John Owen on the Holy Spirit

The Holy Spirit: The Treasures (Treasures of John Owen)

     John Owen is among the theologians whose thoughts most closely mirror my own and, apart from the Scriptures themselves, this particular book of his could be called the manifesto of the theology that drives Monergism.com. I can only agree with Sinclair Ferguson when he says, "Whenever I return to read Owen I find myself at least in part wondering why I spend time reading lesser things." I would unhesitatingly put this book up there among Christian classics, and, probably, at least in my opinion, is one of the top ten Christian books ever written. This book will magnify your understanding of the Holy Scriptures and its divine author and make you wonder what ever happened to all the churches who preached from this perspective. Here are among my favorite quotes from the books' abridged edition ...

     "To say that we are able by our own efforts to think good thoughts or give God spiritual obedience before we are spiritually regenerate is to overthrow the gospel and the faith of the universal church in all ages."

     All men can be divided into two groups. They are either regenerate or unregenerate. All men are born unregenerate (John 3:3-8). ...Spiritual darkness is in all men and lies on all men until God, by an almighty work of the Spirit, shines into men"s hearts, or creates light in them (Matt 4:16; John 1:5; Act 26:18; Eph 5:8; Col 1:13; 1 Pet 2:9). ...The nature of this spiritual darkness must be understood. When men have no light to see by, then they are in darkness (Exod. 10:23). Blind men are in darkness, either by birth or by illness or accident (Psa. 69:23; Gen 19:11; Acts 13:11). A spiritually blind man is in spiritual darkness and is ignorant of spiritual things.

     There is an outward darkness on men and an inward darkness in men.

     Outward darkness is when men do not have that light by which they are enabled to see. So outward spiritual darkness is upon men when there is nothing to enlighten them about God and spiritual things (Matt 4:16; Psa 119:105; Psa. 19:1-4,8; 2 Pet 1:19; Rom 10:15, 18). It is the work of the Holy Spirit to remove this darkness by sending the light of the gospel (Acts 13:2, 4; 16:6-10; Psa. 147:19,20).

     Inward darkness, on the other hand, arises from the natural depravity and corruption of the minds of men concerning spiritual things. Man"s mind is depraved and corrupted in things which are natural, civil, political, and moral, as well as in things which are spiritual, heavenly and evangelical. This depravity is often held back from having its full effects by the common grace of the Holy Spirit. So, man"s mind being darkened, he is unable to see, receive, understand or believe to the saving of his soul. Spiritual things, or the mysteries of the gospel, without the Holy Spirit first creating within the soul a new light by which they can see and receive those things, cannot bring salvation.

     However brilliant the mind may be, and however brilliant the preaching and presentation of the gospel might be, yet without the Holy Spirit first creating this light in them, they cannot receive, understand and agree with the truths preached, and so will not be led to salvation (Eph 4:17, 18).

Excerpts from The Glory of Christ (Puritan Paperbacks: Treasures of John Owen for Today's Readers) | John Hendryx is the man who runs the site Monergism.com

Potiphar’s Rage and Bad Decision

By Alistair Begg from The Hand of God: Finding His Care in All Circumstances

     Potiphar was obviously a masterful delegator and a shrewd judge of character. He could pick out a good slave. He was able to determine that Joseph had something special about him. And it is hardly surprising that Potiphar reacted in anger at the thought that his most trusted slave had tried to steal his wife’s purity.

     Any husband worth his salt must react in this way. Even the very idea that his wife’s purity has been threatened is abhorrent to a man, especially if the culprit is someone he has brought into the household. So Potiphar’s reaction is understandable. There is a rightness about that sort of protection.

     But shouldn’t Potiphar have stepped back for a moment to consider his wife’s story? We know he should have, but apart from our perspective there are several features of his wife’s account that should have given Potiphar reason to proceed slowly in judging Joseph. After all, as captain of the king’s guard, Potiphar was used to investigating all sorts of allegations.

     First, he should have realized that it would have been stupid of Joseph to leave behind such damaging evidence as his cloak if he were truly guilty. Potiphar’s wife was not as strong as Joseph, so why hadn’t Joseph grabbed the incriminating garment from her when he ran? Joseph had to know that as a slave, his life was as good as over if the charge against him were to be proven.

     A second inconsistency in her story was the record of Joseph’s faithful service in the household. Years had passed since he had arrived. Joseph was twenty-seven years old by the close of Genesis 39. Joseph’s record should have earned him at least some benefit of the doubt.

     But Potiphar would hear none of it. He allowed his anger to do away with his judgment. We read, “He burned with anger” (v. 19). He was enraged, and in that frame of mind he was incapable of hearing either truth or reason. The result was that he made a bad decision, the same as we do the majority of the time when we make decisions in anger.

     If you listen to the Word of God with an angry heart, you will hear the pastor talking but you will not hear the Word of God to your spirit. That’s why people can sit under the ministry of the Word, and yet it rolls off them like water off a slate roof.

     Anger will always blind the mind. That’s why James writes, “Man’s anger does not bring about the righteous life that God desires” (James 1:20). Better to take a long walk in the rain and get soaking wet than to let anger rule your spirit.

     There’s a second reason Potiphar summarily imprisoned Joseph. He allowed himself to be unduly influenced by his wife.

     Now I didn’t say simply that Potiphar allowed himself to be influenced by his wife. I said unduly influenced. That is the key word. Every man is influenced by his wife — and in most cases, mercifully and gratefully so. But we men are not to be unduly influenced by our wives. To the man falls the responsibility of leadership and the headship of the home.

     There is no doubt that Potiphar’s wife had a pretty good tongue in her head. She was adept at intimidating her husband. It’s been my observation that many an apparently powerful leader is led around by his nose when he goes home.

     Listen to John Calvin. “Husbands are especially taught that they must use prudence, lest they should be carried rashly hither and thither at the will of their wives.” This is not politically correct, but it is biblically accurate.

     The commentator George Lawson says, “Potiphar paid too much deference to his wife. He ought not to have believed her words against Joseph without examining the truth of them. A man ought to love his wife as a part of himself, but however dear she may be to him, truth and justice ought to be still dearer.”

     And so, under the influence of rage and goaded by his wife’s intimidation, Potiphar assigned his faithful Hebrew slave to “the place where the king’s prisoners were confined” (Genesis 39:20). Without conducting a thorough investigation and without allowing Joseph to mount a defense, Potiphar dealt Joseph a swift and dreadful blow that may have plunged a lesser individual into despair.

     Dr. Alistair Begg | (Trent University; London School of Theology; Westminster Seminary) was born in Scotland and spent the first 30 years of life in the United Kingdom. Since September of 1983, he has been the senior pastor at Parkside Church in suburban Cleveland, Ohio. He is the daily speaker on the national radio program Truth For Life which stems from his weekly Bible teaching at Parkside. He and his wife, Susan, have three grown children.

The Witness Of The Scriptures To Moses’ Authorship

By Gleason Archer Jr.

