Dietrich Bonhoeffer: “The Church and the Jewish Question”

By Victoria Barnett

     In an April 1933 essay, “The Church and the Jewish Question,” Dietrich Bonhoeffer was the first to address the new problems the church faced under the Nazi dictatorship. Despite some astonishing insights, this early essay poses many problems for contemporary readers. Although he called upon the church to defend the victims of state persecution, his defense of the Jews was marked by Christian supersessionism—the Christian belief that Christianity had superseded Judaism, in history and in the eyes of God. “The history of the suffering of this people, loved and punished by God, stands under the sign of the final homecoming of the people of Israel to its God,” wrote Bonhoeffer. “And this homecoming happens in the conversion of Israel to Christ.”

     But Bonhoeffer also realized that Nazism posed a very different challenge for the churches, and it was here that he broke new ground. The church was not just being called to clarify its attitudes toward Judaism and the people of Israel, he noted. The real question was how the church would judge and respond to the Nazi state’s actions against the Jews.

     On this point, Bonhoeffer was explicit about the church’s obligations to fight political injustice. The church, he wrote, must fight evil in three stages: The first was to question state injustice and call the state to responsibility; the second was to help the victims of injustice, whether they were church members or not. Ultimately, however, the church might find itself called “not only to help the victims who have fallen under the wheel, but to fall into the spokes of the wheel itself” in order to halt the machinery of injustice.

     The essay revealed the two levels that would shape Bonhoeffer’s thought and action throughout the Third Reich. On the one level, he saw that the totalitarian doctrine of Nazism demanded a political response from the churches. Completed in the days following the April 1, 1933, boycott of Jewish businesses, "The Church and the Jewish Question" was an explicit ethical commitment to all those persecuted by Nazism. During the same week, he and his brother Klaus met with American theologian Paul Lehmann and drafted a message to US Jewish leader Rabbi Stephen Wise. 3 Bonhoeffer clearly viewed the measures against the Jews as a civil liberties issue (some scholars believe that he was influenced here by his close friendship at Union Seminary with an African American colleague, Frank Fisher, and his direct observation of Fisher’s experiences under racism.)

     On a theological level, however, Bonhoeffer still believed that the “Jewish question” would be resolved ultimately through the conversion of the Jews. He never explicitly abandoned this view, which was widespread throughout the Christian church—even in the ecumenical circles that became most active in helping the Jewish refugees of Nazism.

Click here to go to source

     Victoria J. Barnett | About Amazon says, "Victoria J. Barnett served from 2004-2014 as one of the general editors of the Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works, the English translation series of Bonhoeffer's complete works published by Fortress Press. She has lectured and written extensively about the Holocaust, particularly about the role of the German churches, and the theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer." Victoria Barnett Books:

• 1     Dietrich Bonhoeffer: A Biography
• 2     Theologian of Resistance: The Life and Thought of Dietrich Bonhoeffer
• 3     &34;After Ten Years": Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Our Times
• 4     Bystanders: Conscience and Complicity During the Holocaust
• 5     The Collected Sermons of Dietrich Bonhoeffer: Volume 2
• 6     For the Soul of the People: Protestant Protest Against Hitler

Why History Matters To The Christian Faith

By Jonathan Morrow

     Did the events recorded in the pages of Scripture really happen in history? And does it matter? The short answer is…Yes and Yes! BTW the longer answer is still yes and yes…but this is a blog, not a book

3 Reasons Why History Matters To Faith

     Here are 3 reasons why history matters to the Christian faith.

     (1) Biblical faith is not blind faith. Reason and evidence play an important role in the life of faith. God created us as rational beings with the capacity to weigh evidence and draw conclusions about what we are experiencing. We are called to give reasons for faith (cf. 1 Peter 3:15-16).

     I for one am so encouraged that when John the Baptist struggled with doubt and sent his disciples to Jesus to inquire if he truly was the long awaited Messiah that Jesus didn’t respond with an austere warning to just have more faith.

     No, Jesus reminded John to pay attention to what he had heard and what he had seen–that will give you confidence of my true identity (cf. Matthew 11:2-5). Mere belief for the sake of belief is not true Christianity.

     (2) The Central claim of Christianity is that Jesus of Nazareth rose bodily from the dead. If you asked the Apostle Paul, he would agree that faith and history go together. If Jesus “has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins” (1 Cor. 15:17). As Nancy Pearcey observes:

Click here to go to source

     Per Amazon | Jonathan Morrow (DMin, MDiv, MA) blogs at JonathanMorrow.org. He is the author of Welcome to College: A Christ-Follower’s Guide for the Journey, Questioning the Bible: 11 Major Challenges to the Bible’s Authority, Think Christianly: Looking at the Intersection of Faith and Culture, and Is God Just a Human Invention? And Seventeen Other Questions Raised by the New Atheists (coauthored with Sean McDowell). He has contributed the chapter “Introducing Spiritual Formation” to Foundations of Spiritual Formation: A Community Approach to Becoming Like Christ and the chapter “How to Question the Bible in a Post-Christian Culture” to A New Kind of Apologist. Jonathan also contributed several articles to the Apologetics Study Bible for Students and has written for Leadership Journal Online (of Christianity Today) and The Stream. He graduated with an MDiv and an MA in philosophy of religion and ethics from the Talbot School of Theology at Biola University where he also earned a doctorate in worldview and culture. Jonathan is currently the director of cultural engagement at Impact 360 Institute where he trains high school and college students in Christian worldview, apologetics, and leadership, and he serves as an adjunct professor of apologetics at Biola University. His books have been featured on shows like FamilyLife Today, Stand to Reason, BreakPoint, In the Market with Janet Parshall, Janet Mefferd Live, Building Relationships with Dr. Gary Chapman, and Apologetics 315. He and his wife have been married for sixteen years and have three children. Connect with Jonathan online at JonathanMorrow.org. Jonathan Morrow Books:

• 1     Foundations of Spiritual Formation: A Community Approach to Becoming Like Christ
• 2     Is God Just a Human Invention? And Seventeen Other Questions Raised by the New Atheists
• 3     Welcome to College: A Christ-Follower's Guide for the Journey
• 4     Questioning the Bible: 11 Major Challenges to the Bible's Authority
• 5     Apologetics Study Bible for Students, Trade Paper
• 6     Think Christianly: Looking at the Intersection of Faith and Culture
• 7     Is the Bible Sexist, Racist, Homophobic, and Genocidal?
• 8     Welcome to College: A Christ-Follower's Guide for the Journey
• 9     Are the Gospels Full of Contradictions?
• 10     Has the Biblical Text Been Corrupted over the Centuries?
• 11     Welcome to College: A Christ-Follower's Guide for the Journey by Jonathan Morrow (2008-02-05)

Does the Earliest Gospel Proclaim the Deity of Jesus?

By Sean McDowell 2/27/2017

     Scholars generally agree that Mark was the first written Gospel.[1] As a result, critics often claim that the doctrine of the deity of Christ does not appear clearly in Mark but emerges later in the Gospel of John.

     While there are certainly explicit claims to deity in John, such as when Jesus says, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am” (8:58), this critical challenge overlooks distinct proclamations of the deity of Christ throughout the Gospel of Mark.

     Here is my contention: From the first chapter until the end, the Gospel of Mark proclaims that Jesus understood himself to be God. Consider six brief examples:

     1. Mark 1:2-3: Mark begins his Gospel by citing a passage from Isaiah 40:3, which discusses how a messenger would come, like a voice of one crying in the wilderness, and “Prepare the way of the Lord.” In the original context, the messenger would prepare the way “for our God.” But Mark substitutes Jesus as the Lord who is coming and John the Baptist as the messenger. In other words, John the Baptist is preparing the way for God himself to come in the person of Jesus Christ.

     2. Mark 2:1-10: In this passage, Jesus heals a paralytic brought to him by four friends. When Jesus first sees him, he says, “Son, your sins are forgiven.” The scribes instantly object, “He is blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?” They believed the man was paralyzed because he had sinned against God, and yet Jesus had the audacity to claim that he could personally forgive these sins. The scribes are right that only God can forgive sins (Exodus 34:6-7; Psalms 103:3). Not even the Messiah could forgive sins. In this instance, however, Jesus bypasses the normal route of how forgiveness was received (Leviticus 4:20) and claims to speak with God’s authority. Why? Because he understood himself to be God.

Click here to go to source

Answering the Galileo Myth

By Tim Barnett 10/18/2016

     Last month, I was speaking at the University of Toronto on the topic Has Science Buried God? The event was held in the medical science building, so it attracted a large number of science-minded atheists and skeptics. In fact, two of the former presidents of the Secular Alliance came out to hear what I had to say.

     During my talk, I pointed out that modern science was birthed out of a theistic worldview. Therefore, far from being a science stopper, it was belief in an orderly God that was the modern science starter. I like how C. S. Lewis put it. He said, “Men became scientific because they expected law in nature, and they expected law in nature because they believed in a Lawgiver.”

