Learning in War-Time

By C.S. Lewis

A sermon preached in the Church of St. Mary the Virgin, Oxford,Autumn, 1939

     The second enemy is frustration -- the feeling that we shall not have time to finish. If I say to you that no one has time to finish, that the longest human life leaves a man, in any branch of learning, a beginner, I shall seem to you to be saying something quite academic and theoretical. You would be surprised if you knew how soon one begins to feel the shortness of the tether: of how many things, even in middle life, we lave to say "No time for that", "Too late now", and "Not for me". But Nature herself forbids you to share that experience. A more Christian attitude, which can be attained at any age, is that of leaving futurity in God's hands. We may as well, for God will certainly retain it whether we leave it to Him or not.  Never, in peace or war, commit your virtue or your happiness to the future. Happy work is best done by the man who takes his long-term plans somewhat lightly and works from moment to moment "as to the Lord". It is only our daily bread that we are encouraged to ask for. The present is the only time in which any duty can be done or any grace received.

     The third enemy is fear. War threatens us with death and pain. No man -- and especially no Christian who remembers Gethsemane -- need try to attain a stoic indifference about these things: but we can guard against the illusions of the imagination. We think of the streets of Warsaw and contrast the deaths there suffered with an abstraction called Life. But there is no question of death or life for any of us; only a question of this death or of that -- of a machine gun bullet now or a cancer forty years later. What does war do to death? It certainly does not make it more frequent; 100 per cent of us die, and the percentage cannot be increased. It puts several deaths earlier; but I hardly suppose that that is what we fear. Certainly when the moment comes, it will make little difference how many years we have behind us. Does it increase our chance of a painful death? I doubt it. As far as I can find out, what we call natural death is usually preceded by suffering; and a battlefield is one of the very few places where one has a reasonable prospect of dying with no pain at all. Does it decrease our chances of dying at peace with God? I cannot believe it. If active service does not persuade a man to prepare for death, what conceivable concatenation of circumstance would? Yet war does do something to death. It forces us to remember it. The only reason why the cancer at sixty or the paralysis at seventyfive do not bother us is that we forget them. War makes death real to us: and that would have been regarded as one of its blessings by most of the great Christians of the past. They thought it good for us to be always aware of our mortality. I am inclined to think they were right.

     All the animal life in us, all schemes of happiness that centered in this world, were always doomed to a final frustration. In ordinary times only a wise man can realize it. Now the stupidest of us know. We see unmistakable the sort of universe in which we have all along been living, and must come to terms with it. If we had foolish un-Christian hopes about human culture, they are now shattered. If we thought we were building up a heaven on earth, if we looked for something that would turn the present world from a place of pilgrimage into a permanent city satisfying the soul of man, we are disillusioned, and not a moment too soon. But if we thought that for some souls, and at some times, the life of learning, humbly offered to God, was, in its own small way, one of the appointed approaches to the Divine reality and the Divine beauty which we hope to enjoy hereafter, we can think so still.

      C.S. Lewis

5 Pastoral Proverbs That Stuck

By Jared C. Wilson 2/14/2017

Proverbs 25:11  A word fitly spoken
is like apples of gold in a setting of silver.

The Story Behind John Piper’s Most Famous Attack on the Prosperity Gospel

By Sarah Eekhoff Zylstra 2/14/2017

Pro-Nicene Theology (Free E-Book)

By Fred Sanders 2/24/2017

     Long story: In late 2016, Mike Allen and Scott Swain edited a blog series at Zondervan’s Common Places devoted to Pro-Nicene Theology. Pro-Nicene theology is trinitarianism, of course, but it’s not just the doctrine of the Trinity narrowly considered. To talk about pro-Nicene theology is to draw out some of the conceptual tools in the intellectual culture without which trinitarianism would not have been formulated and cannot thrive now. Chief among these tools are the doctrines of divine ineffability and simplicity, the inseparability of trinitarian operations ad extra, the doctrine of the Son’s eternal generation, and the distinction between theologia and oikonomia.

     Of course you can read the whole blog series online at the original site, but Zondervan has also edited them together in pdf form as a 51-page e-book. Just click through (link or pic above) and tell them where to e-mail it, and you’ll get the pdf.

Click here for entire article

Fred Sanders is Professor of Theology at Biola University's Torrey Honors Institute. He has an MDiv from Asbury Theological Seminary and PhD from Graduate Theological Union. He is the co-editor of Christology, Ancient and Modern: Explorations in Constructive Dogmatics (Los Angeles Theology Conference Series).

Fred Sanders Books:

• 1     Advancing Trinitarian Theology: Explorations in Constructive Dogmatics (Los Angeles Theology Conference Series)
• 2     The Triune God (New Studies in Dogmatics)
• 3     The Deep Things of God: How the Trinity Changes Everything
• 4     Jesus in Trinitarian Perspective: An Intermediate Christology
• 5     The Voice of God in the Text of Scripture: Explorations in Constructive Dogmatics (Los Angeles Theology Conference Series)
• 6     Advancing Trinitarian Theology: Explorations in Constructive Dogmatics (LA Theology Conference Series)
• 7     Wesley on the Christian Life: The Heart Renewed in Love
• 8     Theology and California: Theological Refractions on California's Culture
• 9     Embracing the Trinity: Life with God in the Gospel

Read The Psalms In "1" Year

Psalm 25

6 Remember your mercy, O LORD, and your steadfast love,
for they have been from of old.
7 Remember not the sins of my youth or my transgressions;
according to your steadfast love remember me,
for the sake of your goodness, O LORD!

8 Good and upright is the LORD;
therefore he instructs sinners in the way.
9 He leads the humble in what is right,
and teaches the humble his way.
10 All the paths of the LORD are steadfast love and faithfulness,
for those who keep his covenant and his testimonies.

