By James Orr 1907

NOTE C.—P. 206 | THE VIEW OF J AND E AS “SCHOOLS”

WE append a few utterances of recent writers on this subject: —

Budde says: “J and E are throughout not to me persons, but extensive schools of writers, running their course alongside of each other” ( Judges, p. xiv).

Gunkel says: “J and E are not individual writers, nor yet redactors of old single documents, but rather schools of narrators” ( Genesis, p. lviii).

Dr. Cheyne says: “The Yahwists were, in fact, perhaps a school of writers” (Founders of Criticism, p. 30).

Dr. Driver says that P “seems, as a whole, to have been the work of a school of writers rather than of an individual” ( Genesis, p. xvi), and no doubt would apply the same to J and E.

Kautzsch says: “A close examination of its (J’s) contents showed long ago that here also we have to do with various strata, and therefore with the work of a Jahwistic school” (Lit. of O.T., p. 37; similarly of E, p. 45).

McFadyen says: “More properly they (J and E) were the work of a school, and represent a literary and religious activity that ranges over a considerable period.… The priestly document … is, like the prophetic documents, not the work of a single author, but of a school, and represents a movement” (Messages of the Proph. and Priestly Historians, pp. 22, 224).

The Oxford Hexateuch, i. p. x, tabular Contents, says: “J represents a school rather than a single author.”

NOTES TO CHAPTER VIII | NOTE A.—P. 252 | THE BREAKING UP OF DEUTERONOMY

AN example is furnished in a recent work, The Book of the Covenant in Moab: A Critical Inquiry into the Original Form of  Deuteronomy, by John Cullen, M.A., D.Sc. (1903), which, however, the author admits “differs radically from that which has come to be regarded almost as a tradition of criticism.” We cannot see, however, that his theory differs much in principle from some of the other modern attempts. He splits up the book into a greater number of parts than the more cautious critics have done, and seeks to assign to each its place in the total composition. The original appearance of the book he holds, with the critics, to have been in the reign of Josiah. He makes the book begin with chap.  29:1–4. He leaves out chaps.  1–4:9, and transfers chap.  5:2 to a position introductory to chap.  4:10 ff. This original  Deuteronomy extended (with omissions) to chap.  11:28, but had as its conclusion chap.  28:1–45 (omitting vers.  2–9 ); chap.  30:11–20: Ex. 24:4–8 (!), and  Deut. 32:45, 46. The Decalogue in chap.  5. is excised as unsuitable to the context, and is relegated to a “Decalogue Edition,” which appeared some time before the exile. The Decalogue in  Ex. 20 is still later. Successive developments follow through the addition of “Law Code,” a “First Combined Edition,” a “Second or Decalogue Edition,” a “Third or Minatory Edition,” an “Exilic Redaction,” “Post-Exilic Additions,” and a “P Redaction.” If the able author is seriously persuaded that any book under heaven was ever made by such a process, we feel, with all respect, that there is hardly any common ground for argument.

Oettli is a comparatively conservative writer, who defends the unity of the main body of  Deuteronomy, but even he is badly bitten when he comes to the closing chapters. The following is his analysis of chaps.  27–34. ( Deut. p.  12 ):—

27:1–3, Dt.; 4, R; 5–7a, JE; 7b, 8, R; 9–13, Dt.; 14–26, R; 28:1–68, Dt. (with reserve as to enlargements); 28:68–30:20, Dt. (with redactional changes and transpositions); 31:1–13, Dt.; 14, 15, JE; 16–22, introduction to Moses’ Song out of JE; 23, JE; 24–29, Dt.; 30, R; 32:1–44, from JE; 45–47, Dt.; 48–52, P; 33. from JE; 34:1 P, Dt. JE; 2–4, JE; 5?, 6, Dt.; 7, P, JE; 8, 9, P; 10–12 Dt.

There are elements of truth in this analysis, but it is assuredly greatly overdone.

NOTE B.—P. 253 | DEUTERONOMIC AND PRIESTLY STYLES

IN a note to the first edition of his O. T. in J. C. (p. 433), Professor W. R. Smith cites as “a good example of the fundamental difference in legal style between the Levitical law and the Deuteronomic Code,” the laws about the cities of refuge in  Num. 35 and  Deut. 19. The case is worth considering as “a good example” also of the tendency to overdrive argument. Allowance in any case must be made for the difference between a careful original statement of a law, and a later general rehearsal of its substance in the rounded style of free, popular discourse. But what are the specific differences? “In  Deuteronomy the word ‘refuge’ does not occur, and the cities are always described by a periphrasis.” But the Deuteronomist simply says: “Thou shalt separate three cities for thee in the midst of thy land (chap.  19:2 ); “thou shalt separate three cities for thee” (ver.  7 ); “then shalt thou add three cities more for thee” (ver.  9 ); and there is no periphrasis. The phrase “that every manslayer may flee thither” (ver.  3 ), “the manslayer which shall flee thither” (ver.  4 ), is derived verbally from  Num. 35:11, 15. “In  Numbers the phrase for ‘accidentally’ is bish’gaga, in  Deut. bib’li da‘at.” Admitted, but the words convey the same idea, and are only used twice altogether — in  Num. 35:11, 15 and in  Deut. 4:42, 19:4. “The judges in the one are ‘the congregation,’ in the other ‘the elders of his city.’ ” But  Deuteronomy says nothing about “judges,” and “the elders,” who are once referred to in chap.  19:12, plainly act in the name of the congregation. “The verb for hate is different.” Rather, “the verb for hate” does not occur at all in  Num. 35, but the noun derived from it does (ver.  20 ), and is translated “hatred,” while in vers.  21, 22, a different term, translated “enmity,” is employed, which expresses nearly the same sense. Had these words appeared, one in  Numbers, the other in  Deuteronomy, instead of standing in consecutive verses of one chapter, they would doubtless have been quoted as further evidence of diversity. So “one account says again and again ‘to kill any person,’ the other ‘to kill his neighbour’ ” — a difference surely not incompatible with identity even of authorship. “Neighbour” is found repeatedly, alternating with another word, in  Lev. 19. (vers.  13, 16, 18; 20:10 — P), and “to kill a person” occurs in  Deut. 27:25. (Cf. the Heb. idiom in the law itself,  Deut. 19:6, 11. ) “The detailed description of the difference between murder and accidental homicide is entirely different in language and detail.” But in  Deuteronomy there is no “detailed description” of the kind referred to. There is in  Num. 35:16–24; but  Deuteronomy confines itself to one simple illustration from concrete life, admirably adapted, it will be admitted, to the speaker’s popular purpose (chap.  19:5 ). The statement in  Deuteronomy, it is evident, presupposes the earlier law, and is incomplete without it, occupying only about a dozen verses, as compared with over twenty in  Numbers, while even of the dozen, three are occupied with a new provision for the number of the cities being ultimately raised to nine (vers.  8–10 ). When, further, Dr. Smith points out that “ Num. 35:11–34 contains 19 nouns and verbs which occur also in  Deut. 19:2–13, and 45 which do not occur in the parallel passage; while the law, as given in  Deuteronomy, has 50 such words not in the law of  Numbers,” he applies a numerical test which, considering the different character of the two passages, is quite misleading. We have before us the text of Mr. Gladstone’s Home Rule Bill, and his speeches made in introducing it to the House of Commons; but what havoc a similar enumeration would make of his title to the authorship of the Bill! It is not contended that Moses with his own pen necessarily wrote out all these laws, any more than that Mr. Gladstone drafted his own Bill.

We have not, in these remarks, taken any notice of  Josh. 20:3–6, where the language of  Num. 35 and of  Deut. 19 is blended. The Deuteronomic expressions are lacking in the LXX (Vat.), and it is possible they may be a later gloss.

NOTE C.—P. 258 | DEUTERONOMY AS FRAUS PIA

ONE of Reuss’s propositions, endorsed by Wellhausen, is: “ Deuteronomy is the book which the priests pretended to have found in the temple in the time of Josiah” (Wellhausen, Hist. of Israel, p. 4).

