The Resolution Solution

By Gene Edward Veith 1/1/2009

     A modern reader perusing Jonathan Edwards’ “Jonathan Edwards' Resolutions: And Advice to Young Converts” is likely to think, what about dieting? And, didn’t eighteenth-century New England have any gyms that he could resolve to join? Today, losing weight and getting more exercise are about the extent of our resolutions. We summon up our will-power, self-scrutiny, and self-discipline in an attempt to look better. Edwards was engaged in an attempt to be better.

     Edwards’ effort at self-improvement, though — so strenuous as to engage “all the power, might, vigor, and vehemence, yea violence, I am capable of” — is that of a man wholly informed by the Word of God and the gospel of salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. Edwards exercised his will while knowing that his will was in bondage. He resolved to be righteous, while knowing that his righteousness did not earn his salvation. He scrutinized himself, while knowing that his spiritual security resided outside himself — in the objective fact of Christ’s atonement for his sins.

     Many of the puritans’ habits and habits of mind — their work ethic, their self-discipline, their moral seriousness — persisted long after the eclipse of their theology, to be taken up by Enlightenment secularists, social-gospel liberals, and Victorian materialists. Shortly after Edwards’ time, Benjamin Franklin started a similar program of resolutions and self-scrutiny. Franklin set forth thirteen resolutions — as opposed to Edwards’ seventy — that were built around rational virtues such as thrift, moderation, and chastity.

     Whereas Edwards’ resolutions were focused on God’s glory, Scripture, heaven and hell, and Jesus Christ, Franklin’s were secular, pragmatic, and this-worldly, focused on becoming a good citizen and a successful businessman. Though Franklin does mention prayer, Christ is reduced to being a good example for him to follow, mentioned in the same breath as Socrates.

     Franklin kept a chart upon which he made check marks indicating his progress. When he found that he had problems keeping them all at once, he tried concentrating on one virtue at a time. When he found that he was still not making all that much progress, he eventually gave up the whole plan.

     Paying such attention to one’s self, when separated from a biblical self-examination designed to provoke repentance, would bear another kind of fruit: Romanticism.

     American literature classes today study Jonathan Edwards not for his theology and not even just for his “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” sermon, with its hair-raising imagery, but as a precursor to the Transcendentalists.

     Edwards saw spiritual meaning in nature, which, as God’s creation, he saw as an expression of the divine personality. Literary historians — missing the point of Edwards’ distinctly Christian worldview — interpret this as a step towards the Transcendentalists’ deification of nature.

     Edwards also scrutinized his inner life, as he does in his “Resolutions,” and cultivated his inner emotions, which he associates with his spiritual state, as he does in his “Personal Narrative.” This is taken as a step towards the Transcendentalists’ deification of the self.

     In reality, Edwards was very different from his fellow New Englander Ralph Waldo Emerson, the Unitarian mystic rhapsodizing about nature. Nor was he much like Walt Whitman, the great American poet who wrote an epic poem entitled “Song of Myself.” Rather, Edwards exemplifies the integrated Christian sensibility in which the spirit, the intellect, and the emotions each have their place. Later, in T.S. Eliot’s words, these human powers would become “dissociated” into the conflicting movements of the Enlightenment, Romanticism, and Modernism.

     Edwards is certainly not to blame for the obsession with the self that characterizes American culture and even many strains of American Christianity. Our best-seller lists testify to our values of self-help, self-reliance, and self-improvement. Many of our pulpits resound with the slogans “be true to yourself,” “trust yourself,” and even “have faith in yourself.” If Edwards were to hear of such things, he would surely preach a sermon that would make “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” seem like a devotion for Vacation Bible School.

     But even conservative Christians can sometimes fall into the trap of paying too much attention to themselves. “Am I really saved?” we can sometimes wonder, looking at our inner lives and hidden sins and finding all too little evidence of our holiness.

     We have to admit that our own resolutions to improve our lives, however well-intentioned and sincerely meant, often have little effect. We cannot even keep our resolutions to lose weight or work out at the gym, much less eliminate our sins of lust and cruelty.

     Surely Edwards would agree with Martin Luther, who, in his spiritual counseling, would urge tormented souls to stop looking at themselves. Instead, they should look outside themselves to Christ on the cross.

     Salvation, both would insist, is extra nos (outside ourselves), founded on the unshakable grace of God and on the objective work of Christ. When we look inside ourselves we see our sin and our weakness, leading us only to despair. But when we look outside ourselves to the promises in God’s Word, we can find joy, confidence, and assurance.

The Lie We Believe

By C. FitzSimons Allison 1/1/2009

     I wish I had been told when I was young about the lie all of us naturally believe. This lie is explained to us by Jesus when he said to the Jews who had believed on Him: “If you continue in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” They answered him: “We are offspring of Abraham, and have never been enslaved to anyone. How is it that you say, ‘You will become free’?” (John 8:33).

     This is an extraordinary response! How can these Jews say that “they have never been enslaved to anyone”? Had they forgotten slavery in Egypt, bricks without straw, plagues, the Passover, and the Red Sea? In fact, redemption from slavery was part of their very identity. Not only was it their historical identity, but their deliverance from bondage in Egypt was celebrated each year at Passover.

