Esther 1 - 5
The King’s BanquetsEsther 1:1 Now in the days of Ahasuerus, the Ahasuerus who reigned from India to Ethiopia over 127 provinces, 2 in those days when King Ahasuerus sat on his royal throne in Susa, the citadel, 3 in the third year of his reign he gave a feast for all his officials and servants. The army of Persia and Media and the nobles and governors of the provinces were before him, 4 while he showed the riches of his royal glory and the splendor and pomp of his greatness for many days, 180 days. 5 And when these days were completed, the king gave for all the people present in Susa the citadel, both great and small, a feast lasting for seven days in the court of the garden of the king’s palace. 6 There were white cotton curtains and violet hangings fastened with cords of fine linen and purple to silver rods and marble pillars, and also couches of gold and silver on a mosaic pavement of porphyry, marble, mother-of-pearl and precious stones. 7 Drinks were served in golden vessels, vessels of different kinds, and the royal wine was lavished according to the bounty of the king. 8 And drinking was according to this edict: “There is no compulsion.” For the king had given orders to all the staff of his palace to do as each man desired. 9 Queen Vashti also gave a feast for the women in the palace that belonged to King Ahasuerus.
Queen Vashti’s Refusal10 On the seventh day, when the heart of the king was merry with wine, he commanded Mehuman, Biztha, Harbona, Bigtha and Abagtha, Zethar and Carkas, the seven eunuchs who served in the presence of King Ahasuerus, 11 to bring Queen Vashti before the king with her royal crown, in order to show the peoples and the princes her beauty, for she was lovely to look at. 12 But Queen Vashti refused to come at the king’s command delivered by the eunuchs. At this the king became enraged, and his anger burned within him.
13 Then the king said to the wise men who knew the times (for this was the king’s procedure toward all who were versed in law and judgment, 14 the men next to him being Carshena, Shethar, Admatha, Tarshish, Meres, Marsena, and Memucan, the seven princes of Persia and Media, who saw the king’s face, and sat first in the kingdom): 15 “According to the law, what is to be done to Queen Vashti, because she has not performed the command of King Ahasuerus delivered by the eunuchs?” 16 Then Memucan said in the presence of the king and the officials, “Not only against the king has Queen Vashti done wrong, but also against all the officials and all the peoples who are in all the provinces of King Ahasuerus. 17 For the queen’s behavior will be made known to all women, causing them to look at their husbands with contempt, since they will say, ‘King Ahasuerus commanded Queen Vashti to be brought before him, and she did not come.’ 18 This very day the noble women of Persia and Media who have heard of the queen’s behavior will say the same to all the king’s officials, and there will be contempt and wrath in plenty. 19 If it please the king, let a royal order go out from him, and let it be written among the laws of the Persians and the Medes so that it may not be repealed, that Vashti is never again to come before King Ahasuerus. And let the king give her royal position to another who is better than she. 20 So when the decree made by the king is proclaimed throughout all his kingdom, for it is vast, all women will give honor to their husbands, high and low alike.” 21 This advice pleased the king and the princes, and the king did as Memucan proposed. 22 He sent letters to all the royal provinces, to every province in its own script and to every people in its own language, that every man be master in his own household and speak according to the language of his people.
Esther Chosen QueenEsther 2:1 After these things, when the anger of King Ahasuerus had abated, he remembered Vashti and what she had done and what had been decreed against her. 2 Then the king’s young men who attended him said, “Let beautiful young virgins be sought out for the king. 3 And let the king appoint officers in all the provinces of his kingdom to gather all the beautiful young virgins to the harem in Susa the citadel, under custody of Hegai, the king’s eunuch, who is in charge of the women. Let their cosmetics be given them. 4 And let the young woman who pleases the king be queen instead of Vashti.” This pleased the king, and he did so.
5 Now there was a Jew in Susa the citadel whose name was Mordecai, the son of Jair, son of Shimei, son of Kish, a Benjaminite, 6 who had been carried away from Jerusalem among the captives carried away with Jeconiah king of Judah, whom Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon had carried away. 7 He was bringing up Hadassah, that is Esther, the daughter of his uncle, for she had neither father nor mother. The young woman had a beautiful figure and was lovely to look at, and when her father and her mother died, Mordecai took her as his own daughter. 8 So when the king’s order and his edict were proclaimed, and when many young women were gathered in Susa the citadel in custody of Hegai, Esther also was taken into the king’s palace and put in custody of Hegai, who had charge of the women. 9 And the young woman pleased him and won his favor. And he quickly provided her with her cosmetics and her portion of food, and with seven chosen young women from the king’s palace, and advanced her and her young women to the best place in the harem. 10 Esther had not made known her people or kindred, for Mordecai had commanded her not to make it known. 11 And every day Mordecai walked in front of the court of the harem to learn how Esther was and what was happening to her.
12 Now when the turn came for each young woman to go in to King Ahasuerus, after being twelve months under the regulations for the women, since this was the regular period of their beautifying, six months with oil of myrrh and six months with spices and ointments for women— 13 when the young woman went in to the king in this way, she was given whatever she desired to take with her from the harem to the king’s palace. 14 In the evening she would go in, and in the morning she would return to the second harem in custody of Shaashgaz, the king’s eunuch, who was in charge of the concubines. She would not go in to the king again, unless the king delighted in her and she was summoned by name.
15 When the turn came for Esther the daughter of Abihail the uncle of Mordecai, who had taken her as his own daughter, to go in to the king, she asked for nothing except what Hegai the king’s eunuch, who had charge of the women, advised. Now Esther was winning favor in the eyes of all who saw her. 16 And when Esther was taken to King Ahasuerus, into his royal palace, in the tenth month, which is the month of Tebeth, in the seventh year of his reign, 17 the king loved Esther more than all the women, and she won grace and favor in his sight more than all the virgins, so that he set the royal crown on her head and made her queen instead of Vashti. 18 Then the king gave a great feast for all his officials and servants; it was Esther’s feast. He also granted a remission of taxes to the provinces and gave gifts with royal generosity.
Mordecai Discovers a Plot19 Now when the virgins were gathered together the second time, Mordecai was sitting at the king’s gate. 20 Esther had not made known her kindred or her people, as Mordecai had commanded her, for Esther obeyed Mordecai just as when she was brought up by him. 21 In those days, as Mordecai was sitting at the king’s gate, Bigthan and Teresh, two of the king’s eunuchs, who guarded the threshold, became angry and sought to lay hands on King Ahasuerus. 22 And this came to the knowledge of Mordecai, and he told it to Queen Esther, and Esther told the king in the name of Mordecai. 23 When the affair was investigated and found to be so, the men were both hanged on the gallows. And it was recorded in the book of the chronicles in the presence of the king.
Haman Plots Against the JewsEsther 3:1 After these things King Ahasuerus promoted Haman the Agagite, ( There is an important story here. What is an Agagite? How does this name, this spirit relate to us now? Brett Meador unfolds the story in Gag Me With An Agagite in the panel on the right side of this web page. Click on Esther 1 - 5. the son of Hammedatha, and advanced him and set his throne above all the officials who were with him. 2 And all the king’s servants who were at the king’s gate bowed down and paid homage to Haman, for the king had so commanded concerning him. But Mordecai did not bow down or pay homage. 3 Then the king’s servants who were at the king’s gate said to Mordecai, “Why do you transgress the king’s command?” 4 And when they spoke to him day after day and he would not listen to them, they told Haman, in order to see whether Mordecai’s words would stand, for he had told them that he was a Jew. 5 And when Haman saw that Mordecai did not bow down or pay homage to him, Haman was filled with fury. 6 But he disdained to lay hands on Mordecai alone. So, as they had made known to him the people of Mordecai, Haman sought to destroy all the Jews, the people of Mordecai, throughout the whole kingdom of Ahasuerus.
7 In the first month, which is the month of Nisan, in the twelfth year of King Ahasuerus, they cast Pur (that is, they cast lots) before Haman day after day; and they cast it month after month till the twelfth month, which is the month of Adar. 8 Then Haman said to King Ahasuerus, “There is a certain people scattered abroad and dispersed among the peoples in all the provinces of your kingdom. Their laws are different from those of every other people, and they do not keep the king’s laws, so that it is not to the king’s profit to tolerate them. 9 If it please the king, let it be decreed that they be destroyed, and I will pay 10,000 talents of silver into the hands of those who have charge of the king’s business, that they may put it into the king’s treasuries.” 10 So the king took his signet ring from his hand and gave it to Haman the Agagite, the son of Hammedatha, the enemy of the Jews. 11 And the king said to Haman, “The money is given to you, the people also, to do with them as it seems good to you.”
12 Then the king’s scribes were summoned on the thirteenth day of the first month, and an edict, according to all that Haman commanded, was written to the king’s satraps and to the governors over all the provinces and to the officials of all the peoples, to every province in its own script and every people in its own language. It was written in the name of King Ahasuerus and sealed with the king’s signet ring. 13 Letters were sent by couriers to all the king’s provinces with instruction to destroy, to kill, and to annihilate all Jews, young and old, women and children, in one day, the thirteenth day of the twelfth month, which is the month of Adar, and to plunder their goods. 14 A copy of the document was to be issued as a decree in every province by proclamation to all the peoples to be ready for that day. 15 The couriers went out hurriedly by order of the king, and the decree was issued in Susa the citadel. And the king and Haman sat down to drink, but the city of Susa was thrown into confusion.
Esther Agrees to Help the JewsEsther 4:1 When Mordecai learned all that had been done, Mordecai tore his clothes and put on sackcloth and ashes, and went out into the midst of the city, and he cried out with a loud and bitter cry. 2 He went up to the entrance of the king’s gate, for no one was allowed to enter the king’s gate clothed in sackcloth. 3 And in every province, wherever the king’s command and his decree reached, there was great mourning among the Jews, with fasting and weeping and lamenting, and many of them lay in sackcloth and ashes.
4 When Esther’s young women and her eunuchs came and told her, the queen was deeply distressed. She sent garments to clothe Mordecai, so that he might take off his sackcloth, but he would not accept them. 5 Then Esther called for Hathach, one of the king’s eunuchs, who had been appointed to attend her, and ordered him to go to Mordecai to learn what this was and why it was. 6 Hathach went out to Mordecai in the open square of the city in front of the king’s gate, 7 and Mordecai told him all that had happened to him, and the exact sum of money that Haman had promised to pay into the king’s treasuries for the destruction of the Jews. 8 Mordecai also gave him a copy of the written decree issued in Susa for their destruction, that he might show it to Esther and explain it to her and command her to go to the king to beg his favor and plead with him on behalf of her people. 9 And Hathach went and told Esther what Mordecai had said. 10 Then Esther spoke to Hathach and commanded him to go to Mordecai and say, 11 “All the king’s servants and the people of the king’s provinces know that if any man or woman goes to the king inside the inner court without being called, there is but one law—to be put to death, except the one to whom the king holds out the golden scepter so that he may live. But as for me, I have not been called to come in to the king these thirty days.”
12 And they told Mordecai what Esther had said. 13 Then Mordecai told them to reply to Esther, “Do not think to yourself that in the king’s palace you will escape any more than all the other Jews. 14 For if you keep silent at this time, relief and deliverance will rise for the Jews from another place, but you and your father’s house will perish. And who knows whether you have not come to the kingdom for such a time as this?” 15 Then Esther told them to reply to Mordecai, 16 “Go, gather all the Jews to be found in Susa, and hold a fast on my behalf, and do not eat or drink for three days, night or day. I and my young women will also fast as you do. Then I will go to the king, though it is against the law, and if I perish, I perish.” 17 Mordecai then went away and did everything as Esther had ordered him.
