Does Porn Really Hurt Society?

By Sean McDowell 2/21/2017

     Dr. John Foubert has been studying pornography and its effects on people for over a decade. I have written and spoken extensively on pornography, so I was eager when Dr. Foubert graciously asked me to endorse his recent book How Pornography Harms. And it did not disappoint. In fact, I would consider an indispensable resource for students, parents, teachers, and pastors to be informed about how pornography is changing the way people think about sex.

     Check out this quick interview with Dr. Foubert. And then think about getting a copy of his excellent book. You can get a hard copy here or the e-book for a discount. Enjoy!

     SEAN MCDOWELL: The first line in your book struck me: "This book pulls no punches." Your writing style is direct, hard hitting, and real. Why did you write How Pornography Harms that way?

     JOHN FOUBERT: You can’t clean up the topic of pornography. So many of us have been pretending it isn’t a problem with people we know. Many parents think that if their kids look at today’s porn, it is the same kind of thing they saw as kids and is no big deal. All of these people would be wrong. In order to educate the public about the harms of pornography, I decided to let people know about the level of violence and degradation that is really going on in today’s pornography. My intent is not to be gratuitously graphic, but to be shocking enough to wake up people’s consciences.

     MCDOWELL: There are lots of books out there about pornography that are written from a Biblical worldview. How is yours different from the others?

     FOUBERT: There are so many wonderful books out there about pornography that do a great job of helping people who are struggling with porn to get out from under that struggle. How Pornography Harms is different, in that it distills the results from 150 peer reviewed studies, 2 dozen books, 2 dozen anecdotes from people who have been hurt by porn, and a dozen interviews with scholars who do cutting edge research in this area. As I wove together research and people’s personal experience, I wrote a book that is accessible, real, and well documented – all from a Biblical worldview.

Books By Sean McDowell
Is God Just a Human Invention? And Seventeen Other Questions Raised by the New Atheists
A New Kind of Apologist: *Adopting Fresh Strategies *Addressing the Latest Issues *Engaging the Culture
The Beauty of Intolerance: Setting a Generation Free to Know Truth and Love
Same-Sex Marriage: A Thoughtful Approach to God's Design for Marriage (Thoughtful Response)
ETHIX: Being Bold in a Whatever World
More Than a Carpenter
Apologetics Study Bible for Students, Trade Paper

The Consequences of Truth

By Gene Edward Veith 5/1/2007

     Readers of Tabletalk over the last 30 years have learned a lot about theology. But they have also learned a lot about history, philosophy, and the arts. The various writers of the “Truth and Consequences” column have been writing about culture, a category that includes everything from great literature to awful TV, from family values to moral collapse. What Tabletalk has been serving up over three decades is not just Bible study but more broadly, truth.

     “Truth” is a word that these days nearly always comes with quotation marks around it. Many people today believe there isn’t such a thing. There was a time when the major apologetic issue was whether it is true that God exists. Today, the apologist must deal with an even more fundamental issue, whether truth exists.

     Thirty years ago, when Tabletalk first got started, truth was somewhat more popular. But, to allude to the title of a book on the subject, the last three decades have seen a significant truth decay. And a person’s or a culture’s view of truth has consequences.

     In the premodern days — say, from the ancient Greeks through the rise of Christianity, the Reformation, the seventeenth century, and in some circles beyond — there were all kinds of truth. Reason leads us to some truth. Scientific experiments lead to other truths. Some truths, such as those having to do with the God of Israel, can only be known through revelation.

     But a moral principle also had the equivalent status of truth. “Thou shalt not steal” and “Thou shalt not commit adultery” were understood to be transcendent, objective, and as valid as any other fact.

     Even aesthetic principles were equivalent to truth. Beauty was an objective quality in a work of art or of nature. Some works of art really were understood to be better than others. Not as just a matter of subjective personal taste, but as a matter of objective reality. “The true,” “the good,” and “the beautiful” constituted the three “absolutes.” Truth, goodness, and beauty were objectively valid categories in the external universe.

     The consequences of believing in all of these different kinds of truths, plus the objective reality of morals and aesthetic standards were, to put it briefly, Western civilization. That is to say, education and law; Bach, Rembrandt, and Shakespeare; the Reformation and America.

     Then in the eighteenth century came the Enlightenment, the Age of Reason. The great range of truths became restricted to only one. Reason alone became the only authority for discerning what is true. Then, in the nineteenth century, only one kind of reason passed muster: scientific reasoning. Only what can be empirically verified through experimentation and other applications of the scientific method could have the status of truth.

     This was “modernism.” In these centuries, older premodern notions, such as Christianity, with their more generous openness to different kinds of truth, still exerted their influence. But in the twentieth century, modernist scientism reigned supreme.

     This narrow-minded view of truth had consequences. If only what can be empirically sensed and measured can be true, the universe shrank to what the senses can perceive. The material world was assumed to be all there is.

     Furthermore, other kinds of knowledge had to be translated into material, empirically detectable terms. No one can see a moral absolute, let alone put it in a test tube. So morality became utilitarianism: something is good if it is materially useful.

     But if modernists restricted the range of what could be considered true to only one category, the postmodernists — whose reign began in the 1960s and became dominant when Tabletalk was first getting started — took the next step.

     Postmodernists believe there are no absolutes at all. Truth is not a discovery, but a construction. Some say that truth is a cultural construction, so that our beliefs about reality are all forced on us as we grow up in a culture. We think what and how we do because of our culture, and those notions, in turn, are expressions of power, allowing one group (males or whites or heterosexuals or humanoids) to oppress another group (women or racial minorities or gays or animals). Others say that truth is an individual construction, that by our will we create our own reality, so that what is true for you may not be true for me.

     Believing that truth is nothing more than a construction has consequences: Morality is “pro-choice”; there is no moral principle applicable to everyone, so whatever a person “chooses” is right for him or her.

     In religion, whatever a person “chooses” to believe is right for that person. Religion has to do not with what is true, but what one wants. All religions are equally valid. And truth has nothing to do with it.

     In education, if there is no truth, what is there to teach and what is there to learn? Thus our current educational crisis.

     Tabletalk reminds us that despite our personal and cultural denials, truth exists after all. And that Christians can be confident that truth is on God’s side.

