Psalms 103-105

By Charles Dyer 2001

PSALM 103

A. The Favors of the Lord (103:1–5)
B. The Fairness of the Lord (103:6–10)
C. The Forgiveness of the Lord (103:11–14)
D. The Faithfulness of the Lord (103:15–18)
E. The Finality of the Lord (103:19–22)

     This great Davidic hymn blesses God for who He is and for all the blessings He has bestowed on David. Having been forgiven and redeemed, David felt like a new man (103:5). Throughout Israel’s history God was just in all His ways, and because of His mercy He had not poured out the wrath they deserved (103:10). He, the Creator, understands human mortality (103:14). He recognizes the temporal nature of human existence but offsets it with His covenant loyalty to those who keep its terms (103:15–18). David proclaimed the heavenly and eternal nature of Yahweh’s sovereignty (103:19), a state of affairs that should elicit praise from all creatures everywhere (103:22).

PSALM 104

A. The Preeminence of God (104:1–4)
B. The Power of God (104:5–9)
C. The Provision of God (104:10–15)
D. The Protection of God (104:16–18)
E. The Planning of God (104:19–23)
F. The Providence of God (104:24–30)
G. The Praise of God (104:31–35)

     This hymn celebrates God as Creator and serves in a general sense as a theological commentary on Genesis 1:1–2:3. The unknown author affirmed that God is utterly transcendent, visible only in the glory of light and clouds. He established the earth in the watery depths and then caused the waters to part so that dry land could appear (Ps. 104:6–7). He then provided springs and rainfall to water the earth, thus allowing for plant life necessary for the survival of animals and humans (104:14). In addition he prepared secure dwelling places for otherwise defenseless creatures (104:16–18). He also regulated times and seasons by the unending alternation of day and night (104:19). He stocked the land and sea with vast riches to which people are entitled to help themselves (104:28). But if He were to withdraw His gracious hand, all these things would cease and humanity would perish (104:29). Such a demonstration of power and goodness in nature left the psalmist with awestruck praise of the God who brought it all to pass (104:33).

PSALM 105

A. Introduction (105:1–6)
B. The Promise of the Lord (105:7–11)
C. The Protection of the Lord (105:12–15)
D. The Provision of the Lord (105:16–24)
E. The Power of the Lord (105:25–38)
F. The Possessions of the Lord (105:39–45)

     A résumé of sacred history (see also Ps. 78), this theological interpretation of Israel’s past is also one of four psalms that begin with a note of thanksgiving (see also Pss. 107, 118, 136). After a prelude exhorting all of God’s glorious works in general to praise Him, the psalmist commenced his review by harking back to God’s covenants with the patriarchs and Moses (105:9–10). God had promised them the land of Canaan, but even before the patriarchs could inherit it themselves they became the touchstone by which blessing was granted to or withheld from the pagans around them (105:14).

     The great events of God’s redemptive grace cannot be fully understood apart from their historical context. For this reason alone it is important that they be recalled and recited regularly. Even Christians of a “noncreedal” tradition cannot afford to forget what God has done in history to bring about His magnificent plan of salvation.

     The time came when Israel was forced to flee to Egypt for survival, and there God made them a great nation (105:23). The onslaught of Egyptian oppression next led to the Exodus deliverance (105:37). Israel then found herself in the harsh and merciless deserts of Sinai, but God found her even there and brought her safely through. At last He led them into Canaan and gave them that land as an arena where He might work out His gracious purposes for them (105:45). All this was done in fulfillment of the covenant pledges God had made to Abraham and his descendants (105:42).

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

Psalms 103-105

By J. A. Motyer 1994

Psalm 103. ‘Your God is King, your Father reigns’

     The blend of changeless fatherly care and endless sovereign rule is the distinctive stress of this psalm. The central verses (6–18), bracketed by divine righteousness abound in the Lord’s attributes of grace, compassion, patience, forbearance, forgiveness and fatherhood, but, above all, love — the love that speaks of his commitment to us, his ever-unchanging loving fidelity. The psalm opens (1–5) on a personal note: how these attributes of grace have acted in my life; the matching conclusion (19–22) closes a bracket round the psalm on this personal note but its purpose is to raise us to the heights where we can review all reality, spiritual and physical, and worship the one Lord who is the eternal King.

     1–5 The Lord’s personal blessings. 1, 2 Praise (cf. 20–22) is the distinctive word ‘Bless’. When the Lord ‘blesses’ us, he reviews our needs and responds to them; when we ‘bless’ the Lord, we review his excellencies and respond to them. Holy name. We ‘bless’ the Lord himself before we recount his blessings. All he does stems from who he is (name) and what he is (holy): he never acts outside what he has revealed and what he is. Benefits, better ‘sufficiencies’ — the corresponding verb in v 10 (repay) means ‘to act fully’. 3 He forgives and heals, though, as Scripture carefully indicates, not in parallel ways: in 2 Samuel 12:13–23, forgiveness was instantaneous, healing was withheld; sin and sickness were alike laid on Jesus (Mt. 8:16, 17) but just as, in this present life, though forgiven we still suffer the plague of sin, so sickness is still our lot according to his sovereign appointment until, in heaven, every disability, like every moral infirmity, will be gone. 4 Redeems, acts as the next-of-kin who makes all our needs his own. Pit, not only metaphorical of deadly dangers in this life but also indicative of a dread possibility in the next (cf. 49:7–9, 13–15). Love and compassion. The former is love centred in the will, the love of commitment, unchanging; the latter is the love of the heart, surging and emotional. 5 Desires. Doubt surrounds this word which possibly should be read as ‘your continuance’/‘as long as you live’. Eagle, a picture of buoyant, tireless strength (Is. 40:30).

     6–18 The Lord’s loving nature. This poem ‘pivots’ on v 11 with its affirmation of overshadowing, over-mastering, (great is translated flooded in Gn. 7:24), ‘ever-unchanging’ love. It moves towards this central truth in matching steps: (i) 6 and 17–18 affirm the Lord’s righteousness, i.e. his inflexible commitment to his own righteous nature and purposes: he never loves through any adjustment of his holiness or relaxation of his standards. His righteousness is the stamp of all his actions. To the human eye many wrongs go unrighted and oppressions unrelieved: v 6 says that the Lord sees to it that this is not so (Gn. 18:25); and motivated by his love, the Lord sees to it that right prevails for those who live obediently within his covenant (17–18); (ii) 7–8 and 14–16 balance what the Lord made known with what the Lord knows. We can be sure that v 6 is true because of the revelation of himself God granted to Moses, namely, (cf. Ex. 34:6) that he is emotionally moved towards us (compassionate), reaches out to us in spite of being undeserving (gracious), restrains his just wrath (slow) and has an abundant store of the love that never changes. He thus reveals himself because he knows us (14–16) in our frailty and transience. (iii) 9–10 and 12–13 are the negative and positive sides of divine dealing with our sin. 10 Sins, specific faults; iniquities, the perversion of our inner nature. 12 Transgressions, wilful rebellion against God’s known will. V 9 indicates that God the Judge (accuse is a law-court verb) is a passing mode of his relationship to us, whereas v 13 reveals that his fatherhood is permanent. This is the only verse that specifically uses father along with the verb ‘to have compassion’. (Cf. use of mother-love, Is. 49:15, and for its emotional intensity, 1 Ki. 3:26.)

     19–22. The Lord’s eternal throne. What is the proper response to One who rules all? The answer of angelic, heavenly and cosmic reality is ‘We do what he wants’ — his bidding and his will. So what about me? If I truly respond to the excellencies of the Lord as vs 1–5 indicate, will not I too obey his word?

Psalm 104. Creation rhapsody

     The stateliness of ‘Praise to the Lord, the Almighty, the King of creation’, compared with the exuberance of ‘All creatures of our God and King’, catches pretty well the relationship of Genesis 1 to Psalm 104.

     This psalm turns creation truth into song, environmental theory into wonder and praise. The sequence of the psalm accords with Genesis 1 and we can imagine a poet meditating on that great statement of the Creator and his work and giving free play to his imagination.