Esther Prepares a BanquetEsther 5:1 On the third day Esther put on her royal robes and stood in the inner court of the king’s palace, in front of the king’s quarters, while the king was sitting on his royal throne inside the throne room opposite the entrance to the palace. 2 And when the king saw Queen Esther standing in the court, she won favor in his sight, and he held out to Esther the golden scepter that was in his hand. Then Esther approached and touched the tip of the scepter. 3 And the king said to her, “What is it, Queen Esther? What is your request? It shall be given you, even to the half of my kingdom.” 4 And Esther said, “If it please the king, let the king and Haman come today to a feast that I have prepared for the king.” 5 Then the king said, “Bring Haman quickly, so that we may do as Esther has asked.” So the king and Haman came to the feast that Esther had prepared. 6 And as they were drinking wine after the feast, the king said to Esther, “What is your wish? It shall be granted you. And what is your request? Even to the half of my kingdom, it shall be fulfilled.” 7 Then Esther answered, “My wish and my request is: 8 If I have found favor in the sight of the king, and if it please the king to grant my wish and fulfill my request, let the king and Haman come to the feast that I will prepare for them, and tomorrow I will do as the king has said.”
Haman Plans to Hang Mordecai9 And Haman went out that day joyful and glad of heart. But when Haman saw Mordecai in the king’s gate, that he neither rose nor trembled before him, he was filled with wrath against Mordecai. 10 Nevertheless, Haman restrained himself and went home, and he sent and brought his friends and his wife Zeresh. 11 And Haman recounted to them the splendor of his riches, the number of his sons, all the promotions with which the king had honored him, and how he had advanced him above the officials and the servants of the king. 12 Then Haman said, “Even Queen Esther let no one but me come with the king to the feast she prepared. And tomorrow also I am invited by her together with the king. 13 Yet all this is worth nothing to me, so long as I see Mordecai the Jew sitting at the king’s gate.” 14 Then his wife Zeresh and all his friends said to him, “Let a gallows fifty cubits high be made, and in the morning tell the king to have Mordecai hanged upon it. Then go joyfully with the king to the feast.” This idea pleased Haman, and he had the gallows made.
ESV Study Bible
What I'm Reading
Jesus Specifically Said, “I am God”
By J. Warner Wallace 11/7/2016
As a skeptic, I was willing to accept a “nice guy” version of Jesus. You know, the wise sage from the past who was misunderstood and mythicized into something divine by leaders of a movement who were either mistaken or deceptive. Jesus might have been a nice guy and a great teacher, but did he ever really claim to be God? I had atheist friends who knew more about the Gospels than I did, and they said that Jesus never claimed to be God in any of the New Testament accounts. Once I began to examine the Gospels for myself, I discovered my friends were wrong; Jesus did say specifically that He was God. Now don’t get me wrong, Jesus didn’t use those exact words. But His listeners sure understood what He meant.
When God first appeared to Moses in the burning bush, Moses was adept enough to ask God for His name. And God gave Moses an interesting reply:
God said to Moses, “I am who I am. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I AM has sent me to you.’“ (Exodus 3:14)
For generations following this interaction between God and Moses, the Israelites revered the name of God (“I AM”) as a precious title that was not to be slandered or given to anyone or anything other than God himself. Then along came Jesus. The Gospel of John tells us that on a day when the Pharisees were questioning the power, authority and teaching of Jesus, they actually accused Him of being demon possessed. Look at how He responded:
James "Jim" Warner Wallace (born June 16, 1961) is an American homicide detective and Christian apologist. Wallace is a Senior Fellow at the Colson Center for Christian Worldview and an Adjunct Professor of Apologetics at Biola University in La Mirada, California. He has authored several books, including Cold-Case Christianity, God’s Crime Scene, and Forensic Faith, in which he applies principles of cold case homicide investigation to apologetic concerns such as the existence of God and the reliability of the Gospels.
The Faith of Demons
By R.C. Sproul Jr. 4/1/2008
While written creeds have their advantages, unwritten creeds have a few as well. With a written creed we are able to nail down precise language. We can affirm this and deny that. Everyone is able to make a conscious decision about whether or not they agree. This, in turn, mirrors at least one of the benefits of an unwritten creed. First, it leaves more wiggle room. Second, if the creed is unwritten, there is no place to sign on the dotted line. If there is no list of signatories, it’s so much easier to simply assume that everyone is on board. It’s not an easy thing to deny a creed that hasn’t really been written.
Sociologists and historians often wrangle over exactly what it means to be American. In a debate reminiscent of psychologists arguing the old nature versus nurture conundrum, these scholars dicker over whether American culture is defined by kinship or ideology. Are we Americans because our ancestors came mostly from western Europe, or are we Americans because we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal? Is our corporate identity the result of genetic history, or the history of ideas? Is it un-American to dislike baseball, hot dogs, apple pie, and Chevrolet, or is it un-American to hail from Mexico?
Whichever side one takes, we all have to share this creed, to make this confession — that there is now, and has always been, a series of unwritten commitments we are supposed to share as Americans. Even if we think that to be American is to be anglo, we still have to confess the reality of these unwritten creeds. These may and probably will change over time (another “benefit” of having them unwritten), but they are there nonetheless. Just as with theological creeds, these creeds serve to bring unity out of diversity. In our day, however, we are unified by a creed that of necessity divides us.
The central pillar of faith for our culture, that form of unity that forms our unity is simply this: there is no such thing as true and false. This is the creed of our culture, the one, unspoken unifying principle to which everyone is expected to submit. Trouble is, this unifying creed cannot unify. It is, by its very nature, divisive. Whereas historical creeds, like the Three Forms of Unity, exist to say, “Here is where you and I agree” our modern, or, rather, postmodern American creed affirms, “You and I cannot agree, and even if we did, it wouldn’t really mean anything.” Our creed affirms that we each have our own truth, that we each create our own little world, that we are each locked into a solipsistic cage.
Our creed also suffers from this obvious weakness: it is patently and immediately false. We are united around a creed that cannot even stand on its own weight. Our creed, if it is true, is false. And if it is false, it is false. Which tells us it is false. That is, if it is true that there is no such thing as true and false, then we cannot say that it is true that there is no such thing as true and false. This absurdity may have some entertainment value to us, but keep in mind, this quicksand is the very pillar and foundation of our culture. Suddenly, it’s not so funny.
A greater irony than the absurdity of the creed, however, is the fanaticism of its adherents. It did not become our national creed by a slow and steady winning of adherents. Instead, we have a culture that shrilly demands that all men everywhere bow before this principle, that we all bend our knee and confess with our tongue that there is no such thing as truth. If we don’t, we must be, figuratively, at least for now, crucified.
Our first creed, long before we embrace the Three Forms of Unity, or the Westminster Standards, or even the Apostles’ or Nicene Creeds, is the first creed of the church: “Jesus is Lord.” This Jesus is not a truth. He is not true for me. He is instead the truth. This confession of ours, even as it ran headlong into the creed of Rome, “Caesar is Lord,” runs headlong into the great American Creed. Because we confess that Jesus is Lord, we cannot confess that there is no such thing as truth. This, in turn, is why we evangelicals are finding ourselves more and more compared to the Taliban. This is why Islamic fundamentalism looks to the watching world to be the same thing as evangelical fundamentalism. For now they are content to disparage our character, to paint us in the public eye not merely as unsophisticated rubes, but as dangerous foaming-mouthed fanatics.
And so we should be. Our calling in this context isn’t to negotiate. We ought not labor to show the watching world how reasonable we can be, when reasonable is defined as embracing their creed. Our calling instead is to stand upon the rock, to stand firm and confess our creed with all the greater vigor. Let them despise us for not joining in their “unity.” Let us instead be united to the one who told us to be not surprised when we are hated for His name’s sake. Let us instead seek His kingdom and His righteousness. Let us confess His name before all men, that He might confess our name before His Father.
R.C. Sproul Jr. has served previously as a pastor, professor, and teacher. He is author of numerous books. Some are listed below.
R.C. Sproul Jr. Books | Go to Books Page
What Is Your Only Comfort?
By Kim Riddlebarger 4/1/2008
Of all the Reformation-era catechisms, perhaps none is as well-loved as the Heidelberg Catechism. In the opening question and answer, the personal and distinctive tone of the catechism becomes evident. “What is your only comfort in life and in death?” This is not a theoretical question — “What would be necessary if God were to comfort sinners?” Rather, this is a very practical question — “How do I have comfort as long as I live and then when I die?”
The key word in the opening question is comfort (German, trost). The word refers to our assurance and confidence in the finished work of Christ. This comfort extends to all of life and even to the hour of death. As one of the authors of the catechism (Zacharius Ursinus) puts it in his commentary on the catechism, this comfort entails “the assurance of the free remission of sin, and of reconciliation with God by and on account of Christ, and a certain expectation of eternal life; impressed upon the heart by the Holy Spirit through the gospel, so that we have no doubt but that we are saved forever, according to the declaration of the apostle Paul: Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?” Note that the catechism speaks of our “only” comfort. There is no other such comfort and assurance to be found apart from Christ.
(Ro 8:38–39) 38 For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, 39 nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. ESV
In answering the opening question, the catechism asserts that “I, with body and soul, both in life and in death,” will have this comfort. A paraphrase of Romans 14:7–8 here, we are reminded that God’s care extends to us throughout the course of our lives. Christ has removed the curse; there is assurance of salvation in this life and the resurrection of our bodies at the end of the age (see Q and A 57–58). This knowledge comforts us now and prepares us for whatever lies ahead.
(Ro 14:7–8) 7 For none of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself. 8 For if we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord. So then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord’s. ESV
Our comfort derives from the fact that “I am not my own.” These words are taken from 1 Corinthians 6:19–20: “You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.” We are Christ’s, and He will do with us as He wills. This comfort is based on the fact that God is sovereign and has the power to do as He has promised.
This wonderful fact is further spelled out in the next part of the answer. “But [I] belong to my faithful Savior Jesus Christ.” The catechism directs us away from our faith (the subjective) to Christ’s obedience — my “faithful” Savior (the objective). Christ fulfilled all righteousness and died for our sin upon the cross for me. The specifics of Christ’s obedience are spelled out in more detail in the next part of the answer: “who with His precious blood.” These words come from 1 Peter 1:18–19: “… knowing that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot.” The death of Christ is the only means by which the guilt of human sin can be removed (expiation) and the wrath of God turned aside (propitiation). The catechism reminds us that the ground of our salvation is the work of Christ for us, not our faith or our own good works.
Next, the first answer of the catechism tells us that the death of Jesus lies at the heart of this promised salvation because He “has fully satisfied for all my sins.” Christ’s death alone satisfies the justice of the holy God (Rom. 3:21–26). No human work or religious ceremony can do this. Not only that, but His death has “redeemed me from all the power of the devil.” This is an echo from 1 John 3:8: “The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil.” Satan has been cast out of heaven so that he can no longer accuse us before the heavenly court. Christ’s victory over him is evident at the cross (Col. 2:13–15).
(Ro 3:21–26) 21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. ESV
8 Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil. ESV
(Col 2:13–15) 13 And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, 14 by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. 15 He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him. ESV
The catechism then states the precious truth that our assurance of salvation and our perseverance in faith are also the work of Christ. “[Christ] so preserves me that without the will of my Father in heaven not a hair can fall from my head.” This is taken from Matthew 10:29–30: “Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? And not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father. But even the hairs of your head are all numbered.” To possess the comfort promised in the Gospel, I need to know that God’s sovereign care extends to all aspects of my life. Nothing happens to me apart from the will of God. In fact, “all things must work together for my salvation” (see Rom. 8:28). God has ordained all things. He redeems us from sin. And in the end, God will turn it to my good.
