Roman Historian Tacitus Mentions Jesus: Our Best Secular Source

By J. P. Holding 3/10/20172017

     By J.P. Holding| Tacitus was a Roman historian writing early in the 2nd century A.D. His Annals provide us with a single reference to Jesus of considerable value. Rather frustratingly, much of his work has been lost, including a work which covers the years 29-32, where the trial of Jesus would have been had he recorded it [Meie.MarJ, 89].

     Here is a full quote of the cite of our concern, from Annals 15.44. Jesus and the Christians are mentioned in an account of how the Emperor Nero went after Christians in order to draw attention away from himself after Rome’s fire of 64 AD:

     But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the Bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements Which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero From the infamy of being believed to have ordered the Conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he Falsely charged with the guilt, and punished Christians, who were Hated for their enormities.

Click here for entire article

     James Patrick Holding holds a Masters in Library Science from Florida State University. He is a published author in Christian Research Journal, and his website (www.tektonics.org) is the largest apologetics site run by a single individual and contains over 1500 articles. His ministry is committed to providing scholarly answers to serious questions which are often posed on major and minor elements of the Christian faith. He is also a Certified Apologetics Instructor.

How to Erase Logical Fallacies

By Kenneth Samples 2/14/2017

     An essential skill to develop—particularly if you intend to discuss the truth of your faith with others—is how to understand, evaluate, and present a logical argument. Though it might seem complex and rather intimidating, an argument in logic is really a very simple thing. To have an argument you must make a claim (called the conclusion, or the central point of the argument) and provide support (called premises, or evidence, facts, and reasons) for believing the claim to be true or correct. To have a good argument (logically sound or cogent), your premises must be (1) true, (2) pertinent to your central claim, and (3) sufficient to justify the conclusion.

     What Are Fallacies?

     A fallacy occurs when a logical argument contains a specific defect. A defect is a mistake in the reasoning process which causes an argument to break down (or fail to adequately support the conclusion). Left unrecognized and uncorrected, that failure leads to a defeated (unsound or not cogent) argument. Bad arguments provide no logical justification for their claims. Thus the person who reasons carefully will attempt to understand and thus avoid committing the common fallacies that serve to shipwreck arguments.

Click here for entire article

Books by Kenneth Richard Samples
God among Sages: Why Jesus Is Not Just Another Religious Leader
A World of Difference: Putting Christian Truth-Claims to the Worldview Test (Reasons to Believe)
God among Sages: Why Jesus Is Not Just Another Religious Leader
Christian Endgame: Careful Thinking about the End Times
Christianity's Most Dangerous Idea (Ebook Shorts)

What Happens When We Divorce Faith from Reason?

By Rob Lundberg 12/26/2016

The “New Alarmism” is not new and is not alarmism.

By Jake Meador 3/10/2017

     When asked about the Holy Roman Empire the French philosophe Voltaire once quipped that said empire was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire. I had something like that thought while reading Dr. James K. A. Smith’s piece for the Washington Post. That said, Dr. Smith’s post is far from the first to raise this concern. As mentioned previously, Katelyn Beaty and Emma Green’s reviews also critiqued Rod’s project for alarmism, though Green was more fair about it than Smith or Beaty. Rachel Held Evans also made this attack in her Twitter thread on the book.

     In one sense, I should be more sympathetic to the critique than I probably am: Both Rod and Dr. Esolen invite that critique with some of their rhetoric, as I noted in my review of Dr. Esolen’s book earlier today. (Archbishop Chaput is another matter.)1

     That said, it’s difficult to be too terribly sympathetic for a relatively simple reason. Virtually nothing that any of these guys are saying is new and, given how long it has been said and how accurate previous generations have been in their predictions, it’s difficult to dismiss this talk as alarmism

Read The Psalms In "1" Year

Psalm 30

6 As for me, I said in my prosperity,
“I shall never be moved.”
7 By your favor, O LORD,
you made my mountain stand strong;
you hid your face;
I was dismayed.

8 To you, O LORD, I cry,
and to the Lord I plead for mercy:
9 “What profit is there in my death,
if I go down to the pit?
Will the dust praise you?
Will it tell of your faithfulness?
10 Hear, O LORD, and be merciful to me!
O LORD, be my helper!”

11 You have turned for me my mourning into dancing;
you have loosed my sackcloth
and clothed me with gladness,
12 that my glory may sing your praise and not be silent.
O LORD my God, I will give thanks to you forever!

A Couple of Reasons to Think Theism Best Explains Moral Obligations

By Jonathan Pruitt 4/27/2015

     Here is a moral fact: It is wrong to torture babies for fun. (Let T stand for “torture babies for fun.”)

     But in what sense is it wrong to T? One answer, and a quite popular one, is that T’ing is wrong because it is irrational to do so. Why it is irrational can be explained a several different ways. One option is the egoist option. It is wrong to T because it is not in my self-interest to do so. It may not be in my self-interest because if I T, others might torture me back or otherwise degrade me in retaliation for my T’ing. The idea here is that it is in my self-interest to live in a world where people don’t torture each other for fun, so, in order to bring about that world, I ought to act in a way consistent with the world I want to bring about. Or perhaps we could say it is irrational to T because it is inherently degrading to myself. I destroy my own soul if I go around T’ing and that is not good for me so it is irrational for me to do so.

     We might also say that it is wrong to T because it lowers the aggregate human happiness. Since living in a society where, on the whole, there is more happiness than less, I should not T because it is better to live in a more happy society than a less happy one. Or possibly it is wrong to T because there is an implicit social contract being broken when I T. By virtue of living in a society, I implicitly agree to follow certain norms and T’ing counts as a violation of those norms.

Not just about sex: throughout our bodies, thousands of genes act differently in men and women

By Jenny Graves 10/31/2017

     Most of us are familiar with the genetic differences between men and women.

     Men have X and Y sex chromosomes, and women have two X chromosomes. We know that genes on these chromosomes may act differently in men and women.

     But a recent paper claims that beyond just genes on X and Y, a full third of our genome is behaving very differently in men and women.

     These new data pose challenges for science, medicine and maybe even gender equity.

     Final paragraph in article What do these new insights mean for our progress toward gender equity? A bad outcome could be appeals to return to outdated sexual stereotypes. A good outcome will be recognition of sex differences in medicine and treatment.

Click here to go to source

By Gleason Archer Jr.

