The Institutes of the Christian Religion

Translated by Henry Beveridge

     CHAPTER 12.

CHRIST, TO PERFORM THE OFFICE OF MEDIATOR, BEHOVED TO BECOME MAN.

The two divisions of this chapter are, I. The reasons why our Mediator behoved to be very God, and to become man, sec. 1-3. II. Disposal of various objections by some fanatics, and especially by Osiander, to the orthodox doctrine concerning the Mediator, sec. 4-7.

Sections.

1. Necessary, not absolutely, but by divine decree, that the Mediator should be God, and become man. Neither man nor angel, though pure, could have sufficed. The Son of God behoved to come down. Man in innocence could not penetrate to God without a Mediator, much less could he after the fall.

2. A second reason why the Mediator behoved to be God and man--viz. that he had to convert those who were heirs of hell into children of God.

3. Third reason, that in our flesh he might yield a perfect obedience, satisfy the divine justice, and pay the penalty of sin. Fourth reason, regarding the consolation and confirmation of the whole Church.

4. First objection against the orthodox doctrine: Answer to it. Conformation from the sacrifices of the Law, the testimony of the Prophets, Apostles, Evangelists, and even Christ himself.

5. Second objection: Answer: Answer confirmed. Third objection: Answer. Fourth objection by Osiander: Answer.

6. Fifth objection, forming the basis of Osiander's errors on this subject: Answer. Nature of the divine image in Adam. Christ the head of angels and men.

7. Sixth objection: Answer. Seventh objection: Answer. Eighth objection: Answer. Ninth objection: Answer. Tenth objection: Answer. Eleventh objection: Answer. Twelfth objection: Answer. The sum of the doctrine.

1. It deeply concerned us, that he who was to be our Mediator should be very God and very man. If the necessity be inquired into, it was not what is commonly termed simple or absolute, but flowed from the divine decree on which the salvation of man depended. What was best for us, our most merciful Father determined. Our iniquities, like a cloud intervening between Him and us, having utterly alienated us from the kingdom of heaven, none but a person reaching to him could be the medium of restoring peace. But who could thus reach to him? Could any of the sons of Adam? All of them, with their parents, shuddered at the sight of God. Could any of the angels? They had need of a head, by connection with which they might adhere to their God entirely and inseparably. What then? The case was certainly desperate, if the Godhead itself did not descend to us, it being impossible for us to ascend. Thus the Son of God behoved to become our Emmanuel, the God with us; and in such a way, that by mutual union his divinity and our nature might be combined; otherwise, neither was the proximity near enough, nor the affinity strong enough, to give us hope that God would dwell with us; so great was the repugnance between our pollution and the spotless purity of God. Had man remained free from all taint, he was of too humble a condition to penetrate to God without a Mediator. What, then, must it have been, when by fatal ruin he was plunged into death and hell, defiled by so many stains, made loathsome by corruption; in fine, overwhelmed with every curse? It is not without cause, therefore, that Paul, when he would set forth Christ as the Mediator, distinctly declares him to be man. There is, says he, "one Mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus," (1 Tim. 2:5). He might have called him God, or at least, omitting to call him God he might also have omitted to call him man; but because the Spirit, speaking by his mouth, knew our infirmity, he opportunely provides for it by the most appropriate remedy, setting the Son of God familiarly before us as one of ourselves. That no one, therefore, may feel perplexed where to seek the Mediator, or by what means to reach him, the Spirit, by calling him man, reminds us that he is near, nay, contiguous to us, inasmuch as he is our flesh. And, indeed, he intimates the same thing in another place, where he explains at greater length that he is not a high priest who "cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin," (Heb. 4:15).

2. This will become still clearer if we reflect, that the work to be performed by the Mediator was of no common description: being to restore us to the divine favour, so as to make us, instead of sons of men, sons of God; instead of heirs of hell, heirs of a heavenly kingdom. Who could do this unless the Son of God should also become the Son of man, and so receive what is ours as to transfer to us what is his, making that which is his by nature to become ours by grace? Relying on this earnest, we trust that we are the sons of God, because the natural Son of God assumed to himself a body of our body, flesh of our flesh, bones of our bones, that he might be one with us; he declined not to take what was peculiar to us, that he might in his turn extend to us what was peculiarly his own, and thus might be in common with us both Son of God and Son of man. Hence that holy brotherhood which he commends with his own lips, when he says, "I ascend to my Father, and your Father, to my God, and your God," (John 20:17). In this way, we have a sure inheritance in the heavenly kingdom, because the only Son of God, to whom it entirely belonged, has adopted us as his brethren; and if brethren, then partners with him in the inheritance (Rom. 8:17). Moreover, it was especially necessary for this cause also that he who was to be our Redeemer should be truly God and man. It was his to swallow up death: who but Life could do so? It was his to conquer sin: who could do so save Righteousness itself? It was his to put to flight the powers of the air and the world: who could do so but the mighty power superior to both? But who possesses life and righteousness, and the dominion and government of heaven, but God alone? Therefore, God, in his infinite mercy, having determined to redeem us, became himself our Redeemer in the person of his only begotten Son.

     Christian Classics Ethereal Library / Public Domain

     Institutes of the Christian Religion

How Can I Know Which Bible Promises Apply to Me?

By Amy Hall 9/10/2016

     Because of two recent posts on wrongly applying biblical promises to ourselves (Jeremiah 29:11 and Exodus 14:14), we’ve been receiving questions about how to determine which promises do apply to us.

     The most basic place to start is to look at what is said to New Covenant believers versus those who were under the specific terms of the Mosaic Covenant with its promised blessings and curses. If a promise was made as a term of the Mosaic Covenant (for example, that they would have good crops if they obeyed the Covenant’s commands), then that is not part of our Covenant. However, we can learn much about who God is from how He dealt with people in the Mosaic Covenant, and His character does not change. From His dealings with people in the Old Testament, we learn that He is just, that He is gracious, that He loves undeservedly, that He’s trustworthy and faithful to those He’s covenanted with, that He has their ultimate good in mind, that He’s working everything together for His plan to glorify Himself and redeem the world. God doesn’t change, so what we learn about Him in the Old Testament is still true of Him today. The only question is about how He promises to act today on those characteristics of love, grace, etc.

     When we get to the New Covenant, we see these same characteristics of God play out in terms of the New Covenant. For example, “because of His great love with which He loved us,” and by His grace, we’re reconciled to God through Christ’s death on the cross and are made alive with Him; we are given the Holy Spirit as a secure pledge of God’s faithful covenant with us (Ephesians 1–2). (All who are united to Christ are also heirs of the promises made by grace to Abraham—Galatians 3:15–29.) The particular promises and commands of this Covenant may be different, but His character is the same. We know specifically that His love, grace, wisdom, and purpose are directed towards making His people like Christ (Romans 8:29), and that everything in our lives is working towards that end good (Romans 8:28). It’s the trustworthy character of God that we cling to throughout this difficult life, regardless of whether He heals us or increases our “crops.”