     After my talk, we had a time of Q&A. A young woman named Julianna was the first to put up her hand. “We aren’t going to agree on much,” were the first words out of her mouth. She asked, “If theism is a science starter, then why was Galileo persecuted by the church for doing science? This sounds like the exact opposite of what you’ve said.”

     As Julianna was speaking, I could see other people in the audience nodding their heads in agreement.

     Just the Facts | To answer this question, I had to get all of the facts on the table. There is a very popular view that science and religion are hostile enemies. However, most historians of science regard this as a myth. The idea that religion is at war with science is called the conflict thesis. Galileo’s mistreatment by the Roman Catholic Church is usually given as a case in point, but serious historians of science do not believe that this cultural icon supports the conflict thesis.

     Julianna didn’t have all the facts. She knew Galileo did good science. She also knew the Church silenced Galileo because they didn’t like his conclusion. But she was missing important details of the account, which ultimately led to a misunderstanding of the story of Galileo.

Click here to go to source

Tim Barnett, speaker who trains Christians to think clearly about what they believe and why they believe it, full-time apologist, science teacher, and works part-time at his local church. Tim has degrees in physics and education and is working on an MA in Philosophy from Southern Evangelical Seminary. Tim lives with his wife and two children in Newmarket, Ontario, Canada.

Read The Psalms In "1" Year

Psalm 25

16 Turn to me and be gracious to me,
for I am lonely and afflicted.
17 The troubles of my heart are enlarged;
bring me out of my distresses.
18 Consider my affliction and my trouble,
and forgive all my sins.
19 Consider how many are my foes,
and with what violent hatred they hate me.
20 Oh, guard my soul, and deliver me!
Let me not be put to shame, for I take refuge in you.
21 May integrity and uprightness preserve me,
for I wait for you.

22 Redeem Israel, O God,
out of all his troubles.

RE: Deut 7:1-2 The Holiness of God

By R.C. Sproul

     Why did God issue such a command? How could He have ordered the slaughter of women and children? Again we find modern attempts to soften the event. A curriculum for high school students prepared by a major church denomination in the United States explained that in light of the New Testament revelation of God’s love we know that God did not ever issue such a belligerent command. The Old Testament is merely the record of a primitive warlike group of Hebrews who tried to justify ruthless policies by attributing them to a divine sanction.

     The writers of the curriculum did not believe that God ever issued such a command. It was to be a case of intrusion of mythology into the biblical record. Such interpretations overlook some vital aspects of the matter. First, there is an historical precedent that is far more severe than the conquest of Canaan—the Flood. In the Flood God destroyed the entire population of the world except for Noah and his family. The Flood was a “conquest of Canaan” on a grand scale. More important is the failure to understand the nature of sin. The assumption of the commentators is that God wiped out innocent people in Canaan. In fact there were no innocent women or children in Canaan. There were multitudes of women living there and multitudes of children. But there was none who was innocent. The conquest of Canaan was an explicit expression of God’s righteous judgment on a wicked nation. He made that point clear to Israel. He also made it clear to Israel that she was also not innocent. It was not as if God destroyed a wicked people for the sake of a righteous people. To the Canaanites God poured out justice. To the Jews God poured out mercy. He was quick to remind the Jews of that:

     (Dt 9:4–6) 4 “Do not say in your heart, after the LORD your God has thrust them out before you, ‘It is because of my righteousness that the LORD has brought me in to possess this land,’ whereas it is because of the wickedness of these nations that the LORD is driving them out before you. 5 Not because of your righteousness or the uprightness of your heart are you going in to possess their land, but because of the wickedness of these nations the LORD your God is driving them out from before you, and that he may confirm the word that the LORD swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob.

     6 “Know, therefore, that the LORD your God is not giving you this good land to possess because of your righteousness, for you are a stubborn people.

     Three times in this passage God reminds Israel that it is not because of their righteousness that He will defeat the Canaanites. He wanted to make that point clear. Israel might have been tempted to jump to the conclusion that God was “on their side” because they were better than pagan nations. God’s announcement made that inference impossible.

     The holiness of God is at the heart of the issue of the conquest of Canaan. It was because of His holiness that the act was ordained. On the one hand He moved to punish the insult to His holiness that was daily perpetrated by the Canaanites. On the other hand He was preparing a land and a nation for a holy purpose. God commanded that no mercy be shown toward the inhabitants of the land. He explained why in Deuteronomy 7:3-6 above in today's reading.

     God did not choose Israel because Israel was already holy. He chose them to make them holy. Israel was called to be holy in two senses of the word. She was called to be different; to be set apart as a vehicle of God’s plan of redemption. She was also called to be holy in the sense of being purified. Pagan practices were to be absent from her midst. She was to be sanctified by drawing near to God. Salvation for the nations was to come out of Israel. The Promised Land was to be the breeding ground for the coming Messiah. There was no room for pagan shrines and pagan rites. God ordained a scorched-earth policy to purge the land for future salvation.

     We have labored the problems of the acts of divine justice found in the Old Testament. We have tried to show that God’s justice was neither whimsical nor unwarranted. We must add that there is no real conflict between the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament. It was the Old Testament God whom Christ called “Father.” It was the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob who so loved the world that He sent His only begotten Son to redeem it. It was this God whose meat and drink it was for Jesus to do His will. It was zeal for the God who slew Nadab, Abihu, and Uzzah that consumed Christ. It was the God who destroyed the world by a flood who pours the waters of His grace out to us.

     The false conflict between the two testaments may be seen in the most brutal act of divine vengeance ever recorded in Scripture. It is not found in the Old Testament but in the New Testament. The most violent expression of God’s wrath and justice is seen in the cross. If ever a person had room to complain of injustice it was Jesus. He was the only innocent man ever to be punished by God. If we stagger at the wrath of God, let us stagger at the cross. Here is where our astonishment should be focused. If we have cause for moral outrage, let it be directed at Golgotha.

     The cross was at once the most horrible and the most beautiful example of God’s wrath. It was the most just and the most gracious act in history. God would have been more than unjust, He would have been diabolical to punish Jesus if Jesus had not first willingly taken upon Himself the sins of the world. Once Christ had done that, once He volunteered to be the Lamb of God, laden with our sin, then He became the most grotesque and vile thing on this planet. With the concentrated load of sin He carried, He became utterly repugnant to the Father. God poured out His wrath on this obscene thing. God made Christ accursed for the sin He bore. Herein was God’s holy justice perfectly manifest. Yet it was done for us. He took what justice demanded from us. This “for us” aspect of the cross is what displays the majesty of its grace. At the same time justice and grace, wrath and mercy. It is too astonishing to fathom.

     We cringe at God’s justice because its expression is so unusual. As Küng observed, His usual course of action is one of grace. Grace no longer amazes us. We have grown used to it; we take it for granted.

     Perhaps the best illustration of this may be found in the teaching of Jesus:

     (Lk 13:1–5) There were some present at that very time who told him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. 2 And he answered them, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered in this way? 3 No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. 4 Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem? 5 No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.”.

     This is one of the most difficult of the “hard sayings” of Jesus. The question is raised, “What about the people Pilate slaughtered, or the innocent people killed by the falling of the tower? Where was God in these events?” The question under discussion was: “How could God allow these things to happen?” The question is actually a thinly veiled accusation. The issue was, as always, how can God allow innocent people to suffer?

     We can hear the implied protest in the question. The eighteen innocent people were walking down the street minding their own business. They were not engaged in playing “sidewalk superintendent.” They were not heckling the construction workers. They were not running away after robbing a bank. They just were “there,” at the wrong time and in the wrong place. They suffered the consequences of a fatal accident.

     We might have expected Jesus to explain it like this: “I am very sorry to hear about this tragedy. These things happen and there is not much we can do about it. It was fate. An accident. As good Christians you have to learn to accept the bad with the good. Keep a stiff upper lip. Be good Stoics! I know I taught you that the One who keeps Israel neither slumbers nor sleeps. But that was a poetic statement, a bit of hyperbole. Do you realize what a difficult task it is for My Father to run the universe? It gets tiring. Every now and then He must take a nap. On the afternoon in question He was very weary and grabbed forty winks. While He was nodding the tower fell. I am sorry about that and I will report your grievance to Him. I will ask Him to be a bit more careful in the future.”

     Jesus might have said: “I know I told you that My Father notices the landing of every sparrow and that He numbers the hairs on your head. Do you realize how many sparrows there are flying around? And the hairs on the heads! The afternoon the tower fell my Father was busy counting the hairs on the head of a particularly bushy-haired fellow. He was concentrating so hard on the fellow’s head that He overlooked the falling tower. I will suggest that He get His priorities in order and not spend so much time with sparrows and hair.”

