Lay Aside the Weight of Discouragement

By Jon Bloom 3/10/2017

     Discouragement often feels circumstantially determined, something we can’t help feeling because powerful forces beyond our control are causing it. That’s why our response to discouragement is often passive — we sit, weighed down with a heavy spiritual listlessness looking at the world through the grey, bleak lenses of fear.

     Yes, discouragement is a species of fear. It is a loss of courage. We don’t always recognize discouragement as fear because it can feel like hopelessness with a side of cynicism. We might even call it depression because we have an accumulation of fears that are intermingled and seem somewhat undefined. And, of course, if we’re discouraged, we feel depressed. We feel like giving up.

     And when we feel like giving up, we are vulnerable to a whole range of temptations. When we give in to those temptations, our sin just confirms our discouragement, and we easily slip into a cycle in which fear drives us into hiding, hiding opens us to sins of selfishness and self-indulgence, and caving in increases our sense of helplessness and self-pity. So we sit, weighed down by fear and condemnation, feeling stuck.

     Jon Bloom serves as author, board chair, and co-founder of Desiring God. He is author of three books, Not by Sight: A Fresh Look at Old Stories of Walking by Faith, Things Not Seen: A Fresh Look at Old Stories of Trusting God's Promises, and Don't Follow Your Heart: God's Ways Are Not Your Ways. He and his wife live in the Twin Cities with their five children.

Called to childlessness: The surprising ways of God

By Karen Swallow Prior 3/6/2017

     God’s model for the family is beautiful and good, the very picture of the union of Christ and his church: the fruitful marriage of one man and one woman.

     Yet, the church often doesn’t know what to do with those who—whether by circumstance, conscience, choice or simply through the brokenness of creation—fall outside the mold that shapes this ideal of family life.

     There is an unspoken assumption that this failure to fit the pattern is just that—a failure. To be sure, sometimes we break the mold by our choices, even our sins. But ours is a God of great imagination and infinite surprises. He sometimes calls us out of the standard mold and into a new one.

Today Let’s Honor Men Instead Of Making War Between The Sexes

By D.C. McAllister 3/8/2017

     On the eve of the nationwide protest “A Day Without A Woman,” I received a phone call from my mother. “Your dad is in the hospital and isn’t doing well.” This isn’t the first time I’ve received a phone call like that. My father is a disabled veteran who has battled diabetes for years. His health has been a constant struggle, but he has always pulled through. This time it’s much worse.

     “I’ll be there as soon as I can,” I said. My 76-year-old mother cares for my father alone since my brother and I live far from our childhood home. Unlike the women striking, my mother would never consider leaving my father’s side. She is ever faithful to him, tending to him, nursing the sores on his feet, bathing him, cooking for him, cleaning him when he can’t do it himself.

     My father doesn’t need to be “taught a lesson” to appreciate her. He knows all too well what his life would be like without her. He loves her, needs her, still desires her with his whole heart even at the age of 80. And my mother feels the same for him.

Stop Calling Everything Hate

By Tim Challies 3/8/2017

     Over time, a word can change its meaning, sometimes picking up an entirely new definition and sometimes expanding or contracting an existing one. It is not unusual to see a familiar word explode into contemporary parlance with a far more expansive definition than it has had in the past. Think about “tolerance.” For many years the word quietly meant something like, “accepting the rights of others to have a belief different from your own.” Then, suddenly, the word was everywhere and carried a meaning like, “accepting other people’s views without critique.” As D.A. Carson says, “this shift from ‘accepting the existence of different views’ to ‘acceptance of different views,’ from recognizing other people’s right to have different beliefs or practices to accepting the differing views of other people, is subtle in form, but massive in substance.”

     We still hear a lot about tolerance and the unpardonable sin of intolerance. And now, closely related, we’ve got a second word to describe the people who commit such an offense: They are haters. And, like “tolerance,” the word “hate” has taken on a new and wider meaning. It has always been used to describe an extreme, passionate dislike for another person. But suddenly it is being used to describe simple disagreement, especially when that disagreement is with society’s prevailing opinions and agendas. Any perceived intolerance is quickly drowned out by cries of “hate!” or “hater!” The problem, of course, is that if everything’s hate, nothing’s hate. As we expand the use of the word, it loses any meaningful definition.

     Today, everything short of glowing endorsement can be counted as hate. If you express concern about transgendered adults using the same changing rooms as children of the opposite sex, someone will accuse you of hate. If you express careful, kindly-spoken disagreement with same-sex marriage, perhaps urging caution to such a quick change to an institution foundational to society, the cries of “hater” will be immediate and loud. If you urge freedom of conscience for people who hesitate to bake cakes or arrange flowers for certain festivities, you’ll be considered full of hatred. Coming to blows is hate, sure, but so is constructive critique. Berating and verbally abusing is hate—no one disagrees with that—but so is measured disagreement. In a few short years we’ve completely transformed what it means to hate.

Tim Challies: I am a Christian, a husband to Aileen and a father to three children aged 10 to 16. I worship and serve as an elder at Grace Fellowship Church in Toronto, Ontario. I am a book reviewer, co-founder of Cruciform Press, and have written five books:

• The Discipline of Spiritual Discernment
• Sexual Detox: A Guide for Guys Who Are Sick of Porn
• The Next Story: Life and Faith after the Digital Explosion
• Do More Better: A Practical Guide to Productivity
• Visual Theology: Seeing and Understanding the Truth About God

I began my web site in 2002 and have been writing there daily since 2003. It is my place to think out loud and in public while also sharing some of the interesting things I’ve discovered in my online travels.