Kuenen says: “It is certain that an author of the seventh century B.C. — following in the footsteps of others, e.g., of the writer of the Book of the Covenant — has made Moses himself proclaim that which, in his opinion, it was expedient to the real interests of the Mosaic party to announce and introduce.… Men used to perpetrate such fictions as these without any qualms of conscience.… If Hilkiah found the book in the temple, it was put there by the adherents of the Mosaic tendency. Or else Hilkiah himself was of their number, and in that case he pretended that he had found the book of the law.… It is true, this deception is more unjustifiable still than the introduction of Moses as speaking. But we must reflect here also that the ideas of those times were not the same as ours, but considerably less strict” (Rel. of Israel, ii. pp. 18–19). We fancy that the ideas of the author of  Deuteronomy and of  Jeremiah will compare favourably in “strictness” with those of the writer of the above section.

Cornill says: “We must recognise the fact that we have here a pseudograph, and that this was known to the persons interested.… The excuse for them must be that they saw no other means of carrying through their work, planned in the spirit of Moses and for the honour of Jahve” (Einleitung, pp. 37–8).

Colenso, as seen above (p. 258), thinks  Jeremiah may have been the falsarius. “It is obvious,” he says, “that very few beside the writer may have been privy to the scheme, — perhaps only the priest Hilkiah, and possibly Huldah, and one or two others” (Pent. Pop. edit. p. 198).

Dr. Cheyne, after toying with, and half-adopting this hypothesis in his  Jeremiah, in “Men of the Bible” series (pp. 76 ff.: “What he — Hilkiah — practised, however, was not deceit, not delusion, but rather illusion” p. 77), goes wholly over to it in his Founders of Criticism (pp. 267 ff.). “How is it that Hilkiah, Shaphan, and Huldah display such imperturbability? The easiest supposition is that these three persons (to whom we must add Ahikam, Achbor, and Asaiah) had agreed together, unknown to the king, on their course of action” (p. 267). “I quite enter into the dislike of reverent Bible - readers for the theory of ‘pious fraud.’ I think that dislike an exaggerated one. No student of Oriental life and history could be surprised at a pious fraud originating among priests. But I do not adopt that theory to account for  2 Kings 22.” [this is simple casuistry] (p. 271). Hilkiah’s conduct in imposing the book on Josiah is justified. “Such conduct as that of Hilkiah is, I maintain, worthy of an inspired teacher and statesman in that age and under those circumstances. It is also not without a distant resemblance to the course of Divine Providence, so far as this can be scanned by our weak faculties. Indeed, if we reject the theory of ‘needful illusion’ we are thrown upon a sea of perplexity. Was there no book [Dr. Cheyne’s own] on  Jeremiah bringing home the need of this theory to the Christian conscience, to which Dr. Driver could have referred?” (p. 272). Our ideas in these days are “more strict”!

NOTE D.—P. 260 | OBLIVION OF CHARLEMAGNE’S CODE

DR. CHEYNE refers in his  Jeremiah (p. 76), in illustration of  2 Kings 22, to an instance of successful forgery in the history of England given in Maine’s Ancient Law (p. 82). Dr. Green, on the other hand, cites from Sir James Stephen an apposite case of the loss of knowledge of a whole Code — that of Charlemagne. “When the barbarism of the domestic government,” says this authority, “had thus succeeded the barbarism of the government of the State, one of the most remarkable results of that political change was the disappearance of the laws and institutions by which Charlemagne had endeavoured to elevate and civilise his subjects. Before the close of the century in which he died the whole body of his laws had fallen into utter disuse throughout the whole extent of his Gallic dominions. They who have studied the charters, laws, and chronicles of the later Carlovingian princes most diligently are unanimous in declaring that they indicate either an absolute ignorance, or an entire forgetfulness of the legislation of Charlemagne” (Lects. on Hist. of France, p. 94; Green, Higher Criticism, p. 156).

The Problem of the Old Testament

In Season and Out of Season

By Douglas Wilson 4/1/1999

     Y2K has not always been on everyone’s lips, but it will be. For years, those who had taken the responsibility of warning others were pretty lonely. Now that we have little time left, we have mounting awareness—and mounting consternation.

     In the midst of this, many pastors are wondering about their duty to their people. A few pastors have attempted an extreme solution, trying (sometimes successfully) to get their people to run for the tall grass. Sadly, many others have remained relatively complacent, and probably will remain so until the secular media give them reason to be respectably concerned, followed soon after by the panic of the unprepared. But increasingly, many pastors want to know how to be biblically responsible right where they are. And even though this is America, we have no constitutional right to easy answers.

     When the center of a culture gives way, as it has in ours, we must learn to look past the obvious. For example, modern Americans tend to think that if God were to show His displeasure, it would be only through plagues, earthquakes, military disasters, or whatever. Or at least we think we know this. If asked about it, we would perhaps mutter something about biblical judgments and the four horsemen.

     But another, lesser-known biblical judgment should be kept in mind. God says that He can make the heart of a people so fearful that they flee from a windblown leaf (Lev. 26:36). They run though no one pursues (Lev. 26:37). They are filled with suspense and dread (Deut. 28:66), and terror reigns within their homes (Deut. 32:25). Because of the turmoil, confusion, madness, and a despairing heart are common (Deut. 28:20, 28, 65). All these are indications that God’s hand is upon a people, and not for blessing.

     Now it is crucial that we distinguish between scriptural injunctions not to panic (Phil. 4:6; 1 Peter 5:7) and the humanistic soothing that says we should not worry because nothing is wrong. Actually, plenty is wrong, but the teaching of the Bible here is that the chaos of panic is not a response to chastisement but is part of the chastisement itself. For the believer it is wrong to give way to fear, because a sovereign God is controlling all the details for His own glorious purposes.

     In light of this, what should a pastor do to prepare his people? The rule of thumb is that our duties do not change with the seasons; we should begin doing all those things we should have been doing anyway. In what follows, we should hope that we find nothing drastically new.

     First, the pastor must be well-informed; he should not be provincial in his reading. Too many pastors get caught up in the day-to-day administration of their churches, focused only on getting through the next Lord’s Day. But the duty of pastors in times of disorientation is to preach the Word in season and out of season. In order to do this, the pastor has to have some awareness of the nature of the disorientation. But in his political and cultural reading, he must remember that theology always comes out our fingertips. Social calamities, therefore, must not be understood as “random bad things”—our God is a God who keeps covenant, and this necessarily includes covenant blessings and curses. And this cannot be understood apart from a diligent study of Scripture and church history, up to the present. How many pastors are like the men of Issachar, who understood the times and knew what Israel should do (1 Chron. 12:32)?

     Second, a man’s preaching does not have to be “relevant” to be relevant. When current events appear with great frequency in the pulpit, along with multiple clippings from the major news magazines, something is seriously wrong. A pastor has a duty to have the pulse of the culture in which he preaches, but when he preaches, he ascends the pulpit in order to preach the Word. But what aspects of the Word? Which topics? Which books of the Bible? In times of social distress, the most appropriate thing a pastor could do would be to cease being a “whispering Calvinist.” If there is disaster, did not the Lord do it (Amos 3:6)? In times of cultural disintegration, the best gift the people can receive is that of scriptural understanding. But if God is not completely in control, such understanding is impossible. And such understanding does not happen unless … how will they hear without a preacher? In the face of a looming Y2K crisis, the pulpit should not be filled with the looming Y2K crisis, but rather with the majesty, glory, sovereignty, goodness, severity, and mercy of almighty God.

     In times of complacency, pastors too often are tempted to avoid anything that might excite “controversy.” But this is to heal the wounds of the people lightly, saying “Peace, peace” when there isn’t any. Samuel Johnson once commented that being hanged in a fortnight has a good side—it concentrates the mind wonderfully. In the same way, a social crisis like Y2K may have the salutary benefit of getting many pastors to discharge their office.

