In the Dungeon of Giant Despair

By Andrew McGowan 1/2006

     At one point on their pilgrimage, Christian and his companion Hopeful stepped aside from the true Way, into By-Path-Meadow, because it looked easier and seemed to be going in the same direction as the Way. Soon they realized their mistake and began the journey back towards the Way. As they traveled, they slept one night on the grounds of a castle, but it turned out that this was Doubting-Castle, owned by Giant Despair. When the giant found them, he threw them into his dark and nasty dungeon, and they suffered terribly, from capture on Wednesday until escape on Sunday.

     On Thursday, at the suggestion of his wife, Diffidence, Giant Despair beat them severely and mercilessly. On Friday he told them to kill themselves since there was no hope for them. On Saturday, angered that they had not committed suicide, he showed them the bones of those he had previously murdered by tearing them to pieces. He assured them that their end would come soon in the same manner. Then he beat them again.

     At midnight on Saturday, despite their wounds, Christian and Hopeful began to pray (like Paul and Silas in Acts 16:25), and they continued this prayer throughout the night. Then we read of the amazing escape: “Now a little before it was Day, good Christian, as one half amazed, brake out in this passionate speech; ‘What a fool,’ quoth he, ‘am I, thus to lie in a stinking dungeon, when I may as well walk at liberty? I have a key in my bosom, called Promise, that will I am persuaded open any lock in Doubting-Castle.’ Using the key, Christian and Hopeful escaped.”

     The Meaning | There are at least two lessons to be learned from this incident in Pilgrim’s Progress (Bunyan): Updated, Modern English. More than 100 Illustrations.. The first lesson concerns the importance of keeping to the Way, no matter how much easier or more attractive the alternatives might seem. Many Christians have made shipwreck of their lives by following the ways of the world and emulating the values, ambitions, and lifestyles of their non-Christian neighbors, or their society, rather than following Christ. It is very easy to persuade ourselves that our situation is exceptional or that our circumstances warrant making a decision that goes contrary to Scripture. The end justifies the means, we say. This is never true. Keep to the Way.

     The second and key lesson, however, concerns assurance. The most striking part of the story is where Christian realizes that he had the key all the time! There was no need for them to have spent even one hour in the dungeon. Sadly, Christian had forgotten that he had the key in his possession. What was the key? Well, it was the key called “Promise,” and because he had this key, there was no need to be in Doubting-Castle as a prisoner of Giant Despair. In modern language, Christian had in his possession all of the promises of God, and therefore he had no need to be a captive to despair. Christian ought to have trusted in God and His promises. Had he done so, he would not have been the prisoner of doubt and despair.

     The Doctrine | At the heart of this incident from Pilgrim’s Progress is the issue of the assurance of salvation. How can I be sure that I am a Christian and so avoid doubt and despair? Christians in the Reformed tradition have not always agreed on this doctrine. Some have argued that assurance is of the very essence of saving faith and should, therefore, be the possession of every Christian. Others, including those who wrote the Westminster Confession of Faith (18.3), have argued that assurance may be (and indeed ought to be) the possession of every Christian, but that it does not automatically accompany saving faith. Rather, they say, it often comes later, as men and women reflect upon the work of the Holy Spirit in their lives.

     The great Scottish theologian Thomas Boston (1676–1732), recognized that there was some truth in both of these positions. He held to the position of the Westminster Confession of Faith that assurance of salvation is not of the essence of saving faith, and so there are many people who are true believers and yet lack assurance. He spoke of those who go to heaven “in as a mist,” truly converted yet unsure of their salvation. At the same time, however, he recognized that there is a certain assurance, or “appropriating persuasion,” that is indeed a constituent element in saving faith. It seems wise to follow Boston in this matter and to recognize both kinds of assurance.

     The Application | Are you going through a time of doubt or despair? Have you become a prisoner of these enemies of God and the Gospel? If you are a Christian, the wonderful truth is that you already have in your possession all that is necessary for your deliverance — you need to trust in the promises of God.

• 1     An Educated Clergy: Scottish Theological Education and Training in the Kirk and Secession
• 2     Federal Theology of Thomas Boston (Rutherford Studies: Historical Theology)
• 3     Men of One Book: A Comparison of Two Methodist Preachers, John Wesley and George Whitefield
• 4     The Divine Spiration of Scripture: Challenging Evangelical Perspectives
• 5     The Person & Work of Christ: Understanding Jesus (Paperback) - Common
• 6     Always Reforming: Explorations in Systematic Theology
• 7     The Divine Authenticity of Scripture: Retrieving an Evangelical Heritage

Crossing the River

By Frank E. Farrell 1/2006

     Charles Haddon Spurgeon said he had read Pilgrim’s Progress one hundred times. Alexander Whyte said he had read it almost as often. These two giants of the British pulpit have been called the “last of the Puritans,” so thoroughly immersed were they in Puritan writings. Spurgeon gives us the key to Bunyan’s genius: “Read anything of his, and you will see that it is almost like reading the Bible itself. He had studied the Bible; he had read it till his very soul was saturated with Scripture and…he cannot give us his Pilgrim’s Progress — that sweetest of all prose poems — without continually making us feel and say, ‘Why, this man is a living Bible!’ Prick him anywhere; his blood is Bibline, the very essence of the Bible flows from him. He cannot speak without quoting a text, for his very soul is full of the Word of God.”

     The Bible was the antidote for Bunyan’s early, unpromising years, which held out little hope for his writing the most popular Protestant devotional work of the ages. This is not, to say the least, the usual expectation for a tinker (his father’s trade as well) with very little formal education. John Owen, Oxford’s Puritan theologian par excellence, who declined Harvard’s offer of its presidency, would take every opportunity to hear Bunyan preach. When King Charles II expressed surprise at this, Owen responded that he would gladly exchange all of his learning for the tinker’s ability to touch the heart. Bunyan kept his common touch: Once, when told he had preached a grand sermon, he replied, “Aye, you have no need to tell me that, for the devil whispered it to me before I was well out of the pulpit.”

     The contrast between Bunyan’s mastery of devotional English writing and his earlier unregenerate use of the language is truly staggering. In his autobiography, Grace Abounding to the Chief of Sinners, he writes: “One day, as I was standing at a neighbor’s shop window, and there cursing and swearing and playing the madman after my unwanted manner, there sat within the woman of the house, and heard me, who, though she was a very loose and ungodly wretch, yet protested that I swore and cursed at the most fearful rate that she was made to tremble to hear me; and told me further, that I was the ungodliest fellow for swearing that she had ever heard in all her life, and that I by thus doing was able to spoil all the youth in the whole town, if they came but in my company.”

     Bunyan says he was silenced and shamed by this reproof and soon after “I beetook me to my Bible.” By God’s grace in conversion and providence, the tinker would come to write what has been described as the finest piece of writing in the English language — his description in Pilgrim’s Progress of Christian’s crossing the river of death into the city of the great King. Robert Browning put it this way: “His language was not ours: ‘Tis my belief, God spake: No tinker has such powers.”

     In his unregenerate state as a church bell-ringer, he feared death from the collapse of the belfry, but later he would write of the bells of heaven ringing for joy to welcome the pilgrims who had crossed the river. He would also write of two angels who would tell Christian and Hopeful that they would have to pass through the river of death before they could enter the heavenly Jerusalem. In the crossing of the river, Christian encountered “a great darkness and horror,” but Hopeful encouraged him with words from Isaiah: “When thou passest through the waters, I will be with thee; and through the rivers, they shall not overflow thee” (KJV).

     On the other side, the two “shining Ones” met them and told them of the glory of the heavenly Jerusalem. Bunyan, “the immortal dreamer” continues: “Now I saw in my dream, that these two men went in at the gate; and lo, as they entered, they were transfigured, and they had raiment put on that shone like gold.… Then I heard in my dream, that all the bells in the city rang again for joy; and that it was said unto them, enter ye into the joy of your Lord. I also heard the men themselves, that they sang with a loud voice, saying, Blessing, Honour, Glory, and Power, be to Him that sitteth upon the throne, and to the Lamb forever and ever.… There were also of them that had wings, and they answered one another without intermission, saying, Holy, Holy, is the Lord. And after that, they shut up the gates: which when I had seen, I wished myself among them.”