     So when reading the Old Testament, we look to see what we can learn about God in any given passage. Who is He? What is He like? How does He treat His people? In terms of promises, the biggest promise of the Bible is the promise of who God is. This is the promise we depend on. We find we have cancer? We trust the promise that God is good, that He’s sovereign over history, that He loves us, and that He seeks the good of His people. We can’t trust that He’ll heal us (that isn’t always the greatest good for us and for God’s kingdom), but we can trust that God is good and sovereign, and that our suffering has a purpose.

     Always look for what you can learn about God through His dealings with human beings throughout the Bible. When God makes promises about who He is, that always applies. When God promises to give something specific, look more closely at the context to see if He’s promising it in a unique situation (or under the terms of the Mosaic Covenant).

Does Your Heart Break Like a Samaritan?

By Nijay Gupta 2/13/2017

     Over the last several days I have been haunted by the hateful thoughts and acts around me related to the different “other.” The question keeps ringing in my ears – what can I do, how can I help? I have contacted leaders in my area. I have tried to teach my children about Christian generosity and goodness. What else can I do?

     Someone recently told me – Nijay, you are a teacher – teach! Well, this term I am teaching Biblical Greek, so I took the opportunity to teach my students about the Greek text of Luke 10:25-37 – the “Parable of the Good Samaritan.” I thought I would share these reflections.

     A certain expert in Jewish religious law (νομικός – you might say a “Torah-geek”!) asked Jesus what the expectations are on Jews to inherit eternal life. Jesus turns the question back – What has been written in Torah? Jesus follows up with another question – literally, “How do you read it?” This means, “How do you interpret it?” (CEB). Such a fascinating question. Torah is not self-interpreting, it requires a certain theological insight to know what holds Torah together.

• 1     Prepare, Succeed, Advance: A Guidebook for Getting a PhD in Biblical Studies and Beyond
• 2     Colossians (Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary)
• 3     Worship that Makes Sense to Paul: A New Approach to the Theology and Ethics of Paul's Cultic Metaphors (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fur die ... und die Kunde der Alteren Kirche)

The Candles at Turl Street Kitchen

By Kelly Keller 2/6/2017

     Evening comes on quickly in Oxford in November. The dark creeps in around 4 in the afternoon.

     When David and I closed out our afternoons there, we sought out a little respite in a place pointed out to us by our friend Sarah: Turl Street Kitchen. Turl Street is one of the cross streets that runs between Broad Street and the High Street. It is rather narrow and always full of bicycle riders.

     The restaurant was tucked in on the right side of the road as we left Broad Street and Blackwells’ bookstore. It was the kind of place you’d imagine in Oxford: small-paned windows, rough wooden pub tables, and a staircase that marched up the middle of the building. In the back was the coffee bar: a lighter space with a few high-top tables scattered about.

     As dusk came on, we sought out those most modern of necessities: electrical outlets and free wi-fi. My eagerness to guide us around the town with an online walking tour, along with my incessant picture-taking, had mercilessly killed my phone. While “going dark” in Oxford was a tempting proposition, responsibilities back home (by the names of our five children) demanded that we keep the communication lines open. So we ordered two lattes and a slice of cake, and slumped down with our bags at a corner table by an outlet.

     We took out a map, as tourists are inclined to do, and discussed our next day’s plans. As we chatted, a server walked about with a lighter and lit the white thick pillar candles on each table. There were no candle holders; not even a plate underneath them. The candles sat down unapologetically on each wooden table, where the burn marks remembered them. There was no fuss about anything.

Read The Psalms In "1" Year

Psalm 18

31 For who is God, but the LORD?
And who is a rock, except our God?—
32 the God who equipped me with strength
and made my way blameless.
33 He made my feet like the feet of a deer
and set me secure on the heights.
34 He trains my hands for war,
so that my arms can bend a bow of bronze.
35 You have given me the shield of your salvation,
and your right hand supported me,
and your gentleness made me great.
36 You gave a wide place for my steps under me,
and my feet did not slip.

Six Poor Reasons for Rejecting the Miraculous

By Saints and Sceptics 12/21/2013

     Christian theology affirms a number of miracles, most importantly the atonement, the resurrection, the incarnation and the virgin birth. The secular mind dismisses these as tall-tales and myths produced by superstitious, pre-modern minds. However, it seems to us that the modern prejudice against miracles is not very rational.

     1) Experience shows that miracles do not occur

     This argues in a circle. The Christian asserts that he has good testimony that a miracle has occurred. The sceptic responds, “that can’t be true because human experience shows that miracles do not occur.” But the Christian has just cited evidence that this is not the case: the Christian is claiming that he has evidence that some humans have experienced a miracle!

     It is true that human experience establishes that miracles are, at the very least, rare. But relying on our experience of what usually happens can lead to terrible mistakes. “This medicine has never harmed patients in the past; therefore it will not hurt anyone tomorrow; these buildings have withstood all earthquakes until now; therefore they will withstand the next earthquake.” We should always be open to evidence of the unexpected. Sometimes that evidence can tell us that an unrepeatable, unprecedented event has occurred!

     2) Science shows that miracles are impossible!

Variations and Doublets as Criteria for Source Division

By Gleason Archer Jr.

The Variation between Yahweh and Elohim

     AS WE HAVE ALREADY SEEN in our review of the history of the Documentary Hypothesis (chap. 6), the basic criterion for source division followed by the pioneers of this critical school was the occurrence of “Jehovah” (Yahweh) and “God” (Elohim) as favorite or preferred names for God in  Genesis. The argument was that the prevalence of Elohim in  Gen. 1 marked it as originating from an author (E or P) who referred to God only by that term, and never employed any other title than this. Correspondingly the preponderance of Yahweh in  Gen. 2 marked it as coming from a different author (J), who knew God only as Yahweh. It is necessary for us to examine the credibility of this diverse Source Theory as an adequate explanation for the distribution of these divine titles in  Genesis and the rest of the Torah.