11 For your name’s sake, O LORD,
pardon my guilt, for it is great.

A gracious God and a neurotic monk

By Stephen J. Nichols 10/28/2017

     One classic fable tells of a competition between the north wind and the sun: Who is stronger? Who can make a passing traveler remove his cloak? The north wind blows hard, but the traveler only wraps his cloak tighter around him. When the sun shines, though, the traveler takes off his cloak. Moral of the story: Persuasion is better than pressure, which is often true when humans are concerned. But Martin Luther knew that God uses both. Stephen J. Nichols, in The Legacy of Luther by R.C. Sproul (2016-10-03), a book he co-edited with R.C. Sproul (Reformation Trust, 2016), describes Luther as neurotically fearful and God as omnisciently gracious. God knew what pressure would get Luther’s attention, and make him understand that our problem is sin, not “sins in the plural. … If sin is quantified, then we look to merits or graces as the remedy.” Why is that so? Please read on. —Marvin Olasky

     Erfurt: Becoming a Monk | During the course of his early studies, young Martin excelled, distinguishing himself from his classmates. These accomplishments opened the door for him to study at Erfurt. By the time Luther started there, the university was already more than a century old. The town, with a population hovering around twenty thousand, had industry, trade, and an extensive network of monasteries and churches. By 1502, Martin had earned his bachelor’s degree. Three years later, he took his master’s degree. He also took a Latinized form of his last name. He was now Martin Luther. He stayed in Erfurt, preparing for his doctorate in law.

     Amid all of these academic accomplishments, Luther experienced intense struggles in his soul. No matter how much he experienced success, he could not escape the anxiety he felt. The German word for this anxiety is Anfechtung. It could be translated as “trial” or “affliction.” Roland Bainton expresses the difficulty in grasping this word when he observes, “There is no English equivalent.” Anfechtung refers to a deeply seated soul struggle. Bainton adds, “It may be a trial sent by God to test man, or an assault by the Devil to destroy man.”1 For Luther, we need to use the plural, Anfechtungen, as these crises of the soul came often. As his contemporaries did, Luther looked at spirituality and salvation as a contest between sins and merits. And it was a contest he nearly always lost.

     In the summer of 1505, Luther traveled to his family’s home in Mansfeld for an extended visit. On his way back to Erfurt, he got caught in a violent thunderstorm. He presumed the storm to be God’s judgment on his soul. While at his family’s home, he more than likely spent time before the family altar, the shrine to St. Anne. Now, in the clutches of the storm, he cried out to her, “Help me, St. Anne, and I will become a monk!” She was the only mediator he knew.

     A stone to the east of Stotternheim marks the place. Luther’s appeal to St. Anne is carved in the face of the granite. When Luther survived the storm and made his way back to Erfurt, he kept the words of promise. He turned his back on the law and became a monk.

Click here to go to source

What do Christians mean when they say 'God spoke to me?'

by J. Warner Wallace 2/18/2018

     I must confess that I empathized with Joy Behar, co-host of ABC’s The View, when she recently expressed concern about a claim that Vice President (and Christian believer) Mike Pence has heard the voice of Jesus on occasion.

     I didn’t become a Christian until the age of thirty-five, and prior to that time, I also found it disturbing when Christians said, “God spoke to me last night,” or, “Jesus told me I should do this (or that).” Behar expressed a similar concern when she told her co-hosts, “It’s one thing to talk to Jesus. It’s another thing when Jesus talks to you. That’s called mental illness if I’m not correct. Hearing voices.”

     I can honestly remember saying something similar to a Christian co-worker back when I was a committed atheist. He claimed that God told him something, and I thought he was, well… crazy. But years later, after becoming a Christian myself, I began to understand exactly what believers mean when they use expressions like this, and it’s not necessarily what Joy Behar may think.

     I pressed my Christian friend, all those years ago, and asked him if he actually heard the audible voice of God, and if God sounded like George Burns (the movie, Oh, God!, was my only point of reference prior to Morgan Freeman’s role in Bruce Almighty). My friend laughed and explained that the expression, “God spoke to me,” didn’t necessarily mean that God spoke audibly. Christians, he said, believe the Bible is the “word of God,” and by reading it, gain access to the mind of God.

     God can certainly speak to me in an audible way if He chooses, but He also speaks to me daily through Scripture, sage advisors and the everyday situations of my life.

James "Jim" Warner Wallace (born June 16, 1961) is an American homicide detective and Christian apologist. Wallace is a Senior Fellow at the Colson Center for Christian Worldview and an Adjunct Professor of Apologetics at Biola University in La Mirada, California. He has authored several books, including Cold-Case Christianity, God’s Crime Scene, and Forensic Faith, in which he applies principles of cold case homicide investigation to apologetic concerns such as the existence of God and the reliability of the Gospels.

• Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels

• God's Crime Scene: A Cold-Case Detective Examines the Evidence for a Divinely Created Universe

• Alive: A Cold-Case Approach to the Resurrection

• Cold-Case Christianity for Kids: Investigate Jesus with a Real Detective

• Keeping Your Kids on God's Side: 40 Conversations to Help Them Build a Lasting Faith

• Forensic Faith: A Homicide Detective Makes the Case for a More Reasonable, Evidential Christian Faith

IV. PROOF OF EARLIER EXISTENCE OF PRIESTLY LEGISLATION (cont)

By James Orr 1907

However the matter may appear to Dr. Driver, it is certain that to many able critics, looking at the facts from a different point of view, the evidence seems conclusive that  Deuteronomy was acquainted with the laws of P. “The Deuteronomic legislation” says Riehm positively, “presupposes acquaintance with the Priestly Code.” Dillmann puts the Priests’ Code earlier than  Deuteronomy, and the Law of Holiness, named by him S [= Sinai], in the main earlier still. He says: “That D not merely knows priestly laws, but presupposes them as well known, appears from many passages of his book.” “It is just as certain that D presupposes and has used other laws (S) which now lie before us in the connection of A [= P].” Oettli says: “Here certainly such laws as now lie before us only in the codification of P appear as well known and in validity.” He agrees with Delitzsch and the others quoted that  Deuteronomy shows itself acquainted with the priestly laws. Baudissin also puts the Law of Holiness before  Deuteronomy. These judgments of leading critics, which might be largely multiplied, are not based on slight grounds. The proofs they offer are solid and convincing. We can as before only give examples, but these will sufficiently indicate the line of argument.