     Jesus did not bother enumerating these facts. He went immediately to the basic point of human reality: “Everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. …if the Son sets you free you will be free indeed” (John 8:34–36). Why did they lie? Because it is our nature to deny our bondage and claim to be free. We believe and tell this lie because we are sinners.

     Archbishop William Temple gives us the posture from which we continue to be misled about freedom:

     “When we open our eyes as babies we see the world stretching out around us; we are in the middle of it; all we see is determined by the relation of all objects to ourselves. This will be true as long as we live. I am the center of the world I see; where the horizon is depends on where I stand. The same is true of our mental and spiritual vision. Some things hurt us; we hope they will not happen again; we call them bad. Some things please us; we hope they will happen again; we call them good. Our standard of value is the way things affect ourselves. So each of us takes his place in the center of his own world. But I am not the center of the world, nor do I determine what is good or bad. I am not the center; God is.”

     It is quite “natural,” then, for all of us to feel that we are free in getting what we want. But our lives are individual “centers” colliding with others’ centers, among children in the back of the car, schools, businesses, towns, countries, and the world. We think that we are free when our wills are fulfilled and that we are not free when our wills are frustrated. This universal self-as-center is the cause of litigation, divorce, rivalry, murder, war, and genocide. It is not a condition of freedom but one of bondage.

     Our situation, however, is not quite so simple. Sometimes our wills coincide, not collide, with other wills. Some measure of freedom is achieved by civilization itself, by cooperation, education, teamwork, law, and order. Where these matters are absent it becomes rapidly apparent how unfree we are. In a civilized society we may pass through a stage of making ourselves do homework to the discovery of pleasure in literature and math, from making oneself practice piano lessons to the delight in playing Mozart, from undesired discipline of caring for a senile parent to being surprised how one misses that relationship after the funeral. These can be small incidences of true freedom beyond restrained wills. Literature, science, and human caring are surely parts of the abundant life Christ came to give.

     Amidst the luxury of a high civilization with the frustrations from control and constraints on our wills, we continue to be like the Jews who told Jesus that they had never been in bondage. We keep telling ourselves that we are free if there are no restraints or inhibitions controlling what we do. But this ignores our condition as described by William Temple. If unrestrained, we are a danger to ourselves and to others. Hence, we have parents, police, and governments to control the self-centered, non-free condition of human nature that we sinners persist in calling “freedom.” When we “freely” choose to do evil is it not clear that the choice is bondage, not freedom? We need repeatedly to hear our Lord’s words: “Everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. [When] the Son sets you free you are free indeed.”

     How can this be? Parents and discipline can control, inhibit, restrain and, with difficulty, domesticate children, but that is not the same as being free. If we are not free because our very inborn wills desire to be the center, and if we are not the center and God is, how can we be free?

     Well, it is impossible! It is impossible just as Nicodemus knew when Jesus told him that he must be born again. But the miracle of the impossible possibility is regeneration — to be born again. What God has provided in Jesus Christ is the new center that makes us truly free. When we are baptized into the family of Christ we are given a new center. As we grow in this family we become increasingly aware that we are grounded in the everlasting and final triumph of God’s victory over injustice, selfishness, and death. Only in God’s merciful providence is true freedom to be found. As C.K. Barrett shows in his commentary on John (p. 285): “Being made free is nothing other than a synonym for salvation.”

• 1     The Rise of Moralism: The Proclamation of the Gospel from Hooker to Baxter
• 2     Guilt, Anger, and God
• 3     The Rise of Moralism: The Proclamation of the Gospel from Hooker to Baxter
• 4     The Cruelty of Heresy: An Affirmation of Christian Orthodoxy
• 5     Trust in an Age of Arrogance:
• 6     Fear, Love, and Worship
• 7     The Cruelty of Heresy: An Affirmation of Christian Orthodoxy
• 8     THE RISE OF MORALISM: The Proclamation of the Gospel from Hooker to Baxter.

Principle Vs. Pragmatism

By R.C. Sproul 1/1/2009

     Some years ago, I drove along the Pennsylvania Turnpike about two o’clock in the morning with a friend after having spent all day at a steel corporation in eastern Pennsylvania dealing with labor management issues. My companion was a man who had lost his job as a highly paid executive in the industry for being too concerned about the welfare and dignity of the laborers in his plant. As we were making this drive in the wee hours of the morning, I noticed my friend was at the point of exhaustion, and so I asked him the question: “Why are you doing this?” He looked over at me as if to indicate that my question was a foolish one, and he replied simply: “Because it’s the right thing to do.”

     In stark contrast to that, in this past year I have witnessed the worst type of corruption within the church that I have seen in my lifetime. I was chairing the board of a Christian institution of learning as we dealt with a question of the propriety of the teaching of one of the professors. The task of the board was to guard the purity of the doctrine of the institution. The motion was made to suspend the professor for a brief period of time in order to give him an opportunity to amend his views. As chairman, I did not vote, but the motion carried by a vote of eight to two.