Our Daily Bread on Steroids

By R.C. Sproul Jr. 5/1/2007

     Over the years, Tabletalk has been called all sorts of things. At first, it was more homey than glossy, giving the appearance of having been mimeographed in some back room. It was, early on, and appropriately so, in a word, amateurish. As those who worked on the magazine became more polished in their craft, the magazine in turn slowly became more polished, some might even have called it, professional. On a few occasions Tabletalk took strong stands on issues that divided and still divide the Reformed camp, and so Tabletalk has been called doctrinaire, or dogmatic. Tabletalk has always been substantive, such that one friend, and he meant it as a compliment, called Tabletalk “Our Daily Bread on steroids.” Tabletalk has never, as far as I can recall, been called weak, uncommitted, or slick. As far as I can recall, no one has ever suggested that Tabletalk was guilty of pandering, of ear-tickling, of playing it safe. No one has ever suggested that Tabletalk was a magazine looking for a parade to get out in front of. And I pray that such will never be the case.

     Wisdom, in the Bible, can be terribly confusing for those of us who are fools. The Proverbs enjoin us, for instance, that we ought not to answer a fool according to his folly, lest we also be like him. Then, in the very next line it tells us that we ought to answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes (Prov. 26:4–5). Which is it? This, of course, is the nature of wisdom, as even our uninspired aphorisms seem often double-minded. After all, will we be lost for hesitating, or would it be more prudent to look before we leap? Even Jesus gives us wisdom of this sort, telling us both that we ought to be as wise as serpents, and that we should be as harmless as doves. Wisdom is the ability to know your circumstances, and knowing which nugget ought to be applied in which circumstance.

     In our day, for instance, we are awash in Christians zealous to be as wise as serpents. Unfortunately, we are likewise awash in Christians suffering from serpent bites. The evangelical church, over the last fifty or so years, has increasingly come to lean not upon its own understanding, but upon the understanding of the world. They have taken their cues for spreading the evangel from Madison Avenue. They have been consumed by what Neil Postman calls “technopoly,” a culture driven by the application of technology to every human problem. The church-growth movement is the poster child of this tendency. But it is far from the only manifestation.

     Evangelical language itself has been reshaped by technology. We have taken it upon ourselves to mold and nuance our message wherever we put it out, lest we offend our audience. Sin is no longer rebellion against the living God. It has been reduced down to at best failures, and at worst, mistakes. God Himself has been given a makeover. That the broader evangelical church seeks to hide the holiness of God not only from those outside the camp, but from those within, is the very reason for the existence of Ligonier Ministries. I once had a conversation with a man, who though he was as innocent as a dove, got his wisdom from a rather “wise” and crafty serpent. “Why can’t we,” he asked me, “sell the holiness of God by pointing out to people the truth that as they understand the holiness of God their lives, their marriages, their relationships would be changed for the better?” I explained, “The moment the holiness of God becomes a means to an end, it ceases to be the holiness of God.”

     Jesus is utterly unimpressed with our strategies. He has never sat on His hands, waiting to bless His people and their labors, until we got clever enough. He has, however, refused to bless when we lean on our own understanding. That is why He gave us His strategy. It is stark in its simplicity: Seek ye first the kingdom of God, and His righteousness.

     Our hope is that Tabletalk will continue to be a help to the people of God for the next thirty years. For that to happen, Tabletalk will have to be financially viable. We hope that our readership will double, triple, that ten times as many people will be reading Tabletalk in thirty years as read it now. We hope we will have all the tools we need to not just meet the status quo, but to improve the magazine. But these are the “all these things” that will be added, only if we seek first His kingdom and His righteousness. We could make Tabletalk safe. We could grow our audience a hundredfold. We could write gentle platitudes that communicate that God is safe, we are safe. We could publish the equivalent of a monthly lullaby. And all we would lose is the blessing of God. All we would do is have our lampstand removed. All we would do is destroy the very reason for our existence.

     We may, over the next thirty years, take the wrong side of an intramural debate in the Reformed world. We may, during that span, be more dogmatic than we ought from time to time. Never let it be said, however, that Tabletalk is safe. For of such is not the kingdom of God.

Right Now Counts Forever

By R.C. Sproul 4/1/2007

     The following article first appeared in the May 1977 issue of Tabletalk magazine.

     This column’s title, “Right Now Counts Forever” is designed to focus attention on the relevancy of our present lives to the eternal destinies we all face.

     We live in a culture that places the stress on “right now.” It’s called the “Pepsi Generation”; we are told to live life with “gusto” because we “only go around once.” Short-range goals, pragmatic methods of problem solving, a quiet hysteria to make it happen “now,” all point to modern man’s despair regarding the future. The unspoken assumption is that it’s “now or never” because there is no ultimate future for mankind.

     Our Christian assertion is that there is more to our lives than “now.” If there is not, then even the “now” is meaningless. But we say now counts. Why? Now counts because we are creatures who have an origin and a destiny that is rooted and grounded in God.

     Did I write “rooted?” Why is that word so important? Recently we’ve experienced a cultural phenomenon of epic proportions. The televised drama, Roots, has already had a shaking effect on our people. Can we explain the national reaction to Kunta Kinte and racial strife? I don’t think so. Neither does Alex Haley. Roots typifies a problem that transcends race. It is the problem of identity for all of modern man. Who am I?

     The question of identity can never be answered merely in terms of the present. To know who I am involved a discovery of my past (my origin) and at least a glimpse of my future (my destiny). If I am a cosmic accident springing from the dust and destined for more dust, then I am nothing. I am a joke — a tale told by an idiot. But if my ultimate roots are grounded in eternity and my destiny is anchored in that same eternity, then I know something of who I am. I know I am a creature of eternal significance. If that’s so then my life counts. What I do today counts forever. Now, the “now” means something.

     Roots stirred us deeply because it provoked the hope that if we go back far enough we might find continuity and stability. Roots had its messiah figure in Chicken George. The program went through an entire episode with Chicken George never visibly present. Yet his “invisible presence” permeated every scene. I have never seen a television production where a character was so obviously present while not appearing on the screen. When George did appear he led his family in a new exodus to a new land of promise. Roots looked backward and forward in such a way as to give the present meaning.

     As T.V. treated us to Roots, so Hollywood has treated us to Rocky. This film has captured the public imagination in a fresh way. Perhaps it represents merely an exercise in nostalgia, a throw back to Frank Merriwell and the original happy ending. Or perhaps it represents a protest to the age of the anti-hero and the story line of chaos that characterizes modern filmdom. Whatever the motive, the movie reflects not in the Cinderella motif but the portrayal of human sensitivity displayed in Rocky’s mercy as a bill collector for the loan shark and his tenderness on the ice rink.

     Applaudable warmth is seen in Rocky’s “Lennie-like” love for animals and wayward teenagers and his sentiment for his manager. The fruit of discipline, endurances, and devotion to dignity are actually cast in roles of virtue. Rocky worked and fought not for a momentary prize but for a stand of valor that lasts.

     Maybe Rocky is a milestone. Maybe we are beginning to see there is more to life than Pepsi-cola. It’s not now or never, but now and forever. Right now counts — for eternity.

