Is Noah’s Flood Simply a Retelling of Prior Mythologies?

By J. Warner Wallace 3/3/2017

     The Book of Genesis has become a lightning rod for skeptics and Christians alike. Sometimes the debate is focused on Genesis 1 and the creation account. What was the length of each “day” recorded here? How do we reconcile apparent contradictions between Genesis Chapter 1 and Chapter 2? As a new investigator of Christianity, these issues were important to me as I returned to the Old Testament to connect the dots between the history of Judaism and the claims of Christianity. The flood story recorded in Genesis 6:9-8:22 was also an area of particular interest to me. I knew that the story was not unique to Judaism and I suspected it was a piece of borrowed mythology.

     It turns out there are over 200 historic flood accounts across the globe from just about every culture or primitive society you can imagine. Beyond the region of Turkey, Egypt and Persia, these ancient accounts are found in the history of people groups as far away as China and Thailand, Australia and New Zealand, Alaska and the North American continent, the islands of the South Pacific and throughout Central and South America. I’ve examined these stories and, to be fair, some of them are dissimilar to the Biblical account of the flood. But many also include features or details found in Moses’ description. A favored family (88%) was warned in advance (66%) of a globally catastrophic flood (95%). The survivors used a boat (70%) to save animals (67%) and eventually landed on a mountain (57%).

     These accounts (similar as they may be) span the course of early human history. They don’t appear on the globe simultaneously, but are instead recorded by people groups as they migrated to various regions. While the similarities of their accounts may affirm the retelling of an original event, how do we know when this event occurred and which version we ought to trust? Many scholars have argued that Moses’ account is not the original. Why should we trust it as authoritative when there are other competing ancient flood “mythologies”? The Epic of Gilgamesh, for example, contains many of the same features described in Moses’ account. In both stories, man’s wickedness is the cause of a flood brought on by God(s), and a single righteous man is commanded to build an extremely large boat. This man assembled a small remnant of humanity along with every species of animal to take refuge on the vessel; the flood then destroyed all the remaining creatures.  The occupants of the boat released birds in an effort to find dry land, and the boat eventually found itself on a tall mountain. The protagonist of each story then offered a sacrifice prior to being blessed for his obedience.

Click here to go to source

James "Jim" Warner Wallace (born June 16, 1961) is an American homicide detective and Christian apologist. Wallace is a Senior Fellow at the Colson Center for Christian Worldview and an Adjunct Professor of Apologetics at Biola University in La Mirada, California. He has authored several books, including Cold-Case Christianity, God’s Crime Scene, and Forensic Faith, in which he applies principles of cold case homicide investigation to apologetic concerns such as the existence of God and the reliability of the Gospels.

• Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels

• God's Crime Scene: A Cold-Case Detective Examines the Evidence for a Divinely Created Universe

• Alive: A Cold-Case Approach to the Resurrection

• Cold-Case Christianity for Kids: Investigate Jesus with a Real Detective

• Keeping Your Kids on God's Side: 40 Conversations to Help Them Build a Lasting Faith

• Forensic Faith: A Homicide Detective Makes the Case for a More Reasonable, Evidential Christian Faith

Natural Law In Court

By Professor Pryor 3/2/2017

     I'm looking forward to meeting up again with Richard Helmholz, author of "Natural Law in Court: A History of Legal Theory in Practice" (2015), at the Religious Critiques of Law conference at Pepperdine University School of Law.

     "Natural Law in Court" has been reviewed here and here. The purpose of this post is to let even more folks, particularly lawyers, know about this splendid (and relatively brief) work.

     Helmholz set out to answer a basic question: for all the philosophical and theological to-do about natural law, did it ever actually make an impact on the ground, i.e., in court? Helmholz thus surveyed the legal literature of three legal communities over the course of roughly 300 years. The communities were Continental Europe, England, and the United States. The period examined begins with 1500 and ends around 1800 for the first two communities and in the late 19th century for the U.S.

     His conclusions?

     This survey of the relevant evidence ... proves that natural law was carried into practice in the courts of each of the three geographical areas surveyed. ... At least six specific conclusions about its use emerge from a consideration of the evidence.

     First, in all three geographical area surveyed, future lawyers learned something about the basic characteristics of the law of nature as part of their early training. ...

Click here to go to source

About Professor Pryor: Professor of law, teacher of contracts and subjects commercial, follower of God—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—in the Reformed tradition, and curious about why things are the way they seem to be. Graduate of various schools, husband of one, and father of three.

12 Things Science Can’t Explain

By David Glass 8/31/2012

     Although it’s quite old, there is a rather amusing clip of William Lane Craig in dialogue with Peter Atkins, where Atkins asks Craig whether he denies that science can explain everything. Craig responds with the following five things science can’t explain:

     1. Logical and mathematical truths (which are presupposed by science)

     2. Metaphysical truths (like the past was not created 5 minutes ago with an appearance of age)

     3. Ethical truths

     4. Aesthetic truths

     5. Science itself (since science is based on assumptions that can’t be proven)

Click here to go to source

David Glass has particular interests in the relationship between science and Christianity and in how evidence should be used in debates about the existence of God. He is a member of Glenabbey Church where he is involved in the apologetics team. He is a lecturer in the School of Computing and Mathematics at the University of Ulster where he does research on topics at the interface between computing and philosophy. (For details about academic qualifications and current work see here.) Originally from Armagh, he now lives in Greenisland with his wife Cathy and their six children.

Six Things Evolution Doesn’t Explain

By David Glass 7/11/2015

     At a popular level, many people seem to think that evolution effectively disproves God’s existence. Certainly, it could be argued that evolution undermines design arguments based on the existence of intelligent life, although we have disputed that idea in a previous article. But the idea that evolution could achieve more than that and become an all-encompassing argument for atheism just doesn’t get off the ground at all.

     Here we want to highlight some things that evolution doesn’t explain. The list could certainly be extended, but all six of the points listed are relevant to the existence of intelligent life. Of course, it will be obvious that evolution doesn’t explain most of these points (the first four) since it is not intended to, but it is still important to mention them because they highlight how incomplete evolution is on its own as an explanation for intelligent life. This is not a criticism of evolution, but is simply a matter of recognizing its limits. For those interested in how we think Christians should approach evolution see our article Debating Darwin.

     With that in mind, here are six things evolution doesn’t explain:

     1. An orderly universe with suitable physical laws.

     Evolution couldn’t operate without appropriate physical laws in place, yet clearly evolution cannot explain why such laws apply to our universe. As we discuss here, this feature of the universe provides one reason for belief in God.

Click here to go to source

David Glass has particular interests in the relationship between science and Christianity and in how evidence should be used in debates about the existence of God. He is a member of Glenabbey Church where he is involved in the apologetics team. He is a lecturer in the School of Computing and Mathematics at the University of Ulster where he does research on topics at the interface between computing and philosophy. (For details about academic qualifications and current work see here.) Originally from Armagh, he now lives in Greenisland with his wife Cathy and their six children.