     He also uses a greater percentage of Egyptian words than elsewhere in the Old Testament. For examples: the expression ʾabrēk (   Gen 41:43 —translated, “bow the knee”) is apparently the Egyptian ʾb rk (“O heart, bow down!”), although many other explanations have been offered for this; weights and measures, such as zeret (“a span”) from drt—“hand”; ʾephah (tenth of a homer) from ʾpt; hɩ̄n (about five quarts volume) from hnw; gōmeʾ (“papyrus”) from ḳmyt; qemaḥ (“flour”) from ḳmḥw (a type of bread); šēš (“fine linen”) from sšr (“linen”); yeōr (“Nile, river”) from ʾtrw—“river” (which becomes eioor in Coptic).

     One of the most ambitious modern works discussing the Egyptian background of the portion of the Pentateuch which deals with Joseph and Moses in Egypt is Abraham S. Yahuda’s Language of the Pentateuch in Its Relationship to Egyptian. Not confining himself to mere loanwords, Yahuda discusses a large number of idioms and turns of speech which are characteristically Egyptian in origin, even though translated into Hebrew. Thus in the strange expression of   Gen. 41:40 which the KJV renders, “According unto thy word shall all my people be ruled,” but which literally says, “According to thy utterance all my people shall kiss” (nāšaq, Hebrew)—Yahuda finds a clarification in the Egyptian use of sn (“to kiss”) which is used before “food” to indicate eating the food. The titles of the court officials, the polite language used in the interviews with Pharaoh, and the like, are all shown to be true to Egyptian usage.

     Another writer, Garrow Duncan, devotes several pages to a demonstration of the minute accuracy and authentic local coloring of the author of the Torah. He remarks, “Thus we cannot but admit that the writer of these two narratives [i.e., of Joseph and of the Exodus] … was thoroughly well acquainted with the Egyptian language, customs, belief, court life, etiquette and officialdom; and not only so, but the readers must have been just as familiar with things Egyptian.”

     Some eminent Egyptologists of Wellhausian persuasion have appealed to Egyptian evidence to prove a late date for the Hebrew narrative. For example, Georg Steindorff (Aufenthalt Israels, p. 15) has argued that a more contemporary author would surely have known and mentioned the names of these various Egyptian kings. But Yahuda furnishes a plausible explanation for the fact that the Hebrew records do not mention the names of the Pharaohs until the time of Solomon and thereafter. While the Israelites resided in Egypt, they simply followed the usual custom of New Kingdom Egyptian official language by referring to the king simply as pr-˓; (“Pharaoh,—Great House”) while refraining from mentioning his personal name in proximity to that particular title (however often they may have mentioned it in connection with other royal titles). Hence instead of being an evidence of lateness, this conformity to Eighteenth Dynasty Egyptian usage turns out to be strong evidence of an authentic Mosaic date of composition.

     On the other hand, it should be noted that in the later period, for example in the tenth century, the name of the king of Egypt is given in the Old Testament without the title of Pharaoh preceding it — still conforming to Egyptian usage. An example is the reference to Shishak (Sheshonq, in Egyptian) in   1 Kings 11:40. Not until the late seventh century and early sixth century does the Hebrew historiographer depart from correct Egyptian usage enough to append to the title Pharaoh the actual name of the king (e.g., Pharaoh-Neco in   2 Kings 23:29 and Pharaoh-Hophra in   Jer. 44:30).

     3. The author of the Torah shows a consistently foreign or extra-Palestinian viewpoint so far as Canaan is concerned. The seasons and the weather referred to in the narrative are Egyptian, not Palestinian. (Cf. the reference to crop sequence in connection with the plague of hail,   Ex. 9:31–32. Delitzsch states that this information pinpointed the incident as occurring late in January or early in February.)

     The flora and fauna referred to are Egyptian or Sinaitic, never distinctively Palestinian. Thus, the shittim or acacia tree is indigenous to Egypt and the Sinai Peninsula, but not to Palestine (except on the lower shore of the Dead Sea); it is a distinctive desert tree. Out of this material the wood for the tabernacle furniture was to be made. The skins to be used as the outer covering of the tabernacle were to be skins (   Ex. 25:5; 36:19), the taḥash being a dugong which is found in seas adjacent to Egypt and Sinai but foreign to Palestine. The lists of clean and unclean birds and animals contained in   Lev. 11 and   Deut. 14 include some which are peculiar to Sinai (such as the pygarg or dishōn of   Deut. 14:5 and the ostrich of   Lev. 11:16), but none of which are peculiar to Canaan. The wild ox or antelope (teʾō, Hebrew) of   Deut. 14:5 is a native of Upper Egypt and Arabia but not of Palestine. (Yet it has been reported in Syria, according to The Westminster Dictionary of the Bible, p. 30a.) In this connection the coney, hyrax, or rock badger (shāphān, Hebrew) of   Lev. 11:5 has often been cited as peculiar to Sinai and Arabia. This is, however, disputed by H. B. Tristram, who claims to have found them as far north as North Galilee and Phoenicia. In all these specific instances, of course, it should be remembered that the distribution of animals tends to become restricted in the course of time. Thus, lions were fairly abundant in the Near East in ancient times, but are in the present day restricted to India and Africa (although a few lions have been spotted in the Palestinian Ghor). Bears were also dangerous predators in O.T. times (cf.   1 Sam. 17:34; 2 Kings 2:24; Amos 5:19).

     Both Egypt and Sinai are very familiar to the author from the standpoint of geography. The narrative of the Exodus route is filled with authentic local references which have been verified by modern archaeology. But the geography of Palestine is comparatively unknown except by patriarchal tradition (in the   Genesis narratives). Even in   Gen. 13, when the author wishes to convey to his audience some notion of the lush verdure of the Jordan plain, he compares it to “the land of Egypt as thou goest unto Zoar” (v.   10), referring to a locality near Mendes, midway between Busiris and Tanis in the Delta. (Cf. Budge, Egyptian Dictionary, 2:1058, which refers to it as a fortress in the Delta, a district near Mendes.) Obviously the audience for which   Genesis was written knew what it was like in Egypt but were unfamiliar with the appearance of the Jordan Valley. Similar is the reference to Shalem (ASV marg.), “a city of Shechem, which is in the land of Canaan” (   Gen. 33:18) — a type of reference impossible to explain if the writer had lived in a post-exilic generation, after Israel had already been settled in the land of Canaan for nine centuries or more with Shechem as one of the most prominent cities north of Jerusalem. After Joshua’s conquest of Canaan, what Hebrew reader would have to be told that Shechem was in the land of Canaan? In general, the author of the Pentateuch seems to regard Palestine as a new, comparatively unknown territory into which the Israelites are going to enter at a future time.   It always bothers me when I read the anti-semitic word Palestine. It was a name given to Israel by Hadrian.

