The Birth Pains of the North American Church

By Mandy Smith 3/30/2017

     It’s a painful time to be an evangelical Christian in North America.

     Sometimes it might feel like it would be easier to just leave the Church, the faith or the country. For years I’ve felt the pain but I’m beginning to see it with new eyes.

     I watched the healing begin as I read Barbara Brown Taylor’s distinction between pain and suffering. She says that, while Job has the pain of his actual situation, what was worse was the suffering of feeling forsaken. Our interpretation of pain as forsakenness is often worse than the actual situation that causes the pain.

     Originally from Australia, Mandy Smith is lead pastor of University Christian Church, a campus and neighborhood congregation with its own fair-trade café in Cincinnati, Ohio. She is a contributing editor for Leadership Journal and the author of Making a Mess and Meeting God: Unruly Ideas and Everyday Experiments for Worship. Her latest book is The Vulnerable Pastor: How Human Limitations Empower Our Ministry. Mandy and her husband Jamie, a New Testament professor at Cincinnati Christian University, live with their two kids in a little house where the teapot is always warm.

General Rules of Biblical Interpretation

By John F. Walvoord

     Though the interpretation of the Bible is an exceedingly complex problem, if certain general rules are followed, they will keep the interpreter from misunderstanding Scripture.

     1. In approaching Scripture, first of all there must be study of the words that are used, their general usages, variety of meaning, historical context, theological context, and any determination of the probable meaning of the word used in a particular context.

     2. Words in Scripture are used in a grammatical context that should be observed, including such matters as whether the word is used in a statement of fact, a command, a desired goal, or an application to a particular situation.

     3. In any interpretation it is most important to decipher to whom the Scripture is addressed, as this involves the application of the statement.

     4. Scripture should never be interpreted in isolation from its context.  I believe scripture will never contrdict scripture. If you have a contradiction you need to keep comparing scriptures until the Lord shows you the interpretation. Careful thought should be given to the immediate context, the general context, and the context of the whole of Scripture. This will serve to relate the revelation contained to other divine revelations.

     5. The literary character of the Scripture interpreted should be taken into consideration as the Bible is written in a variety of literary styles—such as history, poetry, worship, prediction—and uses a variety of figures of speech. These factors determine the interpretation of a particular text.

     6. If  ( If ?? ) the Scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit and without error, it is important to compare any particular text to all other Scripture that might be relative. For instance, the book of  Revelation may often be interpreted through a study of the book of  Daniel. One Scripture will serve to cast light on other Scriptures.

     7. Though the Bible is largely written in factual style to be interpreted as a normal, factual presentation, the Bible, like all other literature, uses figures of speech, and they should be recognized for their intended meaning. All forms of biblical literature ultimately yield a factual truth.

     8. In interpreting the Bible, one must seek the guidance of the indwelling Holy Spirit who casts light on the Scriptures and guides its interpretation.

Why I removed Auustine's City Of God

By John F. Walvoord

     In the history of the church, the eschatological or prophetic portions of Scripture have suffered more from inadequate interpretation than any other major theological subject. The reason for this is that the church turned aside from a normal and grammatical literal interpretation of prophecy to one that is nonliteral and subject to the caprice of the interpreter. This false approach to interpreting prophecy is contradicted beyond question by the fact that so many hundreds of prophecies have already been  literally fulfilled.

     In the first two centuries of the Christian era the church was predominantly premillennial, interpreting Scripture to teach that Christ would fulfill the prophecy of His second coming to bring a thousand-year reign on earth before the eternal state will begin. This was considered normal in orthodox theology. The early interpretation of prophecy was not always cogent and sometimes fanciful, but for the most part, prophecy was treated the same way as other Scripture.

     In the last ten years of the second century and in the third century, the heretical school of theology at Alexandria, Egypt, advanced the erroneous principle that the Bible should be interpreted in a nonliteral or allegorical sense. In applying this principle to the Scriptures, they subverted all the major doctrines of the faith, including prophecy. The early church rose up and emphatically denied the Alexandrian system and to a large extent restored the interpretation of Scripture to its literal, grammatical, historical sense. The problem was that in prophecy there were predictions that had not yet been fulfilled. This made it more difficult to prove that literal fulfillment was true of prophecy. The result was somewhat catastrophic for the idea of a literal interpretation of prophecy, and the church floundered in the area of interpretation of the future.

     Augustine (AD 354–430) rescued the church from uncertainty as far as nonprophetic Scripture is concerned, but continued to treat prophecy in a nonliteral way with the purpose of eliminating a millennial kingdom on earth.  And this is why I removed City of God from my website. Strangely, Augustine held to a literal second coming, a literal heaven and a literal hell, but  not to a literal millennium. This arbitrary distinction has never been explained.

     Because  amillennialism, which denies a literal millennial kingdom on earth following the second coming, is essentially negative and hinders intelligent literal interpretation of prophecy, there was little progress in this area. The church continued to believe in heaven and hell and purgatory, but neglected or explained away long passages having to deal with Israel in prophecy and the kingdom on earth as frequently revealed in the Old Testament. Even in the Protestant Reformation, prophecy was not rescued from this hindrance in its interpretation.

     Though remnants of the church still advanced the premillennial view, it was not until the nineteenth and twentieth centuries that a movement to restore the literal truth of prophecy began to take hold. The twentieth century was especially significant in the progress of prophetic interpretation in that many details of prophecy were debated and clarified in a way that was not possible before. Though amillennialism continues to be the majority view of the church, among those who hold a high view of Scripture the premillennial interpretation has been given detailed exposition, serving to provide an intelligent view of the present and the future from the standpoint of biblical prophecy.