BIBLICAL CREATIONISM AND MODERN EVOLUTIONISM (cont)

      It’s true enough, to be sure, that the embryos of all mammals develop from single-celled ova which appear to be quite identical, and that during the earlier stages this close resemblance continues. But does this fact require a theory that all mammals developed from the same common, pre-mammalian ancestors? A far more obvious and plausible explanation is that in the development of any embryo from its initial stage as a one-celled ovum, its simpler parts must be formed before the more complicated parts can be developed. We can hardly expect fine adjustments and complicated organs to come into being before the main structure to which they are to be attached. But to explain the earlier similarities of form by common ancestral origin is as implausible (as Clark pungently puts it) as to imagine that raindrops are derived from pebbles because both are round. “The connection is real enough, but it is a mathematical connection, inherent in the nature of the universe, and is not due to any direct connection between the objects.”

      It is safe to say that there is no datum from embryology which does not betray the operation of deliberate design and purpose by an all-wise Creator, rather than the mechanical operation of natural selection. Very occasionally in the growth of an embryo the mechanism of growth seems to malfunction. Then it is found that a totally new mechanism may take over and produce the desired structure. Sometimes two or three of these “double assurance” mechanisms are called into play in order to insure the proper development of the fetus; yet inexplicably enough, they go into action when needed. But since such malfunctions are exceedingly rare, it is almost impossible to account for them by any principle of the “survival of the fittest.” It looks much more like the intervention of a divine intelligence. This, of course, is not to deny that some fetuses do develop improperly and turn out to be defective specimens which can scarcely survive or perform any useful function. In the case of human beings, the results can be quite tragic and difficult to explain. But on Darwinian presuppositions it is impossible to explain even the sense of pathos engendered by this example of dysteleology. The consistent Darwinian can only shrug his shoulders and remark, “It is only surprising that there aren’t more of these.” For to the Darwinian there is no answer beyond mechanistic natural selection and the “survival of the fittest.”

      3. Natural selection is unable to explain innumerable instances of adaptation in which there was evidently no transitional stage. Natural selection would lead us to expect that ants and termites learned to associate together in colonies because they found from experience that this increased their chances of survival. But there are no fossil evidences whatever of either ants or termites prior to their organized life together in colonies. Or, to take an anatomical example, we have to consider how any supposed transitional stages toward the development of the organ of sight could possibly have conferred any advantage in the battle for survival until the eye had actually been fully formed. If the animal had possessed (in its transitional phase) a mere patch of skin especially sensitive to light, and then the process of natural selection had been brought to bear upon its successive mutations, how would anything short of actual sight have fitted the creature to survive more successfully than competitors who lacked such light-sensitive patches? And yet the Darwinian hypothesis necessarily implies that at every stage of the development of new and more complicated organisms, even before they were at all usable, the animal so developing must have enjoyed thereby some specific advantage over its competitors. As for the much-cited example of the growth cycle of the frog, the principle of natural selection is of only limited help. That is, it might conceivably explain why tadpoles learned to swim, feed, and run away from their enemies more efficiently than less capable ancestors. But how does it throw any light upon why they finally turned into frogs? Can it seriously be contended that frogs are more fitted to survival than fish are? Clearly some more sophisticated explanation must be found than mere mechanistic natural selection.

      In short, the Darwinian theory accounts for the data of biology far less adequately than does the sublimely simple affirmation of  Genesis 1, that all species of plant and animal came into being in response to the creative will of an omnipotent and all-wise God, and that their development has in every stage been governed by His design. All the structural resemblances (such as the skeletal resemblances so relied upon to indicate a genetic relationship between man and the lower orders of vertebrates) may be satisfactorily accounted for by a directive force operating from without (or from above), rather than by mechanical forces operating from within living tissue as such. Even the phenomenon of apparently useless vestigial parts, such as the coccyx at the end of the human spine, does not demonstrate an ancestry tracing back to tail-bearing simians. Such vestiges only attest a general or basic plan followed by the creative force (or the divine intelligence) which fashioned the various vertebrate phyla.

      A similar carry-over of engineering design is traceable in the year-by-year development of the modern automobile, from the 1901 Ford sedan (let us say) to the 1994 model. In some cases vestigial remains (like the retention of a crank opening at the base of the radiator for many years after self-starters had been introduced) marked the evolution of this make of car. The same thing is true of the “portholes” of the Buick models between the 1940s and 1950s (until the final token vestige of the 1957 model). But it can hardly be said that the earlier models made themselves more advanced or more complicated; this was the work of the designers and engineers who produced the new model for each successive year. There is nothing in the data of geology, or of biology in general, to indicate any essential difference in the procedure followed by the Creator Himself. Once the model, or species, had been set up, it then was ready for mass production through the built-in system of procreation and reproduction with which all animals are endowed — each species being controlled within Mendelian limits by its own particular set of genes.

      4. The modern abandonment of the Darwinian theory of gradual differentiation as the mechanism by which all classes and orders of life have evolved has led to the substitution of a new type of evolution (the quantum theory of emergent evolution) which commands the allegiance of most foremost scientists today. But emergent evolution involves factors of sudden mutation or change so radical as to put it into the category of a mere philosophical credo incapable of verification by laboratory methods or of explanation on strictly mechanistic principles. In Darwin’s generation it was confidently expected that more extended geological and biological research in subsequent decades would uncover the transitional forms of life which would bridge the gap between the various orders and phyla. But most twentieth-century scientists have completely despaired of this search.

      Austin H. Clark (The New Evolution [1930], p. 189), for example, remarked on “the entire lack of any intermediates between the major groups of animals — as, for instance, between the backboned animals or vertebrates, the echinoderms, the mollusks and the arthropods.” He went on to say, “If we are willing to accept the facts, we must believe that there never were such intermediates, or in other words, that these major groups have from the very first borne the same relationship to each other that they have today.” Similarly G. G. Simpson pointed out that each of the thirty-two known orders of mammals appeared quite suddenly in the paleontological record. He stated, “The earliest and most primitive known members of every order already have the basic ordinal characters, and in no case is an approximately continuous sequence from one order to another known.”

A Survey of Old Testament Introduction

The Institutes of the Christian Religion

Translated by Henry Beveridge

     24. The whole comes to this, [354] when they wish to make God the author of this fictitious confession their vanity is proved as I have shown their falsehood in expounding the few passages which they cite. But while it is plain, that the law was imposed by men, I say that it is both tyrannical and insulting to God, who, in binding consciences to his word, would have them free from human rule. Then when confession is prescribed as necessary to obtain pardon, which God wished to be free, I say that the sacrilege is altogether intolerable, because nothing belongs more peculiarly to God than the forgiveness of sins, in which our salvation consists. I have, moreover, shown that this tyranny was introduced when the world was sunk in shameful barbarism. [355] Besides, I have proved that the law is pestiferous, inasmuch as when the fear of God exists, it plunges men into despair, and when there is security soothing itself with vain flattery, it blunts it the more. Lastly, I have explained that all the mitigations which they employ have no other tendency than to entangle, obscure, and corrupt the pure doctrine, and cloak their iniquities with deceitful colors.