 Deut. 14:4–20 (on clean and unclean animals) is, as Dr. Driver admits, “in great measure verbally identical” with  Lev. 11:4–20.

The permission to kill and eat flesh at home in  Deut. 12:15, 20 ff., presupposes and modifies (in view of the entrance into Canaan, ver.  20 ) the stringent law in  Lev. 17:1–3, that all slaying was to be at the tabernacle door; and the reiterated prohibitions of eating the blood (vers.  16, 13–15 ) rest on the enactments in P on the same subject ( Lev. 17:13–15; cf.  Gen. 9:4; Lev. 3:17; 7:26, 27, etc.).

In  Lev. 11 there is a law relating to the eating of things that die of themselves (vers.  39, 40; cf. chap.  17:15, 16 ); in  Deut. 14:21 there stands a law which, with some modification, presupposes the former. This is marked by the use of the word “carcase” (Heb.). The discrepancy alleged to exist between the laws probably arises from the prospect of altered conditions in Canaan.

“The year of release” in  Deut. 15:1 ff. glances at the Sabbatic year of  Lev. 25:2 ff.

The law of the Passover in  Deut. 16:1 ff. presupposes throughout the law in  Ex. 12 (P), and modifies it in the important respect that the Passover is to be no longer a domestic festival, but is to be observed at the central sanctuary (vers.  5, 6 ). This implies the earlier family observance, while it is inconceivable that a law ordaining the home observance should arise after  Deuteronomy.

The references to uncleanness in  Deut. 23:9, 10, imply a knowledge of laws of ceremonial impurity, as in  Lev. 15.

 Deut. 24:8 expressly affirms the existence of a Mosaic law of leprosy given to the priests (cf.  Lev. 13; 14 ).

 Deut 22:30 certainly does not intend to limit the crime of incest to this one case, but, as Delitzsch says, has in view the whole series of enactments in  Lev. 18:7 ff.

It has before been pointed out that in  Deut. 18:2 we have a verbal reference to the provision for the Levites in  Num. 18:20 ff. In the same chapter we have parallels in vers.  10, 11 to  Lev. 18:21 ff.,  19:26, 31, etc.

It will be seen, even from this selection of instances, that the references more or less explicit to priestly laws in  Deuteronomy cover large sections of the Levitical legislation, e.g.,  Lev. 11, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19; Num. 18:20 ff. etc. If, with Dr. Driver, we fall back on the assumption of “old laws,” then these old laws must have been so extremely like those we possess in  Leviticus, that it is hardly worth disputing about the differences, and the argument against the pre-exilian existence of the Levitical laws goes for nothing.

The legislation of P, therefore, is in manifold ways implied in  Deuteronomy. On the other hand, the peculiarities of  Deuteronomy are not in any degree reflected in the Levitical law. There is allusion to the priestly law in  Deuteronomy, but the Priestly Code is apparently ignorant of  Deuteronomy, and certainly does not depend on it. What conclusion can we draw from such a fact but that the Priestly Code is the earlier of the two?

The Problem of the Old Testament

The Pilgrim's Progress From This World To That Which Is To Come;
Delivered Under The Similitude Of A Dream (Part 2)

By John Bunyan 1678

THE SECOND STAGE

CHR. But are the other righteousnesses of no use to us?

     GREAT. Yes; for though they are essential to his natures and office, and cannot be communicated unto another, yet it is by virtue of them that the righteousness that justifies is for that purpose efficacious. The righteousness of his Godhead gives virtue to his obedience; the righteousness of his manhood giveth capability to his obedience to justify; and the righteousness that standeth in the union of these two natures to his office, giveth authority to that righteousness to do the work for which it was ordained.

     So then here is a righteousness that Christ, as God, has no need of; for he is God without it: Here is a righteousness that Christ, as man, has no need of to make him so; for he is perfect man without it. Again, here is a righteousness that Christ, as God-man, has no need of; for he is perfectly so without it. Here then is a righteousness that Christ, as God, and as God-man, has no need of, with reference to himself, and therefore he can spare it; a justifying righteousness, that he for himself wanteth not, and therefore giveth it away: Hence it is called the gift of righteousness. This righteousness, since Christ Jesus the Lord has made himself under the law, must be given away; for the law doth not only bind him that is under it, to do justly, but to use charity.

Rom. 5:17 For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.   ESV

Wherefore he must, or ought by the law, if he hath two coats, to give one to him that hath none. Now, our Lord indeed hath two coats, one for himself, and one to spare; wherefore he freely bestows one upon those that have none. And thus, Christiana and Mercy, and the rest of you that are here, doth your pardon come by deed, or by the work of another man. Your Lord Christ is he that worked, and hath given away what he wrought for, to the next poor beggar he meets.

     But again, in order to pardon by deed, there must something be paid to God as a price, as well as something prepared to cover us withal. Sin has delivered us up to the just curse of a righteous law: now from this curse we must be justified by way of redemption, a price being paid for the harms we have done; and this is by the blood of your Lord, who came and stood in your place and stead, and died your death for your transgressions: Thus has he ransomed you from your transgressions by blood, and covered your polluted and deformed souls with righteousness,

Rom. 8:34 Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died — more than that, who was raised — who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us.   ESV

for the sake of which, God passeth by you and will not hurt you when he comes to judge the world.

Gal. 3:13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”—   ESV

     CHR. This is brave! Now I see that there was something to be learned by our being pardoned by word and deed. Good Mercy, let us labor to keep this in mind: and, my children, do you remember it also. But, sir, was not this it that made my good Christian’s burden fall from off his shoulder, and that made him give three leaps for joy?