     The importance of prophecy should be evident, even superficially, in examining the Christian faith, for about one-fourth of the Bible was written as prophecy. It is evident that God intended to draw aside the veil of the future and to give some indication of what His plans and purposes were for the human race and for the universe as a whole. The neglect and misinterpretation of Scriptures supporting the premillennial interpretation is now to some extent being corrected.

     In the nature of Christian faith a solid hope for the future is essential. Christianity without a future would not be basic Christianity. In contrast to the eschatology of heathen religions, which often paint the future in a forbidding way, Christianity’s hope is bright and clear and offers a Christian the basic idea that the life to come is better than this present life. As Paul stated in  2 Corinthians 5:8, “We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord.” In the Christian faith the future is painted as one of bliss and happiness in the presence of the Lord without the ills that are common to this life.

     The revelation of prophecy in Scripture serves as important evidence that the Scriptures are accurate in their interpretation of the future. Because approximately half of the prophecies of the Bible have already been fulfilled  in a literal way, it gives a proper intellectual basis for assuming that prophecy yet to be fulfilled will likewise have a literal fulfillment. At the same time it justifies the conclusion that the Bible is inspired of the Holy Spirit and that prophecy, which goes far beyond any scheme of man, is instead a revelation by God of that which is certain to come to pass. The fact that prophecy has been literally fulfilled serves as a guide to interpret the prophecies that are yet ahead.

     Scriptural prophecy, properly interpreted, also provides a guideline for establishing the value of human conduct and the things that pertain to this life.  For a Christian, the ultimate question is whether God considers what he is doing of value or not, in contrast to the world’s system of values, which is largely materialistic.

     Prophecy is also a support for the scriptural revelation of the righteousness of God and a support for the assertion that the Christian faith has an integral relationship to morality. Obviously, the present life does not demonstrate fully the righteousness of God as many wicked situations are not actively judged. Scripture that is prophetic in dealing with this indicates that every act will be brought into divine judgment according to the infinite standard of the holy God, and accordingly, prophecy provides a basis for morality based on the character of God Himself.

     Prophecy also provides a guide to the meaning of history. Though philosophers will continue to debate a philosophy of history, the Bible indicates that history is the unfolding of God’s plan and purpose for revealing Himself and manifesting His love and grace and righteousness in a way that would be impossible without human history. In the Christian faith, history reaches its climax in God’s plan for the future in which the earth in its present situation will be destroyed, and a new earth will be created. A proper interpretation of prophecy serves to support and enhance all others areas of theology, and without a proper interpretation of prophecy all other areas to some extent become incomplete revelation.

     In attempting to communicate the meaning of Scripture relative to the prophetic past and future, prophecy serves to bring light and understanding to many aspects of our present life as well as our future hope. In an effort to understand and interpret prophecy correctly as a justifiable theological exercise, it is necessary to establish a proper base for interpretation.

General Assumptions in Biblical Interpretation

By John F. Walvoord

     As in all sciences, theology is based on assumptions. Mankind finds itself living in an ordered world with observable natural laws and evidence of design. The nature of the ordered world in which we live reveals an evident interrelationship of purposes requiring the existence of a God who is infinite in power, rational, and has the basic elements of personality, intellect, sensibility, and will. The observable facts of nature as well as revelation through Scripture must be consistent with such a God. These facts, organized into a rational system, are the substance of theology, making it a science embracing revealed facts about God, creation, and history. To the observable facts in nature, Scripture reveals the additional truth that the God of history is gracious, holy, loving, patient, faithful, good, and has infinite attributes of knowledge, power, and rational purpose.

     What is true of theology as a whole is especially true of biblical interpretation. In approaching the interpretation of the Bible, at least four assumptions are essential.

     1. In order to have a coherent and consistent interpretation of the Bible, it is necessary to assume that there is ample proof that the Bible was inspired by the Holy Spirit and that the human authors were guided in the writing of Scripture and in the selection of the very words that they used. Accordingly, the Bible is an inerrant revelation containing all the truth that God intended to be included and excluding all facts that were not intended to be included. As the inspired Word of God, it should be expected that, properly interpreted, the Bible does not contradict itself.

 2 Timothy 3:16 (KJV 1900) 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

     2. The Bible was intended to communicate truth about God and the universe, to record historical facts, to reveal ethical principles, to provide wisdom for human judgments, to reveal moral and material values, and to provide prediction of future events.

     3. The Bible  progressively reveals the truth of God in such a way that changes in the moral rule of life are recognized, such as the contrast between the Mosaic law and the present age of grace. Later revelation may replace earlier revelation as a standard of faith without contradicting it.

     4. Though the Bible is an unusual book, in many respects it is a normative piece of literature, using words to convey truth, and yet providing a great variety of literary forms, such as history, poetry, and prophecy, and sometimes using normal figures of speech. Though a supernatural book, the Bible nevertheless speaks in normative ways that can be illustrated in literature outside the Bible.

The Power of a Praying Mother (Christian Men and Their Godly Moms)

By Tim Challies 4/01/2017

     For the past several months, I have been searching through the long and storied history of the church to find examples of Christian men who had godly moms. More specifically, I have been searching for notable Christian men whose most important spiritual influence was their mother. I have discovered many of them and have been deeply encouraged by their stories.

     In the first article, we examined the life of John Newton, whose mother proved that spiritual strength can exist even where there is physical frailty. This time, I want to look at a great missionary who impacted an entire nation and the very course of Christian missions. To tell his story properly, we must begin with the deep spiritual crisis he endured in his teenage years, when he found himself unexpectedly torn between God and the world, drawn to the allure of wealth. It was in this moment of excruciating crisis that Hudson Taylor came to learn the power of a praying mother.

