Don’t Retire; We Need You

By Alex Chediak 10/1/2009

     You may have heard that retirement can kill you. Men and women die of boredom, for lack of intellectual challenge, or from the deafening silence that can accompany a spouse’s death. Depressed saving accounts may represent another motivation to stay gainfully employed. Even if times were better, you might simply prefer staying active in your career, maintaining a position of influence that you’ve worked hard to reach.

     It is lawful to seek fruitfulness with one’s skills and talents. Yet there are better reasons than financial stability and longevity for remaining engaged with the world. There is the unique opportunity to reap eternal dividends by investing in younger Christians. “Gray hair is a crown of glory; it is gained in a righteous life” (Prov. 16:31). Years lived to the glory of God produce practical, biblical wisdom and unshakable confidence that God’s nearness is better than a large house and a picket fence, that the awaiting joys of heaven are better than any earthly promotion, and that drawing closer to God amidst painful trials is both tougher and more joy-filled than caving in to spiritual complacency.

     Perhaps you approach your latter years with a measure of regret over grievous sins. God can restore the years eaten by the locusts (Joel 2:25). He can use you to warn others that the pleasures of sin are deceitful — that there is nothing more pleasant than a God-mastered life, from childhood to God-appointed death. Don’t believe the lie that past failures guarantee future fruitlessness. Join with those who petition the Lord, “do not forsake me, until I proclaim your might to another generation, your power to all those to come” (Ps. 71:18).

     Perhaps your children are out of the home or you’re at a place financially where you can afford to work less. As one a generation behind you, looking to your example and guidance, I entreat you: Give yourself structure so that hours aren’t frittered away in passive consumption of television. Fight the cynicism that often accompanies the loss of physical or mental acuity. Make war with the temptation to spend time entirely in a familiar, comfortable circle of same-aged peers. In considering those who come behind you, start with your adult children (or grandchildren) and the younger adults in your church. Invite couples and families over for meals (and yes, they should be inviting you, but often are overwhelmed with transitions or small children). Get to know of their struggles, particularly newly married couples transitioning from their single years into marriage and then child-raising. These are often trying times fraught with unexpected challenges. Many Christians entering marriages today lack role models for parenting, for adjusting to motherhood, or for balancing a new career with family and church. Even those who are blessed to have Christian parents can learn precious lessons from other older Christians; Timothy had a godly lineage, but he needed a Paul (2 Tim. 1:5; 3:15). Your relationships will invariably lend you moral authority if you are intentionally observant and considerate. As they do, offer specific forms of exhortation. Balance advising with simply relating; avoid the twin dangers of relational detachment and micromanagement. Most young adult Christians long for older godly mentors with whom they can enjoy transparent, authentic friendship, so that it is neither unnatural nor embarrassing to call upon them in a time of deep need.

     Not having a Christian father, I remember with fondness the summer just before I was married. I lived in Nevada with an almost-retired couple in their early 60s. They had left behind their entire family in Minnesota — grown children, grandchildren, and twenty-plus years of memories. Spending their sunset years in Nevada due to a work transfer, they invested countless hours in younger Christians at their church and made crucial investments in my life as I considered marriage and my own calling.

     Maybe you’re thinking this makes sense for pastors — after all, this stuff is in their job description. But you don’t have to be a gifted communicator to care deeply for those around you. Pray by name for the younger generations of Christians in your church, and let them know you are doing so. Authentic love is hard to hide, no matter how poorly you think you communicate.

     With regard to your adult children, let your legacy be that of a godly, loving example. But avoid the temptation to display that love in the form of lavish financial assistance, which can either usurp God-assigned responsibility or create unhealthy lifestyle temptations. Maybe your twenty-four year old son has finished college and is comfortable living at home and working odd jobs. Part of Christian love is calling him to embrace manhood, steadily pursuing his gifts into promising employment so that he can eventually support a wife and children. Likewise, be aware that leaving a large inheritance can tempt your children to a worldly, unearned expansion of lifestyle that chokes Christian character and diminishes trust in God.

     The psalmist teaches us that numbering our days is part of gaining a heart of wisdom (Ps. 90:12). You know this truth more deeply than most twenty- and thirty-somethings. We have much to gain from your influence. So whether you remain retired from your career or not, please don’t retire from the next generation: we need you.

• 1     Thriving at College: Make Great Friends, Keep Your Faith, and Get Ready for the Real World!
• 2     Preparing Your Teens for College: Faith, Friends, Finances, and Much More
• 3     Beating the College Debt Trap: Getting a Degree without Going Broke
• 4     With One Voice: Singleness, Dating & Marriage to the Glory of God
• 5     5 Paths to the Love of Your Life: Defining Your Dating Style

Psalms 90-95

By Charles Dyer 2001

PSALM 90

A. Eternality of God (90:1–4)
B. Examination by God (90:5–8)
C. Entreaty of God (90:9–12)
D. Expectation through God (90:13–17)

     In this communal lament Moses extolled the attributes of God (90:2, 14, 16, 17), but he also rehearsed his own sins and those of his people which brought on them God’s severe displeasure. The eternal God, he said, exists in strict contradiction to the mortality of humankind (90:2; see also 90:5–6). Yet He is aware of and concerned about their sins (90:8). Moses therefore pleaded that the chasm between the infinite God and a sinful humanity might be bridged by God’s gentle instruction (90:12) and forgiveness (90:13). Once done, this would bring untold satisfaction to God’s children and would redound to His great glory (90:16).

