Don’t Look Back

By R.C. Sproul Jr. 1/1/2004

     Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. I’ll admit I got taken in the first time. As a grade school child my conception of cool included too tight silk shirts and blue jeans with more flair than Liberace. I even had my own polyester jumpsuit. I looked like a cross between Howdy Doody and Elvis, in his latter years. The current fashion craze of recreating the nightmare of the seventies hasn’t filled my heart with a warm dose of nostalgia. Instead it makes me embarrassed for what I used to wear. I’ve learned my lesson well. I won’t get fooled again.

     It reminds me, however, of the power of nostalgia, even its most affected and insincere manifestations. Postmodernism, because it is parasitic and destructive, cannot build a culture. It can only reconstitute old ones. Because it is cynical and knowing, it goes out of its way to reconstitute that which is garish, immature, and kitschy. We dress like goofballs to demonstrate our knowing superiority over the narrative that is clothing. Because it denies that nothing lasts, it demands that everything be new. The danger is the speed at which our cultural spin-masters are spinning the old cultures. It won’t be long before we are encouraged to practice a faux nostalgia for last week.

     Real nostalgia, true longing for days gone by is fed by a different kind of folly. It seems that hindsight can only be had through rose-colored glasses. And they never go out of style. We want things not as they used to be, but as we remember that they used to be. Which is why the author of Hebrews went to such trouble, argued with such passion, warned with such fervor in his epistle. Nostalgia can do worse things than make you dress funny.

     Living in a comparatively free country, one where pluralism rules the day, it is difficult to understand what it would have taken for a first-century Jew to embrace the claims of Jesus Christ. More than likely, such would destroy a whole host of family relationships. Friendships would be sundered as well. Those, like Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea, indeed, like the apostle Paul, who once were honored and respected men of the community, would now become social pariahs, unable to get a place at the table. And a swift and painful death by martyrdom, with each passing day, became more and more likely.

     Like their forefathers before them, we can have sympathy when some begin to talk about how they once had leeks and garlic back in Egypt, that though they were slaves, their pots were filled. Present suffering deepens the rosy hue as we look back at past suffering. And so many believing Hebrews struggled mightily with fits of nostalgia. Many were sorely tempted to throw off the dead-weight of this Jesus, that happy days might be here again. Cast off that cross, they reasoned, and they could stand upright in the halls of men again. Many, in short, were tempted to neglect so great a salvation.

     Ironically, one could argue that their problem wasn’t that they were looking backward. The old saying, “you can’t go back again,” wouldn’t help. One might say their failure was that they weren’t looking far enough back. A love of the past may be a good thing, as long as what we love is a good thing. They were called not to look back to their recent Judaism. Neither were they to look longingly at the apex of their nation, to the days of David and Samuel. They should not look back to Egypt, nor even to the days of the great patriarchs. Rather, they should have longed to get back to the garden.

     The right thing to long for is a world without sin. Our hearts should ache to be once again at peace with God, to walk with Him in the cool of the evening, to see the lion lay down with the lamb. This is godly nostalgia, as long as it moves us to godly obedience. While we ought to long for such things, we ought not to do so forlornly, knowing that you can’t go back again. Rather we do so joyfully, knowing that we, with every forward step, move back to the garden. That is, the path to the garden is through the consummation of the kingdom of Jesus Christ. To go home again, we must seek first the kingdom of God.

     These things, however, are written for us as well. While our status as outcasts and victims in our own culture cannot compare with the Hebrews in the first century, we are headed in that direction. Like Augustine before us, we are called to witness the destruction of the culture around us. And, like the Hebrews, we are tempted toward nostalgia. We long for those halcyon days of the 1950’s, when the Hayes Office kept our movies clean, and the daily news wasn’t filled with liberal prelates gayly shouting the “love” that once didn’t dare speak it’s name. And like the Hebrews, we are looking in the wrong place.

     As Christians, our longing is not that we might have a cleaner pop culture. The church does not place its hope in military/industrial/cultural American hegemony across the globe. Rather, we long for the day when every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. The church longs for the day when we will be dressed not in the gaudiness and flash of a decadent culture, but will be dressed in the radiant robe provided by our Husband and Lord.

Spiritual Illumination

A.W. Pink from The Seven Sayings of the Savior on the Cross

     The thief’s "repentance toward God" was accompanied with "faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ". In contemplating his faith we may notice first that it was an intelligent head faith. In the earlier paragraphs of this chapter we have called attention to the sovereignty of God and his irresistible and. victorious grace which were exhibited in the conversion of this thief. Now we turn to another side of the truth, equally necessary to press, a side which is not contradictory to what we have said previously, but rather, complementary and supplementary. Scripture does NOT teach that if God has elected a certain soul to be saved that that person will be saved whether they believe or not. That is a false conclusion drawn by those who reject the truth. No, scripture teaches that the same God who predestined the end also predestined the means. The God who decreed the salvation of the dying thief fulfilled his decree by giving him a faith with which to believe. This is the plain teaching of 2 Thessalonians 2:13 (and other scriptures): "God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth".

     This is just what we see here in connection with this robber. He "believed the truth." His faith took hold of the word of God. Over the cross was the superscription, "This is Jesus the King of the Jews". Pilate had placed it there in derision. But it was the truth nevertheless, and after he had written it, God would not allow him to alter it. The board bearing this superscription had been carried in front of Christ through the streets of Jerusalem and out to the place of crucifixion, and the thief had read it, and divine grace and power had opened the eyes of his understanding to see it was the truth. His faith grasped the kingship of Christ, hence his mention of "when thou comest into thy kingdom". Faith always rests on the written word of God.

     Before a man will believe that Jesus is the Christ he must have the testimony before him that he is the Christ. Distinction is often made between head faith and heart faith, and properly so, for the distinction is real, and vital. Sometimes head faith is decried as valueless, but this is foolish. There must be head faith before there can be heart faith. We must believe intellectually before we can believe savingly in the Lord Jesus. Proof of this is seen in connection with the heathen: they have no head faith and therefore they have no heart faith. We readily grant that head faith will not save unless it be accompanied by heart faith, but we insist that there is no heart faith unless there has first been head faith. How can they believe in him of whom they have not heard? True, one may believe about him without believing in him, but one cannot believe in him without first believing about him. So it was with the dying thief. In all probability he had never seen Christ before this day of his death, but he had seen the written superscription testifying to his kingship and the Holy Spirit used this as the basis of his faith. We say then that his was an intelligent faith: first, an intellectual faith, the believing the written testimony submitted to him; second, a heart faith, the resting in confidence on Christ himself as the Saviour of sinners.

     Yes, this dying robber exercised a heart faith which rested savingly on Christ. We shall try to be very simple here. A man may have head faith in the Lord Jesus and be lost. A man may believe about the historic Christ and be no better for it, just as he is no better for believing about the historic Napoleon. Reader, you may believe all about the Saviour - his perfect life, his sacrificial death, his victorious resurrection, his glorious ascension, his promised return - but you must do more than this. Gospel faith is a confiding faith. Saving faith is more than a correct opinion or a train of reasoning. Saving faith transcends all reason. Look at this dying thief! Was it reasonable that Christ should notice him? A crucified robber, a self-confessed criminal, one who a few minutes ago had been reviling him! Was it reasonable that the Saviour should take any notice of him? Was it reasonable to expect that he should be transported from the very brink of the pit into Paradise? Ah, my reader, the head reasons, but the heart does not. And this man’s petition came from his heart. He had not the use of his hands and feet (and they are not needed for salvation: they rather impede) but he had the use of his heart and tongue. They were free to believe and confess - "For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation" (Rom. 10:10).

     We may also notice his was a humble faith. He prayed with becoming modesty. It was not "Lord, honour me", or "Lord, exalt me", but Lord, if thou wilt but think of me! If thou wilt only look on me - "Lord, remember me". And yet that word "remember" was wonderfully full and appropriate. He might have said, Pardon me, Save me, Bless me; but "remember" included them all. An interest in Christ’s heart will include an interest in all his benefits! Moreover this word was well suited to the condition of the one who uttered it. He was an outcast from society - who would remember him! The public would think no more of him. His friends would be glad to forget him as having disgraced his family. But there is one with whom he ventures to lodge this petition - "Lord, remember me".

     Finally, we may notice that his was a courageous faith. Perhaps this is not apparent at first sight, but a little consideration will make it plain. He who hung on the central cross was the one on whom all eyes were turned and toward whom all the vile mockery of a vulgar mob was directed. Every faction of that crowd joined in jeering at the Saviour. Matthew tells us that "they that passed by reviled him", that "likewise also the chief priests mocked, with the elders and scribes". While Luke informs us "the soldiers also mocked him" (23:36). It is therefore easy to understand why the thieves should also take up the taunting cry. No doubt the priests and scribes smiled benignly upon them as they did so. But suddenly there was a change. The repenting thief instead of continuing to sneer and jibe at Christ, turns to his companion and openly rebukes him in the hearing of the spectators gathered around the crosses, crying, "This man hath done nothing amiss." Thus he condemned the whole Jewish nation! But more; not only does he bear testimony to Christ’s innocency, but he also confessed his kingship. And thus by a single stroke he cuts himself off from the favour of his companion and of the crowd as well! We talk today of the courage which is needed to openly witness for Christ, but such courage in these days pales into utter insignificance before the courage displayed that day by the dying thief.

The Seven Sayings of the Savior on the Cross

By Gleason Archer Jr.

Judges

     The Hebrew title for this book is Shôpheṭɩ̂m, meaning “judges” or “executive leaders.” The Septuagint title Kritai means the same thing,  Judges. This title is derived from the type of government or leadership which dominated the Israelite tribes in the interval between the death of Joshua and the coronation of King Saul. The basic theme of the book is Israel’s failure as a theocracy to keep true to the covenant even under the leadership of men chosen of God to deliver them from oppression by the pagan world. The frequent and repeated failures of the twelve tribes to remain true to God and His holy law prepared the way for the institution of a central monarchy.