25. In repentance they assign the third place to satisfaction, all their absurd talk as to which can be refuted in one word. They say, [356] that it is not sufficient for the penitent to abstain from past sins, and change his conduct for the better, unless he satisfy God for what he has done; and that there are many helps by which we may redeem sins, such as tears, fastings oblations, [357] and offices of charity; that by them the Lord is to be propitiated; by them the debts due to divine justice are to be paid; by them our faults are to be compensated; by them pardon is to be deserved: for though in the riches of his mercy he has forgiven the guilt, he yet, as a just discipline, retains the penalty, and that this penalty must be bought off by satisfaction. The sum of the whole comes to this: that we indeed obtain pardon of our sins from the mercy of God, but still by the intervention of the merit of works, by which the evil of our sins is compensated, and due satisfaction made to divine justice. To such false views I oppose the free forgiveness of sins, one of the doctrines most clearly taught in Scripture. [358] First, what is forgiveness but a gift of mere liberality? A creditor is not said to forgive when he declares by granting a discharge, that the money has been paid to him; but when, without any payment, through voluntary kindness, he expunges the debt. And why is the term gratis (free) afterwards added, but to take away all idea of satisfaction? With what confidence, then, do they still set up their satisfactions, which are thus struck down as with a thunderbolt? What? When the Lord proclaims by Isaiah, "I, even I, am he that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine own sake, and will not remember thy sins," does he not plainly declare, that the cause and foundation of forgiveness is to be sought from his goodness alone? Besides, when the whole of Scripture bears this testimony to Christ, that through his name the forgiveness of sins is to be obtained (Acts 10:43), does it not plainly exclude all other names? How then do they teach that it is obtained by the name of satisfaction? Let them not deny that they attribute this to satisfactions, though they bring them in as subsidiary aids. [359] For when Scripture says, by the name of Christ, it means, that we are to bring nothing, pretend nothing of our own, but lean entirely on the recommendation of Christ. Thus Paul, after declaring that "God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them," immediately adds the reason and the method, "For he has made him to be sin for us who knew no sin," (2 Cor. 5:19, 20).

26. But with their usual perverseness, they maintain that both the forgiveness of sins and reconciliation take place at once when we are received into the favor of God through Christ in baptism; that in lapses after baptism we must rise again by means of satisfactions; that the blood of Christ is of no avail unless in so far as it is dispensed by the keys of the Church. I speak not of a matter as to which there can be any doubt; for this impious dogma is declared in the plainest terms, in the writings not of one or two, but of the whole Schoolmen. Their master (Sent. Lib. 3, Dist. 9), after acknowledging, according to the doctrine of Peter, that Christ "bare our sins in his own body on the tree," (1 Pet. 2:24), immediately modifies the doctrine by introducing the exception, that in baptism all the temporal penalties of sin are relaxed; but that after baptism they are lessened by means of repentance, the cross of Christ and our repentance thus co-operating together. St. John speaks very differently, "If any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and he is the propitiation for our sins." "I write unto you, little children, because your sins are forgiven you for his name's sake," (1 John 2:1, 2, 12). He certainly is addressing believers, and while setting forth Christ as the propitiation for sins, shows them that there is no other satisfaction by which an offended God can be propitiated or appeased. He says not: God was once reconciled to you by Christ; now, seek other methods; but he makes him a perpetual advocate, who always, by his intercession, reinstates us in his Fathered favour--a perpetual propitiation by which sins are expiated. For what was said by another John will ever hold true, "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sins of the world," (John 1:29). He, I say, took them away, and no other; that is, since he alone is the Lamb of God, he alone is the offering for our sins; he alone is expiation; he alone is satisfaction. For though the right and power of pardoning properly belongs to the Father, when he is distinguished from the Son, as has already been seen, Christ is here exhibited in another view, as transferring to himself the punishment due to us, and wiping away our guilt in the sight of God. Whence it follows that we could not be partakers of the expiation accomplished by Christ, were he not possessed of that honor of which those who try to appease God by their compensations seek to rob him.

27. Here it is necessary to keep two things in view: that the honor of Christ be preserved entire and unimpaired, and that the conscience, assured of the pardon of sin, may have peace with God. Isaiah says that the Farther "has laid on him the iniquity of us all;" that "with his stripes we are healed," (Isa. 53:5, 6). Peter repeating the same thing, in other words says, that he "bare our sins in his own body on the tree," (1 Pet. 2:24). Paul's words are, "God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin condemned sin in the flesh," "being made a curse for us," (Rom. 8:3; Gal. 3:13); in other words, the power and curse of sin was destroyed in his flesh when he was offered as a sacrifice, on which the whole weight of our sins was laid, with their curse and execration, with the fearful judgment of God, and condemnation to death. Here there is no mention of the vain dogma, that after the initial cleansing no man experiences the efficacy of Christ's passion in any other way than by means of satisfying penance: we are directed to the satisfaction of Christ alone for every fall. Now call to mind their pestilential dogma: that the grace of God is effective only in the first forgiveness of sins; but if we afterwards fall, our works co-operate in obtaining the second pardon. If these things are so, do the properties above attributed to Christ remain entire? How immense the difference between the two propositions--that our iniquities were laid upon Christ, that in his own person he might expiate them, and that they are expiated by our works; that Christ is the propitiation for our sins, and that God is to be propitiated by works. Then, in regard to pacifying the conscience, what pacification will it be to be told that sins are redeemed by satisfactions? How will it be able to ascertain the measure of satisfaction? It will always doubt whether God is propitious; will always fluctuate, always tremble. Those who rest satisfied with petty satisfactions form too contemptible an estimate of the justice of God, and little consider the grievous heinousness of sin, as shall afterwards be shown. Even were we to grant that they can buy off some sins by due satisfaction, still what will they do while they are overwhelmed with so many sins that not even a hundred lives, though wholly devoted to the purpose, could suffice to satisfy for them? We may add, that all the passages in which the forgiveness of sins is declared refer not only to catechumens, [360] but to the regenerate children of God; to those who have long been nursed in the bosom of the Church. That embassy which Paul so highly extols, "we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God," (2 Cor. 5:20), is not directed to strangers, but to those who had been regenerated long before. Setting satisfactions altogether aside, he directs us to the cross of Christ. Thus when he writes to the Colossians that Christ had "made peace through the blood of his cross," "to reconcile all things unto himself," he does not restrict it to the moment at which we are received into the Church but extends it to our whole course. This is plain from the context, where he says that in him "we have redemption by his blood, even the forgiveness of sins," (Col. 1:14). It is needless to collect more passages, as they are ever occurring.