     There is a broad structural parallel between the two passages. The psalm begins with a prologue, a summons to personal praise and adoration (1) and ends with an epilogue of adoration and personal praise (31–35). In between, the body of the psalm follows Genesis 1. With 2 cf. Gn. 1:3–5; with 3–4, Gn. 1:6–8; with 5–13, Gn. 1:9–10; with 14–18, Gn. 1:11–13; with 19–24, Gn. 1:14–19; with 25–26, Gn. 1:20–28; with 27–30, Gn. 1:29–31.

     An interesting feature of the way this psalm presents its theme is the unexpected alternation between ‘you’-forms and ‘he’-forms: ‘you’, 1, 6–9, 13b (the NIV alters the Hebrew here (13a) from ‘your works’ to his work), 20, 24–30; ‘he’, 2–4, 10–13a, 14–19 (lit. ‘he made the moon for seasons’), 31–35. For the most part these changes occur at points where the psalm moves into another section but not with any observable regularity. It does not seem possible to see here evidence of antiphonal singing. The point rather is that the Creator is both ‘he’ and ‘you’, a God observed in his works and also personally known.

     Another point of interest in the psalm (though one that cannot be easily expressed in translation) is that the verbs used are sometimes in the Hebrew ‘perfect’ tense (what is fixed, settled), or in the ‘imperfect’ (what is regular, repetitive), or the participle (a changeless state of affairs). The perfect tense expresses the permanent greatness and majesty of God; the historic finality of the work of creation and its fixed form and boundaries and the wisdom evident in it. Participles express changeless facts: creation witnesses to its Creator; he unchangingly provides and watches. Imperfects express the repeated works of God in satisfying earth’s needs, his recurring transformations, provisions, withdrawal of life, renewal and how from time to time he touches the earth, controlling its forces.

     1–9 Creator and creation: transcendent, indwelling, dominant. 1 Praise (see 103:1). Very great etc. The Creator is transcendent in greatness. If splendour and majesty are to be distinguished, the former is his intrinsic ‘importance’, the latter his observable majesty. 2–4 Clothing is always a metaphor for character and commitment. If his garment is light, it is because God is light (1 Jn. 1:5) and the Giver of it (Gn. 1:3; 2 Cor. 4:6). But also, with the picture of the Creator wrapped in light the psalm moves from his transcendence to his immanence. He is not remote from his creation (deism); nor is he to be identified with it (pantheism); but he indwells the world he created. The heavens are his tent-curtains (2); what Genesis 1:7 calls ‘the waters above the expanse’ are but the foundation above which his upper chambers (3) soar, far beyond our sight. But he is also the Rider in the clouds above us and present all round us in the wind (3). Furthermore, the invisible forces of the created order fulfil his will, and so do visible forces, whether the kindly warmth of the fire or the destructive awesomeness of the fire-ball. 5–9 apply the foregoing images of the Creator in relation to creation: he engineered its security, determined its condition (Gn. 1:2), and, by his mere word, ordered it into its predetermined and lasting form.

     10–23 Creator and creation: creation organized to sustain life. 10–13 (enclosed between two verbs, makes springs … waters) teach that by the work of the Creator, creation furnishes water for its creatures. 13–18 growth sustains life, and growing things, as well as the very shape of the world, provide protection for life. Furthermore, alternating night and day enables the life of beasts and mankind to co-exist (19–23). Creation is a subtly adapted system for the maintenance and enjoyment of life — and this by the direct action of the Creator who makes springs, waters, makes grass grow and plants.

     24–30 Creator and creation: the Creator is Lord of life, death and renewal. The creation veritably seethes with activity from the smallest marine entity to the unspeakably terrifying sea-monster, Leviathan itself (Jb. 41:1ff.) and the constant bustling of mankind. But (whether they know it or not) all depend on the Creator to provide, exist only by what he gives, are subject to his sovereign determination of the hour of their death, and life itself on earth only continues because he wills to renew it.

     31–35 Creator and creation: the holy Creator and his joy in creation. The glory here is the Creator’s glory displayed in his created universe. Were he to withdraw this glory, the universe would disappear. He alone gives it being and stability. Solid as it may appear, it is of the utmost fragility in relation even to his eyes and fingers. Such a Creator is worthy of unceasing praise, but brashness is out of place and we can only pray that our poor song will be found pleasing, for he is the holy One and sinners have no final security in his creation (35). What then can my soul do but, having reviewed the excellencies of the Creator, turn to him in blessing and praise?

Psalm 105. ‘Not only with our lips but in our lives’

     The Bible does not contain ‘narrative poetry’ in the usual sense of the term, telling a story in poetic form. Psalms like 78, 105, 106, 136 do not, indeed, seem to be interested in narration as such and are more a series of allusive reminders of well-known events designed to lead to a particular point. Psalm 105 sweeps through the history of the Lord’s dealings with his people in three stages: first, the patriarchal period (Gn. 12–50), alluding to the inauguration of the covenant (7–11), the period of nomadic wandering in Canaan (12–15), and the story of Joseph in Egypt (16–22); secondly, the time of the exodus (Ex. 1–12): Israel entering Egypt (23–25), Moses and the plagues (26–36), Israel leaving Egypt (37–38); thirdly, the journey in the wilderness (39–43, Ex. 13–19) and the entrance into Canaan (44, Joshua). The survey covers many years but paints one picture: a faithful, promise-making, promise-keeping God, mysterious in his ways but ever mindful of his people, ever planning ahead for their good, ever meeting their needs.

     7–11 The Lord promising. As is usual, what the Lord does for his people is set against the backdrop of his universal sway. If he is to keep the promise to Abraham (Gn. 15:18–21) he must also be Lord over the Amorites. But he is even more, for all the earth is his to command. 8 anticipates the sweep of history the psalm covers. It looks back (lit. ‘he has remembered’) over the centuries and asserts, as did Joshua in respect of the same period, ‘Not one of the Lord’s good promises … failed; every one was fulfilled’ (Jos. 21:45; 23:14). Covenant, a freely made commitment of God, not a bargain or quid pro quo, a sovereign, stated intention that he is God, to Abraham and his descendants, and that they are his people. Hence the covenant is defined further as the word he commanded … the oath he swore (8–9). It is his promise and he will see to it. 9 made, (lit.) ‘cut’, the technical word for the official inauguration of a covenant (Gn. 15:18). With Abraham, therefore with us, the descendants of Abraham (Rom. 4:11, 12, 16, 23–25; Gal. 3:6–9; 4:28–31), whose story is our history, whose calling is our calling and to whose promises we are heirs. 10 Decree, an unchangeable commitment. 11 The covenant was expressed in multiple promises (Gn. 17:1–7) and of these one is chosen, the promise of the land, as a test case of the faithfulness of the Lord. It is on the triumphant note of its fulfilment that the psalm’s survey ends (44).

     12–15 The Lord protecting. These verses cover the same period as Hebrews 11:8–10, 13. The land was theirs but they lived in it as strangers, ‘aliens’ (12). Their nomadic, stateless existence brought them from one king’s dominion to another (13) and the only land they ever owned was a tomb (Gn. 23). How mysterious are the providences of God with his people! To promise land and leave them landless! But never unprotected — not even when their own follies would seem to have forfeited his goodwill (Gn. 12:10–20; 20:1–18; 26:1–11), nor when they faced the massed powers of the world (Gn. 14). 15 Anointed, set apart for God in status and function. Prophets (cf. Gn. 20:7) where Abraham is the first in the Bible to be called a prophet.