(Mt 10:29–30) 29 Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? And not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father. 30 But even the hairs of your head are all numbered. ESV
(Ro 8:28) 28 And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. ESV
Finally, we learn that this comfort becomes mine through the work of the Holy Spirit. “Wherefore, by His Holy Spirit, He also assures me of eternal life.” The Holy Spirit bears witness to the truth of God’s Word and confirms the promise God made to me that He will save all those who trust in Christ. This same indwelling Spirit “makes me heartily willing and ready from now on to live unto Him.” It is God who will see His good work through to the end. That one who justifies me will also sanctify me. He who began a good work in me will see it through to the end.
Dr. Kim Riddlebarger is senior pastor of Christ Reformed Church in Anaheim, Calif. He is cohost of The White Horse Inn.
Kim Riddlebarger Books:
Dante on Virtue and Vice
By Cornelis P. Venema 5/1/2008
Dante ranks right up there with Shakespeare and Homer as the greatest writers of our civilization. Though the Italian poet, who lived from 1265 to 1321, embodies the High Middle Ages, he is sometimes called a proto-reformer for his bold condemnation of the popes of his day and his searing indictments of the corruption in the church of Rome.
Dante’s Divine Comedy is an allegory, that is, a story consisting of symbols. His hair-raising depiction of hell in “The Inferno” symbolizes what sin is, with the punishment of the different vices giving insight into why those vices are so wrong. You do not have to believe in purgatory to appreciate what Dante is doing in “The Purgatorio,” namely, symbolizing what it means to turn away from the different vices. And “The Paradiso” is a wondrous symbolic exploration of the love of God, with His light reflected to each other by the redeemed, whom Dante portrays as “mirrors” of God’s love.
With a great writer, symbols do not only stand for some idea; rather, they are ways of exploring that idea, presenting it in concrete, imaginative terms that can illuminate what it means. Consider, for example, how Dante writes about the seven deadly sins and the corresponding virtues.
Dante imagines purgatory — not as his church depicted it, as a realm of fiery torment and cashed indulgences — but as a terraced mountain with each level designed to purge one of the seven deadly sins. When the soul is cured of each vice, it “feels free” to advance to the next level. According to Dante, each of the seven deadly sins is a problem with love. Christians overcome their propensity for each of these sins by learning to love correctly.
The first terraces are for the vices that consist of loving oneself at the expense of loving others. The lowest level is for the unalloyed self-love that is Pride. (The sinners here must carry huge rocks on their backs, forcing them to bend low and to gaze on the earth until they learn humility.) The next terrace is for Envy, another kind of self-love. Instead of loving one’s neighbor, the envious person actually suffers because of his neighbor’s happiness. (The sinners here have their eyes sewn up until they learn to help each other.) The next terrace is for Wrath, the self-love that releases one’s own angry emotions at the expense of the neighbor. (Sinners here live in obscuring smoke, but they are given visions of people who demonstrate gentleness and forbearance so that the angry can learn from their examples.)
The fourth terrace is for Sloth, which Dante defines as the lack of love. For Dante, Sloth is not just laziness, but something like the besetting sin of our own day: boredom. Those who love only themselves at least love something, but the slothful do not even love themselves, sinking into a self-destructive inactivity. Nor do they love anything outside themselves, being bored with the world. (Dante forces the slothful into activity, making them run sprints around the mountain while reciting stories of both shameful sloth and decisive zeal.)
The final four terraces are designed to cure “excessive love,” that is, an extreme love for external goods. Thus, the next terrace is for Greed. People who are greedy do love things other than themselves — money, luxuries, possessions — which is an advance over the first three vices, but they love these material things more than they do their neighbors, to the point that in their greed they sometimes cheat or vaunt over their neighbors. (Dante makes the greedy souls lay face down on the rocky ground, contemplating all the while the virtue of generosity.) The next terrace is for Gluttony, for people who love food more than they do their neighbors (especially in those times of scarcity) or themselves (since eating too much harms the body). (Here the gluttons simply do without until their bodies are emaciated and they learn temperance.) The top terrace is for Lust, which at least is a kind of love directed to another person, but it is also a violation of true love and of God’s design. (The lustful stand in fire, but they are singing as they contemplate chastity.)
When the Christian learns to love the Lord his God and his neighbor as himself, he steps onto the top of the mountain, which is Eden, that earthly paradise from which, in Dante’s geography, we literally fell. To get to heaven, though, requires not even the perfection of human love; rather, it requires God’s grace. The love of God has to descend to raise the human soul into His presence.
Dante’s list of the seven virtues is different than the one used here in this issue of Tabletalk. He combines the four cardinal virtues of the classical pagan world — wisdom, temperance, fortitude, and justice — with the three theological virtues of the New Testament: faith, hope, and love.
The “virtuous pagans” of the first circle of hell were wise, could control their passions, had courage, and were fair to others. These are worthy virtues, and even non-Christians can have them. But, as with the rest of Greco-Roman culture, they had no faith, knowing nothing of Christ and the Gospel. Nor did they have hope; their pagan religion believed that all the dead go down to the dreary darkness of hades. Nor did they have love, as evidenced in their cruelty and infanticide. Imagine, almost 700 years ago, just past the so-called Dark Ages Dante was writing against killing babies! And we think we are so smart.
Those who enter into Paradise must have faith in Christ, who, in turn, is the basis of their hope and the source of their love.
Dr. Cornelis P. Venema is president and professor of doctrinal studies at Mid-America Reformed Seminary and associate pastor of Redeemer URC in Dyer, Ind.
Cornelis P. Venema Books:
- 1 Christ and Covenant Theology: Essays on Election, Republication, and the Covenants
- 2 Promise of the Future
- 3 Christ and the Future
- 4 Getting the Gospel Right: Assessing the Reformation and New Perspectives on Paul
- 5 The Gospel of Free Acceptance in Christ: An Assessment of the Reformation and 'New Perspectives' on Paul
The High Call of Service
By George Grant 5/1/2008
The heroine of My Fair Lady, Eliza Doolittle, captured the sentiment of most of us when she complained, “Words, words, words — I am so sick of words. I get words all day through, first from him, now from you. Is that all you blighters can do?” She was tired of empty rhetoric — as high sounding as it was. Instead, she wanted to see something real.
Talk is cheap. Promises are a dime a dozen. Most of us have had about all of the spin-controlled sound-bites we can stand. We’ve heard just about all the hollow rhetoric we can tolerate. This article was written in 2008, ten years ago. Today is so much worse! We all know that actions speak louder than words. That is a universal truth — no less valid in business or politics or media as in faith or family or church. Good intentions are simply not sufficient. There has to be follow-through. There has to be substance.
John the apostle admonishes us accordingly, “Let us not love in word or talk but in deed and in truth” (1 John 3:18). In the biblical scheme of things, love is something we do, not just something we feel. Mercy is something we extend, not just something we intend. Hope is something we must act on, not just something we harbor. Our orthodoxy (right doctrine) must be matched by orthopraxy (right action). Our life together must be marked by both Word and deed.
This does not by any means minimize the primacy of the Word of God in the Christian life. It is simply a recognition that God’s truth will always bear incarnational, tangible, and demonstrable fruit.
The The Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms As Adopted By the Presbyterian Church in America with Proofs Texts highlights this notion, asserting that the church has been entrusted with “the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God, for the gathering and perfecting of the saints, in this life, to the end of the world” (25.3). In other words, to carry out this stewardship faithfully, the mission of the church must be organized around Word and deed — or what Francis Schaeffer called “contents and realities.”
To that end, from the earliest days of the apostolic church, congregations were purposefully structured for Word and deed ministry. Each local body was to be led by elders who were charged with the weighty task of preserving sound doctrine. They were to teach it, exhort it, nurture it, and highlight it in every aspect of congregational life — in both its evangelism and its discipleship, from its worship to its societal presence. They were to bring the Gospel to bear in Word and deed. That fixedness in the Word was to provoke holiness, godliness, and faithfulness.
In addition to the elders though, those early fellowships were also served by deacons — or more literally, servants. They were to translate the truth of the Word into very practical deeds. They were to make evident the beauty of human relationships transformed, reconciled, and restored by the Gospel. They were to provoke abundant evidence of true koinonia (community). At the same time, they were to ensure that covenantal relationships would show forth selfless service crafted in tenderness, empathy, excellence, intelligence, and glory.
According to Acts 6, the deacons were charged with the responsibility of coordinating, administering, and conducting the charitable generosity and stewardship of the church. It seems that because of the spectacular growth of the Jerusalem congregation, the distribution of food to the needy had gradually become uneven and inefficient. A number of the Grecian widows had been overlooked. The Twelve gathered all the disciples together and said, “It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables. Therefore, brothers, pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we will appoint to this duty. But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word” (vv. 2–4). Thus, these seven men, or deacons as they would later be called, were to practically translate Word into deed. They had as their primary duty the oversight of the mercy ministry of the church. This was the essence of the diaconal function.
Throughout church history, this sort of practical-deeds ministry has been more or less faithfully carried out by men of passion, conviction, and concern — men like William Olney and Joseph Passmore. Olney and Passmore were deacons for many years at London’s Metropolitan Tabernacle during the pastorate of Charles Haddon Spurgeon. Their busy stewardship of service involved the administration of almshouses, orphanages, relief missions, training schools, retirement homes, tract societies, and colportages.
Sadly, in our congregations today this balanced Word and deed vision is, at best, a secondary notion in the functioning of the church offices. Indeed, instead of meting out the succor of compassion in ministries of service, our deacons are often called upon to spend most of their time sitting on committees and launching building drives. Instead of spending and being spent on behalf of the needy, instead of modeling Word and deed, our deacons are waxing the floors of the fellowship hall or dusting the dampers, pew by pew, “and goodness knows what other trifles,” as Olney put it. Consequently, we leave our churches and our communities with the impression that the Gospel really is little more than “Words, words, words.”
Dr. George Grant is pastor of Parish Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Franklin, Tenn., president of King’s Meadow Study Center, and founder of New College Franklin.George Grant Books | Go to Books Page
By Don Carson 5/30/2018
It is a wonderful pairing: “Love and faithfulness meet together.” Then another pairing: “righteousness and peace kiss each other” (Ps. 85:10). Older readers may remember the first of these two lines in the King James Version: “Mercy and truth” meet together.
In English, “mercy and truth”are pretty distinguishable from the NIV’s “love and faithfulness.” But the underlying Hebrew, a very common pairing (as in Ps. 86:15 or Ex. 34:6 — see the meditation for March 23), could be rendered either way. The first word commonly refers to God’s covenantal love, his covenantal mercy — his sheer covenantal goodness or grace, poured out on his undeserving people. The second word varies in its English translation, depending on what is being referred to. When the Queen of Sheba tells Solomon that all that she had heard of him was “true,” literally “the truth” (1 Kings 10) — that is, that the propositional reports corresponded to reality — she uses the word here rendered “faithfulness.” A “true” report is a “faithful” report; when truth is embodied in character, it is faithfulness.
