fallow ground,
and sow not among thorns.

2 Timothy 4:2 preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching.   ESV

We plough the fields and scatter
The good seed o’er the land,
But it is fed and watered
By God’s almighty hand;
He sends the snow in winter,
The warmth to swell the grain.
The breezes and the sunshine.
The soft, refreshing rain.
--- M. Claudius

The Continual Burnt Offering: Daily Meditations on the Word of God

The Institutes of the Christian Religion

Translated by Henry Beveridge

     9. Accordingly, Peter, who was perfectly instructed by his Master as to the extent of what was permitted to him, leaves nothing more to himself or others than to dispense the doctrine delivered by God. "If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God" (1 Peter 4:11); that is, not hesitatingly, as those are wont whose convictions are imperfect, but with the full confidence which becomes a servant of God, provided with a sure message. What else is this than to banish all the inventions of the human mind (whatever be the head which may have devised them), that the pure word of God may be taught and learned in the Church of the faithful,--than to discard the decrees, or rather fictions of men (whatever be their rank), that the decrees of God alone may remain steadfast? These are "the weapons of our warfare," which "are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strongholds; casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ" (2 Cor. 10:4, 5). Here is the supreme power with which pastors of the Church, by whatever name they are called, should be invested-- namely, to dare all boldly for the word of God, compelling all the virtue, glory, wisdom, and rank of the world to yield and obey its majesty; to command all from the highest to the lowest, trusting to its power to build up the house of Christ and overthrow the house of Satan; to feed the sheep and chase away the wolves; to instruct and exhort the docile, to accuse, rebuke, and subdue the rebellious and petulant, to bind and loose; in fine, if need be, to fire and fulminate, but all in the word of God. Although, as I have observed, there is this difference between the apostles and their successors, they were sure and authentic amanuenses of the Holy Spirit; [577] and, therefore, their writings are to be regarded as the oracles of God, whereas others have no other office than to teach what is delivered and sealed in the holy Scriptures. We conclude, therefore, that it does not now belong to faithful ministers to coin some new doctrine, but simply to adhere to the doctrine to which all, without exception, are made subject. When I say this, I mean to show not only what each individual, but what the whole Church, is bound to do. In regard to individuals, Paul certainly had been appointed an apostle to the Corinthians, and yet he declares that he has no dominion over their faith (2 Cor. 1:24). Who will now presume to arrogate a dominion to which the apostle declares that he himself was not competent? But if he had acknowledged such licence in teaching, that every pastor could justly demand implicit faith in whatever he delivered, he never would have laid it down as a rule to the Corinthians, that while two or three prophets spoke, the others should judge, and that, if anything was revealed to one sitting by, the first should be silent (1 Cor. 14:29, 30). Thus he spared none, but subjected the authority of all to the censure of the word of God. But it will be said, that with regard to the whole Church the case is different. I answer, that in another place Paul meets the objection also when he says, that faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God (Rom. 10:17). In other words, if faith depends upon the word of God alone, if it regards and reclines on it alone, what place is left for any word of man? He who knows what faith is can never hesitate here, for it must possess a strength sufficient to stand intrepid and invincible against Satan, the machinations of hell, and the whole world. This strength can be found only in the word of God. Then the reason to which we ought here to have regard is universal: God deprives man of the power of producing any new doctrine, in order that he alone may be our master in spiritual teaching, as he alone is true, and can neither lie nor deceive. This reason applies not less to the whole Church than to every individual believer.

10. But if this power of the church which is here described be contrasted with that which spiritual tyrants, falsely styling themselves bishops and religious prelates, have now for several ages exercised among the people of God, there will be no more agreement than that of Christ with Belial. It is not my intention here to unfold the manner, the unworthy manner, in which they have used their tyranny; I will only state the doctrine which they maintain in the present day, first, in writing, and then, by fire and sword. Taking it for granted, that a universal council is a true representation of the Church, they set out with this principle, and, at the same time, lay it down as incontrovertible, that such councils are under the immediate guidance of the Holy Spirit, and therefore cannot err. But as they rule councils, nay, constitute them, they in fact claim for themselves whatever they maintain to be due to councils. Therefore, they will have our faith to stand and fall at their pleasure, so that whatever they have determined on either side must be firmly seated in our minds; what they approve must be approved by us without any doubt; what they condemn we also must hold to be justly condemned. Meanwhile, at their own caprice, and in contempt of the word of God, they coin doctrines to which they in this way demand our assent, declaring that no man can be a Christian unless he assent to all their dogmas, affirmative as well as negative, if not with explicit, yet with implicit faith, because it belongs to the Church to frame new articles of faith.