     The account of the pilgrims’ glorious reception in heaven, only part of which has been quoted here, is one of the most famous scenes in literature and has been called the crown of all Bunyan’s work. In Grace Abounding, he testifies that his former fears about death had been banished to the point where he cried, “‘Let me die’; now death was lovely and beautiful in my sight, for I saw we shall never live indeed until we be gone to the other world.” Puritan Thomas Shepard, one of Harvard’s founders, strikingly called death “the very best of all our gospel ordinances.” He points out that “in all his other ordinances, Christ comes, on occasion, to us; but in a believer’s death Christ takes us to be forever with Him.”

     Another Puritan contemporary of Bunyan’s, Richard Baxter, wrote an enduring devotional classic The Saints’ Everlasting Rest, in which he urges his readers to spend half an hour every day “meditating on the joys of heaven.”

Vanity Fair

By Derek Thomas 1/2006

     For John Bunyan, a Puritan to his fingertips, the Christian life was an experience of conflict and tension with this world. Imprisoned for upwards of twelve years, he experienced firsthand the world’s hostility. Cheerful and sanguine by temperament, his portrayal of what believers can expect from this world is both solemn and dark: the path that leads to the Celestial City winds through unavoidable places of considerable, even deadly, danger — places like the town called Vanity with its “lusty Fair.” Here, all the resources of protection and resolution will be needed to prevent contamination and possible destruction.

     Christian, in Bunyan’s  Pilgrim's Progress, is both a pilgrim on a journey (road-trip) to heaven and a warrior in conflict with temptations from within (indwelling sin) and without (the world in its opposition to all things godly). It is a principle that Christian is taught early in the journey that every believer can expect to be both fascinated by and drawn towards the world. He can also expect to be repulsed and attacked when all offers are spurned. “Hell hath no fury…,” in this case, “like the world scorned.”

     Vanity Fair, described in various dictionaries as the “vain and frivolous way of life especially in large cities,” and the “place or scene of ostentation or empty, idle amusement and frivolity,” represents for Bunyan the world in all its gaudiness: alluring and seductive, offering merchandise of all kinds — some innocent enough in themselves but designed to misdirect the affections away from our love for God and our love for His kingdom. What is Bunyan teaching us here? Several things.

     First and foremost, Vanity Fair represents Bunyan’s attempt to warn every Christian of the reality of temptation and the need to resist it. There is always a “gospel-focus” in Bunyan’s writings, and he is careful to note that believers can resist temptation in the knowledge that their Savior has done so on their behalf: “The prince of Princes himself, when here, went through this Town to his own Country, and that upon a Fair-day too: Yea, and as I think it was Beelzebub, the chief Lord of this Fair, that invited him to buy of his Vanities; yea, would have him made Lord of the Fair, would he but have done him Reverence as he went through the Town.”

     Vanity Fair thus signals the need to “Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted” (Gal. 6:1), with the assurance that “we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin” (Heb. 4:15).

     Then again, Vanity Fair establishes the truth that Christians are citizens of the kingdom of heaven and must therefore sit loose to the attractions of this world, however innocent they may appear to be in themselves. Christian and Faithful (Christian’s trusty companion) stood out “like sore thumbs” in Vanity Fair. Not only did they not purchase anything, they refused to be drawn aside and enticed by what it offered, having discovered “solid joys and lasting treasures” elsewhere in communion with Jesus Christ. As citizens of heaven they adopted the viewpoint that they must not conform to this world (Phil. 3:20).

     On offer in Vanity Fair are both material things (gold, pearls, precious stones, etc.) as well as honors (titles, preferments — designed to turn one’s head). Additionally, Bunyan mentions “the ware of Rome and her merchandise is greatly promoted in the fair” — an allusion to the beguiling nature of Roman Catholic teaching that had suggested (barely a hundred years in Bunyan’s past) that indulgences could be purchased so as to make a sinner’s journey through purgatory that much quicker. To all of these, Bunyan’s faithful companions say “No!”

The Power of His Glory

By R.C. Sproul 1/2006

     You want to know what your problem is? You don’t love Jesus enough. I know this not because I know you, but because I know me. I’ve got the same problem. My wife has the same problem, as do my kids. The sheep in my flock suffer from the same problem.

     The folks I meet at conferences have the same problem too. Wherever there is a sin-problem, underneath it all, is this problem. Husbands don’t love their wives as Jesus loves the church, because husbands don’t love Jesus enough. Children disobey their parents, because they don’t love Jesus enough. Pastors soft-pedal the Bible because they don’t love Jesus enough. And people hop from one church to another because they don’t love Jesus enough. Politicians grow power hungry because they don’t love Jesus enough. Rich people suffer from greed, because they don’t love Jesus enough. Middle class people suffer from greed, because they don’t love Jesus enough. Poor people suffer from greed, because they don’t love Jesus enough. Find a sin and you will find there a heart that doesn’t love Jesus enough. Find Jesus, and you will find the solution to our problem. Which is just what Jesus has promised will happen.

     It is a good thing that evangelical Christians have wakened from their pietistic slumbers. It is good and proper that we should be about the business of making manifest the reign of Christ over all things. That He is Lord has effects that stray rather far from our hearts. We fight the culture wars because they are simply a manifestation of the war between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent. But the serpent is more crafty than any of the beasts of the field. He took the biblical wisdom that argued that we ought to tend to our souls, and turned it into world-denying piety. And now he takes the biblical wisdom that argues that we must push for the crown rights of King Jesus, and turned it into worldliness, and a denial of the call to piety. Jesus, on the other hand, calls us to seek first two things, the kingdom of God and His righteousness.

     How can we seek two different things first? We do so when we realize that the weapons of our warfare, that the very engine of changing the world, is changing ourselves. The reign of Christ will be manifest in the political, social, artistic, cultural realms only insofar and only through the manifestation of the reign of Christ within His people. We will only make known the great Gospel truth that this is our Father’s world, as we live as pilgrims, recognizing that this world isn’t our home, that we are just passing through.

     It is because we are worldly that we embrace the culture’s engines of change. We think that we will change ourselves and the world only as we read more books, make more movies, elect more politicians, produce more widgets, and add more programs to our churches. We think sanctification is a doctrine to be studied, rather than a calling to be pursued. In truth, it is neither. We do not pursue a calling, but a person. Sanctification isn’t merely the means by which we become more holy, but is the means by which we become more like Jesus. Just as He, the Son of God, is the express image of the glory of the Father, so we, the bride of Christ, are the image of our eternal Husband. We glorify Him by becoming more like Him.

     This is the promise of God, the end of our sanctification, our glorification: “Beloved, we are God’s children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is” (1 John 3:2). Do you see the connection? We don’t know what we shall be, but we do know we will be like Him. How will we be like Him? What means brings this to pass? We shall see Him as He is. This is the glory of our King, not that He labors faithfully to change us, not that He changes us by the Word of His power, but that He changes us by the power of His glory. Seeing Him makes us like Him.

     Which brings us back to our troubles. Our sanctification is long and laborious simply because we do not seek His face. We do not long for His presence. We do not seek to behold His glory, because we are insufficiently impressed. It is the pomp and the power, the dazzle and the sizzle, the bright lights and the baubles of the world around us that have captured our hearts. We don’t find His glory glorious enough, and so we are not yet like Him. We do indeed see through a glass darkly, a glass darkened by our love affair with the world. If we loved Him, we would seek Him. If we sought Him, we would find Him. If we found Him, we would see Him. And if we saw Him, we would be like Him. And believing this, John tells us, will purify us, “and everyone who thus hopes in Him purifies himself as He is pure” (v. 3). So may it be said of us.

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.

Read The Psalms In "1" Year

Psalm 33

10 The LORD brings the counsel of the nations to nothing;
he frustrates the plans of the peoples.
11 The counsel of the LORD stands forever,
the plans of his heart to all generations.
12 Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD,
the people whom he has chosen as his heritage!