     Hudson Taylor was born on May 21, 1832, in Barnsley, England, the firstborn child of James and Amelia. James was a chemist. He had desired to be a doctor but, as the family was unable to pay for medical school, had settled for pharmacology. Raised in a believing home, he became a committed Christian at a young age and developed a deep love for Scripture and theology. When he was still a child, his parents moved to a home close to Wesleyan minister Benjamin Hudson. James quickly befriended the minister’s daughter, Amelia, despite being six years her senior.

Confronting the Lies when Suffering Leaves You Lonely

By Sarah Walton 3/27/2017

     Many roads of suffering are incredibly lonely ones.

     I remember when we began realizing that my eldest son struggled in ways that other children seemed not to. From a young age, he began displaying behavior that was defiant and destructive, and has caused a decade of confusion and chaos in our home. Countless doctors, tests, and evaluations seemed to leave doctors shaking their heads.

     As the struggles turned into life-altering challenges, I left social events, stores, and church feeling increasingly lonely. I was on a scary journey that it seemed no one else could relate to. I found myself pulling away from those I cared about, staying home, and pushing down the stress and emotional turmoil building within me. No one could truly enter into the pain, heartache, and loneliness growing in my home and within my heart.

     But—and I still find this surprising, and wonderful—over these lonely years I have discovered within me a thankfulness for the lonely road I have been given to travel. Walking it has brought me a greater understanding of what it means to be a follower of Jesus Christ and to know him not only as my Savior, but my comfort, sustainer, hope, and strength. That’s what drove me, together with my friend Kristen Wetherell, to write Hope When it Hurts - Biblical reflections to help you grasp God's purpose in your suffering (Cloth over Board)—I wanted to encourage other hurting women to fix their eyes on the Lord Jesus.

     Sarah is a stay-at-home mom with 4 kids under the age of 9. When she isn't wearing her mommy hat, her passion is writing and speaking on what the Lord is teaching her through His word and through the suffering that He has allowed in her life. She writes at Setapart.net and has been writing for Unlocking the Bible’s blog (Pastor Colin Smith’s teaching ministry) on a monthly basis. She has also been featured on The Gospel Coalition, Revive Our Hearts, Crosswalk, and Challies.com.

     Sarah and her husband have been given a unique call to raise a son with a neurological/behavioral disorder, which they now have good reason to believe has been the devastating effect of Lyme’s Disease. After Sarah was first diagnosed with Lyme Disease after battling long-term struggles with chronic health problems, it was also discovered that the increasing health problems growing in all 4 of her children was the result of Lyme Disease being passed to each one of them. This awful disease has ravaged their family, physically, emotionally, and financially, and has left them fighting, sometimes clinging, for hope, joy, and strength with every breath they take. This has been a painful, heartbreaking, and even scary journey at times. Many days, survival is the only reasonable goal. It’s been an exhausting, wearing, confusing journey for them, which at times has even felt hopeless. While it has been a lonely road to travel, Sarah is confident that everyone knows pain, in one form or another. Therefore, Sarah's writing and speaking is rooted in the hope that God will use her current pain and heartache to encourage and lift another’s spirit and point them to hope, joy, and contentment in Christ. Her greatest desire is that Christ will speak through her to those who need to be reminded that there is a greater hope than anything this world can offer.

     "My hope and prayer is that many will join me on this narrow road to find the treasures of the gospel in the brokenness of our lives, 'these jars of clay, to show that the surpassing power belongs to God and not to us' (2 Cor.4:7)." ~ Sarah

Leviticus 5; Psalms 3-4; Proverbs 20; Colossians 3

By Don Carson 4/2/2018

     Imagine a complex, well-ordered society such that in every area of life there are actions that make a person dirty and further prescribed actions that make that person clean. When you get up in the morning, you wear clothes of certain kinds of fabric, but not others. There are clean foods and unclean foods. If a spot of mold appears on the wall of your house, there are procedures for treating it. Men must adopt a certain course after a wet dream, women in connection with their periods. Some unclean things must not even be touched. In addition there is a complex religious and sacrificial system each person is supposed to observe, and failure to observe it at any point brings its own uncleanness. And all of this fits into a still broader set of constraints that include what we normally call moral categories: how we speak, truth-telling, how we treat others, questions of property, sexual integrity, neighborly actions, judicial impartiality, and so forth. Understand, too, that in this society the rules have been laid down by God himself. They are not the results of some elected Congress or Parliament, easily overturned by a fickle or frustrated public eager for something else. To ignore or defy these rules is to defy the living God. What kinds of lessons would be learned in such a society?

     Welcome to the world of Leviticus. This, too, is part of the heritage from Mount Sinai, part of the Mosaic Covenant. Here the people of God are to learn that God prescribes what is right and wrong, and that he has a right to do so; that holiness embraces all of life; that there is a distinction between the conduct of the people of God and the conduct of the surrounding pagans, not merely a difference in abstract beliefs. Here the Lord himself prescribes what sacrifices are necessary, along with confession of sin (Lev. 5:5), when a person falls into uncleanness; and even that the system itself is no final answer, since one is constantly falling under another taboo and returning to offer sacrifices one has offered before. One begins to wonder if there will ever be one final sacrifice for sins.

     But that is down the road. Here in Leviticus 5, Christian readers delight to observe that while God trains up his covenant people in elementary religious thought, he provides means such that even the poorest in society may regain cleanness. The person who cannot afford a sacrificial lamb may bring a pair of doves or a pair of pigeons; the person who cannot afford these may bring a small amount of flour. The lessons continue; always there is hope and a way of escape from the punishment that rebellion attracts.

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).

Read The Psalms In "1" Year

Psalm 35

26 Let them be put to shame and disappointed altogether
who rejoice at my calamity!
Let them be clothed with shame and dishonor
who magnify themselves against me!