     Lastly, through God’s grace, a pastor should labor to establish covenant community within the congregation. In too many modern churches, the parishoners have the same ties to one another that fellow shoppers at Sears do, which is to say, next to none. But a church should be a place where trust, knowledge, and commitment are all cultivated. The church at Jerusalem in the first century had been told that the city would be leveled. In the face of this disaster, the records show that they truly loved one another (Acts 4:33–34).

     Let us hope God grants us the same gift, and that great grace will be upon us all.

One Day More?

By R.C. Sproul Jr. 4/1/1999

     I’ve never been a great science student. My interest in science is a byproduct of my interest in philosophy. I’ve noticed that the two often intersect, however unintentionally. Newton, with his fixed laws of motion, fueled, much to his chagrin, a deistic worldview. Darwin, who turned all the world into a living and changing organism, gave rise to social Darwinism and the dialectical view of history (which results clashed mightily in the eastern front of World War 11). Einstein came along with relativity, and, surprise, the culture is swimming in relativism.

     Newton, however, has not quite left us. You’ll remember his law of inertia, that objects at rest tend to remain at rest and objects in motion tend to remain in motion unless acted upon by an outside force. Without this concept, science is impossible. If some apples fall and some apples float, for no reason, we just can’t be sure of anything.

     But the concept of inertia has, at least in the West, infected our view of history. Perhaps aided by some degree of stability in our recent past, we have jumped to the erroneous conclusion that tomorrow will be much like today. If a worldwide depression, two world wars, and genocide around the globe haven’t wiped the smiles off our faces, we are still Enlightenment optimists. Tomorrow will be like today, we seem to think, except better.

     But what if it is not? We live in an age when unstable atoms wait to be unleashed by unstable rulers and terrorists, when deadly viruses abound, both in nature and in the laboratories of madmen. We teeter on the edge of economic collapse as the wind rustles about our economic house of credit cards. And then there is that nasty bug everyone is talking about, the millennium bug. Oh, and don’t forget the all-powerful, jealous God, who must not be too pleased with us.

     Tomorrow may be another step up the mountain, or we may step off a cliff. History is in the hands not of potentates and scientists, but of God. It is not just Christians who live coram Deo—we all do. He is watching us, but not from a distance. Like the sparrows, we are not to worry. But like the ant, we are to prepare for tomorrow, whatever His providence may bring.

More Than an Exit

By R.C. Sproul 4/1/2000

     Death has been on my mind of late. As I write, it is just days after Ligonier Ministries lost a friend and board member, Robert Fraley, in the plane crash that took golfer Payne Stewart. And in the last three months, my wife, Denise, and I have lost two children to miscarriage. But resurrection is likewise on my mind. A few days ago, I received the best news I’ve heard in a long time. A dear friend who had ceased to be a friend, who had been judged as outside the kingdom, who had been excommunicated by her session, has repented. I feel like Mary and Martha must have felt when their beloved brother exited the grave.

     Death ought to do that to us, to move our minds to think on the future. Yes, there is a time for mourning, but not as the pagans who have no hope. Death without a view to the coming resurrection is, in a word, deadly. But death in our context, remembering and looking to resurrection, is gain. There is also a time for dancing.

     Our problem is that we miss both. We find ourselves caught up in the bustle of the world, that frenzied pursuit of distraction that helps us forget that the grave awaits. Rather than rejoice, we’d just prefer not to think about it.

     This simply evidences our unbelief. I’ve instructed my wife as to the nature of my wake — I want it to be a party. I’ve been coram Deo. I’ve tasted the presence of God. I’ve knelt at the Lord’s Table and quaked in His presence. And I want more. My appetite for life leads me to an appetite for death. And when my King calls me from the battle, I’ll be ready to go. It’s not just that the sting is gone. It’s not just that the grave holds no victory. Jesus didn’t come to secure a mere tie with the forces of darkness. He routed them, so much so that their greatest weapon, death, becomes our great reward.

     Paul’s struggle between the twin goods of serving Him on this earth and going to our — that is, His — reward is not some bizarre manifestation of super - godliness. Instead, we are called to cultivate the same attitude. We are to long to go home, to return to that country wherein we have our citizenship. If we don’t have that longing, I fear we might be just a little too much at home in this world we’re just passing through. But as one wise girl once told us, there’s no place like home.

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 Last Enemy

By R.C. Sproul 4/1/2000

     “HALT! WHO GOES THERE?”

     Such might be the words of a sentry who confronts a mysterious stranger in the darkness. The sentry must discern the identity of the trespasser to determine whether he is a friend or foe. Armed to protect his territory, the vigilant guard wants to avoid two evils: 1) the entrance into the compound of an enemy bent on destruction and 2) the mistaken shooting of an ally stumbling about in the dark.

     There is an intruder in our garden — the one called death. Our task is to determine whether his grin is the fiendish mask of a mortal enemy or the benign smile of a friend come to rescue us from this vale of tears. Should we greet him with strident protests or with open arms?

     The Bible describes death as an enemy. It is not the only enemy of the Christian, but it is described as the “last enemy.” In 1 Corinthians, Paul affirms that Christ will reign until He has put all enemies under His feet, and the last of those enemies will be death (15:25–26). It should be a great comfort to the believer to know that the one in whom he places his trust is Christus Victor. We see this clearly in Hebrews, where the author describes Jesus as our archegos, or the “supreme champion” of His people.

     The champion motif is central not only to Hebrews but to the entire Bible. We think of the famous episode of the match between David and Goliath. The Israelites and Philistines had agreed that the outcome of their war would be determined not by a full confrontation of the armies but by a contest between champions who would represent each side. Goliath, the gigantic champion of the Philistines, struck terror into the hearts of the Jewish soldiers because he appeared invincible. No one volunteered to go up against him until the shepherd boy, David, stepped forward to assume the task. His conquest of Goliath was astonishing, but it pales into insignificance when placed alongside the victory of David’s greater Son, who was also David’s Lord and David’s champion. As David went up against the power of Goliath, Jesus went up against the power of Satan himself.

     Notice the link between Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 15 and that found in Hebrews 2.

     1 Corinthians 15:26–28 says, “The last enemy that will be destroyed is death. For ‘He has put all things under His feet.’ But when He says ‘all things are put under Him,’ it is evident that He who put all things under Him is excepted. Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.”

     Now note Hebrews 2:8ff: “For in that He put all in subjection under Him, He left nothing that is not put under Him. But now we do not yet see all things put under Him. But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that He, by the grace of God, might taste death for everyone. For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.”

     Both 1 Corinthians and Hebrews harken back to Psalm 8, in which the “son of man” fulfills the destiny of the Second Adam and receives from the Father dominion over creation. This placing of all things in or under subjection to Christ has both a present and a future dimension. In His ascension, Christ was invested as the King of kings and Lord of lords. He is already at the right hand of the Father and reigns over all creation. But the whole of creation is not yet in willing submission or subjection to Him. In short, Christ has rebellious subjects. Satan himself is still in rebellion.

     The connection between Satan and death is important: “Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, and release those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage” (Heb. 2:14–15).

     Here it is declared that the devil had the power of death until that power was wrenched away from him by Christ. We must remember that any power or authority Satan ever has is a delegated authority, as the ultimate authority over death and everything else is God. But Satan’s delegated authority over death is taken from him by Christ. The irony is that Christ’s victory over the devil and the power of death is accomplished by means of death. In His death, Jesus is victorious over death. Death cannot hold Him.

     Yet there is still a future dimension to this victory, for Paul says that the last enemy that will be destroyed is death. He writes this years after the Cross. Thus, even though Christ dealt a mortal blow to Satan and death in His own death, there still remained a victory to be won.