     GREAT. Yes, it was the belief of this that cut those strings that could not be cut by other means; and it was to give him a proof of the virtue of this, that he was suffered to carry his burden to the cross.

     CHR. I thought so; for though my heart was lightsome and joyous before, yet it is ten times more lightsome and joyous now. And I am persuaded by what I have felt, though I have felt but little as yet, that if the most burdened man in the world was here, and did see and believe as I now do, it would make his heart the more merry and blithe.

     GREAT. There is not only comfort and the ease of a burden brought to us by the sight and consideration of these, but an endeared affection begot in us by it: for who can, if he doth but once think that pardon comes not only by promise but thus, but be affected with the way and means of his redemption, and so with the man that hath wrought it for him?

     CHR. True; methinks it makes my heart bleed to think that he should bleed for me. Oh, thou loving One: Oh, thou blessed One. Thou deservest to have me; thou hast bought me. Thou deservest to have me all: thou hast paid for me ten thousand times more than I am worth. No marvel that this made the tears stand in my husband’s eyes, and that it made him trudge so nimbly on. I am persuaded he wished me with him: but, vile wretch that I was, I let him come all alone. Oh, Mercy, that thy father and mother were here; yea, and Mrs. Timorous also: nay, I wish now with all my heart that here was Madam Wanton too. Surely, surely, their hearts would be affected; nor could the fear of the one, nor the powerful lusts of the other, prevail with them to go home again, and to refuse to become good pilgrims.

     GREAT. You speak now in the warmth of your affections; will it, think you, be always thus with you? Besides, this is not communicated to every one, nor to every one that did see your Jesus bleed. There were that stood by, and that saw the blood run from the heart to the ground, and yet were so far off this, that instead of lamenting, they laughed at him, and, instead of becoming his disciples, did harden their hearts against him. So that all that you have, my daughters, you have by peculiar impression made by a divine contemplating upon what I have spoken to you. Remember, that ’twas told you, that the hen, by her common call, gives no meat to her chickens. This you have therefore by a special grace.

     Now I saw in my dream, that they went on until they were come to the place that Simple, and Sloth, and Presumption, lay and slept in when Christian went by on pilgrimage: and behold, they were hanged up in irons a little way off on the other side.

     MER. Then said Mercy to him that was their guide and conductor, what are these three men; and for what are they hanged there?

     GREAT. These three men were men of very bad qualities; they had no mind to be pilgrims themselves, and whomsoever they could, they hindered. They were sloth and folly themselves, and whomsoever they could persuade they made so too, and withal taught them to presume that they should do well at last. They were asleep when Christian went by; and now you go by, they are hanged.

     MER. But could they persuade any to be of their opinion?

     GREAT. Yes, they turned several out of the way. There was Slow-pace that they persuaded to do as they. They also prevailed with one Short-wind, with one No-heart, with one Linger-after-Lust, and with one Sleepy-head, and with a young woman, her name was Dull, to turn out of the way and become as they. Besides, they brought up an ill report of your Lord, persuading others that he was a hard taskmaster. They also brought up an evil report of the good Land, saying, it was not half so good as some pretended it was. They also began to vilify his servants, and to count the best of them meddlesome, troublesome busybodies. Further, they would call the bread of God husks; the comforts of his children, fancies; the travel and labor of pilgrims, things to no purpose.

     CHR. Nay, said Christiana, if they were such, they shall never be bewailed by me: they have but what they deserve; and I think it is well that they stand so near the highway, that others may see and take warning. But had it not been well if their crimes had been engraven in some plate of iron or brass, and left here where they did their mischiefs, for a caution to other bad men?

     GREAT. So it is, as you may well perceive, if you will go a little to the wall.

     MER. No, no; let them hang, and their names rot, and their crimes live forever against them. I think it a high favor that they were hanged before we came hither: who knows else what they might have done to such poor women as we are? Then she turned it into a song, saying,

“Now then you three hang there, and be a sign
To all that shall against the truth combine.
And let him that comes after, fear this end,
If unto pilgrims he is not a friend.
And thou, my soul, of all such men beware,
That unto holiness opposers are.”

     Thus they went on till they came to the foot of the hill Difficulty, where again the good Mr. Great-Heart took an occasion to tell them what happened there when Christian himself went by. So he had them first to the spring. Lo, saith he, this is the spring that Christian drank of before he went up this hill: and then it was clear and good; but now it is dirty with the feet of some that are not desirous that pilgrims here should quench their thirst.

Ezek. 34:18 Is it not enough for you to feed on the good pasture, that you must tread down with your feet the rest of your pasture; and to drink of clear water, that you must muddy the rest of the water with your feet? 19 And must my sheep eat what you have trodden with your feet, and drink what you have muddied with your feet?   ESV

Thereat Mercy said, And why so envious, trow? But, said their guide, it will do, if taken up and put into a vessel that is sweet and good; for then the dirt will sink to the bottom, and the water come out by itself more clear. Thus therefore Christiana and her companions were compelled to do. They took it up, and put it into an earthen pot, and so let it stand till the dirt was gone to the bottom, and then they drank thereof.

     Next he showed them the two by-ways that were at the foot of the hill, where Formality and Hypocrisy lost themselves. And, said he, these are dangerous paths. Two were here cast away when Christian came by; and although, as you see these ways are since stopped up with chains, posts, and a ditch, yet there are those that will choose to adventure here rather than take the pains to go up this hill.

     CHR. “The way of transgressors is hard.”

Prov. 13:15 Good sense wins favor,
but the way of the treacherous is their ruin.   ESV

It is a wonder that they can get into these ways without danger of breaking their necks.

     GREAT. They will venture: yea, if at any time any of the King’s servants do happen to see them, and do call upon them, and tell them that they are in the wrong way, and do bid them beware of the danger, then they railingly return them answer, and say, “As for the word that thou hast spoken unto us in the name of the King, we will not hearken unto thee; but we will certainly do whatsoever thing goeth out of our own mouths.”