13 The LORD looks down from heaven;
he sees all the children of man;
14 from where he sits enthroned he looks out
on all the inhabitants of the earth,
15 he who fashions the hearts of them all
and observes all their deeds.
16 The king is not saved by his great army;
a warrior is not delivered by his great strength.
17 The war horse is a false hope for salvation,
and by its great might it cannot rescue.

Judges 14

By Don Carson 7/31/2018

     Some of us have wondered why God has occasionally used in powerful ministry people blatantly flawed. This is not to say that God should only use perfect people, for that would mean he would be using no people. Nor am I referring to the fact that we all have weaknesses and faults of various kinds. George Whitefield, for instance, despite his enormous stature as a preacher and evangelist, did not fare very well on the marriage front, or in his (misguided) conviction that his son would be healed of his mortal illness. Virtually any Christian leader, whether from biblical times or more recent history, could not stand up under the onslaught of that sort of criticism. No, what I have in mind is the flaw that is so public and awful that one ponders two questions: (a) If this person is so powerful and godly, why the ugly fault? (b) If this person is so filled with the Spirit, why doesn’t that same Spirit enable him to clean up his act?

     There are no easy answers. Sometimes it is simply a matter of time. Judas Iscariot, after all, engaged in public ministry with the other eleven apostles — even miraculous ministry — yet with time proved apostate. The passage of time would show him up. But sometimes the flaws are there from the beginning to the end.

     That is true, it appears, in the life of Samson. The Spirit of God came upon him mightily; the Lord used him to curb the Philistines. But what is he doing marrying a Philistine woman, when the Law strictly forbade marriage to anyone outside the covenant community (Judg. 14:2)? When his parents warn him of the consequences, he simply overrides them, and they acquiesce (Judg. 14:3). True, they did not know that “this was from the LORD” (Judge. 14:4), in the same way that the selling of Joseph into slavery in Egypt was of the Lord; but that did not make the human actions right.

     Samson’s risky bet (Judg. 14:12-13) is more cocksure and greedy than it is wise and honorable. Of course, the Philistines are really cruel in the matter (Judg. 14:15-18, 20), but Samson’s murder of thirty men to fulfill the terms of the wager is motivated less by a desire to cleanse the land and restore the covenant people to strength than it is by personal vengeance. Similar things must be said about his tactics in the next chapter, and about his steamy living in the chapter after that.

     It appears, then, that Spirit-given power in one dimension of life does not by itself guarantee Spirit-impelled discipline and maturity in every dimension of life. It follows that the presence of spiritual gifts is never an excuse for personal sin.

Click here to go to source

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).

The Constancy of a Pilgrim’s Life

By Ligon Duncan 1/2006

     It has been said that one hallmark of the Puritan view of the Christian life was the emphasis placed on being “constant” (or being steady and unchanging). Remember how John Bunyan puts the challenge to us to learn from the life of the pilgrim?

     Who would true valour see, let him come hither; one here will constant be, come wind, come weather. There’s no discouragement shall make him once relent his first avowed intent to be a pilgrim.

     That is, “if you want to know how to live a constant Christian life, come take a look at this guy.”

     The Puritans, and certainly Bunyan, highly valued the Bible’s accent on faithfully, consistently, tirelessly pursuing the Christian life with a view to the long haul. Key to this is the role of the ordinary means of grace (chief among them the reading/preaching of the Word, the right partaking of the sacraments, the engagement of the soul with God in prayer). If we are to manifest the constancy of the Christian pilgrim’s life then we will also place much stock in the ordinary means of grace.

     The Word, sacraments, and prayer — these are the ordinances given by God with which spiritual life is nurtured. By “ordinances” we mean spiritual instruments of grace and growth in grace appointed by God in the Bible. Here’s how the Westminster Assembly explained this in their Shorter Catechism, Question 88: “What are the outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of redemption? Answer: The outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of redemption are, his ordinances, especially the Word, sacraments, and prayer; all which are made effectual to the elect for salvation.”

     How does one go about living the Christian life? How does one walk in the way of salvation? How does one become a “constant Christian?” By a careful use of God’s appointed, ordinary and outward means of growth. Again, the assembly of divines gives this helpful summation of the Bible’s answer: by “faith in Jesus Christ, repentance unto life, with the diligent use of all the outward means whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of redemption.” In other words, the constant Christian is strengthened for his pilgrimage by God’s grace held out to all who trust in Christ, bestowed and received through the ordinary means set forth in the Word.

     So, when we say that the Christian pilgrim highly values God’s ordinances and faithfully participates in the ordinary means of grace, we mean that the pilgrim believes the things that God says in the Bible are central to the spiritual health and growth of His people, are in fact central in his own Christian life. In other words, if God says in the Bible that the way His people grow is by a diligent use of His ordinary means, a true pilgrim believes God and lives accordingly.

     Thus, pilgrims (in order to know and grow in the true knowledge of God, and to keep fast in the way of faithfulness) delight in, highly value, and faithfully attend the public reading and preaching of the Word; mature in their assurance as they contemplate God’s saving promises to them each time they see baptism administered and joyfully commune in the Lord’s Supper; and engage in a life of prayer, especially expressed corporately in the local church.

     This isn’t just a Puritan thing though. It is a biblical thing. Throughout the New Testament, God explicitly instructs pastors and churches to do the following things: First, “Give attention to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation and teaching” (1 Tim. 3:13 NASB); Second, “Preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction” (2 Tim. 4:2 NASB); Third, “Make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you” (Matt. 28:19–20 NASB); Fourth, “This is My body, which is for you.… This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me. For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes” (1 Cor. 11:24–26 NASB); Fifth, “I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made…. Therefore I want the men in every place to pray, lifting up holy hands” (1 Tim. 2:1, 8 NASB).

     These are the main ways God’s people grow and become constant. We are saved by grace through faith — indeed, by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. But the means of God’s grace to bring us to faith and grow us in grace are the Word, prayer, and the sacraments. Nothing else we do in the church’s program should detract from these central means of grace; indeed, everything else we do should promote and coalesce with them. Nothing else is more important if we are to display the constancy of the pilgrim life.

     Walk this way, and you’ll be constant, come wind or weather.

By Gleason Archer Jr.

The Date of the Exodus

     According to  1 Kings 6:1 the temple of Solomon was begun in the fourth year of his reign (i.e., 966 or shortly thereafter), which was the four hundred and eightieth year after the Exodus. This would give the exact date for the Exodus as 1445 B.C., in the third year of Amenhotep II (1447–1421). There may have been a few years more or less, if the figure of 480 was only meant to be a round number. This would mean that the Israelite conquest of Canaan would have commenced with the destruction of Jericho around 1405 (allowing for the forty years in the wilderness). This latter date has been confirmed by John Garstang’s excavations at the site of Jericho, Tell es-Sultan, from 1930 to 1936. On archaeological grounds he dated the Late-Bronze level (City D) at 1400 B.C.

     Further confirmation of this date is found in the statement of Jephthah recorded in  Judg. 11:26, where he reminds the Ammonite invaders that the Israelites have been too long in possession of the contested land of Gilead for the Ammonites to challenge their legal right to hold it: “While Israel dwelt in Heshbon and its towns, and in Aroer and its towns … three hundred years; wherefore did ye not recover them within that time?” (ASV). Since Jephthah’s period was admittedly earlier than the time of King Saul (whose reign began around 1050 B.C.), this certainly pushes the Israelite conquest back to 1400 B.C.

     Still further confirmation is found in Paul’s comment in  Acts 13:19–20, which according to the earliest reading (as preserved in Nestle’s text) states: “And when he [God] had destroyed seven nations in the land of Canaan, he gave them their land for an inheritance, for about four hundred and fifty years: and after these things [i.e., after the division of the land] he gave them judges until Samuel the prophet.” (This is the rendering of the RSV; the KJV follows a later, untrustworthy reading here.) In other words, the interval includes the Exodus itself (when the Hebrews left Egypt to take possession of Canaan,  Ex. 20:12 ), the Israelite conquest under Joshua, and the career of Samuel down to the date of David’s capture of Jerusalem ca. 995. (Cf.  Deut. 12:10, which states that the choice of a holy city for Jehovah’s sanctuary will be revealed after “He giveth you rest from all your enemies” — including apparently, the Jebusites in Jerusalem.) This means that the 450 years of  Acts 13 includes the period from 1445 to B.C. It goes without saying that a materially later date for the Exodus would be utterly irreconcilable with  Acts 13:19.