     16–22 The Lord anticipating. The Lord not only holds sway over all the earth (7) but executively ordains earth’s events (16). Again we face a mystery, for we cannot trace the paths and patterns of divine providence. But where we cannot understand why this or that experience has been called down, or why necessities of life have been withdrawn from us (16), we can be sure that he is still on the throne (He called … destroyed) and that he has made a provision for our future (sent a man before them, 17). But even though we see that Joseph was an ‘anticipatory providence’ the element of mystery remains — indeed the public mystery of v 16 is re-enacted on the individual level: if Joseph was God’s man in God’s place for God’s time (Gn. 45:5–8; 50:20) why did he suffer so (18)? ‘It is not for you to know’ said the Lord Jesus of another matter (Acts 1:7) but his answer must suffice for this too. All we are allowed to know is that the Lord was working according to eternal wisdom to fulfil his word (19) and to have a ruler in Egypt to welcome and feed his needy people.

     23–38 The Lord redeeming. Note how this long section is bracketed by Israel entering (23) and leaving (38) Egypt. It was not for any sin of theirs that they entered Egypt, but by divine command and under divine promise (Gn. 46:3–4); nor was it for any sin of theirs that they came under Egyptian hostility. Indeed (25) it was by the act of God! Once again we face the mystery of divine providence. His thoughts are not ours, nor our ways his (Is. 55:8). But how marvellous are his ways (Rom. 11:33–36)! He brought them into threat and duress (25) and then revealed the splendour of his redeeming power. He prepared a man (26), a sufficient power against all the power of the enemy (27–36) and a glorious deliverance (37–38).

     Note the structure of vs 28–36. The account starts with the ninth plague and the outcome of the whole exercise (The NIV is mistaken in making 28b a question; it is a statement that at the end of the plague sequence the cowed Egyptians made no further rebellion). It then ‘back-tracks’ to recount the steps leading up to that outcome (29–35): the first (29, Ex. 7:14ff.), second (30, Ex. 8:1ff), fourth and third (31, Ex. 8:20ff., 16ff.), seventh (32, 33, Ex. 9:13ff.) and eighth (34, 35, Ex. 10:1ff.) plagues, thus coming again to the climax, this time in the grim tenth plague (36, Ex. 11, 12). 37 (Ex. 11:2, 3) 38 (Ex. 12:30–33).

     39–42 The Lord providing. This section brings both the historical review and the psalm itself to a conclusion. The revelation of the Lord is completed as we see him in attendance on the daily needs of his pilgrims. He caters (39) for their guidance (Ex. 13:21, 22) and safety (Ex. 14:19) and answers prayer (even their grumbling) in the provision of food (40, Ex. 16:12–13, 14ff) and water (41, Ex. 17:1–7). But he did all this because he had given his word to Abraham (42, cf. 8, ‘he remembered’ … word; 9) — a faithful, promise - keeping God!

     How do we respond to such a God and such a display of promise - keeping, protection, anticipation of need, deliverance and provision? In the joyful response of thanksgiving, and song (1–2), glorying verbally in what the Lord has revealed of himself (name), committedly cultivating his presence (3–4, seek … seek, not as searching for the lost but as coming again and again, assiduously, to where we know he is to be found), holding his great deeds in fresh remembrance (5) and sharing the news of actions worldwide (1): a programme for the tongue in praise and testimony, for the heart in ‘seeking’ the Lord, and for the mind in careful remembrance.

     But there is more. Vs 43–44 form a conclusion matching the praiseful beginning to the psalm. Those who experienced at first hand what the Lord had done for them rejoiced and were glad. God had been good to them, crowning his record of promise - keeping with the gift of the land (44), just as he had pledged to Abraham four hundred years and more earlier (Gn. 15:7–16). But joy falls short of the response he designed: all he did was with a view to creating for himself a people who would obey his word (45). Without this, praise is only religious noise (Am. 5:23–24).

Our Blessed Struggle

By Guy Richard 12/1/2009

     I find it interesting that, of all the names God could have chosen for His people, He chose “Israel.” And while different opinions exist as to what the name Israel actually means, it seems that the context in which the name is given in Genesis 32 favors the meaning “he struggles with God” over every other option (see verses 22–32 and Hos. 12:3–4). It would seem that God, in His infinite wisdom, chose to call His people and ”strugglers.”

     As we consider what it means for us as Christians to live between the times, let us begin by remembering that, as the true Israel of God (Rom. 2:28–29; 4:11–12; Gal. 6:12–16), Christians are heirs to the name that was originally given to Jacob; we are “strugglers.” And isn’t that what it really means to live between the times? Is there any better description than this of what the Christian life looks like in light of the already/not yet? As Christians we are called, like Jacob, to be strugglers — to wrestle with God and with man and to overcome (Hos. 12:2–6).

(Ro 2:28–29) 28 For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. 29 But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God.   ESV

(Ro 4:11–12) 11 He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well, 12 and to make him the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.   ESV

(Ga 6:12–16) 12 It is those who want to make a good showing in the flesh who would force you to be circumcised, and only in order that they may not be persecuted for the cross of Christ. 13 For even those who are circumcised do not themselves keep the law, but they desire to have you circumcised that they may boast in your flesh. 14 But far be it from me to boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. 15 For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation. 16 And as for all who walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God.

(Ho 12:2–6) 2  The LORD has an indictment against Judah
and will punish Jacob according to his ways;
he will repay him according to his deeds.
3  In the womb he took his brother by the heel,
and in his manhood he strove with God.
4  He strove with the angel and prevailed;
he wept and sought his favor.
He met God at Bethel,
and there God spoke with us—
5  the LORD, the God of hosts,
the LORD is his memorial name:
6  “So you, by the help of your God, return,
hold fast to love and justice,
and wait continually for your God.”   ESV

     But what does it mean to struggle with God? It means, in the first place, that we struggle with the providence of God. The tension between the already and the not yet indicates that Christians live in a sinful world, a world that is affected by sin and inhabited by sinners. Illness, disease, famine, and natural disasters are all consequences of living in a world that is itself affected by sin and is “not yet” made new. Lawlessness, violence, terrorism, and war are consequences of living in a world inhabited by sinners who have also “not yet” been made new or who may never be.

     Christians living between the times must struggle with these kinds of consequences in the providence of God. Our struggle, however, is never to be against Him. No matter how dark His providence may be, we are never to fight against God or to shake our fist at Him. But there are many times in the Christian life when we may not understand what God is doing. There are many times when we may question why “bad things” are happening to us. What is the Christian to do, for instance, when the marriage breaks down? When the child runs away, turns her back on the family, or dies an unexpected death? What is the Christian to do when the doctors say it is cancer? When an accident takes away all “quality of life” in an instant? When, as has been true in my own experience, the nation’s worst natural disaster destroys one’s home, business, church, and community? What is the Christian to do at times like this? Quite simply, he or she is to struggle with God.

     Isn’t that what Job did? Through all the dark providences of his life, Job struggled, and, like Jacob, he did not let go. He wrestled, and he prevailed — despite the opposition he received from those closest to him.

     The same is true for us. No matter how dark our pathways may get, no matter how black the clouds over our heads may be, we, like Job, are to strive with all our might and hold on until the day breaks — and it will eventually break. We are to say with Jacob: “I will not let you go until you bless me.”

     That is what struggling with the providence of God looks like. It is not to be a joyless endurance. It is not a senseless pain that is only to be tolerated until it can be eliminated altogether. It is trusting God in the midst of hardship and resting content in what He has sent our way, knowing that He really does intend all things for our good and for His glory. It is struggling well.

     In the second place, struggling with God means that we are to struggle alongside God. The tension between the already and the not yet indicates that Christians are sinners. Although we are not what we used to be, we are clearly not yet what we will be. We have been made new in Christ, but we are not yet perfected. This means that the Christian life will necessarily be one in which the believer struggles with the sin that still remains within him (à la Rom. 7:15–25). The Christian must strive to put sin to death and to pursue holiness and righteousness. But he or she does this by the power of the Holy Spirit (Rom. 8:12–14; Phil. 2:12–13). We are to strive, Paul says, because God is striving within us. We are to struggle together with God against our sin and against the evil one. And in this too we are not to let up. We are to hold on until the day breaks and the shadows flee away. We, like Jacob, are to struggle all night long and prevail.