PSALM 91

A. Speaker One (91:1)
B. Speaker Two (91:2)
C. Speaker One (91:3–8)
D. Speaker Two (91:9a)
E. Speaker One (91:9b–13)
F. Speaker Three: the Lord (91:14–16)

     This wisdom psalm may be seen as two speakers interacting antiphonally with a third speaker, the Lord, providing a fitting resolution. The interchange opens with an assurance of security for those who abide in the Lord (91:1), followed by a response in which the speaker agreed to put his trust in Him (91:2). The first speaker then added many more promises concerning God’s care, especially in the face of danger from hostile forces (91:3–8). The second speaker concurred by addressing the Lord once more as his refuge (91:9a; see 91:2). The first speaker continued to add assurances, this time suggesting that God’s angels are instruments of protection to the righteous (91:11–12). Then the Lord Himself capped the discussion with His own personal affirmation of what the first speaker had said (91:14–16).

PSALM 92

A. Propriety of Worship (92:1–3)
B. Praise for God’s Works (92:4–6)
C. Punishment of the Wicked (92:7–9)
D. p 454 Prosperity of the Righteous (92:10–12)
E. Perpetuity of the Righteous (92:13–15)

     This individual song of thanksgiving was written, according to the title, to accompany the Sabbath celebration. The psalmist noted that worship is a good thing (92:1), if only for the magnificent works that God has done (92:4). The overthrow of the Lord’s enemies is also an occasion for praise (92:9). Most of all, His goodness toward the righteous ought to elicit heartfelt thanksgiving from them (92:12, 15).

PSALM 93

A. The Majesty of the Lord (93:1–2)
B. The Mightiness of the Lord (93:3–5)

     This psalm celebrates the Lord’s kingship, one of several that do the same (Pss. 47, 96–99). He deserves acclaim for the splendor of His person (93:1) and His everlasting existence (93:2). He also reigns because of His transcendent power, an attribute to which all nature bears witness (93:5).

PSALM 94

A. Request to the Lord (94:1–7)
B. Retribution of the Lord (94:8–15)
C. Refuge in the Lord (94:16–23)

     In this communal lament the anonymous psalmist pleaded to God as a Judge and Avenger to bring the wicked to account (94:3). Addressing such sinners, he reminded them of God’s omniscience (94:9), fairness (94:10), and desire to correct them (94:12) so that they might repent and begin to enjoy God’s blessing (94:15). Turning to his own concerns, the poet acknowledged God’s protective grace toward him (94:17). Evil ones had risen up against him, but God had been a fortress in which he had found security (94:22).

PSALM 95

A. Praise of the Lord (95:1–2)
B. Power of the Lord (95:3–7b)
C. Punishment of the Lord (95:7c–11)

     A psalm of exhortation, this one invites the reader to praise God (95:1–2) because of His dominion over all people and things, especially His chosen ones (95:3, 7b). Those who fail to acknowledge His lordship will, like their ancestors in the wilderness, perish and be unable to enter the rest God has prepared for the obedient (95:11; see Num. 14:23, 28–30; Heb. 3:7–11, 15).

Charles Dyer et al., Nelson’s Old Testament Survey: Discover the Background, Theology and Meaning of Every Book in the Old Testament (Nashville, TN: Word, 2001)

Semper Reformanda

By Michael Horton 10/1/2009

     If you’ve been in Protestant circles for very long, whether conservative or liberal, you may have heard the phrase “reformed and always reforming” or sometimes just “always reforming.” I hear it a lot these days, especially from friends who want our Reformed churches to be more open to moving beyond the faith and practice that is confessed in our doctrinal standards. Even in Reformed circles of late, various movements have arisen that challenge these standards. How can confessions and catechisms written in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries guide our doctrine, life, and worship in the twenty-first? Liberal Protestants frequently invoked this phrase to justify their captivity to the spirit of the age, but some conservative Protestants also use it to encourage a broader definition of what it means to be Reformed.

     But where did this phrase come from? Its first appearance was in a 1674 devotional by Jodocus van Lodenstein, who was an important figure in Dutch Reformed pietism — a movement known as the Dutch Second Reformation. According to these writers, the Reformation reformed the doctrine of the church, but the lives and practices of God’s people always need further reformation.

     Van Lodenstein and his colleagues were committed to the teaching of the Reformed confession and catechism; they simply wanted to see that teaching become more thoroughly applied as well as understood. However, here is his whole phrase: “The church is reformed and always [in need of] being reformed according to the Word of God.” The verb is passive: the church is not “always reforming,” but is “always being reformed” by the Spirit of God through the Word. Although the Reformers themselves did not use this slogan, it certainly reflects what they were up to; that is, if one quotes the whole phrase!

     Each clause is crucial. First, the church is Reformed, and this should be written with a capitalized “R.” If it is true that Jesus rose from the dead two millennia ago in Palestine, then it is just as true in our time and place. The ecumenical creeds confess the faith that we all share across a multitude of cultures and eras. Similarly, the Reformed standards (such as the Three Forms of Unity and the Westminster Confession and Catechisms) summarize what Reformed Christians believe to be the clear teaching of God’s Word. Churches will always be changing in significant ways depending on their time and place, but these communal ways of confessing Christ remain faithful summaries of “the faith once and for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3).

     Our forebears who invoked this phrase had in mind the consolidation of catholic and evangelical Christianity embodied in the Reformed confessions and catechisms. There is a reason that this wing of the Reformation called itself “Reformed.” Unlike the Anabaptists, Reformed churches understood themselves as a continuing branch of the catholic church. At the same time, the Reformed wanted to reform everything “according to the Word of God.” Not only our doctrine but our worship and life must be determined by Scripture and not by human whim or creativity.