     During the discussion, one of the men who voted against the resolution asked this question: “Can’t we deal with this question in a more pragmatic way?” Another board member responded by saying, “No, it is our responsibility to act not according to pragmatism but according to principle.” The motion to suspend was passed by a margin of eight-to-two. The pragmatist who was outvoted, instead of submitting to the vote or bringing in a minority report, went around the board and did everything in his power to have the board’s decision overthrown. Accomplishing this, his next move was to see to it that board members with whom he disagreed were ousted from the board. Through Machiavellian machinations of corruption, this pragmatist was able to succeed. In his wake, he left the demolition of a strategically important institution of Christian learning.

     What is pragmatism? Pragmatism is the only philosophy native to America. Pragmatism eschews any hope of discovering ultimate truth. It is skeptical with respect to objective principles of righteousness and defines truth as “that which works.” In this philosophy, the end always justifies the means. The driving force behind decisions within the scope of pragmatism is the force of expediency.

     We remember in the days of the trial of Jesus of Nazareth, two of the important players were Caiaphas and Pontius Pilate. Both men made their decisions to have Jesus executed on the basis of expediency (Mark 15:15; John 11:45–53). Caiaphas and Pontius Pilate were pragmatists with a vengeance.

     Several years ago, I had the opportunity to have lunch with a ranking senator of the United States Congress. During our discussion, I raised an ethical issue that the Senate faced at that time and asked him why the Senate didn’t act on that particular issue. He replied that he agreed with me that the Senate certainly should act on it, but he added that they could not do it that year because it was an election year. I moved to my second question and asked about another issue that needed the Senate’s attention. Again he agreed that it should be addressed, but not that particular year because it was an election year.

     After we got to the sixth or seventh question where the mantra was repeated again (“not this year because it’s an election year”), I looked at the senator and asked, “Is there anybody up here on Capitol Hill who thinks about the next generation instead of the next election?” I guess it was too idealistic of me to think that our nation’s leaders would be a bit more concerned for the welfare of the nation than for their own political war chest. No nation (or Christian institution, for that matter) can survive when its leaders are driven by a spirit of pragmatism or make their decisions according to political expediency.

     Expediency is an obscene word. It is the word that is ever and always at war with principle. A person who is a Christian is called of God to live by biblical principles. The principles that the Bible reveals to guide our steps are the necessary elements for authentic righteousness. Take away principle, and righteousness is slain in the streets. We need an awakening in the culture and in the church to principle — to working according to truth and to living according to biblical revelation. Without principle, the church as well as the culture will decay, and the church will become a mere echo of the unprincipled pragmatism of secularism.

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

Christ and Culture

By Keith A. Mathison 1/1/2009

     In the first centuries following the death and resurrection of Jesus the Messiah and the inauguration of the new covenant under which the people of God became a trans-national people crossing all borders, the church had few choices in the matter of her relationship to the surrounding culture. The options were limited due to persecution. As the church gained in numbers and influence, however, the situation began to change. With the (at least nominal) conversion of the Roman Emperor Constantine and the Edict of Milan (AD 313), the questions became acute. Now Christianity was tolerated. Would this new circumstance allow the church to transform the Roman culture, or would it open the door for the Roman culture to transform the church? Sensing trouble ahead, some believers opted for withdrawal, and these early monastics have provided a general example for many Christians ever since. Others, however, attempted to take advantage of the new opportunities and sought to transform the culture from within. Seventeen centuries later, the church continues to wrestle with how best to deal with both the opportunities and challenges presented by the various cultures in which it finds itself.

     Since 1951, the starting point for discussions of the church’s relation to culture, or the Christian’s relation to culture, has been H. Richard Niebuhr’s book Christ and Culture. The five paradigms surveyed in that book (Christ Against Culture; Christ of Culture; Christ Above Culture; Christ and Culture in Paradox; and Christ the Transformer of Culture) shape the contemporary discussion in many ways. But are Niebuhr’s categories sufficient? Are they mutually exclusive ways of understanding the relationship between the church and culture? Should different approaches be taken depending on whether one lives in eighteenth-century England or twenty-first-century Saudi Arabia? What do we mean when we speak of “culture” anyway? These and many other related questions are discussed by D.A. Carson in his recent book Christ and Culture Revisited (Eerdmans, 2008). Dr. Carson is research professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Illinois and is the author of numerous academic articles and more than forty books, including commentaries as well as works on biblical, theological, and cultural issues. In this book, he brings years of biblical reflection to bear on the subject at hand.

     One of the first issues that must be settled before entering into any discussion of the church’s relation to culture is the meaning of the term culture. According to Carson, Niebuhr’s understanding of “culture” can be difficult to grasp initially because Niebuhr associates “culture” with what the New Testament speaks of as the “world,” and thus when Niebuhr speaks of culture he means something along the lines of “culture-devoid-of-Christ.” With this in mind, Carson devotes chapter one to a summary of Niebuhr’s five paradigms. Carson then turns, in chapter two, to a critique of the paradigms, where he notes immediately that he finds little to no biblical support for the “Christ of culture” paradigm. Support for the other four paradigms, however, can be found.

     Carson turns to a discussion of the major turning points in redemptive history in the second half of chapter two, arguing that these turning points must be taken into account in this discussion. We must, for example, take into account the fact of creation and the fall. We must take into account the distinctive nature of Israel under the old covenant. We must take into account the coming of Christ and the inauguration of the new covenant.

