Exile and Restoration

By David M. Howard Jr. 2/2006

     When the Babylonian army under Nebuchadnezzar finished its work in destroying Jerusalem and carrying off the cream of its citizenry into exile in 586 BC, God’s people faced their greatest crisis ever, both politically and spiritually. This was the land that God had promised centuries earlier to Abraham, and where his descendants had lived for more than eight hundred years. Now it lay “uncovered” (this is the basic meaning of the word exile), its cities and its people brutalized. Abraham’s descendants now lived exiled in a hostile land.

     The great promises that God had made to David — about a kingdom centered in Jerusalem — seemed far away, even broken (see Psalm 89:19, 38–40). Psalm 137 captures some of the Israelites’ anguish: “By the waters of Babylon, there we sat down and wept, when we remembered Zion. On the willows there we hung up our lyres…. How shall we sing the Lord’s song in a foreign land?” (vv. 1–2, 4). The impact of Jerusalem’s destruction is described in excruciating detail three separate times in Scripture: 2 Kings 25; 2 Chronicles 36; and Jeremiah 52.

     This was a spiritual crisis, as well as a political one, because God had promised Abraham and his descendants the land in perpetuity (see Gen. 13:15; 17:8; 48:4), and David a royal descendent on the throne in Jerusalem in perpetuity (2 Sam. 7:11–16; 1 Chron. 17:10–14). Now, seemingly, all was lost: their land, their holy city, their temple and all its trappings, their elaborate sacrificial system and its priesthood, their king — everything.

     This did not come upon God’s people unawares. God had warned the nation from the very beginning that their continued tenure in the land depended on their obedience; if they were not faithful, God would remove them from it (Deut. 4:25–27; 30:17–20). The prophets had repeatedly warned of this (see Mic. 1:3–4; Zeph. 1:4–6; Jer. 25:4–7; 26:4–6).

     So, the Israelites in exile cried out to God with a renewed awareness of their sin: “Surely our transgressions and our sins are upon us, and we rot away because of them. How then can we live?” (Ezek. 33:10). God answered them that the key to their survival was repentance — turning their backs on sin (vv. 11–20). This was to be a genuine and heart-felt repentance, like had not been seen among God’s people in many generations.

     God in His grace had promised His people that He would certainly bring them back (Jer. 29:10), and that He would use Cyrus as His anointed instrument (Isa. 44:28; 45:1–4). When the time came, Cyrus indeed was God’s instrument, issuing a remarkable decree, freeing the Jews to return to their land (2 Chron. 36:22–23; Ezra 1:1–4). The books of Ezra and Nehemiah tell the story of the restoration of God’s people after the exile.

     In Ezra 1–6, we learn of the first wave of returnees under the leadership of Zerubbabel and Jeshua, of the first attempts to rebuild the temple, of local opposition to that rebuilding, and of the eventual completion of the temple, over a twenty-five year period (539–515 BC). A gap of more than fifty years followed until the time of Ezra’s return to the land in 458 BC, with a religious commission to teach the Law (Ezra 7–10).

     Nehemiah was Ezra’s later contemporary, arriving in Jerusalem in 445 BC. He returned with a political commission as governor, which included authorization to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem. He oversaw this task in the face of fierce opposition (Neh. 1–6), and joined Ezra in a great ceremony of reading the Law and celebrating the Festival of Tabernacles, including a great national confession and a renewing of the covenant (Neh. 8–10).

     In the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, we see joy, optimism, and a strong sense of spiritual purpose. After all, had not God brought His people back in fulfillment of the prophecy to Jeremiah (Ezra 1:1)? The return to the land from Babylon echoed in many ways the earlier return to the land from Egypt, only this time, a spirit of joy and enthusiasm prevailed (see Ezra 1–3). The whole nation pitched in to help, whether in rebuilding the temple (Ezra 1–6), or, later, in rebuilding the walls (Neh. 3), or even in repopulating Jerusalem (Neh. 11).

     There was a return to strict adherence to the Law, seen, for example, in the reforms that Ezra and Nehemiah instituted. Both confronted the issue of mixed marriages with foreigners, and both took drastic measures to eradicate all such ties (Ezra 9–10; Neh. 13:23–27). Years before them, the people under Zerubbabel and Jeshua carefully reinstituted sacrifices (Ezra 3). Years later, they publicly read the Law and made confession on the basis of what they had read (Neh. 8–9). The impression is that the people had learned a lesson from the trauma of the exile: if they were going to err in any direction, it was going to be in the direction of being too strict.

     Despite the joy and sense of community that attended the different returns to the land and the rebuilding of the temple and the walls, there were also traces of sadness and diminished expectations. This is seen most vividly when the temple foundations were laid around 536 BC. On this occasion, a great shout of joy was raised, but it was intermingled with a great cry from those who remembered the first temple: this temple now being constructed could not compare with the glories of the previous one (Ezra 3:10–13). The land had suffered greatly during the exile, and the people were greatly impoverished, and so a temple on the scale of Solomon’s temple simply would not be built.

     Moreover, the glories of the Davidic-Solomonic kingdom would not be re-established any time soon. Zerubbabel, a descendant of David, was living proof that the promises of the Davidic Covenant were still in effect (Ezra 3:2; 5:2). But, Zerubbabel did not preside over anything close to the kingdom that had been promised to David, to say nothing of the far more glorious kingdom predicted in the prophets. Both Ezra and Nehemiah, in their prayers, indicated their acute awareness that they were still under foreign domination, and thus not free (Ezra 9:7; Neh. 9:36).

     What, then, of the great promises of the Abrahamic and Davidic Covenants, in the light of the diminished state of affairs after the exile? Evangelical believers differ as to the exact place of the land in the future of God’s dealings with His people. But, all agree that the great promises to Abraham and David — about their descendants, about God’s relationship with His people, about the blessing of the nations through them — find their ultimate fulfillment in Jesus, the Christ. Indeed, the New Testament begins by affirming this: “The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham” (Matt. 1:1). Of all the forty-two names in the list that follows (vv. 2–17), Matthew’s selection of these two — David and Abraham — betrays his conviction that Jesus was not only physically the descendant of these two great Old Testament figures, but also the very embodiment of the great promises that had been given to them. The One toward which Old Testament history points has now come.

Click here to go to source

• 1     Joshua: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture (The New American Commentary)
• 2     An Introduction to the Old Testament Historical Books
• 3     Interpreting the Historical Books: An Exegetical Handbook (Handbooks for Old Testament Exegesis)
• 4     Fascinating Bible facts: People, places, & events
• 5     The Structure of Psalms 93 - 100 (Biblical and Judaic Studies from the University of California, San Diego)
• 6     The Big Book of Questions & Answers: The Bible As Told in the Old Testament

The Everlasting Kingdom

By Robert Bothwell 2/2006

     Even though the 2004 U.S. presidential election was not even two years ago, the media is already looking ahead to the 2008 campaign cycle. This reporting can be exasperating, but it is not surprising. In biblical terms, the attention paid to presidential politics seems to reflect our desire, even in a republic, to have one, sovereign ruler. This wish, revealing an innate need for submission to the One whose image we bear, may be unconscious, but it is present nonetheless. The story of Israel’s king is the emphasis of the historical books of the Bible, and this story is told most explicitly in Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles. While space prohibits us from covering each event in these inspired works, I hope to stress how these books, and David’s line in particular, anticipate the perfect king who fulfills God’s purpose for mankind and reclaims for us what Adam lost.