A Survey of Old Testament Introduction

The Problem Of The Old Testament

By James Orr 1907

I. STADIA OF THE CRITICAL DEVELOPMENT

The chief stages in the development of the critical hypothesis have been the following:—

1. The beginning of the critical movement is usually associated with the French physician Astruc, who, in his Conjectures, in 1753, drew attention to the presence of Elohistic and Jehovistic sections in  Genesis, and on this based his theory of the employment of distinct documents in the composition of the book. The fact thus founded on is a highly interesting one, and, once pointed out, cannot be ignored. It is the case that some chapters, and portions of chapters, in  Genesis are marked by the use, exclusively or predominatingly, of the divine name “Elohim” (God), and others by a similar use of the divine name “Jehovah” (E.T. LORD). This distinction continues till  Ex. 6, when God reveals Himself by His name Jehovah, then (mainly) ceases. A considerable part of  Genesis, accordingly, can really, by the use of this criterion, be divided into Elohistic and Jehovistic sections. A fact to be placed alongside of this, though its full bearings do not always seem to be perceived, is that in the Psalter we have an arrangement of psalms into Jehovistic and Elohistic groups by a similar distinction in the use of the divine names.

2. A further step was taken when Eichhorn (1779), to whom is due the name “Higher Criticism,” and who seems to have worked independently of Astruc, pointed out that the Elohistic and Jehovistic sections in  Genesis were distinguished, not simply by the use of the divine names, but by certain other literary peculiarities, which furnished aid in their discrimination. The Elohistic sections in particular — not all of them, as came afterwards to be seen — were found to be characterised by a vocabulary and style of their own, which enabled them, on the whole, to be readily distinguished. This result also, whatever explanation may be offered of it, has stood the test of time, and will not, we believe, be overturned. The long lists of words and phrases customarily adduced as characteristic of the Elohist (now P), need, indeed, much sifting, but enough remains to justify the critic in distinguishing a P hand in  Genesis , different from that of JE.

3. It was at this point that De Wette struck in with his thesis (1805–6) that  Deuteronomy, shown by him to have also a style and character of its own, could not have been composed earlier than the reign of Josiah. This he inferred mainly from the law of the central sanctuary in  Deut. 12, and from the breaches of that law in the older history, considered in last chapter. Westphal has declared that “  Deuteronomy is the Ariadne’s thread in the labyrinth of the historical problem of the Pentateuch,” and we are not sure that we are not disposed to agree with him, if in a sense different from what he intended. Meanwhile, as was inevitable, the question arose as to whether the Elohistic and Jehovistic documents did not extend beyond  Genesis into the remaining books of the Pentateuch, and, further, into  Joshua (Bleek, 1822), with which the earlier books are so closely connected. In this extension, the criterion of the divine names failed, but the other linguistic phenomena, and relations with acknowledged J and E sections, were relied on to establish the distinction. Thus, mainly under the guidance of Bleek, Ewald (1831), and Stähelin (1835), the criticism of the “Pentateuch” passed definitely over into that of the “Hexateuch” — the Pentateuch and  Joshua.

4. The next step is connected with Hupfeld (1853), and marks again a distinct advance. Ilgen (1798) had preluded the discovery, but Hupfeld, with more success, drew attention to the fact that the assumed Elohistic document in  Genesis was not all of one cast. Certain sections — all, indeed, up to chap. 20 — had the well-marked characteristics now attributed to P; but other portions, agreeing in the use of the name Elohim, were quite dissimilar in style, and closely resembled the Jehovistic parts — were, in fact, indistinguishable from the latter, save in the difference of the divine names. Hupfeld’s solution was that we have here a document from a third writer—named by him the 2nd Elohist (E), who agreed with the older in the use of the name Elohim, but whose style, vocabulary, and mode of representation were akin to, and nearly identical with, those of the Jehovist. This observation, again, in substance corresponds with facts; for it is the case that in the sections in question there is little or nothing to distinguish the Elohist from the Jehovist, beyond the use of the divine names. A natural solution would seem to be that, despite the difference in names, the documents are not really two, but one; but modern critics generally adhere to Hupfeld’s distinction of J and E, and evolve a number of other peculiarities which are thought to distinguish the two writers. The theory had its disadvantages, which kept many of the older scholars, e.g., Bleek, from assenting to it; for, while explaining certain stylistic phenomena, it destroyed, in doing so, the previously boasted unity of the Elohistic narrative, and created in the latter great and unaccountable hiatuses: left in fact, as we shall see, only a few fragments and lists for P after  Gen. 23 to the end of the book!

5. The final stage in the development — if that can be termed development which is more properly revolution — outstrips in importance all the preceding. Hitherto, with some little regarded exceptions, the universal assumption had been that the Elohistic Writer, or 1st Elohist — was the oldest of all, and his date was variously fixed in the time of the Judges, or in the reigns of Saul or David. The order was assumed to be: 1st Elohist — Jehovist and 2nd Elohist —  Deuteronomy. Then came the somersault of Graf, who, in his Historical Books of the Old Testament, in 1866, propounded the view, which he owed to Reuss, that the legislation of the middle books of the Pentateuch (the Levitical law) was not earlier, but later, than  Deuteronomy — was, in fact, a product of the age of the exile. Graf, however, was not yet of the opinion that all the Elohistic sections of the Pentateuch were late: he accepted the ordinary view that the Elohistic writing was the oldest for the historical sections, but contended that the priestly laws were a later, and post-exilian, insertion. Kuenen and Riehm, from opposite sides, wrote to show that this was an untenable position. History and laws go together, and either the whole is early, or the whole is late. Graf before his death acknowledged the force of Kuenen’s arguments for the late date of the (P) history as well as of the legislation, while not admitting that the P writing constituted an independent document. Owing mainly to the powerful advocacy of Wellhausen, the more thoroughgoing view has prevailed, and, as formerly stated, it is now held to be one of the “settled” results of criticism7 that the Priestly element is the very latest constituent in the Hexateuch, and is of exilian or post-exilian date. Yet in one respect even this theory, which we shall have occasion to oppose very decidedly, appears to us to mark an advance. In so far as a documentary hypothesis is to be accepted at all — on which after — it is difficult to resist the conviction that P must be regarded as relatively later than JE, for whose narratives, in  Genesis at least, it furnishes the “framework,” and that it is not, as former critics held, a separate older work. In agreement with Graf, however, we do not suppose that at any period it ever formed a separate, independent writing.

As supplementing this sketch of the chief stadia in the critical development, a glance may be taken at the views which have been held on the relation of the elements of the Pentateuch in the course of this long history. These may be roughly divided into the fragmentary, the supplementary, and the documentary.

(1) At an early stage Vater (1805) and others developed the idea that the Pentateuch was made up, not of continuous documents, but of a great number of smaller fragments. This view was vigorously contested, especially with respect to the Book of  Genesis, by Stähelin, Ewald (1823), Tuch (1838), etc., as well as by the thoroughgoing defenders of the Mosaic authorship, who, till the middle of the century, formed an influential group. The fragmentist view was regarded as overcome; but it will be seen as we advance that the newer criticism, with its multiplication of documents (P1 P2 P3 etc.), its substitution of “schools” for individual authors, and its minute tesselation of texts, represents largely a return to it.