     In chapter three, Carson reflects in greater detail on the precise meaning of “culture” and offers a critical assessment of some aspects of postmodernism. Chapter four contains a thought-provoking discussion of four major cultural forces in the Western world: secularization, democracy, freedom, and power. As Carson observes, the way the dominant culture views these four realities is not necessarily the way the church should view them. In chapter five, Carson turns to one of the central debates connected to questions of Christ and culture, namely, the relationship between the church and state. So many contemporary Christian discussions of this subject are merely baptized versions of one political party platform or another that it is refreshing to see a discussion centered on the biblical themes that contribute to our understanding.

     In his final chapter, Carson surveys several common approaches to Christ and culture, including Lutheran, Anabaptist, and Reformed approaches, detailing what he sees as their strengths and weaknesses. While few will agree with every one of Carson’s conclusions, all will benefit from careful reflection on his thoughtful contribution to the debate.

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

The Best-Laid Plans

By R.C. Sproul Jr. 1/1/2009

     To suggest that wisdom is always balanced seems to me to be a bit, well, unbalanced. Whoever first uttered the words of wisdom, “moderation in all things,” should, I believe, have healed himself. All things? Isn’t that a bit extreme? In like manner, wisdom is almost always balanced. We need to measure the wisdom of looking before we leap with the equally potent conviction that he who hesitates is lost. We need to remember, as we loudly affirm that we ought not answer a fool according to his folly lest we be like him, that we ought to answer a fool according to his folly lest he become wise in his own eyes (Prov. 26: 4–5).

     Jesus, who is wisdom incarnate, wisely tells us that we must consider the cost. Only a fool would set about the business of building a tower without first determining if he had the money to complete the job. Planning, according to Jesus, is good and proper. Out of this wisdom we have with all due wisdom extrapolated our calling to set goals before us, to look beyond today, to discern the times. This same Jesus, however, speaking through James His brother, says, “Come now, you who say, ‘Today or tomorrow we will go into such and such a town and spend a year there and trade and make a profit’ — yet you do not know what tomorrow will bring. What is your life? For you are a mist that appears for a little time and then vanishes. Instead you ought to say, ‘If the Lord wills, we will live and do this or that.’ As it is, you boast in your arrogance. All such boasting is evil” (James 4:13–16).

     It is a great thing to plan, to lay down your hopes and aspirations. It is a great thing, in fact, not just to hope for a particular destination but to map out the steps that will get you there. It is, however, incumbent upon us to do this as creatures, as vapor. We must remember our frame. We must remember that we simply propose while God disposes. If the Lord wills, we will do this or that. If, however, the Lord wills differently, His plans will supersede our own. Not only ought we to pray, “nevertheless not my will but Thine be done,” but we ought also to pray knowing that His sovereign will, in fact, will be done.

     If we would plan in accordance with God’s plan, we must first know what God’s plan is. He has not told us that we will go into such and such a city, buy and sell and make a profit. He has not told us that our five-year-old daughter will marry her eight-year-old neighbor, and the two of them will build their home on the back side of our property. He has not told us that our ten-year-old son will thrive in a particular line of work, and will, along with his own as yet unborn children, seize that whole industry for the kingdom of God. He has not told us that once we have seized this industry we will cooperate with the plan set in motion by Brother Jones fifty years ago so that we can together seize that other cultural doodad for Jesus. It is a shameful thing to be shortsighted. It is likewise an arrogant thing to boast that you can see far into the future.

     God’s secret plan is just that — secret. We don’t know His strategy, how He will move in this coming year, decade, or century. God’s revealed plan is, well, that which has been revealed. He has told us what is required of us — that we do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with Him (Mic. 6:8). He has told us the sum of the matter — that we should fear Him and obey all that He commands (Eccl. 12:13). He has called us to go into all the nations, baptizing them, teaching them to obey all that He has commanded (Matt. 28:19–20). He has told us that we ought not worry about what we will eat or about what our great grandchildren will eat. The Gentiles worry about such things. No, our calling is to seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness (Matt. 6:33). My prayer and my plan is that every day I would grow more faithful in this calling, that I would in turn encourage my dear wife in the same direction. My prayer and my plan is that the two of us, as long as life should last, will encourage our children along this same path. He may call our children to the mission field. He may call us to the mission field. He may call us to suffer this illness or that. He may call all or some of us home. But as long as we live, we are all called to grow in grace and wisdom.

     This, we highly resolve — that we would seek first His kingdom and His righteousness. We resolve to teach our children to do the same, and to teach their children to do the same. If we would but keep this one resolution, we would witness worldwide revolution. Better yet, we would enjoy a new reformation. May God give us the grace to be extremists where we ought to be, that we would always seek out wisdom and rest in His finished work.

Deuteronomy 18

By Don Carson 6/13/2018

     The prophecy of the coming of a prophet like Moses (Deut. 18:15-18) must first of all be understood within its own context. Four observations bring this passage to sharp focus.