     That is not what Jesus said. What He said was, “Unless you repent, you too will all perish.” In effect what Jesus was saying was this: “You people are asking the wrong question. You should be asking me, ‘Why didn’t that tower fall on my head?’ ” Jesus rebuked the people for putting their amazement in the wrong place. In two decades of teaching theology I have had countless students ask me why God doesn’t save everybody. Only once did a student come to me and say, “There is something I just can’t figure out. Why did God redeem me?”

     We are not really surprised that God has redeemed us. Somewhere deep inside, in the secret chambers of our hearts, we harbor the notion that God owes us His mercy. Heaven would not be quite the same if we were excluded from it. We know that we are sinners, but we are surely not as bad as we could be. There are enough redeeming features to our personalities that if God is really just He will include us in salvation. What amazes us is justice, not grace.

     Our tendency to take grace for granted was driven home to me while teaching college students. I had the assignment of teaching a freshman Old Testament course to 250 students at a Christian college. On the first day of class I went over the course assignments carefully. My experience taught me that the assignment of term papers required a special degree of explanation. This course required three short papers. I explained to the students that the first paper was due on my desk by noon the last day of September. No extensions were to be given except for students who were physically confined to the infirmary or who had deaths in the immediate family. If the paper was not turned in on time, the student would receive an F for the assignment. The students acknowledged that they understood the requirements.

     On the last day of September, 225 students dutifully handed in their term papers. Twenty-five students stood quaking in terror, full of remorse. They cried out, “Oh, Professor Sproul. We are so sorry. We didn’t budget our time properly. We didn’t make the proper adjustment from high school to college. Please don’t give us an F. Please, oh, please give us an extension.”

     I bowed to their pleas for mercy. “All right,” I said. “I’ll give you a break this time. But, remember, the next assignment is due the last day of October.”

     The students were profuse in their gratitude and filled the air with solemn promises of being on time for the next assignment. Then came the last day of October. Two hundred students came with their papers. Fifty students came empty-handed. They were nervous, but not in panic. When I asked for their papers, again they were contrite. “Oh, Professor. It was Homecoming Week. Besides it is midterm and all of our assignments are due in other classes. Please give us one more chance. We promise it will never happen again.”

     Once more I relented. I said, “OK, but this is the last time. If you are late for the next paper, it will be an F. No excuses, no whining. F. Is that clear?” “Oh, yes, Professor. You are terrific.” Spontaneously the class began to sing, “We love you Prof Sproul. Oh, yes we do.” I was Mr. Popularity.

     Can you guess what happened on the last day of November? Right. One hundred and fifty students came with their term papers. The other hundred strolled into the lecture hall utterly unconcerned. “Where are your term papers?” I asked. One student replied, “Oh, don’t worry, Prof, we’re working on them. We’ll have them for you in a couple of days, no sweat.”

     I picked up my lethal black grade book and began taking down names. “Johnson! Do you have your paper?” “No sir,” came the reply. “F,” I said as I wrote the grade in the book. “Muldaney! Do you have your paper?” Again, “No, sir,” was the reply. I marked another F in the book. The students reacted with unmitigated fury. They howled in protest, screaming, “That’s not fair!”

     I looked at one of the howling students, “Lavery! You think it’s not fair?”

     “No,” he growled in response.

     “I see. It’s justice you want? I seem to recall that you were late with your paper the last time. If you insist upon justice you will certainly get it. I’ll not only give you an F for this assignment, but I’ll change your last grade to the F you so richly deserved.”

     The student was stunned. He had no more arguments to make. He apologized for being so hasty and was suddenly happy to settle for one F instead of two.

     The students had quickly taken my mercy for granted. They assumed it. When justice suddenly fell, they were unprepared for it. It came as a shock, and they were outraged. This, after only two doses of mercy in the space of two months.

     The normal activity of God involves far more mercy than I showed those students with their term papers. Old Testament history covers hundreds of years. In that time God was repeatedly merciful. When His divine judgment fell on Nadab or Uzzah, the response was shock and outrage. We have come to expect God to be merciful. From there the next step is easy: We demand it. When it is not forthcoming, our first response is anger against God, coupled with the protest: “It isn’t fair.” We soon forget that with our first sin we have forfeited all rights to the gift of life. That I am drawing breath this morning is an act of divine mercy. God owes me nothing. I owe Him everything. If He allows a tower to fall on my head this afternoon I cannot claim injustice.

     One of our basic problems is the confusion of justice and mercy. We live in a world where injustices happen. They happen among people. Every one of us at some time has been a victim of injustice at the hands of another person. Everyone of us at some time has committed an injustice against another person. People treat each other unfairly. One thing is certain: No matter how much injustice I have suffered from the hands of men, I have never suffered the slightest injustice from the hand of God.

     Suppose a person falsely accuses me of stealing money. Charges are brought against me and I am arrested and sent to prison. Touching my relationship to men, I have been a victim of gross injustice. I have every right to cry out to God and plead for vindication in this world. I can complain about being falsely persecuted. God is angry with men for unjustly putting me in prison. God promises to vindicate me from this injustice some day. Injustice is real and it happens every day in this world.

     The injustices we suffer are all of a horizontal sort. They happen between actors in this world. Yet standing over and above this world is the Great Judge of all. My relationship to Him is vertical. In terms of that vertical relationship I never suffer an injustice. Though men may mistreat me, God never does. That God allows a human being to treat me unjustly is just of God. While I may complain to God about the human, horizontal injustice I have suffered, I cannot rise up and accuse God of committing a vertical injustice by allowing the human injustice to befall me. God would be perfectly just to allow me to be thrown in prison for life for a crime I didn’t commit. I may be innocent before men, but I am guilty before God.

     We often blame God for the injustices done to us and harbor in our souls the bitter feeling that God has not been fair toward us. Even if we recognize that He is gracious we think that He has not been gracious enough. We deserve more grace.

     Please read that last sentence again: We deserve more grace. What is wrong with that sentence? Grammatically it is fine. It has a subject, a verb, and a direct object. There is no need for the editor’s red pencil in that regard. But there is something seriously wrong with the content, with the meaning of the sentence.

     It is impossible for anyone, anywhere, anytime to deserve grace. Grace by definition is undeserved. As soon as we talk about deserving something, we are no longer talking about grace; we are talking about justice. Only justice can be deserved. God is never obligated to be merciful. Mercy and grace must be voluntary or they are no longer mercy and grace. God never “owes” grace. He reminds us more than once. “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy.” This is the divine prerogative. God reserves for Himself the supreme right of executive clemency.

     Suppose ten people sin and sin equally. Suppose God punishes five of them and is merciful to the other five. Is this injustice? No! In this situation five people get justice and five get mercy. No one gets injustice. What we tend to assume is this: If God is merciful to five He must be equally merciful to the other five. Why? He is never obligated to be merciful. If He is merciful to nine of the ten, the tenth cannot complain that he is a victim of injustice. God never owes mercy. God is not obliged to treat all men equally. Maybe I’d better say that again. God is never obliged to treat all men equally. If He were ever unjust to us, we would have reason to complain. But simply because He grants mercy to my neighbor gives me no claim on His mercy. Again we must remember that mercy is always voluntary. “I will have mercy upon whom I will have mercy.”

     There are only two things I ever receive from God—justice or mercy. I never receive injustice from His hand. We may request that God help us get justice at the hands of men, but we would be utterly foolish to ever ask Him for justice from Himself. I warn my students: “Don’t ever ask God for justice—you might get it.”

     It is the confusion between justice and mercy that makes us shrink in horror when we read the stories of Nadab, Abihu, and Uzzah. When God’s justice falls, we are offended because we think God owes perpetual mercy. We must not take His grace for granted. We must never lose our capacity to be amazed by grace. We sing the song, “Amazing Justice.” Our lyrics tend to go like this:

Amazing Justice, cruel and sharp
That wounds a saint like me:
I’m so darn good it makes no sense—
The tower fell on me!

     I remember preaching a “practice sermon” in preaching class in seminary. In my sermon I was extolling the marvels of God’s grace. Like the hymn says, I spoke of “God’s grace, infinite grace.…”

     At the end of my sermon the professor had a question for me. “Mr. Sproul,” he said, “where did you ever get the idea that God’s grace is infinite? Is there absolutely no limit to His grace?” As soon as he asked that question I knew I was in trouble. I could quote him chapter and verse of the hymn that taught me that, but somehow I couldn’t come up with a single word from Holy Scripture that taught God’s grace is infinite.

     The reason I couldn’t find any Scripture to support it is because there is none. God’s grace is not infinite. God is infinite and God is gracious. We experience the grace of an infinite God, but grace is not infinite. God sets limits to His patience and forbearance. He warns us over and over again that someday the ax will fall and His judgment will be poured out.

     Since it is our tendency to take grace for granted, my guess is that God found it necessary from time to time to remind Israel that grace must never be assumed. On rare but dramatic occasions He showed the dreadful power of His justice. He killed Nadab and Abihu. He killed Uzzah. He commanded the slaughter of the Canaanites. It is like He was saying, “Be careful. While you enjoy the benefits of my grace, don’t forget my justice. Don’t forget the gravity of sin. Remember that I am holy.”