     Interestingly, it is a mainline Presbyterian theologian, Anna Case-Winters, who brings attention to what she calls “our misused motto.” Winters points out that “in the 16th-century context the impulse it reflected was neither liberal nor conservative, but radical, in the sense of returning to the ‘root.’” This was reflected in the rallying cry, sola Scriptura (by Scripture alone). The Reformation had no interest in “change” as an end in itself. As Calvin argued in his treatise “The Necessity of Reforming the Church,” the Reformers were charged with innovation when in fact it was the medieval church’s innovative distortions of Christian faith and worship that required a recovery of apostolic Christianity. Rome pretended to be “always the same,” but it had accumulated a host of doctrines and practices that were unknown to the ancient church, much less to the New Testament.

     Some people today leave out the “Reformed” part or at least interpret it as “reformed” (little “r”): the church is “always being reformed according to the Word of God.” This means that to be Reformed is simply to be reformed and to be reformed is simply to be biblical. All who base their beliefs on the Bible are therefore “reformed,” regardless of whether their interpretations are consistent with the common confessions of the Reformed churches. However, this runs counter to the original intention of the phrase. Doubtless there are many beliefs and practices that Reformed believers share in common with non-Reformed believers committed to God’s Word. We must always remain open to correction from our brothers and sisters in other churches who have interpreted the Bible differently. Nevertheless, Reformed churches belong to a particular Christian tradition with its own definitions of its faith and practice. We believe that our confessions and catechisms faithfully represent the system of doctrine found in Holy Scripture. We believe that to be Reformed is not only to be biblical; to be biblical is to be Reformed. As important as it is to keep “Reformed” in the phrase, an even more dangerous omission is often found among more liberal Protestants who also leave out the “according to the Word of God” clause. And usually it is “always reforming,” instead of “always being reformed.” In this view, the church is the active party, determining its own doctrine, worship, and discipline in the light of ever-changing cultural contexts. Progressivism becomes an end in itself and the church becomes a mirror of the world.

     Yet those of us in confessional Reformed churches must also beware of forgetting that our doctrinal standards are subordinate to the Word of God. Christ’s church was reformed by God’s Word in the Reformation and post-Reformation era. It was brought back to God’s Word and the fruit of that great work of the Spirit continues to guide us through our confessions and catechisms. And yet the church is not only Reformed; it is always in need of being reformed. Like our personal sanctification, our corporate faithfulness is always flawed. We don’t need to move beyond the gains of the Reformation, but we do need further reformation. But here is where the last clause kicks in: “always being reformed according to the Word of God.”

     It is not because the culture is always changing and we need to be up with the times, but because we are always in need of being re-oriented to the Word that stands over us, individually and collectively, that the church can never stand still. It must always be a listening church. “Faith comes by hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ” (Rom 10:17). Personally and corporately, the church comes into being and is kept alive by hearing the gospel. The church is always on the receiving end of God’s good gifts as well as His correction. The Spirit does not lead us apart from the Word but directs us back to Christ as He is revealed in Scripture. We always need to return to the voice of our Shepherd. The same gospel that creates the church sustains and renews it. Our personal conformity to the Word that Paul commands in Romans 12 is never completed in this life, and the same is true of the church in this present age.

     This perspective keeps us from making tradition infallible but equally from imbibing the radical Protestant obsession with starting from scratch in every generation. When God’s Word is the source of our life, our ultimate loyalty is not to the past as such or to the present and the future, but to “that Word above all earthly pow’rs,” to borrow from Luther’s famous hymn. Neither behind us nor ahead of us, but above us, reigns our sovereign Lord over His body in all times and places. When we invoke the whole phrase — “the church Reformed and always being reformed according to the Word of God” — we confess that we belong to the church and not simply to ourselves and that this church is always created and renewed by the Word of God rather than by the spirit of the age.

Why Is Justification So Important?

By Keith Mathison 11/1/2009

     During the Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth century, there were few things more precious to believers than the recovery of the biblical doctrine of justification by faith alone in Christ alone. Centuries of semi-Pelagian (and Pelagian) growth were dragged into the light and revealed as the deadly poison they were, and despite fierce opposition, the glorious gospel of grace began to be proclaimed again from pulpits across Europe. As the truth spread, resistance increased, and untold numbers of the faithful suffered persecution and even death rather than renounce or compromise this essential biblical doctrine.

     Five hundred years later, how many of us who count ourselves heirs of these courageous men and women truly believe that this is a doctrine worth dying for? How many of us even know what the fundamental elements of the doctrine of justification are? Would we be able to recognize a heretical version of this doctrine if we saw it? Many professing evangelicals in our day, whether expressing it in so many words or not, speak and act as if the Reformers were making a mountain out of a molehill — as if the doctrine of justification is really not that important.

     If the Reformation has floundered in any way, it is largely due to the fact that we have lost sight of the importance of what was restored. It has been said that familiarity breeds contempt. We have heard the words “justification by faith alone” so many times that they have lost their meaning and import. Perhaps the words have become little more than a slogan to us. Perhaps we are able to think and talk about this doctrine (if we think and talk about it at all) without being driven to our knees praising God, in which case we are not really thinking that hard about it at all. Many of us need to go back and relearn the meaning and importance of this precious biblical teaching. A good place to start would be with a classic work by James Buchanan entitled The Doctrine of Justification [Proxy].