        Outline of  Judges

    I. Partial conquest of Canaan by Israel,  1:1–2:5

    II. Reasons for survival of Canaanite remnants,  2:6–3:6

    III. Oppression under Cushan-Rishathaim, deliverance by Othniel,  3:7–11

    IV. Oppression under Eglon of Moab, deliverance by Ehud,  3:12–30

    V. Exploits of Shamgar,  3:31

    VI. Oppression under Jabin of Hazor, deliverance by Deborah and Barak,  4:1–24

    VII. Song of Deborah,  5:1–31

    VIII. Oppression under Midian, deliverance by Gideon,  6:1–8:35

    IX. Career of the tyrant Abimelech,  9:1–57

    X. Judgeships of Tola and Jair,  10:1–5

    XI. Oppression under Ammonites, deliverance by Jephthah,  10:6–12:7

    XII. Judgeships of Ibzan, Elon, and Abdon,  12:8–15

    XIII. Oppression under Philistines, the exploits of Samson,  13:1–16:31

    XIV. Micah’s priest and the Danite migration,  17:1–18:31

    XV. Atrocity at Gibeah and the Benjamite war, 19:12–21:25

 Judges: Date of Composition

     Internal evidences point to some period in the early monarchy, but prior to David’s capture of Jerusalem (ca. 990 B.C.). The expression occurring in  18:1 and  19:1, “There was at that time no king in Israel,” seems to imply composition during the early period of the monarchy, before the unhappy age of the divided kingdom when once again troubles and disasters came to afflict the nation. The greatest likelihood is that the book was completed early in the reign of David; but  Judg. 1:21, “The Jebusites dwell with the children of Benjamin in Jerusalem unto this day,” is most reasonably construed to refer to the period prior to David’s capture of Jerusalem and his appointment of it to be the capital of the Hebrew kingdom.  Judg. 1:29 states that the Canaanites were still dwelling in Gezer rather than submitting to Israelite sovereignty. This certainly points to a time before the king of Egypt captured the city of Gezer and bestowed it on Solomon as a dowry for his daughter (ca. 970 B.C.). Some portions of the book maintain a viewpoint antedating the time of David, for  3:3 refers to Sidon as the chief city in Phoenicia rather than Tyre (which began to overshadow Sidon soon after the twelfth century B.C.).

     One apparent difficulty with an early date of composition is furnished by  Judg. 18:30: “And Jonathan, the son of Gershom … he and his sons were priests to the tribe of Dan until the day of the captivity of the land.” If this refers to the Assyrian conquest of 732 when Tiglath-pileser III took over the northern territory of the kingdom of Samaria, this verse at least would seem to come from the late eighth century if not later.

     Unger (IGOT, p. 292) suggests that this verse might possibly have been inserted by a later editor — a rather questionable proposition. Young and Steinmueller have raised the question as to whether the word for “land” (ʾereṣ) was original, and inclined to the view that it should be amended to “ark” (ʾārōn), which would involve simply the change of one consonant (final nūn instead of final tsadhe). The amended phrase “the captivity of the ark” would then refer to the disaster which befell the Israelites at the battle of Shiloh in the year that Eli died. Yet it is not easy to see how this would have much relevance to what happened at the northern tip of Israelite territory in the tribe of Dan. Nevertheless Moeller (GATE, p. 150) has pointed out the close relationship between  Judg. 18:30 and  1 Sam. 4:21 (The glory is departed from Israel: because the ark of God was taken). In both verses the same verb gālâ (“go into captivity”) is used, the verbal form appearing in  Samuel and the noun form in  Judges. Moreover, a close connection is made in  Judg. 18:31 between the institution of the idolatrous worship in Dan and the existence of the legitimate worship of Jehovah in Shiloh. In the light of these data, the substitution of “ark” for “land” may perhaps be justified.

     But a third and simpler suggestion would be that “the captivity of the land” might refer to a crushing military defeat and deportation at the hand of Dan which took place some time in the latter period of the judges in the course of bloody border warfare. Standing at the northern flank as it did, the inhabitants of the city of Dan might well have been overwhelmed by foreign invaders just as suddenly as they themselves captured the site from its former inhabitants (cf.  Judg. 18:27–28 ). Thus construed,  Judg. 18:30 refers simply to the land of Dan, and does not necessarily indicate any later time of composition than the reign of David.

Authorship and Unity of Composition of  Judges

     While the approximate time of composition may be deduced from the information furnished above, namely 1000 B.C., there is no clear evidence as to the identity of the author. His standpoint was unmistakably prophetic, for he measures Israel’s history by the standard of faithfulness to Jehovah’s covenant. (It should be noted that the purpose of this book is not to glorify Israel’s ancestors, as some writers have alleged, but rather to glorify the grace of the God of Israel.) It would be natural to suppose that either Samuel himself or else some student or disciple of his might have been responsible for the compilation of this history. Whoever the author was, he seems to have made use of original sources, some of which at least were in the northern Israelite dialect, such as  Judg. 5 (the song of Deborah) and the Gideon cycle (chaps.  6–8 ), where we find several occurrences of the relative pronoun še (rather than the usual ˓ašer). Whatever the prior sources, the unity of arrangement and structure is unmistakable. All the author’s material has been arranged according to a unitary plan exhibiting a single dominant idea: Israel’s welfare depends upon her spiritual relationship to Jehovah. Characteristic formulas are used which introduce or bring to a close each stage in the narrative. A characteristic introduction is, “And the children of Israel did evil in the sight of the Lord” (cf.  3:7, 12; 4:1; 6:1; 10:6; 13:1 ). Often a section is closed by the comment “and the land had rest [a certain number of years]” as in  3:11, 30; 5:31; 8:28. Moeller (GATE, p. 147) points out that the fourteen judges are so arranged that Othniel and Samson stand alone at the beginning and at the end of the series, but those who come in between are usually connected in pairs. Thus Shamgar ( 3:31 ) appears as a brief adjunct to Ehud ( 3:12–30 ); Barak is of course paired up with Deborah; and there is a fairly clear connection between Gideon and his natural son, Abimelech.

Problems of Chronology of  Judges

     If all the terms of service performed by the various judges are added end to end, along with the stated periods of oppression, they form a consecutive total of approximately 410 years. But the long date of 480 years given in  1 Kings 6:1 seems to allow for only 292 years between the judgeship of Othniel and that of Eli. We must therefore conclude that many of these careers of service overlapped or were even contemporaneous. The statement in  Judg. 10:7, “The Lord … sold them into the hands of the Philistines, and into the hands of the children of Ammon,” clearly indicates that Samson and Jephthah must have been almost contemporaneous, since the Ammonite oppression and that of the Philistines occurred at approximately the same time. J. B. Payne has worked out a basic chronology of the six most important judges ranging from Othniel in 1381 B.C. to Samuel whose career ended in 1050 B.C. Confirmation of the soundness of this method of computation is furnished by the remark of Jephthah in  Judg. 11:26 where he reckons the interim between the Israelite occupation of Heshbon and the time of the Ammonite war as 300 years. This would allow for a Transjordanian occupation somewhere between 1400 and 1100 B.C. It should be remembered that no long date is given for the whole period of the judges in the book of  Judges itself; hence there is no reason why several of the periods of judgeship should not have been contemporaneous.

A Survey of Old Testament Introduction

The Blueprint of Redemption

By R.C. Sproul 2/1/2004

     A persistent tradition claims that upon being mocked by a skeptic with regard to his doctrine of creation, Saint Augustine was cynically asked, “What was God doing before He created the world? Augustine’s alleged reply was: “Creating hell for curious souls.”

     The reply was, of course, tongue-in-cheek. The Bible doesn’t speak of such a special work of divine creation before creation itself. But Augustine’s bon mot had a serious point that warned against idle speculation of God’s activity in eternity.

     However, quite apart from speculation, the Bible has much to say about God’s activity “before” the world was made. The Bible speaks often of God’s eternal counsel, of His plan of salvation and the like. It is a matter of theological urgency that Christians not think of God as a ruler who ad libs His dominion of the universe. God does not “make it up as He goes along.” Nor must He be viewed as a bumbling administrator who is so inept in His planning that His blueprint for redemption must be endlessly subject to revision according to the actions of men. The God of Scripture has no “plan b” or “plan c.” His “plan a” is from everlasting to everlasting. It is both perfect and unchangeable as it rests on God’s eternal character, which is among other things, holy, omniscient, and immutable. God’s eternal plan is not revised because of moral imperfections within it that must be purified. His plan was not corrected or amended because He gained new knowledge that He lacked at the beginning. God’s plan never changes because He never changes and because perfection admits to no degrees and cannot be improved upon.

     The covenant of redemption is intimately concerned with God’s eternal plan. It is called a “covenant” inasmuch as the plan involves two or more parties. This is not a covenant between God and humans. It is a covenant among the persons of the Godhead, specifically between the Father and the Son. God did not become triune at creation or at the Incarnation. His triunity is as eternal as His being. He is one in essence and three in person from all eternity.

     The covenant of redemption is a corollary to the doctrine of the Trinity. Like the word trinity, the Bible nowhere explicitly mentions it. The word trinity does not appear in the Bible, but the concept of the Trinity is affirmed throughout Scripture. Likewise, the phrase “covenant of redemption” does not occur explicitly in Scripture but the concept is heralded throughout.

     Central to the message of Jesus is the declaration that He was sent into the world by the Father. His mission was not given to Him at His baptism or in the manger. He had it before His incarnation.

     In the great “Kenotic Hymn” of Philippians 2, we get a glimpse of this: “Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father” (vv. 5–11 NKJV).

     This passage reveals many things. It speaks of the willingness of the Son to undertake a mission of redemption at the behest of the Father. That Jesus was about doing the will of the Father is testified throughout His life. As a young boy in the temple He reminded His earthly parents that He must be about His Father’s business. His meat and drink was to do the will of His Father. It was zeal for His Father’s house that consumed Him. Repeatedly He declared that He spoke not on His own authority but on the authority of the One who sent Him.

     Jesus is the primary missionary. As the word suggests, a missionary is one who is “sent.” The eternal Word did not decide on His own to come to this planet for its redemption. He was sent here. In the plan of salvation the Son comes to do the Father’s bidding.

     The point of the covenant of redemption is that the Son comes willingly. He is not coerced by the Father to relinquish His glory and be subjected to humiliation. Rather, He willingly “made Himself of no reputation.” The Father did not strip the Son of His eternal glory but the Son agreed to lay it aside temporarily for the sake of our salvation.

     Listen to Jesus as He prays to the Father at the end of His ministry: “Father, the hour has come. Glorify Your Son, that Your Son also may glorify You… And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was” (John 17:1–5 NKJV). The covenant of redemption was a transaction that involved both obligation and reward. The Son entered into a sacred agreement with the Father. He submitted Himself to the obligations of that covenantal agreement. An obligation was likewise assumed by the Father — to give His Son a reward for doing the work of redemption.