(2) The theory which superseded the fragmentary was that of an Elohistic groundwork, or fundamental document (Grundschrift), supplemented at a later time by Jehovistic additions. This was the view of Bleek, and of most of the above-named writers: later representatives of it are Knobel, Schrader, and Colenso. It was a theory which, granting its initial assumption, had much to recommend it. Its advocates based on the fact that the Jehovistic narrative, as it stands, is incomplete, and presupposes the Elohistic: e.g., it has no command to build the ark (cf.  Gen. 7:1 ), and contains no notices of the deaths of the patriarchs. “It is still more unmistakable,” argued Bleek, “that those Elohistic portions in the first part of our book refer to one another, presuppose one another, and follow one another in due course, whilst they take no notice of the Jehovistic passages lying between them.” Its opponents reply that it is impossible that the Jehovist could have filled in passages which, as they hold, are contradictory of the main narrative. Hupfeld’s theory of the 2nd Elohist weakened this view, and it fell to the ground altogether when the Graf theory came to prevail, that P (= the Elohist) was not the earliest, but the latest, of the sources.

(3) The documentary hypothesis — earliest of all — afterwards revived by Hupfeld, rose again to favour, and since Graf’s time has generally been held in the form already described, viz., JE and P as independent documents, which have been combined with each other, and with  Deuteronomy (D), by a redactor, or series of redactors. So stated, the theory seems simple: its enormous difficulties are only revealed when the attempt is made to work it out in detail. We advance now to the consideration of these difficulties, with a view to the attainment of a more positive result.

The Problem of the Old Testament

Read The Psalms In "1" Year

Psalm 18

20 The LORD dealt with me according to my righteousness;
according to the cleanness of my hands he rewarded me.
21 For I have kept the ways of the LORD,
and have not wickedly departed from my God.
22 For all his rules were before me,
and his statutes I did not put away from me.
23 I was blameless before him,
and I kept myself from my guilt.
24 So the LORD has rewarded me according to my righteousness,
according to the cleanness of my hands in his sight.

Moody’s Challenges and Scripture’s Inerrancy: Why the Chicago Statement Matters More Than Ever

By Owen Strachan 2/2/2018

     In recent days, a furor has broken out over a surprising place: Moody Bible Institute. Moody is a hallmark of American evangelicalism, particularly the mainstream Chicago rendition, and has famously sent out thousands of graduates to the mission fields. Moody’s reputation is justifiably strong; it is a school that most evangelicals would instinctually trust.

     But Moody has been shaken to its core in the last few weeks and months. First came reports of massive faculty cuts at two locations; then came the reporting of Julie Roys and allegations of both theological and ethical drift; then the school’s top leaders resigned. At present, the school seems destabilized. Many of us who support MBI and are grateful for its historic witness are praying for faithful resolution to these issues.

     I cannot comment on anything happening on the ground in Chicago. I don’t know anything about the internal affairs of Moody, nor do I have firsthand reports of classroom instruction, and I have no personal stake in this matter. For my very limited part, I have only read Roys’s latest reporting (see here), and thus can only offer quick comment on one aspect: the institutional importance of inerrancy. Inerrancy is the historic claim that the original autographs of Scripture are without error in all they affirm, and thus the biblical text is entirely trustworthy. Inerrancy is based upon verbal plenary inspiration–the Spirit inspiring or “breathing out” the Word–and entails the absolute authority of the Bible (2 Tim. 3:16). According to Roys, this biblical doctrine is at the center of the controversy at Moody, which includes inerrancy as part of its core doctrine. If this is the case, and it certainly seems to be, then Moody is merely the latest institution to face this doctrinal gauntlet, and confront this definitive question: will the school reaffirm that its vital center is the sacred Scripture, or will it choose a different path?

     The doctrinal battles of the twentieth-century waxed hottest around inerrancy. George Marsden’s Reforming Fundamentalism, for example, shows just how fierce the battle was at the leading school of postwar evangelicalism, Fuller Theological Seminary. (Here’s my book on this period, which touches on these matters.) Harold Lindsell’s Battle for the Bible staked out the conservative position, as did Baptists and the Bible by L. Russ Bush and Tom Nettles and Scripture and Truth by D. A. Carson and John Woodbridge. The most significant short document about this doctrine was the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (see below). The Chicago Statement was produced in 1978 by the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, a group led by statesmen like James Montgomery Boice, Kenneth Kantzer, J. I. Packer.

     Forty years after it debuted, the Chicago Statement offers a potent summation of the historic Christian doctrine of inerrancy. Here is article XII, for example: “WE AFFIRM that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit.” With clarifying affirmations like these, the document leaves no room for a “postmodern” understanding of Scripture by which we would view the Scripture as telling us the truth in a spiritual sense but without concrete grounding in actual history. In other words, while the Chicago Statement leaves room for (and even necessitates) the interpretation of biblical passages according to genre and literary style, the Statement precludes a reading of the Bible that would render some historical accounts fictional. The creation of the world from nothing, the axe head floating on water, the sun standing still, the saints raised from the grave following Christ’s resurrection, the resurrection of Christ itself–all these miraculous biblical events actually happened (Gen. 1; 2 Kings 6; Joshua 10; Matthew 27). These events and many others like them did not “spiritually” occur in a mythological sense; they actually occurred.

The Dumbing Down of Christianity

By Ethan Renoe 12/6/2017

     The other day I was (surprise, surprise) in a coffee shop in the mountains, seated near the counter. A guy in his early 20’s walked in wearing a TOOL shirt and a long ponytail. I could overhear his conversation as he approached the barista and they began chatting. Somehow it came up that she attends a Christian university and he clearly didn’t approve.

     “Do they incorporate religion into all the classes there?” he asked. “Even the science classes? How does that work?”

     She valiantly began explaining how they pray before every class and teach from a Christian worldview, but it soon became evident that she was being crushed in this conversation. He was well schooled in the writings of Dawkins, Hitchens, and Nye and began doling out the punishment.

     I use the word punishment because this poor barista has herself been punished by a church system which, for the past 200 years, has begun discarding intelligence within the church in favor of emotion, conversion experiences, and passion. Ask most American Christians today any question deeper than “Does God love everyone?” and you’re bound to get some sort of response suggesting that that sort of discourse should be reserved for theological universities.

     The other day a friend of mine said that he sees no merit in understanding Calvinism or Arminianism because he just wants to Love God and love people. And it seems that the ball stops there for most Christians today. No need to know any more than that.

The Old Covenant Is Over. The Old Testament Is Authoritative

By Thomas Schreiner 11/01/2018

     Andy Stanley’s claim that we need to unhitch from the Old Testament has created quite a splash, and he defends his view in a new book, Irresistible: Reclaiming the New that Jesus Unleashed for the World. The old covenant has passed away in its entirety, Stanley argues. In a blog post (“Jesus Ended the Old Covenant Once and for All”) he quotes me in support of his view: “Paul argues that the entirety of the law has been set aside now that Christ has come. To say that the ‘moral’ elements of the law continue to be authoritative blunts the truth that the entire Mosaic covenant is no longer in force for believers.” He ends the post by saying that we don’t treat others based on the Ten Commandments but on the law of love, the love Jesus expressed for his disciples (John 13:34–35; 15:12).