11. First, let us hear by what arguments they prove that this authority was given to the Church, and then we shall see how far their allegations concerning the Church avail them. The Church, they say, has the noble promise that she will never be deserted by Christ her spouse, but be guided by his Spirit into all truth. But of the promises which they are wont to allege, many were given not less to private believers than to the whole Church. For although the Lord spake to the twelve apostles, when he said, "Lo! I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world" (Mt. 28:20); and again, "I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever: even the Spirit of truth" (John 14:16, 17), he made these promises not only to the twelve, but to each of them separately, nay, in like manner, to other disciples whom he already had received, or was afterwards to receive. When they interpret these promises, which are replete with consolation, in such a way as if they were not given to any particular Christian but to the whole Church together, what else is it but to deprive Christians of the confidence which they ought thence to have derived, to animate them in their course? I deny not that the whole body of the faithful is furnished with a manifold variety of gifts, and endued with a far larger and richer treasure of heavenly wisdom than each Christian apart; nor do I mean that this was said of believers in general, as implying that all possess the spirit of wisdom and knowledge in an equal degree: but we are not to give permission to the adversaries of Christ to defend a bad cause, by wresting Scripture from its proper meaning. Omitting this, however, I simply hold what is true--viz. that the Lord is always present with his people, and guides them by his Spirit. He is the Spirit, not of error, ignorance, falsehood, or darkness, but of sure revelation, wisdom, truth, and light, from whom they can, without deception, learn the things which have been given to them (1 Cor. 2:12); in other words, "what is the hope of their calling, and what the riches of the glory of their inheritance in the saints" (Eph. 1:18). But while believers, even those of them who are endued with more excellent graces, obtain in the present life only the first-fruits, and, as it were, a foretaste of the Spirit, nothing better remains to them than, under a consciousness of their weakness, to confine themselves anxiously within the limits of the word of God, lest, in following their own sense too far, they forthwith stray from the right path, being left without that Spirit, by whose teaching alone truth is discerned from falsehood. For all confess with Paul, that "they have not yet reached the goal" (Phil. 3:12). Accordingly, they rather aim at daily progress than glory in perfection.

12. But it will be objected, that whatever is attributed in part to any of the saints, belongs in complete fulness to the Church. Although there is some semblance of truth in this, I deny that it is true. God, indeed, measures out the gifts of his Spirit to each of the members, so that nothing necessary to the whole body is wanting, since the gifts are bestowed for the common advantage. The riches of the Church, however, are always of such a nature, that much is wanting to that supreme perfection of which our opponents boast. Still the Church is not left destitute in any part, but always has as much as is sufficient, for the Lord knows what her necessities require. But to keep her in humility and pious modesty, he bestows no more on her than he knows to be expedient. I am aware, it is usual here to object, that Christ hath cleansed the Church "with the washing of water by the word: that he might present it to himself a glorious Church, not having spot or wrinkle" (Eph. 5:26, 27), and that it is therefore called the "pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15). But the former passage rather shows what Christ daily performs in it, than what he has already perfected. For if he daily sanctifies all his people, purifies, refines them, and wipes away their stains, it is certain that they have still some spots and wrinkles, and that their sanctification is in some measure defective. How vain and fabulous is it to suppose that the Church, all whose members are somewhat spotted and impure, is completely holy and spotless in every part? It is true, therefore, that the Church is sanctified by Christ, but here the commencement of her sanctification only is seen; the end and entire completion will be effected when Christ, the Holy of holies, shall truly and completely fill her with his holiness. It is true also, that her stains and wrinkles have been effaced, but so that the process is continued every day, until Christ at his advent will entirely remove every remaining defect. For unless we admit this, we shall be constrained to hold with the Pelagians, that the righteousness of believers is perfected in this life: like the Cathari and Donatists we shall tolerate no infirmity in the Church. [578] The other passage, as we have elsewhere seen (chap. 1 sec. 10), has a very different meaning from what they put upon it. For when Paul instructed Timothy, and trained him to the office of a true bishop, he says, he did it in order that he might learn how to behave himself in the Church of God. And to make him devote himself to the work with greater seriousness and zeal, he adds, that the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth. And what else do these words mean, than just that the truth of God is preserved in the Church, and preserved by the instrumentality of preaching; as he elsewhere says, that Christ "gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;" "that we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, who is the head, even Christ"? (Eph. 4:11, 14, 15) The reason, therefore, why the truth, instead of being extinguished in the world, remains unimpaired, is, because he has the Church as a faithful guardian, by whose aid and ministry it is maintained. But if this guardianship consists in the ministry of the Prophets and Apostles, it follows, that the whole depends upon this--viz. that the word of the Lord is faithfully preserved and maintained in purity.