     As Christians living between the times, we should expect to struggle. We should expect to struggle with frowning providences, and we should expect to struggle against sin and against the Evil One. The presence of a struggle should not concern us so much as the absence of one. Living between the times means that we will struggle. But we must learn to struggle well. We must not let go until He blesses us!

• 1     The Supremacy of God in the Theology of Samuel Rutherford: (Studies in Christian History and Thought)
• 2     What Is Faith? (Basics of the Faith)
• 3     The Supremacy of God in the Theology of Samuel Rutherford: (Studies in Christian History and Thought)

Secular Eschatology

By Gene Edward Veith 12/1/2009

     The Bible teaches that the universe had a beginning and that it will have an end. Christians believe this, though controversies about eschatology (the end times) have long roiled in Christian circles. It illustrates how profoundly the Bible has influenced Western civilization that secularists too have their eschatologies.

     The natural view of time is cyclical. The Bible also recognizes — and organizes — the cyclical nature of time. But in addition to affirming the sense in which time can involve recurring cycles, the Bible also teaches that time is linear. It has a beginning and an end. Not only that, time has a direction. It goes somewhere.

     This linear dimension of time seems to have been unique to the Hebrews in the ancient world. Even the Greeks, for all of their sophistication, knew only of a cyclical view of time. They had no concept of a creation from nothing for a specific purpose; rather, they posited a universe that was continually created and destroyed and created again.

     In the West, the secularism that began with the Enlightenment tried to set aside Christian dogmas. But, ironically, the new thinking retained the dogma that time is linear. This manifested itself in God-free eschatologies that were unintentionally shaped by a biblical view of time.

     The new worldviews rejected the coming paradisiacal kingdom of God, but they substituted a coming paradisiacal kingdom of man. The past was a time of darkness; in the modern world the light has dawned. In this age of progress, things are getting better and better until eventually we will build a utopian paradise.

     Not that we will arrive there without a tribulation. The French Revolution taught that the Reign of Terror was necessary to destroy the old order, whereupon the people’s paradise would emerge. Darwinism, which put a scientific veneer to the myth of progress, taught that we have evolved and will continue to evolve to a higher state, but not without a struggle in which the unfit will die out and only the fittest will survive. Marxism was outright dispensational, dividing history into different socio-economic eras that will end, after a bloody revolution, in a “workers’ paradise.”

     Other utopians thought that the earthly paradise could be achieved peacefully. One group of early Marxists founded the movement known as Social Democracy — which today is very influential politically in Europe and, more recently, in the United States — an ideology that believes Marx’s “workers’ paradise” can be achieved through the ballot box and gradual social change.

     Just as Christians see not only the sweep of history but their own lives as linear, their conversion culminating after death in eternal life, some secularists follow suit, only without God. Nietzsche believed in the “doctrine of eternal recurrence,” that since time is infinite every random combination — including those that constituted his own mind and body — would happen again, so that some time after he dies, he will exist again. (Mathematicians have shown that things don’t work that way.) More recently, the “posthumanists” say that eventually the body will become obsolete and we will all be able to download our minds into the Internet, whereupon we will all be one and we will have no problems. (I hope some tech people will be left behind for when the system crashes.)

     Nineteenth-Century materialists ascribed God-like properties, such as eternity, to the universe. But more recent scientists have discovered evidence that the universe did, in fact, have a beginning, labeled the “Big Bang.” Some theorists think that it will all end when gravity causes the expanding universe to contract again until it all crashes together in a “Big Crunch.” But that will create another super black hole that will explode in another Big Bang, creating a brand new universe — and, in effect, returning us to the cyclical notion of time. Most scientists today, though, seem to hold to linear time and the view that the universe will keep expanding forever, though at some point it will become too cold to sustain any kind of life. This view of the end times is called the “Big Freeze.”

     Long before the Big Crunch or the Big Freeze, though, according to most cosmologists, human life on earth will have ceased. The sun will first expand into a red giant, incinerating the earth, and then the sun will just go out. Human beings will be extinct. Unless, of course, as some are saying, we evolve to such a level that we can leave earth behind and inhabit the rest of the universe. Or, to take the posthumanists a step further into a new religious realm, if we evolve into pure spirits.

     But the world’s time not only has a beginning and an end, it has a middle: a turning point, a climax. That would be the incarnation of God into His creation and into time, a historical moment during which Christ died to atone for sin and rose again.

     This is reflected in the practice — begun in the West but now used around the world — of numbering each year from the time of Christ. All of history is either “BC” (before Christ) or “AD” (anno Domini, the year of the Lord). Secularists have changed these notations to “BCE” (before the common era) and “CE” (common era). But it’s the same difference, Christ still being the reference point. The secularists cannot get away from the Bible, no matter how hard they try.

Holiness

By Keith Mathison 12/1/2009

     In the early centuries of the church’s existence, Christian apologists would sometimes appeal to the distinctively holy lives of Christians as evidence for the truth of Christianity. Would such an appeal be of any use today? According to numerous surveys, the behavior of professing Christians is not discernibly different from the behavior of those who profess other religions or no religion at all. The phrase one often hears on the lips of pagans who observe contemporary Christian behavior is: “The church is full of hypocrites.” This should not be. We worship a holy God who calls His people to be holy and who has provided the means by which they may be holy.

     The problem of lax and hypocritical Christianity is not a new one, and one of the best treatments of the entire subject is a classic written by J.C. Ryle (1816–1900), who served as the Anglican Bishop of Liverpool for twenty years. Ryle was a deeply committed and non-compromising evangelical Christian. In fact, Charles Spurgeon referred to him as an “evangelical champion.” His book Holiness has been reprinted numerous times since its original publication in 1879. It is deservedly considered a Christian classic on the subject of sanctification. It ranks up there with the work of John Owen on the mortification of sin.

     I first read Bishop Ryle’s Holiness some twenty years ago. The book was deeply convicting and made a lasting impact on my thinking. Ryle’s work is convicting because he does not appeal to silly gimmicks and other manmade answers to the problem of sin. He appeals over and over to Scripture, to the Word of the living God, and he drives the Word of God home through careful and direct application. If you are complacent in your sin and do not want to be disturbed in your enjoyment of it, do not read Ryle. This is a book about the necessity of sanctification, the necessity of holiness. It deals with weighty subjects, the weightiest in fact: God, sin, Jesus Christ, the gospel, the Holy Spirit, justification, sanctification, heaven, and hell. It is a book for those who want to move beyond milk and get to the meat of the Word.

     Frankly, some older Christian books are difficult to read because of the style of writing that was common in previous ages. To contemporary readers, many of these works seem dry and wordy, tedious and dull. I have run across many such books myself. Ryle does not fall into that category. Ryle’s writing is more comparable to that of someone like Charles Spurgeon. He writes with such an intensity and passion that the reader cannot easily become bored.

     The book itself contains twenty chapters dealing with various issues related to holiness and one chapter containing quotations on the subject by older Christian writers. In the main section of the book, Ryle devotes entire chapters to subjects such as sin, sanctification, the nature of Christianity as a fight, counting the cost, growth in grace, assurance, the church, and love of Christ. The introductory chapter on sin is perhaps the most important chapter in the entire book because wrong views of salvation and of holiness are inevitably based on wrong views of sin. As Ryle explains, “If a man does not realize the dangerous nature of his soul’s disease, you cannot wonder if he is content with false or imperfect remedies.”

     One of the most prevalent errors made when discussing holiness is to slide into the view that we are somehow justified before God by our holiness. Ryle is careful to observe throughout this book the distinction between sanctification and justification. Justification is by faith alone in Christ alone. But those who have been justified bear the fruit of the Spirit and grow in holiness. In other words, they are sanctified by God. They are now to love Christ and the things He loves. This is very easy to forget in our day and age when walking an aisle is equated with conversion and walking in the light is considered optional.