     Michael Kruger has written an excellent response to Stanley from the standpoint of covenant theology. I’m in fundamental agreement with Kruger, and we nearly end up in the same place, but I get there a different way and would frame the issue a bit differently as one who subscribes to progressive covenantalism instead of classic covenant theology.

Distinguishing Old Covenant and Old Testament

Distinguishing the Law of Christ and the Law of Moses

Moral Norms and the Character of God

Click here to go to source

     Thomas Schreiner Tom Schreiner is James Buchanan Harrison Professor of New Testament Interpretation and Professor of Biblical Theology at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary where he also serves as Associate Dean of the School of Theology. He is the author or editor of several books and commentaries.

     Books by Thomas R. Schreiner

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

By John Bunyan 1678

THE SIXTH STAGE

Now when they were got almost quite out of this wilderness, Faithful chanced to cast his eye back, and espied one coming after them, and he knew him. Oh! said Faithful to his brother, who comes yonder? Then Christian looked, and said, It is my good friend Evangelist. Aye, and my good friend too, said Faithful, for ’twas he that set me on the way to the gate. Now was Evangelist come up unto them, and thus saluted them.

     EVAN. Peace be with you, dearly beloved, and peace be to your helpers.

     CHR. Welcome, welcome, my good Evangelist: the sight of thy countenance brings to my remembrance thy ancient kindness and unwearied labors for my eternal good.

     FAITH. And a thousand times welcome, said good Faithful, thy company, O sweet Evangelist; how desirable is it to us poor pilgrims!

     EVAN. Then said Evangelist, How hath it fared with you, my friends, since the time of our last parting? What have you met with, and how have you behaved yourselves?

     Then Christian and Faithful told him of all things that had happened to them in the way; and how, and with what difficulty, they had arrived to that place.

     Right glad am I, said Evangelist, not that you have met with trials, but that you have been victors, and for that you have, notwithstanding many weaknesses, continued in the way to this very day

.      I say, right glad am I of this thing, and that for mine own sake and yours: I have sowed, and you have reaped; and the day is coming, when “both he that soweth, and they that reap, shall rejoice together,”

John 4:36 Already the one who reaps is receiving wages and gathering fruit for eternal life, so that sower and reaper may rejoice together.   ESV

that is, if you hold out: “for in due season ye shall reap, if ye faint not.”

Gal. 6:9 And let us not grow weary of doing good, for in due season we will reap, if we do not give up.   ESV

The crown is before you, and it is an incorruptible one; “so run that ye may obtain it.”

1 Cor. 9:24–27 24 Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one receives the prize? So run that you may obtain it. 25 Every athlete exercises self-control in all things. They do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable. 26 So I do not run aimlessly; I do not box as one beating the air. 27 But I discipline my body and keep it under control, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified.   ESV

Some there be that set out for this crown, and after they have gone far for it, another comes in and takes it from them: “hold fast, therefore, that you have; let no man take your crown.”

Rev. 3:11 I am coming soon. Hold fast what you have, so that no one may seize your crown.   ESV

You are not yet out of the gunshot of the devil; “you have not resisted unto blood, striving against sin.” Let the kingdom be always before you, and believe steadfastly concerning the things that are invisible. Let nothing that is on this side the other world get within you. And, above all, look well to your own hearts and to the lusts thereof; for they are “deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked.” Set your faces like a flint; you have all power in heaven and earth on your side.

     CHR. Then Christian thanked him for his exhortations; but told him withal, that they would have him speak farther to them for their help the rest of the way; and the rather, for that they well knew that he was a prophet, and could tell them of things that might happen unto them, and also how they might resist and overcome them. To which request Faithful also consented. So Evangelist began as followeth.

     EVAN. My sons, you have heard in the word of the truth of the Gospel, that you must “through many tribulations enter into the kingdom of heaven;” and again, that “in every city, bonds and afflictions abide you;” and therefore you cannot expect that you should go long on your pilgrimage without them, in some sort or other. You have found something of the truth of these testimonies upon you already, and more will immediately follow: for now, as you see, you are almost out of this wilderness, and therefore you will soon come into a town that you will by and by see before you; and in that town you will be hardly beset with enemies, who will strain hard but they will kill you; and be you sure that one or both of you must seal the testimony which you hold, with blood; but “be you faithful unto death, and the King will give you a crown of life.” He that shall die there, although his death will be unnatural, and his pain, perhaps, great, he will yet have the better of his fellow; not only because he will be arrived at the Celestial City soonest, but because he will escape many miseries that the other will meet with in the rest of his journey. But when you are come to the town, and shall find fulfilled what I have here related, then remember your friend, and quit yourselves like men, and “commit the keeping of your souls to God in well doing, as unto a faithful Creator.”

     Then I saw in my dream, that when they were got out of the wilderness, they presently saw a town before them, and the name of that town is Vanity; and at the town there is a fair kept, called Vanity Fair. It is kept all the year long. It beareth the name of Vanity Fair, because the town where it is kept is lighter than vanity,

Psa. 62:  Those of low estate are but a breath;
those of high estate are a delusion;
in the balances they go up;
they are together lighter than a breath.   ESV

and also because all that is there sold, or that cometh thither, is vanity; as is the saying of the wise, “All that cometh is vanity.”

Eccl. 11:8 So if a person lives many years, let him rejoice in them all; but let him remember that the days of darkness will be many. All that comes is vanity.   ESV

Eccl 1:2–14 2  Vanity of vanities, says the Preacher,
vanity of vanities! All is vanity.
3  What does man gain by all the toil
at which he toils under the sun?
4  A generation goes, and a generation comes,
but the earth remains forever.
5  The sun rises, and the sun goes down,
and hastens to the place where it rises.
6  The wind blows to the south
and goes around to the north;
around and around goes the wind,
and on its circuits the wind returns.
7  All streams run to the sea,
but the sea is not full;
to the place where the streams flow,
there they flow again.
8  All things are full of weariness;
a man cannot utter it;
the eye is not satisfied with seeing,
nor the ear filled with hearing.
9  What has been is what will be,
and what has been done is what will be done,
and there is nothing new under the sun.
10  Is there a thing of which it is said,
“See, this is new”?
It has been already
in the ages before us.
11  There is no remembrance of former things,
nor will there be any remembrance
of later things yet to be
among those who come after.

12 I the Preacher have been king over Israel in Jerusalem. 13 And I applied my heart to seek and to search out by wisdom all that is done under heaven. It is an unhappy business that God has given to the children of man to be busy with. 14 I have seen everything that is done under the sun, and behold, all is vanity and a striving after wind.   ESV

Eccl 2:11–17 11 Then I considered all that my hands had done and the toil I had expended in doing it, and behold, all was vanity and a striving after wind, and there was nothing to be gained under the sun.
12 So I turned to consider wisdom and madness and folly. For what can the man do who comes after the king? Only what has already been done. 13 Then I saw that there is more gain in wisdom than in folly, as there is more gain in light than in darkness. 14 The wise person has his eyes in his head, but the fool walks in darkness. And yet I perceived that the same event happens to all of them. 15 Then I said in my heart, “What happens to the fool will happen to me also. Why then have I been so very wise?” And I said in my heart that this also is vanity. 16 For of the wise as of the fool there is no enduring remembrance, seeing that in the days to come all will have been long forgotten. How the wise dies just like the fool! 17 So I hated life, because what is done under the sun was grievous to me, for all is vanity and a striving after wind.   ESV

Isa. 40:17  All the nations are as nothing before him,
they are accounted by him as less than nothing and emptiness.   ESV

     This fair is no new-erected business but a thing of ancient standing. I will show you the original of it.