13. And that my readers may the better understand the hinge on which the question chiefly turns, I will briefly explain what our opponents demand, and what we resist. When they deny that the Church can err, their end and meaning are to this effect: Since the Church is governed by the Spirit of God, she can walk safely without the word; in whatever direction she moves, she cannot think or speak anything but the truth, and hence, if she determines anything without or beside the word of God, it must be regarded in no other light than if it were a divine oracle. If we grant the first point--viz. that the Church cannot err in things necessary to salvation--our meaning is, that she cannot err, because she has altogether discarded her own wisdom, and submits to the teaching of the Holy Spirit through the word of God. Here then is the difference. They place the authority of the Church without the word of God; we annex it to the word, and allow it not to be separated from it. And is it strange if the spouse and pupil of Christ is so subject to her lord and master as to hang carefully and constantly on his lips? In every well-ordered house the wife obeys the command of her husband, in every well-regulated school the doctrine of the master only is listened to. Wherefore, let not the Church be wise in herself, nor think any thing of herself, but let her consider her wisdom terminated when he ceases to speak. In this way she will distrust all the inventions of her own reason; and when she leans on the word of God, will not waver in diffidence or hesitation but rest in full assurance and unwavering constancy. Trusting to the liberal promises which she has received, she will have the means of nobly maintaining her faith, never doubting that the Holy Spirit is always present with her to be the perfect guide of her path. At the same time, she will remember the use which God wishes to be derived from his Spirit. "When he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth" (John 16:13). How? "He shall bring to your remembrance all things whatsoever I have said unto you." He declares, therefore, that nothing more is to be expected of his Spirit than to enlighten our minds to perceive the truth of his doctrine. Hence Chrysostom most shrewdly observes, "Many boast of the Holy Spirit, but with those who speak their own it is a false pretence. As Christ declared that he spoke not of himself (John 12:50; 14:10), because he spoke according to the Law and the Prophets; so, if anything contrary to the Gospel is obtruded under the name of the Holy Spirit, let us not believe it. For as Christ is the fulfilment of the Law and the Prophets, so is the Spirit the fulfilment of the Gospel" (Chrysost. Serm. de Sancto et Adorando Spiritu.) Thus far Chrysostom. We may now easily infer how erroneously our opponents act in vaunting of the Holy Spirit, for no other end than to give the credit of his name to strange doctrines, extraneous to the word of God, whereas he himself desires to be inseparably connected with the word of God; and Christ declares the same thing of him, when he promises him to the Church. And so indeed it is. The soberness which our Lord once prescribed to his Church, he wishes to be perpetually observed. He forbade that anything should be added to his word, and that anything should be taken from it. This is the inviolable decree of God and the Holy Spirit, a decree which our opponents endeavour to annul when they pretend that the Church is guided by the Spirit without the word.

14. Here again they mutter that the Church behoved to add something to the writings of the apostles, or that the apostles themselves behoved orally to supply what they had less clearly taught, since Christ said to them, "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now" (John 16:12), and that these are the points which have been received, without writing, merely by use and custom. But what effrontery is this? The disciples, I admit, were ignorant and almost indocile when our Lord thus addressed them, but were they still in this condition when they committed his doctrine to writing, so as afterwards to be under the necessity of supplying orally that which, through ignorance, they had omitted to write? If they were guided by the Spirit of truth unto all truth when they published their writings, what prevented them from embracing a full knowledge of the Gospel, and consigning it therein? But let us grant them what they ask, provided they point out the things which behoved to be revealed without writing. Should they presume to attempt this, I will address, them in the words of Augustine, "When the Lord is silent, who of us may say, this is, or that is? or if we should presume to say it, how do we prove it?" (August. in Joann. 96) But why do I contend superfluously? Every child knows that in the writings of the apostles, which these men represent as mutilated and incomplete, is contained the result of that revelation which the Lord then promised to them.

15. What, say they, did not Christ declare that nothing which the Church teaches and decrees can be gainsayed, when he enjoined that every one who presumes to contradict should be regarded as a heathen man and a publican? (Mt. 18:17.) First, there is here no mention of doctrine, but her authority to censure, for correction is asserted, in order that none who had been admonished or reprimanded might oppose her judgment. But to say nothing of this, it is very strange that those men are so lost to all sense of shame, that they hesitate not to plume themselves on this declaration. For what, pray, will they make of it, but just that the consent of the Church, a consent never given but to the word of God, is not to be despised? The Church is to be heard, say they. Who denies this? since she decides nothing but according to the word of God. If they demand more than this, let them know that the words of Christ give them no countenance. I ought not to seem contentious when I so vehemently insist that we cannot concede to the Church any new doctrine; in other words, allow her to teach and oracularly deliver more than the Lord has revealed in his word. Men of sense see how great the danger is if so much authority is once conceded to men. They see also how wide a door is opened for the jeers and cavils of the ungodly, if we admit that Christians are to receive the opinions of men as if they were oracles. We may add, that our Saviour, speaking according to the circumstances of his times, gave the name of Church to the Sanhedrim, that the disciples might learn afterwards to revere the sacred meetings of the Church. Hence it would follow, that single cities and districts would have equal liberty in coining dogmas.