As deployed in this Psalm, the categories are used evocatively. When you read the first pairing, “Love and faithfulness meet together,” it is natural to read them as descriptions of God: God is the God of covenantal grace or love and of utterly reliable fidelity. The second pairing might be taken the same way: God is both unqualifiedly righteous and the well of all well-being. In him, righteousness and peace kiss each other. But in the next verse, the second word from the first pairing and the first word from the second pairing are picked up and put together to introduce a new thought: “Faithfulness springs forth from the earth, and righteousness looks down from heaven” (Ps. 85:11). In the context of the whole Psalm, the people’s faithfulness is apparently being linked with the Lord’s righteousness: the former springs from the earth, while the latter looks down from heaven. It is not absolutely necessary to take things that way, but the psalmist implicitly recognizes the links earlier in his poem: “You forgave the iniquity of your people. . . . Restore us again, O God our Savior. . . . Show us your unfailing love, O LORD. . . he promises peace to his people, his saints — but let them not return to folly” (Ps. 85:2-8, italics added).
However we align these pairings, it is vital to remember that love and faithfulness both belong to God, that righteousness and peace meet and kiss in him. Because of this, God can be both just and the One who justifies the ungodly by graciously giving his Son (Rom. 3:25-26). Should it be surprising to discover that among his image-bearers, love and faithfulness and righteousness and peace go hand in hand, standing together or falling together?
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).Don Carson Books | Go to Books Page
Read The Psalms In "1" Year
Psalm 56God Himself Is Judge
56 A Psalm Of Asaph.
8 You have kept count of my tossings;
put my tears in your bottle.
Are they not in your book?
9 Then my enemies will turn back
in the day when I call.
This I know, that God is for me.
10 In God, whose word I praise,
in the LORD, whose word I praise,
11 in God I trust; I shall not be afraid.
What can man do to me?
12 I must perform my vows to you, O God;
I will render thank offerings to you.
13 For you have delivered my soul from death,
yes, my feet from falling,
that I may walk before God
in the light of life.
By Gleason Archer Jr.
32 | Introduction to Hebrew Poetry
MANY NINETEENTH-CENTURY CRITICS assumed that the Hebrews were incapable of cultivating hymnic, lyric, or didactic poetry until a fairly late period, and then only under the influence of their more cultured neighbors. The more radical representatives of the Rationalist School felt confident in ruling out not only Davidic authorship of any and all of the Psalms, but even the composition of any of them prior to the Babylonian Exile. They did not hesitate to assign a substantial number of them to the Maccabean period (ca. 160 B.C.). The same is true of the other poetical books; Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon were all considered definitely post-exilic.
Characteristics of Hebrew Poetry
In the twentieth century there has been a trend toward moderating this view and conceding that at least some of the Hebrew productions went back to an early period, especially in their original oral form. The discovery of an increasing number of Akkadian and Egyptian hymns has clearly confirmed the early cultivation of this genre by Israel’s neighbors in the second millennium B.C. More recently this has been supplemented by the Ugaritic poetry composed in a Canaanite language very close to Hebrew and dating from the fifteenth century B.C. Most modern critics, therefore, now concede the possibility of early elements going back to the time of David or before, even though the finished production may not have been finally committed to writing until the late monarchy or the post-exilic period. The increasing amount of religious and didactic poetry recovered from almost every culture with which Israel had contact prior to the Exile makes it increasingly difficult to defend the post-exilic thesis for these books. In fact, we may say that these non-Israelite productions of Semitic poetry compel us to conclude that even the Hebrews must have committed their verse to written form, unless they were very backward culturally by comparison with their neighbors.
The most noteworthy characteristic of Hebrew poetry is its parallelism. This term refers to the practice of balancing one thought or phrase by a corresponding thought or phrase containing approximately the same number of words, or at least a correspondence in ideas. In modern times the earliest systematic treatment of Hebrew parallelism was made by Bishop Robert Lowth in his work, De Sacra Poesi Hebraeorum Praelectiones Academicae (“Lectures on the Sacred Poetry of the Hebrews”), published in 1753. There he defined the three basic types of parallelismus membrorum as synonymous, antithetic, and synthetic. More recent authors like S. R. Driver have added a fourth and fifth type, the climactic and the emblematic. We may illustrate these various types by the following examples:
“The earth is the Lord’s, and the fullness thereof;
The world, and they that dwell therein.”
“Day unto day uttereth speech,
And night unto night showeth knowledge.”
“For the Lord knoweth the way of the righteous;
But the way of the ungodly shall perish.”
(This type is particularly common in the book of Proverbs. )
Synthetic or Constructive Parallelism:
Completion type (which is largely a parallelism of rhythm rather than of sense)
“Yet have I set my king
Upon Zion my holy hill.”
(Wa ʾânɩ̂ʾ nāsāḵtɩ̂ malkɩ̂ ˓al Ṣiyyôn har-qoḏšɩ̂)
“Better is a dinner of herbs where love is,
Than a stalled ox and hatred therewith.”
“Answer not a fool according to his folly.
Lest thou also be like unto him.”
“Ascribe unto Yahweh, O ye sons of the mighty,
Ascribe unto Yahweh glory and strength”
(Observe the first line is itself incomplete, and the second line takes up some of its words anew and then completes the thought.)
(In the emblematic parallelism the second line gives a figurative illustration but does so without any words of contrast, simply by placing the two ideas loosely together. In such a case the first line serves as an emblem to illustrate the second.)
“Cold water to a thirsty soul,
And good news from a far country” (literal rendering).
Or, without a connective,
“A gold ring in a swine’s snout—
A fair woman and without understanding” (literal rendering).
There are other types of parallelism which are discussed by some authorities, but those listed represent all the really significant types. A chiastic parallelism is a subtype of the synonymous parallelism, but instead of giving the parallel ideas in the same order (a-b, a1-b1) it is presented in the opposite order (i.e., a-b, b1-a1) as in Ps. 51:1. (KJV, “Have mercy upon me, O God according to thy lovingkindness: according unto the multitude of thy tender mercies blot out my transgressions.”)
Unger (IGOT, p. 365) describes the stairlike parallelism in which the second line takes up again and carries on further a portion of the first line (as in Ps. 139:5–7 ); but this is very similar to the climactic. (A thorough and adequate treatment of Hebrew parallelism may be found in G. B. Gray’s Forms of Hebrew Poetry, 1915.)
The Continual Burnt Offering (Matthew 5:9-11)
By H.A. Ironside - 1941
May 30Matthew 5:9 “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God. 10 “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 11 “Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. ESV
The sermon on the mount must not be taken as the proclamation of the gospel of the grace of God whereby needy sinners are saved. It is rather the announcement of the foundation principles of the kingdom of God, principles utterly diverse from those on which earthly dominions are established. It gives us the law of love prevailing in all departments of life. Clearly this can never be fully accepted and acted upon by an unregenerate world. But when people are born again they can see and enter into the kingdom of God even now, while the King Himself is rejected. To these the will of God is paramount, and they find in what seems to unsaved men an utterly impracticable standard of living, the ideal manner of life for those who are content to be identified with Christ in His rejection.
Just as it is a mistake to try to force these principles on the world of unsaved men and women, so it is as great a blunder to insist that they have no binding authority over the consciences of Christians today. Surely not; for in us is fulfilled all the righteous requirements of the law as we “do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit” (Romans 8:4).
Romans 8:4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. ESV
He giveth more grace when the burdens grow greater,
He sendeth more strength when the labors increase;
To added affliction He addeth His mercy,
To multiplied trials, His multiplied peace.
When we have exhausted our store of endurance,
When our strength has failed ere the day is half done,
When we reach the end of our hoarded resources,
Our Father’s full giving is only begun.
His love has no limit, His grace has no measure,
His power no boundary known unto men;
For out of His infinite riches in Jesus
He giveth and giveth and giveth again.
--- Annie Johnson Flint
The Continual Burnt Offering: Daily Meditations on the Word of God
The Institutes of the Christian Religion
Translated by Henry Beveridge
OF THE BEGINNING AND RISE OF THE ROMISH PAPACY, TILL IT ATTAINED A HEIGHT BY WHICH THE LIBERTY OF THE CHURCH WAS DESTROYED, AND ALL TRUE RULE OVERTHROWN.
There are five heads in this chapter. I. The Patriarchate given and confirmed to the Bishop of Rome, first by the Council of Nice, and afterwards by that of Chalcedon though by no means approved of by other bishops, was the commencement of the Papacy, sec. 1-4. II. The Church at Rome, by taking pious exiles under its protection, and also thereby protecting wicked men who fled to her, helped forward the mystery of iniquity, although at that time neither the ordination of bishops, nor admonitions and censures, nor the right of convening Councils, nor the right of receiving appeals, belonged to the Roman Bishop, whose profane meddling with these things was condemned by Gregory, sec. 5-13. III. After the Council of Turin, disputes arose as to the authority of Metropolitans. Disgraceful strife between the Patriarchs of Rome and Constantinople. The vile assassin Phocas put an end to these brawls at the instigation of Boniface, sec. 14-18. IV. To the dishonest arts of Boniface succeeded fouler frauds devised in more modern times, and expressly condemned by Gregory and Bernard. sec. 19-21. V. The Papacy at length appeared complete in all its parts, the seat of Antichrist. Its impiety, execrable tyranny, and wickedness, portrayed, sec. 23-30.
1. First part of the chapter, in which the commencement of the Papacy is assigned to the Council of Nice. In subsequent Councils other bishops presided. No attempt then made to claim the first place.
2. Though the Roman Bishop presided in the Council of Chalcedon, this was owing to special circumstances. The same right not given to his successors in other Councils.
3. The ancient Fathers did not give the title of Primate to the Roman Bishop.
4. Gregory was vehement in opposition to the title when claimed by the Bishop of Constantinople, and did not claim it for himself.
5. Second part of the chapter, explaining the ambitious attempts of the Roman See to obtain the primacy. Their reception of pious exiles. Hearing the appeals and complaints of heretics. Their ambition in this respect offensive to the African Church.
6. The power of the Roman Bishops in ordaining bishops, appointing councils, deciding controversies, &c., confined to their own Patriarchate.
7. If they censured other bishops, they themselves were censured in their turn.
8. They had no right of calling provincial councils except within their own boundaries. The calling of a universal council belonged solely to the Emperor.
9. Appeal to the Roman See not acknowledged by other bishops. Stoutly resisted by the Bishops of France and Africa. The impudence and falsehood of the Roman Pontiff detected.
10. Proof from history that the Roman had no jurisdiction over other churches.
11. The decretal epistles of no avail in support of this usurped jurisdiction.
12. The authority of the Roman Bishop extended in the time of Gregory. Still it only consisted in aiding other bishops with their own consent, or at the command of the Emperor.
13. Even the extent of jurisdiction, thus voluntarily conferred, objected to by Gregory as interfering with better duties.
14. Third part of the chapter, showing the increase of the power of the Papacy in defining the limits of Metropolitans. This gave rise to the decree of the Council of Turin. This decree haughtily annulled by Innocent.
15. Hence the great struggle for precedency between the Sees of Rome and Constantinople. The pride and ambition of the Roman Bishops unfolded.
16. Many attempts of the Bishop of Constantinople to deprive the Bishop of Rome of the primacy.
17. Phocas murders the Emperor, and gives Rome the primacy.
18. The Papal tyranny shortly after established. Bitter complaints by Bernard.
19. Fourth part of the chapter. Altered appearance of the Roman See since the days of Gregory.
20. The present demands of the Romanists not formerly conceded. Fictions of Gregory IX. and Martin.
21. Without mentioning the opposition of Cyprian, of councils, and historical facts, the claims now made were condemned by Gregory himself.
22. The abuses of which Gregory and Bernard complained now increased and sanctioned.
23. The fifth and last part of the chapter, containing the chief answer to the claims of the Papacy--viz. that the Pope is not a bishop in the house of God. This answer confirmed by an enumeration of the essential parts of the episcopal office.