     James Buchanan (1804–1870) was both a minister and Reformed theologian. He was ordained in the Church of Scotland in 1827 but joined the Free Church in 1843. He served as a minister in the church until 1845 when he was appointed to teach apologetics at the New College in Edinburgh. In 1847, he was appointed to the chair of systematic theology in the same college and held that position until 1868. Among his works are books on affliction, the Holy Spirit, modern atheism, and apologetics. His most well-known work, however, is his defense of the Reformed doctrine of justification, first published in 1867.

     When Banner of Truth reprinted Buchanan’s book in 1961, it had been for almost one hundred years the only full-scale treatment of the doctrine in English. Thankfully, that situation has changed since 1961, and several full-scale books on the doctrine have been published in English, including R.C. Sproul’s Faith Alone: The Evangelical Doctrine of Justification and J.V. Fesko’s Justification: Understanding the Classic Reformed Doctrine. Although these works deal with more contemporary issues and debates surrounding the doctrine of justification, Buchanan’s book should not be ignored.

     The chapters of Buchanan’s book were originally the Cunningham Lectures for 1866 at New College, Edinburgh. They are not dry as many such lectures can be, however. It is probably because Buchanan had been a preacher that these lectures exhibit his passion for truth rather than a detached abstract approach. Following a short introductory essay and brief biography of the author, the book is divided into two parts. The first seven chapters survey the history of the doctrine of justification. Buchanan traces the doctrine through the Old and New Testaments before looking at its development from the early church to the nineteenth century. Among his most helpful information is his survey in chapter six of the doctrines of various post-Reformation Protestant groups and individuals. Here he looks at the teaching of groups as diverse as the Socinians, Arminians, and Quakers. He also surveys Amyraldianism and neonomianism before jumping into an evaluation of the Marrow Controversy.

     Part Two of the book is Buchanan’s point-by-point exposition of the doctrine of justification. Here, in eight chapters, he explains and defends the Reformed doctrine as set forth in the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms. These chapters are theology in the best sense of the word — biblical, precise, pious, and practical. The biblical doctrine of justification by faith alone is as precious today as it has always been. I urge any who do not understand what the Bible teaches on the subject or why it is so important to read this book.

Per Amazon, Keith A. Mathison (MA, Reformed Theological Seminary; PhD, Whitefield Theological Seminary) is dean of the Ligonier Academy of Biblical and Theological Studies and an associate editor of Tabletalk magazine at Ligonier Ministries. He is editor of When Shall These Things Be: A Reformed Response to Hyper-Preterism and associate editor of The Reformation Study Bible. He lives in Lake Mary, Florida, with his wife and children.

• 1     Postmillennialism: An Eschatology of Hope
• 2     The Shape of Sola Scriptura
• 3     Given for You: Reclaiming Calvin's Doctrine of the Lord's Supper
• 4     From Age to Age: The Unfolding of Biblical Eschatology
• 5     Dispensationalism: Rightly Dividing the People of God?
• 6     A Reformed Approach to Science and Scripture
• 7     Not a Chance: God, Science, and the Revolt against Reason
• 8     When Shall These Things Be?: A Reformed Response to Hyper-Preterism

“Science” vs. Science

By David Robertson 11/1/2009

     The door opened and a middle-aged man appeared. “Hi, I’m from the local church and….” “Don’t waste your time,” he interrupted, “I’ve no time for religion, I believe in science.” “Really? Are you a scientist?” “No.” “Have you studied science?” “No.” “So why do you have faith in science?” Silence.

     The conversation is an all too typical consequence of a modern Western myth that science and religion are polar opposites and that those who have a scientific background and knowledge will de facto avoid faith. In the mid-nineteenth century science was largely dominated by “amateurs,” including many clergymen. After the appearance of Darwin’s The Origin of Species some people (though not Darwin himself) saw an opportunity to use “science” as a weapon against religion. From the days of Thomas Huxley until the modern day atheist “Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse” (Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett and Harris), the myth has been carefully nurtured that Christianity and science are fundamentally opposed. Sadly, some Christians have bought into this myth and have helped foster the perceived science/religion divide. As a result, there are many people who unthinkingly accept this myth and, in a classic case of what Tim Keller would rightly call a “defeater” belief, they do not even consider the gospel. It is a scenario I come across often in pastoral and outreach work; so, how do we deal with it?

     First, at a practical level, I introduce people to the many scientists who are in my congregation. As a city congregation with a substantial student population, we are blessed with many students who study science, and many people whose jobs are science-based. We even have several post-doctoral research scientists who are at the top of their respective fields. If science and religion are opposed, then why are these scientists to be found every Sunday worshiping Jesus? The response that Dawkins and others will give is that they are simply “compartmentalizing.” In other words, they know that their science and faith cannot be reconciled and so they just put them in different compartments. Our atheist friends come to this conclusion, not because they ask or have any evidence for this, but because they have to. They start with the conclusion and try to make the facts fit into their predetermined viewpoint. But as good Calvinists we are not allowed to compartmentalize. We affirm with Kuyper that there is not one inch of the universe of which Christ does not say, “It is mine.” We do all things for the glory of God — including science. And that is why we encourage those believers who have the interest and the abilities to be involved in science as a God-given calling.

     Second, I point people to the history of science and to the impossibility of there being any modern science without theistic and, indeed, Christian presuppositions. The original founders of the Royal Society in London were basically puritans who believed, along with Newton, that there were two books of the revelation of God — creation and the Bible. All modern science is based upon the notion that the universe is ordered and can be studied. This is so often assumed that people forget that the assumption itself is a belief that is founded upon a monotheistic view of the universe. The ancient Greeks believed in many gods operating in a chaotic universe. The Christian believes that God brought order out of the chaos and therefore that that order can be studied. This is the philosophical basis of all modern science, without which it could not exist.