Read The Psalms In "1" Year

Psalm 32

1 Blessed is the one whose transgression is forgiven,
whose sin is covered.
2 Blessed is the man against whom the LORD counts no iniquity,
and in whose spirit there is no deceit.

3 For when I kept silent, my bones wasted away
through my groaning all day long.
4 For day and night your hand was heavy upon me;
my strength was dried up as by the heat of summer. Selah

5 I acknowledged my sin to you,
and I did not cover my iniquity;
I said, “I will confess my transgressions to the LORD,”
and you forgave the iniquity of my sin. Selah

By Gleason Archer Jr.

The Tower of Babel and the Confusion of Tongues

       Genesis 11 informs us that initially the descendants of Noah used the same language and constituted a single culture which developed into a form of humanism that led them to emphasize a unity of polity and worship which was to be perpetuated by the erection of an enormous skyscraper that would serve as the capital of their domain. Because of the arrogance which underlay this project God saw fit to bring it to a halt and used the means of bringing them into a state of confusion because of their inability to speak any longer in the same language.

       Genesis 10 deals with the descendants of Ham, Shem, and Japheth as they began to repopulate the earth. There is no real indication in this chapter as to the languages they spoke, and so it is reasonable to assume that they all spoke about the same tongue as long as they were grouped together in the region of Mesopotamia. Ronald Youngblood in the NIV Study Bible suggests that the confusion of tongues episode may well have preceded the emergence of the various languages mentioned in  Genesis 10. This might be a possible inference were it not for  Gen. 11:1, which plainly states that the whole human race at that time had one language only, even though they respected their ancestral division. Other recent evangelical commentators (such as Kyle Yates in Wycliffe Bible Commentary (1962); likewise H. L. Ellison in The New Layman’s Bible Commentary (1979), D. E Payne in The International Bible Commentary (1986), including even some of the older commentaries like Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, seem to assume that the confusion of languages at Babel occurred after the spread of nations in the Middle East.

      The motivation for God’s intervention at this point is very clear and understandable. The desire to remain in international harmony was perhaps reasonable at that juncture, but unfortunately it involved an effort to maintain One World unity upon a humanistic basis. The enormous tower they planned to erect would serve as a sort of United Nations headquarters that would keep all of Noah’s descendants politically correct, as it were, without any meaningful regard to the supremacy of God. They purposed to “make a great name” for themselves (v.  4 ), using the latest architectural techniques emerging from the invention of hard-baked bricks. Their mindset showed a certain approximation to modern-day attitudes that assume that man can get along very nicely without God and successfully solve all their personal and societal problems simply by working together.

      God’s response to this challenge was swift and decisive. The result of human self-pride is mutual alienation. Because of sin we become so egoistic that we can no longer understand each other, nor do we even care to do so. They suddenly found themselves unable to comprehend what their fellow-workers were trying to say to them, especially if they came from a different family line. Thus they lost their ability to work together and had to abandon their great building project. It was only natural that they should migrate from the Plain of Shinar (or Mesopotamia) and begin to populate the rest of Asia, Europe, Africa, and so on, during the centuries preceding the call of Abraham. Once again, even as before the Flood, the human race had failed to keep in covenant relationship with the God who created them in His own image. Only a very few had remained loyal to the faith of Noah.

      As for  11:9, which seems to furnish an etymology for the name Babel, it should be understood that this was the kind of wordplay which occurs in Scripture from time to time. For example, Abigail said to David in  1 Sam. 25:25 concerning her boorish husband, Nabal: “He is just like his name — his name is Fool (Nābāl), and folly goes with him.” It is however quite likely that his parents would never have purposely named their baby boy “Fool,” but rather something more positive. Arabic has the name Nabbālun, which means “Bowman,” and so it is quite likely that that meaning was what they intended. It is in Hebrew that nābāl means “fool,” but not in the language of their neighbors just south of Judah. Here then we have a hidden meaning derived from Babel (Akkadian Bab-ili, “Gate of God”), and brought out of bābal, which means “confuse.” Jastrow’s Dictionary of Talmudic Hebrew, p. 173, lists the pilpel stem balbēl as an intensive with the same meaning of confusion, “mix up, confuse.” Needless to say, there is a significant similarity between Babel and balbēl.

      Thus it is a mistake to categorize this account as a late fanciful story without historical foundation. It is important to note in recent times the testimony for this event is to be found in the Sumerian culture as early as the Third Dynasty of Ur. Robert T. Boyd reports the discovery of a ten by five foot stela erected by King Ur-Nammu which says concerning a certain ziggurat: “The erection of this tower highly offended all the gods. In a night they threw down what man had built and impeded their progress. They were scattered abroad and their speech was strange” (Tells, Tombs and Treasures [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1969], p. 78).