24. A second confirmation by appeal to the institution of Christ. A third confirmation e contrario--viz. That in doctrine and morals the Roman Pontiff is altogether different from a true bishop. Conclusion, that Rome is not the Apostolic See, but the Papacy.
25. Proof from Daniel and Paul that the Pope is Antichrist.
26. Rome could not now claim the primacy, even though she had formerly been the first See, especially considering the base trafficking in which she has engaged.
27. Personal character of Popes. Irreligious opinions held by some of them.
28. John XXII. heretical in regard to the immortality of the soul. His name, therefore, ought to be expunged from the catalogue of Popes, or rather, there is no foundation for the claim of perpetuity of faith in the Roman See.
29. Some Roman Pontiffs atheists, or sworn enemies of religion. Their immoral lives. Practice of the Cardinals and Romish clergy.
30. Cardinals were formerly merely presbyters of the Roman Church, and far inferior to bishops. As they now are, they have no true and legitimate office in the Church. Conclusion.
1. In regard to the antiquity of the primacy of the Roman See, there is nothing in favour of its establishment more ancient than the decree of the Council of Nice, by which the first place among the Patriarchs is assigned to the Bishop of Rome, and he is enjoined to take care of the suburban churches. While the council, in dividing between him and the other Patriarchs, assigns the proper limits of each, it certainly does not appoint him head of all, but only one ofthe chief. Vitus and Vincentius attended on the part of Julius, who then governed the Roman Church, and to them the fourth place was given. I ask, if Julius was acknowledged the head of the Church, would his legates have been consigned to the fourth place? Would Athanasius have presided in the council where a representative of the hierarchal order should have been most conspicuous? In the Council of Ephesus, it appears that Celestinus (who was then Roman Pontiff) used a cunning device to secure the dignity of his See. For when he sent his deputies, he made Cyril of Alexandria, who otherwise would have presided, his substitute. Why that commission, but just that his name might stand connected with the first See? His legates sit in an inferior place, are asked their opinion along with others, and subscribe in their order, while, at the same time, his name is coupled with that of the Patriarch of Alexandria. What shall I say of the second Council of Ephesus, where, while the deputies of Leo were present, the Alexandrian Patriarch Dioscorus presided as in his own right? They will object that this was not an orthodox council, since by it the venerable Flavianus was condemned, Eutyches acquitted, and his heresy approved. Yet when the council was met, and the bishops distributed the places among themselves, the deputies of the Roman Church sat among the others just as in a sacred and lawful Council. Still they contend not for the first place, but yield it to another: this they never would have done if they had thought it their own by right. For the Roman bishops were never ashamed to stir up the greatest strife in contending for honours, and for this cause alone, to trouble and harass the Church with many pernicious contests; but because Leo saw that it would be too extravagant to ask the first place for his legates, he omitted to do it.
2. Next came the Council of Chalcedon, in which, by concession of the Emperor, the legates of the Roman Church occupied the first place. But Leo himself confesses that this was an extraordinary privilege; for when he asks it of the Emperor Marcian and Pulcheria Augusta, he does not maintain that it is due to him, but only pretends that the Eastern bishops who presided in the Council of Ephesus had thrown all into confusion, and made a bad use of their power. Therefore, seeing there was need of a grave moderator, and it was not probable that those who had once been so fickle and tumultuous would be fit for this purpose, he requests that, because of the fault and unfitness of others, the office of governing should be transferred to him. That which is asked as a special privilege, and out of the usual order, certainly is not due by a common law. When it is only pretended that there is need of a new president, because the former ones had behaved themselves improperly, it is plain that the thing asked was not previously done, and ought not to be made perpetual, being done only in respect of a present danger. The Roman Pontiff, therefore, holds the first place in the Council of Chalcedon, not because it is due to his See, but because the council is in want of a grave and fit moderator, while those who ought to have presided exclude themselves by their intemperance and passion. This statement the successor of Leo approved by his procedure. For when he sent his legates to the fifth Council, that of Constantinople, which was held long after, he did not quarrel for the first seat, but readily allowed Mennas, the patriarch of Constantinople, to preside. In like manner, in the Council of Carthage, at which Augustine was present, we perceive that not the legates of the Roman See, but Aurelius, the archbishop of the place, presided, although there was then a question as to the authority of the Roman Pontiff. Nay, even in Italy itself, a universal council was held (that of Aquileia), at which the Roman Bishop was not present. Ambrose, who was then in high favour with the Emperor, presided, and no mention is made of the Roman Pontiff. Therefore, owing to the dignity of Ambrose, the See of Milan was then more illustrious than that of Rome.
3. In regard to the mere title of primate and other titles of pride, of which that pontiff now makes a wondrous boast, it is not difficult to understand how and in what way they crept in. Cyprian often makes mention of Cornelius (Cyprian. Lib. 2 Ep. 2; Lib. 4 Ep. 6), nor does he distinguish him by any other name than that of brother, or fellow bishop, or colleague. When he writes to Stephen, the successor of Cornelius, he not only makes him the equal of himself and others, but addresses him in harsh terms, charging him at one time with presumption, at another with ignorance. After Cyprian, we have the judgment of the whole African Church on the subject. For the Council of Carthage enjoined that none should be called chief of the priests, or first bishop, but only bishop of the first See. But any one who will examine the more ancient records will find that the Roman Pontiff was then contented with the common appellation of brother. Certainly, as long as the true and pure form of the Church continued, all these names of pride on which the Roman See afterwards began to plume itself, were altogether unheard of; none knew what was meant by the supreme Pontiff, and the only head of the Church on earth. Had the Roman Bishop presumed to assume any such title, there were right-hearted men who would immediately have repressed his folly. Jerome, seeing he was a Roman presbyter, was not slow to proclaim the dignity of his church, in as far as fact and the circumstances of the times permitted, and yet we see how he brings it under due subordination. "If authority is asked, the world is greater than a city. Why produce to me the custom of one city? Why vindicate a small number with whom superciliousness has originated against the laws of the Church? Wherever the bishop be, whether at Rome, or Eugubium, or Constantinople, or Rhegium, the merit is the same, and the priesthood the same. The power of riches, or the humbleness of poverty, do not make a bishop superior or inferior" (Hieron. Ep. ad Evagr.).
4. The controversy concerning the title of universal bishop arose at length in the time of Gregory, and was occasioned by the ambition of John of Constantinople. For he wished to make himself universal, a thing which no other had ever attempted. In that controversy, Gregory does not allege that he is deprived of a right which belonged to him, but he strongly insists that the appellation is profane, nay, blasphemous, nay the forerunner of Antichrist. "The whole Church falls from its state, if he who is called universal falls" (Greg. Lib. 4 Ep. 76). Again, "It is very difficult to bear patiently that one who is our brother and fellow bishop should alone be called bishop, while all others are despised. But in this pride of his, what else is intimated but that the days of Antichrist are already near? For he is imitating him, who, despising the company of angels, attempted to ascend the pinnacle of greatness" (Lib. 4 Ep. 76). He elsewhere says to Eulogius of Alexandria and Anastasius of Antioch: "None of my predecessors ever desired to use this profane term: for if one patriarch is called universal, it is derogatory to the name of patriarch in others. But far be it from any Christian mind to wish to arrogate to itself that which would in any degree, however slight, impair the honour of his brethren" (Lib. 4 Ep. 80). "To consent to that impious term is nothing else than to lose the faith" (Lib. 4 Ep. 83). "What we owe to the preservation of the unity of the faith is one thing, what we owe to the suppression of pride is another. I speak with confidence, for every one that calls himself, or desires to be called, universal priest, is by his pride a forerunner of Antichrist, because he acts proudly in preferring himself to others" (Lib. 7 Ep. 154). Thus, again, in a letter to Anastasius of Antioch, "I said, that he could not have peace with us unless he corrected the presumption of a superstitious and haughty term which the first apostate invented; and (to say nothing of the injury to your honour) if one bishop is called universal, the whole Church goes to ruin when that universal bishop falls" (Lib. 4 Ep. 188). But when he writes, that this honour was offered to Leo in the Council of Chalcedon (Lib. 4 Ep. 76, 80; Lib. 7 Ep. 76), he says what has no semblance of truth; nothing of the kind is found among the acts of that council. And Leo himself, who, in many letters, impugns the decree which was then made in honour of the See of Constantinople, undoubtedly would not have omitted this argument, which was the most plausible of all, if it was true that he himself repudiated what was given to him. One who, in other respects, was rather too desirous of honour, would not have omitted what would have been to his praise. Gregory, therefore, is incorrect in saying, that that title was conferred on the Roman See by the Council of Chalcedon; not to mention how ridiculous it is for him to say, that it proceeded from that sacred council, and yet to term it wicked, profane, nefarious, proud, and blasphemous, nay, devised by the devil, and promulgated by the herald of Antichrist. And yet he adds, that his predecessor refused it, lest by that which was given to one individually, all priests should be deprived of their due honour. In another place, he says, "None ever wished to be called by such a name; none arrogated this rash name to himself, lest, by seizing on the honour of supremacy in the office of the Pontificate, he might seem to deny it to all his brethren" (Gregor. Lib. 4 Ep. 82).
5. I come now to jurisdiction, which the Roman Pontiff asserts as an incontrovertible proposition that he possesses over all churches. I am aware of the great disputes which anciently existed on this subject: for there never was a time when the Roman See did not aim at authority over other churches. And here it will not be out of place to investigate the means by which she gradually attained to some influence. I am not now referring to that unlimited power which she seized at a comparatively recent period. The consideration of that we shall defer to its own place. But it is worth while here briefly to show in what way, and by what means, she formerly raised herself, so as to arrogate some authority over other churches. When the churches of the East were troubled and rent by the factions of the Arians, under the Emperors Constantius and Constans, sons of Constantine the Great; and Athanasius, the principal defender of the orthodox faith, had been driven from his see, the calamity obliged him to come to Rome, in order that by the authority of this see he might both repress the rage of his enemies, and confirm the orthodox under their distress. He was honourably received by Julius, who was then bishop, and engaged those of the West to undertake the defence of his cause. Therefore, when the orthodox stood greatly in need of external aid, and perceived that their chief protection lay in the Roman See, they willingly bestowed upon it all the authority they could. But the utmost extent of this was, that its communion was held in high estimation, and it was deemed ignominious to be excommunicated by it. Dishonest bad men afterwards added much to its authority, for when they wished to escape lawful tribunals, they betook themselves to Rome as an asylum. Accordingly, if any presbyter was condemned by his bishop, or if any bishop was condemned by the synod of his province, he appealed to Rome. These appeals the Roman bishops received more eagerly than they ought, because it seemed a species of extraordinary power to interpose in matters with which their connection was so very remote. Thus, when Eutyches was condemned by Flavianus, Bishop of Constantinople, he complained to Leo that the sentence was unjust. He, nothing loth, no less presumptuously than abruptly, undertook the patronage of a bad cause, and inveighed bitterly against Flavianus, as having condemned an innocent man without due investigation: and thus the effect of Leo's ambition was, that for some time the impiety of Eutyches was confirmed. It is certain that in Africa the same thing repeatedly occurred, for whenever any miscreant had been condemned by his ordinary judge, he fled to Rome, and brought many calumnious charges against his own people. The Roman See was always ready to interpose. This dishonesty obliged the African bishops to decree that no one should carry an appeal beyond sea under pain of excommunication.