     From the standpoint of comparative religions, it is doubtful whether the religious literature of any of Israel’s pagan neighbors ever referred to a paramount god by a single name. In Babylonia, the Sumerian counterparts were alternated with the Akkadian names: Bel was also Enlil and Nunamnir (Prologue of Lipit-Ishtar Code); Anum was Ilum, Sin was Nanna, Ea was Enki, Utu was Shamash, and Ishtar was Inanna or Telitum (cf. Prologue to Hammurabi’s Code). At Ugarit, Baal was also called Aliyan,1 El was Latpan, and Kothar-wa-Khasis (“the artificer god”) was Hayyin (cf. Aqhat, ANET, p. 151). In Egypt, Osiris (the judge of the dead and lord of the netherworld) was also Wennefer, Neb-Abdu, and Khentamentiu (cf. the Ikhernofret Stela in the Berlin Museum); his son Horus was also Re-Harakhti, and so on throughout the Egyptian pantheon. In Greece, the king-god Zeus was known also as Kronion and Olympios, Athena was Pallas, Apollo was Phoebus and Pythius—titles which appear in parallelism in Homer’s epics without requiring any theory of diverse sources. At the time of Astruc and Eichhorn, of course, the Semitic and Egyptian data were virtually unknown; otherwise it is impossible that any theory of source division based on divine names could ever have arisen. But now that these facts are well known in the twentieth century, it is hard to see how anyone can take seriously the terms Yahwist or Elohist any longer. In connection with the Ebla tablets (BA 5/76, p. 48), Pettinato points out that previous to the reign of King Ebrium (ca. 2330 B.C.), we meet names like Mi-ka-il and En-na-il. From his time on, they appear as Mi-ka-ya and En-na-ya. He remarks, “This amply demonstrates that at Ebla at least ‘Ya’ had the same value as ‘Il’ and points to a specific deity.” (C. Wilson, Secrets of a Forgotten City, p. 111.)

     A most impressive parallel to the irregular distribution of the two divine names in the Torah is furnished by the sacred scriptures of the Muslims, the Koran. No one can question the unity of authorship of the Koran, and yet we meet with a similar phenomenon in this Arabic text. The name Allahu corresponds to Elōhɩ̂m, and Rabbu (“lord”) is equivalent to the Adonay (Lord) which the later Jews used in referring to Yahweh. In some suras (chapters) of the Koran, we find the two terms intermingled, but in others only the one or the other appears. For example, in the following suras the name Rabbu never occurs: 4, 9, 24, 33, 48, 49, 57, 58, 59, 61, 62, 63, 64, 86, 88, 95, 101, 102, 103, 104, 107, 109, 111, 112. On the other hand, the following suras never use the name Allahu: 15, 32, 54, 55, 56, 68, 75, 78, 83, 87, 89, 92, 93, 94, 99, 100, 105, 106, 108, 113, 114. Here we have indisputable evidence that ancient Semitic literature was capable of selective use of divine names even though composed by the same author.

     One remarkable feature of the Wellhausian source division is the occasional appearance of the wrong name in the “Jehovistic” and “Elohistic” portions of the Pentateuch. Early in the development of this multiple-document theory, an effort was made to bolster the case for diversity of authorship by drawing up lists of near synonyms which were supposed to occur only in the one “source” or the other. (For example, of the two words for “female slave,” šiphḥâ was assigned exclusively to J and ʾāmah to E, in  Gen. 33, Driver assigned the passage to J because of its use of šipḥâ, even though Elōhɩ̂m appears throughout. Likewise the name Sinai was assigned to J and P, the name Horeb was reserved for E and D.)

     Despite the effort to keep these “characteristic words” and their appropriate divine names in their separate watertight compartments, occasional leaks have occurred, so to speak. Thus we discover that Elohim occurs in such passages as  Gen. 3:1–5 (where the serpent thus refers to God);  Gen. 16:13 (where Hagar calls the name of Jehovah: “Thou art an El that sees”);  Gen. 32:28–29 Jacob at Peniel is said to have striven with Elohim — a very anthropomorphic motif — and received the name Yisra-El, or Israel). On the other hand, Yahweh occurs in such E passages as  Gen. 22:11 (where the angel of Jehovah restrains Abraham from plunging the knife into Isaac) and verse  14 (where Abraham calls the place “Jehovah-jireh”);  Gen. 28:17–22 (where Jacob makes a vow, saying, “Jehovah will be my God”). Yahweh also occurs in such passages as  Gen. 7:16; 14:22; and 17:1. Despite all the vigilance of the Source Critics with their scissors and paste, a few slips like these have occurred, even though the general practice was to slice a verse in two where the compound name Yahweh-Elohim occurs (e.g.,  Gen. 2:4; where 4a is assigned to P and 4b to J), rather than allow the “wrong” name to appear and thus embarrass the theory. (Yahweh-Elohim occurs eleven times in  Gen. 2: Yahweh never stands alone!)

     It has already been pointed out that serious objection was raised against using the names as a criterion for source division on the ground of the numerous discrepancies which occur between the name appearing in the MT and that employed in the corresponding LXX translation. This threw doubt upon the soundness of any process of separation which depended so completely upon the infallibility of the MT in the transmission of Yahweh and Elohim, when inaccuracy was charged against it by those same critics in practically all the rest of the Torah. The actual data of the Hebrew documents themselves do not well sustain the old Astruc theory that a different name necessarily indicates a different author.

     What explanation does account for the distribution of Yahweh and Elohim throughout the Torah? A careful study of the etymology and usage of the two names indicates that the name chosen depended upon the context of the situation. Elohim (which is apparently derived from a root meaning “powerful, strong, or foremost”) is used to refer to God as the Almighty Creator of the universe and Lord over nature and mankind in general. Hence only Elohim is appropriate in  Gen. 1, since the subject dealt with there is creation. Yahweh, on the other hand, is the covenant name of God, which is reserved for situations in which some covenant engagement of God is involved. Thus in  Gen. 2 this name is very frequently used, because the subject matter is God’s gracious dealing with Adam and Eve under the covenant of works. In  Gen. 3 it is the serpent, as the agent or embodiment of Satan, who stands in no covenant relationship with God, and hence refers to Him as Elohim—an example which Eve also follows as long as she is talking with the serpent. But it is Jehovah God who calls out to Adam (  3:9) and reproves Eve (  3:13), and who also, as covenant-keeping God of the repentant couple, lays a curse upon the serpent (  3:14).

     This distinction between the two names of God was clearly perceived and defined by Rabbi Jehuda Hallevi as long ago as the twelfth century A.D., when he defined Elohim as the divine name in general, whereas Adonay (or Yahweh) specified the God of revelation and covenant. Even Kuenen felt constrained to concede: “The original distinction between Jahweh and Elohim very often accounts for the use of one of these appellations in preference to the other.” A little later he comments: “The history of critical investigation has shown that far too much weight has often been laid on agreement in the use of the divine names.… It is well, therefore, to utter a warning against laying an exaggerated stress on this one phenomenon. An admission like this would seem to indicate qualms as to the validity of the most fundamental of all the criteria for source division, even on the part of a principal architect of the Documentary Hypothesis.