     Whether you have been a Christian for ten months or ten years, I encourage you to read Ryle’s Holiness. His words will exhort you, convict you, encourage you, and challenge you. His chapters will drive you to dig into the Scriptures, and there you will see that holiness is not optional for the Christian. We are to strive for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord (Heb. 12:14). We are to walk by the Spirit and not gratify the desires of the flesh (Gal. 5:16). We are to love the Lord because He first loved us (1 John 4:19) and love our neighbor as ourselves (Matt. 22:39).   By the way, we will start reading this book on http://lean-into-god.com/ as soon as we finish The Bondage Of The Will by Martin Luther. Holiness will be where Bondage Of The Will is right now.

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

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

Joshua 5

By Don Carson 7/3/2018

     Three elements are striking in Joshua 5.

     (1) Circumcision is now carried out on all the males that were born during the years of wilderness wandering. At one level, this is rather surprising: How come they weren’t done as the boys were born? In many instances the multitude stayed in one place for long periods of time, doubtless developing community life. What prevented them from obeying this unambiguous covenantal stipulation?

     There have been many guesses, but the short answer is that we do not know. More important, in this context, is the fact that the rite is carried out now universally. It thereby stands as a decisive turning point, a symbol-laden community-wide affirmation of the covenant as the people stand on the verge of entering the Promised Land. Egypt is now behind; the promised rest awaits. “Today I have rolled away the reproach of Egypt from you” (Josh. 5:9).

     (2) The manna stops (Josh. 5:10-12). From now on the people will draw their nourishment from “the produce of Canaan.” This, too, was a dramatic signal that the days of wandering were over, and the fulfillment of the promise for a new land was beginning to unfold before their eyes. The change must have been both frightening and exciting, especially to an entire generation that had never known life without the security of manna.

     (3) In the opening chapters of this book, Joshua experiences a number of things that mark him out, both in his own mind and in the mind of the people, as the legitimate successor to Moses. This chapter ends with one such marker. Doubtless the most dramatic one before this chapter has been the crossing of the Jordan River — a kind of miraculous reenactment of the crossing of the Red Sea (Josh. 3-4). Quite apart from providing an efficient way to move the multitudes across the river, the personal dimension is made explicit: “That day the LORD exalted Joshua in the sight of all Israel; and they revered him all the days of his life, just as they had revered Moses” (Josh. 4:14 — though the last clause must be judged just a little tongue in cheek).

     But now, there is another step: Joshua encounters a “man” who appears to be some sort of angelic apparition. He is a warrior, a “commander of the army of the LORD” (Josh. 5:14). On the one hand, this serves to strengthen Joshua’s faith that the Lord himself is going before him in the military contests that lie ahead. But more: the scene is in some respects reminiscent of Moses at the burning bush (Ex. 3:5): “The place where you are standing is holy ground.” However unique these circumstances, we too must have leaders accustomed to standing in the presence of holiness.

Don Carson is research professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois, and co-founder (with Tim Keller) of The Gospel Coalition. He has authored numerous books, and recently edited The Enduring Authority of the Christian Scriptures (Eerdmans, 2016).

Read The Psalms In "1" Year

Psalm 71

1 In you, O LORD, do I take refuge;
let me never be put to shame!
2 In your righteousness deliver me and rescue me;
incline your ear to me, and save me!
3 Be to me a rock of refuge,
to which I may continually come;
you have given the command to save me,
for you are my rock and my fortress.

4 Rescue me, O my God, from the hand of the wicked,
from the grasp of the unjust and cruel man.
5 For you, O Lord, are my hope,
my trust, O LORD, from my youth.
6 Upon you I have leaned from before my birth;
you are he who took me from my mother’s womb.
My praise is continually of you.

By John Walvoord

THE PROPHETIC COVENANT WITH ABRAHAM | Background of the Covenant

       Genesis 11:10–31. The historical background of Abraham is given in  Genesis 11. He and his family were descendants of the line of Shem. According to verses  31–32, Terah took his son Abram and his grandson Lot and their wives and started out for the land of Canaan. However, when they came to Haran they settled down until Terah died. The fuller explanation is given in the Scripture that follows, giving the precise provisions of the covenant that was revealed to Abraham.

Provisions of the Covenant

       Genesis 12:1–3. God revealed to Abram the basic provisions of His covenant with him while Abram was still in Ur of the Chaldeans: “The LORD had said to Abram, ‘Leave your country, your people and your father’s household and go to the land I will show you. I will make you into a great nation and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you’” (vv.  1–3 ).

      The covenant with Abram was a major step in divine revelation, indicating that God had selected Abram and his posterity to fulfill His purpose to reveal Himself to the world and bring salvation to mankind. Though only eleven chapters were used to trace the whole history of the world prior to Abram, including creation and all the major events that followed, the rest of the book of  Genesis was devoted to Abram and his immediate descendants, indicating the importance of this covenant.

      The covenant required Abram to leave his country and his people and go to the land that God would show him. The expression you will be a blessing (v.  2 ), could be translated “be a blessing.” Abram was essential to God’s program of bringing blessing and revelation to the world and ultimately salvation through Jesus Christ. In keeping with Abram’s obedience, God made the promises: (1) “I will make you into a great nation”; (2) “I will bless you”; (3) “I will make your name great” (vv.  2–3 ).

     The promise of a great nation was fulfilled in the nation Israel, which has had a large place in the history of the world. Their number would be like the stars of the heavens, innumerable ( 15:5 ) and like the sand of the sea ( 32:12 ). As Abram had no children at that time, the promise seemed too extensive to be true.

      The promise of personal blessing on Abram ( 12:2 ) is evident in God’s special dealing with him in calling him, choosing him for his important role, and caring for him throughout his life. It followed that Abram would be famous (v.  2 ), as his name is prominent in the Old Testament as well as the New Testament and highly regarded in Judaism, Christianity, and the Muslim faith. These promises have been literally fulfilled ( Heb. 11:8–19 ).

      Through Abram and the nation that would descend from him came the blessing promised to “all peoples on earth” ( Gen. 12:3 ). God’s promises included blessing on those who blessed Abram and his descendants, curses on those who would curse Abram and his descendants, and the promise of blessing to all peoples of the earth. While most of these promises had a direct effect on Israel, the promised blessing on all peoples would include the Gentiles mentioned in  Galatians 3:6–9. These basic provisions of God’s covenant with Abram were subsequently enlarged in the book of  Genesis and throughout Scripture. Later prophecies emphasized the fact that Israel would continue as a nation throughout human history.

The Prophecy of Possession of the Land

       Genesis 12:7. Though not included in the basic provisions of the covenant with Abram, the central feature of the promise of the land is immediately picked up in the narrative of the book of  Genesis. This promise was part of the original revelation that God gave to Abram when he was still in Ur (v.  1 ). Now it became an important proof of God’s continuing purpose for Abram and his people.

      According to verse  7, “The LORD appeared to Abram and said, ‘To your offspring I will give this land.’” From this point on throughout the Old Testament, the land became one of the central features of God’s prophetic program for Israel. As simple and direct as this prophecy is, interpreters of prophecy have made this a decisive point of departure, some interpreting the land as not a literal reference to the Holy Land but rather a promise of heaven. Those who interpret this prophecy in a nonliteral sense point to  Hebrews 11:9–10: “By faith he made his home in the promised land like a stranger in a foreign country; he lived in tents, as did Isaac and Jacob, who were heirs with him of the same promise. For he was looking forward to the city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God.”

      All serious interpreters of Scripture agree that Abram had an eternal hope of dwelling forever in the New Jerusalem ( Rev. 21–22 ). This eternal hope, however, does not satisfy the Old Testament description of a literal land in human history. The point is that Abram had a future temporal hope — the land — as well as an eternal hope — the New Jerusalem. It is not too much to say that the interpretation of  Genesis 12:7 determines in a large measure the prophetic interpretation of the rest of the Bible.

Genesis 12:7 Then the LORD appeared to Abram and said, “To your offspring I will give this land.” So he built there an altar to the LORD, who had appeared to him.   ESV

      As in all interpretive problems,  the important rule of hermeneutics is that usage should determine the meaning of a term.  Accordingly, the many references to the Promised Land throughout the Old Testament should provide guidance as to its interpretation here. The concept of the land being heaven, though a popular concept, does not satisfy the scriptural prophecy.