Read The Psalms In "1" Year

Psalm 27

1 The LORD is my light and my salvation;
whom shall I fear?
The LORD is the stronghold of my life;
of whom shall I be afraid?

2 When evildoers assail me
to eat up my flesh,
my adversaries and foes,
it is they who stumble and fall.

3 Though an army encamp against me,
my heart shall not fear;
though war arise against me,
yet I will be confident.

4 One thing have I asked of the LORD,
that will I seek after:
that I may dwell in the house of the LORD
all the days of my life,
to gaze upon the beauty of the LORD
and to inquire in his temple.

Why Is the Witness of the Spirit So Special?

By Dr. Sinclair Ferguson

     Paul speaks of the believer crying, “Abba! Father!” His verb, krazō, normally indicates a loud or needy cry. The verb is used in the Septuagint version of the Old Testament in this sense. ( For example, in Ps. 141: “O Lord, I call upon you; hasten to me! Give ear to my voice when I call to you!” (v. 1). ) It is found in the Gospels of the blind beggar crying out for help, ( Luke 18:40 ) and of the crowd crying out, “Crucify him!” ( Matt. 20:30; Mark 15:13 ) and in Revelation of a woman in childbirth. ( Rev 12:2 )

     The verb itself is onomatopoeic — its sound expresses the sharpness of the cry. Paul therefore seems to have in mind a loud cry that issues from a situation of great need. “Abba! Father!” is not a restful whisper of contentment and security. It is the cry of a child who has stumbled, tripped, and fallen, and is crying out for his or her father to come to help. It is the deepest instinct of the child in need.

     This is precisely why the cry, “Abba! Father,” is so significant. It expresses, at a point of intense need, an instinct that is absent from the unbeliever’s consciousness. At best such a person may (and often does) cry out, “O God!” but not instinctively, “O Father!” That cry is the fruit of the ministry of the Spirit; it is his co-testimony with our spirit; even in the hour of darkness the believer possesses an instinct, a testimony: he or she knows him- or herself to be a child of God!

     The one who confesses, “Jesus is Lord,” by the Spirit is also the one who cries out in time of need, “Abba! Father!” by the same Spirit. John Murray was therefore right to affirm that even at its lowest ebb the believer’s consciousness differs by a whole diameter from that of the unbeliever.

     Notice what this means. Gospel assurance is not withheld from God’s children even when they have not shown themselves to be strong. What good father would want his children’s assurance of his love to be possible only when they have sufficient accomplishments in life to merit it? Shame on such a father! Yet how sad that we impute such an attitude to our heavenly Father.

     It should be noted, however, that while the witness of the Spirit is not the same as the fruit of the Spirit, Paul does not present it as a kind of “Route B” to assurance for those whose lives are empty of that fruit. The witness of the Spirit goes hand in glove with the fruit of the Spirit, for Paul has been describing the believer as a person who walks according to the Spirit, not according to the flesh, who lives by putting to death the misdeeds of the body. So the Spirit’s testimony with our spirits that we are God’s sons does not exist in isolation from the family characteristics that the Spirit produces in our lives. His witness is a joint witness with our spirits and takes place within the complexity of our own consciousness of our sonship (however subliminal that may be). It is therefore not independent of the marks of God’s grace in our lives. Paul had already made this clear in Romans 8:12–14 in relating the mortification of sin to the ongoing leading of the Spirit, (In this context it is noteworthy that the one reference in the New Testament to “the leading of the Spirit” is related not to “guidance” in general but to holiness in particular.) who bears witness with our spirits that we are sons of God.

     B. B. Warfield once again well expresses the balance here when he says that the witness of the Spirit

     is, in a word, not a substitute for the proper evidence of our childship; but a divine enhancement of that evidence. A man who has none of the marks of a Christian is not entitled to believe himself to be a Christian; only those who are being led by the Spirit of God are children of God. But a man who has all the marks of being a Christian may fall short of his privilege of assurance. It is to such that the witness of the Spirit is superadded, not to take the place of the evidence of “signs” but to enhance their effect and raise it to a higher plane; not to produce an irrational, unjustified, conviction, but to produce a higher and more stable conviction than he would be, all unaided, able to draw; not to supply the lack of evidence, but to cure a disease of the mind which will not profit fully by the evidence. . . . The Spirit . . . does not operate by producing conviction without reason; an unreasonable conclusion. Nor yet apart from the reason; equally unreasonable. Nor by producing more reasons for the conclusion. But by giving their true weight and validity to the reasons which exist and so leading to the true conclusion, with Divine assurance.

     The function of the witness of the Spirit of God is, therefore, to give to our halting conclusions the weight of His Divine certitude. Faith and Life

     Thus there are different strands of influences that together make up the complex harmony that is Christian assurance. Actual assurance has a psychological as well as a theological dimension. Precisely for this reason, even when we have developed a clear doctrine of assurance, our actual experience of it may be prevented by numerous obstacles.

     Excerpt from The Whole Christ: Legalism, Antinomianism, and Gospel Assurance

     Dr. Sinclair B. Ferguson is a Ligonier teaching fellow and distinguished visiting professor of systematic theology at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia.      Sinclair Ferguson Books |  Go to Books Page

Did Jesus claim to be God?

By Triablogue 3/2/2017

     A perennial question that some people raise is whether Jesus claimed to be God. The skepticism underlying the question is that while NT writers claim divinity for Jesus, that's not a claim he made for himself. In other words, he was just human, and a divine Jesus reflects legendary embellishment on the part of NT writers.

     Now, in one respect, I think the question is unimportant. I mean, if Jesus is God Incarnate, then we'd expect him to indicate that fact, but what I mean is that Jesus didn't write anything, so if someone is skeptical about the historicity of the Gospels or the NT generally, they will be just as dismissive of accounts in which Jesus claims to be God. They will say the Gospel writers put those words on Jesus' lips. So when the question has that frame of reference, it's futile to distinguish what Jesus said about himself from what NT writers said about Jesus. Since we don't have an autobiography of Jesus, there's no point attempting to prove to a "skeptic" that Jesus claimed to be God. If they distrust the historicity of the Gospels, they'd say statements attributed to Jesus are reducible to what the Gospels authors said about him rather than what he said about himself. To that extent, I think a "quest for the historical Jesus" that labors to isolate his statements from the narrator's statements is pointless.

     There is, though, a more interesting question. How would Jesus prove that he's divine? It's not enough to claim divinity. After all, some people claim to be God, but we typically dismiss them as crackpots.

     So it's less about Jesus saying he was God than Jesus showing he was God. Mind you, saying that he was God would help to prep the observer, but that needs to be reinforced by corresponding actions. Doing things that are associated with divine action.

     However, that, of itself, is not without ambiguities. For instance, God is not the only agent who can perform miracles.

     Now normally, when a crackpot claims to be God, that doesn't pose a threat to the true religion since most folks don't take him seriously. Indeed, the claim itself is sufficient reason for them to discount him as either delusional or a charlatan.