     Foundations of Kingship

     Kingship has always been God’s intent for His people. Mankind was created to exercise dominion and manifest God’s reign on the earth (Gen. 1:26–28), but the fall into sin corrupted this ideal. In redeeming a people for Himself, God promised to restore righteous dominion. Kings would come from Abraham’s line, (Gen. 17:5–6), and they were required to rule justly according to God’s law (Deut. 17:14–20). Moreover, even though this kingship is fully realized in the God of Israel, and one righteous servant par excellence, all believers will one day share in His reign (Isa. 60; Dan. 7:9–27; 2 Tim. 2:12a).

     We must remember these truths lest we think that Israel’s monarchy was not originally in God’s plan. 1 Samuel 8 records the Lord’s displeasure at Israel’s request for a king, but this is not because kingship is in itself evil. The author of Judges laments that chaos marked the period between Joshua and Saul because there was no king in Israel (Judg. 21:25). In describing the wickedness of Samuel’s sons even under his righteous judgeship (1 Sam. 8:1–3), the author of Samuel indicates that to have a strong, holy king in Israel is the ideal.

     No, the desire for a monarch is displeasing because of its motivation. Israel wants someone not to represent but to replace God’s rule (8:4–9). They seek a king like the other nations have who will rely on his own strength instead of the Lord’s to crush their enemies (8:10–22). But instead of rejecting their wish, the Lord gives them this exact kind of king in Saul.

     The Davidic Covenant and Beyond

     Outwardly, the man God chooses to be the first king of His people seems to be a good selection. Tall and handsome (9:1–2), Saul delivers Israel from the Ammonites (11:1–11). However, when the people fear the Philistines at Gilgal, Saul, instead of relying upon the word of the Lord through Samuel, does not wait for the prophet to offer the appointed sacrifices. Because of his disobedience, Saul’s dynasty will not rule forever (13:1–14a). Instead, the Lord will appoint a man who will possess a heart to serve Him (13:14b; 16:7). King David will rely upon the Lord and not himself to save Israel (chap. 17).

     Upon ascending the throne in 1004 bc, David conquers Jerusalem and brings the ark into the city (2 Sam. 5:1–6:15). At this point the historical books reach their climax when God makes an everlasting covenant with David.

     David desires to build a house for God, but the prophet Nathan informs the king he will not be the one to build the Lord’s temple (7:1–17; 1 Chron. 17:1–15). This interchange confirms that the offices of king and prophet are closely connected. Israel’s king must obey the law of Moses, the Lord’s first prophet (Deut. 17:18–20), and later prophets like Nathan repeat this demand to the king (see 2 Sam. 12:1–15). Yet the monarchy’s later decline into idolatry shows that he who merely hears God’s word will not be the true shepherd of Israel. The perfect ruler will have to be like David — a prophet (in the Psalms he gives us God’s Word) and a king. However, David’s own sins preclude him from being the perfect prophet-king; only He who is the exact imprint and final revelation of God can rightly exercise both offices at all times (Heb. 1:1–3a).

     The Davidic covenant is recorded in 2 Samuel 7 (see 1 Chron. 17; Pss. 89; 110). Three aspects of this covenant in particular serve as the framework for the history of God’s people after David.

     First, we read that David’s son will build the Lord’s house (2 Sam. 7:12–13). Initially, it seems Solomon will fulfill this promise because he builds the first temple in Jerusalem (1 Kings 5–8). However, Solomon’s later idolatry (chap. 11) reveals his inability to erect God’s final dwelling place. It will be David’s greater Son, the Temple of God Himself (Rev. 21:22), who builds His people into a living, spiritual house of true worship (1 Peter 2:4–10).

     God punishes Solomon for the worship of false gods (Deut. 17:17; 1 Kings 11:1–8) by dividing the kingdom after his death (vv. 9–13) and by raising up adversaries against Solomon (vv. 14–43), just as He did after David’s sin with Bathsheba (2 Sam. 12:11). This illustrates a second aspect of the Davidic covenant — conditionality.

     Though His steadfast love will never depart from David’s house, God pledges to bring “the rod of men” against the king for his iniquity (2 Sam. 7:14–16). David will surely have a throne forever (v. 13), but not all of his sons will reign — only the righteous can inherit the promise.

     This is clear from Israel’s later history. After Solomon dies, God hands ten tribes over to Jeroboam, leaving Solomon’s son Rehoboam with only Judah (1 Kings 11:26–12:20). Benjamin, the twelfth tribe, is not forgotten but is incorporated into Judah at this time (v. 21). Even though Jeroboam is not a descendant of David, his northern kingdom of Israel is still required to keep the covenant. However, Jeroboam is unfaithful and leads his people into sin (14:16). Subsequent regents in the north all follow his example; none of them serves the Lord. Some are notoriously wicked; Ahab and Jezebel, for example, persecute the prophet Elijah (19:1–3). Flagrant covenant violation moves God to bring final discipline against Israel when Assyria takes the ten northern tribes into exile in 722 BC (2 Kings 17:6–41).

     The southern kingdom of Judah lasts nearly 150 years longer, and the Davidic line sustains its authority there. Yet Judah is also disciplined for serving false gods. Her first king, Rehoboam, and her people practice every abomination “of the nations that the Lord drove out before the people of Israel” resulting in an Egyptian siege of Jerusalem (1 Kings 14:21–31).

     The king represents the people before God, and thus his fate is shared by his subjects. Manasseh’s reign as recorded in Chronicles links the destiny of the king with the destiny of his people. As one of Judah’s last kings, Manasseh’s wickedness brings the curse of exile even upon David’s line. While he is carried into Babylon before the rest of Judah, he is restored to the throne upon his repentance (2 Chron. 33:1–20). God’s people will later face the same punishment for their sins, but they will also receive the same restoration.

     This inseparable connection between the king and his people points toward the final aspect of the Davidic covenant — unconditionality. The Lord swore to establish David’s throne (Ps. 89:3–4), and He always fulfills His oaths. His steadfast love will never depart from David’s line (2 Sam. 7:16); thus, He must establish His king and His people securely in their land forever (vv. 10–11). He must provide a king who will keep covenant and provide righteousness for His people. The promise is unconditional because God Himself ensures its final fulfillment — not because He has no requirement for His kings. Righteousness is the obligation of king and subject (Deut. 28). God’s covenant love will make sure this righteousness, and thus the promise to David, is achieved. However, He does not set His love on all of David’s sons.

     God keeps His promise to David by combining the office of priest and king (who is to be a prophet as well). The Son that keeps the covenant and therefore effectively intercedes for the people will have His throne established forever. This is anticipated in David who plans the temple (1 Chron. 22–26) and sacrifices to the Lord (2 Sam. 6:17b). Righteous kings such as Hezekiah and Josiah also embrace the priestly vocation by renewing the covenant during their tenures as Judah’s king (2 Kings 18:1–8; 22:1–23:25).

     Despite this apparent failure of God to keep His promise to David, the pre-exilic history ends with an inkling of hope. Jehoiachin, Zedekiah’s immediate predecessor, is freed from prison and given a seat higher than any other king exiled into Babylon (2 Kings 25:27–30). God is preserving the royal line so His Son can enter into history and fulfill His promises to David. Jesus of Nazareth became the perfect priest, and, as the Davidic king (Matt. 1:1–17), His destiny is inseparable from the destiny of His people. Like Manasseh and Jehoiachin before Him, He receives the penalty due sin, yet not for His own but for that of His people (Isa. 53). He too is restored after death in exile, but His restoration is permanent. His resurrection is the first fruits of a cosmic restoration (Rom. 8:19–23), and all those in Him will dwell securely in a good land — a new earth — forever (Rev. 21:1–8).

The Historical Book

By Gene Edward Veith 2/2006

     Non-Christians assume that the Bible is a collection of myths. So do theological liberals, which is why they feel free to support abortion, homosexual marriage, the validity of all world religions — and they have constructed a whole vein of scholarship designed to “demythologize” the Bible, so as to salvage what they consider to be relevant to contemporary culture.