A Survey of Old Testament Introduction

The Problem Of The Old Testament

By James Orr 1907

III. SPECIAL PROBLEMS OF JE: PLACE OF ORIGIN AND EXTENT

It is now necessary, in order that the value of the current critical theories may be thoroughly tested, to investigate the analysis and other questions connected with the different documents more in detail; and first we consider the problems involved in the relations of J and E. These problems, in our view, all converge ultimately into one — Are the critics right in distinguishing two documents at all? To set this question in its proper light, and reveal more clearly the serious differences that emerge on fundamental points, it will be advisable to look, first, at the views entertained as to the place of origin of the assumed documents, and as to their extent. Some hint of the range of these differences has already been given.

1. Much light is cast on critical procedure by observing the methods employed to determine the place of origin of the documents, with the implications as to their age. We saw before that it has become customary to take for granted, though without real proof, that J and E first originated, the one (which one is in dispute) in the ninth century, the other about the middle of the eighth century B.C. It is also very generally held, and is confidently stated, that E was a native of the Northern Kingdom, while J, probably, was a native of the Southern, or Judæan Kingdom. The chief reasons given for localising E in Ephraim are his peculiar interest in the sacred places of Northern Israel (Bethel, Shechem, etc.), his exaltation of the house of Joseph, and his preference in the story of Joseph for Ephraim over Judah. How shadowy and assumptive all this is, and how inadequate as a ground of separation of the documents, will be evident from the following considerations:—

(1) In the first place, there are eminent critics (e.g., Schrader, Reuss, Kuenen, Kautzsch), who place J also in Northern Israel, and for precisely the same reason of his supposed interest in Ephraimitic shrines. The two writings, therefore, it may be concluded, cannot really stand far apart in this respect. Kautzsch, e.g., thinks it inconceivable “that a Judahite, at a time when the temple of Solomon was already in existence [note the assumption on date], brought the sanctity of Shechem, Bethel, and Peniel into the prominence they have at  Gen. 12:6; 28:13 ff., and  32:30 ff.”2 Yet the Judæan origin of J is one of the things which Dillmann, among others, regards as “demonstrable with certainty.”

(2) In the next place, the whole reasoning proceeds on the assumption that the writings are as late as the ninth or eighth century, and that the motive for recording the movements and residences of the patriarchs is to glorify existing sacred places, or exalt one branch of the divided kingdom above the other. The naïveté of the narratives might save them from this charge of “tendency,” which has really nothing tangible to support it. There is no trace of the divided kingdom, or of partiality for one side or the other, in the patriarchal narratives. The history of Joseph is recorded with fulness and freshness by both writers. Gunkel takes strong ground on this point. “There can,” he says, “be no talk of a party-tendency in the two collections for the North or for the South Kingdom: they are too faithful.” Even Kuenen writes: “It would be incorrect to say that the narratives in  Genesis exalt Joseph at the expense of his brothers, and are unfriendly to Judah. This would contradict their ever present idea that all the tribes have sprung from a single father, and on the strength of this common descent are a single people.… Neither J nor E takes sides with any one of the tribes, or specifically for or against Joseph or Judah; for both alike occupy the Israelitish position, in the widest sense of the word.” The real reason why the sojournings of the patriarchs are followed with such interest in J and E is simply that, in the old Israelitish tradition, Hebron, Beersheba, Bethel, Shechem, were believed to be the real spots where these patriarchs dwelt, and built their altars.

(3) When, further, we look into the narratives, we do not find, in fact, that they bear out this idea of a special favouritism in E for localities in the North, and in J for places in the South. Addis remarks on J’s “large-hearted interest in the myths (?) and sacred places both of Northern Israel and of Judah.” Abraham’s home in J is at Hebron, but his first altar is built near Bethel. Latterly, in both J and E, he lives at Beersheba (in South). Isaac also, in both sources, lives at Beersheba. J narrates the vision of Jacob at Bethel (with E), his wrestling with the angel at Peniel, his residence at Shechem (with E and P),8 etc. E also has his stories about Bethel, Shechem, and Beersheba, but he records Jacob’s residence in “the vale of Hebron” (South), as, earlier, he had shared in the story of the offering of Isaac on Mount Moriah. As little are we disposed to trust the critic’s “feeling” for an “Ephraimitic tinge” in E, when we find, e.g., one authority on this “tinge” (Kautzsch) declaring that “it [E] no longer conveys the impression of a triumphant outlook on a glorious future, but rather that of a retrospect on a bygone history, in which were many gloomy experiences;” and another (Kittel) assuring us that “the whole tone of E bears witness to a certain satisfaction of the national consciousness, and joy over what has been won.”

(4) Finally, if anything were lacking to destroy our confidence in this theory of tendencies of J and E, it would be supplied by the interpretations that are given of particular incidents in the narrative. It strains our faith to breaking-point to be asked to believe that the interest of a prophetic writer like E, of the days of Amos and Hosea, in Bethel and Beersheba, arose from the fact that these places were the then famous centres of (idolatrous) worship (cf.  Amos 5:5; 8:14; Hos. 4:15); or that  Gen. 28:22 is intended to explain and sanction the custom of paying tithes at the calf-shrine at Bethel; or that Hebron was preferred as Abraham’s residence because it was “the ancient Judæan capital” (Kittel), or had become “the great Judaic sanctuary” (Driver). In the view of one set of critics,  Gen. 38. is a bitter mockery of Judah (J therefore is Northern); according to another, it is a tribal history written expressly to favour Judah (J therefore is Southern). Kautzsch is of opinion that “at  Ex. 32:1 ff. there is in all probability a Judahite condemnation of the Ephraimite bull-worship”; others see in the narrative an Ephraimitic condemnation of the same practice; Kuenen thinks it glances at a claim of the Northern priests to a descent from Aaron. So ad libitum. When one remembers that it is chiefly on the ground of these supposed “mirrorings” of later events that the narratives are placed where they are in date, one begins to see the precariousness of this part of the critical structure. Thus far nothing has been established as to place or time of origin, or distinct authorship of the documents.

2. A second problem of much importance in its bearings on the possibility of a critical distinction of J and E is that of the extent of the supposed documents. The consideration of  Genesis may be reserved. There is agreement that the J narrative in  Genesis begins with chap.  2:3, and, in union with other sources, continues throughout the book, and into  Exodus. E, on the other hand, though some find traces of its presence earlier, is understood to enter clearly first in chap. 20 With  Exodus 3, the criterion of the divine names fails, after which it is allowed, on all hands, that the discrimination is exceedingly difficult, and often impossible. In the words of Addis, “In other books of the Hexateuch [after  Genesis] the Jahvist and the Elohist are rather fused than pieced together, and discrimination between the two documents is often impossible.” In their union, however, it is commonly agreed that the presence of the two documents can be traced, not only through  Exodus and  Numbers (in small measure in  Deuteronomy) but through Joshua — that Joshua, in fact, is an integral part of the total work now called the “Hexateuch.” The validity of this conclusion will occupy us immediately.