Robert Charles Sproul, 2/13/1939 – 12/14/2017 was an American theologian, author, and ordained pastor in the Presbyterian Church in America. Dr. R.C. Sproul was founder and chairman of Ligonier Ministries, an international Christian education and discipleship organization located near Orlando, Fla. He was also copastor of Saint Andrew’s Chapel in Sanford, Fla., chancellor of Reformation Bible College, and executive editor of Tabletalk magazine. Dr. Sproul has contributed dozens of articles to national evangelical publications, has spoken at conferences, churches, and schools around the world, and has written more than one hundred books. He also served as general editor of the Reformation Study Bible.

By Gleason Archer Jr.

13 | Archaeological Evidence for the Antiquity of the Pentateuch
Introduction: Antiquity of the Pentateuch

      IT WAS ONLY NATURAL that the Wellhausen Hypothesis should base its judgments concerning the historicity of the Old Testament record upon the data of archaeology then available in the nineteenth century. Yet those data were regrettably meager during the formative period of the Documentary Theory, and it was possible on the basis of the ignorance which then prevailed to discount many statements in Scripture which had not yet found archaeological confirmation.

      For example, at that time it was assumed that writing was relatively unknown in Palestine during the Mosaic period, and that no part of the Pentateuch could, therefore, have found, for example, a written form until the tenth or ninth centuries B.C. The references to the Hittites, for example, were treated with incredulity and condemned as mere fiction on the part of the late authors of the Torah; the same was true of the Horites and even the historicity of Sargon II (722–705 B.C.), since no extrabiblical references to him had yet been discovered. The existence of such a king as Belshazzar (in the book of  Daniel ) was ruled out of possibility because no Greek author had mentioned him, and the biblical record could be presumed to be wrong. But since the days of Hupfeld, Graf, and Kuenen, archaeological discovery has confirmed the use of alphabetic writing in the Canaanite - speaking cultures before 1500 B.C., and has contributed large numbers of documents to demonstrate the existence and major importance of both the Hittites and Horites (or Hurrians, as they are more commonly known), and also cuneiform tablets containing the name of Belshazzar, as viceroy under Nabonidus.

      Thus it has come about that in case after case after case where alleged historical inaccuracy was pointed to as proof of late and spurious authorship of the biblical documents, the Hebrew record has been vindicated by the results of recent excavation, and the condemnatory judgments of the Documentarian Theorists have been proved without foundation. W. E Albright, esteemed the foremost archaeologist of his generation, and a man who was himself brought up on the Wellhausen theory, had this to say in 1941: “Archaeological and inscriptional data have established the historicity of innumerable passages and statements of the Old Testament; the number of such cases is many times greater than those where the reverse has been proved or has been made probable.” Further on in the same article he said, “Wellhausen still ranks in our eyes as the greatest Biblical scholar of the nineteenth century. But his standpoint is antiquated and his picture of the early evolution of Israel is sadly distorted.” A more recent author, John Elder, states: “It is not too much to say that it was the rise of the science of archaeology that broke the deadlock between historians and the orthodox Christian. Little by little, one city after another, one civilization after another, one culture after another, whose memories were enshrined only in the Bible, were restored to their proper places in ancient history by the studies of archaeologists.… Contemporary records of Biblical events have been unearthed and the uniqueness of Biblical revelation has been emphasized by contrast and comparison to newly discovered religions of ancient peoples. Nowhere has archaeological discovery refuted the Bible as history.” J. A. Thompson affirms, “Finally, it is perfectly true to say that biblical archaeology has done a great deal to correct the impression that was abroad at the close of the last century and in the early part of this century, that Biblical history was of doubtful trustworthiness in many places. If one impression stands out more clearly than another today, it is that on all hands the over-all historicity of the Old Testament tradition is admitted.”

World Empires Of The Bible
          Empire          Date
          Assyria          740 - 612 B.C.
          Babylonia          612 - 539 B.C.
          Medo-Persia          539 - 331 B.C.
          Macedonia          332 - 301 B.C.
          Diadochi          301 - 63 B.C.
          Rome          189 B.C. - A.D. 476
The Eastern Roman Empire continued until A.D. 1453

A Survey of Old Testament Introduction

By James Orr 1907

V. DIFFICULTIES OF THE CRITICAL THEORY OF INSTITUTIONS (cont)

2. What applies to the critical explanation of the distinction of priests and Levites applies with not less force to the explanations offered of other institutions, whose pre-exilic existence is called in question. We take a few of the more typical instances.

(1) There are the three great feasts of the nation — passover, or unleavened bread, the feast of weeks, and the feast of tabernacles: these are robbed of their historical reference, and declared to be mere agricultural observances, locally observed till the age of Josiah, when  Deuteronomy centralised them. The ceremonial character, in particular, stamped on them by the Priestly Code is held to be wholly post-exilian. But no tenable account is given of this sudden rise of agricultural festivals into historical significance, and of their unquestioned acceptance as feasts having this historical meaning, in the age of  Ezra. Special assault is made upon the Biblical account of the institution of the passover, and of its association with the Exodus. Yet we have seen that the law in  Ex. 12:3 ff. is unintelligible, as framed for a domestic observance of the passover, unless it is placed before the centralising ordinance in  Deuteronomy; while the latter by its use of this name pesach (passover), its reference to the month Abib (chap.  16:1 ), and its distinct historical allusions (vers.  3, 6 ), as clearly presupposes the older law. The three feasts appear from the first, in all the Codes, as national (not local) feasts; and in every instance, with but one exception, the passover, or feast of unleavened bread, is directly connected with the Exodus. That one exception, strange to say, is the most instructive of all as a refutation of the critical theory. It is the priestly law of  Lev. 23:4 ff.; yet it alone (1), as said, lacks a reference to the Exodus; (2) contains the regulation about presenting a sheaf of first-fruits which gives the feast any agricultural character it has; while (3) neither in it, nor in the law for passover offerings in  Num. 28:16 ff., is mention made even of the paschal lamb. So that we have this curious result, in contradiction of the critical theory, that the historical reference comes in at the beginning, and the agricultural at the end of the development!

How, now, on the other hand, do the critics explain the name “passover” and the historical reference attached to this feast? Only, it must be replied, by again arbitrarily blotting out the history we have, and indulging in conjectures of their own, about which there is no agreement. Wellhausen, e.g., will have it that the Exodus was, in the tradition, connected with the demand to be permitted to observe a spring festival, a chief feature of which was the offering of firstlings. Cause and effect became inverted, and instead of the festival being the occasion of the Exodus, it came to be regarded as occasioned by it. Out of this grew — how we are not told — the story of the slaying of the firstborn in Egypt. Even so the meaning of the name “passover” is allowed to be “not clear.” As the history stands, both the passover rite, and the dwelling in booths which gives the feast of tabernacles its name (Succoth), find their appropriate explanation; but it is impossible to conceive how, in the full light of history, these meanings could come to be imported into them at so late an age as  Ezra’s.

The notices of the feasts in the history are, it is allowed, scant. But they are more numerous than Wellhausen admits, and, such as they are, unless again we arbitrarily reject the narratives, they contradict his theory, and are in keeping with the law. At the head of the series stands the observance of the passover in  Ex. 12, and the wilderness observance in  Num. 9:4, 5, which gives rise to a supplementary ordinance. Then comes the observance of the passover under Joshua at Gilgal in  Josh. 5:10, 11. Passing the yearly feast of Jehovah at Shiloh (tabernacles?  Judg. 21:19; 1 Sam. 1:3, 7, 21 ), we have a general reference to the three feasts in Solomon’s reign ( 1 Kings 9:25; cf.  2 Chron. 8:13 ), and special allusions to the feast of tabernacles in  1 Kings 8:2, 65, 66; 12:32, 33. Hosea makes allusion to the dwelling in tents at this feast (chap.  12:9 ). The Chronicler records a great observance of the passover under Hezekiah in a narrative too detailed and circumstantial to be the work of invention. Then we come to the great passover of Josiah, of which it is said that the like of it had not been held “from the days of the Judges that judged Israel.” The returned exiles under Zerubbabel observed both the feast of tabernacles and the passover according to known laws, and the reading of the law by Ezra was the occasion of another great observance of the feast of tabernacles, with special reference to the requirements of  Lev. 23. Here again it is declared that such a feast had not been observed “since the days of Joshua the son of Nun.” It is a straining of these passages in  Kings and  Nehemiah, and a contradiction of their own testimony, to make them affirm that there had been no observance of the feasts named in earlier times; the allusion is evidently to the enthusiasm, spontaneity, and scrupulous attention to the law, with which the feasts were observed — in the latter case with special regard to the “booths.”