     Then I look at the current state of science. Recent scientific discoveries have once again demonstrated the glory of God in the heavens. Perhaps the greatest example of this is the discovery of the fine-tuning of the universe. The consequences of this are phenomenal — either one believes that we are incredibly “lucky” or that someone designed our designed universe, or, if you are really desperate to avoid God, you invent the “multiverse theory,” which speculates, without any empirical evidence, that the universe is one of billions of universes that just happens to provide the fine-tuning for life.

     Finally, I would point out that it is the philosophy of scientism rather than the practice of science that is the problem. The philosophy of scientism, that only the material exists, is anti-Christian and, ironically, it is also anti-scientific because it is not an empirically provable scientific theory. The Bible is not a scientific textbook and it would be foolish to look for things to prove in the Bible from science (as though the Bible were subject to our current limited understanding). But the presuppositions and teachings of the Bible are, as we would expect them to be, completely compatible with the practice and knowledge of science. As John Lennox from Oxford University points out in his wonderful God's Undertaker: Has Science Buried God?: “Far from science having buried God, not only do the results of science point towards his existence, but the scientific enterprise is validated by his existence. Inevitably, of course, not only those of us who do science, but all of us, have to choose the presupposition with which we start. There are not many options — essentially just two. Either human intelligence ultimately owes its origin to mindless matter; or there is a Creator. It is strange that some people claim that it is their intelligence that leads them to prefer the first to the second.”

• 1     The Dawkins Letters: Revised Edition - Challenging Atheist Myths
• 2     Magnificent Obsession: Why Jesus is Great

Psalm 127

By Don Carson 7/1/2018

     The first verse of Psalm 127 is often quoted today: “Unless the LORD builds the house, its builders labor in vain.” In an age of overpopulation, we less often cite verse 3: “Sons are a heritage from the LORD, children a reward from him.” We may gain some helpful perspective by observing four things.

     First, in Hebrew the Psalm deploys a couple of word plays that are lost in English, and these plays give pointers as to how to read the Psalm. The word house (Ps. 127:1) can refer to a building. By extension, this is then applied to the city in a metaphorical sense (Ps. 127:1b -3). More importantly, house can also refer to a household, built up in this case by the blessing of children (Ps. 127:3-5). Moreover, builders and sons sound very similar in Hebrew.

     Second, this suggests that the unifying theme through the superficially disparate parts of the Psalm is that in every sphere of life only the blessing and provision of God can bring about a successful outcome. At the most mechanical level of building a house, this is true. God gives strength to the workers; he sustains them in life; he restrains himself from sending a catastrophic storm that would tear the structure down; countless surprises may be avoided (unsafe concrete, a quagmire under the topsoil, “accidents” that take out workers, and countless more).

     The same principle is true in the basic defensive operation of watching over a city wall, or defending a nation with a radar system: if God sustains you, your defense will suffice, and if he does not, then no matter how professional and expensive it is, it will prove inadequate. In the home, procreation is a “natural” function, but in a providentially ordered world, children are an inheritance from the Lord. The lesson to be learned is not passivity, but trust and rest, a godly lowering of frenzied labor (Ps. 127:2).

     Third, Psalm 127 stands among the songs of ascent precisely because the pilgrimage up to Jerusalem in observance of the covenantally prescribed feasts provides an excellent occasion to reflect on God’s gracious provision in every area of life (compare also Ps. 128).

     Fourth, alone among the songs of ascent this one is ascribed to Solomon. Sadly, Solomon is a figure whose great wisdom was sometimes not followed in his own life: his own building program, both physical and metaphorical, became foolish (1 Kings 9:10-19), his kingdom a ruin (1 Kings 11:11-13; see the October 8 meditation), and his household — not least his multiplied pagan marriages — a systematic denial of the claims of the living God (1 Kings 11:1-9). How important to ask God for the grace to live up to what we understand!

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 69

29 But I am afflicted and in pain;
let your salvation, O God, set me on high!
30 I will praise the name of God with a song;
I will magnify him with thanksgiving.
31 This will please the LORD more than an ox
or a bull with horns and hoofs.
32 When the humble see it they will be glad;
you who seek God, let your hearts revive.
33 For the LORD hears the needy
and does not despise his own people who are prisoners.

34 Let heaven and earth praise him,
the seas and everything that moves in them.
35 For God will save Zion
and build up the cities of Judah,
and people shall dwell there and possess it;
36 the offspring of his servants shall inherit it,
and those who love his name shall dwell in it.

By John Walvoord

Prophecy In The Pentateuch
Prophecy In The Books Of History
The Beginning Of Prophetic Revelation
First Prophecy of Judgment

      Genesis 2:16–17. When the divine work of creation was completed and Adam was created, God gave him the first command that is in the form of a conditional prophecy. According to verses 16–17, “The LORD God commanded the man, ‘You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.’”

     Genesis 3:1–3. After Eve was created, Satan approached her in the form of a serpent (cf. Rev. 20:2 ). The serpent said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?” (Gen. 3:1 ) The question implies the restriction necessarily deprived her of something that is rightfully hers. In reply, Eve said, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die’” (v. 2 ).

     In her reply, Eve added the restriction that she was not to touch the fruit, and omitted the word surely. The Devil immediately attacked the statement of the certainty of death by denying that Eve would surely die. He found fault with the restriction by affirming that when the fruit was eaten they would be like God and would know good and evil. What he did not say was that  they would know the good without being able to do it, and know the evil without being able to avoid it. 

     Genesis records, “When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it” (v. 6).