     In his Systematic Theology, Charles Hodge lists eight promises the Father gave to the Son in this pact made in eternity. Briefly they are: that God would form a purified Church for His Son; that the Son would receive the Spirit without measure; that He would be ever-present to support Him; that He would deliver Him from death and exalt Him to His right hand; that He would have the Holy Spirit to send to whom He willed; that all the Father gave to Him would come to Him and none of these be lost; that multitudes would partake of His redemption and His messianic kingdom; that He would see the travail of His soul and be satisfied.

     Because God honored the eternal covenant of redemption, Christ became the heir of His Father’s promises. Because this covenant was never violated, we reap its benefits as heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ.

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

The Goal of Redemption

By Mike Chastain 2/1/2004

     Not long ago, as I was watching the movie Apollo 13, I was really impressed with the nail-biting scene where the damaged capsule approached the earth’s atmosphere and the astronauts had to recalculate their trajectory of reentry. Slide rules shifted, and they anxiously sought to determine the exact angle at which they must strike the atmosphere. The price of inaccuracy was high. One degree too steep and they would burn up in the earth’s atmosphere. One degree too shallow and they would not enter it, but skip off into space, irretrievably lost .With some things in this life, however, we do not need to be so exacting. In fact, we sometimes need to be a little loose and flexible. But when it comes to proclaiming the church’s view of the covenant of redemption, it is not the time to be loose, it is time to be exacting. As with the astronauts, the price for error is very high.

     A church’s view of the covenant of redemption is usually demonstrated in its purpose statement, which presents, if you will, its “angle” on the world from its high position. Many churches state as their purpose, “We exist to fulfill the Great Commission.” They see the primary reason for their existence as bringing salvation to lost sinners, and this is borne out in the way the Sunday liturgy is designed, the way the pastor preaches, and the angles of the various evangelistic ministries. This is far off the mark, though, and a course correction is much-needed. As important as salvation is, it is not the only purpose of the church. The covenant of redemption was entered into by the persons of the Trinity for the same reason God does all that He does — to glorify Himself. Man’s chief end is the same as God’s chief end — to glorify God.

     The covenant of redemption, as a pact among the members of the Godhead, features, as one of its many elements, the restoration of the elect. Sinners fall short of the glory of God, and in their redemption they are able to bring God the glory He deserves, desires, and demands. The degree of accuracy regarding the covenant of redemption determines whether the church is man-focused or God-focused. The question is whether man’s salvation is held up as the great goal of the covenant of redemption, or whether God’s glorification is the primary goal of the covenant of redemption. If the benefit of man were allowed to become the ultimate purpose of the church, it would actually be a failure. Man was created to have a higher purpose than himself. If the blessing of man becomes man’s ultimate motivation, then he is living far below and for far less than that for which God created him. The answer to the first question of the Westminster Shorter Catechism is carefully phrased: “Man’s chief end is to glorify God and to enjoy Him forever.” There is an order here. Man’s enjoyment of God is not first or foremost. It is an outcome of accomplishing that for which he was created — to bring glory to God.

     God is great, and worship is our response to His greatness! The church’s primary purpose is to insure that God receives the glory He desires and deserves. That is why the saints gather publicly to corporately rehearse the greatness of God through worship. The focus of the church should be the worth-ship of God. Evangelism’s main goal is first and foremost to recruit worshippers for God. When Christ is embraced as offered in the Gospel, the believer is brought into a personal worshiping relationship with God the Father.

     God’s Word clearly expresses this view. While an essential component of the covenant of redemption is the redemption of man, its purpose is the glory of God. As redemption is described in Psalm 111:9–10, do we see the focus on those who are the objects of redemption? No; rather, “He sent redemption to His people; He has commanded his covenant forever. Holy and awesome is His name!” While we rejoice in the happiness and safety this affords to His people, the point of the covenant of redemption is His glory, and the result is that I adore my covenant God and cry out in praise of HIS name. Thus I go out and proclaim to all that they are to bow before Him in worship.

     Preachers need to be proclaiming the Gospel of God — that every creature should appear before His throne and offer themselves as living sacrifices, holy and acceptable unto Him. The apostle Paul writes, “Oh the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and inscrutable his ways! For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor?” Or who has given a gift to him that he might be repaid? For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen.” (Rom. 11:33–36). From Himself, through Himself, and to Himself is the perspective of God about Himself. And how important it is that we have His perspective!

     The church needs to guard this view of the covenant of redemption with an exactness that will keep us on the right trajectory. God will not share His glory. The church must give God that which He seeks — true worship. Since we have been shown mercy, we must show mercy to others. Our reason? To let our light so shine before men that they may see our good works and glorify our Father who is in heaven (Matt. 5:16). Since the outgrowth of true worship is true love, we should be molded into a serving community of believers in order that all glory will be given to the only deserving One, our triune God.

     Thus, the covenant of redemption establishes the proper trajectory for the church. May preachers proclaim the Gospel with this in mind and thus guide the church to fulfill its true purpose.

What We Really Know About the Origin of Life

By Tom Gilson 6/3/2017

     I was just watching a National Geographic channel show about astrobiology (or exobiology) — the science of looking for life outside of the Earth. I didn’t get to see the whole program, but what I did see featured some amazing facts about where life can thrive on earth — and maybe elsewhere?

     The operative word there, of course, is maybe.

     Amazing Life on Earth | There are microorganisms in boiling pools at Yellowstone, where the pH is 1 (about the same as battery acid), and you or I would quickly dissolve if we fell in.

     There are tall tube worms at the dark bottom of the ocean, living without no access to the solar energy the rest of earth’s life depends on. They get their energy and nutrients from searingly hot (600° — they didn’t say whether Fahrenheit or Celsius) mineral plumes issuing from deeper in earth’s crust.

     Life Elsewhere? | If life could thrive there, who knows where else it might exist? There are ice crystals just inches below the surface of Martian soil. Maybe deeper down, there’s enough pressure to liquefy that ice into water. There could be life there.

     Tom Gilson is a senior editor of The Stream, author of the new 2016 parent-friendly guide to keeping kids in the faith, titled Critical Conversations: A Christian Parents' Guide to Discussing Homosexuality with Teens, the chief editor of True Reason: Confronting the Irrationality of the New Atheism, and Peter Boghossian, Atheist Tactician: A Preliminary Response To "A Manual For Creating Atheists" the author/host of the Thinking Christian blog.

     He lives in southwest Ohio with Sara, his wife, and their two 20-something children. He has received a B.Mus. in Music Education with a specialty in performance from Michigan State University and an M.S. in Organizational Psychology from the University of Central Florida. When he’s not writing he loves drinking coffee, canoeing, walking in the woods, and playing his trombones.

Read The Psalms In "1" Year

Psalm 37

34 Wait for the LORD and keep his way,
and he will exalt you to inherit the land;
you will look on when the wicked are cut off.

35 I have seen a wicked, ruthless man,
spreading himself like a green laurel tree.
36 But he passed away, and behold, he was no more;
though I sought him, he could not be found.

37 Mark the blameless and behold the upright,
for there is a future for the man of peace.
38 But transgressors shall be altogether destroyed;
the future of the wicked shall be cut off.

39 The salvation of the righteous is from the LORD;
he is their stronghold in the time of trouble.
40 The LORD helps them and delivers them;
he delivers them from the wicked and saves them,
because they take refuge in him.

By James Orr 1907

NOTE C.—P. 370 | Christ's Testimony To The Old Testament

WE have not in this argument sought unduly to press our Lord’s testimony, for we allow that His words may fairly be in part explained by His acceptance of current views of authorship, which it was no part of His mission to pronounce upon. We do not, by quoting Homer or Shakespeare under these names, pronounce a judgment on the literary questions involved in the ascription of certain poems or plays to these persons as their authors. Our Lord naturally referred to the books He was citing as “Moses” or “David,” or “Isaiah,” and no more thought of giving an authoritative judgment on the history or mode of origin of these books, than He had it in view to settle questions of modern science as to the motions of the heavenly bodies, the age of the earth, or the evolution of species.  But it remains the fact that our Lord did constantly assume the Mosaicity of the books of the law He quoted; based on the reality of the revelation they contained; knew in the strength of His divine and human consciousness that God’s word was conveyed to men through them; had even, if the narrative of the Transfiguration is to be believed, supersensible communion with Moses and Elias themselves. While refusing to be “a judge and a divider” in questions of merely literary interest, He would, we may believe, have pronounced a very emphatic judgment on some of the modern theories of Scripture, had these been brought before Him. 

NOTE D.—P. 370 | The Samaritan Pentateuch

THE Samaritan Pentateuch, written in old Hebrew characters, after being long lost to view, was brought to light again in the beginning of the seventeenth century, since which time other MSS. have been acquired. Various views have been taken of its origin; but that which has most probability, and seems now generally accepted, connects it with the expulsion by Nehemiah (chap.  13:28 ff.) of one of the sons of Joiada, son of Eliashib, the high priest, because he had allied himself in marriage with Sanballat, the Horonite. Josephus (Ant. xi. 7. 8) confuses the chronology of this incident, and connects it with the founding of the temple on Mount Gerizim, which he places a hundred years later, in the time of Alexander the Great. The value of the Samaritan text was at first greatly exaggerated; latterly, especially since the exhaustive examination of Gesenius, it has lost nearly all credit in comparison with the Hebrew. Only four readings were thought by Gesenius to be preferable to the Hebrew ( Gen. 4:8; 22:13; 49:14; 14:14 ), and even these are now rejected by most. On age and origin, see the discussions in Hengstenberg, Pentateuch, i. pp. 69 ff.; a lucid examination in Bleek, Introd. i. pp. 366 ff.; Ryle, O.T. Canon, pp. 91 ff.; and on the question of text, and generally, the valuable article by Em. Deutsch in Smith’s Dict. of Bible, iii. pp. 1106 ff.; Bleek, ii. pp. 371, 391 ff.; W. R. Smith, O. T. in J. C., pp. 61–62, etc.