A Survey of Old Testament Introduction

The Institutes of the Christian Religion

Translated by Henry Beveridge

     4. Moreover, we see by these words that self-denial has respect partly to men and partly (more especially) to God (sec. 8-10). For when Scripture enjoins us, in regard to our fellow men, to prefer them in honour to ourselves, and sincerely labour to promote their advantages (Rom. 12:10; Phil. 2:3), he gives us commands which our mind is utterly incapable of obeying until its natural feelings are suppressed. For so blindly do we all rush in the direction of self-love, that every one thinks he has a good reason for exalting himself and despising all others in comparison. If God has bestowed on us something not to be repented of, trusting to it, we immediately become elated, and not only swell, but almost burst with pride. The vices with which we abound we both carefully conceal from others, and flatteringly represent to ourselves as minute and trivial, nay, sometimes hug them as virtues. When the same qualities which we admire in ourselves are seen in others, even though they should be superior, we, in order that we may not be forced to yield to them, maliciously lower and carp at them; in like manner, in the case of vices, not contented with severe and keen animadversion, we studiously exaggerate them. Hence the insolence with which each, as if exempted from the common lot, seeks to exalt himself above his neighbour, confidently and proudly despising others, or at least looking down upon them as his inferiors. The poor man yields to the rich, the plebeian to the noble, the servant to the master, the unlearned to the learned, and yet every one inwardly cherishes some idea of his own superiority. Thus each flattering himself, sets up a kind of kingdom in his breast; the arrogant, to satisfy themselves, pass censure on the minds and manners of other men, and when contention arises, the full venom is displayed. Many bear about with them some measure of mildness so long as all things go smoothly and lovingly with them, but how few are there who, when stung and irritated, preserve the same tenor of moderation? For this there is no other remedy than to pluck up by the roots those most noxious pests, self-love and love of victory (philoneiki'a kai` philauti'a). This the doctrine of Scripture does. For it teaches us to remember, that the endowments which God has bestowed upon us are not our own, but His free gifts, and that those who plume themselves upon them betray their ingratitude. "Who maketh thee to differ," saith Paul, "and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?" (1 Cor. 4:7). Then by a diligent examination of our faults let us keep ourselves humble. Thus while nothing will remain to swell our pride, there will be much to subdue it. Again, we are enjoined, whenever we behold the gifts of God in others, so to reverence and respect the gifts, as also to honour those in whom they reside. God having been pleased to bestow honour upon them, it would ill become us to deprive them of it. Then we are told to overlook their faults, not, indeed, to encourage by flattering them, but not because of them to insult those whom we ought to regard with honour and good will. [392] In this way, with regard to all with whom we have intercourse, our behaviour will be not only moderate and modest, but courteous and friendly. The only way by which you can ever attain to true meekness, is to have your heart imbued with a humble opinion of yourself and respect for others.

5. How difficult it is to perform the duty of seeking the good of our neighbour! Unless you leave off all thought of yourself and in a manner cease to be yourself, you will never accomplish it. How can you exhibit those works of charity which Paul describes unless you renounce yourself, and become wholly devoted to others? "Charity (says he, 1 Cor. 13:4) suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked," &c. Were it the only thing required of us to seek not our own, nature would not have the least power to comply: she so inclines us to love ourselves only, that she will not easily allow us carelessly to pass by ourselves and our own interests that we may watch over the interests of others, nay, spontaneously to yield our own rights and resign it to another. But Scripture, to conduct us to this, reminds us, that whatever we obtain from the Lord is granted on the condition of our employing it for the common good of the Church, and that, therefore, the legitimate use of all our gifts is a kind and liberal communication of them with others. There cannot be a surer rule, nor a stronger exhortation to the observance of it, than when we are taught that all the endowments which we possess are divine deposits entrusted to us for the very purpose of being distributed for the good of our neighbour. But Scripture proceeds still farther when it likens these endowments to the different members of the body (1 Cor. 12:12). No member has its function for itself, or applies it for its own private use, but transfers it to its fellow-members; nor does it derive any other advantage from it than that which it receives in common with the whole body. Thus, whatever the pious man can do, he is bound to do for his brethren, not consulting his own interest in any other way than by striving earnestly for the common edification of the Church. Let this, then, be our method of showing good-will and kindness, considering that, in regard to everything which God has bestowed upon us, and by which we can aid our neighbour, we are his stewards, and are bound to give account of our stewardship; moreover, that the only right mode of administration is that which is regulated by love. In this way, we shall not only unite the study of our neighbour's advantage with a regard to our own, but make the latter subordinate to the former. And lest we should have omitted to perceive that this is the law for duly administering every gift which we receive from God, he of old applied that law to the minutest expressions of his own kindness. He commanded the first-fruits to be offered to him as an attestation by the people that it was impious to reap any advantage from goods not previously consecrated to him (Exod. 22:29; 23:19). But if the gifts of God are not sanctified to us until we have with our own hand dedicated them to the Giver, it must be a gross abuse that does not give signs of such dedication. It is in vain to contend that you cannot enrich the Lord by your offerings. Though, as the Psalmist says "Thou art my Lord: my goodness extendeth not unto thee," yet you can extend it "to the saints that are in the earth," (Ps. 16:2, 3); and therefore a comparison is drawn between sacred oblations and alms as now corresponding to the offerings under the Law.

6. Moreover, that we may not weary in well-doing (as would otherwise forthwith and infallibly be the case), we must add the other quality in the Apostle's enumeration, "Charity suffiereth long, and is kind, is not easily provoked," (1 Cor. 13:4). The Lord enjoins us to do good to all without exception, though the greater part, if estimated by their own merit, are most unworthy of it. But Scripture subjoins a most excellent reason, when it tells us that we are not to look to what men in themselves deserve, but to attend to the image of God, which exists in all, and to which we owe all honour and love. But in those who are of the household of faith, the same rule is to be more carefully observed, inasmuch as that image is renewed and restored in them by the Spirit of Christ. Therefore, whoever be the man that is presented to you as needing your assistance, you have no ground for declining to give it to him. Say he is a stranger. The Lord has given him a mark which ought to be familiar to you: for which reason he forbids you to despise your own flesh (Gal. 6:10). Say he is mean and of no consideration. The Lord points him out as one whom he has distinguished by the lustre of his own image (Isaiah 58:7). Say that you are bound to him by no ties of duty. The Lord has substituted him as it were into his own place, that in him you may recognize the many great obligations under which the Lord has laid you to himself. Say that he is unworthy of your least exertion on his account; but the image of God, by which he is recommended to you, is worthy of yourself and all your exertions. But if he not only merits no good, but has provoked you by injury and mischief, still this is no good reason why you should not embrace him in love, and visit him with offices of love. He has deserved very differently from me, you will say. But what has the Lord deserved? [393] Whatever injury he has done you, when he enjoins you to forgive him, he certainly means that it should be imputed to himself. In this way only we attain to what is not to say difficult but altogether against nature, [394] to love those that hate us, render good for evil, and blessing for cursing, remembering that we are not to reflect on the wickedness of men, but look to the image of God in them, an image which, covering and obliterating their faults, should by its beauty and dignity allure us to love and embrace them.