     It has been thirty years since I penned my initial essay under the byline “Right Now Counts Forever.” It was in the decade of the ’70s, at a time when our culture was still reeling from the deleterious effects of the war in Vietnam, and even more significantly from the radical moral revolution that marked the decade of the 1960s. History has shown that that moral revolution of the ’60s has introduced far more change into life in the United States than the political revolution of the 1770s. Our culture was described in the ’70s as one that was strongly influenced by secularism. The principal motif of secularism is that life is cut off from eternity. All life must be lived in the here and the now, in this saeculum, for there is no eternal dimension. On the heels of secularism came the philosophy of relativism. Though relativism was embraced on many sides in the 1970s, it has since become so firmly entrenched in our culture that the estimated number of Americans embracing some form of philosophical or moral relativism reaches over 95 percent. In this regard, our culture has moved from what was then called neo-paganism to a culture now of neo-barbarianism. Though Roe v. Wade was already in place when I penned my first essay, the proliferation of abortion on demand, which reaches a million and a half a year, has so marked our culture as a culture of death that all vestigial remnants of our civilized culture die with the death of every unborn baby. Our nation is a nation at war with itself, where values, family, and morality so split asunder families and counties, states, and the nation, that the unified basis of our former civilization has been shattered.

     One thing, however, has not changed in the past thirty years, and that is the fact that because God reigns, everything that happens today has consequences that last well into eternity. It is as true today as it was the first time I picked up the pen for my byline, that what happens right now counts forever. Let the culture be paganized, let the culture be barbarian, but let the church be the church and never negotiate the eternal dimension of life.

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

For Thine is the Kingdom

By Steven Lawson 6/1/2007

     All things are for the glory of God! This driving passion was the very heartbeat of the Lord Jesus Christ, the highest aim He sought, the loftiest goal He pursued. All things in life and ministry, He taught, are to be solely for the glory of God.

     Nowhere is this God-centered focus more clearly evidenced than in what Christ taught regarding prayer. To this end, all intercession before the throne of God must begin and end with resounding praise to Him. The Alpha and Omega of prayer must be for the glory of God.

     Unfortunately, prayer today has often devolved into a self-centered pursuit that is fueled by the fulfilling of one’s indulgences. This “prosperity gospel” has denigrated prayer into nothing more than a “name it and claim it” shopping excursion. In this abuse of privileged access, God’s glory is all too forgotten.

     But as Jesus Christ taught His disciples, the primary focus of prayer is for one to be riveted upon the supreme glory of God. As our Lord gave instruction regarding how to pray, He was unequivocal in teaching us to ascribe all glory to God. Everything must yield to the glory of God! In Matthew 6:13, Jesus stated our prayers should conclude: “For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen” (nkjv).

     The above is quoted in the New King James Version, a translation based upon the Textus Receptus. In this passage, we encounter a textual problem, one that has been debated throughout the centuries. As such, many translations handle this portion of Scripture in varying ways. For example, the New American Standard Bible places these words in brackets. The English Standard Version and New International Version omit this part of the verse altogether. For our purposes, however, we will consider these concluding words to the Lord’s Prayer as a part of the biblical text.

     This climactic doxology begins with a passionate declaration of God’s sovereignty. When a believer prays, Jesus said, he should conclude by affirming, “For Yours is the kingdom.” This robust pronouncement asserts that God both possesses and presides over His vast kingdom. He is the sovereign king, who exercises supreme authority and unrestricted dominion over an immense empire. Certainly, this reign includes both the realm of providence and the sphere of salvation. He commands all the affairs of mankind, even the intricate inner workings of the entire universe. From His throne above, God “works all things according to the counsel of his will” (Eph. 1:11).

     Further, Jesus taught His disciples that when they pray, they should declare that “the power” belongs to God. The definite article defines the infinite scope of His sovereignty. He possesses not a mere portion of some power, but the power. That is to say, He has all power in heaven and earth. All that God’s supreme will chooses to do, He has the omnipotence to execute it fully. Nothing can hinder the free exercise of His sovereign pleasure.

     What is more, every prayer should climax with a vibrant declaration of God’s glory. Jesus said that our prayers should crescendo with this announcement that all glory belongs to God. Because the kingdom and the power belong to God, all glory rightfully belongs to Him.

     The Bible speaks of God’s glory in two ways. His intrinsic glory is the revelation of all that God is. It is the sum total of all His divine perfections and holy attributes. There is nothing that man can do to add to the intrinsic glory of God. He is who He is. Additionally, there is God’s ascribed glory, which is the glory that is given to Him. This is the praise and honor due His name. Such glory is to be ascribed to Him alone.

     Here, at the end of the Lord’s Prayer, we find Christ referencing ascribed glory. In direct response to His vast sovereignty and unlimited power, all glory must be rendered to Him. In essence, such a high theology produces a high doxology. It is only fitting that this God, who is so awesome, be adorned in prayer.

     Fervent praise, Jesus said, should come to God “forever.” Because His kingdom and power is without end, so must our praise be without ceasing. Every moment of life must be filled with praise, both now and throughout all eternity.

     Finally, Jesus taught His disciples to conclude their prayers with the sure attestation, “Amen.” This familiar word comes from a Hebrew root meaning to be firm and secure. “Amen” eventually came to mean: “It is immovably true.” Likewise, this should be our concluding response to God in prayer. Amen to all that we know to be true about God. Amen to His eternal kingdom. Amen to His sovereign will. Amen to His daily bread. Amen to His pardoning grace. Amen to His delivering power.

     All prayer should build and rise to this lofty summit. We should conclude by fervently affirming that the kingdom, the power, and the glory belong exclusively to Him forever. Our only response must resoundingly be — amen!

Read The Psalms In "1" Year

Psalm 47

5 God has gone up with a shout,
the LORD with the sound of a trumpet.
6 Sing praises to God, sing praises!
Sing praises to our King, sing praises!
7 For God is the King of all the earth;
sing praises with a psalm!
8 God reigns over the nations;
God sits on his holy throne.
9 The princes of the peoples gather
as the people of the God of Abraham.
For the shields of the earth belong to God;
he is highly exalted!

Numbers 17

By Don Carson 5/9/2018

     At one level, the brief account in Numbers 17 wraps up the report of the rebellions in the previous chapter. God wishes to rid himself of the constant grumbling of the Israelites as they challenge Aaron’s priestly authority (17:5). So the staff of the ancestral leader of each tribe is carefully labeled and then secreted by Moses, as directed, in the tabernacle, the “Tent of Testimony.” God declares, in advance, that the staff belonging to the man he chooses will sprout.