     Something glorious and decisive did take place on the cross with respect to death. The sting of death was removed by the captain of our salvation. Paul writes: “So when this corruptible has put on incorruption, and this mortal has put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written: ‘Death is swallowed up in victory.’ ‘O Death, where is your sting? O Hades, where is your victory?’ The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law. But thanks be to God who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 15:54–57).

     Here is our “Champion Christology.” God gives to us a victory that we have not achieved for ourselves. It is won for us by another. Victory over Goliath is not worthy to be compared to victory over death.

     So is death now our friend? Or is it still our foe? For believers, death is a friend insofar as it ushers us into the immediate presence of Christ. But insofar as it is still coupled with much suffering, it remains the last enemy that must be totally vanquished. However, our problem with death is not with death itself but with the process that leads up to it. It is dying that is still feared by Christians. What Christian would be afraid of death if we could just shut our eyes and wake up in heaven? We know that the other side of death is glory and that death is but the portal or threshold to that glory.

     Paul knew the glory of death, as evidenced by his anguish and ambivalence regarding his possible departure from this life. He wrote: “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).

     Paul here makes a comparison between life and death. It is not a contrast between the good and the bad. Neither is it a comparison between the good and the better. It is a comparison between the good and the far better.

     Because of Christ’s conquest of death, we are called “hyper-conquerors” by Paul: “Yet in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us” (Rom. 8:37). “All these things” include life and death, and everything in between. Dominion over the curse of death is sealed for those who are beloved of Christ.

     In this same passage, Paul answers his own question about what shall separate us from the love of Christ: nothing can do that, not even death. Those of us who are approaching that deadly day have nothing to fear but God Himself.

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 Institutes of the Christian Religion

Translated by Henry Beveridge

     CHAPTER 15.

THE BOASTED MERIT OF WORKS SUBVERSIVE BOTH OF THE GLORY OF GOD, IN BESTOWING RIGHTEOUSNESS, AND OF THE CERTAINTY OF SALVATION.

The divisions of this chapter are,--I. To the doctrine of free justification is opposed the question, Whether or not works merit favor with God, sec. 1. This question answered, sec. 2 and 3. II. An exposition of certain passages of Scripture produced in support of the erroneous doctrine of merit, sec. 4 and 5. III. Sophisms of Semipelagian Schoolmen refuted, sec. 6 and 7. IV. Conclusion, proving the sufficiency of the orthodox doctrine, sec. 8.

Sections.

1. After a brief recapitulation, the question, Whether or not good works merit favor with God, considered.

2. First answer, fixing the meaning of the term Merit. This term improperly applied to works, but used in a good sense, as by Augustine, Chrysostom, Bernard.

3. A second answer to the question. First by a negative, then by a concession. In the rewarding of works what to be attributed to God, and what to man. Why good works please God, and are advantageous to those who do them. The ingratitude of seeking righteousness by works. This shown by a double similitude.

4. First objection taken from Ecclesiasticus. Second objection from the Epistle to the Hebrews. Two answers to both objections. A weak distinction refuted.

5. A third and most complete answer, calling us back to Christ as the only foundation of salvation. How Christ is our righteousness. Whence it is manifest that we have all things in Christ and he nothing in us.

6. We must abhor the sophistry which destroys the merit of Christ, in order to establish that of man. This impiety refuted by clear passages of Scripture.

7. Errors, of the younger Sophists extracted from Lombard. Refuted by Augustine. Also by Scripture.

8. Conclusion, showing that the foundation which has been laid is sufficient for doctrine, exhortation, and comfort. Summery of the orthodox doctrine of Justification.

1. The principal point in this subject has been now explained: as justifications if dependent upon works, cannot possibly stand in the sight of God, it must depend solely on the mercy of God and communion with Christ, and therefore on faith alone. But let us carefully attend to the point on which the whole subject hinges, lest we get entangled in the common delusion, not only of the vulgar, but of the learned. For the moment the question is raised as to the justification by faith or works, they run off to those passages which seem to ascribe some merit to works in the sight of God, just as if justification by works were proved whenever it is proved that works have any value with God. Above we have clearly shown that justification by works consists only in a perfect and absolute fulfillment of the law, and that, therefore, no man is justified by works unless he has reached the summit of perfection, and cannot be convicted of even the smallest transgression. But there is another and a separate question, Though works by no means suffice to justify, do they not merit favor with God?

2. First, I must premise with regard to the term Merit, that he, whoever he was, that first applied it to human works, viewed in reference to the divine tribunal, consulted very ill for the purity of the faith. I willingly abstain from disputes about words, but I could wish that Christian writers had always observed this soberness--that when there was no occasion for it, they had never thought of using terms foreign to the Scriptures--terms which might produce much offense, but very little fruit. I ask, what need was there to introduce the word Merit, when the value of works might have been fully expressed by another term, and without offense? The quantity of offense contained in it the world shows to its great loss. It is certain that, being a high sounding term, it can only obscure the grace of God, and inspire men with pernicious pride. I admit it was used by ancient ecclesiastical writers, and I wish they had not by the abuse of one term furnished posterity with matter of heresy, although in some passages they themselves show that they had no wish to injure the truth. For Augustine says, "Let human merits, which perished by Adam, here be silent, and let the grace of God reign by Jesus Christ," (August. de Prædest. Sanct). Again, "The saints ascribe nothing to their merits; every thing will they ascribe solely to thy mercy, O God," (August. in Psal. 139). Again, "And when a man sees that whatever good he has he has not of himself, but of his God, he sees that every thing in him which is praised is not of his own merits, but of the divine mercy," (August. in Psal. 88). You see how he denies man the power of acting aright, and thus lays merit prostrate. Chrysostom says, "If any works of ours follow the free calling of God, they are return and debt; but the gifts of God are grace, and beneficence, and great liberality." But to say nothing more of the name, let us attend to the thing. I formerly quoted a passage from Bernard: "As it is sufficient for merit not to presume on merit, so to be without merit is sufficient for condemnation," (Bernard in Cantic. Serm. 98). He immediately adds an explanation which softens the harshness of the expression, when he says, "Hence be careful to have merits; when you have them, know that they were given; hope for fruit from the divine mercy, and you have escaped all the perils of poverty, ingratitude, and presumption. Happy the Church which neither wants merit without presumption, nor presumption without merit." A little before he had abundantly shown that he used the words in a sound sense, saying, "Why is the Church anxious about merits? God has furnished her with a firmer and surer ground of boasting. God cannot deny himself; he will do what he has promised. Thus there is no reason for asking by what merits may we hope for blessings; especially when you hear, Thus saith the Lord God; I do not this for your sakes, O house of Israel, but for mine holy name's sake,' (Ezek. 36:22). It suffices for merit to know that merits suffice not."

3. What all our works can merit Scripture shows when it declares that they cannot stand the view of God, because they are full of impurity; it next shows what the perfect observance of the law (if it can any where be found) will merit when it enjoins, "So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants, we have done that which was our duty to do," (Luke 17:10); because we make no free-offering to God, but only perform due service by which no favor is deserved. And yet those good works which the Lord has bestowed upon us he counts ours also, and declares, that they are not only acceptable to him, but that he will recompense them. It is ours in return to be animated by this great promise, and to keep up our courage, that we may not weary in well-doing, but feel duly grateful for the great kindness of God. There cannot be a doubt, that every thing in our works which deserves praise is owing to divine grace, and that there is not a particle of it which we can properly ascribe to ourselves. If we truly and seriously acknowledge this, not only confidence, but every idea of merit vanishes. I say we do not, like the Sophists share the praise of works between God and man, but we keep it entire and unimpaired for the Lord. All we assign to man is that, by his impurity he pollutes and contaminates the very works which were good. The most perfect thing which proceeds from man is always polluted by some stain. Should the Lord, therefore, bring to judgment the best of human works, he would indeed behold his own righteousness in them; but he would also behold man's dishonor and disgrace. Thus good works please God, and are not without fruit to their authors, since, by way of recompense, they obtain more ample blessings from God, not because they so deserve, but because the divine benignity is pleased of itself to set this value upon them. Such, however is our malignity, that not contented with this liberality on the part of God, which bestows rewards on works that do not at all deserve them, we with profane ambition maintain that that which is entirely due to the divine munificence is paid to the merit of works. Here I appeal to every man's common sense. If one who by another's liberality possesses the usufruct of a field, rear up a claim to the property of it, does he not by his ingratitude deserve to lose the possession formerly granted? In like manner, if a slave, who has been manumitted, conceals his humble condition of freedman, and gives out that he was free-born, does he not deserve to be reduced to his original slavery? A benefit can only be legitimately enjoyed when we neither arrogate more to our selves than has been given, nor defraud the author of it of his due praise; nay, rather when we so conduct ourselves as to make it appear that the benefit conferred still in a manner resides with him who conferred it. But if this is the moderation to be observed towards men, let every one reflect and consider for himself what is due to God.