16. The examples which they bring do not avail them. They say that pædobaptism proceeds not so much on a plain command of Scripture, as on a decree of the Church. It would be a miserable asylum if, in defence of pædobaptism, we were obliged to betake ourselves to the bare authority of the Church; but it will be made plain enough elsewhere (chap. 16) that it is far otherwise. In like manner, when they object that we nowhere find in the Scriptures what was declared in the Council of Nice--viz. that the Son is consubstantial with the Father (see August. Ep. 178)--they do a grievous injustice to the Fathers, as if they had rashly condemned Arius for not swearing to their words, though professing the whole of that doctrine which is contained in the writings of the Apostles and Prophets. I admit that the expression does not exist in Scripture, but seeing it is there so often declared that there is one God, and Christ is so often called true and eternal God, one with the Father, what do the Nicene Fathers do when they affirm that he is of one essence, than simply declare the genuine meaning of Scripture? Theodoret relates that Constantine, in opening their meeting, spoke as follows: "In the discussion of divine matters, the doctrine of the Holy Spirit stands recorded. The Gospels and apostolical writings, with the oracles of the prophets, fully show us the meaning of the Deity. Therefore, laying aside discord, let us take the exposition of questions from the words of the Spirit" (Theodoret. Hist. Eccles. Lib. 1 c. 5). There was none who opposed this sound advice; none who objected that the Church could add something of her own, that the Spirit did not reveal all things to the apostles, or at least that they did not deliver them to posterity, and so forth. If the point on which our opponents insist is true, Constantine, first, was in error in robbing the Church of her power; and, secondly, when none of the bishops rose to vindicate it, their silence was a kind of perfidy, and made them traitors to Ecclesiastical law. But since Theodoret relates that they readily embraced what the Emperor said, it is evident that this new dogma was then wholly unknown.

__________________________________________________________________

[573] The French adds, "Vision receue du Seigneur; Le Seigneur des armees l'a dit,"--A vision received from the Lord; The Lord of hosts hath spoken it.

[574] 116 D116 This section admirably expresses Calvin's view concerning the centrality of Christ in divine revelation. From Creation to Consummation, Christ is God's only wisdom, light, and truth, the only mirror in which God has Himself as Redeemer, the only fountain of heavenly doctrine, and the only way by which man can come to know God. Here there is no room for the concept that Christ was completely concealed in the Old Testament, whereas He is completely revealed in the New; nor for the idea that Old Testament saints trusted in God, whereas New Testament saints trust in Christ.

[575] 117 D117 Although Calvin uses the term "dictated" in connection with this explanation of the manner in which the body of Old Testament Scripture was formed, this should not be taken to express the mode of Inspiration, but rather to call attention to the result of Inspiration. That this is his intention may be seen in the previous assertion that historical details "are also the composition of prophets," which assertion takes into account the human factor in the process of the inscripturation of revelation.

[576] 118 D118 This assertion that the Spirit of Christ "in a manner dictated words to them" implies at least three ideas: (1) The guidance of the Spirit in the inspiration of Scripture extends to the very words which the apostles and prophets employed; (2) The words of Scripture express the very thoughts which God wished expressed, so that the result of the Spirit's inspiration is, in regard to truth, the same as if the words had been dictated; (3) Yet the words of Scripture were only "in a manner" dictated, since the Spirit used the faculties peculiar to the human instruments, thereby ensuring a Scripture characterized by differences of vocabulary, syntax, grammar, literary style, historical setting, and theological approach.

[577] 119 D119 The expression, "sure and authentic amanuenses," would at first glance, seem to imply that the apostles were mere scribes and copyists, and that Inspiration should be defined as "infallible supernatural superintendence of mechanical human reproduction of divinely communicated words." But Calvin would have subscribed to such a "dictation theory" of Inspiration is abundantly clear from the many relevant portions of the Institutes. (See also notes on sections 6 and 8 of this chapter.)

[578] The French adds, "Or, nos adversaires mesmes tiennent tous ceux-la pour heretiques."--Now, our opponents themselves regard all those as heretics.

__________________________________________________________________

     Christian Classics Ethereal Library / Public Domain

     Institutes of the Christian Religion