     Almost five thousand years ago there were pilgrims walking to the Celestial City, as these two honest persons are: and Beelzebub, Apollyon, and Legion, with their companions, perceiving by the path that the pilgrims made, that their way to the city lay through this town of Vanity, they contrived here to set up a fair; a fair wherein should be sold all sorts of vanity, and that it should last all the year long. Therefore, at this fair are all such merchandise sold as houses, lands, trades, places, honors, preferments, titles, countries, kingdoms, lusts, pleasures; and delights of all sorts, as harlots, wives, husbands, children, masters, servants, lives, blood, bodies, souls, silver, gold, pearls, precious stones, and what not.

     And moreover, at this fair there is at all times to be seen jugglings, cheats, games, plays, fools, apes, knaves, and rogues, and that of every kind. Here are to be seen, too, and that for nothing, thefts, murders, adulteries, false-swearers, and that of a blood-red color.

     And, as in other fairs of less moment, there are the several rows and streets under their proper names, where such and such wares are vended; so here, likewise, you have the proper places, rows, streets, (namely, countries and kingdoms,) where the wares of this fair are soonest to be found. Here is the Britain Row, the French Row, the Italian Row, the Spanish Row, the German Row, where several sorts of vanities are to be sold. But, as in other fairs, some one commodity is as the chief of all the fair; so the ware of Rome and her merchandise is greatly promoted in this fair; only our English nation, with some others, have taken a dislike thereat.

     Now, as I said, the way to the Celestial City lies just through this town, where this lusty fair is kept; and he that will go to the city, and yet not go through this town, “must needs go out of the world.”

1 Cor. 5:10 not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world.   ESV

The Prince of princes himself, when here, went through this town to his own country, and that upon a fair-day too; yea, and, as I think, it was Beelzebub, the chief lord of this fair, that invited him to buy of his vanities, yea, would have made him lord of the fair, would he but have done him reverence as he went through the town. Yea, because he was such a person of honor, Beelzebub had him from street to street, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in a little time, that he might, if possible, allure that blessed One to cheapen and buy some of his vanities; but he had no mind to the merchandise, and therefore left the town, without laying out so much as one farthing upon these vanities.

Matt. 4:8-9 8 Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. 9 And he said to him, “All these I will give you, if you will fall down and worship me.”   ESV

Luke 4:5–7 5 And the devil took him up and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time, 6 and said to him, “To you I will give all this authority and their glory, for it has been delivered to me, and I give it to whom I will. 7 If you, then, will worship me, it will all be yours.”   ESV

This fair, therefore, is an ancient thing, of long standing, and a very great fair.

     Now, these pilgrims, as I said, must needs go through this fair. Well, so they did; but behold, even as they entered into the fair, all the people in the fair were moved; and the town itself, as it were, in a hubbub about them, and that for several reasons: for,

     First, The Pilgrims were clothed with such kind of raiment as was diverse from the raiment of any that traded in that fair. The people, therefore, of the fair made a great gazing upon them: some said they were fools;

1 Cor. 4:9-10 9 For I think that God has exhibited us apostles as last of all, like men sentenced to death, because we have become a spectacle to the world, to angels, and to men. 10 We are fools for Christ’s sake, but you are wise in Christ. We are weak, but you are strong. You are held in honor, but we in disrepute.   ESV

some, they were bedlams; and some, they were outlandish men.

     Secondly, And as they wondered at their apparel, so they did likewise at their speech; for few could understand what they said. They naturally spoke the language of Canaan; but they that kept the fair were the men of this world: so that from one end of the fair to the other, they seemed barbarians each to the other.

1 Cor. 2:7-8 7 But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glory. 8 None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.   ESV

     Thirdly, But that which did not a little amuse the merchandisers was, that these pilgrims set very light by all their wares. They cared not so much as to look upon them; and if they called upon them to buy, they would put their fingers in their ears, and cry, “Turn away mine eyes from beholding vanity,”

Psa. 119:37  Turn my eyes from looking at worthless things;
and give me life in your ways.   ESV

and look upward, signifying that their trade and traffic was in heaven.

Phil. 3:20-21 20 But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, 21 who will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power that enables him even to subject all things to himself.   ESV

     One chanced, mockingly, beholding the carriage of the men, to say unto them, “What will ye buy?” But they, looking gravely upon him, said, “We buy the truth.”

Prov. 23:23  Buy truth, and do not sell it;
buy wisdom, instruction, and understanding.   ESV

At that there was an occasion taken to despise the men the more; some mocking, some taunting, some speaking reproachfully, and some calling upon others to smite them. At last, things came to an hubbub and great stir in the fair, insomuch that all order was confounded. Now was word presently brought to the great one of the fair, who quickly came down, and deputed some of his most trusty friends to take those men into examination about whom the fair was almost overturned. So the men were brought to examination; and they that sat upon them asked them whence they came, whither they went, and what they did there in such an unusual garb. The men told them they were pilgrims and strangers in the world, and that they were going to their own country, which was the heavenly Jerusalem,

Heb. 11:13–16 13 These all died in faith, not having received the things promised, but having seen them and greeted them from afar, and having acknowledged that they were strangers and exiles on the earth. 14 For people who speak thus make it clear that they are seeking a homeland. 15 If they had been thinking of that land from which they had gone out, they would have had opportunity to return. 16 But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared for them a city.   ESV

and that they had given no occasion to the men of the town, nor yet to the merchandisers, thus to abuse them, and to let them in their journey, except it was for that, when one asked them what they would buy, they said they would buy the truth. But they that were appointed to examine them did not believe them to be any other than bedlams and mad, or else such as came to put all things into a confusion in the fair. Therefore they took them and beat them, and besmeared them with dirt, and then put them into the cage, that they might be made a spectacle to all the men of the fair. There, therefore, they lay for some time, and were made the objects of any man’s sport, or malice, or revenge; the great one of the fair laughing still at all that befell them. But the men being patient, and “not rendering railing for railing, but contrariwise blessing,” and giving good words for bad, and kindness for injuries done, some men in the fair, that were more observing and less prejudiced than the rest, began to check and blame the baser sort for their continual abuses done by them to the men. They, therefore, in an angry manner let fly at them again, counting them as bad as the men in the cage, and telling them that they seemed confederates, and should be made partakers of their misfortunes. The others replied that, for aught they could see, the men were quiet and sober, and intended nobody any harm; and that there were many that traded in their fair that were more worthy to be put into the cage, yea, and pillory too, than were the men that they had abused. Thus, after divers words had passed on both sides, (the men behaving themselves all the while very wisely and soberly before them,) they fell to some blows among themselves, and did harm one to another. Then were these two poor men brought before their examiners again, and were charged as being guilty of the late hubbub that had been in the fair. So they beat them pitifully, and hanged irons upon them, and led them in chains up and down the fair, for an example and terror to others, lest any should speak in their behalf, or join themselves unto them. But Christian and Faithful behaved themselves yet more wisely, and received the ignominy and shame that was cast upon them with so much meekness and patience, that it won to their side (though but few in comparison of the rest) several of the men in the fair. This put the other party yet into a greater rage, insomuch that they concluded the death of these two men. Wherefore they threatened that neither cage nor irons should serve their turn, but that they should die for the abuse they had done, and for deluding the men of the fair.