     As a long-time student of literature, I get frustrated reading liberal biblical scholarship, not just because of its bad theology but because of its distortion of literature. A person might not believe the Bible is historical, but it is beyond doubt that the Bible is written in a historical style (which, in turn, is strong evidence for its historicity).

     A greater literary scholar than I, C.S. Lewis, saw the same thing. “Whatever these men may be as biblical critics, I distrust them as critics,” Lewis wrote. “They seem to me to lack literary judgment, to be imperceptive about the very quality of the texts they are reading.” Lewis thought that part of the problem may be specialization, that these scholars have devoted so much time to the minute scrutiny of biblical texts that they have failed to attain “a wide and deep and genial experience of literature in general.… If he tells me something in a gospel is a legend or a romance, I want to know how many legends and romances he has read” (“Fern-seed and Elephants,” in Christian Reflections).

     For most of the history of Western literature, beginning in the ancient world and continuing up until the invention of the novel in the eighteenth century, legends, romances, and myths were written in poetry. Historical records were written in prose.

     The Bible has poetry, of course — the Psalms and the prophetic books — but these are lyric poems (that is, personal expressions, the kind of poetry that can be assumed to be true). The great narratives of Scripture — in Genesis, the saga of the Israelites, the Gospels — are in prose. That alone is good evidence that they are historical.

     But more than that, the texture, details, and composition of these narratives marks them not as myths or imaginative fictions but history. Lewis makes fun of Bible scholars who call the gospel of John an “allegory,” pointing to the vividly lifelike dialogues and to the extraneous details — such as Jesus writing in the dust — whose inclusion can only be accounted for if they actually happened. “I have been reading poems, romances, vision-literature, legends, myths all my life. I know what they are like. I know that not one of them is like this.”

     Lewis sees only two possibilities. Either these accounts are reports of actual events, “or else, some unknown writer in the second century, without known predecessors or successors, suddenly anticipated the whole universe of modern, novelistic, realistic narrative.”

     Lewis says, “The reader who doesn’t see this has simply not learned to read. I would recommend him to read Auerbach.” So let us read Eric Auerbach, whose book Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature (1953) is recognized as one of the century’s greatest works of literary criticism. The first chapter, “Odyseuss’ Scar,” compares the style of Homer to that of the Bible.

     Homer, Auerbach shows, puts everything in the foreground — giving us what the characters look like, describing their surroundings in detail, and even telling us what they are thinking. This approach, which has become the model for Western fiction, is “to represent phenomena in a fully externalized form, visible and palpable in all their parts, and completely fixed in their spatial and temporal relations,” says Auerbach.

     He contrasts this highly-imaginative approach to the way the Bible in Genesis describes the sacrifice of Isaac. We do not know what Abraham or Isaac look like; there is no description of the landscape; we are not told what Abraham thinks as he prepares to sacrifice his son; nor are we informed why God acts as He does. Such meaning is in the “background,” requiring interpretation and reflection and opening up untold depths.

     This kind of narrative testifies to the real because it is messy, unpredictable, and compels, just like real life. Auerbach says that the story of David has to be historical. “In Absalom’s rebellion, for example, or in the scenes from David’s last days, the contradictions and crossing of motives both in individuals and in the general action have become so concrete that it is impossible to doubt the historicity of the information conveyed.”

     Unlike Homer, the biblical narrator was not just making things up. “His freedom in creative or representative imagination was severely limited.” This is because he was constrained by the truth. The Bible conveys not just truth, but authoritative truth. “Far from seeking, like Homer, merely to make us forget our own reality for a few hours, it seeks to overcome our reality: we are to fit our own life into its world, feel ourselves to be elements in its structure of universal history.”

     Auerbach was not a Christian. He remained a Jewish rationalist. But he recognized the implications of the Bible’s historicity and truth. “The Scripture stories do not, like Homer’s, court our favor, they do not flatter us that they may please us and enchant us — they seek to subject us, and if we refuse to be subjected we are rebels.”

• 1     God at Work (Redesign): Your Christian Vocation in All of Life
• 2     Spirituality of the Cross Revised Edition
• 3     Loving God with All Your Mind: Thinking as a Christian in the Postmodern World
• 4     Family Vocation: God's Calling in Marriage, Parenting, and Childhood
• 5     Modern Fascism: Liquidating the Judeo-Christian Worldview (Concordia Scholarship Today)
• 6     Working for Our Neighbor: A Lutheran Primer on Vocation, Economics, and Ordinary Life
• 7     Postmodern Times: A Christian Guide to Contemporary Thought and Culture
• 8     State of the Arts: From Bezalel to Mapplethorpe
• 9     Reading Between the Lines (Redesign): A Christian Guide to Literature (Turning Point Christian Worldview Series)
• 10     Imagination Redeemed: Glorifying God with a Neglected Part of Your Mind

Setting a Course for Faithfulness

By Stephen Nichols 1/1/1989 Tabletalk Magazine

     TT: What are your responsibilities in your role as president of Reformation Bible College and chief academic officer for Ligonier Ministries? | SN: Under the supervision and direction of the board of directors, the president of Reformation Bible College governs all aspects of the college from the staff and faculty to the students and curriculum. I am not alone in this, as I work alongside Dr. John W. Tweeddale, our academic dean.

     Ligonier is primarily a teaching ministry that delivers content in a variety of ways. As chief academic officer, I work with Chris Larson, Ligonier’s president, in maintaining the theological emphasis and voice of Ligonier, which has proven beneficial to so many in the church over these last four decades. In both of these positions, I report directly to Dr. R.C. Sproul.

     It is all rather humbling. Ultimately, the responsibility of both positions is to maintain theological fidelity. History abounds with tragic examples of ministries and colleges losing their moorings. Above all, institutions need God’s grace to stay true to Him, and they also need to be purposeful and committed. Dr. Sproul has cast the vision and set the course. These two roles that I will, along with many other roles at Ligonier and RBC where others serve, are in place so that the next generation, and generations to come, may grow in their knowledge of God—to increase their zeal to serve God, and to glorify and enjoy God forever.

     TT: What excites you most about the ministry of RBC? | SN: It would have to be both the potential of the faculty and the potential of the students. Gathered in Sanford, Fla., is a world-class collection of scholars who are committed to the mission of Ligonier Ministries, RBC, and the church. Augustine once said that a good teacher is one who loves the subject, loves the students, and, above all, loves God. That is the RBC faculty, and they will be a substantial resource for the church for years to come. Then there are the students. They are taught the full range of biblical studies, church history, philosophy, and apologetics. On top of that, RBC has a great works curriculum, affording students the opportunity to engage classic texts and the history of ideas from the early Greeks to the present day. The curriculum is built upon and aims at one thing: the knowledge of God. We exist to teach students theology. And they are taught by godly professors who love their subjects and are called to their students. When you consider all of this, you can’t help but get excited about the potential of RBC. There is an urgent need for this kind of education and for this unique college.

     TT: What would you like to see RBC accomplish over the next ten years? Twenty years? Fifty years? | SN: First and foremost would be faithfulness—faithfulness as an institution to the Reformed faith and to the particular theological emphases that have marked Ligonier Ministries since its inception forty years ago. That faithfulness also has to do with our students. They come to us, study with us, and eventually graduate. Commencement is not an end, however, but a beginning of a life of ministry, of work and vocation, and of family. What will be said of RBC students at the end of their life’s journey? If the answer is faithfulness, then RBC will have been used by God in their lives to accomplish something of lasting significance and of true substance.

     Second is fruitfulness. The goal for RBC is not to be big, but to be influential. We want RBC men and women to know and love God, to be articulate and persuasive, and to contend for truth, goodness, and beauty.