Click here to go to source

     Triablogue: I doubled majored in history and Classics. I have an MAR from RTS. In theology, I’m a Calvinist, creationist, inerrantist, semicessationist, classical Christian theist, and amil (with postmil sympathies). I'm a low churchman with a sympathy for a certain amount of high church symbolism. I’m a pragmatist about church polity. On the sacraments, I take them to be symbolic. I regard other issues in sacramentology as secondary to this primary position. In philosophy, I’m an Augustinian exemplarist. I’m a Cartesian dualist. I’m an alethic realist, but scientific antirealist. I believe in innate ideas, sense knowledge (I'm an indirect realist), and the primacy of divine revelation in Scripture. In ethics, I subscribe to traditional Christian morality, rooted God’s revealed law as the source and standard of personal and social ethics. I also subscribe to a supralapsarian theodicy. Although I’m not a Lutheran, a traditional Lutheran service suits my taste in the style of worship.

Luke 18

By Don Carson 3/4/2018

     Each of the first four units of Luke 18 can easily be misunderstood; each makes abundant sense when read in conjunction with the others.

     The first (18:1-8) is a parable that Jesus tells his disciples “to show them that they should always pray and not give up” (18:1). An unjust judge is badgered by a persistent widow so that in the end he provides her with the justice she asks for. “And will not God bring about justice for his chosen ones, who cry out to him day and night? Will he keep putting them off?” (18:7). If even this judge eventually puts things right, how much more will God, when his “chosen ones” cry to him? By itself, of course, this parable could be taken to mean that the longer and louder one prays, the more blessings one gets — a kind of tit-for-tat arrangement that Jesus himself elsewhere disavows (Matt. 6:5-15). But the last verse (18:8) focuses the point: “However, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth?” The real problem is not with God’ s unwillingness to answer, but with our faithless and lethargic refusal to ask.

     The second (18:9-14) parable describes a Pharisee and a tax collector who go up to the temple to pray. Some modern relativists conclude from this story that Jesus accepts everyone, regardless of his or her continuing sins, habits, or lifestyle. He rejects only self-confident religious hypocrites. Certainly Jesus rejects the latter. But the parable does not suggest that the tax collector wished to continue in his sin; rather, he begs for mercy, knowing what he is; he approaches God out of a freely recognized need.

     In the third unit (18:15-17) Jesus insists that little children be brought to him, “for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.” One must “receive the kingdom of God like a child,” or not at all. Yet this does not commend childlike behavior in all respects (e.g., naïveté, short-term thinking, moral immaturity, the cranky “No!” of the “terrible twos”). But little children do have an openness, a refreshing freedom from self-promotion, a simplicity that asks and trusts.

     The fourth unit (18:18-30) finds Jesus telling a rich ruler to sell all that he has and give to the poor, if he is to have treasure in heaven, and then follow Christ. Does this mean that only penurious asceticism will enjoy the blessings of heaven? Is it not Christ’s way of stripping off this particular person’ s real god, the pathetic ground of his self-confidence, so that he may trust Jesus and follow him wholly?

     Can you see what holds these four units together?

Click here to go to source

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

By Gleason Archer Jr.

Ill - Founded Allegations (cont)

      (2) The name Abram has been discovered in tablets dating from the sixteenth century B.C. Thus, an Akkadian tablet dated 1554 B.C., or the eleventh year of Amisadugga of Babylon (Barton, AB, p. 344), records the hiring of an ox by a farmer named Abarama. Two other tablets refer to this same man as Abamrama.

      (3) As for Abraham’s career in Palestine, the excavations at Shechem and Bethel show that they were inhabited in Abraham’s time. A ninth-century writer might well have represented the patriarch as stopping at cities which were not standing in the twentieth century B.C., although they may have become famous later.

      (4) The older scholars criticized  Gen. 13  as unhistorical, on the ground that the Jordan valley was relatively uninhabited in Abraham’s time. But Nelson Glueck has in recent decades uncovered more than seventy sites in the Jordan valley, some of them as ancient as 3000 B.C.

      (5)  Genesis 14  was rejected by Noldeke on the grounds that (a) the names of the Mesopotamian kings were fictional, (b) there was no such extensive travel from Mesopotamia to Palestine in Abraham’s day, and (c) there was no such line of march east of the Jordan River. But as to (a) the likelihood of a Chedorlaomer, king of Elam, more recent discovery has shown that an Elamite dynasty did indeed establish a temporary over-lordship in Sumer and Akkad, and that some of these kings had names beginning with “Kudur” (“servant”), and that there was an Elamite goddess named Lagamar. Thus, a king Kudur-lagamar may well have participated in this invasion. It is stated in one tablet (Barton, AB, p. 349) that a king named Kudur-Mabug had a son named Eri-aku (or else his name could be read Arad-Sin, “Servant of the moon-god”), and that he was king of Larsa—very close to “Arioch king of Ellasar” ( Gen. 14:1 ). The Mari Tablets also attest the currency of the name Ariyuk. (So Albright in Rowley, p 178 OTMS, p. 6.) A Babylonian wagon contract dating from a time shortly after Hammurabi stipulates that the wagon hired must not be driven to the coast of the Mediterranean (indicating that wagons could indeed be driven to Palestine in those days). (Cf. Barton, AB, p. 347.)

      The net result of all this archaeological confirmation of the agreement of  Gen. 14  with conditions existing in that period has been to convince Gunkel, Albright, and many others, that this episode rests upon authentic tradition perhaps going back to the twentieth century B.C. Albright concludes, “In spite of our failure hitherto to fix the historical horizon of this chapter, we may be certain that its contents are very ancient. There are several words and expressions found nowhere else in the Bible and now known to belong to the second millennium. The names of the towns in Transjordania are also known to be very ancient.” It should be pointed out, however, that the earlier identification of “Amraphel king of Shinar” with the celebrated Hammurabi of Babylon is now no longer tenable, for it is now known that he lived in the eighteenth century, whereas Abraham belonged to the twentieth or twenty-first century (according to the biblical record). This revised date for Hammurabi’s reign (ca. 1792–1750 B.C., according to Rowton) has been established on the basis of diplomatic correspondence discovered at Mari between Zimri-Lim, the last king of Mari, and Hammurabi himself. Since the time of Zimri-Lim has been fixed from other synchronisms, the later date for the famous lawgiver seems firmly grounded.