     Moses does as he is told. The next morning he fetches the twelve staffs. Aaron’s staff, and only his staff, has budded — indeed, it has budded, blossomed, and produced almonds. This staff, by God’s instruction, is preserved for posterity. As for the Israelites, it dawns on them that their rebellion was not just against a couple of men, Aaron and Moses, but against the living God. Now they cry, “We will die! We are lost, we are all lost! Anyone who even comes near the tabernacle of the LORD will die. Are we all going to die?” (17:12-13).

     What shall we make of this account?

     (1) The response of the Israelites is partly good, but is still horribly deficient. It is good in that this event, at least for the time being, prompts them to see that their rebellion was not against Moses and Aaron alone, but against the living God. Fear of God can be a good thing. Yet this sounds more like the cringing fear of people who do not know God very well. They are afraid of being destroyed, but they are not in consequence more devoted to God. In Numbers 20 and 21, the people are whining and grumbling again; this miraculous display of the staff that budded settled nothing for very long. That, too, is horribly realistic: the church has a long history of powerful revivals that have been dissipated or prostituted within a short space of time.

     (2) One must ask why God attaches so much importance to the fact that only the designated high priest may perform the priestly duties. We must not infer that this is the way we should defer to all Christian leaders. Within the canonical framework, much more than this is at stake in the account of Aaron’s rod that budded. The point is that only God’s prescribed high priest is acceptable to God for discharging the priestly office. As the opening lines of Numbers 18 make clear, only Aaron and his sons are to “bear the responsibility for offenses against the sanctuary and . . . priesthood.” The New Testament insists, “No one takes the honor upon himself; he must be called by God, just as Aaron was” (Heb. 5:4). So also Christ (Heb. 5:5)! Only God’s appointed priest will do.

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.

Jeremiah

     The Hebrew title of this relatively short work is the word ʾēḵâ (“How!”) which appears at the beginning of  1:1. The theme of the book is a lament over the woes that have befallen sinful Judah and the pitiable destruction visited upon the holy city and the temple of the Lord. By implication the prophet appeals to chastened Israel that they recognize the righteousness of God’s dealings with them, and that in a spirit of repentance they cast themselves once more upon His mercy.

Out line of Lamentations

     I. Jerusalem devastated and forsaken,  1:1–22
     II. Reasons for God’s wrath upon the city; repentance its only hope,  2:1–22
     III. The city’s lament for its devastation; its repentance at remembrance of God’s former mercies,  3:1–66
     IV. Zion’s ancient glory contrasted with her present misery,  4:1–22
     V. Repentant nation casts itself upon God’s mercy,  5:1–22

     It is interesting to note that the first four chapters are written in the acrostic form. Chapters  1, 2, and  4 are therefore twenty-two verses long, each verse beginning with the successive letter of the Hebrew alphabet. Chapter  3, however, contains sixty-six verses, since three successive verses are allotted to each letter of the alphabet.

Authorship and Composition of  Lamentations

     The book does not expressly state who its author was, yet there was an early and consistent tradition that  Jeremiah composed it. This tradition is reflected in the title of the book in the LXX as well as by the Aramaic Targum of Jonathan. The early church Fathers, such as Origen and Jerome, understood Jeremiah to be the author without any question. Many modern critics, however, have rejected this tradition on the ground of internal evidence; that is, the style is said to be significantly different from that of Jeremiah’s prophecies, and two or three historical allusions have been interpreted as referring to much later conditions or events than Jeremiah’s time. On the other hand, it is hard to conceive how there could have been a later occasion than the fall of Jerusalem in 586 to serve as the incentive for the composition of such a tragic threnody as this. If Jeremiah was not the composer, whoever wrote it must have been a contemporary of his and witnessed the same pitiless destruction meted out to Zion by its Chaldean conquerors.

     In matters of style and phraseology, there are numerous and striking similarities between  Lamentations and  Jeremiah. Many of these have been acknowledged even by S. R. Driver, who does not accept  Jeremiah’s authorship; for instance, “the oppressed virgin daughter of Zion” ( Lam. 1:15; Jer. 8:21 ); the prophet’s eyes are said to “flow down with tears” ( Lam. 1:16a; 2:11; Jer. 9:1, 18b ). Compare “Among all her lovers she hath none to comfort her” ( Lam. 1:2 ) with “All thy lovers have forgotten thee; they seek thee not” ( Jer. 30:14 ). Both speak of the winecup of God’s judgment:  Lam. 4:21 says of Edom, “The cup shall pass through unto thee: thou shalt be drunken, and shalt make thyself naked”;  Jer. 49:12, “Behold, they whose judgment was not to drink of the cup have assuredly drunken; and art thou he that shall altogether go unpunished?”

     The arguments advanced to indicate a difference in viewpoint between the authors of the two works do not rest upon sound exegesis. Thus it is alleged that unlike  Lam. 4:17, Jeremiah did not expect any help for Judah to come from Egypt. But actually this is a misunderstanding, for  Lam. 4:17 makes no specific mention of Egypt at all. Moreover, it does not purport to be the utterance of the author personally as much as the attitude of the nation as a whole, which the prophet puts into these words: “As for us, our eyes as yet failed for our vain help: in our watching we have watched for a nation that could not save us.” The author does not imply here that he was expressing his own political views. Again, it is alleged that whereas  Jeremiah regarded the Babylonians as God’s instruments for punishment of His disobedient nation,  Lam. 3:59–66 implies that the Chaldeans were wicked enemies who richly deserved God’s avenging rod. But it is a mistake to suppose that these two ideas are mutually exclusive.  Jeremiah makes it quite obvious that the Babylonians were used by God for the purposes of chastening, and yet were to experience His ultimate vengeance because of the evil motives of their own heart. (Cf.  Isa. 10 for a similar treatment of the Assyrians.) We conclude that there are no valid grounds for making out a difference of authorship based upon a difference in viewpoint.

     One final observation ought to be made concerning  Lam. 3. The first  18 verses of this chapter express mournful lamentation and portray God as cruelly severe, but then verses  19–39 abruptly change to a mood of hope and praise to God for His faithfulness and compassion. This is certainly the type of “discrepancy” which critics have utilized in other books of the Old Testament to demonstrate a difference in authorship. In this particular chapter, however, no theory of multiple sources is possible, for the whole composition is firmly and inescapably locked together by the acrostic pattern in which it is written. Hence this chapter may be taken as irrefutable proof that it was possible for an ancient Hebrew author quite suddenly to shift from one mood to another and express sentiments that markedly contrast with each other (even though they are not actually contradictory).