     But notwithstanding this consistent testimony of Scripture to the 1445 date (or an approximation thereof), the preponderance of scholarly opinion today is in favor of a considerably later date, the most favored one at present being 1290 B.C., or about ten years after Rameses II began to reign. A still later date, ca. 1225, is favored by a diminishing number of authorities (such as H. H. Rowley), but in the earlier decades of the twentieth century it found support even from conservatives like M. G. Kyle in ISBE (who dated the fifth year of Merneptah about 1250 B.C.) and J. D. Davis (who dated the fifth year in his Dictionary of the Bible, 4th ed., as 1320).

     J. Finegan lists five major arguments in support of the 1290 date: (1) the discrepancies between the Amarna Letters and the Hebrew record (in  Joshua, Judges, Samuel ); (2) the apparent absence of an agricultural civilization in Edom, Moab, and Ammon during the fourteenth century; (3) the impossibility of reconciling a 430-year sojourn with a Hyksos date for Joseph’s career; (4) the lack of evidence that Thutmose III did any building in the Delta region; (5) the mention of the city of Raamses in  Ex. 1:11 These will be dealt with one by one.

     As to (1), Finegan points to the fact that the letters from King Abdi-Hepa of Canaanite Jerusalem in the Amarna correspondence’ indicate that his city was in imminent danger of capture by the Habiru; yet  2 Sam. 5:6–9 shows that the Israelites did not capture Jerusalem until David’s reign. Hence the Habiru could not have been the Israelites, but an earlier, non-Israelite force of invaders. But the fallacy in this argument is obvious. The armies of Joshua did indeed menace Jerusalem, for they routed the Jerusalemite troops (together with their allies from Hebron, Jarmuth, Lachish, and Eglon) at the battle of Gibeon, and their king, Adoni-zedek, was subsequently flushed out of hiding and put to death ( Josh. 10 ). But neither the letters of Abdi-Hepa nor the Hebrew account in  Joshua states that the city itself was captured or destroyed. Not until after Joshua’s death, apparently, did the army of Judah storm Jerusalem and put it to the torch ( Judg. 1:8 ), and even then they did not permanently dispossess the Jebusites ( Judg. 1:21 ).

     As to (2), Finegan refers to the surveys of Nelson Glueck in the Transjordanian region, which failed to uncover any evidence of urban civilization or fortifications between 1900 and 1300 B.C. This means that there could have been no strong Edomite kingdom to oppose the Israelite advance up the east bank of the Dead Sea (cf.  Num. 20:14–21 ) back in 1405 B.C. Nor would there have been any strong Moabite - Midianite coalition to face under King Balak ( Num. 22–25 ), nor any armies of Sihon and Og to crush ( Num. 21 ). But Glueck’s investigations were largely in the nature of surface exploration, and could hardly have been called thorough. Moreover, there has come to light more recently a new line of evidence which seems to belie his deductions. In the Biblical Archaeologist for February 1953, G. Lankester Harding reported the discovery of an ancient tomb in Amman (BA XVI, no. 7: “Archaeological News from Jordan”) containing numerous artifacts (including black pricked ware, button-base vases, oil flasks, scarabs, and toggle pins) dating from about 1600 B.C. In Harding’s Antiquities of Jordan (1959) he also speaks of characteristic Middle Bronze pottery and other objects found at Naur and Mount Nebo. A sixteenth century tomb was discovered at Pella in 1967 (ASOR newsletter, Dec. 1967). A Late Bronze Age temple was uncovered under a runway at the Amman airport in 1955 (CT, 22 Dec. 1971, p. 26). Franken’s excavations at Deir Alla and those of Siegfried Horn at Heshbon have shown that the pottery of Transjordan was quite dissimilar from that produced on the west bank of the Jordan at the same period. Yamauchi suggests that Glueck mistakenly assumed the homogeneity of pottery from both regions and thus may have introduced confusion into his interpretation of the data (ibid. See H. J. Franken and W. J. A. Power [VT, xxi 71, pp. 119–23]; “Glueck’s Exploration in Eastern Palestine in the Light of Recent Evidence”). J. Bimson states, “I am forced to conclude, therefore, that there is no reason to date the Conquest in the 12th century B.C. Evidence from et-Tell does not support such a date, since it is not clear that there was a deliberate destruction of the Iron Age village at that time” (Redating the Exodus and Conquest, p. 65). Further excavation will no doubt uncover more products of this intermediate period and demonstrate once again the fallacy of hasty conclusions on the basis of superficial investigations.

     As to (3), the difficulty of reconciling the viziership of Joseph with the Hyksos period in Egypt (since Joseph’s career must have fallen in the first half of the nineteenth century according to the early date theory, and the Hyksos rule did not begin until 1730 or so), this discrepancy is freely admitted. But as has been already pointed out, the internal evidence of  Ex. 1 points to the Hyksos dynasty as furnishing the “new king who knew not Joseph,” and the Twelfth Dynasty as being the probable time of Joseph’s career. Therefore the point taken raises no difficulty whatsoever to a 1445 date for the Exodus.

     As to (4), the lack of evidence of building activity in the Delta during the reign of Thutmose III (1501–1447), there are several significant indications from archaeological discovery which point in a more positive direction. It is a well-known fact that Thutmose III erected two red granite obelisks in front of the temple of Ra’ in Heliopolis (situated at the base of the Delta); one of them now stands in London and the other in New York City. Since he describes himself in them as “Lord of Heliopolis,” it is fair to assume that he did conduct building operations in that city. Moreover, a scarab from the Eighteenth Dynasty refers to the birth of Amenhotep II (Thutmose’s son) as having taken place in Memphis (twenty-three miles below Heliopolis). This raises a strong presumption that Thutmose maintained his headquarters there from time to time, at least, and probably did so for the purpose of strengthening his fortifications and staging preparations for his numerous Asiatic campaigns. It is inconceivable that he could have made fourteen or more campaigns in Syria if he had not built extensive barracks, depots, and other structures to accommodate his troops. The land of Goshen with its large reservoir of manpower must have often been commandeered for these construction projects. Even as far south as Thebes, the tomb of his vizier Rekhmire shows Semitic slaves hard at work making and transporting bricks.

     As for Amenhotep II, discoveries at Bubastis (the Pi-beseth of Ezek. 30:17) uncovered by Naville in 1887–1889 included a red granite slab representing Amenhotep in worship before Amon-Ra’, “he who dwells in Perwennefer.” This calls to mind the close relationship which Amenhotep bore to the naval dockyard at Perwennefer near Memphis, over which his father had appointed him a commandant in his youth. W C. Hayes concludes that he maintained large estates at Perwennefer, and resided there for extended periods of time. In one inscription (ANET, p. 244) he speaks of riding from the royal stables in Memphis to visit the Sphinx at Gizeh. All this points to frequent royal residence in the Delta during the reign of Thutmose III (the pharaoh of the oppression) and Amenhotep II (the pharaoh of the Exodus)—conformable to the early date theory.

     In regard to (5), the appeal to the treasure city of Raamses in  Ex. 1:11, “we have seen that there is no possibility of reconciling the Mosaic narrative as it now stands, with a 1290 date.” This labor upon the city of Raamses must have been carried on prior to the birth of Moses, unless the  Ex. 1:15 account is out of chronological sequence and the name “Raamses” was an anachronism (and the strength of this whole argument is that this name was not an anachronism). Yet between 1300, the approximate date of the accession of Rameses II to the throne, and the year 1290 there is no room for the eighty years of Moses’ life prior to the event of the Exodus itself. Therefore the 1290 date cannot be seriously considered as a theory reconcilable with the accuracy of the Hebrew account. Actually the prime advocates of this view do not, as a rule, hold to the reliability of the Mosaic narrative, but (as in the case of Meek and Albright) deny that the Joseph tribes (Ephraim and Manasseh) ever sojoumed in Egypt, but rather the Levites alone, or possibly the tribe of Judah also.