Jer. 44:16-17 16 “As for the word that you have spoken to us in the name of the LORD, we will not listen to you. 17 But we will do everything that we have vowed, make offerings to the queen of heaven and pour out drink offerings to her, as we did, both we and our fathers, our kings and our officials, in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem. For then we had plenty of food, and prospered, and saw no disaster.   ESV

Nay, if you look a little further, you shall see that these ways are made cautionary enough, not only by these posts, and ditch, and chain, but also by being hedged up: yet they will choose to go there.

     CHR. They are idle; they love not to take pains; up-hill way is unpleasant to them. So it is fulfilled unto them as it is written, “The way of the slothful man is full of thorns.”

Prov. 15:19 The way of a sluggard is like a hedge of thorns,
but the path of the upright is a level highway.   ESV

Yea, they will rather choose to walk upon a snare than to go up this hill, and the rest of this way to the city.

     Then they set forward, and began to go up the hill, and up the hill they went. But before they got to the top, Christiana began to pant, and said, I dare say this is a breathing hill; no marvel if they that love their ease more than their souls choose to themselves a smoother way.

     Then said Mercy, I must sit down: also the least of the children began to cry. Come, come, said Great-Heart, sit not down here; for a little above is the Prince’s arbor. Then he took the little boy by the hand, and led him up thereto.

     When they were come to the arbor, they were very willing to sit down, for they were all in a pelting heat. Then said Mercy, “How sweet is rest to them that labor.”

Matt. 11:28 Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.   ESV

and how good is the Prince of pilgrims to provide such resting-places for them! Of this arbor I have heard much; but I never saw it before. But here let us beware of sleeping; for, as I have heard, it cost poor Christian dear.

     Then said Mr. Great-Heart to the little ones, Come, my pretty boys, how do you do? What think you now of going on pilgrimage? Sir, said the least, I was almost beat out of heart; but I thank you for lending me a hand at my need. And I remember now what my mother hath told me, namely, that the way to heaven is as a ladder, and the way to hell is as down a hill. But I had rather go up the ladder to life, than down the hill to death.

     Then said Mercy, But the proverb is, “To go down the hill is easy.” But James said, (for that was his name,) The day is coming when, in my opinion, when going down the hill will be the hardest of all. ’Tis a good boy, said his master; thou hast given her a right answer. Then Mercy smiled, but the little boy did blush.

     CHR. Come, said Christiana, will you eat a bit to sweeten your mouths, while you sit here to rest your legs? for I have here a piece of pomegranate which Mr. Interpreter put into my hand just when I came out of his door; he gave me also a piece of an honeycomb, and a little bottle of spirits. I thought he gave you something, said Mercy, because he called you aside. Yes, so he did, said the other; but, said Christiana, it shall be still as I said it should, when at first we came from home; thou shalt be a sharer in all the good that I have, because thou so willingly didst become my companion. Then she gave to them, and they did eat, both Mercy and the boys. And said Christiana to Mr. Great-Heart, Sir, will you do as we? But he answered, You are going on pilgrimage, and presently I shall return; much good may what you have do you: at home I eat the same every day.

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

The Continual Burnt Offering

By H.A. Ironside - 1941

February 27

Take the world but give me Jesus,
Let me have His constant smile,
Then throughout my pilgrim journey
Faith shall cheer me all the while.

12 | Wellhausen’s Reconstruction of Hebrew History in the Priestly Period
Introduction: Wellhausen’s Reconstruction (Priestly Period) (cont)

By Gleason Archer Jr.

      In order to support a late date for the Priestly Code it is usually asserted that none of its provisions or ordinances is mentioned in any of the pre-exilic literature; the preexilic authors seem to be quite ignorant of them. Therefore, it is urged, the material contained in document P must have been composed after the fall of Jerusalem (587 B.C.). Driver says, “The pre-exilic period shows no indications of P being in operation” p 168 (ILOT, p. 136). Again, “Nor is the legislation of P presupposed in  Deuteronomy” (p. 137). These assertions, however, are not supported by the textual evidence. The preexilic historical books in general, and  Deuteronomy in particular, do in fact refer to Levitical legislation as already in being and as binding upon the conscience of Israel.

      In the first place, it is significant how even Driver himself is compelled to qualify the sweeping generalizations just quoted when he discusses  Deut. 14:3–20: “Here is a long passage virtually identical in  Deuteronomy and  Leviticus [i.e.,  Lev. 11:2–23, concerning clean and unclean animals]; and that it is borrowed by D from P—or at least from a priestly collection of tôrôth—rather than conversely, appears from certain features of style which connect it with P and not with  Deuteronomy .… If so, however, one part of P was in existence when  Deuteronomy was written” (ILOT, pp. 137–38). But actually this is not the only such section in  Deuteronomy.  Deuteronomy 15:1 refers to the year of release, just as it was ordained in  Lev. 25:2–7. Moreover  Deut. 23:9–10 implies a knowledge of those laws of ceremonial impurity which are contained in  Lev. 15:16; Deuteronomy 24:8, “Take heed in the plague of leprosy, that thou observe diligently and do according to all that the priests the Levites shall teach you: as I commanded them, so shall ye observe to do.” This expressly affirms the existence of a Mosaic law of leprosy which had been given to the priests (as in  Lev. 13 and 14 ). Other references in  Deuteronomy which point explicitly to P laws pertain to  Lev. 11, 13–15, 17–19, and  Num. 18:20–24. If these are really old laws (as Driver suggests) which existed prior to the codification of P, then (as Orr points out in POT, p. 315), “These old laws must have been so extremely like those we possess in  Leviticus that it is hardly worth disputing about the differences, and the argument against the pre-exilian existence of the Levitical law goes for nothing.”