Beyond this rises another question, now keenly exercising the minds of scholars, viz., whether there must not be recognised a still further continuation of these documents—J and E—into the Books of  Judges, Samuel, and even  Kings. Such a possibility was early hinted at, but the newer tendency to resolve J and E into “schools” has led to a revival of the idea, and to its adoption by many critical scholars. Cornill and Budde have no doubt about it; Moore adopts it in his Commentary on  Judges; Westphal goes so far as to make it a chief ground in his determination of the dates of the documents. E.g., Cornill discerns J in  1 Kings “with perfect certainty”; the traces of E, he thinks, are slight after the story of the death of Saul. These conclusions, with good reason, do not commend themselves to other scholars, so that the camp remains here also divided. The hypothesis has a value as showing the precarious grounds on which writers often build their critical “certainties.”

Returning to Joshua, we may briefly test the assertion that the J and E documents are continued into this book, and that  Joshua forms with the Pentateuch a single larger work. The question of “Pentateuch” or “Hexateuch” need not be discussed at length; we touch on it only as far as relates to our subject. Addis, however, speaks far too strongly when he declares that the unity of  Joshua with the other five books “is acknowledged by all who admit the composite character of the Pentateuch.” This is by no means the case. Even Cornill says: “Many now speak of a Hexateuch.  Joshua, nevertheless, presents an essentially different literary physiognomy from that of the Pentateuch, so that it appears to me more correct to treat the latter by itself, and the Book of  Joshua as an appendix to it.” There are, in fact, tolerably strong indications of a tendency among recent critics to separate  Joshua again from the Pentateuch, and regard it as a more or less independent work. For such a view also there are many cogent grounds. Cornill gives as one reason that the sources are quite differently worked up in the Book of  Joshua from what they are elsewhere. In the narrative portions they are fused together so as to be ordinarily inseparable. The language, too, presents peculiarities. Even in the P parts, as will be seen immediately, it is doubtful if the sections are from the same hand or hands as in the other books. The book has, also, according to the critics, been subjected to a Deuteronomic revision, which, curiously, was not extended (or only slightly) to the earlier books.

The Problem of the Old Testament

A Time for Confidence

By Stephen Nichols 8/01/2017

     Paul was likely one of the most intelligent people to have ever lived. He certainly is one of the best writers. He was extremely ambitious. He knew adversity, yet he persevered. If anyone “thinks he has reason for confidence in the flesh,” Paul tells us, “I have more” (Phil. 3:4).

     Yet, Paul realizes that “whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ” (v. 7). He counts all his accomplishments, all his strivings after righteousness, as “rubbish,” a polite word for “dung.” All of Paul’s abilities and accomplishments simply serve to underscore his utter inability to achieve righteousness.

     Instead of putting his confidence in the flesh, Paul learned to put his confidence in Christ and in the gospel. Paul wanted to be found in Christ. He writes, “That I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith” (v. 9). The theologian Francis Turretin expresses it this way:

     God grant that, dismissing a vain confidence in our own merit, we may rest in the most perfect merit of Christ alone and so keep faithful in him and fight the good fight even unto the end that we might receive the crown of righteousness; due not to our merit, but most graciously promised to us from the heavenly rewarder.

     Johnny Cash wrote a novel on the life of the Apostle Paul. Yes, one of country music’s icons and one of American music’s legends wrote a biography of Paul. Cash called it Man in White, and it is a piece of genius. The “man in white” is actually not Paul. It’s Christ. Therein lies Cash’s genius. (Similarly, Augustine is not the main character in his autobiographical Confessions. God is.) Paul is not the main character in Cash’s biography. He’s the prominent and predominant character as the pages unfold. But all along, we get the sense that there is far more to the story than what we are seeing on the page. Behind the scenes of Paul’s life, there is One at work, orchestrating all the details to one desired end and one certain outcome.

     Paul knew he had to put his confidence in the gospel, because nothing else can turn the human heart and nothing else solves the human dilemma. People think the human dilemma is many things. Some say it’s poverty or the unjust distribution of resources and wealth. Some say it’s war and our penchant for war. Some simply think the human dilemma is internal and psychological. As R.C. Sproul has often said, “The human dilemma is this: God is holy, and we are not. God is righteous, and we are not.” Our problem is not lack or abundance of wealth or resources. Our problem is not that we are a few degrees short of finding utopia. Our problem is the wrath of a holy God. No amount of righteousness that we might produce can solve that dilemma. Paul testifies to only one solution: the righteousness that comes through faith in Christ.

     When we think of Luther’s main doctrine, we think of justification by faith alone. That doctrine hinges upon one word. In fact, the entire Reformation and the protest the Reformers launched against the Roman Catholic Church could very well be summed up in this one word:  imputation.  The doctrine of imputation teaches that our sin, which cuts us o’ff and alienates us from a holy God, gets imputed to Christ. Christ paid the penalty for our sin, and so our sins are forgiven. The doctrine of imputation also teaches that Christ’s righteousness gets imputed to us. If Christ’s work only accomplished the forgiveness of sins, we would be right back to where we were in the garden before Adam and Eve ate of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

     Christ’s work overcame the curse and restored “Paradise lost.” Christ’s work also leads to “Paradise regained.” We now stand in the very presence of God clothed in Christ’s righteousness. The “Man in white” took our filthy rags and gave us His white, pure, and righteous robe. Paul says it plainly in 2 Corinthians 5:21: “He who knew no sin became sin for us that we might become the righteousness of God.”

     Theologians refer to Christ’s work in terms of His active obedience and His passive obedience. In His passive obedience, He paid the penalty for sin; He atoned for sin. In His active righteousness, He earned righteousness on our behalf. No other message and no other means can save us or deliver us. Paul spent decades and piled e’ffort upon e’ffort in attempts to white-knuckle his way to God. All to no avail. Then, on the road to Damascus, Saul came to an end as Christ, “the Man in white,” brought Paul to Himself.

     Paul knew firsthand the power of the gospel. Not a day went by that he did not rejoice in what God had done for him in Christ.

     The brothers John and Charles Wesley tried white-knuckling their way into heaven. They even went to a faraway land as missionaries in a futile attempt to achieve salvation. Then, independently but within a few days of each other, John and Charles were brought to Christ. John was convicted as he stood outside the Aldersgate Meetinghouse in London and heard Martin Luther’s preface to his commentary on Romans being read. Charles was convicted as he was reading Martin Luther’s preface to his commentary on Galatians. They decided they would no longer celebrate or mark their earthly birthdays. Instead, they would celebrate the occasion of their conversions.