28. Here they take refuge in the absurd distinction that some sins are venial and others mortal; that for the latter a weighty satisfaction is due, but that the former are purged by easier remedies; by the Lord's Prayer, the sprinkling of holy water, and the absolution of the Mass. Thus they insult and trifle with God. [361] And yet, though they have the terms venial and mortal sin continually in their mouth, they have not yet been able to distinguish the one from the other, except by making impiety and impurity of heart [362] to be venial sin. We, on the contrary, taught by the Scripture standard of righteousness and unrighteousness, declare that "the wages of sin is death;" and that "the soul that sinneth, it shall die," (Rom. 6:23; Ezek. 18:20). The sins of believers are venial, not because they do not merit death, but because by the mercy of God there is "now no condemnation to those which are in Christ Jesus" their sin being not imputed, but effaced by pardon. I know how unjustly they calumniate this our doctrine; for they say it is the paradox of the Stoics concerning the equality of sins: but we shall easily convict them out of their own mouths. I ask them whether, among those sins which they hold to be mortal, they acknowledge a greater and a less? If so, it cannot follow, as a matter of course, that all sins which are mortal are equal. Since Scripture declares that the wages of sin is death,--that obedience to the law is the way to life,--the transgression of it the way to death,--they cannot evade this conclusion. In such a mass of sins, therefore, how will they find an end to their satisfactions? If the satisfaction for one sin requires one day, while preparing it they involve themselves in more sins; since no man, however righteous, passes one day without falling repeatedly. While they prepare themselves for their satisfactions, number, or rather numbers without number, will be added. [363] Confidence in satisfaction being thus destroyed, what more would they have? How do they still dare to think of satisfying?

29. They endeavor, indeed, to disentangle themselves, but it is impossible. They pretend a distinction between penalty and guilt, holding that the guilt is forgiven by the mercy of God; but that though the guilt is remitted, the punishment which divine justice requires to be paid remains. Satisfactions then properly relate to the remission of the penalty. How ridiculous this levity! They now confess that the remission of guilt is gratuitous; and yet they are ever and anon telling as to merit it by prayers and tears, and other preparations of every kind. Still the whole doctrine of Scripture regarding the remission of sins is diametrically opposed to that distinction. But although I think I have already done more than enough to establish this, I will subjoin some other passages, by which these slippery snakes will be so caught as to be afterwards unable to writhe even the tip of their tail: "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah." "I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more," (Jer. 31:31, 34). What this means we learn from another Prophet, when the Lord says, "When the righteous turneth away from his righteousness" "all his righteousness that he has done shall not be mentioned." "Again, when the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he has committed, and does that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive," (Ezek. 18:24, 27). When he declares that he will not remember righteousness, the meaning is, that he will take no account of it to reward it. In the same way, not to remember sins is not to bring them to punishment. The same thing is denoted in other passages, [364] by casting them behind his back, blotting them out as a cloud, casting them into the depths of the sea, not imputing them, hiding them. By such forms of expression the Holy Spirit has explained his meaning not obscurely, if we would lend a willing ear. Certainly if God punishes sins, he imputes them; if he avenges, he remembers; if he brings them to judgment, he has not hid them; if he examines, he has not cast them behind his back; if he investigates, he has not blotted them out like a cloud; if he exposes them, he has not thrown them into the depths of the sea. In this way Augustine clearly interprets: "If God has covered sins, he willed not to advert to them; if he willed not to advert, he willed not to animadvert; if he willed not to animadvert, he willed not to punish: he willed not to take knowledge of them, he rather willed to pardon them. Why then did he say that sins were hid? Just that they might not be seen. What is meant by God seeing sins but punishing them?" (August. in Ps. 32:1). But let us hear from another prophetical passage on what terms the Lord forgives sins: "Though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool," (Isa. 1:18). In Jeremiah again we read: "In those days, and in that time, saith the Lord, the iniquity of Israel shall be sought for, and there shall be none; and the sins of Judah, they shall not be found: for I will pardon them whom I reserve," (Jer. 50:20). Would you briefly comprehend the meaning of these words? Consider what, on the contrary, is meant by these expressions, "that transgression is sealed up in a bag;" "that the iniquity of Ephraim is bound up; his sin is hid;" that "the sin of Judah is written with a pen of iron, and with the point of a diamond." [365] If they mean, as they certainly do, that vengeance will be recompensed, there can be no doubt that, by the contrary passages, the Lord declares that he renounces all thought of vengeance. Here I must entreat the reader not to listen to any glosses of mine, but only to give some deference to the word of God.

30. What, pray, did Christ perform for us if the punishment of sin is still exacted? For when we say that he "bare our sins in his own body on the tree," (1 Pet. 2:24), all we mean is, that he endured the penalty and punishment which was due to our sins. This is more significantly declared by Isaiah, when he says that the "chastisement (or correction) of our peace was upon him," (Isaiah 53:5). But what is the correction of our peace, unless it be the punishment due to our sins, and to be paid by us before we could be reconciled to God, had he not become our substitute? Thus you clearly see that Christ bore the punishment of sin that he might thereby exempt his people from it. And whenever Paul makes mention of the redemption procured by him, [366] he calls it apolu'trosis, by which he does not simply mean redemption, as it is commonly understood, but the very price and satisfaction of redemption. [367] For which reason, he also says, that Christ gave himself an anti'lutron (ransom) for us. "What is propitiation with the Lord (says Augustine) but sacrifice? And what is sacrifice but that which was offered for us in the death of Christ?" But we have our strongest argument in the injunctions of the Mosaic Law as to expiating the guilt of sin. The Lord does not there appoint this or that method of satisfying, but requires the whole compensation to be made by sacrifice, though he at the same time enumerates all the rites of expiation with the greatest care and exactness. How comes it that he does not at all enjoin works as the means of procuring pardon, but only requires sacrifices for expiation, unless it were his purpose thus to testify that this is the only kind of satisfaction by which his justice is appeased? For the sacrifices which the Israelites then offered were not regarded as human works, but were estimated by their anti type, that is, the sole sacrifice of Christ. The kind of compensation which the Lord receives from us is elegantly and briefly expressed by Hosea: "Take with you words, and turn to the Lord: say unto him, Take away all iniquity, and receive us graciously," here is remission: "so will we render the calves of our lips," here is satisfaction (Hos. 14:2). I know that they have still a more subtile evasion, [368] by making a distinction between eternal and temporal punishment; but as they define temporal punishment to be any kind of infliction with which God visits either the body or the soul, eternal death only excepted, this restriction avails them little. The passages which we have quoted above say expressly that the terms on which God receives us into favor are these--viz. he remits all the punishment which we deserved by pardoning our guilt. And whenever David or the other prophets ask pardon for their sins, they deprecate punishment. Nay, a sense of the divine justice impels them to this. On the other hand, when they promise mercy from the Lord, they almost always discourse of punishments and the forgiveness of them. Assuredly, when the Lord declares in Ezekiel, that he will put an end to the Babylonish captivity, not "for your sakes, O house of Israel, but for mine holy name's sake," (Ezek. 36:22), he sufficiently demonstrates that both are gratuitous. In short, if we are freed from guilt by Christ, the punishment consequent upon guilt must cease with it.