     The temptation that Adam and Eve faced followed the pattern described in  1 John 2:16: “For everything in the world — the cravings of sinful man, the lust of his eyes and the boasting of what he has and does — comes not from the Father but from the world.” The temptation that Eve faced was her belief that the fruit was good and appealed to actual desires of man described in  1 John as “the cravings of sinful man.” That it was “pleasing to the eye” corresponds to “the lust of his eyes.” That it was “desirable for gaining wisdom” appealed to pride, which relates to “the boasting of what he has and does.”

     In approaching Christ in His temptation, Satan tempted Christ along these same lines: appeal to the desires of the natural man, appeal to hunger, and appeal to pride in tempting Christ to cast Himself down from the temple as the Son of God. In the revelation of the glory of the kingdoms of the world, Satan appealed to the desire of the eyes for beauty ( Matt. 4:1–11; Mark 1:12–13; Luke 4:1–13 ). The same avenues of temptation are illustrated in Saul, who was tempted by pride ( 1 Sam. 13:1–14 ); David, who was tempted by the desires of the human nature ( 2 Sam. 11:2–27 ); and Solomon, who was tempted by the desire for beautiful things ( 1 Kings 10:14–29; 2 Chron. 9:13–28 ).

Judgment and Promise of Salvation

     Genesis 3:14–24. This first prophecy was fulfilled by the spiritual death of Adam and Eve and their ultimate physical death (vv.  7–24; 5:5 ). In fulfilling the prophecy of death, God added other prophecies, including the curse on the serpent ( 3:14–15 ). God prophesied that Eve would give birth to children in pain and that her husband would rule over her. To Adam, God predicted that the ground would be cursed and he would have difficulty raising the food necessary for his continued existence.

     In the midst of these promises, which enlarged the judgment that had come on mankind because of the entrance of sin, a plan for redemption was also revealed.

     In pronouncing the curse on the Devil and the serpent, it was prophesied that there would always be enmity between the serpent and the descendants of the woman (v.  15 ). Referring to one of the woman’s descendants (Christ), God said, “He will crush your head.” In regard to the judgment on Satan, made sure by the cross of Christ, the prophecy was further enlarged, “You will strike his heel” (v.  15 ). This referred to the fact that Christ would die, but unlike the effect on Satan, His death would be conquered by resurrection. This was fulfilled in Christ’s death and resurrection ( Rom. 3:24–25 ).

Importance of the First Two Major Prophecies of Scripture

     In subsequent prophecies, both the judgment of sin and the promise of salvation can be traced throughout Scripture. The importance of these prophecies can be seen in the context of the early chapters of  Genesis.

     The divine plan for man is stated in detail in  Genesis 1:26–27: “Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.’ So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

     “God blessed them and said to them, ‘Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground’” (v.  28 ). The fulfillment of this was hindered by the fact that sin had entered the human race. The ultimate fulfillment, of course, will be by Christ as “the last Adam” ( 1 Cor. 15:45 ), who will rule the earth in the millennial kingdom ( Ps. 72:8–11 ).

     The fulfillment of these first prophecies of Scripture provides the first insight into the normal rule of interpreting prophecy, that is, to interpret prophecy literally. When Adam and Eve sinned, they literally died spiritually and later physically. The prophecies of cursing on the serpent and Satan, the prophecies of Eve’s suffering pain in childbirth and being subject to her husband, and the prophecies to Adam of raising food with great toil have all been subject to literal fulfillment (vv.  14–19 ).

Prophecy Concerning Cain And Abel

     The Birth of Cain and Abel.  Genesis 4:1–15. In keeping with the prophecy that Eve would bear children, Cain and Abel were born (vv.  1–2 ). When they were grown, “Abel kept flocks, and Cain worked the soil” (v.  2 ). Cain brought an offering to the Lord of the fruits of the soil (v.  3 ), but “Abel brought fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock” (v.  4 ).

     God rejected the offering of Cain and accepted the offering of Abel (v.  5 ). Though Scripture does not indicate the reason for this, Scripture emphasizes that a bloody sacrifice is necessary for the forgiveness of sins ( Heb. 9:22 ). It may also be that Cain did not bring his offering in the proper spirit. God may have given instruction concerning offerings that Cain had ignored.

     The Curse on Cain. Because God rejected his offering, Cain attacked Abel and murdered him ( Gen. 4:8 ). As a result, God prophesied a curse on him, stating, “When you work the ground, it will no longer yield its crops for you. You will be a restless wanderer on the earth” (v.  12 ). This prophecy was fulfilled when Cain left his home in Eden and established a civilization to the east (v.  16 ).

          __________________________________________________________________

Every Prophecy of the Bible: Clear Explanations for Uncertain Times

The Continual Burnt Offering (Mark 7:27)

By H.A. Ironside - 1941

July 1

Now in the fulness of His grace,
God puts me in the children’s place,
Where I may gaze upon His face,
O Lamb of God, in Thee!

Not half His love can I express,
Yet, Lord, with joy my lips confess,
This blessed portion I possess,
O Lamb of God, in Thee!

Thy precious name it is I bear,
In Thee I am to God brought near,
And all the Father’s love I share,
O Lamb of God, in Thee!
--- Jane Deck Walker

Psalm 90: An Exposition

By Dr. Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum

By way of introduction, it should be noted that the superscription beneath the psalm number introducing Psalm 90 reads: A Prayer of Moses the man of God.

A. The Uniqueness of the Psalm

Psalm 90 is a very unique psalm. For example, no statement in this psalm is taken from any other psalm. As a study of the Book of Psalms will show, the psalms repeat themselves; certain thoughts found in one psalm are found, almost word-for-word, in other psalms.