A Survey of Old Testament Introduction

The Continual Burnt Offering (Hosea 8:1-3)

By H.A. Ironside - 1941

May 9

Hosea 8:1 Set the trumpet to your lips!
One like a vulture is over the house of the LORD,
because they have transgressed my covenant
and rebelled against my law.
2  To me they cry,
“My God, we—Israel—know you.”
3  Israel has spurned the good;
the enemy shall pursue him.   ESV

God of the shadows, lead me through the gloaming,
Arch the long road with fretted vaults of green;
Send but a gleam to tell me I am homing,
Let not Thy face be seen.

Fold well Thy cloak of gentlest pity round me.
Keep Thy bright secrets till the morning break;
Why should I seek Thee, Lord, when Thou hast found me,
And know’st the way I take?

The Institutes of the Christian Religion

Translated by Henry Beveridge

     6. Besides these, other two dreams have been invented by men who indulge a wicked curiosity. Some, under the idea that the whole man perishes, have thought that the soul will rise again with the body; while others, admitting that spirits are immortal, hold that they will be clothed with new bodies, and thus deny the resurrection of the flesh. Having already adverted to the former point when speaking of the creation of man, it will be sufficient again to remind the reader how groveling an error it is to convert a spirit, formed after the image of God, into an evanescent breath, which animates the body only during this fading life, and to reduce the temple of the Holy Spirit to nothing; in short, to rob of the badge of immortality that part of ourselves in which the divinity is most Refulgent and the marks of immortality conspicuous, so as to make the condition of the body better and more excellent than that of the soul. Very different is the course taken by Scripture, which compares the body to a tabernacle, from which it describes us as migrating when we die, because it estimates us by that part which distinguishes us from the lower animals. Thus Peter, in reference to his approaching death, says, "Knowing that shortly I must put off this my tabernacle," (2 Pet. 1:14). Paul, again, speaking of believers, after saying, "If our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God," adds, "Whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord," (2 Cor. 5:1, 6). Did not the soul survive the body, how could it be present with the Lord on being separated from the body? But an Apostle removes all doubt when he says that we go "to the spirits of just men made perfect," (Heb. 12:23); by these words meaning, that we are associated with the holy patriarchs, who, even when dead, cultivate the same piety, so that we cannot be the members of Christ unless we unite with them. And did not the soul, when unclothed from the body, retain its essence, and be capable of beatific glory, our Savior would not have said to the thief, "Today shalt thou be with me in paradise," (Luke 23:43). Trusting to these clear proofs, let us doubt not, after the example of our Savior, to commend our spirits to God when we come to die, or after the example of Stephen, to commit ourselves to the protection of Christ, who, with good reason, is called "The Shepherd and Bishop" of our souls (Acts 7:59; 1 Pet. 2:25). Moreover, to pry curiously into their intermediate state is neither lawful nor expedient (see Calv. Psychopannychia). Many greatly torment themselves with discussing what place they occupy, and whether or not they already enjoy celestial glory. It is foolish and rash to inquire into hidden things, farther than God permits us to know. Scripture, after telling that Christ is present with them, and receives them into paradise (John 12:32), and that they are comforted, while the souls of the reprobate suffer the torments which they have merited goes no farther. What teacher or doctor will reveal to us what God has concealed? As to the place of abode, the question is not less futile and inept, since we know that the dimension of the soul is not the same as that of the body. [514] When the abode of blessed spirits is designated as the bosom of Abraham, it is plain that, on quitting this pilgrimage, they are received by the common father of the faithful, who imparts to them the fruit of his faith. Still, since Scripture uniformly enjoins us to look with expectation to the advent of Christ, and delays the crown of glory till that period, let us be contented with the limits divinely prescribed to us--viz. that the souls of the righteous, after their warfare is ended, obtain blessed rest where in joy they wait for the fruition of promised glory, and that thus the final result is suspended till Christ the Redeemer appear. There can be no doubt that the reprobate have the same doom as that which Jude assigns to the devils, they are "reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day," (Jude ver. 6).

7. Equally monstrous is the error of those who imagine that the soul, instead of resuming the body with which it is now clothed, will obtain a new and different body. Nothing can be more futile than the reason given by the Manichees--viz. that it were incongruous for impure flesh to rise again: as if there were no impurity in the soul; and yet this does not exclude it from the hope of heavenly life. It is just as if they were to say, that what is infected by the taint of sin cannot be divinely purified; for I now say nothing to the delirious dream that flesh is naturally impure as having been created by the devil. I only maintain, that nothing in us at present, which is unworthy of heaven, is any obstacle to the resurrection. But, first, Paul enjoins believers to purify themselves from "all filthiness of the flesh and spirit," (2 Cor. 7:1 the judgment which is to follow, that every one shall "receive the things done in his body, according to that he has done, whether it be good or bad," (2 Cor. 5:10). With this accords what he says to the Corinthians, "That the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our body," (2 Cor. 4:10). For which reason he elsewhere says, "I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ," (1 Thess. 5:23). He says "body" as well as "spirit and soul," and no wonder; for it were most absurd that bodies which God has dedicated to himself as temples should fall into corruption without hope of resurrection. What? are they not also the members of Christ? Does he not pray that God would sanctify every part of them, and enjoin them to celebrate his name with their tongues, lift up pure hands, and offer sacrifices? That part of man, therefore, which the heavenly Judge so highly honors, what madness is it for any mortal man to reduce to dust without hope of revival? In like manner, when Paul exhorts, "glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's," he certainly does not allow that that which he claims for God as sacred is to be adjudged to eternal corruption. Nor, indeed, on any subject does Scripture furnish clearer explanation than on the resurrection of our flesh. "This corruptible (says Paul) must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality," (1 Cor. 15:53). If God formed new bodies, where would be this change of quality? If it were said that we must be renewed, the ambiguity of the expression might, perhaps, afford room for cavil; but here pointing with the finger to the bodies with which we are clothed, and promising that they shall be incorruptible, he very plainly affirms that no new bodies are to be fabricated. "Nay," as Tertullian says, "he could not have spoken more expressly, if he had held his skin in his hands," (Tertull. de Resurrect. Carnis). Nor can any cavil enable them to evade the force of another passage, in which saying that Christ will be the Judge of the world, he quotes from Isaiah, "As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me," (Rom. 14:11; Isa. 45:23); since he openly declares that those whom he was addressing will have to give an account of their lives. This could not be true if new bodies were to be sisted to the tribunal. Moreover, there is no ambiguity in the words of Daniel, "Many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt," (Dan. 12:2); since he does not bring new matter from the four elements to compose men, but calls forth the dead from their graves. And the reason which dictates this is plain. For if death, which originated in the fall of man, is adventitious, the renewal produced by Christ must be in the same body which began to be mortal. And, certainly, since the Athenians mocked Paul for asserting the resurrection (Acts 17:32), we may infer what his preaching was: their derision is of no small force to confirm our faith. The saying of our Savior also is worthy of observation, "Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell," (Mt. 10:28). Here there would be no ground for fear; were not the body which we now have liable to punishment. Nor is another saying of our Savior less obscure, "The hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation," (John 5:28, 29). Shall we say that the soul rests in the grave, that it may there hear the voice of Christ, and not rather that the body shall at his command resume the vigor which it had lost? Moreover, if we are to receive new bodies, where will be the conformity of the Head and the members? Christ rose again. Was it by forming for himself a new body? Nay, he had foretold, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up," (John 2:19). The mortal body which he had formerly carried he again received; for it would not have availed us much if a new body had been substituted, and that which had been offered in expiatory sacrifice been destroyed. We must, therefore, attend to that connection which the Apostle celebrates, that we rise because Christ rose (1 Cor. 15:12); nothing being less probable than that the flesh in which we bear about the dying of Christ, shall have no share in the resurrection of Christ. This was even manifested by a striking example, when, at the resurrection of Christ, many bodies of the saints came forth from their graves. For it cannot be denied that this was a prelude, or rather earnest, of the final resurrection for which we hope, such as already existed in Enoch and Elijah, whom Tertullian calls candidates for resurrection, because, exempted from corruption, both in body and soul, they were received into the custody of God.