NOTE E.—P. 375 | Early Hebrew Writing

THE square Hebrew character (gradually introduced after the exile) was preceded by the Phœnician, the origin and early history of which is obscure. The oldest known example of this writing is Mesha’s inscription on the Moabite Stone (c. 850); the oldest example in Hebrew is the Siloam inscription (reign of Hezekiah). (Cf. Driver on “Early History of the Hebrew Alphabet” in Text of Samuel, pp. 11 ff.) A few old seals (perhaps eighth century) have inscriptions in this character, and jar-handles found at Gezer (after Solomon) bear the words “To the king, Hebron” (or other place). It is thought by some that the use of this character by the Hebrews, or in Canaan generally, probably does not date much before 1000 B.C. Previous to that time, it is supposed, the script in use was the cuneiform. The Tel el-Amarna letters (c. 1400) are written in cuneiform, and cuneiform tablets have been discovered at Gezer and Lachish. Professor Paton, Director of the American School of Oriental Research in Palestine, says: “There is no archæological evidence that the ancient Babylonian cuneiform was displaced by the so-called Phœnician character before this date” (Hom. Rev., Dec. 1904, p. 426; so Conder, The First Bible, p. 75). This, however, is an inference from our ignorance, and seems unlikely. The character on Mesha’s Stone must have been long in use, and could not be unknown to the Hebrews. Something depends on the origin of the Phœnician character itself. Doubt is now cast on its derivation from Egypt (Taylor’s theory), and connections are being sought with early Minæan (S. Arabic), Hittite, and other characters. Much is conjectural, but evidence seems accumulating that an old closely-related alphabet was in use in very early times and was probably known to the Israelites (cf. Hommel, Ancient Heb. Trad. pp. 77 ff., 276–7; Sayce, Higher Crit. pp. 39–44). Further discoveries are no doubt yet in store for the explorer. In pre-Mosaic times the Babylonian cuneiform and Egyptian hieroglyphic (while in Egypt) were the likeliest scripts to be used, and cuneiform tablet-writing probably in some measure continued after the settlement in Canaan. We may assume that an alphabetic character was in use in Israel from the dawn of literature. On connection of early Hebrew with old Arabic, cf. Margoliouth, art. “Language of O.T.,” in Hastings’ Dict. of Bible, iii. pp. 26 ff.

NOTE F.—P. 375 | Hypotheses In Criticism

WHEN it is urged that the assumption of early documentary sources in Israel is a “mere hypothesis,” we have to ask — What is the current critical view itself but a congeries of hypotheses, many of them of the most doubtful character? What, e.g., but hypothesis — if not mere hypothesis — are the assumed J and E writers, or schools of writers, of the ninth, eighth, and seventh centuries B.C. and later; or the prolific P school of writers in the exile; or the numerous hypothetical redactors and interpolators of the text; or the Judæan and Ephraimitic localisation of J and E, etc.? What but hypotheses are such statements, with which critical writings abound, as that “the narrative of Abraham and Amraphel in  Gen. 14 may be partly based on information derived from Babylon, possibly by Jews of the captivity”; or, “we may naturally suppose that the stories [connected with the Israelitish sanctuaries] were preserved at these places, and that the authors of the Primitive and Elohistic documents derived them from the priests, just as Herodotus gathered information from the priests in Egypt and Babylon”; or that “it is probable that the Israelites might borrow or adopt traditions of their other neighbours, e.g., the Phœnicians, Philistines, Ammon, Moab, and Edom”; or that the stories in  Genesis may represent those “told long ago round the campfires of the wandering tribes by mothers to their children, and repeated by maidens at the well, by the guests at rustic merrymakings, and in the evening gatherings of the peasants when the day’s work was done” (Bennett, Genesis, pp. 18–21). We would only ask — Do such casually collected stories yield the kind of history we have in the Book of  Genesis? Why may we not in turn “suppose,” with far greater probability, that we have here carefully transmitted traditions of real persons and events, and that these began to be written down in very early times — e.g., in Egypt under Joseph? There are as many and good grounds for the one class of statements as for the other.

The Problem of the Old Testament

The Dance of Life

By R.C. Sproul Jr. 2/1/2004

     The fall of Adam and Eve is one of the stickiest theological wickets we encounter in the Bible. How could both of them, whom God had declared good, do bad? But there is a stickier wicket still, perhaps made so by the fact that it’s not in the Bible. For an event of such cosmic proportions, the Bible is surprisingly silent. How did Lucifer, the angel of light, come to be the Serpent, the father of lies? Some suggest that it was pride that got in his way, that he aspired to the very throne of God, and when he could not have it, he was cast down. Along a similar note, some suggest that it was his pride, but that it was a being lower on the chain that tripped him up. That is, it wasn’t that he wanted to be God, but that he refused to serve man. Some suggest that he balked when God revealed His plan, including the call of the angels to serve man. Man, after all, was made lower than the angels. Why should the greater serve the lesser? It seems it was the devil himself who first determined it’s better to reign in hell than to serve in heaven.

     If the latter theory is the right one, we know who was the first to confuse ontology and economy, being and doing. But he was by no means the last. There is something in all of us that makes it seem somehow not right for the greater to serve the lesser. That something is pride.

     The modern feminist movement, whether secular or “evangelical” suffers from the same sort of pride. The rejection of the plainly biblical affirmation that wives are to submit to their husbands (Eph. 5:22) is driven by this objection — “how can I be equal to my husband, when I am called to submit to my husband?” Equals do not submit to one another, the reasoning goes, they are equal.

     Sadly, too often husbands reason the same way. They also see the plain teaching of Ephesians, and they conclude that since their wives are called to submit to them, that they as husbands are the superior being, that they are imbued with greater dignity and worth. That foolishness also feeds the foolishness of the feminist movement.

     Egalitarianism in all its forms flows out of the same notion. We are a culture that is fast losing any sense of manners, indeed, any sense of honor. We seem to believe that showing respect to another is a denial of the equality of men. Worse still, we seem to go out of our way to show disrespect, that we might prove our own equality. Or we go out of our way to push away the respect directed toward us. While I am busy trying to teach my children to address adults as “Sir” and “Ma’am”, too many sirs and ma’ams are teaching them not to, asking my children, “Oh, please don’t call me that. It makes me feel so old.” I suppose if growing older doesn’t bring with it a greater level of respect, that I can understand why so few people want to grow old.

     Of course some older folks are foolish. On their merits, respect is the last thing they would deserve. In like manner, some husbands are buffoons. But without exception every older person is an older person, and every husband is a husband. Role relationships do not exist in a way that perfectly mirrors objective qualities. The race doesn’t always go to the swift. Every soldier knows that not every superior officer is actually superior. But every soldier is taught to “salute the uniform.” Honor is due to the office, even when not due to the man in the office.

     If we would dispel the destruction of honor in our day, we would do well to start by dispelling the myth that to serve is to be less, and to be served is to be greater. And there is no greater argument against such folly than God. One of the benefits of a careful study of the covenant of redemption is that it makes this very point. God the Father not only does the work of electing a bride for the Son, but He does the job of making the assignments. With respect to the persons of the Trinity, He is in charge. The Son, we confess, proceeds from the Father. The Spirit, we confess, proceeds from the Father and the Son. But we also confess this, “That these three are one God, the same in substance, equal in power and glory” (Westminster Shorter Catechism with Proof Texts (ESV): An aid for study of the Holy Bible, question 6).

     The Son does not proceed from the Father because the Father is smarter than the Son. They, along with the Spirit, know all things. They are all equally omniscient. Neither is it because the Father is stronger than the Son. Each of the members of the Trinity are equally omnipotent. With respect to their ontology, or their being, each member is the equal of the others. But with respect to their work, there is genuine submission. If the feminists are correct in saying that submission means inequality of being, then the Unitarians are also right. There can be no Trinity.

     If then, these roles are not determined by ability, by what are they determined? Both the covenant of redemption and the covenant family operate the way they do because such is what manifests the glory of God. For the dance to proceed, one must lead, and others must follow. Anything else may seem more “fair,” but it won’t seem like a dance. And that, more than anything else, was what enraged the devil.

“I Believe in the Life Everlasting”

By R.C. Sproul 3/1/2004

     His name is “Beechie.” Recently he surprised us with a serendipitous visit. He called to say he was in Orlando with part of his family and asked if he could make an impromptu visit to our home. We responded with unreserved delight at the prospect of seeing a friend from the past. As I relate this yarn, I am looking at an elementary school class picture from 1946–47 (grade 3). There, sitting Indian style in the center front is Bob Beech, wearing knickers and adorned with his ubiquitous smile. Next to him is Johnny, from my novel Johnny come home : a novel. Almost directly behind Beechie is Vesta, who was Beechie’s girlfriend before she was mine.

     During our visit, Beechie opened a package that contained pictures and other relics from our past, many stretching over a half century into yesteryear. The visit stimulated a flood of memories — memories of people and of events. We spoke of the kids we grew up with — of Jarl “Gus” Gustafson, Don Whirlow, Bobby Ewalt, Bill Heidish, Rodney Wise (Rodney — where are you? I think of you often.), and a host of others.

     Beechie and I shared so many memories, especially of sports. We played football, basketball, and baseball together. I remember him going over the middle to catch my passes — of playing the backcourt together on the hardwood and hundreds and hundreds of practice moves for the double–play, as he was 4 (second base) to my 6 (shortstop).

     Memories were dredged up from the past that had lain fallow over decades, consigned, as it were, to the sea of forgetfulness (to mix my metaphors). Memories were forgotten … but only temporarily. Like Plato’s sparking the recollection of the slaveboy in the Meno dialogue, so Beechie awakened a storehouse of images and names from my past.

     I doubt if many people call Robert Beech “Beechie” today — probably about as many as still call me “Sonny.” Few make the connection. But there is an indissoluble link between the “Beechie” of 1947 and the Robert Beech of today and the “Sonny” of the same era and the “R.C.” of the present.

     Everyone of us has a past. We are not only the people we are today, but we remain the people we were yesterday and the days before that. My memory contains a record of my personal history — which is an integral dimension of my identity. Memory links my consciousness of my past existence with my consciousness of the present.

     We have seen dramas on television and in the movies where the protagonist suffers a virulent attack of amnesia, leaving him in a state of desperation, afflicted by a dreadful loss of personal identity.

     Is death a final and permanent form of amnesia? Does it spell the abrupt halt of personal consciousness? The materialist answers with an emphatic “yes” — assuming that once the matter of the brain dissolves, consciousness, or mental function, dissolves with it. That is, without the physical brain, non-physical thought is impossible.

     This raises the perennial philosophical question about the nature of the mind (or soul) and its relationship to matter. John Gerstner once mused: “What is mind?” — He replied, “No matter.” — “What is matter?”…“Never mind.”

     The Christian affirmation of life after death asserts the notion of the continued conscious existence of the soul after the dissolution of the body (as articulated by Charles Hodge). This continuity of personal, conscious existence is the very essence of life after death. If we “continue” in an impersonal manner (lost in the oneness of the “all” of the universe), or in an unconscious state (soul-sleep), then our “continuation” is not what the Scriptures teach about life after death.