7. We shall thus succeed in mortifying ourselves if we fulfil all the duties of charity. Those duties, however, are not fulfilled by the mere discharge of them, though none be omitted, unless it is done from a pure feeling of love. For it may happen that one may perform every one of these offices, in so far as the external act is concerned, and be far from performing them aright. For you see some who would be thought very liberal, and yet accompany every thing they give with insult, by the haughtiness of their looks, or the violence of their words. And to such a calamitous condition have we come in this unhappy age, that the greater part of men never almost give alms without contumely. Such conduct ought not to have been tolerated even among the heathen; but from Christians something more is required than to carry cheerfulness in their looks, and give attractiveness to the discharge of their duties by courteous language. First, they should put themselves in the place of him whom they see in need of their assistance, and pity his misfortune as if they felt and bore it, so that a feeling of pity and humanity should incline them to assist him just as they would themselves. He who is thus minded will go and give assistance to his brethren, and not only not taint his acts with arrogance or upbraiding but will neither look down upon the brother to whom he does a kindness, as one who needed his help, or keep him in subjection as under obligation to him, just as we do not insult a diseased member when the rest of the body labours for its recovery, nor think it under special obligation to the other members, because it has required more exertion than it has returned. A communication of offices between members is not regarded as at all gratuitous, but rather as the payment of that which being due by the law of nature it were monstrous to deny. For this reason, he who has performed one kind of duty will not think himself thereby discharged, as is usually the case when a rich man, after contributing somewhat of his substance, delegates remaining burdens to others as if he had nothing to do with them. Every one should rather consider, that however great he is, he owes himself to his neighbours, and that the only limit to his beneficence is the failure of his means. The extent of these should regulate that of his charity.

8. The principal part of self-denial, that which as we have said has reference to God, let us again consider more fully. Many things have already been said with regard to it which it were superfluous to repeat; and, therefore, it will be sufficient to view it as forming us to equanimity and endurance. First, then, in seeking the convenience or tranquillity of the present life, Scripture calls us to resign ourselves, and all we have, to the disposal of the Lord, to give him up the affections of our heart, that he may tame and subdue them. We have a frenzied desire, an infinite eagerness, to pursue wealth and honour, intrigue for power, accumulate riches, and collect all those frivolities which seem conducive to luxury and splendour. On the other hand, we have a remarkable dread, a remarkable hatred of poverty, mean birth, and a humble condition, and feel the strongest desire to guard against them. Hence, in regard to those who frame their life after their own counsel, we see how restless they are in mind, how many plans they try, to what fatigues they submit, in order that they may gain what avarice or ambition desires, or, on the other hand, escape poverty and meanness. To avoid similar entanglements, the course which Christian men must follow is this: first, they must not long for, or hope for, or think of any kind of prosperity apart from the blessing of God; on it they must cast themselves, and there safely and confidently recline. For, however much the carnal mind may seem sufficient for itself when in the pursuit of honour or wealth, it depends on its own industry and zeal, or is aided by the favour of men, it is certain that all this is nothing, and that neither intellect nor labour will be of the least avail, except in so far as the Lord prospers both. On the contrary, his blessing alone makes a way through all obstacles, and brings every thing to a joyful and favourable issue. Secondly, though without this blessing we may be able to acquire some degree of fame and opulence (as we daily see wicked men loaded with honours and riches), yet since those on whom the curse of God lies do not enjoy the least particle of true happiness, whatever we obtain without his blessing must turn out ill. But surely men ought not to desire what adds to their misery.

9. Therefore, if we believe that all prosperous and desirable success depends entirely on the blessing of God, and that when it is wanting all kinds of misery and calamity await us, it follows that we should not eagerly contend for riches and honours, trusting to our own dexterity and assiduity, or leaning on the favour of men, or confiding in any empty imagination of fortune; but should always have respect to the Lord, that under his auspices we may be conducted to whatever lot he has provided for us. First, the result will be, that instead of rushing on regardless of right and wrong, by wiles and wicked arts, and with injury to our neighbours, to catch at wealth and seize upon honours, we will only follow such fortune as we may enjoy with innocence. Who can hope for the aid of the divine blessing amid fraud, rapine, and other iniquitous arts? As this blessing attends him only who thinks purely and acts uprightly, so it calls off all who long for it from sinister designs and evil actions. Secondly, a curb will be laid upon us, restraining a too eager desire of becoming rich, or an ambitious striving after honour. How can any one have the effrontery to expect that God will aid him in accomplishing desires at variance with his word? What God with his own lips pronounces cursed, never can be prosecuted with his blessing. Lastly, if our success is not equal to our wish and hope, we shall, however, be kept from impatience and detestation of our condition, whatever it be, knowing that so to feel were to murmur against God, at whose pleasure riches and poverty, contempt and honours, are dispensed. In shorts he who leans on the divine blessing in the way which has been described, will not, in the pursuit of those things which men are wont most eagerly to desire, employ wicked arts which he knows would avail him nothing; nor when any thing prosperous befalls him will he impute it to himself and his own diligence, or industry, or fortune, instead of ascribing it to God as its author. If, while the affairs of others flourish, his make little progress, or even retrograde, he will bear his humble lot with greater equanimity and moderation than any irreligious man does the moderate success which only falls short of what he wished; for he has a solace in which he can rest more tranquilly than at the very summit of wealth or power, because he considers that his affairs are ordered by the Lord in the manner most conducive to his salvation. This, we see, is the way in which David was affected, who, while he follows God and gives up himself to his guidance, declares, "Neither do I exercise myself in great matters, or in things too high for me. Surely I have behaved and quieted myself as a child that is weaned of his mother," (Ps. 131:1, 2).