     Christian Classics Ethereal Library / Public Domain

     Institutes of the Christian Religion

Read The Psalms In "1" Year

Psalm 37

14 The wicked draw the sword and bend their bows
to bring down the poor and needy,
to slay those whose way is upright;
15 their sword shall enter their own heart,
and their bows shall be broken.

16 Better is the little that the righteous has
than the abundance of many wicked.
17 For the arms of the wicked shall be broken,
but the LORD upholds the righteous.

18 The LORD knows the days of the blameless,
and their heritage will remain forever;
19 they are not put to shame in evil times;
in the days of famine they have abundance.

20 But the wicked will perish;
the enemies of the LORD are like the glory of the pastures;
they vanish—like smoke they vanish away.

By Gleason Archer Jr.

The Tell El-Amarna Correspondence (cont)

     One noteworthy example of the latter type is EA No. 286 from Abdi-Heba: “As truly as the king, my lord, lives, when the commissioners go forth I will say, ‘Lost are the lands of the king! Do you not hearken unto me? All the governors are lost; the king, my lord, does not have a [single] governor [left]!’ Let the king turn his attention to the archers, and let the king, my lord, send out troops of archers, [for] the king has no lands [left]! The Habiru plunder all the lands of the king. If there are archers [here] in this year, the lands of the king, my lord, will remain [intact], but if there are no archers [here] the lands of the king, my lord, will be lost!” Again in EA No. 288 he pleads, “Let the king care for his land. The land of the king will be lost. All of it will be taken from me; there is hostility to me. As for the lands of Sheeri (Seir] and even to Gintikirmal [i.e., Mount Carmel] there is no peace to all the regions, but to me there is hostility.” This obviously refers to the second phase of Joshua’s campaign, when he was subduing the central portion of Palestine (although, of course, he never took over Jerusalem itself as a permanent Hebrew possession).

     Many excellent scholars who have thoroughly gone over the evidence feel certain that the Habiri of the Amarna correspondence are to be identified with the Hebrews of Joshua’s army. Edward Meyer in Geschichte des Altertums (1928) states: “The substantial identity of the Hebrews or Israelites with that part of the Habiri of the Amarna tablets who were invading Palestine in Amarna times is … beyond doubt.” As evidence he pointed to the fact that those cities whose governors maintained correspondence with Egypt according to the Amarna archives were Megiddo, Ashkelon, Acco, Gezer, and Jerusalem, precisely those cities which the Israelites were late in capturing.4 On the other hand, as F. Bohl pointed out in Kanaanaer und Hebraer (1911, p. 93), those cities which had already fallen to the Israelite advance or had joined ranks with Joshua’s forces are represented by no communications at all—cities like Jericho, Beersheba, Bethel, Gibeon, and Hebron. In connection with the solemnization of the national covenant with Jehovah at Mount Ebal and Mount Gerizim near Shechem (cf. Josh. 8:30–35), it is highly significant that Abdi-Hepa of Jerusalem accused that city-state of defecting to the Habiru cause (EA 289): “Or shall we do like Labayu, who gave the land of Shechem to the Habiru?” If there was some informal understanding between Joshua and the Shechemites, there would have been no difficulty about holding this religious assembly near that powerful city.

     The objection has also been made that there are few names appearing in the Amarna letters which are also discoverable in the text of Joshua. With the partial exception of Japhia (Yāpɩ̄˓), king of Lachish,5 none of the royal names seems to correspond. p 294 Ingenious attempts have been made to correlate Abdi-Heba (Abdu-Heba) with Adonizedek6 but these involve major improbabilities. On the other hand, this lack of correspondence is not to be wondered at in view of the unsettled nature of the times, when local dynasts were apt to be dethroned or assassinated in swift succession. Most of the royal names given in Joshua pertain to the earliest phases of the conquest, and it may simply be that most of the Amarna letters come from a later period. In this connection it might be mentioned that one letter, EA 256, from Mut-Ba’lu of Megiddo, suggests to the Egyptian regent Yanhamu that he is on intimate enough terms with Benenima (also read as Benilima) and Yashuya to ask them the whereabouts of the prince of Pella, who has absconded to parts unknown. The question arises whether “Benenima” is equivalent to Benjamin and “Yashuya” to Joshua. Possibly the remark is ironical and rhetorical in nature and is meant to imply that the Israelite invaders have something to do with the disappearance of Ayab of Pella. Without further knowledge of circumstances, it is impossible to decide this question one way or the other.

     At this point, a word should be said about the six known occurrences of the name ’Apiru (or, according to J. A. Wilson, ’Eperu) in the records of the Egyptian empire between 1300 and 1150. In three cases the ’Apiru appear as unskilled workmen in the quarries; once as temple property (in a list of temple serfs at Hieropolis in the reign of Rameses III) and once as workers at a stable. Wilson comes to the conclusion that the term was applied to foreigners in Egyptian service who occupied the status of slaves or serfs.7 In one remaining reference, however, they are mentioned as foreign mercenary p 295 troops. Hence we are to understand Apiru in the broader nonethnic sense of Habiru, just as in the cuneiform records which antedate the Amarna correspondence.

     The earliest reference is found in the tomb of Puyemre in the reign of Thutmose III. Next comes the tomb of Antef, in that same reign; then it appears in a list of booty recorded in the Memphis Stela of Amenhotep II (ANET, p. 247), written at the conclusion of his second Asiatic campaign (which contains an item of 3,600 ’Apiru carried off as captives). Next, Seti I in the smaller Beth-shean Stela (cf. ANET, p. 255) records an encounter with the ’Apiru of Mount Yarumtu (i.e., Jarmuth). A Nineteenth-Dynasty story of the capture of Joppa in the reign of Thutmose III refers to the ’Apiru as potential horse stealers (ANET, p. 22). Among the offerings dedicated to the temple of Amon at Heliopolis by Rameses III is a group of slaves referred to as ’Apiru (ANET, p. 261). Rameses IV mentions 800 ’Apiru of the bowmen of ’Antiu—in this case apparently mercenaries.

     From a survey of the Egyptian references, it will be easily seen that no deductions may be drawn in favor of either the early date or the late date for the Exodus. The ’Apiru of the time of Thutmose III may well have been the Israelites; those mentioned by Rameses II, Rameses III, and Rameses IV may have been Hebrews who did not join the Exodus, or who were perhaps taken captive by Egyptian raiders during the time of the Judges. As for the ’Apiru whom Amenhotep II encountered in central Palestine, they could hardly have been the Israelites themselves (who were at that time still confined to the wilderness of Sinai), but wandering freebooters who were called by the term Habiru, used in its larger and more general sense.

     In conclusion we may state that while there are many problems and individual details which have yet to be cleared up, there is a sufficient agreement between the data of the Amarna correspondence and the account in the book of Joshua to establish a close connection between the two.