     The folly of reincarnation is that it assumes on-going life without continuity of consciousness. It is the eternal recurrence of the amnesiac. Oh, one can claim “memories” of former lives ala Bridey Murphy and Shirley MacLaine stimulated by deep hypnosis or other esoteric methods, but for the average person there is zero recall of former existences. For practical purposes — if there is no conscious memory linking discreet “lives,” then there is no essential difference between re-incarnation and death as the absolute end of a life.

     The key to on-going life is the essential element of the continuity of personal consciousness. It is really arrogant to assume that a physical brain or body is necessary for consciousness. In our present state, mind may be linked to brain — but that does not indicate a necessary permanent dependence. We see the analogy in nature of inestimable diversity of both body and consciousness. Biblically we encounter angelic spirits who can think and reason without the benefit of physical, human brains. The ultimate proof is seen in the nature of God Himself, who, while lacking a body, exhibits the highest possible level of consciousness.

     Lesser arguments may be seen in the rising tide of testimonies of uncanny experiences of those who have been revived from a flat line state only to recall observations of things that occurred after they were declared dead — in many cases observing things that took place outside the rooms where they “died.” To be sure the jury is still out on this phenomena, but the reports pose interesting grist for the life-after-death mill.

     If I may indulge in a bit of cynicism, I can’t resist noting that we’ve all experienced people who have brains but can’t think, and people who think who seem to lack brains. But that would involve an exercise not only of cynicism but of equivocation.

     The Bible affirms that life is good, even with the afflictions we must endure. This side of heaven, we resemble Hamlet in his judgment that we would rather “bear those ills we have, than fly to others we know not of .…” This fear is that what comes after our eyelids close in death may be worse than what we now endure. But this is not the biblical hope for the Christian. Paul writes: “For to me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain. But if I live on in the flesh, this will mean fruit from my labor; yet what I shall choose I cannot tell. For I am hard pressed between the two, having a desire to depart and be with Christ, which is far better. Nevertheless to remain in the flesh is more needful for you” (Phil. 1:21–24 NKJV).

     Here Paul expresses apostolic ambivalence. He sees the good of his present life, yet yearns for his departure because of his assurance that it will mean gain. He uses the comparative form of the good by choosing the term “better” to describe what follows this life. Indeed the comparative is further modified by the word “far.” Thus Paul avers that the state that follows death is “far better” than that which we presently enjoy.

     This comparative state is called “the intermediate state.” It is intermediate because it stands between our present state and our final state. It is the state of bodiless souls that precedes our final state of resurrection when our souls will be reunited with our glorified bodies to live in the superlative state of human life (the best) forever.

     My memories of “Beechie” and my childhood friends will not cease at death. Indeed they will be enhanced as the muddled memories of this present body will give way to unconfused recollections of the past that I will be able to cherish forever. Beechie — that means that we will never forget our friendship together.

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

The Coming Prince

By Sir Robert Anderson 1841-1918

Chapter 14 The Patmos Visions

Narrowness of interpretation is the bane of apocalyptic study. "The words of this prophecy," "Things which must shortly come to pass'" such is the Divine description of the Book of the Revelation and of its contents. No one, therefore, is justified in denying to any portion of it a future application. The Book in its entirety is prophetic. Even the seven epistles, though they were undoubtedly addressed to Churches then existing, and though their intermediate reference to the history of Christendom is also clear, may well have a special voice in days to come for those who are to enter the fierce trials that shall precede the end. [1]

[1] The Bible is not intended for the present dispensation only, but for the people of God in every age; and it is incredible that they who are to be so severely tried shall fail to find in it words specially fitted and intended to counsel and comfort them in view of what they are to endure. "This prophecy" is the Divine description of the Apocalypse as a whole (Revelation 1:3). Compare the "must shortly come to pass" of Revelation 1:1 with the "must shortly be done" of 22:6. The salutation (1:4-5) seems to fix the dispensational place of the Book as future. It is not the Father, but Jehovah; not the Lord Jesus Christ, but "Jesus Christ the faithful witness, the Prince of the kings of the earth;" and the Book speaks from a time when the Holy Spirit, as a person, will again be in heaven, to join in the salutation, which He never does in the Epistles of the New Testament. Revelation 1:19 is frequently quoted to prove that the Book is divided, and that the latter part only is prophetic. In refutation of this, I appeal to the most candid of apocalyptic commentators, Dean Alford, who thus translates the verse: "Write therefore the things which thou sawest, and what things they signify, and the things which are about to happen after these." He explains "the things which thou sawest" to be "the vision which was but now vouchsafed thee," and the closing words as "the things which shall succeed these, i. e., a future vision" (Greek Test., in loco).

In ch. 4:1, Alford inclines to give to the second meta tauta the general meaning of "hereafter." But the presumption is; that the words are used at the end of the verse in the same sense as at the beginning, i. e., "after these things." The words imply that the fulfillment of the subsequent visions should be future, relatively to the fulfillment of the preceding vision, and not relatively merely to the time when the vision was given, which was a matter of course.

     In the fourth chapter the throne is set in heaven. Judgment now waits on grace; but when the day of grace is past, judgment must intervene ere the promises and covenants, with all their rich store of blessings, can be fulfilled. But who can unfold that scroll that lies on the open hand of Him who sits upon the throne? (Revelation 5:2) No creature in the universe [2] may dare to look on it, and God Himself will not break a single seal of it, for the Father has ceded the prerogative of judgment. The ministry of grace may be shared by all whom grace has blessed, but the Son of man is the only Being in the universe who can take the initiative in judgment; (John 5:22-27) and amid the anthems of the heavenly beings round the throne, and the swelling chorus of myriads of myriads of angels, echoed back by the whole creation of God, the Crucified of Calvary, "a Lamb, as it had been slain," takes up the book and prepares to break the seals. (Revelation 5:5-14)

[2] Revelation 3. It is not, as in English Version, "no man," but oudeis. The Revised Version properly reads "no one."

     It is at the fifth seal that the vision crosses the lines of the chronology of prophecy. [3] Of the earlier seals, therefore, it is unnecessary to speak in detail. They are evidently descriptive of the events to which the Lord referred in the twenty-fourth chapter of Matthew, as preceding the great final persecution; — wars and unceasing threats of war, kingdoms in arms rushing on one another to destruction; and then famine, to be followed again by pestilence, hunger and the sword still claiming their victims, and others being seized by strange and nameless deaths in the ever-gathering horrors of these cumulative woes. (Revelation 6:2-8)

[3] Because the fifth seal relates to the great persecution of the future, which, as already noticed, is within the seventieth week. The first four seals relate to the events preceding in time the fulfillment of the fifteenth verse of the twenty-fourth of Matthew. Compare the sixth and seventh verses of that chapter with Revelation 6:1-8.

     According to the twenty-fourth chapter of Matthew, the tribulation is to be followed immediately by the signs and portents which the old prophets have declared will herald "the great and terrible day of the Lord." So in the Apocalypse the martyrs of the tribulation are seen in the fifth seal, (Revelation 9) and in the sixth, the advent of the great day of wrath is proclaimed, the precise events being named which the Lord had spoken of on the Mount of Olives, and Joel and Isaiah had foretold long centuries before. [4]

[4] "The day of the Lord cometh…The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and the terrible day of the Lord come" (Joel 2:1-31). "The day of the Lord cometh… The sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine" (Isaiah 13:9-10). "Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven" (Matthew 24:29). "There shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars" (Luke 21:25). "The sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood" (compare Joel 2:31), "and the stars of heaven fell unto the earth" (Revelation 6:12-13).

I entirely agree with the following note of Dean Alford's (Greek Test., Matthew 24:29): "Such prophecies are to be understood literally, and indeed, without such understanding would lose their truth and significance. The physical signs shall happen as accompaniments and intensification's of the awful state of things which the description typifies." Not of course that the moon will really become blood, any more than that the stars will fall. The words describe phenomena which men will witness, and which will strike terror into their hearts.

     Like the dull, oppressive calm which precedes the fiercest storms, there is silence in heaven when the last seal is broken, (Revelation 8:1) for the day of vengeance has dawned. The events of the earlier seals were Divine judgments, doubtless, but of a providential character, and such as men can account for by secondary causes. But God has at length declared Himself, and as it has been in the past, so now, the occasion is an outrage committed on His people. The cry of martyrs is come up in remembrance before God, (Revelation 3) and it is the signal for the trumpet blasts which herald the outpouring of the long-pent-up wrath. (Revelation 6)

     To write a commentary on the Apocalypse within the limits of a chapter would be impossible, and the attempt would involve a departure from the special purpose and subject of these pages. But it is essential to notice and keep in view the character and method of the Apocalyptic visions. The seer, be it remembered, was not privileged to read a single line of what was written "within and on the back side" of the sealed scroll of the fifth chapter; but as each seal was broken, some prominent characteristic of a portion of its contents was communicated to him in a vision. The main series of the visions, therefore, represent events in their chronological sequence. But their course is occasionally interrupted by parenthetical or episodical visions; sometimes, as between the sixth and seventh seals, reaching on to the time of the end, and more frequently, as between the sixth and seventh trumpets, representing details chronologically within the earlier visions. The first and most important step, therefore, towards a right understanding of the Apocalypse is to distinguish between the serial and the episodical visions of the Book, and the following analysis is offered to promote and assist inquiry upon the subject. [5] —

[5] The passages containing the parenthetical visions are marked in square brackets.

Chap. 6. — The visions of the first six seals; representing events in their chronological order.

[Chap. 7. — Parenthetical; the first vision relating either to the faithful remnant of the fifth seal, or to an election in view of the judgments of the seventh seal; the second, reaching on to the final deliverance.]

Chaps. 8, 9. — The opening of the seventh seal. The visions of the first six trumpets; consecutive judgments, in their chronological order.

[Chaps. 10. -11. 13. — Parenthetical, containing the hidden mystery of the seven thunders (10:3-4) and the testimony of the witnesses (the latter being probably within the era of the fifth seal.)]

Chap. 11:15-19. — The seventh trumpet; the third and last woe (comp. 8:13; 9:12; 11:14), preceding the establishment of the kingdom (comp. 10:7; 11:15).

[Chaps. 12. -18. — Parenthetical]

Chap. 13. — The rise and career of the two great blasphemers and persecutors of the last days.

Chap. 14. — The remnant of chap. 7. seen in blessedness. The everlasting Gospel (vers. 6, 7). The fall of Babylon (ver. 8). The doom of the worshippers of the Beast (vers. 9-11). The revelation of Christ, and final judgments, (vers. 14-20).