      But it is not only in  Deuteronomy that these references to P legislation appear. In the 755 B.C. text of  Amos 2:11–12, we read: “And I raised up of your sons for prophets, and of your young men for Nazarites.… But ye gave the Nazarites wine to drink.” This passage implies a knowledge of  Num. 6:1–21 (P), the only place in the Old Testament where the order of Nazarites is established; the prohibition against their drinking wine is found in  Num. 6:3 (P). Again, in  Amos 4:5 condemnation is voiced of those who “offer a sacrifice … of that which is leavened,” which certainly alludes to the provision found in  Lev. 2:11 (P), where the use of leaven in sacrifice was forbidden. Such characteristic P terms as burnt offering, meal offering, and peace offering, all occur in  Amos 5:22 (cf.  Lev. 7:11–14; 8:1–32 ). Likewise we meet with free will offering (nedābāh) in  Amos 4:5 (cf.  Lev. 7:16–18; 22:18; Num. 15:3 — all P passages), and solemn assembly (˓aṣārāh) in  Amos 5:21 ( Lev. 23:36; Num. 29:35 ).

      The only reasonable inference from all these references (including those also which allude to  Deuteronomy ) is that already in 755 B.C. there was a written body of law, including both P and D, and labeled by the prophet himself as the Torah of Yahweh ( Amos 2:4 ), and accepted by his public as an authentic and authoritative body of legislation binding upon them. Nor is there the slightest hint or suggestion that either  Amos himself or any other representatives of the Prophetic School were attempting any innovation or promulgating any new teaching in theology or in the cult. Pfeiffer and Eissfeldt have attempted to evade the impact of this evidence from  Amos by asserting that all such allusions to the Torah are later insertions. But surely this is a counsel of desperation which contrasts markedly with the confident assertion of Graf, Kuenen, and Wellhausen, that no traces of P legislation are to be found in any pre-exilic Hebrew literature. This was an argument allegedly based upon the evidence of the biblical text itself. When therefore the text itself refutes the claim, there is no reasonable alternative but to withdraw it as unfounded. Nor is this kind of evidence confined to  Amos, for it is also found in  Hosea. Compare  Hos. 8:11–12: “For Ephraim has multiplied altars for sinning.… I wrote for him the ten thousand things of my law; but they are accounted as a strange thing.” It is difficult to see in this expression, “ten thousand things of my law,” a mere reference to J and E, in which the legislative element is quite negligible.

      It should be borne in mind in this connection that a customary method for ascertaining the date when a document was written is to take stock of all references to contemporary conditions, social and political, which it contains; particularly the incidental allusions (for these are apt to betray the true date of even spurious works which pretend to have been written earlier than they really were). Applying this investigative method to the “Priestly Code,” we find that the internal evidence points with almost overwhelming conclusiveness to a date long before the Babylonian Exile; it is impossible to square many features of P with what we know of post-exilic conditions. For example:

      1. The tabernacle of  Exodus and  Leviticus (regarded by Wellhausen as mere fiction, projected back to Moses’ time to furnish a warrant for the temple at Jerusalem) had but one table of shewbread (whereas Solomon’s temple had ten), and only one lampstand (Solomon’s had ten), and measured only ten cubits by thirty (whereas the temple was twenty by sixty). The dimensions represent a 200 percent increase, whereas the articles of furniture were multiplied 1000 percent.

      2. Note also that this allegedly fictitious tabernacle was stated by P to have been dedicated on the first of Nisan ( Ex. 40:2 ), whereas the post-exilic temple of Zerubbabel was dedicated on the third of Adar ( Ezra 6:15 ) and the temple of Solomon some time in the month of Ethanim, or Tishri ( 1 Kings 8:2 ).

      3. The post-exilic temple apparently lacked the Ark of the Covenant and its two Tables of the Decalogue (for no mention is made of them after the fall of Jerusalem in 587 B.C.), and yet they figured very prominently in P’s tabernacle.

      4. The post-exilic priesthood is never referred to as possessing the Urim and Thummim, or as wearing an ephod, in any purportedly post-exilic record (although they may perhaps have done so).

      5. Very striking is the contrast between P with its single fast (the Day of Atonement) and the three or four major fasts observed by the post-exilic Jews (cf.  Zech. 8:19 ). Certainly any exilic or post-exilic priests, seeking to manufacture Mosaic sanctions for all their cherished contemporary rites and institutions, would not have failed to include some sort of warrant for at least some of the extra fasts.

      6. As regards the celebration of the Passover, P ( Ex. 12:7, 46 ) permits the eating of the Passover meal in private homes — a license hardly compatible with a monopolistic priesthood — rather than insisting upon its celebration at the central sanctuary (as  Deut. 16:5–12 ordains). Apparently, the  Ex. 12 provision had in view Israel’s nomadic existence prior to the Conquest, whereas  Deuteronomy looked forward to conditions prevailing in Palestine after its conquest and settlement.

      7. As for the cities of refuge, mentioned so prominently in P ( Num. 35:9–14 ), they are never mentioned as such in the post-exilic records. Furthermore, most of them were situated well outside the boundaries of the Persian province of Judea in Ezra’s time.