     Christian Classics Ethereal Library / Public Domain

     Institutes of the Christian Religion

By James Orr 1907

V. GENERAL RESULTS: MOSAICITY OF THE PENTATEUCH

3. Taking the Book of  Genesis by itself, we may confidently affirm that, apart from the few words and phrases commonly adduced, as “The Canaanite was then in the land,” “Before there reigned any king over the children of Israel,” there are no indications which point necessarily beyond the Mosaic age, and even these do not point later than the early days of the kingdom — if they do even this. “The Book of  Genesis,” says Kuenen himself, in words already quoted, “may here be left out of account, since the picture it contains of the age of the patriarchs gives no unequivocal indications of the period at which it was produced.” On the other hand, there are not a few indications in the book, as well as references to it in other books, which imply a high antiquity — this, also, especially in its Elohistic parts. There is reason for believing that the narratives of the creation and the flood in the P sections are very old. The Fourth Commandment in  Exodus is based, both in  Exodus 20:11 and  Exodus chap. 31:17, on the sabbath rest of God in  Gen. 2:1–3 — a fact doubly significant if, as Graf allows, “the Decalogue in the form in which it appears handed down in  Ex. 20 is manifestly older and more original than that in  Deut. 5.” Deut. 4:32 seems to be a clear reference to the Elohistic account of the creation, with its characteristic word bara (“in the day when Elohim created man upon the earth”). The list of the eight kings of Edom in  Gen. 36, which stops with Hadar (ver.  39 ), apparently a person still living, points to a date considerably earlier than Saul or David, when the independence of the kingdom ceased. Colenso, who is our ally here against the post-exilian theory of the P narrative, points out quite a number of other expressions which look back to  Genesis. He mentions, e.g., the phrase in  Deuteronomy, “Unto them and to their seed after them” (chaps.  1:8, 4:37, 10:15 ), in which there seems allusion to the recurring P formula in  Gen. 17:8; 35:12; 48:2; cf. chaps.  9:19, 17:7, 10, 19; the words in  Deut. 29:13, “that He may be to thee an Elohim,” which seems distinctly to refer to  Gen. 17:7, 8, where alone we have such a promise under solemn covenant; the declaration in  Isa. 54:9 (at least not post-exilian), “I have sworn that as the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth,” etc., which refers to the P phraseology and covenant in  Gen. 9:11. The cumulative effect of these allusions, as against the modern theory, is very great.

4. We have not attempted to go into detailed argument on the history of the language, nor to rebut objections, more frequently heard earlier than now, on the supposed ignorance of the Hebrews in the Mosaic age of the art of writing. The discussion of the language lies beyond our province; and discovery, as already seen, has thrown such remarkable light on the existence, and wide diffusion of writing, in antiquity, specially among the peoples with whom the Hebrews were brought most closely into contact (Babylonia, Egypt, Palestine), as to place the possibility of such literary labours as we have been supposing beyond reasonable doubt. Few, therefore, now found on the assumption that writing was unknown, or not practised, among the early Hebrews; less even is heard of the unlikelihood of an “undisciplined horde” of nomads possessing a knowledge of letters. Every indication shows that the Hebrews, as they came up out of Egypt, were not a people of this character, but had a good knowledge of the arts and ways of civilised life. The Pentateuch, we saw before, assumes a knowledge of the art of writing; and if such knowledge was possessed by Moses, and those about him, there can be little doubt but that it would be used. There seems, accordingly, no bar in the way of the supposition that in the age of Moses the main features of the language as a vehicle of literary expression were already established, and, in some form of script, the use of writing may go back much earlier. On this point Dr. Driver says: “It is not denied that the patriarchs possessed the art of writing”; but he thinks that the use of documents from the patriarchal age is “a mere hypothesis, for the truth of which no positive grounds can be alleged.” Even if it were so, it would be in no worse case than much in the critical view itself, which, if anything in the world ever was, is hypothesis built on hypothesis. The value of a hypothesis is the degree in which it explains facts, and, in the silence of the Book of  Genesis, we can only reason from general probabilities. But the probabilities, derived from the state of culture at the time, from the fixed and circumstantial character of the tradition, and from the archæological notices embedded in the book, are, we think, strong, that the Hebrews, even in the patriarchal age, were to some extent acquainted with books and writing. If so, we may believe that at an early period, in Egypt under Joseph, if not before, attempts would be made to set down things in writing.

5. We have used the terms “collaboration” and “co-operation” to express the kind and manner of the activity which, in our view, brought the Pentateuchal books into their present shape, less, however, as suggesting a definite theory of origin, than as indicating the labour of original composers, working with a common aim, and towards a common end, in contrast with the idea of late irresponsible redactors, combining, altering, manipulating, enlarging at pleasure. It has been shown how the critical theory itself tends to approximate to this idea of “co-operation” in the production of the Hexateuch, though at the other end of the development. What it puts at the end, we are disposed to transfer to the beginning.