     On the strength of the Israel stela of Merneptah the adherents of the 1290 date have rightly urged that the Israelites must already have been settled in Palestine at least by 1229 B.C., and that this makes it very difficult to hold the older theory that Merneptah (1234–1225) was the pharaoh of the Exodus. It is a necessary inference from the Merneptah stela that Israel was already in Palestine, dwelling among the Hittites, Ashkelon, Gezer, and the Horites ( 11.26 ff.). Kyle’s suggestion (in the ISBE article on the Exodus) that “Israel is laid waste, his seed is not” refers to the program of killing off the male babies of Israel eighty years before, while still enslaved in Egypt, is hardly worth serious consideration.

A Survey of Old Testament Introduction

The Coming Prince

By Sir Robert Anderson 1841-1918

Chapter 4 The Vision By The River Of Ulai

     "The times of the Gentiles;" thus it was that Christ Himself described the era of Gentile supremacy. Men have come to regard the earth as their own domain, and to resent the thought of Divine interference in their affairs. But though monarchs seem to owe their thrones to dynastic claims, the sword or the ballot-box, — and in their individual capacity their title may rest solely upon these, — the power they wield is divinely delegated, for "the Most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever He will." (Daniel 4:25)

Daniel 4:25 that you shall be driven from among men, and your dwelling shall be with the beasts of the field. You shall be made to eat grass like an ox, and you shall be wet with the dew of heaven, and seven periods of time shall pass over you, till you know that the Most High rules the kingdom of men and gives it to whom he will.   ESV

     In the exercise of this high prerogative He took back the scepter He had entrusted to the house of David, and transferred it to Gentile hands; and the history of that scepter during the entire period, from the epoch to the close of the times of the Gentiles, is the subject of the prophet's earlier visions.

     The vision of the eighth chapter of Daniel has a narrower range. It deals only with the two kingdoms which were represented by the middle portion, or arms and body, of the image of the second chapter. The Medo-Persian Empire, and the relative superiority of the younger nation, are represented by a ram with two horns, one of which was higher than the other, though the last to grow. And the rise of the Grecian Empire under Alexander, followed by its division among his four successors, is typified by a goat with a single horn between its eyes, which horn was broken and gave place to four horns that came up instead of it. Out of one of these horns came forth a little horn, representing a king who should become infamous as a blasphemer of God and a persecutor of His people.

     That the career of Antiochus Epiphanes was in a special way within the scope and meaning of this prophecy is unquestioned. That its ultimate fulfillment belongs to a future time, though not so generally admitted, is nevertheless sufficiently clear. The proof of it is twofold. First, it cannot but be recognized that its most striking details remain wholly unfulfilled. [1] And secondly, the events described are expressly stated to be "in the last end of the indignation," (Daniel 8:19) which is "the great tribulation" of the last days, (Matthew 24:21) "the time of trouble" which is immediately to precede the complete deliverance of Judah. [2]

[1] I allude to the 2, 300 days of verse 14, and to the statement of verse 25, "He shall also stand up against the Prince of Princes, but he shall be broken without hand."

[2] "And there shall be a time of trouble such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time; and at that time thy people shall be delivered," — i. e., the Jews (Daniel 12:1).

[3] The following is the vision of the eighth chapter:

Daniel 8:1 1 In the third year of the reign of King Belshazzar a vision appeared to me, Daniel, after that which appeared to me at the first. 2 And I saw in the vision; and when I saw, I was in Susa the citadel, which is in the province of Elam. And I saw in the vision, and I was at the Ulai canal. 3 I raised my eyes and saw, and behold, a ram standing on the bank of the canal. It had two horns, and both horns were high, but one was higher than the other, and the higher one came up last. 4 I saw the ram charging westward and northward and southward. No beast could stand before him, and there was no one who could rescue from his power. He did as he pleased and became great.

5 As I was considering, behold, a male goat came from the west across the face of the whole earth, without touching the ground. And the goat had a conspicuous horn between his eyes. 6 He came to the ram with the two horns, which I had seen standing on the bank of the canal, and he ran at him in his powerful wrath. 7 I saw him come close to the ram, and he was enraged against him and struck the ram and broke his two horns. And the ram had no power to stand before him, but he cast him down to the ground and trampled on him. And there was no one who could rescue the ram from his power. 8 Then the goat became exceedingly great, but when he was strong, the great horn was broken, and instead of it there came up four conspicuous horns toward the four winds of heaven.

9 Out of one of them came a little horn, which grew exceedingly great toward the south, toward the east, and toward the glorious land. 10 It grew great, even to the host of heaven. And some of the host and some of the stars it threw down to the ground and trampled on them. 11 It became great, even as great as the Prince of the host. And the regular burnt offering was taken away from him, and the place of his sanctuary was overthrown. 12 And a host will be given over to it together with the regular burnt offering because of transgression, and it will throw truth to the ground, and it will act and prosper. 13 Then I heard a holy one speaking, and another holy one said to the one who spoke, “For how long is the vision concerning the regular burnt offering, the transgression that makes desolate, and the giving over of the sanctuary and host to be trampled underfoot?” 14 And he said to me, “For 2,300 evenings and mornings. Then the sanctuary shall be restored to its rightful state.   ESV

The Continual Burnt Offering

By H.A. Ironside - 1941

March 23

I cannot tell why life should thus be shorn,—
Or heart thus emptied be:
Why stricken, broken, desolate, forlorn,
Should be my life’s decree:
Yet—through my blinding tears I fain would trace
The unchanged outline of Thy tender face.
--- J. Danson Smith

By James Orr 1907

II. THE HISTORICAL POSITION OF DAVID AS PSALMIST

In opposition to the Biblical tradition, the position taken up by the critics is, that the historical David is not an individual to whom compositions like the  Psalms can with propriety be attributed: and, generally, that the  Psalms imply a stage of religious development far in advance of that of the Davidic age. We do not go back on the question of the religious development, further than to remind the reader that, till lately, critical experts felt no difficulty on this point, but would here ask whether the accounts we have of David are such as to negative his authorship of many of the  Psalms. We assume that the accounts we have rest on good prophetic narratives, when the memory of David’s personality and reign was still fresh, and when his virtues and failings were recorded with equal fidelity.

1. We begin with a brief survey of David’s career.

(1) It will not be denied that, in the history, David’s character as a young man is as free from blemish as anyone could wish. He is chosen by Samuel above the other sons of Jesse on the ground that “man looketh on the outward appearance, but Jehovah looketh on the heart.” Saul’s servants attest regarding him that “he is cunning in playing, and a mighty man of valour, and a man of war, and prudent in speech, and a comely person, and Jehovah is with him.” His character comes out at its best in his encounter with Goliath. Here we see the whole man revealed — his dauntlessness, his faith in God, his unerring skill with the sling, his quiet modesty and decision of character, the energy that slumbered behind. The women who came out to meet him with chants and music only echoed the universal feeling that in this stripling lay the makings of the kingliest man in Israel.

(2) In his life at the court of Saul, David’s character is equally admirable. As a popular hero he had no rival; he was fast friend to Jonathan; he was set over the men of war; he ate at the king’s table, and soon became Saul’s son-in-law. But honours like these did not make his brain whirl, or his feet slide. His record at court is a strictly honourable one. He “went out whithersoever Saul sent him, and behaved himself wisely; and Saul set him over the men of war, and it was good in the sight of all the people, and also in the sight of Saul’s servants.” Another record about him is — and this is after the tide of favour had turned, and he had become the object of Saul’s deadly jealousy: “And David behaved himself wisely in all his ways, and Jehovah was with him. And when Saul saw that he behaved himself very wisely, he stood in awe of him. But all Israel and Judah loved David; for he went out and came in before them.” David’s position, we see from the narrative, soon became a very difficult one. Jonathan was with him, but Saul had become his bitter enemy. His life was sought, both openly and by plot and intrigue, and, with the change in the king’s mood, envious, rancorous tongues would not be wanting to shoot their shafts at him. But, amidst all, as David showed no vanity or pride in the day of his prosperity, so now he makes no attempt, by counter-intrigue, to retaliate upon, or overthrow his enemies, in the day of adversity. Saul deals wrongly towards him, but he behaves with unimpeachable fidelity towards Saul. His life at court maintains the promise of his boyhood.