27 Let those who delight in my righteousness
shout for joy and be glad
and say evermore,
“Great is the LORD,
who delights in the welfare of his servant!”
28 Then my tongue shall tell of your righteousness
and of your praise all the day long.

By Gleason Archer Jr.

The Mosaic Authorship of Deuteronomy

      Considerable discussion has already been devoted to the higher criticism of  Deuteronomy in chapter 7 (pp. 105–108). There it was pointed out that the 621 B.C. date assigned by the Documentarians to the composition of this book was found unsatisfactory by many rationalistic critics since the time of Wellhausen. These twentieth-century scholars have come to the conclusion that De Wette’s theory of the origin of  Deuteronomy in the reign of Josiah simply does not square with the internal evidence furnished by the text itself. The legislation it contains could never have arisen under the conditions which prevailed in the late seventh century B.C. The social, economic, and historical situation reflected by this book is quite different from that of Josiah’s time. While none of these scholars could on philosophic grounds entertain the possibility of actual Mosaic authorship, their critique of Wellhausen’s doctrinaire position has certainly left the date of Deuteronomic composition up in the air. Some have argued for a postexilic period, and others for a much earlier date. (Welch suggested the reign of Solomon, and Robertson the reign of David.) But they have at least agreed in condemning 621 B.C. as quite impossible for the composition of this last book in the Pentateuch.

      In the last two decades, however, considerable study has been directed toward the structure of the suzerainty treaties drawn up between vassal kings and their imperial overlords in the days of the Hittite ascendancy, in the latter half of the second millennium. As Meredith Kline points out, the typical suzerainty treaty of the Hittite period consisted of the following parts: (1) preamble ( Deut. 1:1–5 ); (2) historical prologue ( Deut. 1:6–4:49 ); (3) the stipulations or main provisions of the treaty ( Deut. 5–26 ); (4) curses and blessings, or covenant-ratification ( Deut. 27–30 ); (5) arrangements for succession, or continuation of the covenant (with invocation of witnesses and disposition of the text, and the periodic reading of the treaty before the public—cf.  Deut. 31–33 ). As contrasted with the second millennium treaties, those of the first millennium tend to vary in the order of the sections above specified, and they generally lacked section 2 (the historical prologue), or the blessings for covenant - faithfulness in section 4. G. E. Mendenhall remarks that it has been established that  Deuteronomy conforms to the treaty structure of the second millennium, and hence this “covenant type is even more important as a starting point, because it cannot be proven to have survived the downfall of the great empires of the second millennium B.C. The older form of the covenant was no longer widely known after the United Monarchy.”

      On Conservative presuppositions, it is possible to establish a very strong case for the Mosaic authorship of  Deuteronomy. By the test of agreement with known historical conditions and by careful literary analysis, it is not difficult to show that only the pre-Davidic period can successfully be reconciled with the data of the Hebrew text. It can be shown by a fair handling of the evidence: (a) that  Deuteronomy must have been written prior to the rise of the writing prophets in the eighth century B.C.; (b) that it also antedates the division of the Hebrew monarchy into Judah and Israel in 931 B.C.; (c) that it best agrees with a period near the conquest under Joshua. A very able reexamination of this evidence has been produced by the late G. T. Manley, demonstrating with most compelling logic that the data of the text itself preclude a post-Mosaic origin. A few of the most significant arguments he advances will be found briefly summarized in the ensuing paragraphs of this chapter.

      But before examining this positive evidence, it would be well to rebut some of the standard “proofs” of post-Mosaic authorship based upon allegedly “telltale” phrases or turns of expression found in the text itself. The first of these is “as at this day” (kayyôʷm hazzeh), which occurs for example in  2:30. This phrase has been interpreted to mean that a great period of time has elapsed since the days of Moses, doubtless many centuries. But on what basis must this lapse of time be assumed? In virtually every instance where this phrase occurs, it fits in perfectly with the situation which would have existed in the closing days of Moses as he addressed the assembled host of Israel on the plains of Moab. Looking back over the vista of forty years (the period of the wilderness wanderings), it would have been altogether appropriate for him to add that the consequences of the episode or transaction mentioned still persisted until this closing year of his life. No real difficulty is presented by any of the six occurrences of this phrase:  2:30, the permanency of Sihon’s conquest;  4:20, the continuance of Israel as the covenant nation;  4:38, “as at this day” refers to their imminent conquest of Canaan as their inheritance;  8:18 is prospective, for the hope is that God’s favor in the future may continue as it is right now in Moses’ time;  10:15 refers to the permanency of God’s choice of Israel as His people;  29:28 has a prophetic perspective as it predicts a future judgment upon the disobedient nation.

      A second “telltale” phrase is “beyond the Jordan,” when it refers to the region east of the Jordan valley (as for example in  1:1 ). It is urged that if this work has really been composed in Moab, “on the other side of the Jordan” (˓ēber hayyardēn) could only refer to Canaan proper. The fact that it demonstrably does refer to the eastern region of Gilead, Reuben, and Gad is said to prove that the author must have lived in Judah or Israel proper. But this is not the only possible inference by any means. As a matter of fact, ˓ēber hayyardēn occasionally refers to the region west of Jordan as well, in at least three other passages ( 3:20, 25; 11:30 ). This would indicate an author residing in the east, such as Moses in the plains of Moab. How are these variant uses of the phrase to be reconciled? By taking ˓ēber hayyardēn as a proper noun like Transjordania — a name attached to the land back in patriarchal times or earlier by the Palestinian population and adopted even by the inhabitants of the Transjordan region itself. Observe that during the British mandate over this territory (subsequent to World War I) the area was known as “Transjordania” even to those who lived in it, though “Transjordania” means “On the other side of Jordan.” In New Testament times the lower part of this region, at least, was known as “Peraea” (The Other - side Land) even to its own inhabitants. It is a reasonable supposition that the term ˓ēber hayyardēn had become a standard designation for the territory to the east of Jericho regardless of where the speaker happened to be. In those three instances, however, where the phrase refers to Canaanland west of the Jordan, we are to understand this as used in its literal and obvious sense rather than as a geographical name.