      (6) The Mari Tablets were discovered by Parrot at Tell Hariri on the middle Euphrates in 1933. These twenty thousand tablets were written in Akkadian during the eighteenth century B.C., and confirm the existence of the city of Nakhur (which could have been so named after Abraham’s brother, Nahor, according to  Gen. 24:10; cf.  11:27 ). They also refer to the name Ariyuk (Arioch) as current in the early second millennium. They even mention the Habiru (which is probably the Akkadian form of the Canaanite term ˓Iḇrɩ̂ʸm or Hebrew), a designation first applied to Abraham in the  Genesis  record, but which from the cuneiform evidence, seems to have referred to certain groups of warlike “wanderers” or “people from the other side” (based on the assumption that the root of the name was derived from the verb ˓ābar, “cross over, pass through”), who may or may not have been ethnically related to each other. It is interesting to note that one of the names occurring in these documents from Mari is Banu-Yamina (note the similarity to Benjamin), a tribe of fierce nomads. The early occurrence of this word gives a background for its appearance in later Hebrew history.

      (7) The Nuzu or Nuzi Tablets, found by Chiera and Speiser at Nuzi (near Kirkuk) on the Tigris in 1925, date from the fifteenth century, and betray a strong, Hurrian influence in the type of Akkadian used in the several thousand tablets discovered. They serve to confirm the historicity of many of the customs and usages practiced by Abraham and the other patriarchs prior to the Egyptian sojourn. (a) Abraham’s reference to his servant Eliezer as “son of his house” in  Gen. 15:2 (prior to the birth of Ishmael and Isaac) indicated that he had adopted him as his legal heir. God’s rejection of this arrangement ( Gen. 15:4 ) might have occasioned Abraham embarrassment had it not been customary (as Nuzi texts show) to set aside the claims of an adopted son if a natural heir was subsequently born into the family. (b) The legitimacy of selling one’s birthright (as Esau sold his to Jacob in  Gen. 25:33 ) was established at Nuzi, for in one case an older brother was validly recompensed by a payment of three sheep for selling to his younger brother the rights of primogeniture. (c) The binding character of a deathbed will, such as was elicited from Isaac by Jacob, is attested by a case where a man named Tarmiya established his right to a woman he had married by proving that his father on his deathbed orally bestowed her on him. This was sufficient to win the lawsuit brought against him by his brothers. (d) A plausible motive for Rachel’s theft of her father’s teraphim ( Gen. 31 ) is supplied by a Nuzi record of a case where a man was able in court to claim the estate of his father-in-law because he possessed the family teraphim (or household gods). H. H. Rowley comes to this conclusion regarding the patriarchal narratives in  Genesis; “Their accurate reflection of social conditions in the patriarchal age and in some parts of the Mesopotamia from which the patriarchs are said to have come, many centuries before the present documents were composed, is striking.”

      (8) The Hittite Legal Code (discovered by Winckler at Hattusas or Boghaz-koy 1906–1912 and dating from about 1300 B.C.) illuminates the transaction recorded in  Gen. 23 where Abraham purchased the cave of Machpelah from Ephron the Hittite. Hittite law explains the reluctance of Abraham to buy the entire parcel, and his preference for acquiring only the cave itself and the territory immediately adjacent. The law required the owner of an entire tract to perform the duties of ilku or feudal service, a responsibility which doubtless included pagan religious observances. As a Jehovah-worshiper, Abraham was alert enough to prefer avoiding this involvement by purchasing only a fraction of the parcel, thus leaving Ephron responsible to perform ilku as original owner of the tract. As Manfred Lehmann brings out, the account in  Gen. 23 exhibits such an intimate knowledge of Hittite procedure as to make it certain that the episode antedated the destruction of the Hittite power in the thirteenth century B.C.

      (9) It was the contention of many archaeologists, Albright included, that the references to camels as included in Abraham’s holdings in livestock ( Gen. 12:16 ) and as employed by his servant who conducted the courtship of Rebekah ( Gen. 24:10, 14, 19–20 ) were anachronistic embellishments coming from later centuries. Likewise the mention of camels as employed by the slave traders who purchased Joseph on their way down to Egypt ( Gen. 37:25 ). This deduction was drawn from a lack of clear extrabiblical reference to camels prior to the twelfth century in any of the archaeological discoveries made before 1950. But like so many arguments from silence, this contention must be abandoned as discredited by subsequent findings. Kenneth Kitchen points out (AOOT, p. 79) that even apart from a probable (but disputed) eighteenth-century allusion to camels in a fodder list from Tell Atshana (as attested by W. G. Lambert in BASOR, no. 160 [Dec. 1960]: 42–43), there is undoubtedly a reference to the domestication of camels in some of the lexical lists from the Old Babylonian period (2000–1700 B.C.). An early Sumerian text from Nippur alludes to camel’s milk (cf. Chicago Assyrian Dictionary [1960]: 7:2b). Back in the twenty-fifth century B.C., the bones of a camel were interred under a house at Mari (Andre Parrot, in Syria 32 [1955]: 323). Similar discoveries have been made in Palestinian sites in levels dating from 2000 B.C. onward. From Byblos in Phoenicia comes an incomplete camel figurine dating from the nineteenth or eighteenth century (Roland de Vaux, in Revue Biblique, 56 [1949]: 9). More recent discovery has further shown this negative judgment to be unjustified. (Cf. R. J. Forbes, Studies in Ancient Technology, vol. 2 [Brill, 1965], chap. 4, pp. 194–213; “The Coming of the Camel,” p. 197). Forbes cites an early Dynastic limestone vessel shaped like a recumbent pack camel; also discovered are pottery camels’ heads from Hierakonpolis and Abydos in the Egyptian First Dynasty (p. 198). Also included is a figurine of a recumbent camel at Byblos during the Middle Kingdom Period (p. 203). Oppenheim found at Gozan (Tell Halaf) an orthostat of an armed camel rider which was dated 3000 B.C. or at least early 3rd millennium. A small camel figurine discovered at Megiddo closely resembles Dynasty I types. Middle Kingdom camel bones were found at Gezer (p. 209). The Akkadian term for male camel, ˓ibulu/udra/uduru; for female camel, udrate; for dromedary, gammalu: (E-G v:116.10) in Coptic (jamūl). (The Sumerian term was ANŠE A-ABBA: “an ass of the sea-lands or dromedary”). Once again the Old Testament record has been vindicated as a completely trustworthy and historical account, despite the temporary lack of archaeological confirmation.

      ALLEGATION: The legislation of the Priestly Code represents a late, post-exilic stage in the development of Israel’s religion; laws of this sort could never have been devised until the fifth century B.C.