     TT: Why are you concerned with defending the doctrine of Scripture’s inerrancy in this day and age? | SN: Defending inerrancy is necessary precisely because it is being challenged and even jettisoned by many who would claim to be evangelicals. The doctrine of inerrancy reminds us that the Bible is God’s authoritative and trustworthy Word to us. My concern is with alternative views, and especially with the consequences of those alternatives. If you do not hold to the full inerrancy of Scripture, what do you have? Essentially, you have limited inerrancy. That has the Bible submitting to us—to our judgment. That has it all topsy-turvy. The doctrine of Scripture is the first domino, so to speak. If it falls in the wrong direction, the whole chain of dominoes falls in the wrong direction.

     TT: Why is it important to express and defend a biblical Christology? | SN: Christology encompasses the person and work of Christ. As for His person, we must confess the God-man, the hypostatic union of the divine nature and the human nature in one person. As for Christ’s work, we must confess His sinless life, His perfect obedience, His atoning death as a substitute in our place, His burial, His resurrection, and His ascension to the Father’s right hand. Sadly, many of these doctrines are also being challenged and jettisoned today. Consider this: Can we have the gospel without a biblical Christology? The answer, of course, is no. And without the gospel, we cease to be the church. We are called to proclaim the gospel and live out its ramifications. The heart and soul of the gospel is a biblical Christology. We must confess it, teach it, and defend it. This is why we produced The Word Made Flesh: The Ligonier Statement on Christology. We must confess and contend for a biblical Christology.

     TT: Several of your writings focus on Jonathan Edwards. Why do you return to this early American preacher and theologian so often? | SN: I never find the time I spend with Edwards to be wasted time. I come away from reading him being challenged and with new ways of thinking about and living the Christian life. Just the other day, I was looking at the letter Sarah Edwards, his wife, wrote to their daughter after Jonathan died. She said, “What shall I say? A holy and good God has covered us with a dark cloud.” She clings to God’s holiness and goodness in a time of turmoil and suffering. Sarah’s reaction reflects what her husband lived, taught, and wrote. I go back to Edwards because I so need that perspective.

     TT: What are two major lessons that American Christians need to learn from Christians who lived in centuries past? | SN: Track down a copy of Augustine’s Confessions. You will see that the first word in Latin is magnus. God is great. He is transcendent, infinitely above and over His creation. The corollary is that we are not. We are finite. I don’t think we reflexively think of God as great and of ourselves as small. But we must.

     The second major lesson concerns suffering. The vast majority of voices from the past offer a far different perspective than we do on suffering. Perhaps it’s due to our living in the “entitlement age,” or due to our sense of overcoming so many diseases and ailments that once plagued previous generations. Whatever the reason, we see suffering as abnormal and to be avoided. What does Paul mean by participating in the fellowship of Christ’s sufferings? We learn more about what that means when we look to the past than when we confine ourselves to the present.

     TT: In what major ways has American culture distorted our understanding of Jesus? | SN: American culture’s distorting our understanding of Jesus offers a clear case where culture rushes in to fill the vacuum left when we disdain tradition. The Nicene and Chalcedonian creeds mark out helpful boundaries regarding the person of Christ. The Reformers mark out helpful boundaries for thinking of Christ’s work. When we neglect these resources, we are overly influenced by culture. In America’s Victorian age, Jesus was “feminized.” He was seen exclusively as meek and mild. Even the images of this era portray Jesus as feminine. In our day, Jesus has taken on any number of personae. I’ve seen images of Him in a boxing ring with gloves on, ready to fight the devil. Scripture presents Jesus as a rather complex person. We can distort that image, constructing a Jesus who looks like us, and is there simply to affirm us. The creeds and the Reformation solas can go a long way in helping us think clearly and biblically about Jesus.

     TT: Name a few inappropriate ways to read church history. | SN: I can name three. The first would be not to read it. Why cut yourself off from the riches of the past? The second concerns reading history with judgmental and dismissive attitudes. We can easily do this because we tend to think so highly of our own age, and we tend to be unaware of our own blind spots. The counter is to read church history with humility, not hubris. Third, we need to avoid “hagiography.” Our church history figures don’t need halos. The Scripture writers show the faults and flaws of the biblical figures. There is only one who ranks as the true hero: Christ. We can be so thankful for leaders from church history who so clearly and persuasively point us to Christ. But we must ultimately look to the One to whom they are pointing and not to them.

     TT: How can Christians have confidence in God in this day and age? | SN: When Rome collapsed in the early 400s, the great scholar Jerome declared the world to be in ruins, went into a cave outside of Bethlehem, and waited to die. Conversely, Augustine wrote the classic text The City of God (Translated with an Introduction by Marcus Dods). Augustine reminds us that, while empires come and go, God’s kingdom is unshakable. What Augustine said then is what we need now. We can have confidence in God because His Word is true and sure, because His ways are perfect and good, and because He sovereignly reigns over His world. We live in challenging and confusing times that can throw us off balance. But we do not go crawling into a cave. Instead, with confidence and conviction, we remember our unchanging God and we trust in His steadfast love and faithfulness.

Read The Psalms In "1" Year

Psalm 31

21 Blessed be the LORD,
for he has wondrously shown his steadfast love to me
when I was in a besieged city.
22 I had said in my alarm,
“I am cut off from your sight.”
But you heard the voice of my pleas for mercy
when I cried to you for help.
23 Love the LORD, all you his saints!
The LORD preserves the faithful
but abundantly repays the one who acts in pride.
24 Be strong, and let your heart take courage,
all you who wait for the LORD!

Judges 2

By Don Carson 7/19/2018

     From a reading of Judges 1-2, it appears that after the initial Israelite victories, the pace of conquest varied considerably. In many cases tribes were responsible for bringing their own territories under control. With the passage of time, however, it seems to have become unstated policy, as the Israelites grew stronger, not to chase the Canaanites from the land, nor to exterminate them, but to subjugate them or even enslave them, to make them “drawers of water and hewers of wood,” to subject them to forced labor (Judg. 1:28).

     The inevitable result is that a great deal of paganism remained in the land. Human nature being what it is, these false gods inevitably became a “snare” to the covenant community (Judg. 2:3). Angry with their refusal to break down the pagan altars, the angel of the Lord declares that if the people will not do what they are told, he will no longer provide them with the decisive help that would have enabled them to complete the task (had they been willing!). The people weep over the lost opportunity, but it is too late (Judg. 2:1-4). It is certainly not that they had never been warned.

     This is the background to the rest of the book of Judges. Some of its main themes are then outlined for us in the rest of chapter 2. Much of the rest of the book is exemplification of the thinking laid out here.

     The main thrust, shot through with tragedy, is the cyclical failure of the covenant community, and how God intervenes to rescue them again and again. Initially, the people remained faithful throughout Joshua’s lifetime and the lifetime of the elders who outlived him (Judg. 2:6). But by the time that an entirely new generation had grown up — one that had seen nothing of the wonders God had performed, whether at the Exodus, during the wilderness years, or at the time of the entrance into the Promised Land — fidelity to the Lord dwindled away. Syncretism and paganism abounded; the people forsook the God of their fathers and served the Baals, i.e., the various “lords” of the Canaanites (Judg. 2:10-12). The Lord responded in wrath; the people were subjected to raids, reversals, and military defeats at the hands of surrounding marauders. When the people cried to the Lord for help, he raised up a judge — a regional and often national leader — who freed the people from tyranny and led them in covenantal faithfulness. And then the cycle began again. And again. And again.

     Here is a sober lesson. Even after times of spectacular revival, reformation, or covenantal renewal, the people of God are never more than a generation or two from infidelity, unbelief, massive idolatry, disobedience, and wrath. God help us.