      So far as this writer is aware, there are no expressions in the text of  Deuteronomy which are not perfectly reconcilable with Mosaic authorship. Only chapter  34 is demonstrably post-Mosaic, since it contains a short account of Moses’ decease. But this does not endanger in the slightest the Mosaic authenticity of the other thirty-three chapters, for the closing chapter furnishes only that type of obituary which is often appended to the final work of great men of letters. An author’s final work is often published posthumously (provided he has been writing up to the time of his death). Since Joshua is recorded to have been a faithful and zealous custodian of the Torah, Moses’ literary achievement, it is quite unthinkable that he would have published it without appending such a notice of the decease of his great predecessors.

A Survey of Old Testament Introduction

The Coming Prince

By Sir Robert Anderson 1841-1918

Chapter 9 The Paschal Supper

But yet another statement of St. John is quoted in this controversy. "That Sabbath day was an high day," he declares, and therefore, it is urged, it must have been the 15th of Nisan. The force of this "therefore" partly depends upon overlooking the fact that all the great sacrifices to which the 15th of Nisan largely owed its distinctive solemnity, were repeated daily throughout the festival. (Numbers 28:19-24) [10] On this account alone that Sabbath was "an high day." But besides, it was specially distinguished as the day on which the firstfruits of the harvest were offered in the temple; for in respect of this ordinance, as in most other points of difference between the Karaite Jews, who held to the Scriptures as their only guide, and the Rabbinical Jews, who followed the traditions of the elders, the latter were entirely in the wrong.

[10] Numbers 28:19-24. Compare Josephus, Ant., 3:10, 5.

     The law enjoined that the sheaf of the firstfruits should be waved before the Lord "on the morrow after the (paschal) Sabbath," (Leviticus 23:10-11) and from that day the seven weeks were reckoned which ended with the feast of Pentecost. But as the book of Deuteronomy expressly ordains that the weeks should be counted from the first day of the harvest, (Deuteronomy 16:9; and compare Leviticus 23:15-16) it is evident that the morrow after the Sabbath should not be itself a Sabbath, but a working day. The true day for the ordinance, therefore, was the day of the resurrection, "the first day of the week" following the Passover, [11] when, according to the intention of the law, the barley harvest should begin, and the first sheaf gathered should be carried to the Holy Place and solemnly waved before Jehovah. But with the Jews all this was lost in the empty rite of offering in the temple a measure of meal prepared from corn which, in violation of the law, had been garnered days before. This rite was invariably celebrated on the 16th of Nisan; and thus synchronizing with the solemnities both of the Paschal festival and of the Sabbath, that day could not fail to be indeed "an high day." [12]

[11] The present Jewish calendar is so adjusted that the 14th of Nisan shall never fall upon their Sabbath (see Encyc. Brit., 9th ed., title, Hebrew Calendar); and this, doubtless, was so intended, for the duties of the day were inconsistent with the due observance of the fourth commandment. Therefore, the morrow after the Sabbath" following would invariably be a working day, so that the law is perfectly consistent in providing that the sheaf should be waved on the first day of the harvest. It is only, therefore, in a cycle of years that the true day for offering the first-fruits falls on the third day from the Passover; but in the year of the crucifixion, the great antitype, the resurrection of Christ from the dead (1 Corinthians 15:20, 23), occurred upon the very day Divinely appointed for the rite. It follows that the true day of Pentecost must always be on the first day of the week (see Leviticus 23:15-16), and therefore in that same year the true Pentecost was, not the Sabbath day on which the Jews observed the feast, but the day which followed it, a fact which confirms the presumption that the designedly ambiguous word used in Acts 2:1, means "accomplished," in the sense of passed, and that it was when assembled on "the first day of the week" that the Church received the gift of the Holy Ghost.

[12] In truth it could not but have been the greatest Sabbath of the year, and it is idle to pretend that this is not sufficient to account for the mention made of it.

      The argument in proof that the death of Christ was on the very day the paschal lamb was killed, has gained a fictitious interest and value from the seeming fitness of the synchronism this involves. But a closer investigation of the subject, combined with a broader view of the Mosaic types, will dissipate the force of this conclusion. The distinctive teaching of Calvinism is based on giving an exclusive place to the great sin-offering of Leviticus, in which substitution, in its most definite and narrowest sense, is essential. The Passover, on the other hand, has ever been the most popular of types. But though the other typical sacrifices are almost entirely ignored in the systems of our leading schools of theology, they have no little prominence in Scripture. The offerings which are placed first in the book of Leviticus have a large share in the theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews, — the new Testament "Leviticus," whereas the Passover is not even once referred to. [13] Now these Leviticus offerings [14] marked the feast-day, (Numbers 28:17-24) on which, according to the Gospels, "the Messiah was cut off."

[13] The historical mention of the Passover in Hebrews 11:28 is of course no exception. It has no place in the doctrine of the Epistle.

[14] The burnt-offering, with its meat-offering, the peace-offering (the chagigah of the Talmud), and the sin-offering (Leviticus 1:4).

     And other synchronisms are not wanting, still more striking and significant. During all His ministry on earth, albeit it was spent in humiliation and reproach, no hand was ever laid upon the Blessed One, save in importunate supplication or in devout and loving service. But when at times His enemies would fain have seized Him, a mysterious hour to come was spoken of, in which their hate should be unhindered. "This is your hour, and the power of darkness," He exclaimed, as Judas and the impious companions in his guilt drew round Him in the garden. (Luke 22:53) His hour, He called it, when He thought of His mission upon earth: their hour, when in the fulfillment of that mission He found Himself within their grasp.