(2) As a second example, we may glance at the case of the sin- and trespass - offerings, of which it is alleged that the first mention is in  Ezekiel. Sin- and trespass-offerings were in their nature occasional, and we might readily be tempted to suppose that they had fallen largely into disuse in pre-exilic times. Yet even this would be a rash inference from silence. It is to be observed that  Ezekiel writes of these offerings, not as something new, but as quite familiar to his readers; they are found also in the Law of Holiness, which, we have seen, precedes  Ezekiel, and is, from all indications, very old. Nor is it true that no earlier trace of them exists.  Ps. 40 cannot be put later than the exile, and is probably earlier, yet in it the sin - offering is spoken of as a customary sacrifice (ver.  6 ).  Isa. 53:10 declares that the soul of Jehovah’s Righteous Servant is made a “guilt - (trespass -) offering.” Kuenen allows that the “sin-offering” is not unknown to  Hosea (chap.  4:8 ), though he fails to find a distinction between the sin- and the trespass - offering. Yet in  2 Kings 12:16 a clear reference is made to “trespass-money” and “sin-money,” which, as Kuenen again grants, must have had a certain connection with the Levitical offerings. Even if it be supposed that a custom had grown up of commutation of the sacrifices by “pecuniary fines,” the sacrifices and the law requiring them are still presupposed. The idea of a trespass-offering was present in some form to the minds of the Philistines in the time of the  Judges: a fact which shows it to be old. No proper explanation is given of the when, where, or how, of the introduction of these sacrifices, on the critical theory.

(3) One of the most daring strokes of the Wellhausen criticism is the denial of the existence of the incense - offering in pre-exilic times, and, as involved in this, the denial of an altar of incense, not simply in the supposed imaginary tabernacle, but even in the Solomonic temple. Wellhausen goes still further, and, in face of the express statements in 1 Macc. 1:21 ff.; 4:49, that the golden altar and golden table were both carried away by Antiochus Epiphanes, and renewed at the feast of the dedication, casts doubt on the existence of an altar of incense even in the second temple. The chief ground for these denials is the fact that, in  Exodus, the command for the making of the altar of incense does not appear where we might expect it, in chaps.  25–29, but at the commencement of chap.  30 How arbitrary the procedure is, is shown by the clear testimony of at least four passages of the history ( 1 Kings 6:20, 22; 7:48; 9:25; cf.  2 Chron. 4:19 ) to the construction and presence of the golden altar in the temple of Solomon.

The critical theory of the tithe-laws, of the Levitical cities as transformations of the bamoth, and other matters, have already been referred to.

3. In conducting the above argument, we have laid little stress on incidental words or allusions in either the historical or the prophetical books which might seem to indicate acquaintance with the Levitical legislation. These allusions, though not decisive in themselves, are more numerous than the critics are wont to allow, and, when a pre-exilian origin of Levitical laws is independently rendered probable, acquire enhanced importance.  Joel, e.g., which used to be regarded as one of the earliest of the prophetical books, has many allusions which suggest the ritual code — the sanctuary and its altar in Zion, priests, blowing of trumpets, fasts, solemn assemblies, meal and drink-offerings, etc. — and is now, largely for this very reason, regarded by the Wellhausen school as post-exilian. Yet we question if the allusions in  Joel are more definite than those of the earlier prophets, or would, on critical principles, suffice any more than these, to establish a knowledge of the written law, which is yet allowed to have been in existence when he wrote. Not to dwell on  Amos (e.g., chap.  5:21, 22 ), we may cite such a passage as  Isa. 1:13, 14: “Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto Me; new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, — I cannot away with iniquity and the solemn meeting. Your new moons and your appointed feasts My soul hateth,” etc. (cf. ver.  11; chaps.  4:5; 33:20 — “the city of our solemnities”). The vocabulary of this passage — “assembly” (convocation), “solemn meeting,” “appointed feasts,” etc. — and the allusions to festivals and sacrifices, are entirely suggestive of the Levitical law (cf.  Lev. 23; Num. 28; cf.  Deut. 16:8 ). Reference was before made to the allusions in the prophets to a cycle of feasts, of which little or nothing is said in the history. Thus,  Isa. 29:1: “Let the feasts come round”; or  Nah. 1:15: “Keep thy feasts, O Judah, perform thy vows.” It cannot be overlooked, further, that the prophets constantly assume the people to be in possession of “statutes,” or “statutes and judgments” — i.e., of fixed laws — evidently of considerable extent, and, we must suppose, written. That such “statutes” were covered by the word torah (instruction, law) we see no reason to doubt. Here comes in that much - debated passage,  Hos. 8:12: “Though I write for him my law in ten thousand precepts (R.V. marg., “wrote for him the ten thousand things of my law”), they are counted as a strange thing.” If this does not point to written law of considerable compass, it is difficult to know what form of words would. Smend, at an earlier stage, found, as was before shown,  Hosea and  Amos impregnated with Levitismus (e.g.,  Hos. 9:3–5 ). It may be observed that  Hosea has also, in the view of many, unmistakable assonances with  Deuteronomy. When to these indications in the prophets we add what was before said of allusions in the historical books to ark, tabernacle, Aaronic priesthood, high priest, ephod, shewbread, etc., and of the evidence which these books afford of a knowledge of festivals, of sacrifices (burnt-offerings, peace-offerings, meal-offerings, drink-offerings, probably sin-offerings as well), of ritual of worship, of laws of purity, of clean and unclean food, of leprosy, of consanguinity, prohibitions of eating blood, etc. — we may begin to feel, with Dillmann, that the allusions in history and prophecy are well-nigh as numerous as we had any right to expect.

Of the law itself, we would only say in closing, in opposition to the purely secular, and often unworthy, views of its origin we have been discussing, that it is pervaded by a spirit of holiness, and, in its aim and structure, is as unique as all the other parts of the Jewish religion. Whatever the formal resemblances, the Levitical law had nothing essentially in common with heathen ritual, but rested on a basis of its own. No heathen religion had a system based on the idea of the holiness of God, and governed by the design of restoring and maintaining fellowship with God, and the peace of conscience of the worshipper, by the grace of atonement. For this was the real nature of the Levitical system. It was designed in all its parts to impress on the mind of the worshipper a sense of the separation which sin had put between him and the holy God, and provided a means by which the people, notwithstanding their sin, could have access to God, and enjoy His favour. There is nothing in this, if the Bible’s own view of the course of revelation is accepted, incompatible with its early origin. It is one of the groundless assumptions of the newer theory that the idea of expiation by sacrifice was foreign to the pre-exilian, and earlier Israelitish, mind. One sufficient proof to the contrary is furnished in  1 Sam. 3:14: “Therefore I have sworn unto the house of Eli, that the iniquity of Eli’s house shall not be purged (“atoned for,” the Levitical word) with sacrifice nor offering for ever.”

The Problem of the Old Testament

A Tale of Two Brothers

By Sinclair Ferguson

     The antinomian prodigal when awakened was tempted to legalism: “I will go and be a slave in my father’s house and thus perhaps gain grace in his eyes.” But he was bathed in his father’s grace and set free to live as an obedient son.

     The legalistic older brother never tasted his father’s grace. Because of his legalism he had never been able to enjoy the privileges of the father’s house.

     Between them stood the father offering free grace to both, without prior qualifications in either. Had the older brother embraced his father, he would have found grace that would make every duty a delight and dissolve the hardness of his servile heart. Had that been the case, his once antinomian brother would surely have felt free to come out to him as his father had done, and say: “Isn’t the grace we have been shown and given simply amazing? Let us forevermore live in obedience to every wish of our gracious father!” And arm in arm they could have gone in to dance at the party, sons and brothers together, a glorious testimony to the father’s love.

     But it was not so.

     It is still, alas, not so.

     Yet this is still true:

     There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. (Rom. 8:1–4)

     And the invitation still stands:

Come, everyone who thirsts,
come to the waters;
and he who has no money,
come, buy and eat!
Come, buy wine and milk
without money and without price.
Why do you spend your money for that which is not bread,
and your labor for that which does not satisfy?
Listen diligently to me, and eat what is good,
and delight yourselves in rich food. (Isa. 55:1–2)

The Pilgrim's Progress From This World To That Which Is To Come;
Delivered Under The Similitude Of A Dream (Part 2)

By John Bunyan 1678

THE FOURTH STAGE

MER. I was a dreaming that I sat all alone in a solitary place, and was bemoaning of the hardness of my heart. Now I had not sat there long but methought many were gathered about me to see me, and to hear what it was that I said. So they hearkened, and I went on bemoaning the hardness of my heart. At this, some of them laughed at me, some called me fool, and some began to thrust me about. With that, methought I looked up and saw one coming with wings towards me. So he came directly to me, and said, Mercy, what aileth thee? Now when he had heard me make my complaint, he said, Peace be to thee; he also wiped my eyes with his handkerchief, and clad me in silver and gold.