     To mark his first new birth birthday, Charles wrote a hymn, “And Can It Be,” a hymn to the mystery and wonder of salvation. In one of the stanzas, he declares:

Long my imprisoned spirit lay,
fast bound in sin and nature’s night;
thine eye di•ffused a quickening ray—
I woke, the dungeon flamed with light;
my chains fell o•ff, my heart was free,
I rose, went forth, and followed Thee.

Jesus, and all in Him, is mine;
alive in Him, my living Head,
and clothed in righteousness divine.

Click here to go to source

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

By John Bunyan 1678

THE SEVENTH STAGE

Now I saw in my dream, that Christian went not forth alone; for there was one whose name was Hopeful, (being so made by the beholding of Christian and Faithful in their words and behavior, in their sufferings at the fair,) who joined himself unto him, and entering into a brotherly covenant, told him that he would be his companion. Thus one died to bear testimony to the truth, and another rises out of his ashes to be a companion with Christian in his pilgrimage. This Hopeful also told Christian, that there were many more of the men in the fair that would take their time, and follow after.

     So I saw, that quickly after they were got out of the fair, they overtook one that was going before them, whose name was By-ends; so they said to him, What countryman, sir? and how far go you this way? He told them, that he came from the town of Fair-speech, and he was going to the Celestial City; but told them not his name.

     From Fair-speech? said Christian; is there any good that lives there?

Prov. 26:25  when he speaks graciously, believe him not,
for there are seven abominations in his heart;   ESV

     BY. Yes, said By-ends, I hope so.

     CHR. Pray, sir, what may I call you? said Christian.

     BY. I am a stranger to you, and you to me: if you be going this way, I shall be glad of your company; if not, I must be content.

     CHR. This town of Fair-speech, said Christian, I have heard of; and, as I remember, they say it’s a wealthy place.

     BY. Yes, I will assure you that it is; and I have very many rich kindred there.

     CHR. Pray, who are your kindred there, if a man may be so bold?

     BY. Almost the whole town; and in particular my Lord Turn-about, my Lord Time-server, my Lord Fair-speech, from whose ancestors that town first took its name; also, Mr. Smooth-man, Mr. Facing-both-ways, Mr. Any-thing; and the parson of our parish, Mr. Two-tongues, was my mother’s own brother, by father’s side; and, to tell you the truth, I am become a gentleman of good quality; yet my great-grandfather was but a waterman, looking one way and rowing another, and I got most of my estate by the same occupation.

     CHR. Are you a married man?

     BY. Yes, and my wife is a very virtuous woman, the daughter of a virtuous woman; she was my Lady Feigning’s daughter; therefore she came of a very honorable family, and is arrived to such a pitch of breeding, that she knows how to carry it to all, even to prince and peasant. ’Tis true, we somewhat differ in religion from those of the stricter sort, yet but in two small points: First, we never strive against wind and tide. Secondly, we are always most zealous when religion goes in his silver slippers; we love much to walk with him in the street, if the sun shines and the people applaud him.

     Then Christian stepped a little aside to his fellow Hopeful, saying, it runs in my mind that this is one By-ends, of Fair-speech; and if it be he, we have as very a knave in our company as dwelleth in all these parts. Then said Hopeful, Ask him; methinks he should not be ashamed of his name. So Christian came up with him again, and said, Sir, you talk as if you knew something more than all the world doth; and, if I take not my mark amiss, I deem I have half a guess of you. Is not your name Mr. By-ends of Fair-speech?

     BY. This is not my name, but indeed it is a nickname that is given me by some that cannot abide me, and I must be content to bear it as a reproach, as other good men have borne theirs before me.

     CHR. But did you never give an occasion to men to call you by this name?

     BY. Never, never! The worst that ever I did to give them an occasion to give me this name was, that I had always the luck to jump in my judgment with the present way of the times, whatever it was, and my chance was to get thereby: but if things are thus cast upon me, let me count them a blessing; but let not the malicious load me therefore with reproach.

     CHR. I thought, indeed, that you were the man that I heard of; and to tell you what I think, I fear this name belongs to you more properly than you are willing we should think it doth.

     BY. Well if you will thus imagine, I cannot help it; you shall find me a fair company-keeper, if you will still admit me your associate.

     CHR. If you will go with us, you must go against wind and tide; the which, I perceive, is against your opinion: you must also own Religion in his rags, as well as when in his silver slippers; and stand by him, too, when bound in irons, as well as when he walketh the streets with applause.

     BY. You must not impose, nor lord it over my faith; leave me to my liberty, and let me go with you.

     CHR. Not a step farther, unless you will do, in what I propound, as we.

     Then said By-ends, I shall never desert my old principles, since they are harmless and profitable. If I may not go with you, I must do as I did before you overtook me, even go by myself, until some overtake me that will be glad of my company.

     Now I saw in my dream, that Christian and Hopeful forsook him, and kept their distance before him; but one of them, looking back, saw three men following Mr. By-ends; and, behold, as they came up with him, he made them a very low congee; and they also gave him a compliment. The men’s names were, Mr. Hold-the-world, Mr. Money-love, and Mr. Save-all, men that Mr. By-ends had formerly been acquainted with; for in their minority they were schoolfellows, and taught by one Mr. Gripeman, a schoolmaster in Lovegain, which is a market-town in the county of Coveting, in the North. This Schoolmaster taught them the art of getting, either by violence, cozenage, flattering, lying, or by putting on a guise of religion; and these four gentlemen had attained much of the art of their master, so that they could each of them have kept such a school themselves. Well, when they had, as I said, thus saluted each other, Mr. Money-love said to Mr. By-ends, Who are they upon the road before us? For Christian and Hopeful were yet within view.

     BY. They are a couple of far country-men, that, after their mode, are going on pilgrimage.

     MONEY. Alas! why did they not stay, that we might have had their good company? for they, and we, and you, sir, I hope, are all going on pilgrimage.

     BY. We are so, indeed; but the men before us are so rigid, and love so much their own notions, and do also so lightly esteem the opinions of others, that let a man be ever so godly, yet if he jumps not with them in all things, they thrust him quite out of their company.

     SAVE. That is bad; but we read of some that are righteous overmuch, and such men’s rigidness prevails with them to judge and condemn all but themselves. But I pray, what, and how many, were the things wherein you differed?

     BY. Why, they, after their headstrong manner, conclude that it is their duty to rush on their journey all weathers, and I am for waiting for wind and tide. They are for hazarding all for God at a clap; and I am for taking all advantages to secure my life and estate. They are for holding their notions, though all other men be against them; but I am for religion in what, and so far as the times and my safety will bear it. They are for religion when in rags and contempt; but I am for him when he walks in his silver slippers, in the sunshine, and with applause.