10. Nor is it in this respect only that pious minds ought to manifest this tranquillity and endurance; it must be extended to all the accidents to which this present life is liable. He alone, therefore, has properly denied himself, who has resigned himself entirely to the Lord, placing all the course of his life entirely at his disposal. Happen what may, he whose mind is thus composed will neither deem himself wretched nor murmur against God because of his lot. How necessary this disposition is will appear, if you consider the many accidents to which we are liable. Various diseases ever and anon attack us: at one time pestilence rages; at another we are involved in all the calamities of war. Frost and hail, destroying the promise of the year, cause sterility, which reduces us to penury; wife, parents, children, relatives, are carried off by death; our house is destroyed by fire. These are the events which make men curse their life, detest the day of their birth, execrate the light of heaven, even censure God, and (as they are eloquent in blasphemy) charge him with cruelty and injustice. The believer must in these things also contemplate the mercy and truly paternal indulgence of God. Accordingly, should he see his house by the removal of kindred reduced to solitude even then he will not cease to bless the Lord; his thought will be, Still the grace of the Lord, which dwells within my house, will not leave it desolate. If his crops are blasted, mildewed, or cut off by frost, or struck down by hail, [395] and he sees famine before him, he will not however despond or murmur against God, but maintain his confidence in him; "We thy people, and sheep of thy pasture, will give thee thanks for ever," (Ps. 79:13); he will supply me with food, even in the extreme of sterility. If he is afflicted with disease, the sharpness of the pain will not so overcome him, as to make him break out with impatience, and expostulate with God; but, recognising justice and lenity in the rod, will patiently endure. In short, whatever happens, knowing that it is ordered by the Lord, he will receive it with a placid and grateful mind, and will not contumaciously resist the government of him, at whose disposal he has placed himself and all that he has. Especially let the Christian breast eschew that foolish and most miserable consolation of the heathen, who, to strengthen their mind against adversity, imputed it to fortune, at which they deemed it absurd to feel indignant, as she was a'skopos (aimless) and rash, and blindly wounded the good equally with the bad. On the contrary, the rule of piety is, that the hand of God is the ruler and arbiter of the fortunes of all, and, instead of rushing on with thoughtless violence, dispenses good and evil with perfect regularity.

__________________________________________________________________

[391] On this and the three following chapters, which contain the second part of the Treatise on the Christian Life, see Augustine, De Moribus Ecclesiae Catholicae, and Calvin de Scandalis.

[392] Calvin. de Sacerdotiis Eccles. Papal. in fine.

[393] French, "Car si nous disons qu'il n'a merité que mal de nous; Dieu nous pourra demander quel mal il nous a fait, lui dont nous tenons tout notre bien;"-- For if we say that he has deserved nothing of us but evil, God may ask us what evil he has done us, he of whom we hold our every blessing.

[394] Mt. 5:44; 6:14; 18:35; Luke 17:3.

[395] The French is, "Soit que ses bleds et vignes soyent gastées et destruites par gelée, gresle, ou autre tempeste;"-- whether his corn and vines are hurt and destroyed by frost, hail, or other tempest.

__________________________________________________________________

     Christian Classics Ethereal Library / Public Domain

     Institutes of the Christian Religion

By James Orr 1907

V. THE MOSAIC PERIOD—THREE GREAT DISCOVERIES

We come now to the Mosaic period, but, to make the bearings of recent discoveries on this period intelligible, it is necessary, first, to say a few words on the general course of Egyptian history and on the more important of these discoveries.

Three great periods are commonly distinguished in the history of Egypt — the Old, the Middle, and the New Empires. The Old Empire embraces the first eleven dynasties of Manetho; the Middle Empire extends from the twelfth dynasty to the seventeenth;3 the New Empire runs from the eighteenth dynasty to the thirtieth, after which (340 B.C.) Egypt loses its independence.

Of the Old Empire, the fourth and fifth dynasties have left their memorials in the great Pyramids; but of the first three dynasties nothing was known till recently from the monuments but the names of kings; the period from the seventh to the tenth dynasties was (and remains) hardly less obscure. The founder of the first dynasty bore the name of Menes; but scholars were disposed to regard this king, and the first dynasties generally, as mythical. Maspero, in his Dawn of Civilisation, treats Menes as purely mythical, and gives an elaborate explanation of how the myth arose. As lately as 1894, Professor Flinders Petrie could write: “The first three dynasties are a blank, so far as monumental statements are concerned; they are as purely on a literary basis as the kings of Rome or the primeval kings of Ireland.… We cannot regard these dynasties as anything but a series of statements made by a state chronographer, about 3000 years after date, concerning a period of which he had no contemporary material.” The judgment thus passed on the early dynasties has been suddenly reversed, largely by the brilliant explorations of Professor Petrie himself. The actual tombs of Menes and his successors have been discovered, with many valuable objects belonging to them, and the first two dynasties have been clearly proved to be historical. Civilisation, and the hieroglyphic system of writing, are carried back into predynastic times. The result is a striking object - lesson — one of many in recent years — on the unreliableness of what the discoverer calls “the criticism of myths.”