     Then were they remanded to the cage again, until further order should be taken with them. So they put them in, and made their feet fast in the stocks.

     Here, also, they called again to mind what they had heard from their faithful friend Evangelist, and were the more confirmed in their way and sufferings by what he told them would happen to them. They also now comforted each other, that whose lot it was to suffer, even he should have the best of it: therefore each man secretly wished that he might have that preferment. But committing themselves to the all-wise disposal of Him that ruleth all things, with much content they abode in the condition in which they were, until they should be otherwise disposed of.

     Then a convenient time being appointed, they brought them forth to their trial, in order to their condemnation. When the time was come, they were brought before their enemies and arraigned. The judge’s name was Lord Hate-good; their indictment was one and the same in substance, though somewhat varying in form; the contents whereof was this: “That they were enemies to, and disturbers of, the trade; that they had made commotions and divisions in the town, and had won a party to their own most dangerous opinions, in contempt of the law of their prince.”

     Then Faithful began to answer, that he had only set himself against that which had set itself against Him that is higher than the highest. And, said he, as for disturbance, I make none, being myself a man of peace: the parties that were won to us, were won by beholding our truth and innocence, and they are only turned from the worse to the better. And as to the king you talk of, since he is Beelzebub, the enemy of our Lord, I defy him and all his angels.

     Then proclamation was made, that they that had ought to say for their lord the king against the prisoner at the bar, should forthwith appear, and give in their evidence. So there came in three witnesses, to wit, Envy, Superstition, and Pickthank. They were then asked if they knew the prisoner at the bar; and what they had to say for their lord the king against him.

     Then stood forth Envy, and said to this effect: My lord, I have known this man a long time, and will attest upon my oath before this honorable bench, that he is-

     JUDGE. Hold; give him his oath.

     So they sware him. Then he said, My lord, this man, notwithstanding his plausible name, is one of the vilest men in our country; he neither regardeth prince nor people, law nor custom, but doeth all that he can to possess all men with certain of his disloyal notions, which he in the general calls principles of faith and holiness. And in particular, I heard him once myself affirm, that Christianity and the customs of our town of Vanity were diametrically opposite, and could not be reconciled. By which saying, my lord, he doth at once not only condemn all our laudable doings, but us in the doing of them.

     Then did the judge say to him, Hast thou any more to say?

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

The Continual Burnt Offering

By H.A. Ironside - 1941

February 6

“Lord, help me,”—so we pray,
“Help me my work to do;
I am so ignorant and weak;
Make me more wise and true.”

“Lord, help me do Thy work,”
We pray when wiser grown
When on the upward way
Our feet have farther gone.

“Lord, do Thy work through me.”
So when all self we lose;
His doing and His work,
and we The tools His hand can use.

The Institutes of the Christian Religion

Translated by Henry Beveridge

     4. Another distinction between the Old and New Testaments is in the types, the former exhibiting only the image of truth, while the reality was absent, the shadow instead of the substance, the latter exhibiting both the full truth and the entire body. Mention is usually made of this, whenever the New Testament is contrasted with the Old, [235] but it is nowhere so fully treated as in the Epistle to the Hebrews (chap. 7-10). The Apostle is there arguing against those who thought that the observances of the Mosaic Law could not be abolished without producing the total ruin of religion. In order to refute this error, he adverts to what the Psalmist had foretold concerning the priesthood of Christ (Ps. 110:4). seeing that an eternal priesthood is assigned to him, it is clear that the priesthood in which there was a daily succession of priests is abolished. And he proves that the institution of this new Priest must prevail, because confirmed by an oath. He afterwards adds, that a change of the priest necessarily led to a change of the covenant. And the necessity of this he confirms by the reason, that the weakness of the law was such, that it could make nothing perfect. He then goes on to show in what this weakness consists, namely, that it had external carnal observances which could not render the worshipers perfect in respect of conscience, because its sacrifices of beasts could neither take away sins nor procure true holiness. He therefore concludes that it was a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, and accordingly had no other office than to be an introduction to the better hope which is exhibited in the Gospel.

Here we may see in what respect the legal is compared with the evangelical covenant, the ministry of Christ with that of Moses. If the comparison referred to the substance of the promises, there would be a great repugnance between the two covenants; but since the nature of the case leads to a different view, we must follow it in order to discover the truth. Let us, therefore bring forward the covenant which God once ratified as eternal and unending. Its completion, whereby it is fixed and ratified, is Christ. Till such completion takes place, the Lord, by Moses, prescribes ceremonies which are, as it were formal symbols of confirmation. The point brought under discussion was, Whether or not the ceremonies ordained in the Law behaved to give way to Christ. Although these were merely accidents of the covenant, or at least additions and appendages, and, as they are commonly called, accessories, yet because they were the means of administering it, the name of covenant is applied to them, just as is done in the case of other sacraments. [236] Hence, in general, the Old Testament is the name given to the solemn method of confirming the covenant comprehended under ceremonies and sacrifices. Since there is nothing substantial in it, until we look beyond it, the Apostle contends that it behaved to be annulled and become antiquated (Heb. 7:22), to make room for Christ, the surety and mediator of a better covenant, by whom the eternal sanctification of the elect was once purchased, and the transgressions which remained under the Law wiped away. But if you prefer it, take it thus: the covenant of the Lord was old, because veiled by the shadowy and ineffectual observance of ceremonies; and it was therefore temporary, being, as it were in suspense until it received a firm and substantial confirmation. Then only did it become new and eternal when it was consecrated and established in the blood of Christ. Hence the Saviour, in giving the cup to his disciples in the last supper, calls it the cup of the new testament in his blood; intimating, that the covenant of God was truly realised, made new, and eternal, when it was sealed with his blood.

5. It is now clear in what sense the Apostle said (Gal. 3:24; 4:1), that by the tutelage of the Law the Jews were conducted to Christ, before he was exhibited in the flesh. He confesses that they were sons and heirs of God, though, on account of nonage, they were placed under the guardianship of a tutor. It was fit, the Sun of Righteousness not yet having risen, that there should neither be so much light of revelation nor such clear understanding. The Lord dispensed the light of his word, so that they could behold it at a distance, and obscurely. Accordingly, this slender measure of intelligence is designated by Paul by the term childhood, which the Lord was pleased to train by the elements of this world, and external observances, until Christ should appear. Through him the knowledge of believers was to be matured. This distinction was noted by our Saviour himself when he said that the Law and the Prophets were until John, that from that time the gospel of the kingdom was preached (Mt. 11:13). What did the Law and the Prophets deliver to the men of their time? They gave a foretaste of that wisdom which was one day to be clearly manifested, and showed it afar off. But where Christ can be pointed to with the finger, there the kingdom of God is manifested. In him are contained all the treasures of wisdom and understanding, and by these we penetrate almost to the very shrine of heaven.