Beyond this we do not feel it possible to go with any degree of confidence. It may very well be — though everything here is more or less conjectural — that, as already hinted, the original JEP history and Code embraced, not simply the Book of the Covenant, but a brief summary of the Levitical ordinances, analogous, as Dillmann thinks, to the so-called Law of Holiness; possibly also, as Delitzsch supposes, a short narrative, in its proper place, of the last discourses of Moses, and of his death. We have seen that  Deuteronomy, in its original form, was probably an independent work; the priestly laws, also, would be at first chiefly in the hands of the priests. Later, but still, in our opinion, early — possibly in the times immediately succeeding the conquest, but not later than the days of the undivided kingdom — the original work would be enlarged by union with  Deuteronomy, and by incorporation of the larger mass of Levitical material. In some such way, with possible revision by Ezra, or whoever else gave the work its final canonical shape, our Pentateuch may have arisen.

It is difficult, however, to suppose that this large work, assuming its origin to be as early as we have suggested, ever had, in its completeness, any wide circulation, or was frequently copied in its entirety. As in the Christian Church, before the days of printing, it was customary to copy out selected books and portions, as the  Psalter, or the Gospels; so, it may reasonably be presumed, the parts of the Pentateuch copied out for general use, and in more common circulation, would ordinarily be those to which we still turn as the more interesting and edifying — the story of the patriarchs and of Moses, the history of the  Exodus and the wanderings, the Book of  Deuteronomy, short digests of laws, etc. The detailed Levitical Code would be left to the priests, and would be known mainly through the praxis, or by oral instruction at the sanctuary. The “law of Jehovah,” of which we read so much in the Psalter, by which the piety of the godly in Israel was nourished, which enlightened, converted, directed, warned, comforted, cleansed, made fruitful, the souls that delighted in it, was assuredly, as before remarked, something very different from the dry Levitical regulations. The versions of these books in circulation would also have their vicissitudes; would undergo the usual textual corruptions; may have received unauthorised modifications or additions; may have had their Jehovistic and Elohistic recensions. But the sense in pious minds that it was Jehovah’s “law” — embodying the “words of His lips” — which they were dealing with would check rash freedoms, and the means of correction would never be wholly lost. God’s people had a “Bible” then, and, as it comes to us from their hands, we may cherish the confidence that it has suffered no change which unfits it for being our Bible also.

The Problem of the Old Testament

1. The Word of Forgiveness

A.W. Pink from The Seven Sayings of the Savior on the Cross

6. Here we see man’s great and primary need.

     The first important lesson which all need to learn is that we are sinners, and as such, unfit for the presence of a Holy God. It is in vain that we select noble ideals, form good resolutions, and adopt excellent rules to live by, until the sin-question has been settled. It is of no avail that we attempt to develop a beautiful character and aim to do that which will meet with God’s approval while there is sin between him and our souls. Of what use are shoes if our feet are paralyzed. Of what use are glasses if we are blind. The question of the forgiveness of my sins is basic, fundamental, vital. It matters not that I am highly respected by a wide circle of friends if I am yet in my sins. It matters not that I have made good in business if I am an unpardoned transgressor in the sight of God. What will matter most in the hour of death is, Have my sins been put away by the Blood of Christ?

     The second all-important lesson which all need to learn is how forgiveness of sins may be obtained. What is the ground on which a Holy God will forgive sins? And here it is important to remark that there is a vital difference between divine forgiveness and much of human forgiveness. As a general rule human forgiveness is a matter of leniency, often of laxity. We mean forgiveness is shown at the expense of justice and righteousness. In a human court of law, the judge has to choose between two alternatives: when the one in the dock has been proven guilty, the judge must either enforce the penalty of the law, or he must disregard the requirements of the law - the one is justice, the other is mercy. The only possible way by which the judge can both enforce the requirements of the law and yet show mercy to its offender, is by a third party offering to suffer in his own person the penalty which the convicted one deserves. Thus it was in the divine counsels. God would not exercise mercy at the expense of justice. God, as the judge of all the earth, would not set aside the demands of his holy law. Yet, God would show mercy. How? Through one making full satisfaction to his outraged law. Through his own Son taking the place of all those who believe on him and bearing their sins in his own body on the tree. God could be just and yet merciful, merciful and yet just. Thus it is that "grace reigns through righteousness".

     A righteous ground has been provided on which God can be just and yet the justifier of all who believe. Hence it is we are told:

     Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: And that repentance and remission (forgiveness) of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem (Luke 24:46,47).

     And again:

     Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins: And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses (Acts 13:38, 39).

     It was in view of the blood he was shedding that the Saviour cried, "Father, forgive them". It was in view of the atoning sacrifice he was offering, that it can be said "without shedding of blood is no remission".

     In praying for the forgiveness of his enemies Christ struck right down to the root of their need. And their need was the need of every child of Adam. Reader, have your sins been forgiven? that is, remitted or sent away. Are you, by grace, one of those of whom it is said, "In whom we have redemption through His blood, even the forgiveness of sins" (Col. 1:14)"?

     "Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do."

     7. Here we see the triumph of redeeming love.

     Mark closely the word with which our text opens: "Then". The verse which immediately precedes it reads thus, "And when they were come to the place, which is called Calvary, there they crucified him, and the malefactors, one on the right hand, and the other on the left". Then, said Jesus, Father, forgive them. "Then" - when man had done his worst. "Then" - when the vileness of the human heart was displayed in climacteric devilry. "Then" - when with wicked hands the creature had dared to crucify the Lord of glory. He might have uttered awful maledictions over them. He might have let loose the thunderbolts of righteous wrath and slain them. He might have caused the earth to open her mouth so that they had gone down alive into the pit. But no. Though subjected to unspeakable shame, though suffering excruciating pain, though despised, rejected, hated; nevertheless, he cries, "Father, forgive them". That was the triumph of redeeming love. "Love suffereth long, and is kind . . . beareth all things . . . endureth all things" (1 Cor. 13). Thus it was shown at the cross.

     When Samson came to his dying hour he used his great strength of body to encompass the destruction of his foes; but the perfect one, exhibited the strength of his love by praying for the forgiveness of his enemies. Matchless grace! "Matchless," we say, for even Stephen failed to fully follow out the blessed example set by the Saviour. If the reader will turn to Acts 7 he will find that Stephen’s first thought was of himself, and then he prayed for his enemies - "And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit. And he kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge" (Acts 7:59,60). But with Christ the order was reversed: he prayed first for his foes, and last for himself. In all things he has the pre-eminence.

     And now one concluding word of application and exhortation. Should this chapter have been read by an unsaved person we would earnestly ask him to weigh well the next sentence - How dreadful must it be to oppose Christ and his truth knowingly! Those who crucified the Saviour "knew not what they did". But, my reader, there is a very real and solemn sense in which this is not true of you. You know you ought to receive Christ as your Saviour, that you ought to crown him the Lord of your life, that you ought to make it your first and last concern to please and glorify him. Be warned then; your danger is great. If you deliberately turn from him, you turn from the only one who can save you from your sins, and it is written, "For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries" (Heb. 10:26, 27).