6. Be this as it may, let us consider what right or authority the Roman See then possessed. Ecclesiastical power may be reduced to four heads--viz. ordination of bishops, calling of councils, hearing of appeals (or jurisdiction), inflicting monitory chastisements or censures. All ancient councils enjoin that bishops shall be ordained by their own Metropolitans; they nowhere enjoin an application to the Roman Bishop, except in his own patriarchate. Gradually, however, it became customary for all Italian bishops to go to Rome for consecration, with the exception of the Metropolitans, who did not allow themselves to be thus brought into subjection; but when any Metropolitan was to be ordained, the Roman Bishop sent one of his presbyters merely to be present, but not to preside. An example of this kind is extant in Gregory (Lib. 2 Ep. 68, 70), in the consecration of Constantius of Milan, after the death of Laurence. I do not, however, think that this was a very ancient custom. At first, as a mark of respect and good-will, they sent deputies to one another to witness the ordination, and attest their communion. What was thus voluntary afterwards began to be regarded as necessary. However this be, it is certain that anciently the Roman Bishop had no power of ordaining except within the bounds of his own patriarchate, that is, as a canon of the Council of Nice expresses it, in suburban churches. To ordination was added the sending of a synodical epistle, but this implied no authority. The patriarchs were accustomed, immediately after consecration, to attest their faith by a formal writing, in which they declared that they assented to sacred and orthodox councils. Thus, by rendering an account of their faith, they mutually approved of each other. If the Roman Bishop had received this confession from others, and not given it, he would therein have been acknowledged superior; but when it behoved to give as well as to receive, and to be subject to the common law, this was a sign of equality, not of lordship. Of this we have an example in a letter of Gregory to Anastasius and Cyriac of Constantinople, and in another letter to all the patriarchs together (Gregor. Lib. 1 Ep. 24, 25; Lib. 6 Ep. 169).
Christian Classics Ethereal Library / Public Domain
Institutes of the Christian Religion
Devotionals, notes, poetry and more
5/1/2010 | Set Apart to Die and to Live
“When Christ calls a man, He bids him come and die.” Dietrich Bonhoeffer was about thirty years old when he penned these words in his classic work The Cost of Discipleship. Eight years later he was executed for his crimes against the Third Reich. The prison doctor who witnessed Bonhoeffer’s execution wrote, “In the almost fifty years that I worked as a doctor, I have hardly ever seen a man die so entirely submissive to the will of God.” The doctor’s words could not have been more appropriate to describe not only the manner in which Bonhoeffer submitted himself to God in death but also the manner in which he submitted himself to God in life. In his life and at his death, Bonhoeffer grasped one crucial truth: To be set apart to God is to be set apart to die, to die to sin, to self, and to life itself — to take up our crosses daily and to live unto Christ and embrace the true freedom that only comes when Christ calls a man to die and live abundantly in Him.
S anctification is a most simple biblical doctrine, yet it is perhaps the most difficult doctrine to understand. In one sense, sanctification is as simple as understanding the biblical language of being set apart, consecrated, or holy. And in another sense, it is as comprehensive as the application of sacred Scripture to all of life and worship. The Westminster Assembly provided us with one of the more helpful and succinct explanations of sanctification (WSC 35), still questions remain as to the precise nature of God’s work and our work in the Spirit-wrought work of sanctification. By grace alone through faith alone because of Christ alone we are positionally sanctified, yet in some mysterious way, God has chosen to sovereignly work in us, through us, and with us to sanctify us progressively by His free grace through repentance, faith, and obedience that we might die more and more unto sin and live unto righteousness.
However, even though a certain degree of mystery may exist with respect to how we are sanctified in holiness, without which no one will see the Lord, we do know this: Our sanctification is established on Him who knew no sin but became sin for us and died for us that we might die in Him and live for Him in order that we might reign with Him without the power or presence of sin within us. It is only then that our countenances will reveal our genuine and uninterrupted contentment in the One who has bid us to come and die and live in Him.
click here for article source
Dr. Burk Parsons (@BurkParsons) is editor of Tabletalk magazine, senior pastor of Saint Andrew’s Chapel in Sanford, Fla., a visiting lecturer at Reformed Theological Seminary, and a Ligonier Ministries teaching fellow. He is editor of John Calvin: A Heart for Devotion, Doctrine, and Doxology.
Ligonier coram Deo (definition)
by Bill Federer
Southern women scattered spring flowers on the graves of both the Northern and Southern soldiers who died during the Civil War. This was the origin of Memorial Day, which in 1868 was set on May 30th. From the Spanish-American War, to World Wars I and II, Korea and Vietnam, this is a day for honoring all who gave their lives to preserve America's freedom. Beginning in 1921, every President has placed a wreath on the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, which is inscribed with the phrase: "Here rests in honored glory an American soldier known only to God."
Compiled by Richard S. Adams
While we exert ourselves to grow beyond our humanity,
to leave the human behind us,
God becomes human;
and we must recognize that God wills
that we be human, real human beings.
While we distinguish between pious and godless,
good and evil,
noble and base,
God loves real people without distinction.
--- Dietrich Bonhoeffer
A Year with Dietrich Bonhoeffer:
Daily Meditations from His Letters, Writings, and RS Thomas
There is a God-shaped vacuum in every heart.
--- Blaise Pascal
Do not pray for easy lives. Pray to be stronger men!
--- Phillips Brooks
Phillips Brooks Year Book: Selections from the Writings of the Rt. Rev. Phillips Brooks
How idle it is to call certain things God-sends! As if there was anything else in the world. --- Augustus Wllliam Hare and Julius Charles Hare
Finding God's Will: Seek Him, Know Him, Take the Next Step
... from here, there and everywhere
PART / The First Verse / CHAPTER 1
The Shema in Jewish Life
Throughout history, the Shema—the biblical verse, “Hear O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is one” (Deut. 6:4), and the rest of that paragraph (Deut. 6:5–9)—was recited as the dying words of Jewish martyrs, in keeping with the example of R. Akiva who (according to the Talmud, Berakhot 61b) uttered the Shema as he was executed by the Romans in the aftermath of the revolt against Rome in the second century C.E. To this day, devout Jews aspire to recite it with their dying breaths. Indeed, it was R. Akiva who interpreted the words of the Shema commanding us to love God “with all thy soul” as “even if He takes thy soul.” Later authorities urge that while reciting these words, we should think about our own readiness to submit to martyrdom for the sake of God.
Not only in ancient days but even in our own times Jews, even Jewish children, have appreciated the spiritual significance of the Shema. The following conversation took place in the Warsaw Children’s Hospital among Jewish children orphaned from their parents by the Nazis:
“Well, when my sister died and Mamma carried her out, she didn’t have any strength left to go and beg, so she just lay there and cried a bit. But I didn’t have any strength to go out either, so Mamma died too, and I wanted to live so terribly much and I prayed like Papa did before, before they killed him that is. He said: Shema Yisrael and I started to say that too and they came to get the corpses and saw that I was alive and they brought me here and I’m going to live.”
“Maybe we should say Shema Yisrael too?”
The adult who overheard this discussion added, “I didn’t hear any more because I dropped a file and the children fell silent.” (I Remember Nothing More )
But such dramatic testimony should not be taken as a sign that the Shema has always been morbidly connected with death. On the contrary, to profess the unity of God and the love for God is life affirming; in so doing, we recapitulate the essence of our spiritual existence under God: to live lives in relative indifference to death.
So central has the Shema been to Jewish identity that it became the signal for the tragically failed revolt of Jewish inmates in Auschwitz. In this regrettably little-known incident, a medallion engraved with the first verse of the Shema was passed surreptitiously from emaciated hand to hand to trigger the ill-fated uprising. For the leaders of the rebellion knew that no Jew would fail to recognize the Shema—the symbol of Jewish courage, hope, and commitment.
Holocaust historian Yaffa Eliach provides another case in point:
After the liberation, an American Jew by the name of Lieberman went to Europe, from monastery to monastery, from nunnery to nunnery, trying to find Jewish hidden children. He would walk into each institution and recite the Shema Yisrael. Those who responded he would then attempt to rescue from the monasteries and nunneries. (Yaffa Eliach Collection, Center for Holocaust Studies, Museum of Jewish Heritage, New York.)
Even when all other traces of Jewish identity have been erased, the Shema survives as an after-image on a Jew’s memory.
So closely is the Shema tied to Jewish identity that even assimilated Jews, whose relationship to their Jewish heritage is almost completely attenuated, recognize in it their residual link to their people and ancestral faith. When evoked, this vague childhood memory seems to work a special kind of magic on the unconscious.
Many contemporary Jews who do not identify themselves as observant or even as religious nevertheless consider the Shema, when they think about such matters at all, as part of their own heritage. Thus, the Israeli press reported that in the 1996 Israeli elections for Prime Minister, the surprise victory of Benjamin Netanyahu over Shimon Peres was in no small measure the result of the secularist excesses of the liberal Meretz party, junior partners of Prime Minister Peres’s Labor party. In particular, one incident offended significant numbers of non-observant and presumably secularist voters: On a flight to Warsaw in 1994, Minister Shulamit Aloni of Meretz objected to then Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin’s intention to include, in a speech he was then crafting, a quotation from the Shema as the affirmation uttered by Jews as they entered the gas chambers. When Aloni’s off-the-record comment was reported in the press, it “stuck in the public mind”; many otherwise nonobservant Israelis were outraged. Even for these secular Jews, striking at the Shema was considered viscerally as an attack upon Judaism itself.
The fundamental requirement by the Halakha is for the Shema to be recited twice daily, once in the Morning and once after dark. Tradition adds two more times for daily reading of the Shema: once before retiring, at bedside, and once in the preliminary devotions before the Morning prayer (Shaḥarit). (The origin of this recitation is, according to Teshuvot ha-Geonim, the banning by the Persian King Yazdegerd (438–457) of the public reading of the Shema. The fifth-century Amora, R. Naḥman bar Huna, therefore decreed that it be recited before the beginning of the regular service.)
The Shema: Spirituality and Law in Judaism
Thanks to Meir Yona
Caesar Makes Antipater Procurator Of Judea; As Does Antipater Appoint Phasaelus To Be Governor Of Jerusalem, And Herod Governor Of Galilee; Who, In Some Time, Was Called To Answer For Himself [Before The Sanhedrim], Where He Is Acquitted. Sextus Caesar Is Treacherously Killed By Bassus And Is Succeeded By Marcus.
1. About this time it was that Antigonus, the son of Aristobulus, came to Caesar, and became, in a surprising manner, the occasion of Antipater's further advancement; for whereas he ought to have lamented that his father appeared to have been poisoned on account of his quarrels with Pompey, and to have complained of Scipio's barbarity towards his brother, and not to mix any invidious passion when he was suing for mercy; besides those things, he came before Caesar, and accused Hyrcanus and Antipater, how they had driven him and his brethren entirely out of their native country, and had acted in a great many instances unjustly and extravagantly with relation to their nation; and that as to the assistance they had sent him into Egypt, it was not done out of good-will to him, but out of the fear they were in from former quarrels, and in order to gain pardon for their friendship to [his enemy] Pompey.
2. Hereupon Antipater threw away his garments, and showed the multitude of the wounds he had, and said, that as to his good-will to Caesar, he had no occasion to say a word, because his body cried aloud, though he said nothing himself; that he wondered at Antigonus's boldness, while he was himself no other than the son of an enemy to the Romans, and of a fugitive, and had it by inheritance from his father to be fond of innovations and seditions, that he should undertake to accuse other men before the Roman governor, and endeavor to gain some advantages to himself, when he ought to be contented that he was suffered to live; for that the reason of his desire of governing public affairs was not so much because he was in want of it, but because, if he could once obtain the same, he might stir up a sedition among the Jews, and use what he should gain from the Romans to the disservice of those that gave it him.