In the Middle Empire, the period from the thirteenth dynasty to the seventeenth is again one of confusion and uncertainty. This was the time when Egypt was ruled by the Hyksos, or Shepherd Kings, under one of whom Joseph was taken down to Egypt, soon to be followed by Jacob with his household. With the overthrow of the Shepherd Kings came the founding of the eighteenth dynasty under Aahmes, and the beginning of the New Empire. Under the eighteenth and nineteenth dynasties we reach, perhaps, the period of greatest splendour in Egypt. It is a period of the greatest interest to the Biblical student, for it is under one or other of these dynasties, undoubtedly, that we are to seek for the Israelitish oppression, and for the Exodus. The prevailing opinion among scholars has been that the Pharaoh of the oppression was the great ruler Rameses II, and that the Pharaoh of the Exodus was his son Meneptah, or one of his immediate successors. Much may be said for this identification. Especially does it seem to be indicated by the mention in  Ex. 1:11 of the building of the store cities Pithom and Raamses, both of which are directly connected, the one (Pi-tum, discovered by M. Naville in 18831) by its bricks, the other by its name, with Rameses II. Yet three great discoveries in recent times have again thrown more than doubt on the identification.

1. First in order was the astonishing discovery, in 1881, of the mummies of the Pharaohs themselves. In a gallery given off from a pit, 35 feet deep, in a mountain gorge a few miles from Thebes, some thirty-nine mummies were found, which proved on inspection to include amongst them the most renowned kings and queens of Egypt from the seventeenth to the twenty-first dynasties. “At the first report of the discovery,” wrote one, “the boldest held his breath, so astounding is the list, which includes almost every name most renowned in the annals of Egypt.” The list embraced Aahmes, founder of the eighteenth dynasty; Thothmes III., and other kings of the same dynasty; Rameses I., Seti I., and Rameses II., of the nineteenth dynasty. A subsequent discovery of the tomb of Amenophis II., in 1898, added seven other mummies to the list. One of these, taken at first for that of Amenophis II., was found later to be the mummy of Meneptah, the supposed Pharaoh of the Exodus. To whatever period the Exodus is assigned, it is beyond reasonable doubt that we have in our possession the actual mummy of the Pharaoh who oppressed the Israelites, and from whose face Moses fled.

2. This first discovery was eclipsed, in 1887, by a second, still more extensive in its bearings. This was the discovery, already repeatedly referred to, at Tel el-Amarna (a place on the eastern bank of the Nile, 180 miles south of Cairo), of a mass of inscribed tablets, some three hundred in number, forming part, as it proved, of the official correspondence of two of the later kings of the eighteenth dynasty — Amenophis III. and Amenophis IV. This latter king (c. 1380 B.C.), otherwise called Khu-n-aten, was a “heretic king.” He sought to introduce, and compulsorily to enforce, a new worship — that of the solar disk (Aten). The opposition he encountered led him to leave Thebes, and found this new capital, whither he removed the court records of his father and himself. The remarkable thing about the correspondence is that the tablets are written, not in Egyptian hieroglyphic, but in Babylonian cuneiform — a fact of the utmost importance as showing that the Babylonian language was at that time not only widely known, but was the medium of official communication between Egypt and other countries, as French is today in Europe. The letters reveal the wide political relations of Egypt, and are particularly valuable for the light they throw on the state of culture in Palestine, and on the events transpiring in that country, about 1400 B.C. They include, as will be afterwards seen, many letters from the king of Jerusalem and other rulers in Canaan.

3. The third discovery is still more recent, and bears on the question often asked — Is there any mention of Israel on the Egyptian monuments? Identifications with the Hebrews have been repeatedly sought, as, e.g., in the aperiu mentioned in some of the inscriptions; but it was not till 1896 that the name “Israel” was actually found by Professor Flinders Petrie on a stela of Meneptah, believed, as above said, to be the Pharaoh of the Exodus. The inscription on the monument, however, it was soon found, created more difficulties than it removed. It recounted the victories of Meneptah over various peoples in and about Palestine, and apparently included Israel in the list. “Israel is spoiled,” it reads, “it hath no seed.” But if Israel was in Palestine in the time of Meneptah — and there seems independent evidence that at least Asher, and perhaps Judah, was — it is clear that Meneptah cannot, in consistency with Bible history, be the Pharaoh of the Exodus. This at once raised a new question — Is the usual assumption that Rameses II. was the oppressor, and that the Exodus took place under Meneptah, or later, a correct one? The question is one which it is now necessary to consider.

The Problem of the Old Testament

1. The Word of Forgiveness

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

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

     4. Here we see the blindness of the human heart.

     "They know not what they do." This does not mean that the enemies of Christ were ignorant of the fact of his crucifixion. They did know full well that they had cried out "Crucify him". They did know full well that their vile request had been granted them by Pilate. They did know full well that he had been nailed to the tree for they were eye-witnesses of the crime. What then did our Lord mean when he said, "They know not what they do"? He meant they were ignorant of the enormity of their crime. They "knew not" that it was the Lord of glory they were crucifying. The emphasis is not on "They know not" but on "they know not what they do".

     And yet they ought to have known. Their blindness was inexcusable. The Old Testament prophecies which had received their fulfillment in him were sufficiently plain to identify him as the Holy One of God. His teaching was unique, for his very critics were forced to admit "Never man spake like this man" (John 7:46). And what of his perfect life! He had lived before men a life which had never been lived on earth before. He pleased not himself. He went about doing good. He was ever at the disposal of others. There was no self-seeking about him. His was a life of self-sacrifice from beginning to end. His was a life ever lived to the glory of God. His was a life on which was stamped heaven’s approval, for the Father’s voice testified audibly, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am wellpleased". No, there was no excuse for their ignorance. It only demonstrated the blindness of their hearts. Their rejection of the Son of God bore full witness, once for all, that the carnal mind is "enmity against God".