A Survey of Old Testament Introduction

We Shall Be Changed

By Michael Beates 4/1/2001

     I am a forty-something adult. I have arrived at that place in life where I am losing weight in my legs while my midsection seems to gain every bit of that lost weight and more. I upgraded (or downgraded) to bifocal glasses a year or two ago. I seem to be just as sore when I get up in the morning as when I went to bed the night before. That adolescent sense of immortality is fading. And I know the worst is yet to come, for as I watch my body slump into middle-agedness, I see my parents and other dearly beloved friends in much more precarious physical shape than I.

     Shame on me! I am slipping into the nearly ubiquitous American and evangelical belief that this body, despite all I strive to do, will someday wilt away and I will be released as a spirit into everlasting life with the Lord. How slow we are to believe all that has been written in the Scriptures. How easily we lapse into the nearly heretical gnostic view that our bodies are bad and our souls good, our bodies are dying forever and our souls living forever.

     Remember that God made us in His image, body and soul. Furthermore, Jesus Christ came in the flesh, rose bodily from the dead, and ascended bodily to the throne of heaven, where He reigns — in His immortal body. From the Resurrection accounts in the gospels, it is clear that His resurrected immortal body retained significant identification with His earthly body. Such a transformation awaits us, as well. As Paul said, “We also eagerly wait for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will transform our lowly body that it may be conformed to His glorious body …” (Phil. 3:20b–21a). All these truths tell us that the body is a good thing.

     Our minds are too often too small, our imaginations and dreams too narrow, too confined by our experience of this world. Consider the metaphor Jesus used (Mark 4:26ff; John 12:23ff) and which Paul developed (1 Cor. 15:35ff): The body is like a seed that must die in order to produce a new (yet not completely new) and different (yet not wholly other) life.

     I remember the first time I grew sunflowers. We put a relatively small seed in the ground, and in days a plant sprouted that quickly passed me in height and produced a huge, heavy, beautiful flower. As we think of our resurrection bodies, the comparison of the sunflower seed to the sunflower is still a woefully inadequate image. But it is a start.

     A seed is a mere shell holding the potential of so much more life when it dies, and the Scriptures seem to say our earthly tents compare to our heavenly bodies in this way. Our bodies are shells containing our souls. When we die, as with seeds, the shells fall away, somehow, however minutely, contributing to the growth of the new life. What was a sunflower essentially in a small seed is still a sunflower as a 7-foot-tall plant. There is real, physical continuity, but oh, what a change!

     However, our glorification will not simply mean going from a size 12 to a size 2 heavenly body, or from being a 98-pound weakling to a brawny, buffed bruiser. Such dreams short-change the prospect of our heavenly bodies. Rather, Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 15:40–45 that the change will mean going from perishable and corruptible to imperishable and incorruptible. It will mean going from dishonor to glory, from weakness and brokenness to strength and power, from temporal to eternal, from natural to spiritual.

     I believe that if we could ever begin, however little, to grasp the prospect of our eternal, embodied existence with Christ and His people … my, how such a hope would free us to live in a new vital fashion in these temporary seeds we call bodies!

     First, we would respect the dignity of our bodies as imaging God. This would impact our treatment of all people, especially those deemed by the world to be broken or not worth fixing or treating. Complex ethical decisions become surprisingly simple when one begins with the premise that every human being bears God’s image and is valuable simply in his or her being, not for what the person may be able to do later in life.

     Second, grasping the truth about our bodies should propel us to think more, and more often, about heaven. The Puritans thought about heaven, and we should learn from them. Jonathan Edwards said this in his diary (May 1, 1723): “Lord, grant that from thence I may fix [my thoughts, affections, desires, and expectations] upon the heavenly state; where there is fullness of joy; where reigns heavenly, sweet, calm, and delightful love without alloy; where there are continually the dearest expressions of their love, where there is the enjoyment of the persons loved, without ever parting: where those persons who appear so lovely in this world, will be inexpressibly more lovely, and full of love to us. How sweetly will the mutual lovers join together to sing the praises of God and the Lamb.”

     Now we ache, we weep from the brokenness and pain we experience. But the Christian hope is of a new body —imperishable and incorruptible; a new heart—given over fully to the love of God and His Christ; and a new mind—knowing as we are known, satisfied in our knowledge of Him. Maranatha! Come Lord Jesus!

Dr. Michael S. Beates, a former associate editor of Tabletalk, has taught at Reformed Theological Seminary, Florida Southern, and Belhaven College.

A Matter of Death and Life

By R.C. Sproul Jr. 4/1/2001

     We live in strange times. It used to be said that the only two things we could be certain of were death and taxes. You still can be pretty sure of taxes, but death recently has become rather more cloudy. With the advent of assorted technological wonders in the field of medicine, we can watch as a patient’s heart continues to beat even while his brain shows no activity. With the advent of widespread organ transplants, we are all the more eager to say that the recipient is dead in one sense, even while we keep him or her “alive” in another for as long as we can. Add to this the strange reports we read from those who claim to have “died” and “returned.” They say they were dead enough to be embraced by the light, but nevertheless they walk among us.

     Death has become for us more like dusk than that dark night. There are, however, limits to this lack of clarity. While dusk seeks to evade the question (is it night or is it day?), we know that midnight is night and noon is day. And while the comatose, brainwaveless, but still-breathing patient may confuse us, we know that the nurses who tend to the patient are alive and the bodies that have been in cold storage for days down in the morgue are dead. That the bridge across the chasm is shrouded in fog doesn’t change the reality that there are two distinct mountains.

     It’s important for us to understand this truth so that we are not drawn into the beard fallacy (in which one argues that the removal of one, then another, then another whisker will provide no definitive moment of change from beard to non-beard). It’s important because central to our faith is this conviction: Jesus died. We are not affirming that the brain-wave monitor went blank for a while. We’re not arguing that the Roman medical authorities broke their own rules and continued administering CPR for more than a half-hour. Jesus was all the way dead, midnight dead.

     God ordained that the Messiah should hang from a tree before anyone had heard of crucifixion. We now know what crucifixion does to a person, the slow suffocation that makes the nails seem like child’s play. God ordained that Jesus would be pierced on His side. We see the water and the blood flowing out, a sign of a burst heart, both literally and figuratively. And then, three days in the ground. That is the one that has always puzzled me. God didn’t need three days to put Jesus back together again, any more than He needed six days to make the universe and all that is in it. It doesn’t take three days for God to muster the strength for such a miracle. But it might take three days to prove that the Resurrection was a miracle, to make us see that this death was not just dusk, but midnight dark.

     Paul tells us, “If Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins!” (1 Cor. 15:17). If there is no Resurrection, our faith is vanity. And if there is no death, there can be no Resurrection. The death and resurrection of Christ are inescapably bound together. You cannot have one without the other, and you have no Christianity without both. Our faith is a historical faith, grounded not in our own efforts, not in the mystical powers of an object-less faith, but in historical events. We have peace with God because of what we believe about events that happened on a particular hill and in a particular tomb outside Jerusalem two thousand years ago.

     We affirm first, contra the ancient docetists and their modern heirs, that Jesus was born a man. To die, one first must be alive. Jesus was no ghost, no phantom who only appeared as a man. Second, we affirm that this Jesus not only lived in complete obedience to the law of God, but that He did so in history and in full view of His enemies, who could lay no charge against Him. Next, we affirm that this Jesus wrought miracles in particular places and for particular people. The water was truly water, and it became truly wine. Jesus even brought life from death, most dramatically in the life of Lazarus, dead four days, decomposing, and not merely flatlined for a moment. Then He who had the power of life in Himself died, laying down His life for the sheep. He did not swoon. He did not fall into a coma. He died. There was only darkness.

     He did not, however, stay dead. Three days later, this same Jesus (having a glorified body, one that was in one sense continuous with His old body, but in another sense very different) threw off the bonds of death and emerged as the first fruit of the new creation. It was not that “hope” was raised, as too many unbelieving liberal wolves will proclaim on Resurrection Sunday. It was not some sort of spirit body, as gnostics both ancient and modern have claimed. As Thomas discovered, it was an altogether human body—once dead, but now alive.