      REFUTATION: (1) The Babylonian Code of Hammurabi (C. H.), discovered by de Morgan and Scheil at Susa in 1901, shows numerous similarities to the provisions in  Exodus, Leviticus, and  Numbers, relative to the punishment of crimes and the imposition of damages for torts and breaches of contract. Many of these similar laws are included by Wellhausen in document P. Generally speaking, the resemblances are found in the Israelite mišpāṭɩ̂m (civil laws of customary origin, generally having an “if — then —” type of structure). For example, (a)  Lev. 19:23–25 provides that after an orchard is planted, the cultivator of it may not eat of its fruit until the fifth year. Code of Hammurabi #60 stipulates that the tenant farmer who has planted an orchard may not eat of its fruit until the fifth year (at which time he must let the owner of the property take the better half of the crop). (b)  Leviticus 20:10 provides the death penalty for both the adulterer and the adulteress. C. H. #129 provides that both parties to adultery are to be drowned, unless a pardon is secured from the king, or unless the wife is pardoned by her husband. (c)  Numbers 5:11–28 describes a procedure for determining the guilt or innocence of a wife who has been suspected by her husband of infidelity: she is to drink a potion of “bitter water” upon which a curse has been invoked if she is guilty. C. H. #132 provides that a wife suspected of adultery (although not apprehended in the act) shall be cast into the river to see whether she will sink (if guilty) or float (if innocent). (d)  Leviticus 20:12 requires the death penalty for both parties when a man commits adultery with his daughter-in-law. C. H. #155 exacts capital punishment only of the father-in-law in such a case, presumably on the ground that the woman would not dare to refuse the head of the household. (e)  Leviticus 24:19–20 fixes the damages for mayhem as the same injury to be inflicted on the offender (an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth). C. H. #196, 197, 200 all require the same penalty where both parties are of the same social class, but only monetary damages where the injured party is of a lower class.

A Survey of Old Testament Introduction

The Book of Revelation: How Difficult Was Its Journey into the Canon?

By Michael J. Kruger 2/12/2017

     The story of the New Testament canon is a fascinating one, with many twists and turns. There are books that were accepted very quickly, almost from the start (e.g., the four gospels), and there are other books that struggled to find a home (e.g., 2 Peter).

     And then there is the book of Revelation.

     Few today would contest the claim that the book of Revelation stands as one of the most controversial, complicated, and esoteric books in the New Testament canon. Perhaps it should come as no surprise, then, that its reception by the early church was equally complicated and controversial.

     But, the story of the book of Revelation is not what one might expect. Other debated books tended to have a lukewarm reception at the earliest stages, only to gain more and more acceptance over time. Revelation, on the other hand, had nearly the opposite experience; it had a very early and positive reception in many parts of the church, only to run into serious challenges at a later point.

     Lately, I have been doing a good bit of research on Revelation’s canonical history in preparation for writing an academic piece on the subject. Here are a few highlights about Revelation’s journey:

     1. Revelation’s early reception was Outstanding. Perhaps as much as any other NT book, we have evidence for an early, widespread, and consistent reception of Revelation. Our evidence goes back as early as Papias (c.125) and also includes Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, the Muratorian Fragment, Hippolytus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Origen. That is an impressive list.

Books by Michael J. Kruger:

Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books (Note, I really enjoyed this book.)
The Question of Canon: Challenging the Status Quo in the New Testament Debate
The Heresy of Orthodoxy: How Contemporary Culture's Fascination with Diversity Has Reshaped Our Understanding of Early Christianity
A Biblical-Theological Introduction to the New Testament: The Gospel Realized
The Inerrant Word: Biblical, Historical, Theological, and Pastoral Perspectives
The Early Text of the New Testament

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

By John Bunyan 1678

THE FIFTH STAGE

Then said the guide, Do you hear him? I will dare to say, that this boy lives a merrier life, and wears more of that herb called heart’s-ease in his bosom, than he that is clad in silk and velvet. But we will proceed in our discourse.

     In this valley our Lord formerly had his country-house: he loved much to be here. He loved also to walk these meadows, for he found the air was pleasant. Besides, here a man shall be free from the noise, and from the hurryings of this life: all states are full of noise and confusion; only the Valley of Humiliation is that empty and solitary place. Here a man shall not be so let and hindered in his contemplation as in other places he is apt to be. This is a valley that nobody walks in but those that love a pilgrim’s life. And though Christian had the hard hap to meet here with Apollyon, and to enter with him in a brisk encounter, yet I must tell you, that in former times men have met with angels here,

Hosea 12:4-5 He strove with the angel and prevailed;
he wept and sought his favor.
He met God at Bethel,
and there God spoke with us—
5 the LORD, the God of hosts,
the LORD is his memorial name:   ESV

have found pearls here,

Matthew 13:46 who, on finding one pearl of great value, went and sold all that he had and bought it.   ESV

and have in this place found the words of life.

Proverbs 8:36 but he who fails to find me injures himself;
all who hate me love death.”   ESV

     Did I say our Lord had here in former days his country-house, and that he loved here to walk? I will add-in this place, and to the people that love and trace these grounds, he has left a yearly revenue, to be faithfully paid them at certain seasons, for their maintenance by the way, and for their further encouragement to go on in their pilgrimage.

     SAM. Now, as they went on, Samuel said to Mr. Great-Heart, Sir, I perceive that in this valley my father and Apollyon had their battle; but whereabout was the fight? for I perceive this valley is large.

     GREAT. Your father had the battle with Apollyon at a place yonder before us, in a narrow passage, just beyond Forgetful Green. And indeed that place is the most dangerous place in all these parts. For if at any time pilgrims meet with any brunt, it is when they forget what favours they have received, and how unworthy they are of them. This is the place also where others have been hard put to it. But more of the place when we are come to it; for I persuade myself that to this day there remains either some sign of the battle, or some monument to testify that such a battle there was fought.

     MER. Then said Mercy, I think I am as well in this valley as I have been anywhere else in all our journey: the place, methinks, suits with my spirit. I love to be in such places, where there is no rattling with coaches, nor rumbling with wheels.  Methinks, here one may, without much molestation, be thinking what he is, whence he came, what he has done, and to what the King has called him. Here one may think, and break at heart, and melt in one’s spirit, until one’s eyes become as the fish-pools in Heshbon.   Oh man I like that!

Song Of Songs 7:4 Your neck is like an ivory tower.
Your eyes are pools in Heshbon,
by the gate of Bath-rabbim.
Your nose is like a tower of Lebanon,
which looks toward Damascus.   ESV

They that go rightly through this valley of Baca, make it a well; the rain that God sends down from heaven upon them that are here, also filleth the pools. This valley is that from whence also the King will give to his their vineyards; and they that go through it shall sing, as Christian did, for all he met with Apollyon.

Psalm 84:5–7 Blessed are those whose strength is in you,
in whose heart are the highways to Zion.
6 As they go through the Valley of Baca
they make it a place of springs;
the early rain also covers it with pools.
7 They go from strength to strength;
each one appears before God in Zion.   ESV

Hosea 2:15 And there I will give her her vineyards
and make the Valley of Achor a door of hope.
And there she shall answer as in the days of her youth,
as at the time when she came out of the land of Egypt.   ESV

     GREAT. ’Tis true, said their guide; I have gone through this valley many a time, and never was better than when here. I have also been a conduct to several pilgrims, and they have confessed the same. “To this man will I look,” saith the King, “even to him that is poor, and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word.”