      The land was the place of blessing, as Abram soon discovered when he went down to Egypt to avoid the famine and left the land. Though this move increased his wealth, it also created a problem for him in that Hagar, the handmaid who would be the mother of Ishmael, was taken from Egypt to the Promised Land on this visit.     Whenever we get out of God's direction your sin will find us out, maybe not immediately, but eventually. How often do we suffer for something we didn't do, not realizing we may be suffering for something we did previously and thought we got away with?

Numbers 32:23 But if you will not do so, behold, you have sinned against the LORD, and be sure your sin will find you out.   ESV

       Genesis 13:1–18. In the original command to Abram in Ur of the Chaldeans, he was told to leave his kindred. Instead, his father and his nephew Lot traveled with him. His arrival in the Promised Land was delayed until the death of his father. In  Genesis 13, the herds of Lot and Abram became so large they could not occupy the same area. Because of this Abram offered Lot the choice of the land. Archeology supports the concept that at the time Abram and Lot were in the land, the Jordan Valley was “well watered, like the garden of the LORD” (v.  10 ). Lot chose the valley of the Jordan. Unfortunately, it was also the place where Sodom and Gomorrah were located, which ultimately led to his downfall.

      After Lot had separated himself from Abram, a further prophetic revelation is given to Abram, “The LORD said to Abram  after  Lot had parted from him, ‘Lift up your eyes from where you are and look north and south, east and west. All the land that you see I will give to you and your offspring forever. I will make your offspring like the dust of the earth, so that if anyone could count the dust, then your offspring could be counted. Go, walk through the length and breadth of the land, for I am giving it to you’” (vv.  14–17 ). From this passage, it is clear that Abram understood the promise of  Genesis 12:7 as referring to the literal land that God had promised him. This was confirmed by God’s instruction for him to look in all directions because what he saw was what his offspring would inherit.

       Genesis 15:1–6. The promise of the land was complicated by the fact that Abram had no children. How could the promise be fulfilled if he had no heirs? In this situation Abram suggested to God that he consider Eliezer of Damascus as his child and his children would therefore be Abram’s children and could inherit the promise. The reply of the Lord was direct, “Then the word of the LORD came to him: ‘This man will not be your heir, but a son coming from your own body will be your heir’” (v.  4 ). The prophesied son of Abram was just as literal as the promise of the land.

      In verse  6 the simple statement was made: “Abram believed the LORD, and he credited it to him as righteousness.”  Abram’s faith was in the character of God and the revelation of God and illustrates the true nature of faith, which in all dispensations is the basis for righteousness with God.

       Genesis 15:9–21. In verses  9–17, prediction of the land was further supported by a solemn ceremony in which blood was shed, certifying that this covenant with Abram would have literal fulfillment.

      Further, the boundaries of the land were indicated in verses  18–21, “On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram and said, ‘To your descendants I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates — the land of the Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites, Hittites, Perizzites, Rephaites, Amorites, Canaanites, Girgashites and Jebusites.’” It is difficult to understand how capable expositors of the Word of God can make this description of the land symbolic of heaven.

       Genesis 16:7–16. The problem of who would inherit the land was complicated when Abram had a son, Ishmael, by Hagar, the handmaiden he had brought from Egypt. Hagar, attempting to flee Sarai, was instructed to return. Her child was to be named Ishmael. She was told her son would live in hostility in relation to his brothers (v.  12 ). After Ishmael was born, Scriptures are silent about the next thirteen years.

       Genesis 17:1–8. When Abram was ninety-nine years old and Sarai was ninety, having a child in old age was humanly impossible. In this situation God spoke to Abram, changing his name to Abraham, meaning “father of many,” and emphasizing the certain fulfillment of the promises, “I will make you very fruitful; I will make nations of you, and kings will come from you. I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you. The whole land of Canaan, where you are now an alien, I will give as an everlasting possession to you and your descendants after you; and I will be their God” (vv.  6–8 ).

       Genesis 17:9–21. The rite of circumcision was instituted as representing a sign of the covenant of Abram. At the same time God changed the name of Sarai, Abram’s wife, to Sarah, meaning “princess.” Though Abraham found it difficult to believe that a son could be born to Sarah and him in their old age, God reiterated the promise. He also heeded Abraham’s request that Ishmael be blessed (v.  20 ). But God made it clear: “But my covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sarah will bear to you by this time next year” (v.  21 ).

          __________________________________________________________________

Every Prophecy of the Bible: Clear Explanations for Uncertain Times

The Big Picture

By Robert Reymond 12/1/2009

     Since my article is appearing in this issue of Tabletalk magazine, I have a great opportunity to tell you young folk of the next generation about a pet peeve of mine with my generation when it comes to the reason for celebrating Christmas. Many people, as you know, celebrate not much more than “roasting chestnuts by an open fire, Jack Frost nipping at their noses.” But Christians surely know enough to know that Christmas means more than that. It surely has something to do with Jesus, doesn’t it? But what?

     This month a lot of sermons will be preached about Jesus’ incarnation. And taking its cue from the angel’s announcement to the shepherds on the plains of Ephrathah, my generation simply celebrates the “good news” that some two thousand years ago, in the words of the announcing angel, “unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior who is Christ the Lord” (Luke 2:10–11). My generation tends to concentrate its attention in their worship services throughout the Advent season on the fact that Christ was virginally born a babe in Bethlehem. And that is about as far as they go in their thinking as they reflect upon the momentous fact that God became man through the miraculous conception of Jesus in the womb of the Virgin Mary.

     But why did Jesus do that? If I were to ask my generation why Jesus came, I would very likely get answers such as these: “He came to be my Savior,” “He came to die for me,” and “He came to pay the penalty for my sins” (you get the picture) — all answers correct in themselves, but all answers that fail to place Christ’s coming within the broader context that the Bible places it. And when one fails to place His coming in the Bible’s broader context, he fails to appreciate its full significance.

     Don’t misunderstand: There is nothing wrong with Christians celebrating the birth of our Lord at Christmas time. Indeed, it is appropriate for the church universal as well as local individual congregations during the Christmas season to think about the incarnation of God the Son and the means whereby that great event was effected, namely, His conception in His mother’s virgin womb. But I submit that something larger and grander than Christ’s birth should seize our minds and set the bells of our hearts pealing with joy at Christmastime. I’ll explain.

     My generation of evangelical pastors has not done a good job at teaching Christian people that the isolated events of the Christian proclamation such as Christ’s incarnation, His death, His resurrection, and so on did not occur in isolation from the “metanarrative” of Holy Scripture (by this I simply mean the “big-picture story” that provides the redemptive-historical significance of all the “lesser stories” of Scripture). When one fails to place the gospel events within the context of the Scripture’s metanarrative, he will miss nuances that he should not miss, and he will fail to appreciate the unity of scriptural teaching. Let me say this another way: Since the facts of Jesus and His life, death, and resurrection are what they are only within the framework of the biblical doctrines of creation, fall, redemption, and the consummation of history, we must place the message of the cross within the framework of Scripture as a whole if we would properly understand the significance of that message. And if we don’t do this, we will not understand the gospel in its fullness.

     So let me ask my question again: Why did Jesus come two thousand years go? When the angel Gabriel announced to Mary that she was going to be the virgin mother of the long-awaited Messiah, in her Magnificat in Luke 1:54–55, she declared among other things: “[God] has helped his servant Israel, in remembrance of his mercy, as he spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and to his offspring forever.”

     And when Zechariah, John the Baptist’s father, prophesied about his infant son’s future ministry as the one who would go before the Lord to prepare His way, he said this: “[God] has shown] the mercy promised to our fathers [by remembering] his holy covenant, the oath that he swore to our father Abraham, to grant us that we, being delivered from the hand of our enemies, might serve him without fear, in holiness and righteousness before him all our days” (Luke 1:72–75).