     How sad to think this terrible tragedy is still being repeated! Sinner, you little know what you are doing in neglecting God’s great salvation. You little know how awful is the sin of slighting the Christ of God and spurning the invitations of his mercy. You little know the deep guilt which is attached to your act of refusing to receive the only one who can save you from your sins. You little know how fearful is the crime of saying, "We will not have this man to reign over us". You know not what you do. You regard the vital issue with callous indifference. The question comes today as it did of old, "What shall I do with Jesus which is called Christ?" For you have to do something with him: either you despise and reject him, or you receive him as the Saviour of your soul and the Lord of your life. But, I say again, it seems to you a matter of small moment, of little importance, which you do. For years you have resisted the strivings of his Spirit. For years you have shelved the all-important consideration. For years you have steeled your heart against him, closed your ears to his appeals, and shut your eyes to his surpassing beauty. Ah! you know not WHAT you do. You are blind to your madness. Blind to your terrible sin. Yet are you not excuseless? You may be saved now if you will. "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved." 0 come to the Saviour now and say with one of old, "Lord, that I might receive my sight."

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

     5. Here we see a lovely exemplification of his own teaching.

     In the Sermon on the Mount our Lord taught his disciples, "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you and persecute you" (Matthew 5:44). Above all others Christ practiced what he preached. Grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. He not only taught the truth but was himself the truth incarnate. Said he, "I am the way, the truth and the life" (John 14:6). So here on the cross he perfectly exemplified his teaching of the mount. In all things he has left us an example.

     Notice Christ did not personally forgive his enemies. So in Matthew 5:44 he did not exhort his disciples to forgive their enemies, but he does exhort them to "pray" for them. But are we not to forgive those who wrong us? This leads us to a point concerning which there is much need for instruction today.

     Does scripture teach that under all circumstances we must always forgive? I answer emphatically, it does not. The word of God says, "If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him. And if he trespass against thee seven times a day, and seven times in a day turn again to thee saying, 1 repeat, thou shalt forgive him" (Luke 17:3,4). Here we are plainly taught that a condition must be met by the offender before we may pronounce forgiveness. The one who has wronged us must first "repent", that is, judge himself for his wrong and give evidence of his sorrow over it. But suppose the offender does not repent? Then 1 am not to forgive him.

     But let there be no misunderstanding of our meaning here. Even though the one who has wronged me does not repent, nevertheless, I must not harbor ill-feelings against him. There must be no hatred or malice cherished in the heart. Yet, on the other hand, I must not treat the offender as if he had done no wrong. That would be to condone the offence, and therefore I should fail to uphold the requirements of righteousness, and this the believer is ever to do. Does God ever forgive where there is no repentance? No, for scripture declares, "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (1 John 1:9). One thing more. If one has injured me and repented not, while I cannot forgive him and treat him as though he had not offended, nevertheless, not only must! hold no malice in my heart against him, but I must also pray for him. Here is the value of Christ’s perfect example. If we cannot forgive, we can pray for God to forgive him.

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

Do Not Hope in Kings 11/7/16

by Stephen Witmer

     Many of us are struggling to make sense of, and respond to, the current presidential election cycle. As Christian citizens, what should we say? How should we pray?

     A short passage halfway through Luke’s Gospel may help us see what Jesus might say concerning this election, and every other. To be clear, Luke 13 was not written to help twenty-first-century Americans respond to presidential politics; the main point is to provide a window into Jesus’s compassionate heart and redemptive mission. Nevertheless, observing how Jesus related to governing authorities cannot help but profit our understanding of how we should act in the present moment.

     Refuse to Fear | “At that very hour some Pharisees came and said to [Jesus], ‘Get away from here, for Herod wants to kill you’” (Luke 13:31).

     Herod, the ruler over Galilee, had already locked John the Baptist in prison and lopped off his head (Matthew 14:3–12). Now he has heard about Jesus and apparently has a desire to kill him, possibly because he believed it was John back from the dead. Herod is powerful and paranoid (Matthew 14:1–2), as well as selfish and erratic in his behavior. This is no idle threat.

     And yet, this passage records no hint of fear on Jesus’s part. Jesus’s strongest emotions don’t even involve Herod, whom he seems to dismiss and quickly forget. Herod is actively seeking his life, but Jesus isn’t fazed.

Stephen Witmer is the pastor of Pepperell Christian Fellowship in Pepperell, Massachusetts, and teaches New Testament at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. He is the author of Eternity Changes Everything and a 12-Week-Study-Revelation

The Coming Prince

By Sir Robert Anderson 1841-1918

Chapter 1 Introduction

     And if the new birth and the faith of Christianity were thus produced in the case of persons who received the Gospel immediately from the Apostles, nothing less will avail with us who are separated by eighteen centuries from the witnesses and their testimony. God is with His people still. And He speaks to men's hearts, now, as really as He did in early times; not indeed through inspired Apostles, and still less by dreams or visions, but through the Holy Writings which He Himself inspired; [9]

[9] God is omnipresent; but there is a real sense in which the Father and the Son are not on earth but in heaven, and in that same sense the Holy Spirit is not in heaven but on earth.

[10] Such faith is inseparably connected with salvation, and salvation is the gift of God (Ephesians 2:8). Hence the solemn words of Christ, "I thank Thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because Thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes" (Matthew 11:25).