Isaiah 66:2 All these things my hand has made,
and so all these things came to be,
declares the LORD.
But this is the one to whom I will look:
he who is humble and contrite in spirit
and trembles at my word.   ESV

     Now they were come to the place where the aforementioned battle was fought: Then said the guide to Christiana, her children, and Mercy, This is the place; on this ground Christian stood, and up there came Apollyon against him; and look. And, look, did I not tell you? here is some of your husband’s blood upon these stones to this day: Behold, also, how here and there are yet to be seen upon the place, some of the shivers of Apollyon’s broken darts. See, also, how they did beat the ground with their feet as they fought, to make good their places against each other; how also with their by-blows they did split the very stones in pieces. Verily, Christian did here play the man, and showed himself as stout as Hercules could, had he been there, even he himself. When Apollyon was beat, he made his retreat to the next valley, that is called, the Valley of the Shadow of Death, unto which we shall come anon. Lo, yonder also stands a monument, on which is engraven this battle, and Christian’s victory, to his fame, throughout all ages:

     So because it stood just on the way-side before them, they stepped to it, and read the writing, which word for word was this:

“Hard by here was a battle fought,
Most strange, and yet most true;
Christian and Apollyon fought
Each other to subdue.
The man so bravely play’d the man,
He made the fiend to fly;
Of which a monument I stand,
The same to testify.”

     When they had passed by this place, they came upon the borders of the Shadow of Death. This Valley was longer than the other; a place also most strangely haunted with evil things, as many are able to testify: but these women and children went the better through it, because they had daylight, and because Mr. Great-Heart was their conductor.

     When they were entering upon this valley, they thought they heard a groaning, as of dying men; a very great groaning. They thought also that they did hear words of lamentation, spoken as of some in extreme torment. These things made the boys to quake; the women also looked pale and wan; but their guide bid them be of good comfort.

     So they went on a little further, and they thought that they felt the ground begin to shake under them, as if some hollow place was there: they heard also a kind of hissing, as of serpents, but nothing as yet appeared. Then said the boys, Are we not yet at the end of this doleful place? But the guide also bid them be of good courage, and look well to their feet; lest haply, said he, you be taken in some snare.

     Now James began to be sick; but I think the cause thereof was fear: so his mother gave him some of that glass of spirits that had been given her at the Interpreter’s house, and three of the pills that Mr. Skill had prepared, and the boy began to revive. Thus they went on till they came to about the middle of the valley; and then Christiana said, Methinks I see something yonder upon the road before us, a thing of a shape such as I have not seen. Then said Joseph, Mother, what is it? An ugly thing, child; an ugly thing, said she. But, mother, what is it like? said he. ’Tis like I cannot tell what, said she; and now it is but a little way off. Then said she, It is nigh.

     Well, said Mr. Great-Heart, let them that are most afraid keep close to me. So the fiend came on, and the conductor met it; but when it was come to him, it vanished to all their sights. Then remembered they what had been said some time ago: “Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.”

James 4:7 Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.   ESV

     They went therefore on, as being a little refreshed. But they had not gone far, before Mercy, looking behind her, saw, as she thought, something most like a lion, and it came at a great padding pace after: and it had a hollow voice of roaring; and at every roar it gave, it made the valley echo, and all their hearts to ache, save the heart of him that was their guide. So it came up and Mr. Great-Heart went behind, and put the pilgrims all before him. The lion also came on apace, and Mr. Great-Heart addressed himself to give him battle.

1 Peter 5:8-9 8 Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour. 9 Resist him, firm in your faith, knowing that the same kinds of suffering are being experienced by your brotherhood throughout the world.   ESV

But when he saw that it was determined that resistance should be made, he also drew back, and came no further.

Then they went on again, and their conductor went before them, till they came to a place where was cast up a pit the whole breadth of the way; and before they could be prepared to go over that, a great mist and a darkness fell upon them, so that they could not see. Then said the pilgrims, Alas! what now shall we do? But their guide made answer, Fear not; stand still, and see what an end will be put to this also; so they stayed there, because their path was marred. They then also thought that they did hear more apparently the noise and rushing of the enemies; the fire also and the smoke of the pit were much easier to be discerned. Then said Christiana to Mercy, Now I see what my poor husband went through. I have heard much of this place, but I never was here before now. Poor man! he went here all alone in the night; he had night almost quite through the way: also these fiends were busy about him, as if they would have torn him in pieces. Many have spoken of it; but none can tell what the Valley of the Shadow of Death should mean until they come in themselves. The heart knoweth its own bitterness; and a stranger intermeddleth not with its joy.

Proverbs 14:10 The heart knows its own bitterness,
and no stranger shares its joy.   ESV

To be here is a fearful thing.

     GREAT. This is like doing business in great waters, or like going down into the deep. This is like being in the heart of the sea, and like going down to the bottoms of the mountains. Now it seems as if the earth, with its bars, were about us for ever. But let them that walk in darkness, and have no light, trust in the name of the Lord, and stay upon their God.

Isaiah 50:10 Who among you fears the LORD
and obeys the voice of his servant?
Let him who walks in darkness
and has no light
trust in the name of the LORD
and rely on his God.   ESV

For my part, as I have told you already, I have gone often through this valley, and have been much harder put to it than now I am: and yet you see I am alive. I would not boast, for that I am not mine own saviour; but I trust we shall have a good deliverance. Come, let us pray for light to Him that can lighten our darkness, and that can rebuke not only these, but all the Satans in hell.

     So they cried and prayed, and God sent light and deliverance, for there was now no let in their way; no, not there where but now they were stopped with a pit. Yet they were not got through the valley. So they went on still, and met with great stinks and loathsome smells, to the great annoyance of them. Then said Mercy to Christiana, It is not so pleasant being here as at the gate, or at the Interpreter’s, or at the house where we lay last.

     O but, said one of the boys, it is not so bad to go through here, as it is to abide here, always; and for aught I know, one reason why we must go this way to the house prepared for us is, that our home might be the sweeter to us.

     Well said, Samuel, quoth the guide; thou hast now spoke like a man. Why, if ever I get out here again, said the boy, I think I shall prize light and good way better than I ever did in all my life. Then said the guide, We shall be out by and by.

     So on they went, and Joseph said, Cannot we see to the end of this valley as yet? Then said the guide, Look to your feet, for we shall presently be among the snares: so they looked to their feet, and went on; but they were troubled much with the snares. Now, when they were come among the snares, they espied a man cast into the ditch on the left hand, with his flesh all rent and torn. Then said the guide, That is one Heedless, that was going this way: he has lain there a great while. There was one Take-Heed with him when he was taken and slain, but he escaped their hands. You cannot imagine how many are killed hereabouts, and yet men are so foolishly venturous as to set out lightly on pilgrimage, and to come without a guide. Poor Christian! it was a wonder that he here escaped; but he was beloved of his God: also he had a good heart of his own, or else he could never have done it.

     Now they drew towards the end of this way; and just there where Christian had seen the cave when he went by, out thence came forth Maul, a giant. This Maul did use to spoil young pilgrims with sophistry; and he called Great-Heart by his name, and said unto him, How many times have you been forbidden to do these things? Then said Mr. Great-Heart, What things? What things! quoth the giant; you know what things: but I will put an end to your trade.