     The agonies inflicted on Him by men have taken hold on the mind of Christendom; but beyond and above all these the mystery of the Passion is that He was forsaken and accursed of God. [15] In some sense, indeed, His sufferings from men were but a consequence of this; therefore His reply to Pilate, "Thou couldst have no power at all against Me, except it were given thee from above." If men seized and slew Him, it was because God had delivered Him up. When that destined hour had struck, the mighty Hand drew back which till then had shielded Him from outrage. His death was not the beginning, but the close of His sufferings; in truth, it was the hour of His triumph.

[15] No reverent mind will seek to analyze the meaning of such words, save in so far as they testify to the great fact that His sufferings and death were in expiation of our sins. But the believer will not tolerate a doubt as to the reality and depth of their meaning.

     The midnight agony in Gethsemane was thus; the great antitype of that midnight scene in Egypt: when the destroying angel flashed through the land. And as His death was the fulfillment of His people's; deliverance, so it took place upon the anniversary of "that selfsame day that the Lord did bring the children of Israel out of the land of Egpyt by their armies." [16]

[16] Exodus 12:51. The Passover of the yearly celebration was but a memorial of the Passover in Egypt, which was the true type. It was killed, moreover, not at the hour of the Lord's death, but after that hour, between the ninth and the eleventh hour (Josephus, Wars, 6., 9, 3).  "The elucidation of the doctrine of types, now entirely neglected,   Not by our Pastor Brett!  is an important problem for future theologians." This dictum of Hengstenberg's [Christology (Arnold's Ed.), § 765] may still be recorded as a deserved reproach upon theology, and much that has been written in this controversy might be quoted to prove its truth. The day of the resurrection was the anniversary of the crossing of the Red Sea, and again of the resting of the Ark on Ararat (Genesis 8:4). Nisan, which had been the seventh month, became the first month at the Exodus. (See Exodus 12:2; cf. Ordo. Saec., § 299.)  On the 17th Nisan the renewed earth emerged from the waters of the flood; the redeemed people emerged from the waters of the sea; and the Lord Jesus rose from the dead.

The Coming Prince

The Continual Burnt Offering

By H.A. Ironside - 1941

April 2

Psalm 76:8 From the heavens you uttered judgment;
the earth feared and was still,
9  when God arose to establish judgment,
to save all the humble of the earth. Selah

10  Surely the wrath of man shall praise you;
the remnant of wrath you will put on like a belt.   ESV

Isaiah 30:15  For thus said the Lord GOD, the Holy One of Israel,
“In returning and rest you shall be saved;
in quietness and in trust shall be your strength.”
But you were unwilling,

Thy calmness bends serene above
My restlessness to still,
Around me flows Thy quickening life
To nerve my faltering will;
Thy presence fills my solitude,
Thy providence turns all to good.

Embosomed deep in Thy great love,
Held in Thy law, I stand;
Thy hand in all things I behold,
And all things in Thy hand;
Thou leadest me by unsought ways,
And turn’st my mourning into praise.
--- Samuel Longfellow

By James Orr 1907

NOTES TO CHAPTER IV | NOTE A—P. 91 | KÖNIG ON THE PERSONIFICATION THEORY

A FEW sentences from König’s discussion in his Neueste Prinzipien may not be out of place. “Parallels,” he says, “have again been sought in features of the Greek and of the Israelitish tradition (Seinecke, Cornill). Specially it has been recalled that Greek tradition attributed to Lycurgus two sons, Eunomus and Eucosmus, i.e., Law and Order.… But is this a sufficient basis for the conclusion that Ishmael and Isaac have in like manner been ascribed to Abraham? What a difference there is between the two pairs of names! The Greek pair, Eunomus and Eucosmus clearly represent personifications of ideas and of the results achieved by the great lawgiver.… The two names Ishmael and Isaac cannot be referred to any such design.… How, if in the two names Ishmael and Isaac such personifications lie before us, could all the particular traits be derived which are related with respect to Ishmael and Isaac? Were there also families in Sparta that claimed descent from Eunomus and Eucosmus?

“It is further argued that the Hellenes traced their origin to a tribal ancestor Hellen, who had two sons, Æolus and Dorus, and two grandsons, Achæus and Ion. I willingly concede that ‘it will occur to no one to see in the bearers of these names individual persons.’ … [But] to draw a parallel between these Greek names and the tribal fathers of Israel is a very hazardous operation. Have we any such histories of Hellen and the other four names as  Genesis contains about the tribal fathers of Israel?” (pp. 42, 43).

One might remark also on the vague and fluctuating notices of the supposititious Eunomus and Eucosmus. Eunomus, e.g., is generally given as the father of Lycurgus.

NOTE B.—P. 100 | THE COVENANT WITH ISRAEL

KAUTZSCH has valuable remarks on this subject in his art in “The Religion of Israel” in Dict. of Bible (Extra Vol. p. 631). He says: “In all the Pentateuchal sources, without exception, there is a uniform tradition to the effect that the central place amongst the incidents at Sinai is occupied by the concluding of a berith, commonly rendered Covenant.… Is all this now to be set down as fiction, a carrying back of much later theological conceptions and terminology, to a time for which no real tradition was any longer extant? This is a view to which the present writer cannot assent, having regard to either external or internal evidence.”