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

In what way does the Spirit testify?

By Sinclair Ferguson

     The key issue is: In what way does the Spirit testify? In particular, in Romans 8:16 does Paul regard the Spirit’s testimony as either (a) a testimony to our spirit or (b) a testimony with our spirit? Paul’s verb, summartureō can be used in either sense.

     In his commentary on Romans, C. E. B. Cranfield (now followed by others) argued forcefully that the testimony of the Spirit must be given to our spirits and not (along) with (the testimony of) our spirits. He asks: “What standing does our spirit have in this matter? Of itself it surely has no right to testify to our being sons of God.”   A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Epistle to the Romans, 2 volumes   C. E. B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Epistle to the Romans, 2 vols.

     But there seem to be good reasons to reject this view, as follows.

     1) Paul uses the verb summartureō elsewhere in Romans. ( Rom. 2:15; 9:1 ) In both instances the idea seems to be that of a witness with rather than to. In addition, Romans 8 is replete with sun compound words. We are heirs with Christ (8:17); we suffer with Christ (v. 17); the creation groans together (v. 22); it travails together (v. 22); the Spirit helps us (along with us) in our weakness (v. 26); things work together with each other for our good (v. 28). This further suggests that the sun compound verb summartureō also carries the sense of “witness along with” rather than “witness to.”

(Ro 2:15–29) 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them 16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.
17 But if you call yourself a Jew and rely on the law and boast in God 18 and know his will and approve what is excellent, because you are instructed from the law; 19 and if you are sure that you yourself are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness, 20 an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of children, having in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth— 21 you then who teach others, do you not teach yourself? While you preach against stealing, do you steal? 22 You who say that one must not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? 23 You who boast in the law dishonor God by breaking the law. 24 For, as it is written, “The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.”
25 For circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law, but if you break the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision. 26 So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? 27 Then he who is physically uncircumcised but keeps the law will condemn you who have the written code and circumcision but break the law. 28 For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. 29 But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God. ESV

By Gleason Archer Jr.

The Table of Nations in Genesis 10

      From the standpoint of linguistic relationships there appear to be some marked discrepancies between the historical affinities among the Near Eastern nations and those indicated by the genealogical tables of  Gen. 10. For example, Canaan is said to be descended from Ham (v.  6 ), and yet the Canaanites of 2000 B.C. were speaking a West Semitic dialect (of which Hebrew itself is a subdivision). It must be borne in mind, however, that language is not necessarily decisive for ethnic relationship, for Germanic Visigoths ended up speaking Spanish in Spain, the Ostrogoths Italian in Italy, the Germanic Franks adopted French in France, and the French-speaking Normans finally took up English in England. Correspondingly the Hamitic tribes which conquered Palestine in the third millennium B.C. may have succumbed to the influence of Semitic-speaking neighbors, regardless of what their original tongue may have been. It should moreover be noted that this assignment of the Canaanites to the posterity of Ham can only be accounted for on the basis of an accurate historical tradition preserved to the Hebrews of Moses’ day. Otherwise they would have had every motivation to assign the Canaanites to Shem, since they spoke a Semitic language at least as early as the days of Abraham and Jacob (cf.  Gen. 31:47 ).

      Another problem is presented by the appearance of Sheba as a descendant both of Ham (v.  7 ) and of Shem (v.  28 ). In all probability the Sabaeans were originally Hamitic, but continual intermixture with Semitic neighbors in South Arabia finally altered their ethnic complexion to make them predominantly Semitic. Thus both the relationship of verse  7 and that of verse  28 would be correct.

      As for Cush, verses  8–10 indicate he was the father of Nimrod of Babylonia, and yet his name became associated with Ethiopia (cf.  Isa. 11:11; Ezek. 30:4, ASV marg.), a country known to the Egyptians as K;š (and may have been vocalized as Kūsh). Verse  6 refers to him as a son of Ham, which of course agrees with an African location. On the other hand, the Al Amran tribe of Arabia calls the region of Zebid in Yemen by the name Kush. There was also an important city near Babylon named Kish, from which Nimrod may have come. Putting all these evidences together, Unger (AOT, p. 83) suggests that the original home of the Hamitic Cushites was in Lower Mesopotamia, where Nimrod raised them to great power. From there the Cushites may well have extended their power to the Yemenite region of Arabia, and then crossed the Red Sea to invade “Ethiopia” (an area now occupied by the Republic of Sudan) and imposed their name upon that entire district. This would be no more unlikely than the colonization of Carthaginia by Phoenician settlers or the conquest of French Normandy, Saxon England, and Muslim Sicily by the Normans from Norway. Earlier examples would be the settlement and conquest of Sicily and southern Italy by the Greeks in the seventh and sixth centuries B.C. Some authorities draw into the discussion the little - known Kushu tribe mentioned in Middle Kingdom Egyptian inscriptions as inhabiting the borders of Syria and Palestine. But it is not clear how these could have engendered all the nations of  Gen. 10:7 (most of which inhabited the Arabian Peninsula), or furnished the background for Nimrod, unless of course they actually represented settlements from the original Kushites of Lower Babylonia.

      In view of the foregoing, it seems that A. H. Sayce was overhasty in surrendering the genetic reliability of  Gen. 10 and interpreting it as merely a description of geographical relationships at a time when Canaan was under Egyptian domination (and hence would have been regarded as Hamitic, since Egypt or Mizraim was descended from Ham).” Even G. E. Wright (in the Westminster Atlas) concedes that this list is arranged on the whole from a racial point of view.

      Some of the more interesting correspondences between the names of this chapter and the forms which they assume in Akkadian inscriptions are here listed. Of the descendants of Japheth, Gomer is identified with the Gimirriya or Gimirrai (known to the Greeks as Cimmerians), who came down from above the Caucasus Range and invaded Asia Minor, settling in Cappadocia. Madai was the ancestor of the Medes, and Javan of the Greeks (the name seems to have been preserved in the Ionians). Tubal’s descendants were the Tabali, who fought Tiglath-pileser I around 1100 B.C., and the race of Meshech were the Mushke who warred with Shalmaneser III in the ninth century. Both lived in eastern Asia Minor. There is no extant record of the descendants of Magog. As for Tiras, he seems to have fathered the Tursenoi or Tyrrhenians, a Pelasgian race who at first inhabited the Aegean region.

      Ashkenaz, of the line of Gomer, is identified with the Ashkuz or Scythians, who invaded the Near East from the North (via the Caucasus) and were formidable antagonists of the Assyrians, the Persians, and the Greeks. Little is known of Riphath, and Togarmah is tentatively identified with Tegarama in Southwestern Armenia. Elishah, of the line of Javan, is Alashia, now usually identified with Cyprus (cf. Westminster Atlas), as is also Kittim (a name preserved in Citium on the southern coast of that island). Tarshish has been associated with localities in Sardinia (where the name has been found on inscriptions) and also with Spain. Dodanim is perhaps to be connected with the Dardanians of the region around Troy in northwest Asia Minor; the Dardana are apparently equivalent to the Dardanians. But most scholars prefer the spelling Rodanim which occurs in the parallel passage in  1 Chron. 1:7 (ASV), apparently referring to the people of the island of Rhodes.

      Cush has already been discussed. Mizraim (“The Two Districts”) refers to Egypt; Phut is to be identified with Puta (referred to by Darius I) in Cyrenaica. A distinction should be drawn between Ludim (v.  13 ), ancestor of the Lybians (if the true original reading, as Albright thinks, was Lubim), and Lud (v.  22 ), progenitor of the Lydians of Asia Minor. The classification of Elam as Semitic (v.  22 ) has been challenged on linguistic grounds, since Elamite or Susian was a language non-Semitic in character But as we have already seen, language is no infallible indicator of ethnic relationship, and there was besides, an early penetration of Semitic-speaking conquerors into Elam in the ascendancy of Sargon of Agade (ca. 2200 B.C.).