     First, the preceding verses (Deut. 18:9-13) condemn the religious practices of the nations the Israelites are displacing, especially those religious practices used for guidance: divination, sorcery, interpretation of omens, witchcraft, casting of spells, spiritism, and necromancy. These “detestable practices” (Deut. 18:12) constitute part of the reason why these nations were driven out — a lesson many in the West have not learned, to our great danger. Such practices implicitly deny God’s sovereignty, and encourage people to rely for their safety and well-being on either superstitious nonsense or demonic power. In the transition verse (Deut. 18:14), Moses contrasts the Israelites: “But as for you, the LORD your God has not permitted you to do so.” Far from it: as the Lord gave his word through the prophet Moses, so after Moses’ death God will raise up a prophet like Moses. “You must listen to him” (Deut. 18:15). God’s people are to be led by the word of God faithfully delivered by his prophets, not by religious superstition.

     Second, that raises the question as to who is a true prophet (Deut. 18:20-22), a theme Moses had already discussed (Deut. 13; see the June 9 meditation) but which is here briefly reintroduced. For if people will know the Word of God through God’s prophets, it is important to reiterate some of the criteria by which one may distinguish true prophets from false.

     Third, Moses reminds the Israelites of the essentially mediatorial role of the prophet (Deut. 18:16-17). Of course, this is true at a fairly trite level: genuine prophets reveal words from God that would otherwise be unknown, and thus mediate between God and people. But Moses refers to something more profound. When God displayed himself at Sinai, the people were so terrified that they knew they dared not approach this holy God: they would be destroyed (Ex. 20:18-19). The people wanted Moses to be the mediator of the revelation from God. God praises them for this judgment, this right-minded fear of God (Deut. 18:17). In the same way, God will raise up another prophet who will exercise the same mediating function.

     Fourth, at some level this promise was fulfilled in every genuine prophet God sent. But the language of this promise is so generous it is difficult not to see that some special prophet is finally in view: he will not only tell everything that God commands him, but if anyone does not listen to God’s words spoken in God’s name, God himself will hold him to account. Meditate not only on Acts 3:22-23; 7:37, but also on John 5:16-30.

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 63

5 My soul will be satisfied as with fat and rich food,
and my mouth will praise you with joyful lips,
6 when I remember you upon my bed,
and meditate on you in the watches of the night;
7 for you have been my help,
and in the shadow of your wings I will sing for joy.
8 My soul clings to you;
your right hand upholds me.
9 But those who seek to destroy my life
shall go down into the depths of the earth;
10 they shall be given over to the power of the sword;
they shall be a portion for jackals.
11 But the king shall rejoice in God;
all who swear by him shall exult,
for the mouths of liars will be stopped.

By Gleason Archer Jr.

Job: Integrity of the Text

     From the time of Eichhorn there has been a growing tendency among rationalist critics to deny the single authorship of  Job. There has been a general trend toward regarding the speeches of  Job and his three comforters as being the earliest portion of the work, and to regard as later additions the four sections which are described below.

     1. The prologue and the epilogue. From the obvious ground that the first and last chapters of the book are composed in prose, it has been argued that they must have been composed by a different author from the artist who produced the poetic chapters. As Steinmueller points out (CSS, 2:166), however, the literature of neighboring nations exhibited the same phenomenon. Thus the Twelfth Dynasty Egyptian “Tale of the Eloquent Peasant” dating from around 1900 B.C. likewise possessed a prose prologue and a prose epilogue as a framework for the long, poetic text which made up the body of the work. So also the Aramaic Wisdom of Ahikar has a prose introduction to its poetic proverbs.

     It has also been argued that the mood and viewpoint of the prologue and epilogue of  Job differ from those of the rest of the book. However, if we consider the particular purpose of the prologue and epilogue, it would be very strange if their mood and viewpoint did not differ from that prevailing in the dialogue between Job and his friends. It is the basic purpose of the introductory chapter to present Job’s situation from the divine perspective as a contest between God and Satan,  in which the issue at stake is whether a man is capable of loving God for His own sake rather than merely for the blessings He bestows.   The final chapter presents the eventual outcome of Job’s period of testing. After the situation of agonizing trial has given way to a new prosperity and success, it would have been highly unrealistic on the part of the author had he attempted to maintain the same viewpoint and mood throughout the entire book. Moreover, as an increasing number of critics are coming to see, the dialogue of  Job would be lacking in any adequate motivation if the prologue had not introduced it right from the beginning. Likewise also the epilogue is absolutely essential for the final vindication of Job’s righteousness, and it is therefore hard to believe that the dialogue could have originally circulated without the final chapter. Even Aage Bentzen concedes: “The dialogue cannot have had any independent existence. In  8:4–29:1 it presupposes the description of Job’s illness as given in the narrative” (IOT, 2:175).

     2.  Job 27 and  28. Adherents to the multiple-source theory often single out  Job 27 as an interpolation, because it contains a denunciation of the wicked far more in harmony with what the three comforters have been saying in the earlier chapters than with the defensive position Job has maintained. Repeatedly Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar have been discoursing upon the inevitable punishment of the wicked and have been urging Job to come out with a confession of secret sin. But on the other hand it should be recognized that Job himself at no point offers any defense for the sinner or holds out any hope for him that he would escape God’s judgment in the final outcome. Actually what he does in  Job 27 is skillfully turn the tables on his unjust accusers who have dogmatically insisted that his calamity must be a consequence of hidden and unconfessed sin. Then, insisting on his own unqualified adherence to the cause of righteousness, decency, and justice, Job very logically passes on to express his expectation that his slanderous accusers will themselves taste the fruit of their injustice in blackening his character (v.  7: “Let mine enemy be as the wicked, and he that riseth up against me as the unrighteous”).