Furthermore, it has no affinity with any of the other psalms, meaning that it does not cover any similar circumstances.

It does have, however, similarity and affinity with one chapter that Moses wrote elsewhere: Deuteronomy 33, another poetic song. If you compare Deuteronomy 33 with Psalm 90, you will find several elements of comparison, similarity, and affinity. For example, Deuteronomy 33:1 begins with the phrase: Moses the man of God. This is the same as the beginning of the superscription here in Psalm 90.

Moses is the author of this one psalm as well as the five books of Moses. Because he is the writer of this psalm, we know that this is the oldest of the one hundred fifty psalms. The others were written by men who lived much later than Moses.

B. The Timing and Historical Background

As the context shows, Moses wrote this psalm at the end of the forty years of Wilderness Wanderings. By the time, he wrote this psalm, the Exodus Generation had passed away; the judgment of the sin at Kadesh Barnea had run its course; and the Wilderness Generation is soon to enter the Land. So this psalm is written from the background of the sin of Kadesh Barnea.

“What was the sin at Kadesh Barnea?”

Book of Numbers. In chapters 13-14 of that book, the Jewish people had finally arrived at the oasis of Kadesh Barnea, which was right on the border of the Promised Land. In other words, once they walked past Kadesh, they would be in the Promised Land. From that spot, Moses sent twelve men to spy out the land. When they came back forty days later, they all agreed on one issue: the Land was everything that God said it was; it was a land which flows with milk and honey. Then, there was a crucial point of disagreement: ten of the spies said the inhabitants of the Land were so numerically and militarily strong that under no circumstances could they possibly capture the Land. Only two spies, Joshua and Caleb, told the people that they believed God was with His people, and thus would enable them to take the Land. In Numbers 13:30, they said: We are well able to overcome it.

As so many often do today, the people assumed that the majority had to be right. There was a massive rebellion against the authority of Moses and Aaron, with the two men almost losing their lives in a mob scene until God intervened and saved them. At that point, God pronounced a special judgment on the Exodus Generation. The judgment was that all those who came out of Egypt would have to continue wandering in the wilderness until a forty year period was completed, forty years for the forty days the spies were in the Land.

During those forty years, everyone who came out of Egypt would die, except for Joshua and Caleb, the two good spies, and those under the age of twenty. So, the Exodus Generation lost the privilege of entering the Land of Israel. It would be the next generation, the Wilderness Generation, that was allowed to enter the Land under Joshua.

The Exodus Generation, then, was under a sentence of physical death in the wilderness, meaning they would die outside the Land. Based upon the population numbers given in the Book of Numbers, this means that Moses saw the death of about 1,200,000 people in a period of thirty-eight years. This would be the entire adult population that left Egypt, from the age of twenty upward. The wilderness, which was intended to be simply a place of passing through to a new land, had become a huge cemetery.

“What does it mean to have 1,200,000 people die in a period of thirty-eight years?” It means that 31,580 people died per year. More specifically, it means that eighty-seven people died every single day, eighty-seven funerals per day, all because of the sin at Kadesh Barnea.

Having witnessed this tremendous death toll, Moses reflects and writes Psalm 90. In order to understand Psalm 90, this background must be understood: that Moses wrote it at the end of the forty years of Wilderness Wanderings and at the end of seeing an entire generation die away in the wilderness, including members of his own family, Aaron and Miriam among them.

The Institutes of the Christian Religion

Translated by Henry Beveridge

     17. Then, again, when they ask us what faith for several years followed our baptism, that they may thereby prove that our baptism was in vain, since it is not sanctified unless the word of the promise is received with faith, our answer is, that being blind and unbelieving, we for a long time did not hold the promise which was given us in baptism, but that still the promise, as it was of God, always remained fixed, and firm, and true. Although all men should be false and perfidious, yet God ceases not to be true (Rom. 3:3, 4); though all were lost, Christ remains safe. We acknowledge, therefore, that at that time baptism profited us nothing, since in us the offered promise, without which baptism is nothing, lay neglected. Now, when by the grace of God we begin to repent, we accuse our blindness and hardness of heart in having been so long ungrateful for his great goodness. But we do not believe that the promise itself has vanished, we rather reflect thus: God in baptism promises the remission of sins, and will undoubtedly perform what he has promised to all believers. That promise was offered to us in baptism, let us therefore embrace it in faith. In regard to us, indeed, it was long buried on account of unbelief; now, therefore, let us with faith receive it. Wherefore, when the Lord invites the Jewish people to repentance, he gives no injunction concerning another circumcision, though (as we have said) they were circumcised by a wicked and sacrilegious hand, and had long lived in the same impiety. All he urges is conversion of heart. For how much soever the covenant might have been violated by them, the symbol of the covenant always remained, according to the appointment of the Lord, firm and inviolable. Solely, therefore, on the condition of repentance, were they restored to the covenant which God had once made with them in circumcision, though this which they had received at the hand of a covenant-breaking priest, they had themselves as much as in them lay polluted and extinguished.