      Concerning the descendants of Shem, Unger (AOT, pp. 97–99) lists all the available information, which is unfortunately meager enough. But as to the tribal descendants of Aram and Joktan (in Arabia), Albright has this interesting comment: “The most significant thing about the names of the tribal descendants of Aram and Joktan is that nearly all the names are archaic, not hitherto having been found in the inscriptions of the first millennium from Assyria and South Arabia. Moreover, several of the names belong to types known as personal names only in the early second millennium, though they may have continued as tribal names for many centuries thereafter.”

A Survey of Old Testament Introduction

The Coming Prince

By Sir Robert Anderson 1841-1918

Chapter 1 Introduction

     And this suggests another ground on which, in our own day especially, prophetic study claims peculiar prominence; namely, the testimony it affords to the Divine character and origin of the Scriptures. Though infidelity was as open-mouthed in former times, it had its own banner and its own camp, and it shocked the mass of mankind, who, though ignorant of the spiritual power of religion, clung nevertheless with dull tenacity to its dogmas. But the special feature of the present age – well fitted to cause anxiety and alarm to all thoughtful men – is the growth of what may be termed religious skepticism, a Christianity which denies revelation – a form of godliness which denies that which is the power of godliness. (2 Timothy 3:5)

2 Timothy 3:5, having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power. Avoid such people.   ESV

     Faith is not the normal attitude of the human mind towards things Divine, the earnest doubter, therefore, is entitled to respect and sympathy. But what judgment shall be meted out to those who delight to proclaim themselves doubters, while claiming to be ministers of a religion of which FAITH is the essential characteristic?

     There are not a few in our day whose belief in the Bible is all the more deep and unfaltering just because they have shared in the general revolt against priestcraft and superstition; and such men are scarcely prepared to take sides in the struggle between free thought and the thraldom of creeds and clerics. But in the conflict between faith and skepticism within the pale, their sympathies are less divided. On the one side there may be narrowness, but at least there is honesty; and in such a case surely the moral element is to be considered before a claim to mental vigor and independence can be listened to. Moreover any claim of the kind needs looking into. The man who asserts his freedom to receive and teach what he deems truth, howsoever reached, and wheresoever found, is not to be lightly accused of vanity or self-will. His motives may be true, and right, and praiseworthy. But if he has subscribed to a creed, he ought to be careful in taking any such ground. It is not on the side of vagueness that the creeds of our British Churches are in fault, and men who boast of being freethinkers would deserve more respect if they showed their independence by refusing to subscribe, than by undermining the doctrines they are both pledged and subsidized to defend and teach.

     But what concerns us here is the indisputable fact that rationalism in this its most subtle phase is leavening society. The universities are its chief seminaries. The pulpit is its platform. Some of the most popular religious leaders are amongst its apostles. No class is safe from its influence. And if even the present could be stereotyped, it were well; but we are entered on a downward path, and they must indeed be blind who cannot see where it is leading. If the authority of the Scriptures be unshaken, vital truths may be lost by one generation, and recovered by the next; but if THAT   (the authority of Scripture)  be touched, the foundation of all truth is undermined, and all power of recovery is gone. The Christianized skeptic of today   (remember, this was written over a 100 years ago)  will soon give place to the Christianized infidel, whose disciples and successors in their turn will be infidels without any gloss of Christianity about them. Some, doubtless, will escape; but as for the many, Rome will be the only refuge for those who dread the goal to which society is hastening. Thus the forces are marshaling for the great predicted struggle of the future between the apostasy of a false religion and the apostasy of open infidelity. [5]

[5] I cannot refrain from giving the following extract from an article by Professor Goldwin Smith, in Macmillian's Magazine for February 1878:

     "The denial of the existence of God and of the future state, in a word, is the dethronement of conscience; and society will pass, to say the least, through a dangerous interval before social science can fill the vacant throne … But in the meantime mankind, or some portions of it, may be in danger of an anarchy of self-interest, compressed, for the purpose of political order, by a despotism of force.

     "That science and criticism, acting – thanks to the liberty of opinion won by political effort – with a freedom never known before, have delivered us from a mass of dark and degrading superstitions, we own with heartfelt thankfulness to the deliverers, and in the firm conviction that the removal of false beliefs, and of the authorities or institutions founded on them, cannot prove in the end anything but a blessing to mankind. But at the same time the foundations of general morality have inevitably been shaken, and a crisis has been brought on, the gravity of which nobody can fail to see, and nobody but a fanatic of materialism can see without the most serious misgiving.

     "There has been nothing in the history of man like the present situation. The decadence of the ancient mythologies is very far from affording a parallel… The Reformation was a tremendous earthquake: it shook down the fabric of mediaeval religion, and as a consequence of the disturbance in the religious sphere, filled the world with revolutions and wars. But it left the authority of the Bible unshaken, and men might feel that the destructive process had its limit, and that adamant was still beneath their feet. But a world which is intellectual and keenly alive to the significance of these questions, reading all that is written about them with almost passionate avidity, finds itself brought to a crisis the character of which any one may realize by distinctly presenting to himself the idea of existence without a God."

[6] ta logia tou theou (Romans 3:2). The old Hebrew Scriptures were thus regarded by those who were the divinely-appointed custodians of them (ib.) Not only by the devout among the Jews, but, as Josephus testifies, by all, they "were justly believed to be Divine," so that men were willing to endure tortures of all kinds rather than speak against them, and even "willingly to die for them" (Josephus, Apion, 1., 8). This fact is of immense importance in relation to the Lord's own teaching on the subject. Dealing with a people who believed in the sanctity and value of every word of Scripture, He never missed an opportunity to confirm them in that belief. The New Testament affords abundant proof how unreservedly He enforced it upon His disciples. (As regards the limits and date of closing of the Canon of Scripture, see Pusey, Daniel, p. 294, etc.)

[7] Mill, Essays on Religion.

Reason may bow before the shibboleths and tricks of priestcraft– "the voice of the Church," as it is called; but this is sheer credulity. But if GOD speaks, then skepticism gives place to faith. Nor is this a mere begging of the question. The proof that the voice is really Divine must be absolute and conclusive. In such circumstances, skepticism betokens mental or moral degradation, and faith is not the abnegation of reason, but the highest act of reason. To maintain that such proof is impossible, is equivalent to asserting that the God who made us cannot so speak to us that the voice shall carry with it the conviction that it is from Him; and this is not skepticism at all, but disbelief and atheism. "It pleased God to reveal His Son in me," was St. Paul's account of his conversion. The grounds of his faith were subjective, and could not be produced. In proof to others of their reality he could only appeal to the facts of his life; though these were entirely the result, and in no sense or degree the basis, of his conviction. Nor was his case exceptional. St. Peter was one of the favored three who witnessed every miracle, including the transfiguration, and yet his faith was not the result of these, but sprang from a revelation to himself. In response to his confession,

Matthew 16:16 Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”   ESV

the Lord declared,

Matthew 16:17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.   ESV

Nor, again, was this a special grace accorded only to apostles.

2 Peter 1:1 Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ,
To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:   ESV

was St. Peter's address to the faithful generally. He describes them as "born again by the Word of God." So also St. John speaks of such as "born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." (John 1:13)

John 1:13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.   ESV

"Of His own will begat He us with the word of truth" is the kindred statement of St. James. (James 1:18).