After summarising historical evidence, he proceeds: “Would all this be conceivable, if the proclamation of Jahweh as the God of Israel — the founding of the Jahweh religion — had taken place, so to speak, fortuitously, by the incidental passing of the name ‘Jahweh’ from mouth to mouth? Instead of any theory of this kind, we get the strongest impression that the further development of the religion of Israel during the period of the Judges and of the monarchy was the result of some occurrence of a fundamental kind of whose solemnity and binding force and character the whole nation retained a lively recollection. And this occurrence can have been nothing but the solemn proclaiming of the God who had manifested Himself in wondrous ways as the Helper and Deliverer of the people upon a definite occasion, and in the binding of the people to do His will, and to worship Him alone. Every one of the numerous allusions (whether in the Pentateuchal sources, the Prophets, or the  Psalms ) to the mighty acts of Jahweh at the Exodus, how with a strong hand and a stretched out arm He brought the hosts of Israel out of the house of bondage, held back the waves of the Red Sea from Israel, but plunged the chariots and horsemen of Pharaoh into the waters, — every one of these allusions is at the same time an allusion to the days of Sinai, when for the first time these mighty acts of Jahweh were brought to the consciousness of the people in their true greatness, and extolled accordingly, and made the occasion of a solemn confession of Jahweh as the God of Israel, and the solemn binding of the people to do His will.” Cf. also Giesebrecht on Die Geschichtlichkeit des Sinaibundes.

NOTE C.—P. 104 | THEORIES OF THE EXODUS

THIS is how Von Bohlen disposes of the Exodus: “Here [in Egypt], during the four following centuries, which the popular traditions pass over with a prudent silence, the Hebrew family increased into so powerful a nation, that they entered the field as conquerors, and succeeded at length in establishing themselves among the native tribes of Palestine” ( Genesis, i. p. 16).

Kuenen accords to Manetho’s story of the expulsion of the lepers a credence he is unwilling to give to the narrative in  Exodus, and thinks that the Israelites got help from the Hyksos. “The Book of  Exodus does not mention the aid given by the Hyksos.… But a few slight touches furnish us with proof that the Israelites were supported by the nomadic tribes of Arabia, that is to say by the Hyksos.… We may surely take it for granted that the Israelites themselves were not passive spectators of the struggle [between Jahweh and the gods of Egypt]; that a conspiracy was formed among them; that others besides Moses and Aaron played a part in it. But with regard to all this the Book of  Exodus is silent or confines itself to a few hints” (Rel. of Israel, 1 pp. 120–21, 124). Of the Red Sea deliverance: “What actually took place there we do not know. It is undoubtedly founded on fact. But it is very difficult to distinguish the actual circumstances of the occurrence from poetical embellishments. We will not risk the attempt.” (Ibid. p. 126).

Stade allows no value to the history in  Exodus, and denies that Israel as a people came up out of Egypt. But something, he grants, must have given occasion to the story. “It is very possible that a part of those Hebrew tribes which afterwards coalesced into the people of Israel, passing into Egypt, lived there, and fell under bondage to the Egyptians. With the aid of the related nomadic tribes inhabiting the Sinaitic peninsula outside the kingdom of Egypt, they may have fought their way to freedom under Moses” (Geschichte, 1887, pp. 129–30). In the 1881 edition of his Geschichte, Stade is even more emphatic. “If any Hebrew clan,” he says, “once dwelt in Egypt, no one knows its name” (p. 129).

Colenso adopts Kuenen’s theories as “very probably the basis upon which the Scripture story of the  Exodus has been founded.” “No doubt,” he says, “the Israelites on their march to Canaan experienced formidable difficulties, perhaps in crossing an arm of the Red Sea, and certainly in their passage through the wilderness — the reminiscences of which may have been handed down from age to age, and given rise to some of the miraculous stories in the narrative, while others are merely the result of the natural growth of legendary matter, or are due to the inventive genius of the writer or writers” (Pent. 6 p. 601).

Budde accepts the Exodus by the help of God as an incontestable truth, on the strength of Israel’s own self-consciousness. “All that can be considered doubtful is whether it was the whole people of Israel that fell under the Egyptian bondage, or Joseph alone (that is to say, the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh, including Benjamin)” (Rel. of Israel, p. 10). No light is thrown on the how of the deliverance which, in the tradition, naturally “bears the stamp of miracle” (p. 13).

See summary of Wellhausen’s views in Bennett’s art. “Moses” in Dict. of Bible, iii. p. 445.

The Problem of the Old Testament

The Institutes of the Christian Religion

Translated by Henry Beveridge

     3. If we now inquire in what way the conscience can be quieted as in the view of God, we shall find that the only way is by having righteousness bestowed upon us freely by the gift of God. Let us always remember the words of Solomon, "Who can say I have made my heart clean, I am free from my sin?" (Prov. 20:9). Undoubtedly there is not one man who is not covered with infinite pollutions. Let the most perfect man descend into his own conscience, and bring his actions to account, and what will the result be? Will he feel calm and quiescent, as if all matters were well arranged between himself and God; or will he not rather be stung with dire torment, when he sees that the ground of condemnation is within him if he be estimated by his works? Conscience, when it beholds God, must either have sure peace with his justice, or be beset by the terrors of hell. We gain nothing, therefore, by discoursing of righteousness, unless we hold it to be a righteousness stable enough to support our souls before the tribunal of God. When the soul is able to appear intrepidly in the presence of God, and receive his sentence without dismay, then only let us know that we have found a righteousness that is not fictitious. It is not, therefore, without cause, that the Apostle insists on this matter. I prefer giving it in his words rather than my own: "If they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of no effect," (Rom. 4:14). He first infers that faith is made void if the promise of righteousness has respect to the merit of our works, or depends on the observance of the law. Never could any one rest securely in it, for never could he feel fully assured that he had fully satisfied the law; and it is certain that no man ever fully satisfied it by works. Not to go far for proof of this, every one who will use his eyes aright may be his own witness. Hence it appears how deep and dark the abyss is into which hypocrisy plunges the minds of men, when they indulge so securely as, without hesitations to oppose their flattery to the judgment of God, as if they were relieving him from his office as judge. Very different is the anxiety which fills the breasts of believers, who sincerely examine themselves. [421] Every mind, therefore, would first begin to hesitate, and at length to despair, while each determined for itself with how great a load of debt it was still oppressed, and how far it was from coming up to the enjoined condition. Thus, then, faith would be oppressed and extinguished. To have faith is not to fluctuate, to vary, to be carried up and down, to hesitate, remain in suspense, vacillate, in fine, to despair; it is to possess sure certainty and complete security of mind, to have whereon to rest and fix your foot.