     What have we just witnessed? We’ve seen both Mary and Zechariah place the Christ event within the context of the Abrahamic covenant and extol the covenant faithfulness of God to His people in sending His Son. In their awareness of the broader significance of the incarnation and the words of praise that that awareness evoked from them we see biblical theology being beautifully honored and redemptive-history magnificently depicted. It is little wonder that God selected such a maiden as Mary to be the mother of the Christ and Zechariah to be the father of the Baptist. They were both “covenant theologians”!

     So I would urge you young folk of the next generation to celebrate not only the isolated events of the Christmas miracle but also to do more than my generation has done in celebrating at Christmastime God’s covenant fidelity to us His people, for this is the “big-picture” reason for the season!

• 1     A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith
• 2     Jesus Divine Messiah: The New and Old Testament Witness
• 3     John - Beloved Disciple: A Survey of his theology by Robert L. Reymond (2001-03-21)
• 4     The Lamb of God: The Bible's unfolding revelation of Sacrifice by Robert L. Reymond (2006-11-21)

The Continual Burnt Offering (Mark 9:1)

By H.A. Ironside - 1941

July 3

Though darker, rougher, grows the way,
And cares press harder day by day,
And nothing satisfies,
The promise sure before me lies
Of that blest place beyond the skies
Where Jesus waits for me.

With sight too dim to visualize
The scene, though spread before my eyes,
I know it will be fair;
Eye hath not seen, ear hath not heard,
The things that are for us prepared,
But Jesus will be there.
--- Robert R. Pentecost

The Institutes of the Christian Religion

Translated by Henry Beveridge

     CHAPTER 16.

PÆDOBAPTISM. ITS ACCORDANCE WITH THE INSTITUTION OF CHRIST, AND THE NATURE OF THE SIGN.

Divisions of this chapter,--I. Confirmation of the orthodox doctrine of Pædobaptism, sec. 1-9. II. Refutation of the arguments which the Anabaptists urge against Pædobaptism, sec. 10-30. III. Special objections of Servetus refuted, sec. 31, 32.

Sections.

1. Pædobaptism. The consideration of the question necessary and useful. Pædobaptism of divine origin.

2. This demonstrated from a consideration of the promises. These explain the nature and validity of Pædobaptism.

3. Promises annexed to the symbol of water cannot be better seen than in the institution of circumcision.

4. The promise and thing figured in circumcision and baptism one and the same. The only difference in the external ceremony.

5. Hence the baptism of the children of Christian parents as competent as the circumcision of Jewish children. An objection founded on a stated day for circumcision refuted.

6. An argument for Pædobaptism founded on the covenant which God made with Abraham. An objection disposed of. The grace of God not diminished by the advent of Christ.

7. Argument founded on Christ's invitation to children. Objection answered.

8. Objection, that no infants were baptised by the apostles. Answer. Objection, that pædobaptism is a novelty. Answer.

9. Twofold use and benefit of pædobaptism. In respect, 1. Of parents. 2. Of children baptised.

10 Second part of the chapter, stating the arguments of Anabaptists. Alleged dissimilitude between baptism and circumcision. First answer.

11. Second answer. The covenant in baptism and circumcision not different.

12. Third answer.

13. Infants, both Jewish and Christian, comprehended in the covenant.

14. Objection considered.

15. The Jews being comprehended in the covenant, no substantial difference between baptism and circumcision.

16. Another argument of the Anabaptists considered.

17. Argument that children are not fit to understand baptism, and therefore should not be baptised.

18. Answer continued.

19. Answer continued.

20. Answer continued.

21. Answer continued.

22. Argument, that baptism being appointed for the remission of sins, infants, not having sinned, ought not to be baptised. Answer.

23. Argument against pædobaptism, founded on the practice of the apostles. Answer.

24. Answer continued.

25. Argument founded on a saying of our Lord to Nicodemus. Answer.

26. Error of those who adjudge all who die unbaptised to eternal destruction.

27. Argument against pædobaptism, founded on the precept and example of our Saviour, in requiring instruction to precede baptism. Answer.

28. Answer continued.

29. Answer continued.

30. Argument, that there is no stronger reason for giving baptism to children than for giving them the Lord's Supper. Answer.

31. Last part of the chapter, refuting the arguments of Servetus.

32. Why Satan so violently assails pædobaptism.

1. But since, in this age, certain frenzied spirits have raised, and even now continue to raise, great disturbance in the Church on account of pædobaptism, I cannot avoid here, by way of appendix, adding something to restrain their fury. Should any one think me more prolix than the subject is worth, let him reflect that, in a matter of the greatest moment, so much is due to the peace and purity of the Church, that we should not fastidiously object to whatever may be conducive to both. I may add, that I will study so to arrange this discussion, that it will tend, in no small degree, still farther to illustrate the subject of baptism. [628] The argument by which pædobaptism is assailed is, no doubt, specious--viz. that it is not founded on the institution of God, but was introduced merely by human presumption and depraved curiosity, and afterwards, by a foolish facility, rashly received in practice; whereas a sacrament has not a thread to hang upon, if it rest not on the sure foundation of the word of God. But what if, when the matter is properly attended to, it should be found that a calumny is falsely and unjustly brought against the holy ordinance of the Lord? First, then, let us inquire into its origin. Should it appear to have been devised merely by human rashness, let us abandon it, and regulate the true observance of baptism entirely by the will of the Lord; but should it be proved to be by no means destitute of his sure authority, let us beware of discarding the sacred institutions of God, and thereby insulting their Author.

2. In the first place, then, it is a well-known doctrine, and one as to which all the pious are agreed,--that the right consideration of signs does not lie merely in the outward ceremonies, but depends chiefly on the promise and the spiritual mysteries, to typify which the ceremonies themselves are appointed. He, therefore, who would thoroughly understand the effect of baptism--its object and true character--must not stop short at the element and corporeal object. but look forward to the divine promises which are therein offered to us, and rise to the internal secrets which are therein represented. He who understands these has reached the solid truth, and, so to speak, the whole substance of baptism, and will thence perceive the nature and use of outward sprinkling. On the other hand, he who passes them by in contempt, and keeps his thoughts entirely fixed on the visible ceremony, will neither understand the force, nor the proper nature of baptism, nor comprehend what is meant, or what end is gained by the use of water. This is confirmed by passages of Scripture too numerous and too clear to make it necessary here to discuss them more at length. It remains, therefore, to inquire into the nature and efficacy of baptism, as evinced by the promises therein given. Scripture shows, first, that it points to that cleansing from sin which we obtain by the blood of Christ; and, secondly, to the mortification of the flesh which consists in participation in his death, by which believers are regenerated to newness of life, and thereby to the fellowship of Christ. To these general heads may be referred all that the Scriptures teach concerning baptism, with this addition, that it is also a symbol to testify our religion to men.

3. Now, since prior to the institution of baptism, the people of God had circumcision in its stead, let us see how far these two signs differ, and how far they resemble each other. In this way it will appear what analogy there is between them. When the Lord enjoins Abraham to observe circumcision (Gen. 17:10), he premises that he would be a God unto him and to his seed, adding, that in himself was a perfect sufficiency of all things, and that Abraham might reckon on his hand as a fountain of every blessing. These words include the promise of eternal life, as our Saviour interprets when he employs it to prove the immortality and resurrection of believers: "God," says he, "is not the God of the dead, but of the living" (Mt. 22:32). Hence, too, Paul, when showing to the Ephesians how great the destruction was from which the Lord had delivered them, seeing that they had not been admitted to the covenant of circumcision, infers that at that time they were aliens from the covenant of promise, without God, and without hope (Eph. 2:12), all these being comprehended in the covenant. Now, the first access to God, the first entrance to immortal life, is the remission of sins. Hence it follows, that this corresponds to the promise of our cleansing in baptism. The Lord afterwards covenants with Abraham, that he is to walk before him in sincerity and innocence of heart: this applies to mortification or regeneration. And lest any should doubt whether circumcision were the sign of mortification, Moses explains more clearly elsewhere when he exhorts the people of Israel to circumcise the foreskin of their heart, because the Lord had chosen them for his own people, out of all the nations of the earth. As the Lord, in choosing the posterity of Abraham for his people, commands them to be circumcised, so Moses declares that they are to be circumcised in heart, thus explaining what is typified by that carnal circumcision. Then, lest any one should attempt this in his own strength, he shows that it is the work of divine grace. All this is so often inculcated by the prophets, that there is no occasion here to collect the passages which everywhere occur. We have, therefore, a spiritual promise given to the fathers in circumcision, similar to that which is given to us in baptism, since it figured to them both the forgiveness of sins and the mortification of the flesh. Besides, as we have shown that Christ, in whom both of these reside, is the foundation of baptism, so must he also be the foundation of circumcision. For he is promised to Abraham, and in him all nations are blessed. To seal this grace, the sign of circumcision is added.