     HOLD-THE-WORLD. Aye, and hold you there still, good Mr. By-ends; for, for my part, I can count him but a fool, that having the liberty to keep what he has, shall be so unwise as to lose it. Let us be wise as serpents. It is best to make hay while the sun shines. You see how the bee lieth still in winter, and bestirs her only when she can have profit with pleasure. God sends sometimes rain, and sometimes sunshine: if they be such fools to go through the first, yet let us be content to take fair weather along with us. For my part, I like that religion best that will stand with the security of God’s good blessings unto us; for who can imagine, that is ruled by his reason, since God has bestowed upon us the good things of this life, but that he would have us keep them for his sake? Abraham and Solomon grew rich in religion; and Job says, that a good man shall lay up gold as dust; but he must not be such as the men before us, if they be as you have described them.

     SAVE. I think that we are all agreed in this matter; and therefore there needs no more words about it.

     MONEY. No, there needs no more words about this matter, indeed; for he that believes neither Scripture nor reason, (and you see we have both on our side,) neither knows his own liberty nor seeks his own safety.

     BY. My brethren, we are, as you see, going all on pilgrimage; and for our better diversion from things that are bad, give me leave to propound unto you this question.

     Suppose a man, a minister, or a tradesman, etc., should have an advantage lie before him to get the good blessings of this life, yet so as that he can by no means come by them, except, in appearance at least, he becomes extraordinary zealous in some points of religion that he meddled not with before; may he not use this means to attain his end, and yet be a right honest man?

     MONEY. I see the bottom of your question; and with these gentlemen’s good leave, I will endeavor to shape you an answer. And first, to speak to your question as it concerneth a minister himself: suppose a minister, a worthy man, possessed but of a very small benefice, and has in his eye a greater, more fat and plump by far; he has also now an opportunity of getting it, yet so as by being more studious, by preaching more frequently and zealously, and, because the temper of the people requires it, by altering of some of his principles; for my part, I see no reason why a man may not do this, provided he has a call, aye, and more a great deal besides, and yet be an honest man.

     For why?

     1. His desire of a greater benefice is lawful, (this cannot be contradicted,) since it is set before him by Providence; so then he may get it if he can, making no question for conscience’ sake.

     2. Besides, his desire after that benefice makes him more studious, a more zealous preacher, etc., and so makes him a better man, yea, makes him better improve his parts, which is according to the mind of God.

     3. Now, as for his complying with the temper of his people, by deserting, to serve them, some of his principles, this argueth, 1. That he is of a self-denying temper. 2. Of a sweet and winning deportment. And, 3. So more fit for the ministerial function.

     4. I conclude, then, that a minister that changes a small for a great, should not, for so doing, be judged as covetous; but rather, since he is improved in his parts and industry thereby, be counted as one that pursues his call, and the opportunity put into his hand to do good.

     And now to the second part of the question, which concerns the tradesman you mentioned. Suppose such an one to have but a poor employ in the world, but by becoming religious he may mend his market, perhaps get a rich wife, or more and far better customers to his shop; for my part, I see no reason but this may be lawfully done. For why?

     1. To become religious is a virtue, by what means soever a man becomes so.

     2. Nor is it unlawful to get a rich wife, or more custom to my shop.

     3. Besides, the man that gets these by becoming religious, gets that which is good of them that are good, by becoming good himself; so then here is a good wife, and good customers, and good gain, and all these by becoming religious, which is good: therefore, to become religious to get all these is a good and profitable design.

     This answer, thus made by Mr. Money-love to Mr. By-ends’ question, was highly applauded by them all; wherefore they concluded, upon the whole, that it was most wholesome and advantageous. And because, as they thought, no man was able to contradict it; and because Christian and Hopeful were yet within call, they jointly agreed to assault them with the question as soon as they overtook them; and the rather, because they had opposed Mr. By-ends before. So they called after them, and they stopped and stood still till they came up to them; but they concluded, as they went, that not Mr. By-ends, but old Mr. Hold-the-world should propound the question to them, because, as they supposed, their answer to him would be without the remainder of that heat that was kindled betwixt Mr. By-ends and them at their parting a little before.

     So they came up to each other, and after a short salutation, Mr. Hold-the-world propounded the question to Christian and his fellow, and then bid them to answer if they could.

     Then said Christian, Even a babe in religion may answer ten thousand such questions. For if it be unlawful to follow Christ for loaves, as it is,

John 6:26 Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you are seeking me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves.   ESV

how much more abominable is it to make of him and religion a stalking-horse to get and enjoy the world! Nor do we find any other than heathens, hypocrites, devils, and wizards, that are of this opinion.

     1. Heathens: for when Hamor and Shechem had a mind to the daughter and cattle of Jacob, and saw that there was no way for them to come at them but by being circumcised, they said to their companions, If every male of us be circumcised, as they are circumcised, shall not their cattle, and their substance, and every beast of theirs be ours? Their daughters and their cattle were that which they sought to obtain, and their religion the stalking-horse they made use of to come at them. Read the whole story,

Gen. 34:20–24 20 So Hamor and his son Shechem came to the gate of their city and spoke to the men of their city, saying, 21 “These men are at peace with us; let them dwell in the land and trade in it, for behold, the land is large enough for them. Let us take their daughters as wives, and let us give them our daughters. 22 Only on this condition will the men agree to dwell with us to become one people—when every male among us is circumcised as they are circumcised. 23 Will not their livestock, their property and all their beasts be ours? Only let us agree with them, and they will dwell with us.” 24 And all who went out of the gate of his city listened to Hamor and his son Shechem, and every male was circumcised, all who went out of the gate of his city.   ESV

     2. The hypocritical Pharisees were also of this religion: long prayers were their pretence, but to get widows’ houses was their intent; and greater damnation was from God their judgment.

Luke 20:46-47 46 “Beware of the scribes, who like to walk around in long robes, and love greetings in the marketplaces and the best seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at feasts, 47 who devour widows’ houses and for a pretense make long prayers. They will receive the greater condemnation.”   ESV

     3. Judas the devil was also of this religion: he was religious for the bag, that he might be possessed of what was put therein; but he was lost, cast away, and the very son of perdition.

     4. Simon the wizard was of this religion too; for he would have had the Holy Ghost, that he might have got money therewith: and his sentence from Peter’s mouth was according.

Acts 8:19–22 19 saying, “Give me this power also, so that anyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit.” 20 But Peter said to him, “May your silver perish with you, because you thought you could obtain the gift of God with money! 21 You have neither part nor lot in this matter, for your heart is not right before God. 22 Repent, therefore, of this wickedness of yours, and pray to the Lord that, if possible, the intent of your heart may be forgiven you.   ESV

     5. Neither will it go out of my mind, but that that man who takes up religion for the world, will throw away religion for the world; for so surely as Judas designed the world in becoming religious, so surely did he also sell religion and his Master for the same. To answer the question, therefore, affirmatively, as I perceive you have done, and to accept of, as authentic, such answer, is heathenish, hypocritical, and devilish; and your reward will be according to your works.