6. There is nothing contrary to this in the fact, that in the Christian Church scarcely one is to be found who, in excellence of faith, can be compared to Abraham, and that the Prophets were so distinguished by the power of the Spirit, that even in the present day they give light to the whole world. For the question here is, not what grace the Lord conferred upon a few, but what was the ordinary method which he followed in teaching the people, and which even was employed in the case of those very prophets who were endued with special knowledge above others. For their preaching was both obscure as relating to distant objects, and was included in types. Moreover, however wonderful the knowledge displayed in them, as they were under the necessity of submitting to the tutelage common to all the people, they must also be ranked among children. Lastly, none of them ever had such a degree of discernment as not to savour somewhat of the obscurity of the age. Whence the words of our Saviour, "Many kings and prophets have desired to see the things which you see, and have not seen them, and to hear the things which ye hear, and have not heard them. Blessed are your eyes, for they see, and your ears, for they hear," (Mt. 13:17). And it was right that the presence of Christ should have this distinguishing feature, that by means of it the revelation of heavenly mysteries should be made more transparent. To the same effect is the passage which we formerly quoted from the First Epistle of Peter, that to them it was revealed that their labour should be useful not so much to themselves as to our age.

7. I proceed to the third distinction, which is thus expressed by Jeremiah: "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah; not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers, in the day that I took them by the hand, to bring them out of the land of Egypt; (which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord); but this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them," (Jer. 31:31-34). From these words, the Apostle took occasion to institute a comparison between the Law and the Gospel, calling the one a doctrine of the letter, the other a doctrine of the spirit; describing the one as formed on tables of stone, the other on tables of the heart; the one the preaching of death, the other of life; the one of condemnation, the other of justification; the one made void, the other permanent (2 Cor. 3:5, 6). The object of the Apostle being to explain the meaning of the Prophet, the worlds of the one furnish us with the means of ascertaining what was understood by both. And yet there is some difference between them. For the Apostle speaks of the Law more disparagingly than the Prophet. This he does not simply in respect of the Law itself, but because there were some false zealots of the Law who, by a perverse zeal for ceremonies, obscured the clearness of the Gospel, he treats of the nature of the Law with reference to their error and foolish affection. It will, therefore, be proper to attend to this peculiarity in Paul. Both, however, as they are contrasting the Old and New Testament, consider nothing in the Law but what is peculiar to it. For example, the Law everywhere [237] contains promises of mercy; but as these are adventitious to it, they do not enter into the account of the Law as considered only in its own nature. All which is attributed to it is, that it commands what is right, prohibits crimes, holds forth rewards to the cultivators of righteousness, and threatens transgressors with punishment, while at the same time it neither changes nor amends that depravity of heart which is naturally inherent in all.

8. Let us now explain the Apostle's contrast step by step. The Old Testament is literal, because promulgated without the efficacy of the Spirit: the New spiritual, because the Lord has engraven it on the heart. The second antithesis is a kind of exposition of the first. The Old is deadly, because it can do nothing but involve the whole human race in a curse; the New is the instrument of life, because those who are freed from the curse it restores to favour with God. The former is the ministry of condemnation, because it charges the whole sons of Adam with transgression; the latter the ministry of righteousness, because it unfolds the mercy of God, by which we are justified. The last antithesis must be referred to the Ceremonial Law. Being a shadow of things to come, it behaved in time to perish and vanish away; whereas the Gospel, inasmuch as it exhibits the very body, is firmly established for ever. Jeremiah indeed calls the Moral Law also a weak and fragile covenant; but for another reason--namely, because it was immediately broken by the sudden defection of an ungrateful people; but as the blame of such violation is in the people themselves, it is not properly alleged against the covenant. The ceremonies, again, inasmuch as through their very weakness they were dissolved by the advent of Christ, had the cause of weakness from within. Moreover, the difference between the spirit and the letter must not be understood as if the Lord had delivered his Law to the Jews without any good result; i.e. as if none had been converted to him. It is used comparatively to commend the riches of the grace with which the same Lawgivers assuming, as it were a new characters honoured the preaching of the Gospel. When we consider the multitude of those whom, by the preaching of the Gospel, he has regenerated by his, Spirit, and gathered out of all nations into the communion of his Church, we may say that those of ancient Israel who, with sincere and heartfelt affections embraced the covenant of the Lord, were few or none, though the number is great when they are considered in themselves without comparison.

9. Out of the third distinction a fourth arises. In Scripture, the term bondage is applied to the Old Testaments because it begets fear, and the term freedom to the New, because productive of confidence and security. Thus Paul says to the Romans, "Ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption whereby we cry, Abba, Father," (Rom. 8:15). To the same effect is the passage in the Hebrews, "For ye are not come unto the mount that might be touched, and that burned with fire, nor unto blackness, and darkness, and tempest, and the sound of a trumpet, and the voice of words; which voice they that heard entreated that the word should not be spoken to them any more: (for they could not endure that which was commanded, And if so much as a beast touch the mountain, it shall be stoned, or thrust through with a dart: and so terrible was the sight, that Moses said, I exceedingly fear and quake); but ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem," &c. (Heb. 12:18-22). What Paul briefly touches on in the passage which we have quoted from the Romans, he explains more fully in the Epistles to the Galatians, where he makes an allegory of the two sons of Abraham in this way: "Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all," (Gal. 4:25, 26). As the offspring of Agar was born in slavery, and could never attain to the inheritances while that of Sara was free and entitled to the inheritance, so by the Law we are subjected to slavery, and by the Gospel alone regenerated into liberty. The sum of the matter comes to this: The Old Testament filled the conscience with fear and trembling--The New inspires it with gladness. By the former the conscience is held in bondage, by the latter it is manumitted and made free. If it be objected, that the holy fathers among the Israelites, as they were endued with the same spirit of faith, must also have been partakers of the same liberty and joy, we answer, that neither was derived from the Law; but feeling that by the Law they were oppressed like slaves, and vexed with a disquieted conscience, they fled for refuge to the gospel; and, accordingly, the peculiar advantage of the Gospel was, that, contrary to the common rule of the Old Testament, it exempted those who were under it from those evils. Then, again, we deny that they did possess the spirit of liberty and security in such a degree as not to experience some measure of fear and bondage. For however they might enjoy the privilege which they had obtained through the grace of the Gospel, they were under the same bonds and burdens of observances as the rest of their nation. Therefore, seeing they were obliged to the anxious observance of ceremonies (which were the symbols of a tutelage bordering on slavery, and handwritings by which they acknowledged their guilt, but did not escape from it), they are justly said to have been, comparatively, under a covenant of fear and bondage, in respect of that common dispensation under which the Jewish people were then placed.

     Christian Classics Ethereal Library / Public Domain

     Institutes of the Christian Religion