     It only remains for us to add a word on the blessed completeness of divine forgiveness. Many of God’s people are unsettled and troubled upon this point. They understand how that all the sins they had committed before they received Christ as their Saviour have been forgiven, but oftentimes they are not clear concerning the sins which they commit after they have been born again. Many suppose it is possible for them to sin away the pardon which God had bestowed upon them. They suppose that the blood of Christ dealt with their past only, and that so far as the present and the future are concerned, they have to take care of that themselves. But of what value would be a pardon which might be taken away from me at any time? Surely there can be no settled peace when my acceptance with God and my going to heaven is made to depend upon my holding on to Christ, or my obedience and faithfulness.

     Blessed be God, the forgiveness which he bestows covers all sins - past, present and future. Fellow-believer, did not Christ bear your "sins" in his own body on the tree? And were not all your sins future sins when he died? Surely, for at that time you had not been born, and so had not committed a single sin. Very well then: Christ bore your "future" sins as truly as your past ones. What the word of God teaches is that the unbelieving soul is brought out of the place of unforgiveness into the place to which forgiveness attaches. Christians are a forgiven people. Says the Holy Spirit: "Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin" (Romans 4:8). The believer is in Christ, and there sin will never again be imputed to us. This is our place or position before God. In Christ is where he beholds us. And because I am in Christ I am completely and eternally forgiven, so much so that never again will sin be laid to my charge as touching my salvation, even though I were to remain on earth a hundred years. I am out of that place for evermore. Listen to the testimony of scripture: "And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he (God) quickened together with him (Christ), having forgiven you all trespasses" (Col. 2:13). Mark the two things which are here united (and what God hath joined together let no man put asunder) - my union with a risen Christ is connected with my forgiveness! If then my life is "hid with Christ in God" (Colossians 3:3), then I am forever out of the place where imputation of sin applies. Hence it is written, "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus" (Romans 8:1) - how could there be if "all trespasses" have been forgiven? None can lay anything to the charge of God’s elect (Romans 8:33). Christian reader, join the writer in praising God because we are eternally forgiven everything.*

     *It should be added by way of explanation, that it is the judicial aspect we have dealt with. Restorative forgiveness - which is the bringing back again into communion of a sinning believer -dealt with in 1 John 1:9 - is another matter altogether.

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 SEVENTH STAGE

When these men had thus bravely showed themselves against Doubting Castle, and had slain Giant Despair, they went forward, and went on till they came to the Delectable Mountains, where Christian and Hopeful refreshed themselves with the varieties of the place. They also acquainted themselves with the shepherds there, who welcomed them, as they had done Christian before, unto the Delectable Mountains.

     Now the shepherds seeing so great a train follow Mr. Great-Heart, (for with him they were well acquainted,) they said unto him, Good sir, you have got a goodly company here; pray where did you find all these?

     Then Mr. Great-Heart replied,

“First, here is Christiana and her train,
Her sons, and her sons’ wives, who, like the wain,
Keep by the pole, and do by compass steer
From sin to grace, else they had not been here.
Next here’s old Honest come on pilgrimage,
Ready-to-halt too, who I dare engage
True-hearted is, and so is Feeble-mind,
Who willing was not to be left behind.
Despondency, good man, is coming after,
And so also is Much-afraid, his daughter.
May we have entertainment here, or must
We further go? Let’s knew whereon to trust.”

     Then said the shepherds, This is a comfortable company. You are welcome to us; for we have for the feeble, as well as for the strong. Our Prince has an eye to what is done to the least of these; therefore Infirmity must not be a block to our entertainment.

Matt. 25: And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’   ESV

     So they had them to the palace door, and then said unto them, Come in, Mr. Feeble-Mind; come in Mr. Ready-to-halt; Come in, Mr. Despondency, and Mrs. Much-afraid his daughter. These, Mr. Great-Heart, said the shepherds to the guide, we call in by name, for that they are most subject to draw back; but as for you, and the rest that are strong, we leave you to your wonted liberty. Then said Mr. Great-Heart, This day I see that grace doth shine in your faces, and that you are my Lord’s shepherds indeed; for that you have not pushed these diseased neither with side nor shoulder, but have rather strewed their way into the palace with flowers, as you should.

Ezek. 34:21 Because you push with side and shoulder, and thrust at all the weak with your horns, till you have scattered them abroad,   ESV

     So the feeble and weak went in, and Mr. Great-Heart and the rest did follow. When they were also set down, the shepherds said to those of the weaker sort, What is it that you would have? for, said they, all things must be managed here to the supporting of the weak, as well as to the warning of the unruly. So they made them a feast of things easy of digestion, and that were pleasant to the palate and nourishing; the which when they had received, they went to their rest, each one respectively unto his proper place.

     When morning was come, because the mountains were high and the day clear, and because it was the custom of the shepherds to show the pilgrims before their departure some rarities, therefore, after they were ready, and had refreshed themselves, the shepherds took them out into the fields, and showed them first what they had shown to Christian before.

     Then they had them to some new places. The first was Mount Marvel, where they looked, and beheld a man at a distance that tumbled the hills about with words. Then they asked the shepherds what that should mean. So they told them, that that man was the son of one Mr. Great-grace, of whom you read in the first part of the records of the Pilgrim’s Progress; and he is set there to teach pilgrims how to believe down, or to tumble out of their ways, what difficulties they should meet with, by faith.

Mark 11:23-24 23 Truly, I say to you, whoever says to this mountain, ‘Be taken up and thrown into the sea,’ and does not doubt in his heart, but believes that what he says will come to pass, it will be done for him. 24 Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.   ESV

Then said Mr. Great-Heart, I know him; he is a man above many.

     Then they had them to another place, called Mount Innocence. And there they saw a man clothed all in white; and two men, Prejudice and Ill-will, continually casting dirt upon him. Now behold, the dirt, whatsoever they cast at him, would in a little time fall off again, and his garment would look as clear as if no dirt had been cast thereat. Then said the pilgrims, What means this? The shepherds answered, This man is named Godlyman, and this garment is to show the innocency of his life. Now, those that throw dirt at him are such as hate his well-doing; but, as you see the dirt will not stick upon his clothes, so it shall be with him that liveth innocently in the world. Whoever they be that would make such men dirty, they labor all in vain; for God, by that a little time is spent, will cause that their innocence shall break forth as the light, and their righteousness as the noonday.