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

The Continual Burnt Offering

By H.A. Ironside - 1941

March 4

1 Kings 19:4 But he himself went a day’s journey into the wilderness and came and sat down under a broom tree. And he asked that he might die, saying, “It is enough; now, O LORD, take away my life, for I am no better than my fathers.”

1 Kings 19:10 He said, “I have been very jealous for the LORD, the God of hosts. For the people of Israel have forsaken your covenant, thrown down your altars, and killed your prophets with the sword, and I, even I only, am left, and they seek my life, to take it away.”  ESV

Not that there be less to bear,
Not that there be more to share;
But for braver heart for bearing,
But for freer heart for sharing—
Here I pray.

Not that joy and peace enfold me,
Not that wealth and pleasure hold me;
But that I may dry a tear,
Speak a word of strength and cheer
On the way.

By James Orr 1907

CHAPTER X | Difficulties and Perplexities of the Critical Hypothesis: The Priestly Writing. II. The Document

“A really vivid picture of the manner in which the documents are interwoven cannot be given by merely stating the numbers of the verses. And it is just as impossible to state with each single verse or section whether it is assigned to the document in question by all investigators or by the majority or only by a few. In the Pentateuch and in the Book of  Joshua it is only with regard to P that something like unanimity has been reached.” — KAUTZSCH.

“In the present state of Hexateuch criticism the weightiest question is not, how much of the Pentateuch, as it comes to us, has Moses himself written … but this is the chief question: Does the Priestly Writing contain trustworthy accounts of the time and work of Moses, or is everything narrated in it, as the modern ‘science’ maintains, only defacement, fiction, yea, ‘the merest fiction,’ and full of contradictions with the (so-called) alone old tradition offered by J and E? I venture to say that in many cases the alleged contradiction is not present; elsewhere the word of Augustine holds good, Distingue tempora et concordabit scriptura; and in yet other places the difficulty is occasioned through glosses of other readers — glosses for which we cannot make the redactor or redactors responsible.” — STRACK.

“I suppress my regret that Wellhausen has still not advanced to the point of recognising in the firmly - defined writer Q [= P], whose narrative is composed with regard to JE, and enclasps this element, as taking the place of the inner content lacking to itself, the everywhere sought for and nowhere found R.” — KLOSTERMANN.

IN nothing are critics of all schools more at one than in the recognition of a writing, partly historical and partly legislative, running through the Pentateuch and  Joshua, which, from its linguistic and other traits, has been variously described, in the course of opinion, as the Elohist document, the Grundschrift (primary document), the 1st Elohist, the Priestly Writing, the Priests’ Code, or simply P. Yet the history of opinion on this Priestly Writing, as on other parts of the documentary theory, has been a slow development, and has been marked by at least four critical stages, the general nature of which has already been indicated.

1. With reference to the compass of the writing, it has already been seen that all Elohistic matter, or matter agreeing with the Elohistic in character and style, was originally assigned to this assumed fundamental document. Even here, indeed, it was soon found necessary to make distinctions and multiply parts, but these variations may at present be disregarded. The first critical point was reached when, on the ground of its greater affinity with the Jehovist, Hupfeld removed a considerable part of this Elohistic matter, and set it up as a separate document, thenceforth known as E, or the 2nd Elohist. Previously much stress had been laid on the unity and completeness of the Elohistic document, as giving “a connected narrative of the theocracy” from the creation to the settlement in Canaan.

Now, however, that the 2nd Elohist was cut out of it extremely little, as will be shown, was left to the older writer in  Genesis after chap.  17, and it was felt to be curious that the 1st Elohist should become so extremely fragmentary just where the new writer came in.

2. In respect to the age of the document, we have seen how, originally, the Elohistic document was all but universally recognised as the fundamental part, or Grundschrift, of the Pentateuch, while the Jehovist was viewed as supplementary. A change was prepared for here also by Hupfeld’s contention that J and E were independent histories. Then came the Graf-Wellhausen upturning, by which the supposed Grundschrift was lifted from the beginning of the literary history, and carried down bodily to its close. Graf, however, as was formerly mentioned, did not at first contemplate so great a revolution. He brought the Levitical laws down to the exile, but was content to leave the Elohistic history in its old place — prior to  Deuteronomy. Subsequently, in deference to Kuenen, he renounced that view, and accepted the late date for both. It is carefully to be observed that it was not critical reasons, but a dogmatic consideration — the supposed necessity of keeping history and laws together — which led Graf to this tour de force as respects the P history.

3. A difference next emerged in respect of the independence of the document. In putting the Priestly Writing late, Graf felt that the ground was taken from the older view that the Grundschrift was an independent document, complete in itself, and he sought to show, as Kuenen states it, “that its narratives not only presuppose those of the Yahwist, but were intended from the first to supplement them, and to constitute a single whole with them.” In this, as we shall seek to show, Graf proved himself more logical, and took up a sounder position, than Kuenen and Wellhausen, who held to the old assumption that the Priestly Writing originally subsisted by itself.

4. With respect, finally, to the unity of the writing, a great change has latterly been brought about (1) by the splitting up of the P document into a P1, P2, P3, etc., and (2) by the abandonment of the idea of a single writer for that of “schools,” whose activity extended over a long period. This change also strikes a blow at the idea of the P writing being a complete and independent history, as was at first imagined.

It will already begin to appear that the problem of the Priestly Writing is by no means so simple as it is apt to seem in the neat statements of the text-books. The difficulties inherent in the current view will, we believe, only become clearer on nearer inspection.

The Problem of the Old Testament

The Institutes of the Christian Religion

Translated by Henry Beveridge

     42. Wherever this living faith exists, it must have the hope of eternal life as its inseparable companion, or rather must of itself beget and manifest it; where it is wanting, however clearly and elegantly we may discourse of faith, it is certain we have it not. For if faith is (as has been said) a firm persuasion of the truth of God--a persuasion that it can never be false, never deceive, never be in vain, those who have received this assurance must at the same time expect that God will perform his promises, which in their conviction are absolutely true; so that in one word hope is nothing more than the expectation of those things which faith previously believes to have been truly promised by God. Thus, faith believes that God is true; hope expects that in due season he will manifest his truth. Faith believes that he is our Father; hope expects that he will always act the part of a Father towards us. Faith believes that eternal life has been given to us; hope expects that it will one day be revealed. Faith is the foundation on which hope rests; hope nourishes and sustains faith. For as no man can expect any thing from God without previously believing his promises, so, on the other hand, the weakness of our faith, which might grow weary and fall away, must be supported and cherished by patient hope and expectation. For this reason Paul justly says, "We are saved by hope," (Rom. 8:24). For while hope silently waits for the Lord, it restrains faith from hastening on with too much precipitation, confirms it when it might waver in regard to the promises of God or begin to doubt of their truth, refreshes it when it might be fatigued, extends its view to the final goal, so as not to allow it to give up in the middle of the course, or at the very outset. In short, by constantly renovating and reviving, it is ever and anon furnishing more vigor for perseverance. On the whole, how necessary the reinforcements of hope are to establish faith will better appear if we reflect on the numerous forms of temptation by which those who have embraced the word of God are assailed and shaken. First, the Lord often keeps us in suspense, by delaying the fulfillment of his promises much longer than we could wish. Here the office of hope is to perform what the prophet enjoins, "Though it tarry, wait for it," (Hab. 2:3). Sometimes he not only permits faith to grow languid, but even openly manifests his displeasure. Here there is still greater necessity for the aid of hope, that we may be able to say with another prophet, "I will wait upon the Lord that hideth his face from the house of Jacob, and I will look for him," (Isaiah 8:17). Scoffers also rise up, as Peter tells us, and ask, "Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation," (2 Pet. 3:4). Nay, the world and the flesh insinuate the same thing. Here faith must be supported by the patience of hope, and fixed on the contemplation of eternity, consider that "one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day," (2 Pet. 3:8; Ps. 90:4).