     As for  Job 28, it is urged that this constitutes a unit by itself which is not logically related to what precedes or what follows. But this criticism is not well taken, for Job’s analysis of what constitutes true wisdom is evidently intended as a rebuke and a rebuttal to the narrow-minded and shortsighted “wisdom” on which his so-called comforters had preened themselves. Job’s testimony here is eminently appropriate as a summary of his basic theological conviction and abiding trust in God, even when His ways were hard for man to understand. In this chapter, therefore, Job shows that true and valid wisdom does not reside in them nor indeed in any man, but only in the Lord Himself and what He has revealed. Even his final axiom, “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom,” carries the connotation that his three accusers had gone astray at the very outset of their thinking because they lacked a genuine fear of the Lord in their attitude toward Job’s divinely permitted calamities.

     3. The speeches of Elihu ( Job 32–37 ). Many critics object that this young disputant is not mentioned in the prologue ( 2:11 ) when the other three are introduced, nor is he alluded to either in the speeches of Jehovah ( Job 38–42 ), or in the epilogue itself. It is therefore deduced that he must have been an invention of a later contributor to the Job legend, inserted into the account in order to present a more satisfactory theological viewpoint than could be found in the speeches of the other four speakers. Some critics have even argued that Elihu adds nothing new to the discussion, but either repeats what the three friends have already said or else anticipates what God is going to say.

     In reply to these objections, it may be pointed out that  Job 32 makes it perfectly clear that Elihu was not one of the original participants in the discussion when it first began back in  Job 2, but that he happened in on the conversation at a later time after it had already well begun. If this was the case, it is hard to see why he should have been mentioned in the prologue at all. So far as the speeches of Jehovah in the epilogue are concerned, there is no particular reason for Elihu to be mentioned in either section if he had uttered nothing that was worthy of correction. It was because the three comforters had misrepresented God’s nature and providence that they received the divine rebuke. Nor is it accurate to allege that Elihu simply repeated what the other three had already said; otherwise he would not be represented by the author as chiding them. It is true that Elihu had to repeat much of what they had already brought out in order to evaluate that measure of truth which they had on their side, but this was intended only as a groundwork for making his own position clear. Elihu’s contribution was to rebuke their pharisaic explanation of all misfortune as necessarily a punishment for personal sin. In fact, it may be fairly said that Elihu’s remarks serve admirably to prepare the way for the theophany of the final chapters.

     It is also alleged that from the linguistic standpoint, Elihu’s speeches contain so many Aramaisms as to indicate a different author from the one who composed the rest of the book. But this assertion is difficult to maintain on a statistical basis. As Steinmueller points out (CSS, 2:1–7), there are only twelve Aramaisms to be found in these chapters ( 32–37 ), whereas there are a good twenty-six in the rest of the book. The most that can be said is that the percentage of Aramaisms is slightly higher, but not enough to indicate the necessity of a different author. Also it is alleged that Elihu’s style and language markedly differ from those of the other speakers in  Job. Even if this point be granted, it is difficult to see why, when the author presents a distinct and different personality, he should not show that distinctiveness even in his style of speech. On the other hand, the alleged differences cannot be pressed too far, for the general vocabulary of Elihu’s remarks is about the same as that of all the other speakers. Some of the favorite words of the author scarcely found in the rest of the Old Testament are shared by both Elihu and the three comforters.

     4. The speeches of Jehovah ( 38:1–42:6 ). It is alleged that these pronouncements of God bear little connection with the remarks of Job and his visitors in the earlier part of the book, and their style and mood present very marked contrasts. But it should be recognized that it is the very purpose of the author to present marked contrasts between God and mankind. It would be very strange if the contrasts were any less pronounced than they are. God reminds Job that he cannot be competent to administer providence until he could show an intelligent understanding of the management of the physical universe at the level of meteorology and of the birds of the air and the beasts of the field.  He could not do valid “exegesis” if he could not even read the elementary alphabet of God’s physical universe. 

     As for the distinctive motifs featuring Behemoth and Leviathan (generally equated with the hippopotamus and the crocodile), it should be noted that Leviathan is also mentioned in  3:8, and that several other distinctive ideas occur in these chapters which have already made their appearance in the earlier speeches. If these pronouncements by God were removed from the book, it is safe to say that it would be left without a climax, the sublimest sections would be missing from this literary masterpiece, and the basic problem of pain would remain altogether unsolved. We therefore conclude that each portion and division of  Job is necessary to make up the architectonic structure which the author has so skillfully employed.