Chap. 15. — A vision of events chronologically within chapter 8., the opening the seventh seal. (This appears from the fact that the faithful of the fifth seal are here represented as praising God in view of the judgments impending, — see vers. 2-4; which judgments are within the seventh seal.)

Chap. 16. — The seven vials; a second series of visions of the events of the seven trumpets. This appears —

First, because the seventh trumpet and the seventh vial both relate to the final catastrophe. Under the seventh trumpet, the mystery of God is finished (10:7), and the temple of God is opened, and there are lightnings, voices, thunders, and an earthquake (11:19). Under the seventh vial, "It is done!" is heard from the temple, and there are voices, thunders, lightnings, and an earthquake (16:17-18).

     Second, because the sphere of the judgments is the same in the correlative visions of both series:

1, The earth.
2, The sea.
3, The rivers.
4, The sun.
5, The pit, the seat of the beast.
6, Euphrates.
7, Heaven, the air.

[Chaps. 17., 18. — Detailed visions of the development and doom of Babylon, "the harlot," whose fall has been within the seventh trumpet and seventh vial; the last series of judgments of the seventh seal (11:18; 16:19).]

Chap. 19: The doom of the harlot being accomplished (ver. 2), the glory of the bride follows (ver. 7); the glorious revelation of Christ, and the destruction consequent thereon of the beast and false prophet (ver. 20).

Chap. 20. — Satan is bound. The millennial reign of the saints (vers. 1-4). After the millennial reign, Satan is loosed, and once more deceives the nations. Satan is cast into the lake of fire. The judgment of the Great White Throne.

Chaps. 21., 22:1-5. — The new heaven and new earth

Chap. 22:6-21. — Conclusion. [6]

[6]I purposely pass over chap. 12, because of the exceptional difficulties which attend the interpretation of it. "Anything within reasonable regard for the analogies and symbolism of the text seems better that the now too commonly received historical interpretation, with its wild fancies and arbitrary assignments of words and figures" (Alford, Greek Test., Revelation 12:15-16). The only reasonable interpretation I have seen is that which regards the "man-child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron," and who "was caught up to God and His throne," as being the Lord Jesus Christ, and the woman as representing that people of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came" (Romans 9:5). But the objections to this are considerable. First, past historical facts are thus introduced into a vision relating to the future. I am not aware of any other instance of this in Scripture. Secondly, the main features of the vision after ver. 5 are not accounted for by the facts.

The following remarks are offered merely to assist inquiry and not at all as expressing a formed opinion on the matter. The 1, 260 days during which the woman is persecuted is precisely the period of "the great tribulation." Ver. 7 declares that during the woman's flight, Michael the Archangel fought on her behalf. Daniel 12:1, referring to the time of Antichrist's power, states that "at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of the people; and there shall be a time of trouble," etc., describing "the great tribulation" which is to continue 1, 260 days.

Again, the Old Scriptures clearly point to the career of a future David, a deliverer of the Jews, who will become their earthly leader at that time, and reign over them in Jerusalem afterwards. See, e. g., Ezekiel 22-25, about David the Prince, who is certainly not Christ, seeing he is to have a palace in Jerusalem and a definite inheritance in the land, and who, moreover, is to offer burnt-offerings, etc. (Ezekiel 45:17). I suppose this is the great military conqueror of Isaiah 43:1-3. May not the Revelation 12 refer to this personage, who is to be Christ's vicegerent on earth, and who will, in fact, rule over all nations.

The Coming Prince

The Continual Burnt Offering

By H.A. Ironside - 1941

April 10

Proverbs 29:18  Where there is no prophetic vision the people cast off restraint,
but blessed is he who keeps the law.   ESV

Isaiah 32:1 Behold, a king will reign in righteousness, and princes will rule in justice.

Isaiah 11:5  Righteousness shall be the belt of his waist,
and faithfulness the belt of his loins.

The storm-clouds o’er nations that thicken,
The woe that is followed by woe,
But brighten His rainbow of praise—
Give this hope greater lustre and glow.
The voices that echo His coming
Ring out o’er the sea and the land,
The omens that gleam on earth’s dial
Proclaim that my Lord is at hand.

Then, come, blessed Lord! Call away
The blood-purchased Bride of Thy heart;
No longer delay, but speak Thou the word
That bids her from earth to depart.
Thy joy and her joy will then be complete,
While measureless ages roll by;
She’ll then see the infinite measure of love
That brought Thee from glory to die!
--- C. C. Crowston

The Institutes of the Christian Religion

Translated by Henry Beveridge

     CHAPTER 17.

THE PROMISES OF THE LAW AND THE GOSPEL RECONCILED.

In the following chapter, the arguments of Sophists, who would destroy or impair the doctrine of Justification by Faith, are reduced to two classes. The former is general, the latter special, and contains some arguments peculiar to itself. I. The first class, which is general, and in a manner contains the foundation of all the arguments, draws an argument from the promises of the law. This is considered from sec. 1-3. II. The second class following from the former, and containing special proofs. An argument drawn from the history of Cornelius explained, sec. 4, 5. III. A full exposition of those passages of Scripture which represent God as showing mercy and favor to the cultivators of righteousness, sec. 6. IV. A third argument from the passages which distinguish good works by the name of righteousness, and declare that men are justified by them, sec. 7, 8. V. The adversaries of justification by faith placed in a dilemma. Their partial righteousness refuted, sec. 9, 10. VI. A fourth argument, setting the Apostle James in opposition to Paul, considered, sec. 11, 12. VII. Answer to a fifth argument, that, according to Paul, not the hearers but the doors of the law are justified, sec. 13. VIII. Consideration of a sixth argument, drawn from those passages in which believers boldly submit their righteousness to the judgment of God, and ask him to decide according to it, sec. 14. IX. Examination of the last argument, drawn from passages which ascribe righteousness and life to the ways of believers, sec. 15.

Sections.

1. Brief summary of Chapters 15 and 16. Why justification is denied to works. Argument of opponents founded on the promises of the law. The substance of this argument. Answer. Those who would be justified before God must be exempted from the power of the law. How this is done.

2. Confirmation of the answer ab impossibili, and from the testimony of an Apostle and of David.

3. Answer to the objection, by showing why these promises were given. Refutation of the sophistical distinction between the intrinsic value of works, and their value er parts.

4. Argument from the history of Cornelius. Answer, by distinguishing between two kinds of acceptance. Former kind. Sophistical objection refuted.

5. Latter kind. Plain from this distinction that Cornelius was accepted freely before his good works could be accepted. Similar explanations to be given of the passage in which God is represented as merciful and propitious to the cultivators of righteousness.

6. Exposition of these passages. Necessary to observe whether the promise is legal or evangelical. The legal promise always made under the condition that we "do," the evangelical under the condition that we "believe."

7. Argument from the passages which distinguish good works by the name of righteousness, and declare that man is justified by them. Answer to the former part of the argument respecting the name. Why the works of the saints called works of righteousness. Distinction to be observed.

8. Answer to the second part of the argument--viz. that man is justified by works. Works of no avail by themselves; we are justified by faith only. This kind of righteousness defined. Whence the value set on good works.

9. Answer confirmed and fortified by a dilemma.

10. In what sense the partial imperfect righteousness of believers accepted. Conclusion of the refutation.

11. Argument founded on the Epistle of James. First answer. One Apostle cannot be opposed to another. Second answer. Third answer, from the scope of James. A double paralogism in the term Faith. In James the faith said not to justify is a mere empty opinion; in Paul it is the instrument by which we apprehend Christ our righteousness.

12. Another paralogism on the word justify. Paul speaks of the cause, James of the effects, of justification. Sum of the discussion.

13. Argument founded on Rom. 2:13. Answer, explaining the Apostles meaning. Another argument, containing a reduction ad impossibili. Why Paul used the argument.

14. An argument founded on the passages in which believers confidently appeal to their righteousness. Answer, founded on a consideration of two circumstances. 1. They refer only to a special cause. 2. They claim righteousness in comparison with the wicked.

15. Last argument from those passages which ascribe righteousness and life to the ways of believers. Answer. This proceeds from the paternal kindness of God. What meant by the perfection of saints.

1. Let us now consider the other arguments which Satan by his satellites invents to destroy or impair the doctrine of Justification by Faith. I think we have already put it out of the power of our calumniators to treat us as if we were the enemies of good works--justification being denied to works not in order that no good works may be done or that those which are done may be denied to be good; but only that we may not trust or glory in them, or ascribe salvation to them. Our only confidence and boasting, our only anchor of salvation is, that Christ the Son of God is ours, and that we are in him sons of God and heirs of the heavenly kingdom, being called, not by our worth, but the kindness of God, to the hope of eternal blessedness. But since, as has been said, they assail us with other engines, let us now proceed to demolish them also. First, they recur to the legal promises which the Lord proclaimed to the observers of the law, and they ask us whether we hold them to be null or effectual. Since it were absurd and ridiculous to say they are null, they take it for granted that they have some efficacy. Hence they infer that we are not justified by faith only. For the Lord thus speaks: "Wherefore it shall come to pass, if ye hearken to these judgments, and keep and do them, that the Lord thy God shall keep unto thee the covenant and the mercy which he sware unto thy fathers; and he will love thee, and bless thee and multiply thee," (Deut. 7:12, 13). Again, "If ye thoroughly amend your ways and your doings; if ye thoroughly execute judgment between a man and his neighbor; if ye oppress not the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow, and shed not innocent blood in this place, neither walk after other gods to your hurt: then will I cause you to dwell in this place, in the land that I gave to your fathers, for ever and ever," (Jer. 7:5-7). It were to no purpose to quote a thousand similar passages, which, as they are not different in meaning, are to be explained on the same principle. In substance, Moses declares that in the law is set down "a blessing and a curse," life and death (Deut. 11:26); and hence they argue, either that that blessing is become inactive and unfruitful, or that justification is not by faith only. We have already shown, [441] that if we cleave to the law we are devoid of every blessing, and have nothing but the curse denounced on all transgressors. The Lord does not promise any thing except to the perfect observers of the law; and none such are any where to be found. The results therefore is that the whole human race is convicted by the law, and exposed to the wrath and curse of God: to be saved from this they must escape from the power of the law, and be as it were brought out of bondage into freedom,--not that carnal freedom which indisposes us for the observance of the law, tends to licentiousness, and allows our passions to wanton unrestrained with loosened reins; but that spiritual freedom which consoles and raises up the alarmed and smitten conscience, proclaiming its freedom from the curse and condemnation under which it was formerly held bound. This freedom from subjection to the law, this manumission, if I may so express it, we obtain when by faith we apprehend the mercy of God in Christ, and are thereby assured of the pardon of sins, with a consciousness of which the law stung and tortured us.