8. I am ashamed to waste so many words on so clear a matter; but my readers will kindly submit to the annoyance, in order that perverse and presumptuous minds may not be able to avail themselves of any flaw to deceive the simple. The volatile spirits with whom I now dispute adduce the fiction of their own brain, that in the resurrection there will be a creation of new bodies. Their only reason for thinking so is, that it seems to them incredible that a dead body, long wasted by corruption, should return to its former state. Therefore, mere unbelief is the parent of their opinion. The Spirit of God, on the contrary, uniformly exhorts us in Scripture to hope for the resurrection of our flesh. For this reason Baptism is, according to Paul, a seal of our future resurrection; and in like manner the holy Supper invites us confidently to expect it, when with our mouths we receive the symbols of spiritual grace. And certainly the whole exhortation of Paul, "Yield ye your members as instruments of righteousness unto God," (Rom. 6:13), would be frigid, did he not add, as he does in another passage, "He that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies," (Rom. 8:11). For what would it avail to apply feet, hands, eyes, and tongues, to the service of God, did not these afterwards participate in the benefit and reward? This Paul expressly confirms when he says, "The body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body. And God has both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his own power," (1 Cor. 6:13, 14). The words which follow are still clearer, "Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ?" "Know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost?" (1 Cor. 6:15, 19). Meanwhile, we see how he connects the resurrection with chastity and holiness, as he shortly after includes our bodies in the purchase of redemption. It would be inconsistent with reason, that the body, in which Paul bore the marks of his Savior, and in which he magnificently extolled him (Gal. 6:17), should lose the reward of the crown. Hence he glories thus, "Our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body," (Phil. 3:20, 21). As it is true, "That we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God," (Acts 14:22); so it were unreasonable that this entrance should be denied to the bodies which God exercises under the banner of the cross and adorns with the palm of victory.

Accordingly, the saints never entertained any doubt that they would one day be the companions of Christ, who transfers to his own person all the afflictions by which we are tried, that he may show their quickening power. [515] Nay, under the law, God trained the holy patriarch in this belief, by means of an external ceremony. For to what end was the rite of burial, as we have already seen, unless to teach that new life was prepared for the bodies thus deposited? Hence, also, the spices and other symbols of immortality, by which under the law the obscurity of the doctrine was illustrated in the same way as by sacrifices. That custom was not the offspring of superstition, since we see that the Spirit is not less careful in narrating burials than in stating the principal mysteries of the faith. Christ commends these last offices as of no trivial importance (Mt. 16:10), and that, certainly, for no other reason than just that they raise our eyes from the view of the tombs which corrupts and destroys all things, to the prospect of renovation. Besides, that careful observance of the ceremony for which the patriarchs are praised, sufficiently proves that they found in it a special and valuable help to their faith. Nor would Abraham have been so anxious about the burial of his wife (Gen. 23:4, 19), had not the religious views and something superior to any worldly advantage, been present to his mind; in other words, by adorning her dead body with the insignia of the resurrection, he confirmed his own faith, and that of his family. A clearer proof of this appears in the example of Jacob, who, to testify to his posterity that even death did not destroy the hope of the promised land, orders his bones to be carried thither. Had he been to be clothed with a new body would it not have been ridiculous in him to give commands concerning a dust which was to be reduced to nothing? Wherefore, if Scripture has any authority with us, we cannot desire a clearer or stronger proof of any doctrine. Even tyros understand this to be the meaning of the words, resurrection, and raising up. A thing which is created for the first time cannot be said to rise again; nor could our Savior have said, "This is the Father's will which has sent me, that of all which he has given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day," (John 6:39). The same is implied in the word sleeping, which is applicable only to the body. Hence, too, the name of cemetery, applied to burying-grounds.

It remains to make a passing remark on the mode of resurrection. I speak thus because Paul, by styling it a mystery, exhorts us to soberness, in order that he may curb a licentious indulgence in free and subtle speculation. First, we must hold, as has already been observed, that the body in which we shall rise will be the same as at present in respect of substance, but that the quality will be different; just as the body of Christ which was raised up was the same as that which had been offered in sacrifice, and yet excelled in other qualities, as if it had been altogether different. This Paul declares by familiar examples (1 Cor. 15:39). For as the flesh of man and of beasts is the same in substance, but not in quality: as all the stars are made of the same matter, but have different degrees of brightness: so he shows, that though we shall retain the substance of the body, there will be a change, by which its condition will become much more excellent. The corruptible body, therefore, in order that we may be raised, will not perish or vanish away, but, divested of corruption, will be clothed with incorruption. Since God has all the elements at his disposal, no difficulty can prevent him from commanding the earth, the fire, and the water, to give up what they seem to have destroyed. This, also, though not without figure, Isaiah testifies, "Behold, the Lore comes out of his place to punish the inhabitants of the earth for their iniquity: the earth also shall disclose her blood, and shall no more cover her slain," (Isa. 26:21). But a distinction must be made between those who died long ago, and those who on that day shall be found alive. For as Paul declares, "We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed," (1 Cor. 15:51); that is, it will not be necessary that a period should elapse between death and the beginning of the second life, for in a moment of time, in the twinkling of an eye, the trumpet shall sound, raising up the dead incorruptible, and, by a sudden change, fitting those who are alive for the same glory. So, in another passage, he comforts believers who were to undergo death, telling them that those who are then alive shall not take precedence of the dead, because those who have fallen asleep in Christ shall rise first (1 Thess. 4:15). Should any one urge the Apostle's declaration, "It is appointed unto all men once to die," (Heb. 9:27), the solution is easy, that when the natural state is changed there is an appearance of death, which is fitly so denominated, and, therefore, there is no inconsistency in the two things--viz. that all when divested of their mortal body shall be renewed by death; and yet that where the change is sudden, there will be no necessary separation between the soul and the body.