4. Paul, moreover, adds, that the promise itself would be rendered null and void. For if its fulfillment depends on our merits when pray, will we be able to come the length of meriting the favor of God? Nay, the second clause is a consequence of the former, since the promise will not be fulfilled unless to those who put faith in it. Faith therefore failing, no power will remain in the promise. "Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace, to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed," (Rom. 4:16). It was abundantly confirmed when made to rest on the mercy of God alone, for mercy and truth are united by an indissoluble tie; that is, whatever God has mercifully promised he faithfully performs. Thus David, before he asks salvation according to the word of God, first places the source of it in his mercy. "Let, I pray thee, thy merciful kindness be for my comfort, according to thy word unto thy servant," (Ps. 119:76). And justly, for nothing but mere mercy induces God to promise. Here, then, we must place, and, as it were, firmly fix our whole hope, paying no respect to our works, and asking no assistance from them. And lest you should suppose that there is any thing novel in what I say, Augustine also enjoins us so to act. "Christ," says he, "will reign forever among his servants. This God has promised, God has spoken; if this is not enough, God has sworn. Therefore, as the promise stands firm, not in respect of our merits, but in respect of his mercy, no one ought to tremble in announcing that of which he cannot doubt," (August. in Ps. 88, Tract. 50). Thus Bernard also, "Who can be saved? ask the disciples of Christ. He replies, With men it is impossible, but not with God. This is our whole confidence, this our only consolation; this the whole ground of our hope: but being assured of the possibility, what are we to say as to his willingness? Who knows whether he is deserving of love or hatred? (Eccles. 9:1). Who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct him?' (1 Cor. 2:16). Here it is plain, faith must come to our aid: here we must have the assistance of truth, in order that the secret purpose of the Father respecting us may be revealed by the Spirit, and the Spirit testifying may persuade our hearts that we are the sons of God. But let him persuade by calling and justifying freely by faith: in these there is a kind of transition from eternal predestination to future glory," (Bert. in Dedica. Templi, Serm. 5). Let us thus briefly conclude: Scripture indicates that the promises of God are not surer unless they are apprehended with full assurance of conscience; it declares that wherever there is doubt or uncertainty, the promises are made void; on the other hand, that they can only waver and fluctuate if they depend on our works. Therefore, either our righteousness must perish, or without any consideration of our works, place must be given to faith alone, whose nature it is to prick up the ear, and shut the eye; that is, to be intent on the promise only, to give up all idea of any dignity or merit in man. Thus is fulfilled the celebrated prophecy of Zechariah: "I will remove the iniquity of that land in one day. In that day, saith the Lord of hosts, shall ye call every man his neighbor under the vine, and under the fig-tree," (Zech. 3:9, 10). Here the prophet intimates that the only way in which believers can enjoy true peace, is by obtaining the remission of their sins. For we must attend to this peculiarity in the prophets, that when they discourse of the kingdom of Christ, they set forth the external mercies of God as types of spiritual blessings. Hence Christ is called the Prince of Peace, and our peace, Isaiah 9:6; Eph. 2:14), because he calms all the agitations of conscience. If the method is asked, we must come to the sacrifice by which God was appeased, for no man will ever cease to tremble, until he hold that God is propitiated solely by that expiation in which Christ endured his anger. In short, peace must be sought nowhere but in the agonies of Christ our Redeemer.

5. But why employ a more obscure testimony? Paul uniformly declares that the conscience can have no peace or quiet joy until it is held for certain that we are justified by faith. And he at the same time declares whence this certainty is derived--viz. when "the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost," (Rom. 5:5); as if he had said that our Souls cannot have peace until we are fully assured that we are pleasing to God. Hence he elsewhere exclaims in the person of believers in general, "Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?" (Rom. 8:35). Until we have reached that haven, the slightest breeze will make us tremble, but so long as the Lord is our Shepherd, we shall walk without fear in the valley of the shadow of death (Ps. 23). Thus those who pretend that justification by faith consists in being regenerated and made just, by living spiritually, have never tasted the sweetness of grace in trusting that God will be propitious. Hence also, they know no more of praying aright than do the Turks or any other heathen people. For, as Paul declares, faith is not true, unless it suggest and dictate the delightful name of Father; nay, unless it open our mouths and enable us freely to cry, Abba, Father. This he expresses more clearly in another passage, "In whom we have boldness and access with confidence by the faith of him," (Eph. 3:12). This, certainly, is not obtained by the gift of regeneration, which, as it is always defective in the present state, contains within it many grounds of doubt. Wherefore, we must have recourse to this remedy; we must hold that the only hope which believers have of the heavenly inheritance is, that being in grafted into the body of Christ, they are justified freely. For, in regard to justification, faith is merely passives bringing nothing of our own to procure the favor of God, but receiving from Christ every thing that we want.

__________________________________________________________________

[421] The two previous sentences are ommited in the French.

__________________________________________________________________

     Christian Classics Ethereal Library / Public Domain

     Institutes of the Christian Religion