4. There is now no difficulty in seeing wherein the two signs agree, and wherein they differ. The promise, in which we have shown that the power of the signs consists, is one in both--viz. the promise of the paternal favour of God, of forgiveness of sins, and eternal life. And the thing figured is one and the same--viz. regeneration. The foundation on which the completion of these things depends is one in both. Wherefore, there is no difference in the internal meaning, from which the whole power and peculiar nature of the sacrament is to be estimated. The only difference which remains is in the external ceremony, which is the least part of it, the chief part consisting in the promise and the thing signified. Hence we may conclude, that everything applicable to circumcision applies also to baptism, excepting always the difference in the visible ceremony. To this analogy and comparison we are led by that rule of the apostle, in which he enjoins us to bring every interpretation of Scripture to the analogy of faith [629] (Rom. 12:3, 6). And certainly in this matter the truth may almost be felt. For just as circumcision, which was a kind of badge to the Jews, assuring them that they were adopted as the people and family of God, was their first entrance into the Church, while they, in their turn, professed their allegiance to God, so now we are initiated by baptism, so as to be enrolled among his people, and at the same time swear unto his name. Hence it is incontrovertible, that baptism has been substituted for circumcision, and performs the same office.

5. Now, if we are to investigate whether or not baptism is justly given to infants, will we not say that the man trifles, or rather is delirious, who would stop short at the element of water, and the external observance, and not allow his mind to rise to the spiritual mystery? If reason is listened to, it will undoubtedly appear that baptism is properly administered to infants as a thing due to them. The Lord did not anciently bestow circumcision upon them without making them partakers of all the things signified by circumcision. He would have deluded his people with mere imposture, had he quieted them with fallacious symbols: the very idea is shocking. He distinctly declares, that the circumcision of the infant will be instead of a seal of the promise of the covenant. But if the covenant remains firm and fixed, it is no less applicable to the children of Christians in the present day, than to the children of the Jews under the Old Testament. Now, if they are partakers of the thing signified, how can they be denied the sign? If they obtain the reality, how can they be refused the figure? The external sign is so united in the sacrament with the word, that it cannot be separated from it: but if they can be separated, to which of the two shall we attach the greater value? Surely, when we see that the sign is subservient to the word, we shall say that it is subordinate, and assign it the inferior place. Since, then, the word of baptism is destined for infants, why should we deny them the sign, which is an appendage of the word? This one reason, could no other be furnished, would be amply sufficient to refute all gainsayers. The objection, that there was a fixed day for circumcision, is a mere quibble. We admit that we are not now, like the Jews, tied down to certain days; but when the Lord declares, that though he prescribes no day, yet he is pleased that infants shall be formally admitted to his covenant, what more do we ask?

6. Scripture gives us a still clearer knowledge of the truth. For it is most evident that the covenant, which the Lord once made with Abraham, is not less applicable to Christians now than it was anciently to the Jewish people, and therefore that word has no less reference to Christians than to Jews. Unless, indeed, we imagine that Christ, by his advent, diminished, or curtailed the grace of the Father--an idea not free from execrable blasphemy. Wherefore, both the children of the Jews, because, when made heirs of that covenant, they were separated from the heathen, were called a holy seed, and for the same reason the children of Christians, or those who have only one believing parent, are called holy, and, by the testimony of the apostle, differ from the impure seed of idolaters. Then, since the Lord, immediately after the covenant was made with Abraham, ordered it to be sealed in infants by an outward sacrament, how can it be said that Christians are not to attest it in the present day, and seal it in their children? Let it not be objected, that the only symbol by which the Lord ordered his covenant to be confirmed was that of circumcision, which was long ago abrogated. It is easy to answer, that, in accordance with the form of the old dispensation, he appointed circumcision to confirm his covenant, but that it being abrogated, the same reason for confirmation still continues, a reason which we have in common with the Jews. Hence it is always necessary carefully to consider what is common to both, and wherein they differed from us. The covenant is common, and the reason for confirming it is common. The mode of confirming it is so far different, that they had circumcision, instead of which we now have baptism. Otherwise, if the testimony by which the Jews were assured of the salvation of their seed is taken from us, the consequence will be, that, by the advent of Christ, the grace of God, which was formerly given to the Jews, is more obscure and less perfectly attested to us. If this cannot be said without extreme insult to Christ, by whom the infinite goodness of the Father has been more brightly and benignly than ever shed upon the earth, and declared to men, it must be confessed that it cannot be more confined, and less clearly manifested, than under the obscure shadows of the law.

7. Hence our Lord Jesus Christ, to give an example from which the world might learn that he had come to enlarge rather than to limit the grace of the Father, kindly takes the little children in his arms, and rebukes his disciples for attempting to prevent them from, coming (Mt. 19:13), because they were keeping those to whom the kingdom of heaven belonged away from him, through whom alone there is access to heaven. But it will be asked, What resemblance is there between baptism and our Saviour embracing little children? He is not said to have baptised, but to have received, embraced, and blessed them; and, therefore, if we would imitate his example, we must give infants the benefit of our prayers, not baptise them. But let us attend to the act of our Saviour a little more carefully than these men do. For we must not lightly overlook the fact, that our Saviour, in ordering little children to be brought to him, adds the reason, " of such is the kingdom of heaven." And he afterwards testifies his good-will by act, when he embraces them, and with prayer and benediction commends them to his Father. If it is right that children should be brought to Christ, why should they not be admitted to baptism, the symbol of our communion and fellowship with Christ? If the kingdom of heaven is theirs, why should they be denied the sign by which access, as it were, is opened to the Church, that being admitted into it they may be enrolled among the heirs of the heavenly kingdom? How unjust were we to drive away those whom Christ invites to himself, to spoil those whom he adorns with his gifts, to exclude those whom he spontaneously admits. But if we insist on discussing the difference between our Saviour's act and baptism, in how much higher esteem shall we hold baptism (by which we testify that infants are included in the divine covenant), than the taking up, embracing, laying hands on children, and praying over them, acts by which Christ, when present, declares both that they are his, and are sanctified by him. By the other cavils by which the objectors endeavour to evade this passage, they only betray their ignorance: they quibble that, because our Saviour says "Suffer little children to come," they must have been several years old, and fit to come. But they are called by the Evangelists bpe'phe kai` paidia', terms which denote infants still at their mothers' breasts. The term "come" is used simply for "approach." See the quibbles to which men are obliged to have recourse when they have hardened themselves against the truth! There is nothing more solid in their allegation, that the kingdom of heaven is not assigned to children, but to those like children, since the expression is, "of such," not "of themselves." If this is admitted, what will be the reason which our Saviour employs to show that they are not strangers to him from nonage? When he orders that little children shall be allowed to come to him, nothing is plainer than that mere infancy is meant. Lest this should seem absurd, he adds, "Of such is the kingdom of heaven." But if infants must necessarily be comprehended, the expression, "of such," clearly shows that infants themselves, and those like them, are intended.

     Christian Classics Ethereal Library / Public Domain

     Institutes of the Christian Religion