18. But they seem to think the weapon which they brandish irresistible, when they allege that Paul rebaptised those who had been baptised with the baptism of John (Acts 19:3, 5). For if, by our confession, the baptism of John was the same as ours, then, in like manner as those who had been improperly trained, when they learned the true faith, were rebaptised into it, ought that baptism which was without true doctrine to be accounted as nothing, and hence we ought to be baptised anew into the true religion with which we are now, for the first time, imbued? It seems to some that it was a foolish imitator of John, who, by a former baptism, had initiated them into vain superstition. This, it is thought, may be conjectured from the fact, that they acknowledge their entire ignorance of the Holy Spirit, an ignorance in which John never would have left his disciples. But it is not probable that the Jews, even though they had not been baptised at all, would have been destitute of all knowledge of the Spirit, who is celebrated in so many passages of Scripture. Their answer, therefore, that they knew not whether there was a Spirit, must be understood as if they had said, that they had not yet heard whether or not the gifts of the Spirit, as to which Paul questioned them, were given to the disciples of Christ. I grant that John's was a true baptism, and one and the same with the baptism of Christ. But I deny that they were rebaptised (see Calv. Instruct. adv. Anabapt.). What then is meant by the words, "They were baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus"? Some interpret that they were only instructed in sound doctrine by Paul; but I would rather interpret more simply, that the baptism of the Holy Spirit, in other words, the visible gifts of the Holy Spirit, were given by the laying on of hands. These are sometimes designated under the name of baptism. Thus, on the day of Pentecost, the apostles are said to have remembered the words of the Lord concerning the baptism of the Spirit and of fire. And Peter relates that the same words occurred to him when he saw these gifts poured out on Cornelius and his family and kindred. There is nothing repugnant to this interpretation in its being afterwards added, "When Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them" (Acts 19:6). For Luke does not narrate two different things, but follows the form of narrative common to the Hebrews, who first give the substance, and then explain more fully. This any one may perceive from the mere context. For he says, "When they heard this they were baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them." In this last sentence is described what the nature of the baptism was. But if ignorance vitiates a former, and requires to be corrected by a second baptism, the apostles should first of all have been rebaptised, since for more than three full years after their baptism they had scarcely received any slender portion of purer doctrine. Then so numerous being the acts of ignorance which by the mercy of God are daily corrected in us, what rivers would suffice for so many repeated baptisms?

19. The force, dignity, utility, and end of the sacrament must now, if I mistake not, be sufficiently clear. In regard to the external symbol, I wish the genuine institution of Christ had been maintained as fit to repress the audacity of men. As if to be baptised with water, according to the precept of Christ, had been a contemptible thing, a benedicion, or rather incantation, was devised to pollute the true consecration of water. There was afterwards added the taper and chrism, while exorcism [623] was thought to open the door for baptism. Though I am not unaware how ancient the origin of this adventitious farrago is, still it is lawful for me and all the godly to reject whatever men have presumed to add to the institution of Christ. When Satan saw that by the foolish credulity of the world his impostures were received almost without objection at the commencement of the gospel, he proceeded to grosser mockery: hence spittle and other follies, to the open disgrace of baptism, were introduced with unbridled licence. [624] From our experience of them, let us learn that there is nothing holier, or better, or safer, than to be contented with the authority of Christ alone. How much better, therefore, is it to lay aside all theatrical pomp, which dazzles the eyes of the simple, and dulls their minds, and when any one is to be baptised to bring him forward and present him to God, the whole Church looking on as witnesses, and praying over him; to recite the Confession of Faith, in which the catechumen has been instructed, explain the promises which are given in baptism, then baptise in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and conclude with prayer and thanksgiving. In this way, nothing which is appropriate would be omitted, and the one ceremony, which proceeded from its divine Author, would shine forth most brightly, not being buried or polluted by extraneous observances. Whether the person baptised is to be wholly immersed, and that whether once or thrice, or whether he is only to be sprinkled with water, is not of the least consequence: churches should be at liberty to adopt either, according to the diversity of climates, although it is evident that the term baptise means to immerse, and that this was the form used by the primitive Church. [625] [626]

20. It is here also pertinent to observe, that it is improper for private individuals to take upon themselves the administration of baptism; for it, as well as the dispensation of the Supper, is part of the ministerial office. For Christ did not give command to any men or women whatever to baptise, but to those whom he had appointed apostles. And when, in the administration of the Supper, he ordered his disciples to do what they had seen him do (he having done the part of a legitimate dispenser), he doubtless meant that in this they should imitate his example. The practice which has been in use for many ages, and even almost from the very commencement of the Church, for laics to baptise, in danger of death, when a minister could not be present in time, cannot, it appears to me, be defended on sufficient grounds. Even the early Christians who observed or tolerated this practice were not clear whether it were rightly done. This doubt is expressed by Augustine when he says, "Although a laic have given baptism when compelled by necessity, I know not whether any one can piously say that it ought to be repeated. For if it is done without any necessity compelling it, it is usurpation of another's office; but if necessity urges, it is either no fault, or a venial one" (August. Cont. Epist. Parmen. Lib. 2 c. 13). With regard to women, it was decreed, without exception, in the Council of Carthage (cap. 100), that they were not to presume to baptise at all. But there is a danger that he who is sick may be deprived of the gift of regeneration if he decease without baptism! By no means. Our children, before they are born, God declares that he adopts for his own when he promises that he will be a God to us, and to our seed after us. In this promise their salvation is included. None will dare to offer such an insult to God as to deny that he is able to give effect to his promise. How much evil has been caused by the dogma, ill expounded, that baptism is necessary to salvation, few perceive, and therefore think caution the less necessary. For when the opinion prevails that all are lost who happen not to be dipped in water, our condition becomes worse than that of God's ancient people, as if his grace were more restrained than under the Law. In that case, Christ will be thought to have come not to fulfil, but to abolish the promises, since the promise, which was then effectual in itself to confer salvation before the eighth day, would not now be effectual without the help of a sign.

     Christian Classics Ethereal Library / Public Domain

     Institutes of the Christian Religion