[11] Pusey, Daniel, Pref. p. 25.

But more than this, the well-instructed believer will find within it inexhaustible stores of proof that it is from God. The Bible is far more than a textbook of theology and morals, or even than a guide to heaven.  It is the record of the progressive revelation God has vouchsafed to man, and the Divine history of our race in connection with that revelation.  Ignorance may fail to see in it anything more than the religious literature of the Hebrew race, and of the Church in Apostolic times; but the intelligent student who can read between the lines will find there mapped out, sometimes in clear bold outline, sometimes dimly, but yet always discernible by the patient and devout inquirer, the great scheme of God's counsels and workings in and for this world of ours from eternity to eternity.

     And the study of prophecy, rightly understood, has a range no narrower than this. Its chief value is not to bring us a knowledge of "things to come," regarded as isolated events, important though this may be;  but to enable us to link the future with the past as part of God's great purpose and plan revealed in Holy Writ.  The facts of the life and death of Christ were an overwhelming proof of the inspiration of the Old Testament. When, after His resurrection, He sought to confirm the disciples' faith,

Luke 24:27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.   ESV

     But many a promise had been given, and many a prophecy recorded, which seemed to be lost in the darkness of Israel's national extinction and Judah's apostasy.   (Remember, this was written before God restored Israel as a nation in one day in 1948.)  The fulfillment of them all depended on Messiah; but now Messiah was rejected, and His people were about to be cast away, that Gentiles might be taken up for blessing. Are we to conclude then that the past is wiped out for ever, and that God's great purposes for earth have collapsed through human sin? As men now judge of revelation, Christianity dwindles down to be nothing but a "plan of salvation" for individuals, and if St. John's Gospel and a few of the Epistles be left them they are content. How different was the attitude of mind and heart displayed by St. Paul! In the Apostle's view the crisis which seemed the catastrophe of everything the old prophets had foretold of God's purposes for earth, opened up a wider and more glorious purpose still, which should include the fulfillment of them all; and rapt in the contemplation, he exclaimed,

Romans 11:33 Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!   ESV

     True prophetic study is an inquiry into these unsearchable counsels, these deep riches of Divine wisdom and knowledge. Beneath the light it gives, the Scriptures are no longer a heterogeneous compilation of religious books, but one harmonious whole, from which no part could be omitted without destroying the completeness of the revelation. And yet the study is disparaged in the Churches as being of no practical importance. If the Churches are leavened with skepticism at this moment, their neglect of prophetic study in this its true and broader aspect has done more than all the rationalism of Germany   (Consider the rationalism of Germany before the 2 great wars and consider the rationalism of today.)  to promote the evil. Skeptics may boast of learned Professors and Doctors of Divinity among their ranks, but we may challenge them to name a single one of the number who has given proof that he knows anything whatever of these deeper mysteries of revelation. The attempt to put back the rising tide of skepticism is hopeless. Indeed the movement is but one of many phases of the intense mental activity which marks the age. The reign of creeds is past. The days are gone for ever when men will believe what their fathers believed, without a question. Rome, in some phase of its development, has a strange charm for minds of a certain caste, and rationalism is fascinating to not a few; but orthodoxy in the old sense is dead, and if any are to be delivered it must be by a deeper and more thorough knowledge of the Scriptures.   ( ... and yet Christians will not even read their Bibles!)

     These pages are but a humble effort to this end; but if they avail in any measure to promote the study of Holy Writ their chief purpose will be fulfilled. The reader therefore may expect to find the accuracy of the Bible vindicated on points which may seem of trifling value. When David reached the throne of Israel and came to choose his generals, he named for the chief commands the men who had made themselves conspicuous by feats of prowess or of valor. Among the foremost three was one of whom the record states that he defended a tract of lentiles, and drove away a troop of the Philistines.

2 Samuel 23:11-12 11 And next to him was Shammah, the son of Agee the Hararite. The Philistines gathered together at Lehi, where there was a plot of ground full of lentils, and the men fled from the Philistines. 12 But he took his stand in the midst of the plot and defended it and struck down the Philistines, and the LORD worked a great victory.   ESV

     To others it may have seemed little better than a patch of weeds, and not worth fighting for, but it was precious to the Israelite as a portion of the divinely-given inheritance, and moreover the enemy might have used it as a rallying ground from which to capture strongholds.  So is it with the Bible. It is all of intrinsic value if indeed it be from God; and moreover, the statement which is assailed, and which may seem of no importance, may prove to be a link in the chain of truth on which we are depending for eternal life.

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 19

Psalm 1:2  but his delight is in the law of the LORD,
and on his law he meditates day and night.

Psalm 19:7  The law of the LORD is perfect,
reviving the soul;
the testimony of the LORD is sure,
making wise the simple;

Psalm 119:45  and I shall walk in a wide place,
for I have sought your precepts.

Psalm 119:96  I have seen a limit to all perfection,
but your commandment is exceedingly broad.
97  Oh how I love your law!
It is my meditation all the day.
98  Your commandment makes me wiser than my enemies,
for it is ever with me.
99  I have more understanding than all my teachers,
for your testimonies are my meditation.
100  I understand more than the aged,
for I keep your precepts.   ESV

Proverbs 16:1 The plans of the heart belong to man,
but the answer of the tongue is from the LORD.

O grant, Lord Jesus, mine may be
A life surrendered unto Thee.
The vessel need not be of gold,
Need not be strong, or wise, or bold,
But, Lord, the vessel Thou shalt choose,
It must be clean for Thee to use.
So fill my heart till all shall see
A living, reigning Christ, in me.
--- Barbara E. Cornet