43. On account of this connection and affinity Scripture sometimes confounds the two terms faith and hope. For when Peter says that we are "kept by the power of God through faith until salvation, ready to be revealed in the last times" (1 Pet. 1:5), he attributes to faith what more properly belongs to hope. And not without cause, since we have already shown that hope is nothing else than the food and strength of faith. Sometimes the two are joined together, as in the same Epistles "That your faith and hope might be in God," (1 Pet. 1:21). Paul, again, in the Epistle to the Philippians, from hope deduces expectation (Phil. 1:20), because in hoping patiently we suspend our wishes until God manifest his own time. The whole of this subject may be better understood from the tenth chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews, to which I have already adverted. Paul, in another passage, though not in strict propriety of speech, expresses the same thing in these words, "For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith," (Gal. 5:5); that is, after embracing the testimony of the Gospel as to free love, we wait till God openly manifest what is now only an object of hope. It is now obvious how absurdly Peter Lombard lays down a double foundation of hope--viz. the grace of God and the merit of works (Sent. Lib. 3, Dist. 26). Hope cannot have any other object than faith has. But we have already shown clearly that the only object of faith is the mercy of God, to which, to use the common expression, it must look with both eyes. But it is worth while to listen to the strange reason which he adduces. If you presume, says he, to hope for any thing without merit, it should be called not hope, but presumption. Who, dear reader, does not execrate the gross stupidity [303] which calls it rashness, and presumption to confide in the truth of God? The Lord desires us to expect every thing from his goodness and yet these men tell us, it is presumption to rest in it. O teacher, worthy of the pupils, whom you found in these insane raving schools! Seeing that, by the oracles of God, sinners are enjoined to entertain the hope of salvation, let us willingly presume so far on his truth as to cast away all confidence in our works, and trusting in his mercy, venture to hope. He who has said, "According to your faith be it unto you," (Mt. 9:29), will never deceive.

__________________________________________________________________

[277] 1 Tim. 6:16; John 8:12; 14:6; Luke 10:22; 1 Cor. 2:2; Acts 20:21; 26:17, 18; 2 Cor. 4:6.

[278] The French is"Car nous tendons a Dieu, et par l'humanité de Jesus Christ, nous y sommes conduits;"--For we tend to God, and by the humanity of Christ are conducted to him.

[279] French, "Theologiens Sorboniques;"--Theologians of Sorbonne.

[280] In opposition to this ignorance, see Chrysostom in Joann. Homil. 16.

[281] See Augustin. Ep. 102, "Si propter eos solos Christus mortuus est, qui certa intelligentia possunt ista discernera, pæne frustra in ecclesia laboramus,"&c;--If Christ died for those only who are able to discern these things with true understanding, our labour in the Church is almost in vain.

[282] This definition is explained, sections 14, 15, 28, 29, 32, 33, 31 of this chapter.

[283] See Lombard, Lib. 3 Dist. 23. See the refutation in the middle of sections 41, 42, 43, where it is shown that faith produces, and is inseparable from, hope and love.

[284] Thess. 1:3, 4; 2 Thess. 2:13; Tit. 1.

[285] The French adds, "Comme par une bouffee,"--as by fits and starts.

[286] See section 13, where it is said that this impression, sometimes existing in the reprobate, is called faith, but improperly.

[287] 1 Tim. 3:9; 4:1, 6; 2 Tim. 2:15; 3:18; Tit. 1:13; 2:2.

[288] The French adds, "Comme il montre par ses propos quel souci il en avoit;"--as he shows by his urgency what anxiety he felt.

[289] Latin"Præsentim ubi ad rem ventum est."--French, "Principalament quand les tentations nous pressent;"--especially when temptations press us.

[290] As to the imperfection, strengthening, and increase of faith, see Book 4. chap. 4 sec. 7, 8.

[291] Calvin's Latin translation of the passage is, "Atque dixi, occidere meum est; mutationes dexteræ excelsi."--The French is, "J'ay dit, Il me faut mourir. Voicy un changement de la main de Dieu;"--I said I must die. Behold a change in the hand of God.

[292] See Calv adv. Pighiium, near the commencement.

[293] The French is, "Voila comme Satan, quand il voit que par mensonge clair et ouvert il ne peust plus destruire la certitude de la foy, s'efforce en cachette et comme par dessous terre la ruiner."--Behold how Satan, when he sees that by clear and open falsehood he can no longer destroy the certainty of faith, is striving in secret, and as it were below ground, to ruin it.

[294] Ps. 111:10; Prov. 1:7, 9:10, 15:24; Job 28:28; Mal. 1:6.

[295] Latin, "acsi cervicibus suis impenderet."--French, "comme si l'enfer leur etoit desia present pour les englouter;"--as if hell were already present to engulfthem.

[296] The French adds, "Combien que nous ayons les promesses de Dieu pour nous munir à l'encontre;"--although we have the promise of God to strengthen us for the encounter.

[297] Rom. 1:3; 1 Cor. 2:2; 2 Cor. 1:20.

[298] The French thus begins the section: "Lequel erreur est facile a convaincre;"--This error is easily refuted

[299] French, "Doutes, solicitudes, et detresses;"--doubts, anxieties, and distresses.

[300] French, "La doctrine des theologiens sophistes;"--the doctrine of sophistical theologians.

[301] See Bernard, Serm. 2 in Die Ascensionis, and Serm. 2 in Octava Paschæ

[302] The French adds, "En quoy ils demonstrent grandement leur betisc;"--In this they give a great demonstration of their stupidity.

[303] Latin "Quis non merito, amice lector, tales bestias execretur?" French, "Je vous prie, mes amis, qui se tiendra de maudire telles bestes?"--I pray you, my friends, who can refrain from execrating such beasts?

__________________________________________________________________

     Christian Classics Ethereal Library / Public Domain

     Institutes of the Christian Religion