3. When Caesar heard this, he declared Hyrcanus to be the most worthy of the high priesthood, and gave leave to Antipater to choose what authority he pleased; but he left the determination of such dignity to him that bestowed the dignity upon him; so he was constituted procurator of all Judea, and obtained leave, moreover, to rebuild12 those walls of his country that had been thrown down. These honorary grants Caesar sent orders to have engraved in the Capitol, that they might stand there as indications of his own justice, and of the virtue of Antipater.
4. But as soon as Antipater had conducted Caesar out of Syria he returned to Judea, and the first thing he did was to rebuild that wall of his own country [Jerusalem] which Pompey had overthrown, and then to go over the country, and to quiet the tumults that were therein; where he partly threatened, and partly advised, every one, and told them that in case they would submit to Hyrcanus, they would live happily and peaceably, and enjoy what they possessed, and that with universal peace and quietness; but that in case they hearkened to such as had some frigid hopes by raising new troubles to get themselves some gain, they should then find him to be their lord instead of their procurator; and find Hyrcanus to be a tyrant instead of a king; and both the Romans and Caesar to be their enemies, instead of rulers; for that they would not suffer him to be removed from the government, whom they had made their governor. And, at the same time that he said this, he settled the affairs of the country by himself, because he saw that Hyrcanus was inactive, and not fit to manage the affairs of the kingdom. So he constituted his eldest son, Phasaelus, governor of Jerusalem, and of the parts about it; he also sent his next son, Herod, who was very young, 13 with equal authority into Galilee.
5. Now Herod was an active man, and soon found proper materials for his active spirit to work upon. As therefore he found that Hezekias, the head of the robbers, ran over the neighboring parts of Syria with a great band of men, he caught him and slew him, and many more of the robbers with him; which exploit was chiefly grateful to the Syrians, insomuch that hymns were sung in Herod's commendation, both in the villages and in the cities, as having procured their quietness, and having preserved what they possessed to them; on which occasion he became acquainted with Sextus Caesar, a kinsman of the great Caesar, and president of Syria. A just emulation of his glorious actions excited Phasaelus also to imitate him. Accordingly, he procured the good-will of the inhabitants of Jerusalem, by his own management of the city affairs, and did not abuse his power in any disagreeable manner; whence it came to pass that the nation paid Antipater the respects that were due only to a king, and the honors they all yielded him were equal to the honors due to an absolute lord; yet did he not abate any part of that good-will or fidelity which he owed to Hyrcanus.
by D.H. Stern
and thus deprive the innocent of justice.
Complete Jewish Bible : An English Version of the Tanakh (Old Testament) and B'Rit Hadashah (New Testament)
A Daily Devotional by Oswald Chambers
Lord, I will follow Thee; but … --- Luke 9:61.
Supposing God tells you to do something which is an enormous test to your common sense, what are you going to do? Hang back? If you get into the habit of doing a thing in the physical domain, you will do it every time until you break the habit determinedly; and the same is true spiritually. Again and again you will get up to what Jesus Christ wants, and every time you will turn back when it comes to the point, until you abandon resolutely. ‘Yes, but—supposing I do obey God in this matter, what about …?’ ‘Yes, I will obey God if He will let me use my common sense, but don’t ask me to take a step in the dark.’ Jesus Christ demands of the man who trusts Him the same reckless sporting spirit that the natural man exhibits. If a man is going to do anything worth while, there are times when he has to risk everything on his leap, and in the spiritual domain Jesus Christ demands that you risk everything you hold by common sense and leap into what He says, and immediately you do, you find that what He says fits on as solidly as common sense. At the bar of common sense Jesus Christ’s statements may seem mad; but bring them to the bar of faith, and you begin to find with awestruck spirit that they are the words of God. Trust entirely in God, and when He brings you to the venture, see that you take it. We act like pagans in a crisis, only one out of a crowd is daring enough to bank his faith in the character of God.
My Utmost for His Highest
the Poetry of RS Thomas
I praise you because
you are artist and scientist
in one. When I am somewhat
fearful of your power,
your ability to work miracles
with a set-square, I hear
you murmuring to yourself
in a notation Beethoven
dreamed of but never achieved.
You run off scales of
rain water and sea water, play
the chords of the Morning
and Evening light, sculpture
with shadow, join together leaf
by leaf, when spring
comes, the stanzas of
an immense poem. You speak
all languages and none,
answering our most complex
prayers with the simplicity
of a flower, confronting
us, when we would domesticate you
to our uses, with the rioting
viruses under our lens.
Selected Poems, 1946-68
Children often respond to a taunt with the rejoinder: "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me." The Rabbis disagree. Names can hurt us, much more deeply than sticks and stones can. Words have incredible power. They can heal, or they can destroy. "Death and life are in the power of the tongue" (Proverbs 18:21).
The saying from the west, "The third tongue kills three," reminds us of a very important ethical principle: Our actions have far-reaching effects. Simple words can destroy a reputation or a life.
A group of high school students sit around complaining about their teacher who has given them low grades on a final. They make fun of his manner of talking and even of the way he walks. Someone suggests that maybe he is a homosexual. Another student speculates that he became a teacher because he likes young boys. A third wonders out loud if perhaps the teacher has molested some students in the past. Idle talk born out of resentment and anger. The next day, the "theory" is flippantly repeated throughout the halls of the school. Within a week, the "scandal" has caused the teacher to be fired and then arrested. Even if the teacher is cleared of all charges, the rumors may follow him around for the rest of his life.
We can understand how gossip can destroy the victim of the lies; we can even see that the purveyors of the gossip are hurt, legally or otherwise, by the things that they say. But rabbinic belief that the third party, the listener, is also destroyed is rather surprising. The Talmud seems to be suggesting that, in this matter, there is no such thing as an innocent bystander. Listening quietly as another person is "trashed" demeans us. It means that we stood by and did nothing to defend them. By not chastising and silencing the gossiper, we become enablers. We give our tacit approval, and thus encourage the gossiper to continue. It is the people who sit back and do nothing who are ultimately responsible for allowing evil to be committed. The Rabbis teach us that saying "But I did nothing!" is no excuse. It is an admission of guilt of another kind.
Omens are significant.
Text / Our Rabbis taught: "Kings are anointed only near a spring, so that their rule shall endure, as it says: 'Then King David said … bring him down to Gihon … [and] anoint him there …' [1 Kings 1:32–34]." Rav Ammi said: "A person who wants to know if he will survive the year or not should bring a torch during the ten days between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur and hang it in a house where the wind does not blow; if the torch burns itself out, he knows that he will survive the year. A person who is about to engage in business and wants to know if he will succeed or not should get a rooster; if it grows fat and attractive, he knows that it will succeed. A person who wants to go on a trip and wants to know if he will return to his home should go up to a dark room; if he sees the shadow of his shadow, he knows that he will come back home. But he should not do these things lest he be frightened and his luck turn bad." Abaye said: "Since we have said that omens are significant, a person should make it a custom on Rosh Hashanah to eat gourds, fenugreeks, leeks, beets and dates."
Text / Then King David said, "Summon to me the priest Zadok, the prophet Nathan, and Benaiah son of Jehoiada." When they came before the king, the king said to them, "Take my loyal soldiers, and have my son Solomon ride on my mule and bring him down to Gihon. Let the priest Zadok and the prophet Nathan anoint him there king over Israel, whereupon you shall sound the horn and shout, 'Long live King Solomon!' Then march up after him, and let him come in and sit on my throne. For he shall succeed me as king; him I designate to be ruler of Israel and Judah."
(1 Kings 1:32–35)
Context / Men speak lies to one another; their speech is smooth; they talk with duplicity. May the Lord cut off all flattering lips, every tongue that speaks arrogance.
The anointing of the king was to take place by the Giḥon spring for symbolic reasons: "May the King rule as long as the spring flows!" Rav Ammi brings three other cases where "signs" were said to be significant in predicting the future: Fire was seen as a symbol of life, and the days between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur were when God decided who would live and who would die; the rooster was a symbol of sexuality and aggressiveness and thus the ability to sustain oneself; a shadow represented a person's essence, and seeing it (or not) was a sign if that person would survive.
Abaye adds that since symbolic signs are considered meaningful, it is the custom to eat certain foods on Rosh Hashanah. Today, we are familiar with the custom of dipping an apple into honey as a way of asking for a sweet year. Here, five other foods are mentioned because their names bring to mind sweetness and abundance or the destruction of our enemies. Gourds are kara which calls to mind the word kera, "torn": We pray that all evil decrees against us be torn up. Fenugreeks are ruvia, reminding us of the blessing p'ru u'rvu, "Be fruitful and multiply." Leeks are karti, which sounds like karet, "cut off": May all those who hate us be cut off! Beets are silka, similar to the Aramaic word for "end" and the basis for a pun on yistalku: May God bring an end to our enemies! A date is tamar and evokes the word y'tamu: May there be a "finish" to those who hate us!
Swimming in the Sea of Talmud: Lessons for Everyday Living
About Human Beings?
by Russell D. Moore
The Apologetics Study Bible
According to the Bible, one of the most powerful apologetic arguments for the Christian faith is humanity itself. The Scriptures tell us that the wonder of the human body points to the creativity and genius of the Creator God in a way that should evoke both fear and awe (Ps 139:14). The human exercise of dominion over the created order reflects God's kingship over the universe (Gn 1:26), a kingship that is fully realized in the mediation of Christ Jesus (Eph 1:10). Man is created male and female in the image of God for a one-flesh union resulting in offspring, a union that foreshadows the reality of the Christ/church relationship (Eph 5:22–33).
The Bible tells us that the human conscience testifies to the content and the rightness of the law of the Creator. Although human beings sought to define good and evil apart from the authoritative Word of God (Jms 4:17), God nonetheless planted within all children of Adam a witness to His standards of good and evil. The fact that fallen humans acknowledge any standards of morality indicates that there is a transcendent code of law, somewhere above merely constructing societal rules and boundaries (Rm 2:12–16). Moreover, as the Apostle Paul pointed out, this conscience points beyond itself to a day of reckoning. When humans make moral choices—or make immoral choices using moral arguments—they are actually acknowledging that they know of a day in which God will judge all the secrets of the heart (Rm 2:16).
Regardless of how often fallen humans seek to classify themselves as merely biological, they know on the basis of their common rationality, morality, and search for meaning that this is not the case. No matter how many times Darwinians, for example, speak of humans as one more kind of animal, and no matter how many times some psychologists explain our behavior on the basis of evolutionary mechanisms, human beings know it just isn't so. We know there is something distinctive about us—which is why the Bible calls on us to appeal to the minds and consciences of unbelievers, even though the minds are blinded (2 Co 4:4) and the consciences are often calloused (1 Tm 4:2).
Therefore, the biblical witness about human beings stands in stark contrast with other belief systems. Unlike some Eastern religions, the Bible does not present the life of a human being as a cycle of incarnations, nor does it affirm, as Mormonism does, the preexistence of disembodied human spirits. Unlike many nature religions and various forms of pagan worship, the Bible does not present humanity as part of the larger "life force" of nature. Unlike Islam, the Bible affirms the freedom and responsibility of human beings as moral creatures before a God whose image they reflect. Unlike many psychological theories, the Bible does not reduce human motivations or actions to the interactions of unconscious desires, habitual patterns, or the firing of neurons. Unlike Marxism and libertarian capitalism, the Bible presents the longings of the human heart as far more than material. Unlike Gnosticism or feminism, God's good creative purposes are seen in the goodness and permanence of sexual differentiation, in the equal worth of the sexes as image bearers (Gn 1:27), and in the protective, sacrificial headship of men as fathers of families and leaders of tribes (1 Co 11:3). In contrast to rival belief systems, the Bible presents human beings as distinct from a nature they are called to govern (Ps 8:5–8), free to act according to their natures (Jos 24:15), responsible for actions before the tribunal of Christ (Rv 20:12–13), and created for conformity to the image of Jesus as joint heirs of a glorious new creation (Rm 8:17, 29). The doctrine of the image of God grants value to every human life, regardless of its vulnerability or stage of development (Gn 9:6), and it stands in eternal hostility to any form of racial bigotry or nation-state idolatry (Ac 17:25–27).