2. For this reason, the promises offered in the law would all be null and ineffectual, did not God in his goodness send the gospel to our aid, since the condition on which they depend, and under which only they are to be performed--viz. the fulfillment of the law, will never be accomplished. Still, however the aid which the Lord gives consists not in leaving part of justification to be obtained by works, and in supplying part out of his indulgence, but in giving us Christ as in himself alone the fulfillment of righteousness. For the Apostle, after premising that he and the other Jews, aware that "a man is not justified by the works of the law," had "believed in Jesus Christ," adds as the reason, not that they might be assisted to make up the sum of righteousness by faith in Christ, but that they "might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law," (Gal. 2:16). If believers withdraw from the law to faith, that in the latter they may find the justification which they see is not in the former, they certainly disclaim justification by the law. Therefore, whose will, let him amplify the rewards which are said to await the observer of the law, provided he at the same time understand, that owing to our depravity, we derive no benefit from them until we have obtained another righteousness by faith. Thus David after making mention of the reward which the Lord has prepared for his servants (Ps. 25 almost throughout), immediately descends to an acknowledgment of sins, by which the reward is made void. In Psalm 19, also, he loudly extols the benefits of the law; but immediately exclaims, "Who can understand his errors? cleanse thou me from secret faults," (Ps. 19:12). This passage perfectly accords with the former, when, after saying, "the paths of the Lord are mercy and truth unto such as keep his covenant and his testimonies," he adds, "For thy name's sake, O Lord, pardon mine iniquity: for it is great," (Ps. 25:10, 11). Thus, too, we ought to acknowledge that the favor of God is offered to us in the law, provided by our works we can deserve it; but that it never actually reaches us through any such desert.

3. What then? Were the promises given that they might vanish away without fruit? I lately declared that this is not my opinion. I say, indeed, that their efficacy does not extend to us so long as they have respect to the merit of works, and, therefore, that, considered in themselves, they are in some sense abolished. Hence the Apostle shows, that the celebrated promise, "Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments: which if a man do, he shall live in them," (Lev. 18:5; Ezek. 20:10), will, if we stop at it, be of no avail, and will profit us not a whit more than if it were not given, being inaccessible even to the holiest servants of God, who are all far from fulfilling the law, being encompassed with many infirmities. But when the gospel promises are substituted, promises which announce the free pardon of sins, the result is not only that our persons are accepted of God, but his favor also is shown to our works, and that not only in respect that the Lord is pleased with them, but also because he visits them with the blessings which were due by agreement to the observance of his law. I admit, therefore, that the works of the faithful are rewarded with the promises which God gave in his law to the cultivators of righteousness and holiness; but in this reward we should always attend to the cause which procures favor to works. This cause, then, appears to be threefold. First, God turning his eye away from the works of his servants which merit reproach more than praise, embraces them in Christ, and by the intervention of faith alone reconciles them to himself without the aid of works. Secondly the works not being estimated by their own worth, he, by his fatherly kindness and indulgence, honors so far as to give them some degree of value. Thirdly, he extends his pardon to them, not imputing the imperfection by which they are all polluted, and would deserve to be regarded as vices rather than virtues. Hence it appears how much Sophists [442] were deluded in thinking they admirably escaped all absurdities when they said, that works are able to merit salvation, not from their intrinsic worth, but according to agreement, the Lord having, in his liberality, set this high value upon them. But, meanwhile, they observed not how far the works which they insisted on regarding as meritorious must be from fulfilling the condition of the promises, were they not preceded by a justification founded on faith alone, and on forgiveness of sins--a forgiveness necessary to cleanse even good works from their stains. Accordingly, of the three causes of divine liberality to which it is owing that good works are accepted, they attended only to one: the other two, though the principal causes, they suppressed.

4. They quote the saying of Peter as given by Luke in the Acts, "Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: but in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him" (Acts 10:34, 35). And hence they infer, as a thing which seems to them beyond a doubt, that if man by right conduct procures the favor of God, his obtaining salvation is not entirely the gift of God. Nay, that when God in his mercy assists the sinner, he is inclined to mercy by works. There is no way of reconciling the passages of Scripture, unless you observe that man's acceptance with God is twofold. As man is by nature, God finds nothing in him which can incline him to mercy, except merely big wretchedness. If it is clear then that man, when God first interposes for him, is naked and destitute of all good, and, on the other hand, loaded and filled with all kinds of evil,--for what quality, pray, shall we say that he is worthy of the heavenly kingdom? Where God thus clearly displays free mercy, have done with that empty imagination of merit. Another passage in the same book--viz. where Cornelius hears from the lips of an angel, "Thy prayer and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God," (Acts 10:4), is miserably wrested to prove that man is prepared by the study of good works to receive the favor of God. Cornelius being endued with true wisdom, in other words, with the fear of God, must have been enlightened by the Spirit of wisdom, and being an observer of righteousness, must have been sanctified by the same Spirit; righteousness being, as the Apostle testifies, one of the most certain fruits of the Spirit (Gal. 5:5). Therefore, all those qualities by which he is said to have pleased God he owed to divine grace: so far was he from preparing himself by his own strength to receive it. Indeed, not a syllable of Scripture can be produced which does not accord with the doctrine, that the only reason why God receives man into his favor is, because he sees that he is in every respect lost when left to himself; lost, if he does not display his mercy in delivering him. We now see that in thus accepting, God looks not to the righteousness of the individual, but merely manifests the divine goodness towards miserable sinners, who are altogether undeserving of this great mercy.

5. But after the Lord has withdrawn the sinner from the abyss of perdition, and set him apart for himself by means of adoption, having begotten him again and formed him to newness of life, he embraces him as a new creature, and bestows the gifts of his Spirit. This is the acceptance to which Peter refers, and by which believers after their calling are approved by God even in respect of works; for the Lord cannot but love and delight in the good qualities which he produces in them by means of his Spirit. But we must always bear in mind, that the only way in which men are accepted of God in respect of works is, that whatever good works he has conferred upon those whom he admits to favor, he by an increase of liberality honors with his acceptance. For whence their good works, but just that the Lord having chosen them as vessels of honor, is pleased to adorn them with true purity? And how are their actions deemed good as if there was no deficiency in them, but just that their merciful Father indulgently pardons the spots and blemishes which adhere to them? In one word, the only meaning of acceptance in this passage is, that God accepts and takes pleasure in his children, in whom he sees the traces and lineaments of his own countenance. We have else here said, that regeneration is a renewal of the divine image in us. Since God, therefore, whenever he beholds his own face, justly loves it and holds it in honor, the life of believers, when formed to holiness and justice, is said, not without cause, to be pleasing to him. But because believers, while encompassed with mortal flesh, are still sinners, and their good works only begun savor of the corruption of the flesh, God cannot be propitious either to their persons or their works, unless he embraces them more in Christ than in themselves. In this way are we to understand the passages in which God declares that he is clement and merciful to the cultivators of righteousness. Moses said to the Israelites, "Know, therefore, that the Lord thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments, to a thousand generations." These words afterwards became a common form of expression among the people. Thus Solomon in his prayer at the dedication says, "Lord God of Israel, there is no God like thee, in heaven above, or on earth beneath, who keepest covenant and mercy with thy servants that walk before thee with all their heart," (1 Kings 8:23). The same words are repeated by Nehemiah (Neh. 1:5). As the Lord in all covenants of mercy stipulates on his part for integrity and holiness of life in his servants (Deut. 29:18), lest his goodness might be held in derision, or any one, puffed up with exultation in it, might speak flatteringly to his soul while walking in the depravity of his heart, so he is pleased that in this way those whom he admits to communion in the covenant should be kept to their duty. Still, however, the covenant was gratuitous at first, and such it ever remains. Accordingly, while David declares, "according to the cleanness of my hands has he recompensed me," yet does he not omit the fountain to which I have referred; "he delivered me, because he delighted in me," (2 Sam. 22:20, 21). In commending the goodness of his cause, he derogates in no respect from the free mercy which takes precedence of all the gifts of which it is the origin.

6. Here, by the way, it is of importance to observe how those forms of expression differ from legal promises. By legal promises, I mean not those which lie scattered in the books of Moses (for there many Evangelical promises occur), but those which properly belong to the legal dispensation. All such promises, by whatever name they may be called, are made under the condition that the reward is to be paid on the things commanded being done. But when it is said that the Lord keeps a covenant of mercy with those who love him, the words rather demonstrate what kind of servants those are who have sincerely entered into the covenant, than express the reason why the Lord blesses them. The nature of the demonstration is this: As the end for which God bestows upon us the gift of eternal life is, that he may be loved, feared, and worshipped by us, so the end of all the promises of mercy contained in Scripture justly is that we may reverence and serve their author. Therefore, whenever we hear that he does good to those that observe his law, let us remember that the sons of God are designated by the duty which they ought perpetually to observe, that his reason for adopting us is, that we may reverence him as a father. Hence, if we would not deprive ourselves of the privilege of adoption, we must always strive in the direction of our calling. On the other hand, however, let us remember, that the completion of the Divine mercy depends not on the works of believers, but that God himself fulfill the promise of salvation to those who by right conduct correspond to their calling, because he recognizes the true badges of sons in those only who are directed to good by his Spirit. To this we may refer what is said of the members of the Church, "Lord, who shall abide in thy tabernacle? who shall dwell in thy holy hill? He that walketh uprightly, and worketh righteousness, and speaketh the truth in his heart," &c. (Ps. 15:1, 2). Again, in Isaiah, "Who among us shall dwell with the devouring fire? who among us shall dwell with everlasting burnings? He that walketh righteously," &c. (Isa. 33:14, 15). For the thing described is not the strength with which believers can stand before the Lord, but the manner in which our most merciful Father introduces them into his fellowship, and defends and confirms them therein. For as he detests sin and loves righteousness, so those whom he unites to himself he purifies by his Spirit, that he may render them conformable to himself and to his kingdom. Therefore, if it be asked, What is the first cause which gives the saints free access to the kingdom of God, and a firm and permanent footing in it? the answer is easy. The Lord in his mercy once adopted and ever defends them. But if the question relates to the manner, we must descend to regeneration, and the fruits of it, as enumerated in the fifteenth Psalm.