(3) David is next beheld in another light, as chief of a band of outlaws, maintaining a precarious existence among the caves and fastnesses of Southern Judea. The position was not one of his seeking, but, driven into it, he made the best of it a man could. His first task was to reduce this band of broken, desperate men — many of them, probably, like himself, the victims of misgovernment and oppression — into something like order and discipline, and in this, it is evident, he admirably succeeded. His next task was to find for them useful employment. The term “freebooter” is sometimes applied to David at this period of his career; but if by “freebooter” is meant a chief subsisting by lawless plunder, nothing could be further from the truth. The employment David found for his men was of a different order. Part of it, as we see from the case of Nabal, consisted in acting as a kind of armed police, protecting the flocks and herds of the districts in which they lived from the raids of the Philistines, or of the robber - tribes of the desert. “The men,” said Nabal’s servants, “were very good unto us, and we were not hurt, neither missed we anything, so long as we were conversant with them, when we were in the fields; they were a wall unto us both by night and by day, all the while we were with them keeping the sheep.” The other part of their employment lay in direct war against the Philistines, when the latter came out on their marauding expeditions. The relief of the town of Keilah is an instance. A man would have been more than human had he made no slips, committed no mistakes, in such straits; but such as David’s were, e.g., his deception of Ahimelech and flight to Achish — an initial failure of faith — they are impartially recorded, and, taken as a whole, the tenor of his life in this period is singularly to his credit. He was at the time the object of unremitting persecution by Saul. Against this one man, innocent of crime, with his 600 followers, Saul was not ashamed to bring into the field an army of 3000, hunting him from rock to rock, and district to district, setting a price upon his head, and gladly availing himself of information treacherously given by those with whom David was in hiding. In light of these facts, it is difficult to exaggerate the nobleness of David’s conduct. Not one act did he do, through all these years of persecution, which might be construed into rebellion against Saul; and when twice, in the heat of Saul’s pursuit of him, that monarch’s life was at his mercy, twice, against the wishes of his followers, he magnanimously spared him. It was another false step, but probably prompted by the same desire to avoid collision with Saul, when, in a mood of despair, he betook himself a second time to Gath, there, by acceptance of Ziklag, to become a vassal of the Philistines — an act which involved him in a course of evasion impossible to justify, and led to complications that nearly proved disastrous.

(4) At length the discipline of trial came to an end, and David is seen firmly planted on the throne as ruler. Saul was slain on Gilboa, and in deep-toned and affecting strains, remembering not the evil, but the good that was in the fallen king, David poured out his soul in touching lament for him and Jonathan. The way was now clear for David to ascend the throne, and he did so, first at Hebron, as king of Judah, then, seven years after, at Hebron again, as king of all Israel. His great powers were now to be displayed to full advantage. Saul’s reign, begun with promise, had ended in darkness and disaster. His death left the kingdom in disunity and disorganisation, a prey to Philistine oppression; religion was trampled under foot, and there was no security for person or property. In no long space of time, David had cleared the country of its invaders, had restored to it its independence, had united its tribes, had re-established its liberties upon a just foundation, and had done much to revive the waning influence of religion. With true soldierly instinct, he fixed his eye on the rock fortress of Jebus as the natural capital of the nation, and one of his first steps was to possess himself of this stronghold. His next care was to bring up the ark of God, and reorganise the worship of Jehovah at Zion. Powerful confederations having been formed to crush his rising power, he called out his forces, and struck a succession of blows, which not only delivered him from the danger, but made him overlord of the whole country from the river of Egypt to the Euphrates. He had even in contemplation the building of a temple; but this the divine voice forbade, while rewarding his intention with the promise that his seed should sit upon his throne for ever.

Such were some of David’s services to his age; surveying them impartially, we cannot wonder that his memory should be embalmed with lively gratitude in the minds of the Israelites as that of their first great and godlike king. Over against these services are to be placed the blots on his private life and reign: his polygamy — no sin, however, by the then existing code — his overindulgence to his children, some acts of severity in war, but, above all, the one great, black crime of his adultery with Bathsheba and the murder of her husband Uriah. Nothing can palliate this crime; yet even here, while condemning David, it is necessary to try to be just. For a Pharaoh, a Nebuchadnezzar, a Xerxes, or other Oriental monarch to covet the wife of a subject, and give orders for the death of her husband, would have seemed to most ancient historians a venial enough fault, and they would probably not have occupied half a dozen lines with the relation. It is the Biblical history itself, by the bold relief into which it throws this shameful incident, — by its impartiality in narrating, in denouncing, and in declaring the punishment of this sin of David, — which makes it bulk so largely in our minds, and inspires us with such just horror in regard to it. But it is not to be forgotten that the same book which tells us of David’s fall, tells also of his bitter and anguished repentance for the fall, and of the sad and heavy strokes of retribution by which it was avenged. The story of Absalom’s rebellion is a long drawn out commentary on the words in which Nathan announced to David the sorrow that would fall upon his house; but it is also one of the finest revelations in the history of the piety and submissiveness of the man who is said to be “after God’s own heart.” David’s sins were great, but we may trust a Carlyle or a Maurice for a just estimate of his character, rather than the caviller whose chief delight is to magnify his faults.

2. In this varied, many-sided, strangely - chequered life, with its startling vicissitudes, its religious aspiration and endeavour, its heights and depths of experience of good and evil, — with its love of music and gift of lyric song, — with the incitements to the use of that gift springing from the companionship of prophets like Samuel and Nathan, from the promises they gave, and the hopes for the future of the kingdom they inspired, — can anyone say that there is not abundant material for  Psalm - composition, or sufficient motive or skill to engage in it? Had the anointing to be king, the trials at Saul’s court, the vicissitudes of the wilderness persecution, the bringing-up of the ark, the promises of Nathan, the rebellion of Absalom, the sin with Bathsheba itself and the penitence that followed, no power in them to draw forth such psalmody? It is with these very occasions that the  Psalms ascribed to David in the first books are traditionally connected. Can we permit ourselves to believe, without convincing evidence, that tradition was all wrong about this, and that, as Professor W. R. Smith and others will have it, David’s religious muse found utterance rather “in sportful forms of unrestrained mirth,” so that even in the time of Amos, David appears “as the chosen model of the dilettante nobles of Ephraim, who lay stretched on beds of ivory, anointed with the choicest perfumes, and mingling music with their cups in the familiar manner of Oriental luxury.” Let those believe this who can: we cannot. David’s history, whether we gather it from “Saul-Source,” or “David-Source,” or “Jerusalem-Source,” presents no resemblance to this picture of dandified frivolity. Are we to suppose that when David left Nathan after receiving the promises of  2 Sam. 7, it was to give expression to his adoring feelings in sportful ditties — or that Amos thought he did?