     A final word should be said concerning the divergent interpretations of  Job 19:26. The KJV seems to indicate that Job entertained a hope of the resurrection of the body. There are, however, many critics who insist that the correct interpretation of the original Hebrew indicates no more than a vindication of the soul after death in a perfectly disembodied state; thus the RSV, “And after my skin has been thus destroyed, then without my flesh I shall see God.” (This is to be contrasted with the KJV. “Yet in my flesh shall I see God.”) Here the interpretation hinges upon the meaning of the preposition min, which sometimes does signify “without”; yet it is fair to say that in connection with the verb to see, (ḥāzâ) min in its usage elsewhere almost always indicates the vantage point from which the observer looks. It is fair to conclude that a Hebrew listener would have understood this statement to mean, “And from the vantage point of my flesh, I shall see God.”

A Survey of Old Testament Introduction

The Continual Burnt Offering Matthew 20:25-28

By H.A. Ironside - 1941

June 13

Psalm 49:18  For though, while he lives, he counts himself blessed
—and though you get praise when you do well for yourself—


Proverbs 25:27  It is not good to eat much honey,
nor is it glorious to seek one’s own glory.   ESV

O teach us more of Thy blest ways,
Thou holy Lamb of God!
And fix and root us in Thy grace,
As those redeemed by blood.
O tell us often of Thy love,
Of all Thy grief and pain,
And let our hearts with joy confess
That thence comes all our gain.
--- Hutton

The Institutes of the Christian Religion

Translated by Henry Beveridge

     5. But, on the other hand, it will be proper to see what was anciently the true use of ecclesiastical discipline, and how great the abuses which crept in, that we may know what of ancient practice is to be abolished, and what restored, if we would, after overthrowing the kingdom of Antichrist, again set up the true kingdom of Christ. First, the object in view is to prevent the occurrence of scandals, and when they arise, to remove them. In the use two things are to be considered: first, that this spiritual power be altogether distinct from the power of the sword; secondly, that it be not administered at the will of one individual, but by a lawful consistory (1 Cor. 5:4). Both were observed in the purer times of the Church. For holy bishops did not exercise their power by fine, imprisonment, or other civil penalties, but as became them, employed the word of God only. For the severest punishment of the Church, and, as it were, her last thunderbolt, is excommunication, which is not used unless in necessity. [586] This, moreover, requires neither violence nor physical force, but is contented with the might of the word of God. [587] In short, the jurisdiction of the ancient Church was nothing else than (if I may so speak) a practical declaration of what Paul teaches concerning the spiritual power of pastors. "The weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strongholds; casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ; and having in a readiness to revenge all disobedience" (2 Cor. 10:4-6). As this is done by the preaching of doctrine, so in order that doctrine may not be held in derision, those who profess to be of the household of faith ought to be judged according to the doctrine which is taught. Now this cannot be done without connecting with the office of the ministry a right of summoning those who are to be privately admonished or sharply rebuked, a right, moreover, of keeping back from the communion of the Lord's Supper, those who cannot be admitted without profaning this high ordinance. Hence, when Paul elsewhere asks, "What have I to do to judge them also that are without?" (1 Cor. 5:12), he makes the members of the Church subject to censures for the correction of their vices, and intimates the existence of tribunals from which no believer is exempted.

6. This power, as we have already stated, did not belong to an individual who could exercise it as he pleased, but belonged to the consistory of elders, which was in the Church what a council is in a city. Cyprian, when mentioning those by whom it was exercised in his time, usually associates the whole clergy with the bishop (Cyprian, Lib. 3 Ep. 14, 19). In another place, he shows that though the clergy presided, the people, at the same time, were not excluded from cognisance: for he thus writes:--"From the commencement of my bishopric, I determined to do nothing without the advice of the clergy, nothing without the consent of the people." But the common and usual method of exercising this jurisdiction was by the council of presbyters, of whom, as I have said, there were two classes. Some were for teaching, others were only censors of manners. This institution gradually degenerated from its primitive form, so that, in the time of Ambrose, the clergy alone had cognisance of ecclesiastical causes. Of this he complains in the following terms:--"The ancient synagogue, and afterwards the Church, had elders, without whose advice nothing was done: this has grown obsolete, by whose fault I know not, unless it be by the sloth, or rather the pride, of teachers, who would have it seem that they only are somewhat" (Ambros. in 1 Tim. 5). We see how indignant this holy man was because the better state was in some degree impaired, and yet the order which then existed was at least tolerable. What, then, had he seen those shapeless ruins which exhibit no trace of the ancient edifice? How would he have lamented? First, contrary to what was right and lawful, the bishop appropriated to himself what was given to the whole Church. For this is just as if the consul had expelled the senate, and usurped the whole empire. For as he is superior in rank to the others, so the authority of the consistory is greater than that of one individual. It was, therefore, a gross iniquity, when one man, transferring the common power to himself, paved the way for tyrannical licence, robbed the Church of what was its own, suppressed and discarded the consistory ordained by the Spirit of Christ.