A Survey of Old Testament Introduction

The Institutes of the Christian Religion

Translated by Henry Beveridge

     6. The true knowledge of Christ consists in receiving him as he is offered by the Father, namely, as invested with his Gospel. For, as he is appointed as the end of our faith, so we cannot directly tend towards him except under the guidance of the Gospel. Therein are certainly unfolded to us treasures of grace. Did these continue shut, Christ would profit us little. Hence Paul makes faith the inseparable attendant of doctrine in these words, "Ye have not so learned Christ; if so be that ye have heard him, and have been taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus," (Eph. 4:20, 21). Still I do not confine faith to the Gospel in such a sense as not to admit that enough was delivered to Moses and the Prophets to form a foundation of faith; but as the Gospel exhibits a fuller manifestation of Christ, Paul justly terms it the doctrine of faith (1 Tim. 4:6). For which reason, also he elsewhere says, that, by the coming of faith, the Law was abolished (Rom. 10:4), including under the expression a new and unwonted mode of teaching, by which Christ, from the period of his appearance as the great Master, gave a fuller illustration of the Father's mercy, and testified more surely of our salvation. But an easier and more appropriate method will be to descend from the general to the particular. First, we must remember, that there is an inseparable relation between faith and the word, and that these can no more be disconnected from each other than rays of light from the sun. Hence in Isaiah the Lord exclaims, "Hear, and your soul shall live," (Is. 4:3). And John points to this same fountain of faith in the following words, "These are written that ye might believe," (John 20:31). The Psalmist also exhorting the people to faith says, "To-day, if ye will hear his voice," (Ps. 95:7), to hear being uniformly taken for to believe. In fine, in Isaiah the Lord distinguishes the members of the Church from strangers by this mark, "All thy children shall be taught of the Lord," (Is. 54:13); for if the benefit was indiscriminate, why should he address his words only to a few? Corresponding with this, the Evangelists uniformly employ the terms believers and disciples as synonymous. This is done especially by Luke in several passages of the Acts. He even applies the term disciple to a woman (Acts 9:36). Wherefore, if faith declines in the least degree from the mark at which it ought to aim, it does not retain its nature, but becomes uncertain credulity and vague wandering of mind. The same word is the basis on which it rests and is sustained. Declining from it, it falls. Take away the word, therefore, and no faith will remain. We are not here discussing, whether, in order to propagate the word of God by which faith is engendered, the ministry of man is necessary (this will be considered elsewhere); but we say that the word itself, whatever be the way in which it is conveyed to us, is a kind of mirror in which faith beholds God. In this, therefore, whether God uses the agency of man, or works immediately by his own power, it is always by his word that he manifests himself to those whom he designs to draw to himself. Hence Paul designates faith as the obedience which is given to the Gospel (Rom. 1:5); and writing to the Philippians, he commends them for the obedience of faith (Phil. 2:17). For faith includes not merely the knowledge that God is, but also, nay chiefly, a perception of his will toward us. It concerns us to know not only what he is in himself, but also in what character he is pleased to manifest himself to us. We now see, therefore, that faith is the knowledge of the divine will in regard to us, as ascertained from his word. And the foundation of it is a previous persuasion of the truth of God. So long as your mind entertains any misgivings as to the certainty of the word, its authority will be weak and dubious, or rather it will have no authority at all. Nor is it sufficient to believe that God is true, and cannot lie or deceive, unless you feel firmly persuaded that every word which him is sacred, inviolable truth.

7. But since the heart of man is not brought to faith by every word of God, we must still consider what it is that faith properly has respect to in the word. The declaration of God to Adam was, "Thou shalt surely die," (Gen. 2:17); and to Cain, "The voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground," (Gen. 4:10); but these, so far from being fitted to establish faith, tend only to shake it. At the same time, we deny not that it is the office of faith to assent to the truth of God whenever, whatever, and in whatever way he speaks: we are only inquiring what faith can find in the word of God to lean and rest upon. When conscience sees only wrath and indignation, how can it but tremble and be afraid? and how can it avoid shunning the God whom it thus dreads? But faith ought to seek God, not shun him. It is evident, therefore, that we have not yet obtained a full definition of faith, it being impossible to give the name to every kind of knowledge of the divine will. Shall we, then, for "will", which is often the messenger of bad news and the herald of terror, substitute the benevolence or mercy of God? In this way, doubtless, we make a nearer approach to the nature of faith. For we are allured to seek God when told that our safety is treasured up in him; and we are confirmed in this when he declares that he studies and takes an interest in our welfare. Hence there is need of the gracious promise, in which he testifies that he is a propitious Father; since there is no other way in which we can approach to him, the promise being the only thing on which the heart of man can recline. For this reason, the two things, mercy and truth, are uniformly conjoined in the Psalms as having a mutual connection with each other. For it were of no avail to us to know that God is true, did He not in mercy allure us to himself; nor could we of ourselves embrace his mercy did not He expressly offer it. "I have declared thy faithfulness and thy salvation: I have not concealed thy loving-kindness and thy truth. Withhold not thy tender mercies from me, O Lord: let thy loving-kindness and thy truth continually preserve me," (Ps. 40:10, 11). "Thy mercy, O Lord, is in the heavens; and thy faithfulness reacheth unto the clouds," (Ps. 36:5). "All the paths of the Lord are mercy and truth unto such as keep his covenant and his testimonies," (Ps. 25:10). "His merciful kindness is great toward us: and the truth of the Lord endureth for ever," (Ps. 117:2). "I will praise thy name for thy loving-kindness and thy truth," (Ps. 138:2). I need not quote what is said in the Prophets, to the effect that God is merciful and faithful in his promises. It were presumptuous in us to hold that God is propitious to us, had we not his own testimony, and did he not prevent us by his invitation, which leaves no doubt or uncertainty as to his will. It has already been seen that Christ is the only pledge of love, for without him all things, both above and below speak of hatred and wrath. We have also seen, that since the knowledge of the divine goodness cannot be of much importance unless it leads us to confide in it, we must exclude a knowledge mingled with doubt,--a knowledge which, so far from being firm, is continually wavering. But the human mind, when blinded and darkened, is very far from being able to rise to a proper knowledge of the divine will; nor can the heart, fluctuating with perpetual doubt, rest secure in such knowledge. Hence, in order that the word of God may gain full credit, the mind must be enlightened, and the heart confirmed, from some other quarter. We shall now have a full definition of faith [282] if we say that it is a firm and sure knowledge of the divine favor toward us, founded on the truth of a free promise in Christ, and revealed to our minds, and sealed on our hearts, by the Holy Spirit.