Ezekiel 16:8–11 8 “When I passed by you again and saw you, behold, you were at the age for love, and I spread the corner of my garment over you and covered your nakedness; I made my vow to you and entered into a covenant with you, declares the Lord GOD, and you became mine. 9 Then I bathed you with water and washed off your blood from you and anointed you with oil. 10 I clothed you also with embroidered cloth and shod you with fine leather. I wrapped you in fine linen and covered you with silk. 11 And I adorned you with ornaments and put bracelets on your wrists and a chain on your neck.   ESV

He put a chain about my neck, and ear-rings in mine ears, and a beautiful crown upon my head. Then he took me by the hand, and said, Mercy, come after me. So he went up, and I followed till we came at a golden gate. Then he knocked; and when they within had opened, the man went in, and I followed him up to a throne, upon which one sat; and he said to me, Welcome, daughter. The place looked bright and twinkling, like the stars, or rather like the sun, and I thought that I saw your husband there; so I awoke from my dream. But did I laugh?

     CHR. Laugh! aye, and well you might to see yourself so well. For you must give me leave to tell you that it was a good dream; and that, as you have begun to find the first part true, so you shall find the second at last. “God speaks once, yea, twice, yet man perceiveth it not; in a dream, in a vision of the night, when deep sleep falleth upon men, in slumberings upon the bed.”

Job 33:14-15 For God speaks in one way,
and in two, though man does not perceive it.
15 In a dream, in a vision of the night,
when deep sleep falls on men,
while they slumber on their beds,   ESV

We need not, when abed, to lie awake to talk with God; he can visit us while we sleep, and cause us then to hear his voice. Our heart oftentimes wakes when we sleep, and God can speak to that, either by words, by proverbs, by signs and similitudes, as well as if one was awake.

     MER. Well, I am glad of my dream; for I hope ere long to see it fulfilled, to the making me laugh again.

     CHR. I think it is now high time to rise, and to know what we must do.

     MER. Pray, if they invite us to stay a while, let us willingly accept of the proffer. I am the more willing to stay a while here, to grow better acquainted with these maids: methinks Prudence, Piety, and Charity, have very comely and sober countenances.

     CHR. We shall see what they will do.

     So when they were up and ready, they came down, and they asked one another of their rest, and if it was comfortable or not.

     MER. Very good, said Mercy: it was one of the best night’s lodgings that ever I had in my life.

     Then said Prudence and Piety, If you will be persuaded to stay here a while, you shall have what the house will afford.

     CHAR. Aye, and that with a very good will, said Charity. So they consented, and stayed there about a month or above, and became very profitable one to another. And because Prudence would see how Christiana had brought up her children, she asked leave of her to catechise them. So she gave her free consent. Then she began with her youngest, whose name was James.

     PRUD. And she said, Come, James, canst thou tell me who made thee?

     JAMES. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost.

     PRUD. Good boy. And canst thou tell who saved thee?

     JAMES. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost.

     PRUD. Good boy still. But how doth God the Father save thee?

     JAMES. By his grace.

     PRUD. How doth God the Son save thee?

     JAMES. By his righteousness, death and blood, and life.

     PRUD. And how doth God the Holy Ghost save thee?

     JAMES. By his illumination, by his renovation, and by his preservation.

     Then said Prudence to Christiana, You are to be commended for thus bringing up your children. I suppose I need not ask the rest these questions, since the youngest of them can answer them so well. I will therefore now apply myself to the next youngest.

     PRUD. Then she said, Come, Joseph, (for his name was Joseph,) will you let me catechise you?

     JOSEPH. With all my heart.

     PRUD. What is man?

     JOSEPH. A reasonable creature, so made by God, as my brother said.

     PRUD. What is supposed by this word, saved?

     JOSEPH. That man, by sin, has brought himself into a state of captivity and misery.

     PRUD. What is supposed by his being saved by the Trinity?

     JOSEPH. That sin is so great and mighty a tyrant that none can pull us out of its clutches but God; and that God is so good and loving to man, as to pull him indeed out of this miserable state.

     PRUD. What is God’s design in saving poor men?

     JOSEPH. The glorifying of his name, of his grace, and justice, etc., and the everlasting happiness of his creature.

     PRUD. Who are they that will be saved?

     JOSEPH. They that accept of his salvation.

     PRUD. Good boy, Joseph; thy mother hath taught thee well, and thou hast hearkened unto what she has said unto thee.

     Then said Prudence to Samuel, who was the eldest but one,

     PRUD. Come, Samuel, are you willing that I should catechise you?

     SAM. Yes, forsooth, if you please.

     PRUD. What is heaven?

     SAM. A place and state most blessed, because God dwelleth there.

     PRUD. What is hell?

     SAM. A place and state most woful, because it is the dwelling-place of sin, the devil, and death.

     PRUD. Why wouldst thou go to heaven?

     SAM. That I may see God, and serve him without weariness; that I may see Christ, and love him everlastingly; that I may have that fullness of the Holy Spirit in me which I can by no means here enjoy.

     PRUD. A very good boy, and one that has learned well.

     Then she addressed herself to the eldest, whose name was Matthew; and she said to him, Come, Matthew, shall I also catechise you?

     MATT. With a very good will.

     PRUD. I ask then, if there was ever any thing that had a being antecedent to or before God?

     MATT. No, for God is eternal; nor is there any thing, excepting himself, that had a being until the beginning of the first day. For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is.

     PRUD. What do you think of the Bible?

     MATT. It is the holy word of God.

     PRUD. Is there nothing written therein but what you understand?

     MATT. Yes, a great deal.

     PRUD. What do you do when you meet with places therein that you do not understand?

     MATT. I think God is wiser than I. I pray also that he will please to let me know all therein that he knows will be for my good.

     PRUD. How believe you as touching the resurrection of the dead?

     MATT. I believe they shall rise the same that was buried; the same in nature, though not in corruption. And I believe this upon a double account: first, because God has promised it; secondly, because he is able to perform it.

     Then said Prudence to the boys, You must still hearken to your mother; for she can teach you more. You must also diligently give ear to what good talk you shall hear from others: for your sakes do they speak good things. Observe also, and that with carefulness, what the heavens and the earth do teach you; but especially be much in the meditation of that book which was the cause of your father’s becoming a pilgrim. I, for my part, my children, will teach you what I can while you are here, and shall be glad if you will ask me questions that tend to godly edifying.

     Now by that these pilgrim’s had been at this place a week, Mercy had a visitor that pretended some good-will unto her, and his name was Mr. Brisk; a man of some breeding, and that pretended to religion, but a man that stuck very close to the world. So he came once or twice, or more, to Mercy, and offered love unto her. Now Mercy was of a fair countenance, and therefore the more alluring.

     Her mind also was to be always busying of herself in doing; for when she had nothing to do for herself, she would be making hose and garments for others, and would bestow them upon those that had need. And Mr. Brisk not knowing where or how she disposed of what she made, seemed to be greatly taken, for that he found her never idle. I will warrant her a good housewife, quoth he to himself.

     Mercy then revealed the business to the maidens that were of the house, and inquired of them concerning him, for they did know him better than she. So they told her that he was a very busy young man, and one who pretended to religion, but was, as they feared, a stranger to the power of that which is good.

     Nay then, said Mercy, I will look no more on him; for I purpose never to have a clog to my soul.

     Prudence then replied, that there needed no matter of great discouragement to be given to him; her continuing so as she had begun to do for the poor, would quickly cool his courage.

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

The Continual Burnt Offering

By H.A. Ironside - 1941

March 1

1 Kings 3:5 At Gibeon the LORD appeared to Solomon in a dream by night, and God said, “Ask what I shall give you.”  ESV

My Father, this I ask of Thee;
Knowing that Thou wilt grant the plea—
For this, and only this, I pray.
Strength for today — just for today

I do not ask a lifted load,
Nor for a smooth and thornless road;
Simply for strength enough to bear
Life’s daily burdens anywhere.
--- E. E. Rexford