     Christian Classics Ethereal Library / Public Domain

     Institutes of the Christian Religion

Christ In 2 Samuel

By A. M. Hodgkin 1909

David was three times anointed: first in his father's house [1Sam 16:1-13], then over Judah, and lastly over all Israel. God has anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the oil of gladness. He is King of kings and Lord of lords, but as David-- though anointed king-- was in exile while Saul reigned over the people, so Christ is rejected by the world, and the ''Prince of this world'' is reigning in the hearts of men.

A day came when the men of Judah gathered to David and anointed him king in Hebron. ''The Spirit clothed Amasai and he said, Thine are we, David, and on thy side'' (2Sam 2:4; 1Chr 12:18). It is a joyful day in the experience of the believer when he yields the full allegiance of his heart to the Lord Jesus Christ, and says, ''Thine am I, and on Thy side''; when he can look up into His face and say, ''Thou art my King'' (Psa 44:4).

''Now there was long war between the house of Saul and the house of David: but David waxed stronger and stronger, and the house of Saul waxed weaker and weaker'' (2Sam 3:1), until at last Abner said to the elders of Israel: ''Ye sought for David in times past to be king over you. Now then do it: for the Lord hath spoken of David, saying, By the hand of My servant David I will save My people Israel out of the hand of the Philistines, and out of the hand of all their enemies.'' ''Then came all the tribes of Israel to David unto Hebron, and spake, saying, Behold, we are thy bone and thy flesh… And they anointed David king over Israel'' (5:1-3). ''One from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother'' (Deu 17:15). ''The king is near of kin to us'' (2Sam 19:42). ''In all things made like unto His brethren'' (Heb 2:17). Here we see all Israel united under their rightful king. A picture of a heart which is wholly true in its allegiance to the King of kings.

God's promise to Israel was that He would save them from all their enemies by the hand of David. And this was literally fulfilled, from the day that he slew Goliath, all through his reign. We never read of his being defeated. So Christ has vanquished our great enemy, Satan. [Christ] has come ''that we, being delivered out of the hand of our enemies, might serve Him without fear'' [Luke 1:74]. ''He must reign till He hath put all enemies under His feet'' [1Cor 15:25]. ''Of the increase of His government and peace there shall be no end'' (Isa 9:7).

''And David took the stronghold of Zion'' [2Sam 5:7]. This is like the central citadel of our will. When that is surrendered to the Lord, His reign is established. [cp. 2Cor 10:4,5]

In the story of Mephibosheth [2Sam 9], we have a beautiful picture of the grace of our King, in bringing us nigh and making us ''as one of the King's sons,'' ''to eat bread at His table continually.'' He brings us into His bancqueting-house and bids us partake, saying, ''Eat, O friends; drink, yea, drink abundantly, O beloved'' [Song 5:1]. He Himself is the heavenly food, for He says, ''The bread that I give is My flesh,'' and ''My flesh is meat indeed'' [John 6:51,55].

David's Sin.

But any type of our blessed Saviour falls short somewhere. And David, as a type, is no exception. We come next to the record of David's awful sin [2Sam 11]. How can such a sinner be described as ''a man after God's own heart''? [1Sam 13:13,14]. All through the life of David there is one characteristic which marks him out from other men, and in special contrast to Saul, and that is his continual trust and confidence in God, his acknowledgment of God's rule, his surrender to God's will. The great desire of his heart was to build God's House, yet when God sets him aside because he has been a man of war, he acquiesces with perfect grace to the Divine will [2Sam 7:5-13; 1Chr 28:3-5]. When Nathan brings home to [David's] conscience the great sin of his life-- absolute monarch that he is-- he acknowledges it at once [2Sam 12], and the depth of his penitence is such as only a heart that knows God can feel. For all time, the fifty-first Psalm stands out as the expression of the deepest contrition of a repentant soul. In that Psalm, David speaks of a broken heart as the only sacrifice he has to offer, a sacrifice which God will not despise. And the high and Holy One that inhabiteth eternity goes further in His wondrous condescension and says, by the mouth of Isaiah, ''I dwell in the high and holy place, with him also that is of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite ones'' (Isa 57:15).

The Bible does not cloak sin, least of all in God's own children. It does not spare God's saints. There were steps leading up to David's sin-- his multiplying wives, his tarrying still at Jerusalem when he should have been at the war. It is always the case that there is backsliding of heart, before it is seen in outward act. David sinned grievously, but his repentance was immediate, deep, and sincere. God, indeed, blotted out his transgressions, according to the multitude of His tender mercies, but he did not remove the consequences of the sin: He chastened David through sore trials in his own family.

A Rebel.

In the flight of Absalom, after the murder of his brother, we have a picture of a rebel soul far off from God. In David, we have a picture of God's sorrow over sinners. ''The King wept very sore… And David mourned for his son every day… And the soul of David longed to go forth unto Absalom'' [2Sam 13]. In the word of the wise woman of Tekoa, ''God deviseth means, that he that is banished be not an outcast from Him'' (2Sam 14:14, R.V.), we have an echo of God's words: ''Deliver him from going down to the pit, I have found a ransom,'' or ''atonement'' (Job 33:24, margin).

Even when Absalom was in rebellion, the King commanded, ''Deal gently, for my sake, with the young man, even with Absalom.'' In this, we see the forbearance of God with sinners. And when he heard of his death, he cried: ''O my son Absalom! my son, my son Absalom! would God I had died for thee, O Absalom, my son, my son!'' David would fain have died for the rebel, but he could not [2Sam 18]. How this carries our thoughts on to the One who was not only willing, but able to lay down His life, the Just for the unjust, to bring us to God [1Pet 3:18].

Love's Allegiance.

In David's exile [2Sam ch. 15-17], we have again a picture of the rejected Saviour. The eastern walls of Jerusalem are bounded by a deep ravine-- the torrent-bed of the Kidron. When the rebellion of Absalom drove David from his own city, we can imagine him coming forth by an eastern gate-- probably what answered to the modern gate of St. Stephen-- and following the winding path down the rocky side of the valley. The King did not go alone. A band of faithful servants went with him; and a little in advance, six hundred Philistines from the city of Gath, under their leader, Ittai, the Gittite. David had probably won the hearts of these men during his [stay] in the Philistine city of Ziklag, some thirty years before, and now they were ready to stand by him in time of trouble. When David came up with this band at the bottom of the ravine, he tried to dissuade Ittai from following him. He besought him as a stranger, and as one who had but recently joined his service, not to attach himself to a doubtful cause, and he bade him return with his blessing. But Ittai was firm, his place, whether in life or in death, was by the master he loved. Touched by such devoted allegiance, David allowed Ittai to pass over the torrent-bed with all his men, and with the little ones that were with him-- no doubt the families of the band. With the voice of weeping, all the exiles passed over, and climbed the grassy slopes of the Mount of Olives on the other side. David set captains of thousands over the people that were with him-- a third part under the hand of Ittai the Gittite. The devotion of his followers comes out at every turn. When they found that their King intended to go forth with them into the battle, they would on no account allow it, but restrained him with the words: ''Thou shalt not go forth; for if the half of us die they will not care for us; but thou art worth ten thousand of us!'' [2Sam 18:3].

A thousand years have passed. Again a rejected King goes forth from the Jerusalem gate, and down the pathway into the dark valley, and up the slopes of Olivet. Instead of the strong band that went with David, there are but eleven men to go with David's Son, and of the chosen three not one remains awake to share His agony [Mat 26:36-46]. ''I have trodden the wine-press alone, and of the people there was none with Me'' [Isa 63:3]. The enthusiasm of David's followers led them to restrain him from going into the battle. But when the soldiers came to take the Lord of Glory, His little body-guard all forsook Him and fled, and He who is the chiefest among ten thousand, and altogether lovely [Song 5:10,16], laid down His life for rebels and deserters.

Nearly two thousand years have passed since then. ''Our Lord is still rejected and by the world disowned.'' There is still the golden opportunity today of making His heart glad by such a devotion as Ittai's. We are His blood-bought possession. It is His purpose that we should share His glory throughout eternity. And He claims our heart's love now.

Hushai the Archite and Zadok and Abiathar were to represent the King at the very center of rebellion-- ''in the world, but not of it''; ambassadors in an enemy's country [cp. 2Cor 5:20]. In Shimei, who cursed David in his rejection, we have a picture of those who reviled Jesus, wagging their heads and mocking Him.

''I will smite the King only,'' was Ahithophel's advice to Absalom, ''and I will bring back all the people unto thee.'' ''Smite the Shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered'' [Mat 26:31]. Jesus, our Shepherd, was ''stricken, smitten of God'' for us [Isa 53]. And the King passed over Jordan, that river of death.

The Return of the King.

We have a vivid picture of the return of David to the city of Zion [2Sam 19:9-40]. The people clamored for the return of the King. ''Now, therefore, why speak ye not a word of bringing the King back?'' The King heard of this and sent an encouraging message to the elders. ''And the heart of all the men of Judah was bowed to the King, even as the heart of one man; so that they sent this word unto the King, Return thou, and all thy servants.''

''Amen. Even so, come Lord Jesus'' [Rev 22:20]. According to Eastern custom, the men of Judah went right over Jordan to meet their King, and bring him back, and the crowd of rejoicing subjects increased as they drew near the city. One day the cry will go forth, ''Behold, the Bridegroom cometh; go ye out to meet Him'' [Mat 25:6]. The ''the dead in Christ shall rise first,'' and the saints that are alive on the earth shall be caught up to meet Him in the air [1The 4:16,17]. Our King has set this certainty of hope before us, and calls us to live in the joyful expectation of it. This should lead to faithfulness in service-- ''Behold, I come quickly; and My reward is with Me, to give every man according as his work shall be'' (Rev 22:12)-- and [according] to holiness of life (Titus 2:11-14).

A Gospel for the Hopeless.

The ''Mighty Men'' of David's kingdom [2Sam 23:8-39] were those who came to him in the time of his exile, when he was fleeing from Saul. They were escaped outlaws and criminals, but under David's leadership they became brave, self-controlled, magnanimous men, like their captain. ''Every one that was in distress, and every one that was in debt, and every one that was discontented, gathered themselves unto him; and he became a captain over them: and there was with him about four hundred men'' (1Sam 22:2). ''This Man receiveth sinners'' [Luke 15:2]. It is a glorious Gospel that is committed to our trust! It is the Gospel for the outcast, for the refuse of society. It is the Gospel of hope for the worst and the lowest. The transforming power of the Cross of Christ is seen in changed lives wherever the Gospel is preached.