8. But before I proceed farther, it will be necessary to make some preliminary observations for the purpose of removing difficulties which might otherwise obstruct the reader. And first, I must refute the nugatory distinction of the Schoolmen as to formed and unformed faith. [283] For they imagine that persons who have no fear of God, and no sense of piety, may believe all that is necessary to be known for salvation; as if the Holy Spirit were not the witness of our adoption by enlightening our hearts unto faith. Still, however, though the whole Scripture is against them, they dogmatically give the name of faith to a persuasion devoid of the fear of God. It is unnecessary to go farther in refuting their definition, than simply to state the nature of faith as declared in the word of God. From this it will clearly appear how unskillfully and absurdly they babble, rather than discourse, on this subject. I have already done this in part, and will afterwards add the remainder in its proper place. At present, I say that nothing can be imagined more absurd than their fiction. They insist that faith is an assent with which any despiser of God may receive what is delivered by Scripture. But we must first see whether any one can by his own strength acquire faith, or whether the Holy Spirit, by means of it, becomes the witness of adoption. Hence it is childish trifling in them to inquire whether the faith formed by the supervening quality of love be the same, or a different and new faith. By talking in this style, they show plainly that they have never thought of the special gift of the Spirit; since one of the first elements of faith is reconciliation implied in man's drawing near to God. Did they duly ponder the saying of Paul, "With the heart man believeth unto righteousness," (Rom. 10:10), they would cease to dream of that frigid quality. There is one consideration which ought at once to put an end to the debate--viz. that assent itself (as I have already observed, and will afterwards more fully illustrate) is more a matter of the heart than the head, of the affection than the intellect. For this reason, it is termed "the obedience of faith," (Rom. 1:5), which the Lord prefers to all other service, and justly, since nothing is more precious to him than his truth, which, as John Baptist declares, is in a manner signed and sealed by believers (John 3:33). As there can be no doubt on the matter, we in one word conclude, that they talk absurdly when they maintain that faith is formed by the addition of pious affection as an accessory to assent, since assent itself, such at least as the Scriptures describe, consists in pious affection. But we are furnished with a still clearer argument. Since faith embraces Christ as he is offered by the Father, and he is offered not only for justification, for forgiveness of sins and peace, but also for sanctification, as the fountain of living waters, it is certain that no man will ever know him aright without at the same time receiving the sanctification of the Spirit; or, to express the matter more plainly, faith consists in the knowledge of Christ; Christ cannot be known without the sanctification of his Spirit: therefore faith cannot possibly be disjoined from pious affection.

9. In their attempt to mar faith by divesting it of love, they are wont to insist on the words of Paul, "Though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing," (1 Cor. 13:2). But they do not consider what the faith is of which the Apostle there speaks. Having, in the previous chapter, discoursed of the various gifts of the Spirit (1 Cor. 12:10), including diversity of tongues, miracles, and prophecy, and exhorted the Corinthians to follow the better gifts, in other words, those from which the whole body of the Church would derive greater benefit, he adds, "Yet show I unto you a more excellent way," (1 Cor. 12:30). All other gifts, how excellent soever they may be in themselves, are of no value unless they are subservient to charity. They were given for the edification of the Church, and fail of their purpose if not so applied. To prove this he adopts a division, repeating the same gifts which he had mentioned before, but under different names. Miracles and faith are used to denote the same thing--viz. the power of working miracles. Seeing, then, that this miraculous power or faith is the particular gift of God, which a wicked man may possess and abuse, as the gift of tongues, prophecy, or other gifts, it is not strange that he separates it from charity. Their whole error lies in this, that while the term faith has a variety of meanings, overlooking this variety, they argue as if its meaning were invariably one and the same. The passage of James, by which they endeavor to defend their error, will be elsewhere discussed (infra, chap. 17, sec. 11). Although, in discoursing of faith, we admit that it has a variety of forms; yet, when our object is to show what knowledge of God the wicked possess, we hold and maintain, in accordance with Scripture, that the pious only have faith. Multitudes undoubtedly believe that God is, and admit the truth of the Gospel History, and the other parts of Scripture, in the same way in which they believe the records of past events, or events which they have actually witnessed. There are some who go even farther: they regard the Word of God as an infallible oracle; they do not altogether disregard its precepts, but are moved to some degree by its threatening and promises. To such the testimony of faith is attributed, but by catachresis; because they do not with open impiety impugn, reject, or condemn, the Word of God, but rather exhibit some semblance of obedience.

10. But as this shadow or image of faith is of no moment, so it is unworthy of the name. How far it differs from true faith will shortly be explained at length. Here, however, we may just indicate it in passing. Simon Magus is said to have believed, though he soon after gave proof of his unbelief (Acts 8:13-18). In regard to the faith attributed to him, we do not understand with some, that he merely pretended a belief which had no existence in his heart: we rather think that, overcome by the majesty of the Gospel, he yielded some kind of assent, and so far acknowledged Christ to be the author of life and salvation, as willingly to assume his name. In like manner, in the Gospel of Luke, those in whom the seed of the word is choked before it brings forth fruit, or in whom, from having no depth of earth, it soon withereth away, are said to believe for a time. Such, we doubt not, eagerly receive the word with a kind of relish, and have some feeling of its divine power, so as not only to impose upon men by a false semblance of faith, but even to impose upon themselves. They imagine that the reverence which they give to the word is genuine piety, because they have no idea of any impiety but that which consists in open and avowed contempt. But whatever that assent may be, it by no means penetrates to the heart, so as to have a fixed seat there. Although it sometimes seems to have planted its roots, these have no life in them. The human heart has so many recesses for vanity, so many lurking places for falsehood, is so shrouded by fraud and hypocrisy, that it often deceives itself. Let those who glory in such semblances of faith know that, in this respect, they are not a whit superior to devils. The one class, indeed, is inferior to them, inasmuch as they are able without emotion to hear and understand things, the knowledge of which makes devils tremble (James 2:19). The other class equals them in this, that whatever be the impression made upon them, its only result is terror and consternation.

     Christian Classics Ethereal Library / Public Domain

     Institutes of the Christian Religion