7. But as evil always produces evil, the bishops, disdaining this jurisdiction as a thing unworthy of their care, devolved it on others. Hence the appointment of officials to supply their place. I am not now speaking of the character of this class of persons; all I say is, that they differ in no respect from civil judges. And yet they call it spiritual jurisdiction, though all the litigation relates to worldly affairs. Were there no other evil in this, how can they presume to call a litigious forum a church court? But there are admonitions; there is excommunication. This is the way in which God is mocked. Does some poor man owe a sum of money? He is summoned: if he appears, he is found liable; when found liable, if he pays not, he is admonished. After the second admonition, the next step is excommunication. If he appears not, he is admonished to appear; if he delays, he is admonished, and by-and-by excommunicated. I ask, is there any resemblance whatever between this and the institution of Christ, or ancient custom or ecclesiastical procedure? But there, too, vices are censured. Whoredom, lasciviousness, drunkenness, and similar iniquities, they not only tolerate, but by a kind of tacit approbation encourage and confirm, and that not among the people only, but also among the clergy. Out of many they summon a few, either that they may not seem to wink too strongly, or that they may mulct them in money. I say nothing of the plunder, rapine, peculation, and sacrilege, which are there committed. I say nothing of the kind of persons who are for the most part appointed to the office. It is enough, and more than enough, that when the Romanists boast of their spiritual jurisdiction, we are ready to show that nothing is more contrary to the procedure instituted by Christ, that it has no more resemblance to ancient practice than darkness has to light.

8. Although we have not said all that might here be adduced, and even what has been said is only briefly glanced at, enough, I trust, has been said to leave no man in doubt that the spiritual power on which the Pope plumes himself, with all his adherents, is impious contradiction of the word of God, and unjust tyranny against his people. Under the name of spiritual power, I include both their audacity in framing new doctrines, by which they led the miserable people away from the genuine purity of the word of God, the iniquitous traditions by which they ensnared them, and the pseudo-ecclesiastical jurisdiction which they exercise by suffragans and officials. For if we allow Christ to reign amongst us, the whole of that domination cannot but immediately tumble and fall. The right of the sword which they also claim for themselves, not being exercised against consciences, does not fall to be considered in this place. Here, however, it is worth while to observe, that they are always like themselves, there being nothing which they less resemble than that which they would be thought to be--viz. pastors of the Church. I speak not of the vices of particular men, but of the common wickedness, and, consequently, the pestiferous nature of the whole order, which is thought to be mutilated if not distinguished by wealth and haughty titles. If in this matter we seek the authority of Christ, there can be no doubt that he intended to debar the ministers of his word from civil domination and worldly power when he said, "The princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you" (Mt. 20:25, 26). For he intimates not only that the office of pastor is distinct from the office of prince, but that the things differ so widely that they cannot be united in the same individual. Moses indeed held both (Exod. 18:16); but, first, this was the effect of a rare miracle; and, secondly, it was temporary, until matters should be better arranged. For when a certain form is prescribed by the Lord, the civil government is left to Moses, and he is ordered to resign the priesthood to his brother. And justly; for it is more than nature can do, for one man to bear both burdens. This has in all ages been carefully observed in the Church. Never did any bishop, so long as any true appearance of a church remained, think of usurping the right of the sword: so that, in the age of Ambrose, it was a common proverb, that emperors longed more for the priesthood than priests for imperial power. [588] For the expression which he afterwards adds was fixed in all minds, Palaces belong to the emperor, churches to the priest.

9. But after a method was devised by which bishops might hold the title, honour, and wealth of their office without burden and solicitude, that they might be left altogether idle, the right of the sword was given them, or rather, they themselves usurped it. With what pretext will they defend this effrontery? Was it the part of bishops to entangle themselves with the cognisance of causes, and the administration of states and provinces, and embrace occupations so very alien to them--of bishops, who require so much time and labour in their own office, that though they devote themselves to it diligently and entirely, without distraction from other avocations, they are scarcely sufficient? But such is their perverseness, that they hesitate not to boast that in this way the dignity of Christ's kingdom is duly maintained, and they, at the same time, are not withdrawn from their own vocation. In regard to the former allegation, if it is a comely ornament of the sacred office, that those holding it be so elevated as to become formidable to the greatest monarchs, they have ground to expostulate with Christ, who in this respect has grievously curtailed their honour. For what, according to their view, can be more insulting than these words, "The kings of the Gentiles exercise authority over them"? "But ye shall not be so" (Luke 22:25, 26). And yet he imposes no harder law on his servants than he had previously laid on himself. "Who," says he, "made me a judge or divider over you?" (Luke 12:14) We see that he unreservedly refuses the office of judging; and this he would not have done if the thing had been in accordance with his office. To the subordination to which the Lord thus reduced himself, will his servants not submit? The other point I wish they would prove by experience as easily as they allege it. But as it seemed to the apostles not good to leave the word of God and serve tables, so these men are thereby forced to admit, though they are unwilling to be taught, that it is not possible for the same person to be a good bishop and a good prince. For if those who, in respect of the largeness of the gifts with which they were endued, were able for much more numerous and weighty cares than any who have come after them, confessed that they could not serve the ministry of the word and of tables, without giving way under the burden, how are these, who are no men at all when compared with the apostles, possibly to surpass them a hundred times in diligence? The very attempt is most impudent and audacious presumption. Still we see the thing done; with what success is plain. The result could not but be that they have deserted their own functions, and removed to another camp.

     Christian Classics Ethereal Library / Public Domain

     Institutes of the Christian Religion