The Institutes of the Christian Religion

Translated by Henry Beveridge

     17. But it will be said that this differs widely from the experience of believers, who, in recognizing the grace of God toward them, not only feel disquietude (this often happens), but sometimes tremble, overcome with terror, [290] so violent are the temptations which assail their minds. This scarcely seems consistent with certainty of faith. It is necessary to solve this difficulty, in order to maintain the doctrine above laid down. When we say that faith must be certain and secure, we certainly speak not of an assurance which is never affected by doubt, nor a security which anxiety never assails; we rather maintain that believers have a perpetual struggle with their own distrust, and are thus far from thinking that their consciences possess a placid quiet, uninterrupted by perturbation. On the other hand, whatever be the mode in which they are assailed, we deny that they fall off and abandon that sure confidence which they have formed in the mercy of God. Scripture does not set before us a brighter or more memorable example of faith than in David, especially if regard be had to the constant tenor of his life. And yet how far his mind was from being always at peace is declared by innumerable complaints, of which it will be sufficient to select a few. When he rebukes the turbulent movements of his soul, what else is it but a censure of his unbelief? "Why art thou cast down, my soul? and why art thou disquieted in me? hope thou in God," (Psalm 42:6). His alarm was undoubtedly a manifest sign of distrust, as if he thought that the Lord had forsaken him. In another passage we have a fuller confession: "I said in my haste, I am cut off from before thine eyes," (Psalm 31:22). In another passage, in anxious and wretched perplexity, he debates with himself, nay, raises a question as to the nature of God: "Has God forgotten to be gracious? has he in anger shut up his tender mercies?" (Psalm 77:9). What follows is still harsher: "I said this is my infirmity; but I will remember the years of the right hand of the Most High." [291] As if desperate, he adjudges himself to destruction. [292] He not only confesses that he is agitated by doubt, but as if he had fallen in the contest, leaves himself nothing in reserve,--God having deserted him, and made the hand which was wont to help him the instrument of his destruction. Wherefore, after having been tossed among tumultuous waves, it is not without reason he exhorts his soul to return to her quiet rest (Psalm 116:7). And yet (what is strange) amid those commotions, faith sustains the believer's heart, and truly acts the part of the palm tree, which supports any weights laid upon it, and rises above them; thus David, when he seemed to be overwhelmed, ceased not by urging himself forward to ascend to God. But he who anxiously contending with his own infirmity has recourse to faith, is already in a great measure victorious. This we may infer from the following passage, and others similar to it: "Wait on the Lord: be of good courage, and he shall strengthen thine heart: wait, I say, on the Lord," (Psalm 27:14). He accuses himself of timidity, and repeating the same thing twice, confesses that he is ever and anon exposed to agitation. Still he is not only dissatisfied with himself for so feeling, but earnestly labors to correct it. Were we to take a nearer view of his case, and compare it with that of Ahaz, we should find a great difference between them. Isaiah is sent to relieve the anxiety of an impious and hypocritical king, and addresses him in these terms: "Take heed, and be quiet; fear not," &c. (Isaiah 7:4). How did Ahab act? As has already been said, his heart was shaken as a tree is shaken by the wind: though he heard the promise, he ceased not to tremble. This, therefore, is the proper hire and punishment of unbelief, so to tremble as in the day of trial to turn away from God, who gives access to himself only by faith. On the other hand, believers, though weighed down and almost overwhelmed with the burden of temptation, constantly rise up, though not without toil and difficulty; hence, feeling conscious of their own weakness, they pray with the Prophet, "Take not the word of truth utterly out of my mouths" (Psalm 119:43). By these words, we are taught that they at times become dumb, as if their faith were overthrown, and yet that they do not withdraw or turn their backs, but persevere in the contest, and by prayer stimulate their sluggishness, so as not to fall into stupor by giving way to it. (See Calv. in Psalm 88:16).

18. To make this intelligible, we must return to the distinction between flesh and spirit, to which we have already adverted, and which here becomes most apparent. The believer finds within himself two principles: the one filling him with delight in recognizing the divine goodness, the other filling him with bitterness under a sense of his fallen state; the one leading him to recline on the promise of the Gospel, the other alarming him by the conviction of his iniquity; the one making him exult with the anticipation of life, the other making him tremble with the fear of death. This diversity is owing to imperfection of faith, since we are never so well in the course of the present life as to be entirely cured of the disease of distrust, and completely replenished and engrossed by faith. Hence those conflicts: the distrust cleaving to the remains of the flesh rising up to assail the faith enlisting in our hearts. But if in the believer's mind certainty is mingled with doubt, must we not always be carried back to the conclusion, that faith consists not of a sure and clear, but only of an obscure and confused, understanding of the divine will in regard to us? By no means. Though we are distracted by various thoughts, it does not follow that we are immediately divested of faith. Though we are agitated and carried to and fro by distrust, we are not immediately plunged into the abyss; though we are shaken, we are not therefore driven from our place. The invariable issue of the contest is, that faith in the long run surmounts the difficulties by which it was beset and seemed to be endangered.

19. The whole, then, comes to this: As soon as the minutest particle of faith is instilled into our minds, we begin to behold the face of God placid, serene, and propitious; far off, indeed, but still so distinctly as to assure us that there is no delusion in it. In proportion to the progress we afterwards make (and the progress ought to be uninterrupted), we obtain a nearer and surer view, the very continuance making it more familiar to us. Thus we see that a mind illumined with the knowledge of God is at first involved in much ignorance,--ignorance, however, which is gradually removed. Still this partial ignorance or obscure discernment does not prevent that clear knowledge of the divine favor which holds the first and principal part in faith. For as one shut up in a prison, where from a narrow opening he receives the rays of the sun indirectly and in a manner divided, though deprived of a full view of the sun, has no doubt of the source from which the light comes, and is benefited by it; so believers, while bound with the fetters of an earthly body, though surrounded on all sides with much obscurity, are so far illumined by any slender light which beams upon them and displays the divine mercy as to feel secure.

20. The Apostle elegantly adverts to both in different passages. When he says, "We know in part, and we prophesy in part;" and "Now we see through a glass darkly," (1 Cor. 13:9, 12), he intimates how very minute a portion of divine wisdom is given to us in the present life. For although those expressions do not simply indicate that faith is imperfect so long as we groan under a height of flesh, but that the necessity of being constantly engaged in learning is owing to our imperfection, he at the same time reminds us, that a subject which is of boundless extent cannot be comprehended by our feeble and narrow capacities. This Paul affirms of the whole Church, each individual being retarded and impeded by his own ignorance from making so near an approach as were to be wished. But that the foretaste which we obtain from any minute portion of faith is certain, and by no means fallacious, he elsewhere shows, when he affirms that "We all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image, from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord," (2 Cor. 3:18). In such degrees of ignorance much doubt and trembling is necessarily implied, especially seeing that our heart is by its own natural bias prone to unbelief. To this we must add the temptations which, various in kind and infinite in number, are ever and anon violently assailing us. In particular, conscience itself, burdened with an incumbent load of sins, at one time complains and groans, at another accuses itself; at one time murmurs in secret, at another openly rebels. Therefore, whether adverse circumstances betoken the wrath of God, or conscience finds the subject and matter within itself, unbelief thence draws weapons and engines to put faith to flight, the aim of all its efforts being to make us think that God is adverse and hostile to us, and thus, instead of hoping for any assistance from him, to make us dread him as a deadly foe.

21. To withstand these assaults, faith arms and fortifies itself with the word of God. When the temptation suggested is, that God is an enemy because he afflicts, faith replies, that while he afflicts he is merciful, his chastening proceeding more from love than anger. To the thought that God is the avenger of wickedness, it opposes the pardon ready to be bestowed on all offences whenever the sinner retakes himself to the divine mercy. Thus the pious mind, how much soever it may be agitated and torn, at length rises superior to all difficulties, and allows not its confidence in the divine mercy to be destroyed. Nay, rather, the disputes which exercise and disturb it tend to establish this confidence. A proof of this is, that the saints, when the hand of God lies heaviest upon them, still lodge their complaints with him, and continue to invoke him, when to all appearance he is least disposed to hear. But of what use were it to lament before him if they had no hope of solace? They never would invoke him did they not believe that he is ready to assist them. Thus the disciples, while reprimanded by their Master for the weakness of their faith in crying out that they were perishing, still implored his aid (Mt. 8:25). And he, in rebuking them for their want of faith, does not disown them or class them with unbelievers, but urges them to shake off the vice. Therefore, as we have already said, we again maintain, that faith remaining fixed in the believer's breast never can be eradicated from it. However it may seem shaken and bent in this direction or in that, its flame is never so completely quenched as not at least to lurk under the embers. In this way, it appears that the word, which is an incorruptible seed, produces fruit similar to itself. Its germ never withers away utterly and perishes. The saints cannot have a stronger ground for despair than to feel, that, according to present appearances, the hand of God is armed for their destruction; and yet Job thus declares the strength of his confidence: "Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him." The truth is, that unbelief reigns not in the hearts of believers, but only assails them from without; does not wound them mortally with its darts, but annoys them, or, at the utmost, gives them a wound which can be healed. Faith, as Paul (declares (Eph. 6:16), is our shield, which receiving these darts, either wards them off entirely, or at least breaks their force, and prevents them from reaching the vitals. Hence when faith is shaken, it is just as when, by the violent blow of a javelin, a soldier standing firm is forced to step back and yield a little; and again when faith is wounded, it is as if the shield were pierced, but not perforated by the blow. The pious mind will always rise, and be able to say with David, "Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me," (Psalm 23:4). Doubtless it is a terrific thing to walk in the darkness of death, and it is impossible for believers, however great their strength may be, not to shudder at it; but since the prevailing thought is that God is present and providing for their safety, the feeling of security overcomes that of fear. As Augustine says,--whatever be the engines which the devil erects against us, as he cannot gain the heart where faith dwells, he is cast out. Thus, if we may judge by the event, not only do believers come off safe from every contest so as to be ready, after a short repose, to descend again into the arena, but the saying of John, in his Epistle, is fulfilled, "This is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith," (1 John 5:4). It is not said that it will be victorious in a single fight, or a few, or some one assault, but that it will be victorious over the whole world, though it should be a thousand times assailed.