9. But a more difficult question here arises, How can the resurrection, which is a special benefit of Christ, be common to the ungodly, who are lying under the curse of God? We know that in Adam all died. Christ has come to be the resurrection and the life (John 11:25). is it to revive the whole human race indiscriminately? But what more incongruous than that the ungodly in their obstinate blindness should obtain what the pious worshipers of God receive by faith only? It is certain, therefore, that there will be one resurrection to judgment, and another to life, and that Christ will come to separate the kids from the goats (Mt. 25:32). I observe, that this ought not to seem very strange, seeing something resembling it occurs every day. We know that in Adam we were deprived of the inheritance of the whole world, and that the same reason which excludes us from eating of the tree of life excludes us also from common food. How comes it, then, that God not only makes his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, but that, in regard to the uses of the present life, his inestimable liberality is constantly flowing forth in rich abundance? Hence we certainly perceive, that things which are proper to Christ and his members, abound to the wicked also; not that their possession is legitimate, but that they may thus be rendered more inexcusable. Thus the wicked often experience the beneficence of God, not in ordinary measures, but such as sometimes throw all the blessings of the godly into the shade, though they eventually lead to greater damnation. Should it be objected, that the resurrection is not properly compared to fading and earthly blessings, I again answer, that when the devils were first alienated from God, the fountain of life, they deserved to be utterly destroyed; yet, by the admirable counsel of God, an intermediate state was prepared, where without life they might live in death. It ought not to seem in any respect more absurd that there is to be an adventitious resurrection of the ungodly which will drag them against their will before the tribunal of Christ, whom they now refuse to receive as their master and teacher. To be consumed by death would be a light punishment were they not, in order to the punishment of their rebellion, to be sisted before the Judge whom they have provoked to a vengeance without measure and without end. But although we are to hold, as already observed and as is contained in the celebrated confession of Paul to Felix, "That there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust," (Acts 24:15); yet Scripture more frequently sets forth the resurrection as intended, along with celestial glory, for the children of God only: because, properly speaking, Christ comes not for the destruction, but for the salvation of the world: and, therefore, in the Creed the life of blessedness only is mentioned.

10. But since the prophecy that death shall be swallowed up in victory (Hosea 13:14), will then only be completed, let us always remember that the end of the resurrection is eternal happiness, of whose excellence scarcely the minutest part can be described by all that human tongues can say. For though we are truly told that the kingdom of God will be full of light, and gladness, and felicity, and glory, yet the things meant by these words remain most remote from sense, and as it were involved in enigma, until the day arrive on which he will manifest his glory to us face to face (1 Cor. 15:54). "Now" says John, "are we the sons of God; and it does not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is," (1 John 3:2). Hence, as the prophets were unable to give a verbal description of that spiritual blessedness, they usually delineated it by corporeal objects. On the other hand, because the fervor of desire must be kindled in us by some taste of its sweetness, let us specially dwell upon this thought, If God contains in himself as an inexhaustible fountain all fulness of blessing, those who aspire to the supreme good and perfect happiness must not long for any thing beyond him. This we are taught in several passages, "Fear not, Abraham; I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward," (Gen. 15:1). With this accords David's sentiment, "The Lord is the portion of mine inheritance, and of my cup: thou maintainest my lot. The lines are fallen unto me in pleasant places," (Ps. 16:5, 6). Again, "I shall be satisfied when I awake with thy likeness," (Ps. 17:15). Peter declares that the purpose for which believers are called is, that they may be "partakers of the divine nature," (2 Pet. 1:4). How so? Because "he shall come to be glorified in his saints and to be admired in all them that believe," (2 Thess. 1:10). If our Lord will share his glory, power, and righteousness, with the elect, nay, will give himself to be enjoyed by them; and what is better still, will, in a manner, become one with them, let us remember that every kind of happiness is herein included. But when we have made great progress in thus meditating, let us understand that if the conceptions of our minds be contrasted with the sublimity of the mystery, we are still halting at the very entrance. [516] The more necessary is it for us to cultivate sobriety in this matter, lest unmindful of our feeble capacity we presume to take too lofty a flight, and be overwhelmed by the brightness of the celestial glory. We feel how much we are stimulated by an excessive desire of knowing more than is given us to know, and hence frivolous and noxious questions are ever and anon springing forth: by frivolous, I mean questions from which no advantage can be extracted. But there is a second class which is worse than frivolous; because those who indulge in them involve themselves in hurtful speculations. Hence I call them noxious. The doctrine of Scripture on the subject ought not to be made the ground of any controversy, and it is that as God, in the varied distribution of gifts to his saints in this world, gives them unequal degrees of light, so when he shall crown his gifts, their degrees of glory in heaven will also be unequal. When Paul says, "Ye are our glory and our joy," (1 Thess. 2:20), his words do not apply indiscriminately to all; nor do those of our Savior to his apostles, "Ye also shall sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel," (Mt. 19:28). But Paul, who knew that as God enriches the saints with spiritual gifts in this world, he will in like manner adorn them with glory in heaven, hesitates not to say, that a special crown is laid up for him in proportion to his labors. Our Savior, also, to commend the dignity of the office which he had conferred on the apostles, reminds them that the fruit of it is laid up in heaven. This, too, Daniel says, "They that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever," (Dan. 12:3). Any one who attentively considers the Scriptures will see not only that they promise eternal life to believers, but a special reward to each. Hence the expression of Paul, "The Lord grant unto him that he may find mercy of the Lord in that day," (2 Tim. 1:18; 4:14). This is confirmed by our Savior's promise, that they "shall receive an hundredfold and shall inherit everlasting life," (Mt. 19:29). In short, as Christ, by the manifold variety of his gifts, begins the glory of his body in this world, and gradually increases it, so he will complete it in heaven.