In asking whether David actually wrote  Psalms, we seem to find firm foothold in one composition, the genuineness of which it is difficult to dispute —  Ps. 18. There are two recensions of this  Psalm, one in the  Psalter, the other in  2 Sam. 22, and both ascribe the authorship to David. Internal evidence so strongly bears out the claim, that, till recently, few were bold enough to challenge it. Certainly, if any  Psalm is David’s, it is this one, and some, as Schultz, who latterly allowed him no other (earlier he had conceded ten), make exception of this. The  Psalm is interesting in many ways; not least by its strong assertion that Jehovah alone is God (ver.  31 ). Its spiritual strain in such expressions as, “As for God, His way is perfect,” the allusion to a “word of Jehovah” which is “tried” (ver.  30 ), the reference to the promises to David and his seed (ver.  50 ), etc., are stumbling - blocks in the way of the modern theory, which compel resort to a later dating. Yet, if this  Psalm is given up, it is difficult to see what reliance can be put on any nation’s recollections of its great authors or poets. If, however, David wrote this long and virile  Psalm, the probabilities are enormous that he wrote others: the question only is, how many? Baethgen is not sure of more than three ( Ps. 3, 4, 18. ); Ewald, who had a good feeling for style, gave him eleven, with fragments of others; Hitzig, fourteen; Bleek, “no inconsiderable number”; while Delitzsch extended the number to over forty. In the uncertainty attaching to the titles, it is doubtful if any definite conclusions as to number can be reached; though we are disposed to allow more weight than it is now customary to do to the titles of at least the first and second books, which seem to have formed originally (with exclusion of the separate collection,  Ps. 42–50. ) a collection of Davidic  Psalms. In any case we are probably warranted in holding that the number of Davidic  Psalms is not small, and includes most of those which have, with reasonable unanimity, been ascribed to the royal singer. Besides  Psalms which reflect the writer’s personal experiences — under persecution, in penitence, in flight from Absalom, in gratitude for deliverance — there are others evidently composed for special occasions, as, e.g., the bringing up of the ark to Zion ( Ps. 24 ). Most naturally, also, as has been already suggested, those  Psalms which mention the “tabernacle” on Zion ( Pss. 15, 27 ) may be referred to this reign. Be the number of Davidic  Psalms, however, greater or smaller, the inference as to the level of religious belief and practice is not much affected. As anyone can see in reading the  Psalms, practically the same elevated idea of God, the same zeal for righteousness, the same spirit of trust and confidence in Jehovah, the same religious aspirations and affections, are present in all. The fact affords a valuable corroboration of our previous conclusions.

The Problem of the Old Testament

The Institutes of the Christian Religion

Translated by Henry Beveridge

     CHAPTER 9.

OF MEDITATING ON THE FUTURE LIFE.

The three divisions of this chapter,--I. The principal use of the cross is, that it in various ways accustoms us to despise the present, and excites us to aspire to the future life, sec. 1, 2. II. In withdrawing from the present life we must neither shun it nor feel hatred for it; but desiring the future life, gladly quit the present at the command of our sovereign Master, sec. 3, 4. III. Our infirmity in dreading death described. The correction and safe remedy, sec. 6.

Sections.

1. The design of God in afflicting his people. 1. To accustom us to despise the present life. Our infatuated love of it. Afflictions employed as the cure. 2. To lead us to aspire to heaven.

2. Excessive love of the present life prevents us from duly aspiring to the other. Hence the disadvantages of prosperity. Blindness of the human judgment. Our philosophizing on the vanity of life only of momentary influence. The necessity of the cross.

3. The present life an evidence of the divine favour to his people; and therefore, not to be detested. On the contrary, should call forth thanksgiving. The crown of victory in heaven after the contest on earth.

4. Weariness of the present life how to be tempered. The believer's estimate of life. Comparison of the present and the future life. How far the present life should be hated.

5. Christians should not tremble at the fear of death. Two reasons. Objection. Answer. Other reasons.

6. Reasons continued. Conclusion.

1. Whatever be the kind of tribulation with which we are afflicted, we should always consider the end of it to be, that we may be trained to despise the present, and thereby stimulated to aspire to the future life. For since God well knows how strongly we are inclined by nature to a slavish love of this world, in order to prevent us from clinging too strongly to it, he employs the fittest reason for calling us back, and shaking off our lethargy. Every one of us, indeed, would be thought to aspire and aim at heavenly immortality during the whole course of his life. For we would be ashamed in no respect to excel the lower animals; whose condition would not be at all inferior to ours, had we not a hope of immortality beyond the grave. But when you attend to the plans, wishes, and actions of each, you see nothing in them but the earth. Hence our stupidity; our minds being dazzled with the glare of wealth, power, and honours, that they can see no farther. The heart also, engrossed with avarice, ambition, and lust, is weighed down and cannot rise above them. In short, the whole soul, ensnared by the allurements of the flesh, seeks its happiness on the earth. To meet this disease, the Lord makes his people sensible of the vanity of the present life, by a constant proof of its miseries. Thus, that they may not promise themselves deep and lasting peace in it, he often allows them to be assailed by war, tumult, or rapine, or to be disturbed by other injuries. That they may not long with too much eagerness after fleeting and fading riches, or rest in those which they already possess, he reduces them to want, or, at least, restricts them to a moderate allowance, at one time by exile, at another by sterility, at another by fire, or by other means. That they may not indulge too complacently in the advantages of married life, he either vexes them by the misconduct of their partners, or humbles them by the wickedness of their children, or afflicts them by bereavement. But if in all these he is indulgent to them, lest they should either swell with vain-glory, or be elated with confidence, by diseases and dangers he sets palpably before them how unstable and evanescent are all the advantages competent to mortals. We duly profit by the discipline of the cross, when we learn that this life, estimated in itself, is restless, troubled, in numberless ways wretched, and plainly in no respect happy; that what are estimated its blessings are uncertain, fleeting, vain, and vitiated by a great admixture of evil. From this we conclude, that all we have to seek or hope for here is contest; that when we think of the crown we must raise our eyes to heaven. For we must hold, that our mind never rises seriously to desire and aspire after the future, until it has learned to despise the present life.

2. For there is no medium between the two things: the earth must either be worthless in our estimation, or keep us enslaved by an intemperate love of it. Therefore, if we have any regard to eternity, we must carefully strive to disencumber ourselves of these fetters. Moreover, since the present life has many enticements to allure us, and great semblance of delight, grace, and sweetness to soothe us, it is of great consequence to us to be now and then called off from its fascinations. [397] For what, pray, would happen, if we here enjoyed an uninterrupted course of honour and felicity, when even the constant stimulus of affliction cannot arouse us to a due sense of our misery? That human life is like smoke or a shadow, is not only known to the learned; there is not a more trite proverb among the vulgar. Considering it a fact most useful to be known, they have recommended it in many well-known expressions. Still there is no fact which we ponder less carefully, or less frequently remember. For we form all our plans just as if we had fixed our immortality on the earth. If we see a funeral, or walk among graves, as the image of death is then present to the eye, I admit we philosophise admirably on the vanity of life. We do not indeed always do so, for those things often have no effect upon us at all. But, at the best, our philosophy is momentary. It vanishes as soon as we turn our back, and leaves not the vestige of remembrance behind; in short, it passes away, just like the applause of a theatre at some pleasant spectacle. Forgetful not only of death, but also of mortality itself, as if no rumour of it had ever reached us, we indulge in supine security as expecting a terrestrial immortality. Meanwhile, if any one breaks in with the proverb, that man is the creature of a day, [398] we indeed acknowledge its truth, but, so far from giving heed to it, the thought of perpetuity still keeps hold of our minds. Who then can deny that it is of the highest importance to us all, I say not, to be admonished by words, but convinced by all possible experience of the miserable condition of our earthly life; since even when convinced we scarcely cease to gaze upon it with vicious, stupid admiration, as if it contained within itself the sum of all that is good? But if God finds it necessary so to train us, it must be our duty to listen to him when he calls, and shakes us from our torpor, that we may hasten to despise the world, and aspire with our whole heart to the future life.

3. Still the contempt which believers should train themselves to feel for the present life, must not be of a kind to beget hatred of it or ingratitude to God. This life, though abounding in all kinds of wretchedness, is justly classed among divine blessings which are not to be despised. Wherefore, if we do not recognize the kindness of God in it, we are chargeable with no little ingratitude towards him. To believers, especially, it ought to be a proof of divine benevolence, since it is wholly destined to promote their salvation. Before openly exhibiting the inheritance of eternal glory, God is pleased to manifest himself to us as a Father by minor proofs--viz. the blessings which he daily bestows upon us. Therefore, while this life serves to acquaint us with the goodness of God, shall we disdain it as if it did not contain one particle of good? We ought, therefore, to feel and be affected towards it in such a manner as to place it among those gifts of the divine benignity which are by no means to be despised. Were there no proofs in Scripture (they are most numerous and clear), yet nature herself exhorts us to return thanks to God for having brought us forth into light, granted us the use of it, and bestowed upon us all the means necessary for its preservation. And there is a much higher reason when we reflect that here we are in a manner prepared for the glory of the heavenly kingdom. For the Lord hath ordained, that those who are ultimately to be crowned in heaven must maintain a previous warfare on the earth, that they may not triumph before they have overcome the difficulties of war, and obtained the victory. Another reason is, that we here begin to experience in various ways a foretaste of the divine benignity, in order that our hope and desire may be whetted for its full manifestation. When once we have concluded that our earthly life is a gift of the divine mercy, of which, agreeably to our obligation, it behoves us to have a grateful remembrance, we shall then properly descend to consider its most wretched condition, and thus escape from that excessive fondness for it, to which, as I have said, we are naturally prone.