James 1:18 Of his own will he brought us forth by the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.   ESV

     Whatever be the meaning of such words, they must mean something more than arriving at a sound conclusion from sufficient premises, or accepting facts upon sufficient evidence. Nor will it avail to urge that this birth was merely the mental or moral change naturally caused by the truth thus attained by natural means. The language of the Scripture is unequivocal that the power of the testimony to produce this change depended on the presence and operation of God. Pages might be filled with quotations to prove this, but two may surface. St. Peter declares they preached the Gospel

1 Peter 1:12 It was revealed to them that they were serving not themselves but you, in the things that have now been announced to you through those who preached the good news to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven, things into which angels long to look.   ESV

and St. Paul's words are still more definite.

1 Thessalonians 1:5 because our gospel came to you not only in word, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction. You know what kind of men we proved to be among you for your sake.   ESV {8}

[8] alla kai en dunamei kai en pneumati agio (1 Thessalonians 1:5.) "But also in power, even in the Holy Ghost." There is no contrast intended between God on the one hand, and power on the other, nor yet between different sorts of power. To object that this referred to miracles which accompanied the preaching is to betray ignorance of Scripture. Acts 17 represents the preaching to which the Apostle was alluding. That miraculous power existed in Gentile Churches is clear from 1 Corinthians 12 but the question is, did the gospel which produced those Churches appeal to miracles to confirm it? Can any one read the first four chapters of 1 Corinthians and retain a doubt as to the answer?

The Coming Prince

  and also at this website. https://www.whatsaiththescripture.com/Voice/The.Coming.Prince.html#1-2

The Continual Burnt Offering

By H.A. Ironside - 1941

March 18

The dearest idol I have known,
Whate’er that idol be.
Help me to tear it from its throne
And worship only Thee.

So shall my walk be close with God,
Calm and serene my frame,
So purer light shall mark the road
That leads me to the Lamb.
--- William Cowper

By James Orr 1907

IV. JOSEPH IN EGYPT

With Abraham first, and afterwards with Joseph, the patriarchal history quits Canaan, and transports us into the midst of Egypt. Abraham went down to Egypt to escape famine, and was there received with honour by the reigning Pharaoh; but it is with the history of Joseph that we pass definitely into the full blaze of Egyptian civilisation. On the remarkable fidelity of the Egyptian colouring of the narrative of this part of  Genesis nearly all scholars may be said to be agreed. The colouring is so fresh and vivid, the portraiture of manners so exact, the allusions to customs and institutions are so minute, that it would be endless to dwell on them. We have the slave-market; Potiphar’s house, with its Egyptian arrangements; the prison; Pharaoh’s butler and baker, the latter with his baskets of confectionery; Pharaoh’s dreams, so Egyptian in their character; Joseph as prime minister, buying and selling corn; the divining-cup, the chariots, the waggons sent to Jacob; we have Egyptian names, sitting at meals, shaving the beard, embalming the body, sacred scribes, priests, physicians, other state functionaries; in short, we find ourselves veritably on the banks of the Nile, with Egyptian social and court life in full movement around us.

It is perhaps more to the purpose to remark that it is precisely the points in the history of Joseph which were formerly challenged which have received clearest illustration and confirmation from the monuments. Thus it was denied by Von Bohlen and others, on the authority of Herodotus, that the vine was cultivated in Egypt; it was denied that flesh was an article of diet among the upper classes of the Egyptians; the free manners of the women were alleged to conflict with Oriental privacy; the elevation of a young Hebrew to the position of prime minister was thought to savour of romance; the presents of Pharaoh to Abraham were objected to because they included sheep and oxen, which were objects of hatred in Egypt, and did not include horses, which, in Joseph’s day, were common. These objections have disappeared with fuller knowledge, but serve to show the impossibility of anyone in a later age composing a narrative of this kind without falling into serious errors. The monuments, it is well known, show the process of winemaking in all its stages; they reveal that, in the words of Rawlinson, “animal food was the principal diet of the upper classes”; they illustrate the freedom allowed to women; they furnish representations of sheep and oxen; while the absence of horses in Abraham’s time proves to be a mark of truth in the narrative, for horses seem to have been unknown in the twelfth and earlier dynasties, and were first introduced under the Hyksos. There, in Joseph’s time, accordingly, they appear. In the story of Saneha, of the twelfth dynasty, we have a close parallel to the exaltation of Joseph; while on the tombs of Beni-Hassan, of the same dynasty, we have a picture of the reception of a company of Amu, or Semites, so remarkably resembling the case of Jacob and his household, that at first it was thought to be a representation of that patriarch’s descent into Egypt. Reference cannot be omitted to the Egyptian story, “The Tale of the Two Brothers,” which embodies an account of the temptation of one of these brothers by the wife of the other, so strikingly (in parts almost verbally) parallel to the temptation of Joseph by his mistress, that the two can hardly be independent. As the Egyptian tale belongs to the nineteenth dynasty — many centuries after Joseph — the story of Joseph may be presumed to be the original.

A picture, so full and faithful, of Egyptian life and manners could only, one would think, take its origin on Egyptian soil. It is not a sufficient reply to say, with Dr. Driver, that Egypt was not far distant from Canaan, and that the intercourse between the countries during the monarchy made it easy for a Hebrew writer to gain a knowledge of Egyptian customs and institutions. The hypothesis, in the first place, is gratuitous, for there is no reason to suppose that the narrative of Joseph’s life, with its Egyptian characteristics, was not a possession of Israel from the beginning; and next, it is inadequate, for it is contrary to analogy that a writer of one country should be able so to transpose himself into the midst of a foreign — even if a neighbouring — civilisation, as to produce a picture so marvellously true to its life and conditions. Are we to understand that the problematical J or E undertook a special tour to Egypt — as the modern novelist might do — in order to acquaint himself by personal study with the customs and antiquities of that nation? Or did the two writers do so? Even so, we have only to think of a Frenchman, e.g., attempting to depict British or American life or manners; or of an Englishman or American writing minutely about Paris; or of a Londoner trying to describe Scottish characters and institutions, to see how imperfect such a picture would necessarily be. We do not attach much importance to the objections that the narrative does not give the personal name of Joseph’s Pharaoh, and that the types of names which appear in it — Potiphera, Zaphenathpaneah, Asenath — do not become frequent till the later dynasties (twenty-second, twenty-sixth). It may strike us, indeed, as peculiar that, in the lives of Joseph and Moses, the proper names of the Pharaohs are not given; still, comparison proves that the title “Pharaoh” (simply) was that commonly employed by Hebrew writers for the king of Egypt, even when the personal name was quite well known; while the very occurrence of the other names shows how easy it would have been for the narrator to decorate his story with names of kings and places, had he wished to do so. The alleged lateness of particular names rests, again, on the argument from silence, which may be upset at any moment, and fails to take account of the fact that the Hyksos period, to which Joseph belonged, is well-nigh a monumental blank. It is doubtful, besides, whether all the names have been rightly interpreted.

The Problem of the Old Testament

The Institutes of the Christian Religion

Translated by Henry Beveridge

     CHAPTER 7.

A SUMMARY OF THE CHRISTIAN LIFE. OF SELF-DENIAL. [391]

The divisions of the chapter are,--I. The rule which permits us not to go astray in the study of righteousness, requires two things--viz. that man, abandoning his own will, devote himself entirely to the service of God; whence it follows, that we must seek not our own things, but the things of God, sec. 1, 2. II. A description of this renovation or Christian life taken from the Epistle to Titus, and accurately explained under certain special heads, sec. 3 to end.

Sections.

1. Consideration of the second general division in regard to the Christian life. Its beginning and sum. A twofold respect. 1. We are not our own. Respect to both the fruit and the use. Unknown to philosophers, who have placed reason on the throne of the Holy Spirit.