22. There is another species of fear and trembling, which, so far from impairing the security of faith, tends rather to establish it; namely, when believers, reflecting that the examples of the divine vengeance on the ungodly are a kind of beacons warning them not to provoke the wrath of God by similar wickedness keep anxious watch, or, taking a view of their own inherent wretchedness, learn their entire dependence on God, without whom they feel themselves to be fleeting and evanescent as the wind. For when the Apostle sets before the Corinthians the scourges which the Lord in ancient times inflicted on the people of Israel, that they might be afraid of subjecting themselves to similar calamities, he does not in any degree destroy the ground of their confidence; he only shakes off their carnal torpor which suppresses faith, but does not strengthen it. Nor when he takes occasion from the case of the Israelites to exhort, "Let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall," (1 Cor. 10:12), he does not bid us waver, as if we had no security for our steadfastness: he only removes arrogance and rash confidence in our strength, telling the Gentiles not to presume because the Jews had been cast off, and they had been admitted to their place (Rom. 11:20). In that passage, indeed, he is not addressing believers only, but also comprehends hypocrites, who gloried merely in external appearance; nor is he addressing individuals, but contrasting the Jews and Gentiles, he first shows that the rejection of the former was a just punishment of their ingratitude and unbelief, and then exhorts the latter to beware lest pride and presumption deprive them of the grace of adoption which had lately been transferred to them. For as in that rejection of the Jews there still remained some who were not excluded from the covenant of adoptions so there might be some among the Gentiles who, possessing no true faith, were only puffed up with vain carnal confidence, and so abused the goodness of God to their own destruction. But though you should hold that the words were addressed to elect believers, no inconsistency will follow. It is one thing, in order to prevent believers from indulging vain confidence, to repress the temerity which, from the remains of the flesh, sometimes gains upon them, and it is another thing to strike terror into their consciences, and prevent them from feeling secure in the mercy of God.

23. Then, when he bids us work out our salvation with fear and trembling, all he requires is, that we accustom ourselves to think very meanly of our own strength, and confide in the strength of the Lord. For nothing stimulates us so strongly to place all our confidence and assurance on the Lord as self diffidence, and the anxiety produced by a consciousness of our calamitous condition. In this sense are we to understand the words of the Psalmist: "I will come into thy house in the multitude of thy mercy: and in thy fear will I worship toward thy holy temples" (Ps. 5:7). Here he appropriately unites confident faith leaning on the divine mercy with religious fear, which of necessity we must feel whenever coming into the presence of the divine majesty we are made aware by its splendor of the extent of our own impurity. Truly also does Solomon declare: "Happy is the man that feareth alway; but he that hardeneth his heart falleth into mischief," (Prov. 28:14). The fear he speaks of is that which renders us more cautious, not that which produces despondency, the fear which is felt when the mind confounded in itself resumes its equanimity in God, downcast in itself, takes courage in God, distrusting itself, breathes confidence in God. Hence there is nothing inconsistent in believers being afraid, and at the same time possessing secure consolation as they alternately behold their own vanity, and direct their thoughts to the truth of God. How, it will be asked, can fear and faith dwell in the same mind? Just in the same way as sluggishness and anxiety can so dwell. The ungodly court a state of lethargy that the fear of God may not annoy them; and yet the judgment of God so urges that they cannot gain their desire. In the same way God can train his people to humility, and curb them by the bridle of modesty, while yet fighting bravely. And it is plain, from the context, that this was the Apostle's meaning, since he states, as the ground of fear and trembling, that it is God who worketh in us to will and to do of his good pleasure. In the same sense must we understand the words of the Prophet, "The children of Israel" "shall fear the Lord and his goodness in the latter days," (Hos. 3:5). For not only does piety beget reverence to God, but the sweet attractiveness of grace inspires a man, though desponding of himself, at once with fear and admiration, making him feel his dependence on God, and submit humbly to his power.

24. Here, however, we give no countenance to that most pestilential philosophy which some semi-papists are at present beginning to broach in corners. Unable to defend the gross doubt inculcated by the Schoolmen, they have recourse to another fiction, that they may compound a mixture of faith and unbelief. They admit, that whenever we look to Christ we are furnished with full ground for hope; but as we are ever unworthy of all the blessings which are offered us in Christ, they will have us to fluctuate and hesitate in the view of our unworthiness. In short, they give conscience a position between hope and fear, making it alternate, by successive turns, to the one and the other. Hope and fear, again, they place in complete contrast,--the one falling as the other rises, and rising as the other falls. Thus Satan, finding the devices by which he was wont to destroy the certainty of faith too manifest to be now of any avail, is endeavoring, by indirect methods, to undermine it. [293] But what kind of confidence is that which is ever and anon supplanted by despair? They tell you, if you look to Christ salvation is certain; if you return to yourself damnation is certain. Therefore, your mind must be alternately ruled by diffidence and hope; as if we were to imagine Christ standing at a distance, and not rather dwelling in us. We expect salvation from him--not because he stands aloof from us, but because ingrafting us into his body he not only makes us partakers of all his benefits, but also of himself. Therefore, I thus retort the argument, If you look to yourself damnation is certain: but since Christ has been communicated to you with all his benefits, so that all which is his is made yours, you become a member of him, and hence one with him. His righteousness covers your sins--his salvation extinguishes your condemnation; he interposes with his worthiness, and so prevents your unworthiness from coming into the view of God. Thus it truly is. It will never do to separate Christ from us, nor us from him; but we must, with both hands, keep firm hold of that alliance by which he has riveted us to himself. This the Apostle teaches us: "The body is dead because of sin; but the spirit is life because of righteousness," (Rom. 8:10). According to the frivolous trifling of these objectors, he ought to have said, Christ indeed has life in himself, but you, as you are sinners, remain liable to death and condemnation. Very different is his language. He tells us that the condemnation which we of ourselves deserve is annihilated by the salvation of Christ; and to confirm this he employs the argument to which I have referred--viz. that Christ is not external to us, but dwells in us; and not only unites us to himself by an undivided bond of fellowship, but by a wondrous communion brings us daily into closer connection, until he becomes altogether one with us. And yet I deny not, as I lately said, that faith occasionally suffers certain interruptions when, by violent assault, its weakness is made to bend in this direction or in that; and its light is buried in the thick darkness of temptation. Still happen what may, faith ceases not to long after God.

25. The same doctrine is taught by Bernard when he treats professedly on this subject in his Fifth Homily on the Dedication of the Temple: "By the blessing of God, sometimes meditating on the soul, methinks, I find in it as it were two contraries. When I look at it as it is in itself and of itself, the truest thing I can say of it is, that it has been reduced to nothing. What need is there to enumerate each of its miseries? how burdened with sin, obscured with darkness, ensnared by allurements, teeming with lusts, ruled by passion, filled with delusions, ever prone to evil, inclined to every vice; lastly, full of ignominy and confusion. If all its righteousnesses, when examined by the light of truth, are but as filthy rags (Is. 64:6), what must we suppose its unrighteousness to be? If, therefore, the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness?' (Mt. 6:23). What then? man doubtless has been made subject to vanity--man here been reduced to nothing--man is nothing. And yet how is he whom God exalts utterly nothing? How is he nothing to whom a divine heart has been given? Let us breathe again, brethren. Although we are nothing in our hearts, perhaps something of us may lurk in the heart of God. O Father of mercies! O Father of the miserable! how plantest thou thy heart in us? Where thy heart is, there is thy treasure also. But how are we thy treasure if we are nothing? All nations before thee are as nothing. Observe, before thee; not within thee. Such are they in the judgment of thy truth, but not such in regard to thy affection. Thou callest the things which be not as though they were; and they are not, because thou callest them things that be not:' and yet they are because thou callest them. For though they are not as to themselves, yet they are with thee according to the declaration of Paul: Not of works, but of him that calleth,' " (Rom. 9:11). He then goes on to say that the connection is wonderful in both points of view. Certainly things which are connected together do not mutually destroy each other. This he explains more clearly in his conclusion in the following terms: "If, in both views, we diligently consider what we are,--in the one view our nothingness, in the other our greatness,--I presume our glorying will seem restrained; but perhaps it is rather increased and confirmed, because we glory not in ourselves, but in the Lord. Our thought is, if he determined to save us we shall be delivered; and here we begin again to breathe. But, ascending to a loftier height, let us seek the city of God, let us seek the temple, let us seek our home, let us seek our spouse. I have not forgotten myself when, with fear and reverence, I say, We are,--are in the heart of God. We are, by his dignifying, not by our own dignity."

     Christian Classics Ethereal Library / Public Domain

     Institutes of the Christian Religion