     These historical truths also have soteriological meaning. The life He lived He lived vicariously for His elect. He obeyed so that we might have His righteousness. And He died for our sins, taking upon Himself the wrath of the Father for us. He was raised in vindication to prove His own innocence, to begin the new creation, and to ascend on high to put everything under His feet. When that work is complete, this same Jesus, with this same glorified body, will return to consummate His kingdom. The soteriological meaning not only does not undo the historical reality, but requires the historical reality in order to have meaning. This is the light of Resurrection Morning, a light so brilliant as to be unmistakable.

     A Jesus who did not die, a Jesus who was not raised, is a Jesus who cannot save. Such is a Jesus who is foreign to the inerrant Word of God. To negotiate with these truths is to negotiate with our own souls, with our own eternity. And that is neither right nor safe. Christ has died. Christ is risen. Christ will come again. Here we stand. We can do no other.

Resurrection and Justification

By R.C. Sproul 4/1/2001

     How is the resurrection of Christ linked to the idea of justification in the New Testament? To answer this question, we must first explore the use and meaning of the term justification in the New Testament. Confusion about this has provoked some of the fiercest controversies in the history of the church. The Protestant Reformation itself was fought over the issue of justification. In all its complications, the unreconciled and unreconcilable difference in the debate came down to the question of whether our justification before God is grounded in the infusion of Christ’s righteousness into us, by which we become inherently righteous, or in the imputation, or reckoning, of Christ’s righteousness to us while we are still sinners. The difference between these views makes all the difference in our understanding of the Gospel and of how we are saved.

     One of the problems that led to confusion was the meaning of the word justification. Our English word justification is derived from the Latin justificare. The literal meaning of the Latin is “to make righteous.” The Latin fathers of church history worked with the Latin text instead of the Greek text and were clearly influenced by it. By contrast, the Greek word for justification, dikaiosune, carries the meaning of “to count, reckon, or declare righteous.”

     But this variance between the Latin and the Greek is not enough to explain the debates over justification. Within the Greek text itself, there seem to be some problems. For example, Paul declares in Romans 3:28, “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law.” Then James, in his epistle, writes, “Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar” (2:21) and “You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only” (2:24).

     On the surface, it appears that we have a clear contradiction between Paul and James. The problem is exacerbated when we realize that both use the same Greek word for justification and both use Abraham to prove their arguments.

     This problem can be resolved when we see that the verb “to justify” and its noun form, “justification,” have shades of meaning in Greek. One of the meanings of the verb is “to vindicate” or “to demonstrate.”

     Jesus once said, “ ‘Wisdom is justified by all her children’ ” (Luke 7:35). He did not mean that wisdom has its sins remitted or is counted righteous by God by having children, but that a wise decision may be vindicated by its consequences.

     James and Paul were addressing different questions. James was answering the question: “What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him?” (2:14). He understood that anyone can profess to have faith, but true faith is demonstrated as authentic by its consequent works. The claim of faith is vindicated (justified) by works. Paul has Abraham justified in the theological sense in Genesis 15 before he does any works. James points to the vindication or demonstration of Abraham’s faith in obedience in Genesis 22.

     The Resurrection involves justification in both senses of the Greek term. First, the Resurrection justifies Christ Himself. Of course, He is not justified in the sense of having His sins remitted, because He had no sins, or in the sense of being declared righteous while still a sinner, or in the Latin sense of being “made righteous.” Rather, the Resurrection serves as the vindication or demonstration of the truth of His claims about Himself.

     In his encounter with the philosophers at Athens, Paul declared: “ ‘Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead’ ” (Acts 17:30–31).

     Here Paul points to the Resurrection as an act by which the Father universally vindicates the authenticity of His Son. In this sense, Christ is justified before the whole world by His resurrection.

     However, the New Testament also links Christ’s resurrection to our justification. Paul writes, “It shall be imputed to us who believe in Him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead, who was delivered up because of our offenses, and was raised because of our justification” (Rom. 4:24–25).

     It is clear that in His atoning death Christ suffered on our behalf, or for us. Likewise, His resurrection is seen not only as a vindication of or surety of Himself, but as a surety of our justification. Here justification does not refer to our vindication, but to the evidence that the atonement He made was accepted by the Father. By vindicating Christ in His resurrection, the Father declared His acceptance of Jesus’ work on our behalf. Our justification in this theological sense rests on the imputed righteousness of Christ, so the reality of that transaction is linked to Christ’s resurrection. Had Christ not been raised, we would have a mediator whose redeeming work in our behalf was not acceptable to God.

     However, Christ is risen indeed!

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 12 Fullness Of The Gentiles

The main stream of prophecy runs in the channel of Hebrew history. This indeed is true of all revelation. Eleven chapters of the Bible suffice to cover the two thousand years before the call of Abraham, and the rest of the old Testament relates to the Abrahamic race. If for a while the light of revelation rested on Babylon or Susa, it was because Jerusalem was desolate, and Judah was in exile. For a time the Gentile has now gained the foremost place in blessing upon earth; but this is entirely anomalous, and the normal order of God's dealings with men is again to be restored. "Blindness in part is happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved, as it is written." [1]

[1] Romans 11:25-26. The coming in of the fullness of the Gentiles must not be confounded with the fulfillment of the times of the Gentiles (Luke 21:24). The one refers to spiritual blessing, the other to earthly power. Jerusalem is not to be the capital of a free nation, independent of Gentile power, until the true Son of David comes to claim the scepter.

     The Scriptures teem with promises and prophecies in favor of that nation, not a tithe of which have yet been realized. And while the impassioned poetry in which so many of the old prophecies are couched is made a pretext for treating them as hyperbolical descriptions of the blessings of the Gospel, no such plea can be urged respecting the Epistle to the Romans. Writing to Gentiles, the Apostle of the Gentiles there reasons the matter out in presence of the facts of the Gentile dispensation. The natural branches of the race of Israel have been broken off from the olive tree of earthly privilege and blessing, and, "contrary to nature," the wild olive branches of Gentile blood have been substituted for them. But in spite of the warning of the Apostle, we Gentiles have become "wise in our own conceits," forgetting that the olive tree whose "root and fatness" we partake of, is essentially Hebrew, for  "the gifts and calling of God are without repentance."

     The minds of most men are in bondage to the commonplace facts of their experience. The prophecies of a restored Israel seem to many as incredible as predictions of the present triumphs of electricity and steam would have appeared to our ancestors a century ago. While affecting independence in judging thus, the mind is only giving proof of its own impotence or ignorance. Moreover, the position which the Jews have held for eighteen centuries is a phenomenon which itself disposes of every seeming presumption against the fulfillment of these prophecies.

     It is not a question of how a false religion like that of Mahomet can maintain an unbroken front in presence of a true faith; the problem is very different. Not only in a former age, but in the early days of the present dispensation, the Jews enjoyed a preference in blessing, which practically amounted almost to a monopoly of Divine favor. In its infancy the Christian Church was essentially Jewish. The Jews within its pale were reckoned by thousands, the Gentiles by tens. And yet that same people afterwards became, and for eighteen centuries have continued to be, more dead to the influence of the Gospel than any other class of people upon earth. How can "this mystery," as the Apostle terms it, be accounted for, save as Scripture explains it, namely, that the era of special grace to Israel closed with the period historically within the Acts of the Apostles, and that since that crisis of their history "blindness in part is happened" to them?

     But this very word, the truth of which is so clearly proved by public facts, goes on to declare that this judicial hardening is to continue only "until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in;" and the inspired Apostle adds, "And so all Israel shall be saved; as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob; for this is My covenant unto them." [2]

[2] Romans 11:25-26. Not every Israelite, but Israel as a nation (Alford, Gr. Test., in loco).