     Then they took them, and had them to Mount Charity, where they showed them a man that had a bundle of cloth lying before him, out of which he cut coats and garments for the poor that stood about him; yet his bundle or roll of cloth was never the less. Then said they, What should this be? This is, said the shepherds, to show you, that he who has a heart to give of his labor to the poor, shall never want wherewithal. He that watereth shall be watered himself. And the cake that the widow gave to the prophet did not cause that she had the less in her barrel.

1 Kings 17:8 Then the word of the LORD came to him, 9 “Arise, go to Zarephath, which belongs to Sidon, and dwell there. Behold, I have commanded a widow there to feed you.” 10 So he arose and went to Zarephath. And when he came to the gate of the city, behold, a widow was there gathering sticks. And he called to her and said, “Bring me a little water in a vessel, that I may drink.” 11 And as she was going to bring it, he called to her and said, “Bring me a morsel of bread in your hand.” 12 And she said, “As the LORD your God lives, I have nothing baked, only a handful of flour in a jar and a little oil in a jug. And now I am gathering a couple of sticks that I may go in and prepare it for myself and my son, that we may eat it and die.” 13 And Elijah said to her, “Do not fear; go and do as you have said. But first make me a little cake of it and bring it to me, and afterward make something for yourself and your son. 14 For thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, ‘The jar of flour shall not be spent, and the jug of oil shall not be empty, until the day that the LORD sends rain upon the earth.’” 15 And she went and did as Elijah said. And she and he and her household ate for many days. 16 The jar of flour was not spent, neither did the jug of oil become empty, according to the word of the LORD that he spoke by Elijah.   ESV

     They had them also to the place where they saw one Fool and one Want-wit washing an Ethiopian, with intention to make him white; but the more they washed him, the blacker he was. Then they asked the shepherds what that should mean. So they told them, saying, Thus it is with the vile person; all means used to get such a one a good name, shall in conclusion tend but to make him more abominable. Thus it was with the pharisees; and so it shall be with all hypocrites.

     Then said Mercy, the wife of Matthew, to Christiana her mother, Mother, I would, if it might be, see the hole in the hill, or that commonly called the By-way to hell. So her mother brake her mind to the shepherds. Then they went to the door; it was on the side of an hill; and they opened it, and bid Mercy hearken a while. So she hearkened, and heard one saying, Cursed be my father for holding of my feet back from the way of peace and life. Another said, Oh that I had been torn in pieces before I had, to save my life, lost my soul! And another said, If I were to live again, how would I deny myself, rather than to come to this place! Then there was as if the very earth groaned and quaked under the feet of this young woman for fear; so she looked white, and came trembling away, saying, Blessed be he and she that is delivered from this place!

     Now, when the shepherds had shown them all these things, then they had them back to the palace, and entertained them with what the house would afford. But Mercy, being a young and married woman, longed for something that she saw there, but was ashamed to ask. Her mother-in-law then asked her what she ailed, for she looked as one not well. Then said Mercy, There is a looking-glass hangs up in the dining-room, off which I cannot take my mind; if, therefore, I have it not, I think I shall miscarry. Then said her mother, I will mention thy wants to the shepherds, and they will not deny thee. But she said, I am ashamed that these men should know that I longed. Nay, my daughter, said she, it is no shame, but a virtue, to long for such a thing as that. So Mercy said, Then mother, if you please, ask the shepherds if they are willing to sell it.

     Now the glass was one of a thousand. It would present a man, one way, with his own features exactly; and turn it but another way, and it would show one the very face and similitude of the Prince of pilgrims himself. Yes, I have talked with them that can tell, and they have said that they have seen the very crown of thorns upon his head by looking in that glass; they have therein also seen the holes in his hands, his feet, and his side. Yea, such an excellency is there in this glass, that it will show him to one where they have a mind to see him, whether living or dead; whether in earth, or in heaven; whether in a state of humiliation, or in his exaltation; whether coming to suffer, or coming to reign.

James 1:23 For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks intently at his natural face in a mirror.   ESV

1 Cor. 13:12 For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.   ESV

2 Cor. 3:18 And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another. For this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit.   ESV

     Christiana therefore went to the shepherds apart, (now the names of the shepherds were Knowledge, Experience, Watchful, and Sincere,) and said unto them, There is one of my daughters, a breeding woman, that I think doth long for something that she hath seen in this house; and she thinks that she shall miscarry if she should by you be denied.

     EXPERIENCE. Call her, call her, she shall assuredly have what we can help her to. So they called her, and said to her, Mercy, what is that thing thou wouldst have? Then she blushed, and said, The great glass that hangs up in the dining-room. So Sincere ran and fetched it, and with a joyful consent it was given her. Then she bowed her head, and gave thanks, and said, By this I know that I have obtained favor in your eyes.

     They also gave to the other young women such things as they desired, and to their husbands great commendations, for that they had joined with Mr. Great-Heart in the slaying of Giant Despair, and the demolishing of Doubting Castle.

     About Christiana’s neck the shepherds put a bracelet, and so did they about the necks of her four daughters; also they put ear-rings in their ears, and jewels on their foreheads.

     When they were minded to go hence, they let them go in peace, but gave not to them those certain cautions which before were given to Christian and his companion. The reason was, for that these had Great-Heart to be their guide, who was one that was well acquainted with things, and so could give them their cautions more seasonably, to wit, even when the danger was nigh the approaching. What cautions Christian and his companion had received of the shepherds, they had also lost by that the time was come that they had need to put them in practice. Wherefore, here was the advantage that this company had over the other.

From thence they went on singing, and they said,
“Behold how fitly are the stages set
For their relief that pilgrims are become,
And how they us receive without one let,
That make the other life our mark and home!
What novelties they have to us they give,
That we, though pilgrims, joyful lives may live;
They do upon us, too, such things bestow,
That show we pilgrims are, where’er we go.”

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

The Continual Burnt Offering

By H.A. Ironside - 1941

March 12

Do you know what happened on that day
When, burdened for souls, you tried to pray?
Did you think you failed to touch the Throne
When your lips were dumb, your prayer a groan?

Over the sea in a hot, dry land,
A sower sowed with faltering hand—
But, lo! in that hour refreshing came:
God’s servant spoke with a tongue of flame!
And souls long steeped in a land of night
Passed from gloom to marvelous light;
Away from idols they turned to God,
Finding their peace in Jesus’ blood.
‘Twas your faith had moved God’s mighty hand,
His blessings poured down in a desert land.
--- Margaret D. Armstrong