11. While all the godly with one consent will admit this, because it is sufficiently attested by the word of God, they will, on the other hand, avoid perplexing questions which they feel to be a hindrance in their way, and thus keep within the prescribed limits. In regard to myself, I not only individually refrain from a superfluous investigation of useless matters, but also think myself bound to take care that I do not encourage the levity of others by answering them. Men puffed up with vain science are often inquiring how great the difference will be between prophets and apostles, and again, between apostles and martyrs; by how many degrees virgins will surpass those who are married; in short, they leave not a corner of heaven untouched by their speculations. Next it occurs to them to inquire to what end the world is to be repaired, since the children of God will not be in want of any part of this great and incomparable abundance, but will be like the angels, whose abstinence from food is a symbol of eternal blessedness. I answer, that independent of use, there will be so much pleasantness in the very sight, so much delight in the very knowledge, that this happiness will far surpass all the means of enjoyment which are now afforded. Let us suppose ourselves placed in the richest quarter of the globe, where no kind of pleasure is wanting, who is there that is not ever and anon hindered and excluded by disease from enjoying the gifts of God? who does not oftentimes interrupt the course of enjoyment by intemperance? Hence it follows, that fruition, pure and free from all defect, though it be of no use to a corruptible life, is the summit of happiness. Others go further, and ask whether dross and other impurities in metals will have no existence at the restitution, and are inconsistent with it. Though I should go so far as concede this to them, yet I expect with Paul a reparation of those defects which first began with sin, and on account of which the whole creation groaneth and travaileth with pain (Rom. 8:22). Others go a step further, and ask, What better condition can await the human race, since the blessing of offspring shall then have an end? The solution of this difficulty also is easy. When Scripture so highly extols the blessing of offspring, it refers to the progress by which God is constantly urging nature forward to its goal; in perfection itself we know that the case is different. But as such alluring speculations instantly captivate the unwary, who are afterwards led farther into the labyrinth, until at length, every one becoming pleased with his own views there is no limit to disputation, the best and shortest course for us will be to rest contented with seeing through a glass darkly until we shall see face to face. Few out of the vast multitude of mankind feel concerned how they are to get to heaven; all would fain know before the time what is done in heaven. Almost all, while slow and sluggish in entering upon the contest, are already depicting to themselves imaginary triumphs.

12. Moreover, as language cannot describe the severity of the divine vengeance on the reprobate, their pains and torments are figured to us by corporeal things, such as darkness, wailing and gnashing of teeth, inextinguishable fire, the ever-gnawing worm (Mt. 8:12; 22:13; Mark 9:43; Isa. 66:24). It is certain that by such modes of expression the Holy Spirit designed to impress all our senses with dread, as when it is said, "Tophet is ordained of old; yea, for the king it is prepared: he has made it deep and large; the pile thereof is fire and much wood; the breath of the Lord, like a stream of brimstone, does kindle it," (Isa. 30:33). As we thus require to be assisted to conceive the miserable doom of the reprobate, so the consideration on which we ought chiefly to dwell is the fearful consequence of being estranged from all fellowship with God, and not only so, but of feeling that his majesty is adverse to us, while we cannot possibly escape from it. For, first, his indignation is like a raging fire, by whose touch all things are devoured and annihilated. Next, all the creatures are the instruments of his judgment, so that those to whom the Lord will thus publicly manifest his anger will feel that heaven, and earth, and sea, all beings, animate and inanimate, are, as it were, inflamed with dire indignation against them, and armed for their destruction. Wherefore, the Apostle made no trivial declaration, when he said that unbelievers shall be "punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power," (2 Thess. 1:9). And whenever the prophets strike terror by means of corporeal figures, although in respect of our dull understanding there is no extravagance in their language, yet they give preludes of the future judgment in the sun and the moon, and the whole fabric of the world. Hence unhappy consciences find no rest, but are vexed and driven about by a dire whirlwind, feeling as if torn by an angry God, pierced through with deadly darts, terrified by his thunderbolts and crushed by the weight of his hand; so that it were easier to plunge into abysses and whirlpools than endure these terrors for a moment. How fearful, then, must it be to be thus beset throughout eternity! On this subject there is a memorable passage in the ninetieth Psalm: Although God by a mere look scatters all mortals, and brings them to nought, yet as his worshippers are more timid in this world, he urges them the more, that he may stimulate then, while burdened with the cross to press onward until he himself shall be all in all.

END OF BOOK THREE.

__________________________________________________________________

[509] 2 Tim. 1:10; John 5:24; Eph. 2:6, 19; Rom. 7:16-18; Heb. 11:1; 2 Cor. 5:6; Col. 3:3; Titus 2:12.

[510] rench, "nous recevions un povre salaire de nostre lascheté et paresse;"--we receive a poor salary for our carelessness and sloth.

[511] Calvin translates. "Quis scit an hominis anima ascendit sursum?"--Who knows whether the soul of man goes upward?

[512] 101 D101 Chiliasm (from a Greek word meaning "a thousand") arose very early in the history of theology. Some of the early Church Fathers distinguished between a first and a second resurrection, and held that there would be an intervening millennial kingdom in which Christ would reign with His saints upon the earth. This view may be found in Papias, Irenaeus, Barnabas, Hermas, Justin Martyr, and Tertullian (all from the second century). But by the time of Luther and Calvin, the leading theologians (both Roman Catholic and Protestant) had rejected the doctrine of an earthly millennium. Calvin calls it a "fiction," and says that it is "too puerile to need or to deserve refutation."

[513] 102 D102 Calvin's chief objection to "Chiliasm" appears to be alleged limitation, to a period of one thousand years, of the reign of Christ with His saints. A secondary objection arises out of his interpretation of Revelation 20:2-7 (in which the term "thousand years" appears six times) as referring to the Church militant in this world. These objections against "Chiliasm" would today apply only to that view of the last things called Premillennialism. However, if a person held (1) that Christ's kingdom is spiritually present, as He rules in the hearts of His elect; (2) that Christ's kingdom shall have a future, earthly manifestation, when He shall reign with His saints upon the earth; and (3) that Christ's kingdom will not cease at the close of the thousand years, but will merge into eternity; then it would appear that Calvin's chief objection to this view would be removed. Of course, his secondary objection would remain as a difference of hermeneutical (interpretive) approach and method.

[514] French, "La question quant au lieu est bien frivole et sotte: veu que nous savons que l'ame n'a pas ses mesures de long et de large, comme le corps;"--the question as to place is very frivolous and foolish, seeing we know that the sould has no measures of length and breadth like the body.

[515] Latin, "ut vivificas esse doceat"--French, "pour monstrer quells nous meinent à vie;"--to show that they conduct us to life.

[516] French, "Et encore quand nous aurons bien profité en cette meditation, se nous faut il entendre que nous sommes encore tout au bas et à la premiere entree, et que jamais nous n'approcherons durant cette vie à la hautesse de ce mystere."--And still, when we shall have profited much by thus meditating, we must understand that we are still far beneath it, and at the very threshold, and that never during this life shall we approach the height of this mystery.

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

     Christian Classics Ethereal Library / Public Domain

     Institutes of the Christian Religion