     Then they stood staring one upon another, but had not wherewith to answer Christian. Hopeful also approved of the soundness of Christian’s answer; so there was a great silence among them. Mr. By-ends and his company also staggered and kept behind, that Christian and Hopeful might outgo them. Then said Christian to his fellow, If these men cannot stand before the sentence of men, what will they do with the sentence of God? And if they are mute when dealt with by vessels of clay, what will they do when they shall be rebuked by the flames of a devouring fire?

     Then Christian and Hopeful outwent them again, and went till they came at a delicate plain, called Ease, where they went with much content; but that plain was but narrow, so they were quickly got over it. Now at the farther side of that plain was a little hill, called Lucre, and in that hill a silver-mine, which some of them that had formerly gone that way, because of the rarity of it, had turned aside to see; but going too near the brim of the pit, the ground, being deceitful under them, broke, and they were slain: some also had been maimed there, and could not, to their dying day, be their own men again.

     Then I saw in my dream, that a little off the road, over against the silver-mine, stood Demas (gentleman-like) to call passengers to come and see; who said to Christian and his fellow, Ho! turn aside hither, and I will show you a thing.

     CHR. What thing so deserving as to turn us out of the way to see it?

     DEMAS. Here is a silver-mine, and some digging in it for treasure; if you will come, with a little pains you may richly provide for yourselves.

     HOPE. Then said Hopeful, let us go see.

     CHR. Not I, said Christian: I have heard of this place before now, and how many there have been slain; and besides, that treasure is a snare to those that seek it, for it hindereth them in their pilgrimage.

     Then Christian called to Demas, saying, Is not the place dangerous? Hath it not hindered many in their pilgrimage?

Hosea 9:6 For behold, they are going away from destruction;
but Egypt shall gather them;
Memphis shall bury them.
Nettles shall possess their precious things of silver;
thorns shall be in their tents.   ESV

     DEMAS. Not very dangerous, except to those that are careless; but withal he blushed as he spake.

     CHR. Then said Christian to Hopeful, Let us not stir a step, but still keep on our way.

     HOPE. I will warrant you, when By-ends comes up, if he hath the same invitation as we, he will turn in thither to see.

     CHR. No doubt thereof, for his principles lead him that way, and a hundred to one but he dies there.

     DEMAS. Then Demas called again, saying, But will you not come over and see?

     CHR. Then Christian roundly answered, saying, Demas, thou art an enemy to the right ways of the Lord of this way, and hast been already condemned for thine own turning aside, by one of his Majesty’s judges, 2 Tim. 4:10 For Demas, in love with this present world, has deserted me and gone to Thessalonica. Crescens has gone to Galatia, Titus to Dalmatia.   ESV

and why seekest thou to bring us into the like condemnation? Besides, if we at all turn aside, our Lord the King will certainly hear thereof, and will there put us to shame, where we would stand with boldness before him.

     Demas cried again, that he also was one of their fraternity; and that if they would tarry a little, he also himself would walk with them.

     CHR. Then said Christian, What is thy name? Is it not the same by which I have called thee?

     DEMAS. Yes, my name is Demas; I am the son of Abraham.

     CHR. I know you; Gehazi was your great-grandfather, and Judas your father, and you have trod in their steps; it is but a devilish prank that thou usest: thy father was hanged for a traitor, and thou deservest no better reward.

2 Kings 5:20–27 20 Gehazi, the servant of Elisha the man of God, said, “See, my master has spared this Naaman the Syrian, in not accepting from his hand what he brought. As the LORD lives, I will run after him and get something from him.” 21 So Gehazi followed Naaman. And when Naaman saw someone running after him, he got down from the chariot to meet him and said, “Is all well?” 22 And he said, “All is well. My master has sent me to say, ‘There have just now come to me from the hill country of Ephraim two young men of the sons of the prophets. Please give them a talent of silver and two changes of clothing.’ ” 23 And Naaman said, “Be pleased to accept two talents.” And he urged him and tied up two talents of silver in two bags, with two changes of clothing, and laid them on two of his servants. And they carried them before Gehazi. 24 And when he came to the hill, he took them from their hand and put them in the house, and he sent the men away, and they departed. 25 He went in and stood before his master, and Elisha said to him, “Where have you been, Gehazi?” And he said, “Your servant went nowhere.” 26 But he said to him, “Did not my heart go when the man turned from his chariot to meet you? Was it a time to accept money and garments, olive orchards and vineyards, sheep and oxen, male servants and female servants? 27 Therefore the leprosy of Naaman shall cling to you and to your descendants forever.” So he went out from his presence a leper, like snow.   ESV

Matt 26:14-15 14 Then one of the twelve, whose name was Judas Iscariot, went to the chief priests 15 and said, “What will you give me if I deliver him over to you?” And they paid him thirty pieces of silver.   ESV

Matt 27:3–5 3 Then when Judas, his betrayer, saw that Jesus was condemned, he changed his mind and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders, 4 saying, “I have sinned by betraying innocent blood.” They said, “What is that to us? See to it yourself.” 5 And throwing down the pieces of silver into the temple, he departed, and he went and hanged himself.   ESV

Assure thyself, that when we come to the King, we will tell him of this thy behavior. Thus they went their way.

     By this time By-ends and his companions were come again within sight, and they at the first beck went over to Demas. Now, whether they fell into the pit by looking over the brink thereof, or whether they went down to dig, or whether they were smothered in the bottom by the damps that commonly arise, of these things I am not certain; but this I observed, that they were never seen again in the way. Then sang Christian,

“By-ends and silver Demas both agree;
One calls, the other runs, that he may be
A sharer in his lucre: so these two
Take up in this world, and no farther go.”

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

The Continual Burnt Offering

By H.A. Ironside - 1941

February 8

“We are yours, O David,
and with you, O son of Jesse!
Peace, peace to you,
and peace to your helpers!
For your God helps you.”

Psalm 51:11  Cast me not away from your presence,
and take not your Holy Spirit from me.

Tis easy when the morning
Appears at last to view
To praise thy strong Redeemer
Who burst the bondage through,
But ‘tis the praise at midnight
That gives the foe alarm,
That glorifies thy Saviour,
And bares His strong right arm,

A conqueror thou wouldst be,
Yea, more than conqueror thou,
If thou wilt shout in triumph
And claim the victory now;
The prison-doors will open,
The dungeon gleam with light,
And sin-chained souls around thee
Shall see Jehovah’s might.