     But, it may with reason be demanded, does not this imply merely that Israel shall be brought within the blessings of the Gospel, not that the Jews shall be blessed on a principle which is entirely inconsistent with the Gospel? Christianity, as a system, assumes the fact that in a former age the Jews enjoyed a peculiar place in blessing: "Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers, and that the Gentiles might glorify God for His mercy." (Romans 15:8-9)

     But the Jews have lost their vantage-ground through sin, and they now stand upon the common level of ruined humanity. The Cross has broken down "the middle wall" which separated them from Gentiles. It has leveled all distinctions. As to guilt "there is no difference, for all have sinned;" as to mercy "there is no difference, for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call on Him." How then, if there be no difference, can God give blessing on a principle which implies that there is a difference? In a word, the fulfillment of the promises to Judah is absolutely inconsistent with the distinctive truths of the present dispensation.

     This question is one of immense importance, and claims the most earnest consideration. Nor is it enough to urge that the eleventh chapter of Romans itself supposes that in this age the Gentile has an advantage, though not a priority, and, therefore, Israel may enjoy the like privilege hereafter. It is part of the same revelation, that although grace stoops to the Gentile just where he is, it does not confirm him in his position as a Gentile, but lifts him out of it and denationalizes him; for in the Church of this dispensation "there is neither Jew nor Gentile." [3] Judah's promises, on the contrary, imply that blessing will reach the Jew as a Jew, not only recognizing his national position, but confirming him therein.

[3] Galatians 3:28. Contrast these with the Lord's words in John 4:22, "Salvation is of the Jews."

     The conclusion, therefore, is inevitable, that before God can act thus, the special proclamation of grace in the present dispensation must have ceased, and a new principle of dealing with mankind must have been inaugurated.

     But here the difficulties only seem to multiply and grow. For, it may be asked, does not the dispensation run its course until the return of Christ to earth? How then can Jews be found at His coming in a place of blessing nationally, akin to that which they held in a bygone age? All will admit that Scripture seems to teach that such will be the case. [4] The question still remains whether this be really intended. Does Scripture speak of any crisis in relation to the earth, to intervene before "the day when the Son of man shall be revealed "?

[4] In proof of this, appeal may be made to these very prophecies of Daniel; and later prophecies testify to it still more plainly, notably the book of Zechariah.

     No one who diligently seeks the answer to this inquiry can fail to be impressed by the fact that at first sight some confusion seems to mark the statements of Scripture with respect to it. Certain passages testify that Christ will return to earth, and stand once more on that same Olivet on which His feet last rested ere He ascended to His Father; (Zechariah 14:4; Acts 1:11-12) and others tell us as plainly that He will come, not to earth, but to the air above us, and call His people up to meet Him and be with Him. (1 Thessalonians 4:16-17) These Scriptures again most clearly prove that it is His believing people who shall be "caught up," (1 Thessalonians 4:16-17; 1 Corinthians 15:51-52) leaving the world to run its course to its destined doom; while other Scriptures as unequivocally teach that it is not His people but the wicked who are to be weeded out, leaving the righteous "to shine forth in the kingdom of their Father." (Matthew 13:40-43) And the confusion apparently increases when we notice that Holy Writ seems sometimes to represent the righteous who are to be thus blessed as Jews, sometimes as Christians of a dispensation in which the Jew is cast off by God.

     These difficulties admit of only one solution, a solution as satisfactory as it is simple; namely, that what we term the second advent of Christ is not a single event, but includes several distinct manifestations. At the first of these He will call up to Himself the righteous dead, together with His own people then living upon earth. With this event this special "day of grace" will cease, and God will again revert to "the covenants" and "the promises," and that people to whom the covenants and promises belong (Romans 9:4) will once more become the center of Divine action toward mankind.

     Everything that God has promised is within the range of the believer's hope; [5] but this is its near horizon. All things wait on its accomplishment. Before the return of Christ to earth, many a page of prophecy has yet to be fulfilled, but not a line of Scripture bars the realization of this the Church's special hope of His coming to take His people to Himself. Here, then, is the great crisis which will put a term to the reign of grace, and usher in the destined woes of earth's fiercest trial – "the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled." (Luke 21:22)

[5] "We, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new earth" (2 Peter 3:13). Long ages of time and events innumerable must intervene before the realization of this hope, and yet the believer is looking for it.

     To object that a truth of this magnitude would have been stated with more dogmatic clearness is to forget the distinction between doctrinal teaching and prophetic utterance. The truth of the second advent belongs to prophecy, and the statements of Scripture respecting it are marked by precisely the same characteristics as marked the Old Testament prophecies of Messiah. [6]

[6] For an admirable treatise on these characteristics of prophecy, see Hengstenberg's Christology,   Christology of the Old Testament: And a Commentary on the Messianic Predictions, Vol. 1.

     "The sufferings of Christ and the glories which should follow" were foretold in such a way that a superficial reader of the old Scriptures would have failed to discover that there were to be two advents of Messiah. And even the careful student, if unversed in the general scheme of prophecy, might have supposed that the two advents, though morally distinct, should be intimately connected in time. So is it with the future. Some regard the second advent as a single event; by others its true character is recognized, but they fail to mark the interval which must separate its first from its final stage. An intelligent apprehension of the truth respecting it is essential to the right understanding of unfulfilled prophecy.

     But having thus clearly fixed these principal landmarks to guide us in the study, we cannot too strongly deprecate the attempt to fill up the interval with greater precision than Scripture warrants. There are definite events to be fulfilled, but no one may dogmatize respecting the time or manner of their fulfillment. No Christian who estimates aright the appalling weight of suffering and sin which each day that passes adds to the awful sum of this world's sorrow and guilt, can fail to long that the end may indeed be near; but let him not forget the great principle that "the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation," (2 Peter 3:15) nor yet the language of the Psalm, "A thousand years in Thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night." (Psalm 90:4) There is much in Scripture which seems to justify the hope that the consummation will not be long delayed; but, on the other hand, there is not a little to suggest the thought that before these final scenes shall be enacted, civilization will have returned to its old home in the east, and, perchance, a restored Babylon shall have become the center of human progress and of apostate religion. [7]

[7] Isaiah 13 appears to connect the final fall of Babylon with the great day that is coming (comp. Vers. 1, 9, 10, 19.); and in Jeremiah 1 the same event is connected with the future restoration and union of the two houses of Israel (ver. 20). I make the suggestion, however, merely as a caveat against the idea that we have certainly reached the last days of the dispensation.  If the history of Christendom should run on for another thousand years, the delay would not discredit the truth of a single statement in Holy Writ.

     To maintain that long ages have yet to run their course would be as unwarrantable as are the predictions so confidently made that all things shall be fulfilled within the current century.   Here is what so many folks just can't seem to get a hold of.  It is only in so far as prophecy is within the seventy weeks; of Daniel that it comes within the range of chronology at all, and Daniel's vision primarily relates to Judah and Jerusalem. [8]

[8] No one of Daniel's visions, indeed, has a wider scope. Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel treat of Israel (or the ten tribes); but Daniel deals only with Judah.

The Coming Prince

The Continual Burnt Offering (Proverbs 8:22-23, 29-31)

By H.A. Ironside - 1941

April 7

Proverbs 8:22  The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way,
Before his works of old.
23  I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning,
Or ever the earth was.

29  When he gave to the sea his decree,
That the waters should not pass his commandment:
When he appointed the foundations of the earth:
30  Then I was by him, as one brought up with him:
And I was daily his delight,
Rejoicing always before him;
31  Rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth;
And my delights were with the sons of men.   ESV

Ere God had built the mountains,
Or rinsed the fruitful hills;
Before He filled the fountains
That feed the running rills;
In Thee, from everlasting,
The wonderful I Am
Found pleasure never wasting,
And Wisdom is Thy name.

And couldst Thou be delighted
With creatures such as we,
Who, when we saw Thee,
slighted And nailed Thee to a tree?
Unfathomable wonder!
And mystery divine!
The voice that speaks in thunder
Says, “Sinner, I am thine!”
--- William Cowper