2. Since we are not our own, we must seek the glory of God, and obey his will. Self-denial recommended to the disciples of Christ. He who neglects it, deceived either by pride or hypocrisy, rushes on destruction.

3. Three things to be followed, and two to be shunned in life. Impiety and worldly lusts to be shunned. Sobriety, justice, and piety, to be followed. An inducement to right conduct.

4. Self-denial the sum of Paul's doctrine. Its difficulty. Qualities in us which make it difficult. Cures for these qualities. 1. Ambition to be suppressed. 2. Humility to be embraced. 3. Candour to be esteemed. 4. Mutual charity to be preserved. 5. Modesty to be sincerely cultivated.

5. The advantage of our neighbour to be promoted. Here self-denial most necessary, and yet most difficult. Here a double remedy. 1. The benefits bestowed upon us are for the common benefit of the Church. 2. We ought to do all we can for our neighbour. This illustrated by analogy from the members of the human body. This duty of charity founded on the divine command.

6. Charity ought to have for its attendants patience and kindness. We should consider the image of God in our neighbours, and especially in those who are of the household of faith. Hence a fourfold consideration which refutes all objections. A common objection refuted.

7. Christian life cannot exist without charity. Remedies for the vices opposed to charity. 1. Mercy. 2. Humility. 3. Modesty. 4. Diligence. 5. Perseverance.

8. Self-denial, in respect of God, should lead to equanimity and tolerance. 1. We are always subject to God. 2. We should shun avarice and ambition. 3. We should expect all prosperity from the blessing of God, and entirely depend on him.

9. We ought not to desire wealth or honours without the divine blessing, nor follow the arts of the wicked. We ought to cast all our care upon God, and never envy the prosperity of others.

10. We ought to commit ourselves entirely to God. The necessity of this doctrine. Various uses of affliction. Heathen abuse and corruption.

1. Although the Law of God contains a perfect rule of conduct admirably arranged, it has seemed proper to our divine Master to train his people by a more accurate method, to the rule which is enjoined in the Law; and the leading principle in the method is, that it is the duty of believers to present their "bodies a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable unto God, which is their reasonable service," (Rom. 12:1). Hence he draws the exhortation: "Be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect will of God." The great point, then, is, that we are consecrated and dedicated to God, and, therefore, should not henceforth think, speak, design, or act, without a view to his glory. What he hath made sacred cannot, without signal insult to him, be applied to profane use. But if we are not our own, but the Lord's, it is plain both what error is to be shunned, and to what end the actions of our lives ought to be directed. We are not our own; therefore, neither is our own reason or will to rule our acts and counsels. We are not our own; therefore, let us not make it our end to seek what may be agreeable to our carnal nature. We are not our own; therefore, as far as possible, let us forget ourselves and the things that are ours. On the other hand, we are God's; let us, therefore, live and die to him (Rom. 14:8). We are God's; therefore, let his wisdom and will preside over all our actions. We are God's; to him, then, as the only legitimate end, let every part of our life be directed. O how great the proficiency of him who, taught that he is not his own, has withdrawn the dominion and government of himself from his own reason that he may give them to God! For as the surest source of destruction to men is to obey themselves, so the only haven of safety is to have no other will, no other wisdom, than to follow the Lord wherever he leads. Let this, then be the first step, to abandon ourselves, and devote the whole energy of our minds to the service of God. By service, I mean not only that which consists in verbal obedience, but that by which the mind, divested of its own carnal feelings, implicitly obeys the call of the Spirit of God. This transformation (which Paul calls the renewing of the mind, Rom. 12:2; Eph. 4:23), though it is the first entrance to life, was unknown to all the philosophers. They give the government of man to reason alone, thinking that she alone is to be listened to; in short, they assign to her the sole direction of the conduct. But Christian philosophy bids her give place, and yield complete submission to the Holy Spirit, so that the man himself no longer lives, but Christ lives and reigns in him (Gal. 2:20).

2. Hence follows the other principle, that we are not to seek our own, but the Lord's will, and act with a view to promote his glory. Great is our proficiency, when, almost forgetting ourselves, certainly postponing our own reason, we faithfully make it our study to obey God and his commandments. For when Scripture enjoins us to lay aside private regard to ourselves, it not only divests our minds of an excessive longing for wealth, or power, or human favour, but eradicates all ambition and thirst for worldly glory, and other more secret pests. The Christian ought, indeed, to be so trained and disposed as to consider, that during his whole life he has to do with God. For this reason, as he will bring all things to the disposal and estimate of God, so he will religiously direct his whole mind to him. For he who has learned to look to God in everything he does, is at the same time diverted from all vain thoughts. This is that self-denial which Christ so strongly enforces on his disciples from the very outset (Mt. 16:24), which, as soon as it takes hold of the mind, leaves no place either, first, for pride, show, and ostentation; or, secondly, for avarice, lust, luxury, effeminacy, or other vices which are engendered by self love. On the contrary, wherever it reigns not, the foulest vices are indulged in without shame; or, if there is some appearance of virtue, it is vitiated by a depraved longing for applause. Show me, if you can, an individual who, unless he has renounced himself in obedience to the Lord's command, is disposed to do good for its own sake. Those who have not so renounced themselves have followed virtue at least for the sake of praise. The philosophers who have contended most strongly that virtue is to be desired on her own account, were so inflated with arrogance as to make it apparent that they sought virtue for no other reason than as a ground for indulging in pride. So far, therefore, is God from being delighted with these hunters after popular applause with their swollen breasts, that he declares they have received their reward in this world (Mt. 6:2), and that harlots and publicans are nearer the kingdom of heaven than they (Mt. 21:31). We have not yet sufficiently explained how great and numerous are the obstacles by which a man is impeded in the pursuit of rectitude, so long as he has not renounced himself. The old saying is true, There is a world of iniquity treasured up in the human soul. Nor can you find any other remedy for this than to deny yourself, renounce your own reason, and direct your whole mind to the pursuit of those things which the Lord requires of you, and which you are to seek only because they are pleasing to Him.

3. In another passage, Paul gives a brief, indeed, but more distinct account of each of the parts of a well-ordered life: "The grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearance of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify to himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works," (Tit. 2:11-14). After holding forth the grace of God to animate us, and pave the way for His true worship, he removes the two greatest obstacles which stand in the way--viz. ungodliness, to which we are by nature too prone, and worldly lusts, which are of still greater extent. Under ungodliness, he includes not merely superstition, but everything at variance with the true fear of God. Worldly lusts are equivalent to the lusts of the flesh. Thus he enjoins us, in regard to both tables of the Law, to lay aside our own mind, and renounce whatever our own reason and will dictate. Then he reduces all the actions of our lives to three branches, sobriety, righteousness, and godliness. Sobriety undoubtedly denotes as well chastity and temperance as the pure and frugal use of temporal goods, and patient endurance of want. Righteousness comprehends all the duties of equity, in every one his due. Next follows godliness, which separates us from the pollutions of the world, and connects us with God in true holiness. These, when connected together by an indissoluble chain, constitute complete perfection. But as nothing is more difficult than to bid adieu to the will of the flesh, subdue, nay, abjure our lusts, devote ourselves to God and our brethren, and lead an angelic life amid the pollutions of the world, Paul, to set our minds free from all entanglements, recalls us to the hope of a blessed immortality, justly urging us to contend, because as Christ has once appeared as our Redeemer, so on his final advent he will give full effect to the salvation obtained by him. And in this way he dispels all the allurements which becloud our path, and prevent us from aspiring as we ought to heavenly glory; nay, he tells us that we must be pilgrims in the world, that we may not fail of obtaining the heavenly inheritance.

     Christian Classics Ethereal Library / Public Domain

     Institutes of the Christian Religion