4. In proportion as this improper love diminishes, our desire of a better life should increase. I confess, indeed, that a most accurate opinion was formed by those who thought, that the best thing was not to be born, the next best to die early. For, being destitute of the light of God and of true religion, what could they see in it that was not of dire and evil omen? Nor was it unreasonable for those [399] who felt sorrow and shed tears at the birth of their kindred, to keep holiday at their deaths. But this they did without profit; because, devoid of the true doctrine of faith, they saw not how that which in itself is neither happy nor desirable turns to the advantage of the righteous: and hence their opinion issued in despair. Let believers, then, in forming an estimate of this mortal life, and perceiving that in itself it is nothing but misery, make it their aim to exert themselves with greater alacrity, and less hinderance, in aspiring to the future and eternal life. When we contrast the two, the former may not only be securely neglected, but, in comparison of the latter, be disdained and contemned. If heaven is our country, what can the earth be but a place of exile? If departure from the world is entrance into life, what is the world but a sepulchre, and what is residence in it but immersion in death? If to be freed from the body is to gain full possession of freedom, what is the body but a prison? If it is the very summit of happiness to enjoy the presence of God, is it not miserable to want it? But "whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord," (2 Cor. 5:6). Thus when the earthly is compared with the heavenly life, it may undoubtedly be despised and trampled under foot. We ought never, indeed, to regard it with hatred, except in so far as it keeps us subject to sin; and even this hatred ought not to be directed against life itself. At all events, we must stand so affected towards it in regard to weariness or hatred as, while longing for its termination, to be ready at the Lord's will to continue in it, keeping far from everything like murmuring and impatience. For it is as if the Lord had assigned us a post, which we must maintain till he recalls us. Paul, indeed, laments his condition, in being still bound with the fetters of the body, and sighs earnestly for redemption (Rom. 7:24); nevertheless, he declared that, in obedience to the command of Gods he was prepared for both courses, because he acknowledges it as his duty to God to glorify his name whether by life or by death, while it belongs to God to determine what is most conducive to His glory (Phil. 1:20-24). Wherefore, if it becomes us to live and die to the Lord, let us leave the period of our life and death at his disposal. Still let us ardently long for death, and constantly meditate upon it, and in comparison with future immortality, let us despise life, and, on account of the bondage of sin, long to renounce it whenever it shall so please the Lord.

5. But, most strange to say, many who boast of being Christians, instead of thus longing for death, are so afraid of it that they tremble at the very mention of it as a thing ominous and dreadful. We cannot wonder, indeed, that our natural feelings should be somewhat shocked at the mention of our dissolution. But it is altogether intolerable that the light of piety should not be so powerful in a Christian breast as with greater consolation to overcome and suppress that fear. For if we reflect that this our tabernacle, unstable, defective, corruptible, fading, pining, and putrid, is dissolved, in order that it may forthwith be renewed in sure, perfect, incorruptible, in fine, in heavenly glory, will not faith compel us eagerly to desire what nature dreads? If we reflect that by death we are recalled from exile to inhabit our native country, a heavenly country, shall this give us no comfort? But everything longs for permanent existence. I admit this, and therefore contend that we ought to look to future immortality, where we may obtain that fixed condition which nowhere appears on the earth. For Paul admirably enjoins believers to hasten cheerfully to death, not because they "would be unclothed, but clothed upon," (2 Cor. 5:2). Shall the lower animals, and inanimate creatures themselves even wood and stone, as conscious of their present vanity, long for the final resurrection, that they may with the sons of God be delivered from vanity (Rom. 8:19); and shall we, endued with the light of intellect, and more than intellect, enlightened by the Spirit of God, when our essence is in question, rise no higher than the corruption of this earth? But it is not my purpose, nor is this the place, to plead against this great perverseness. At the outset, I declared that I had no wish to engage in a diffuse discussion of common-places. My advice to those whose minds are thus timid is to read the short treatise of Cyprian De Mortalitate, unless it be more accordant with their deserts to send them to the philosophers, that by inspecting what they say on the contempt of death, they may begin to blush. This, however let us hold as fixed, that no man has made much progress in the school of Christ who does not look forward with joy to the day of death and final resurrection (2 Tim. 4:18; Tit. 2:13) for Paul distinguishes all believers by this mark; and the usual course of Scripture is to direct us thither whenever it would furnish us with an argument for substantial joy. "Look up," says our Lord, "and lift up your heads: for your redemption draweth nigh," (Luke 21:28). Is it reasonable, I ask, that what he intended to have a powerful effect in stirring us up to alacrity and exultation should produce nothing but sadness and consternation? If it is so, why do we still glory in him as our Master? Therefore, let us come to a sounder mind, and how repugnant so ever the blind and stupid longing of the flesh may be, let us doubt not to desire the advent of the Lord not in wish only, but with earnest sighs, as the most propitious of all events. He will come as a Redeemer to deliver us from an immense abyss of evil and misery, and lead us to the blessed inheritance of his life and glory.

6. Thus, indeed, it is; the whole body of the faithful, so long as they live on the earth, must be like sheep for the slaughter, in order that they may be conformed to Christ their head (Rom. 8:36). Most deplorable, therefore, would their situation be did they not, by raising their mind to heaven, become superior to all that is in the world, and rise above the present aspect of affairs (1 Cor. 15:19). On the other hand, when once they have raised their head above all earthly objects, though they see the wicked flourishing in wealth and honour, and enjoying profound peace, indulging in luxury and splendour, and revelling in all kinds of delights, though they should moreover be wickedly assailed by them, suffer insult from their pride, be robbed by their avarice, or assailed by any other passion, they will have no difficulty in bearing up under these evils. They will turn their eye to that day (Isaiah 25:8; Rev. 7:17), on which the Lord will receive his faithful servants, wipe away all tears from their eyes, clothe them in a robe of glory and joy, feed them with the ineffable sweetness of his pleasures, exalt them to share with him in his greatness; in fine, admit them to a participation in his happiness. But the wicked who may have flourished on the earth, he will cast forth in extreme ignominy, will change their delights into torments, their laughter and joy into wailing and gnashing of teeth, their peace into the gnawing of conscience, and punish their luxury with unquenchable fire. He will also place their necks under the feet of the godly, whose patience they abused. For, as Paul declares, "it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you; and to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven," (2 Thess. 1:6, 7). This, indeed, is our only consolation; deprived of it, we must either give way to despondency, or resort to our destruction to the vain solace of the world. The Psalmist confesses, "My feet were almost gone: my steps had well nigh slipt: for I was envious at the foolish when I saw the prosperity of the wicked," (Psalm 73:3, 4); and he found no resting-place until he entered the sanctuary, and considered the latter end of the righteous and the wicked. To conclude in one word, the cross of Christ then only triumphs in the breasts of believers over the devil and the flesh, sin and sinners, when their eyes are directed to the power of his resurrection.

__________________________________________________________________

[397] French, "Or pource que la vie presente a tousiours force de delices pour nous attraire, et a grande apparence d'amenité, de grace et de douceur pour nous amieller, il nous est bien mestier d'estre retiré d'heure en d'heure, à ce que nous ne soyons point abusez, et comme ensorcelez de telles flatteries;"--Now because the present life has always a host of delights to attracts, and has great appearance of amenity, grace, and sweetness to entice us, it is of great importance to us to be hourly withdrawn, in order that we may not be deceived, and, as it were, bewitched with such flattery.

[398] Latin, "Animal esseephemeron;" --is an ephemeral animal.

[399] French, "Le peuple des Scythes;"--the Scythians.

__________________________________________________________________

     Christian Classics Ethereal Library / Public Domain

     Institutes of the Christian Religion