The Bible's truthfulness about human depravity contrasts strongly with belief systems that are more optimistic about human nature, such as Mormonism, Scientology, or secularism. Human sin is an apologetic issue since a Christian framework explains how educated, rational, loving persons can bring forth cruelty, violence, and hatred. The biblical teaching on sin also answers what may be the most persistent charge against the truthfulness of Christianity: Christian hypocrisy.
Likewise, the prevalence of world religions and ideologies, which is often used as an objection to Christianity, actually serves as an apologetic argument for Christian claims. The Bible tells us that the universal instinct to worship and to interpret reality is grounded in the revelation of God and that the universal suppression of this truth leads to diverse idolatries (Rm 1:18–32). We should not be surprised, then, that literally every human civilization in history has had some practice of worship, but also that cults, world religions, and even secular ideologies often ape some aspects of Christian truth. Nor should we be surprised, as the ancient book of Ecclesiastes illustrates, when the human quest for sensual gratification, material abundance, or the wielding of power apart from the Creator's purposes leads to despair.
The Apologetics Study Bible: Understand Why You Believe
Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism
Many if not all of these works originated as, and were generally viewed as, humanly produced literature; indeed, Sir. 44:1–15 could be seen as an ancient witness to this view. There is a spectrum of theological views concerning the divine origin of the Scriptures, but here the focus must be on how the human community came to recognize these books as divinely authored. They served a variety of purposes: the early narrative strands of the Pentateuch and the Deuteronomistic History served as a national epic and national history; Leviticus, Psalms, and Esther were used for the liturgy; Jubilees, the Deuteronomistic History, Proverbs, Job, Qohelet, and Ben Sira contributed to religious, moral, and practical education; the
Song of Songs, Tobit, and Ruth were models for human love and loyalty; and Daniel provided a model for courage in perilous times. The literature grew as community literature, and countless tradents and copyists contributed to its dynamic development from its earliest origins as sayings, reports, songs, and other materials into books sufficiently well known and treasured to assure that they would be transmitted as important for successive generations. Just as the community formed the literature, so too the literature formed the community as it moved through history.
Of the many works produced, some came to be regarded as sacred Scripture; that is, they were regarded as in some sense having God as author. There is little evidence for reconstructing this important transition, but certain contributing factors can be proposed.
First, God was increasingly understood to be speaking through the texts to the people. For the Greeks the Iliad and the Odyssey held essential religious importance, but they were principally seen as national epics. Similarly, the early hexateuchal narratives originally would likely have been perceived more as a national epic than as “Scripture.” Just as the gods spoke in the Homeric poems, so too did God speak in Israel’s texts. But once the priestly portions were incorporated, especially the legal materials listed as divinely spoken on Sinai, and insofar as the divine source was reinforced by the preaching of the Torah as articulating God’s will, it is quite easy to understand how God came to be viewed as the author. Already by the early second century B.C.E., Jubilees clearly attests this: “The LORD revealed to him …” (Jub. 1:4), and “The angel of the presence spoke to Moses according to the word of the LORD, saying: ‘Write the complete history of the creation …’ ” (Jub. 2:1).
The divine authorship envisioned on Sinai was extended to material that had presumably been simply the priests’ ritual handbook for Temple sacrifices. It is quite plausible that editorial framing in the Second Temple period transformed the priests’ handbook of directions for performing the various offerings. The directions in
Leviticus 1–7 may at an earlier point have begun with “When any of you bring an offering of livestock to the Lord, you shall …” (1:2b), proceeded with the detailed sacrificial directions, and then ended with “This is the ritual of the burnt offering, the grain offering, the sin offering, the guilt offering, the ordination offering, and the sacrifice of well-being” (7:37). The editorial framing of those priestly directions would then have introduced the section with “The LORD called Moses and spoke to him from the tent of meeting, saying, ‘Speak to the people of Israel and say to them’ ” (1:1–2a), and concluded it with “which the LORD commanded Moses on Mount Sinai, when he commanded the people of Israel to bring their offerings to the LORD, in the wilderness of Sinai” (7:38; cf. also 4:1–2a; 5:20; 27:1–2a, 34). According to this view, the priestly ritual handbook was transformed into a divinely authored book.
Just as Moses relayed God’s word in the Torah, certain prophets were seen to deliver God’s message to the king and people. But eventually the entire prophetic book, including stories about the prophets and the full editorial framework, was considered divine revelation. With the passage of time a book containing God’s word became a divinely revealed book.
Similarly, the Psalms, which originated as humanly composed hymns to God, were elevated to the status of divinely authored Scripture. The largest Psalms scroll from Qumran states explicitly the divine source of David’s Psalter: “All these he spoke through prophecy that was given to him from the Most High” (11QPsa 27:11). The divinely inspired prophetic nature of the Psalms is echoed in the Acts of the Apostles: “Since he was a prophet.… Foreseeing this, David spoke of the resurrection of the Messiah …” (Acts 2:30–31).
Second, additions that enhanced the theological, pious, or festival nature of a text seem to have been influential in considering a book as Scripture. For example, the theological material in Proverbs 1–9 may well have been the factor that achieved scriptural status for that book. The older section starting in chapter 10 had probably been much more regarded as a collection of commonsense folk wisdom and pithy sayings. But the additions—such as “the Lord created [Wisdom] at the beginning” (8:22) and she was beside him “When he established the heavens …, when he made firm the skies above” (8:27–30)—helped transform the collection so that one could seek and “find the knowledge of God” (2:5). The not-excessively pious Qohelet may have gained scriptural status once the more traditional appendix, urging the reader to “fear God and keep his commandments” (Eccl. 12:9–14) was added. The same status may have been gained for the book of Esther with the institution of the feast of Purim (Esth. 9:18–32).
Third, hermeneutical innovation also contributed to sacralization. The Song of Songs, which like the Psalms originated as human literature, was sublimated through a hermeneutical lens into a meditation on God’s love for Israel.
The book of Daniel also provides an interesting example. There was a growing cycle of Danielic materials, which perhaps drew on the righteous figure of Dan(i)el, laconically mentioned in Ezek. 14:14, 20, and which attached his name to traditions such as the anonymous Jewish healer in the Prayer of Nabonidus (4Q242). The cycle (1) achieved the form of a small literary collection of wisdom tales during the Persian period (Daniel 2–6); (2) developed into a larger collection due to the persecution of Antiochus IV (Daniel 1–12) and yet a larger collection with the Additions (1–14); and (3) continued to emerge in the form of other Pseudo-Daniel traditions (4Q243–245). Out of that developing cycle, the collections of chapters 1–12 and of 1–14 were accepted by different communities as Scripture, though not the earlier or later materials.
Other factors that may also have contributed to the recognition of Israel’s literature as divinely authored Scripture were the increasing antiquity of a work, the educational or liturgical settings in which this literature was proclaimed to be speaking in the name of God or articulating the will of God, and the “resignification” or adaptability of the texts to the current community’s ongoing life, whereby they could readily identify their situation with one in which God had favored Israel in the past.
Religious leaders and pious people sincerely trying to understand and articulate the divine will produced the religious classics of Israel. As generation after generation pondered their religious traditions in light of their current historical, political, and social reality, in one sense, the word about God became the word of God. The communities continued to hear it repeated as such, and eventually they recognized and described it explicitly as such.
The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism
When you pray, say: “Father.” --- Luke 11:2.
The prayer Jesus taught his disciples begins with a new name for God. ( The model prayer: A series of expositions on "The Lord's Prayer" ) “When you pray, say: ‘Father.’ ”
In the Old Testament God is very seldom spoken of as Father, and when the name is used, it is always with reference to the nation of Israel and not to individuals. From Genesis to Malachi you will not find a single instance of an individual speaking of God as Father. Moses did not dare to use this name [or] David [or] Isaiah. It was left to Jesus Christ to tell us God’s best and truest name. It was left to him to say, “When you pray, say: ‘Father.’ ”
The secret hidden from the prophet and psalmist and seer is here declared to the world in this name Father. One of the chief ends for which Christ came to earth was to tell us this new name and so to bring sunshine into our souls and hope into our lives. In Bethlehem, in Nazareth, in Galilee, in the Garden of Gethsemane, on the cross of Calvary, Jesus was spelling out for us this new name, revealing to us that God is more than wisdom, more than power, more than justice—that God, above and beyond everything else, is love. So the very opening phrase of this “pearl of prayers” brings us the best news ever whispered into human ears. It tells us that love is at the heart of all things. It tells us that God is our Father and we are his children.
Is God Father to everybody? Yes, to everybody. He is Father to the humblest, the poorest, the most degraded. All belong to God’s family, and on all some trace of the family likeness is to be seen. And though people sin, the Father still loves. That is what Jesus would teach us in the parable of the prodigal son. God is Father not only to the obedient son, but he is Father also to the son who has strayed. The Father’s heart yearns for that wayward child, and when that son returns with penitent heart, it is the word “Father” that leaps to the prodigal’s lips, and it is with the word “son” that the father welcomes him home again.
Yes, God is the Father of all. But all are not his children. People become his children only through Jesus Christ. Christ came into the world to show us the Father, to seek lost children and bring them back home again. Those who receive him into their hearts receive the Spirit of adoption. They speak the name Father with a new accent. It becomes to them invested with a richer and fuller meaning.
---J. D. Jones
Take Heart: Daily Devotions with the Church's Great Preachers
The Cautious Reformer May 30
Desiderius Erasmus, born in 1466 in Rotterdam, Holland, was the illegitimate son of a priest. He was orphaned in childhood, swindled out of his inheritance, and forced into a monastery that he hated—except for its library. Reaching adulthood, Erasmus approached theology with freshness, sought out scholars, then eclipsed them. He became the most cultivated man of his age.
In appearance, his skin was fair, hair blond, eyes blue, voice pleasant. His manners were polished. In temper, he could be irritable. He repeatedly visited England (though complaining of its “bad beer and inhospitable weather”) where John Colet urged him to master the original language of the New Testament. He did, and in 1516 Erasmus published his Greek New Testament. “Would that these were translated into every language,” he said. In studying Erasmus’s New Testament, ministers found themselves returning to the truth of the Bible. Erasmus’s translation became Luther’s fodder, and the primary source for his German translation of the Bible (and later, of Tyndale’s English Version).
But Erasmus, having spent his first years advocating reform, spent his latter ones resisting it. He initially supported Luther, but retreated when he saw the church splitting. On May 30, 1519, he wrote Luther, suggesting that it might be wiser of you to denounce those who misuse the Pope’s authority than to censure the Pope himself. … Old institutions cannot be uprooted in an instant. Quiet argument may do more than wholesale condemnation. Keep cool. Do not get angry.
Erasmus neither supported nor flatly condemned the Protestants. As a result, he lost friends on both sides. “Men of learning,” he wrote, “who were once warmly attached to me, and old friends, are the most dangerous of foes.”
Erasmus had expected the new wine to ferment in old skins. It wouldn’t and couldn’t, to his dismay. But never mind, he did his part. In giving the church back its Greek New Testament, he had in effect squeezed the grapes.
No one pours new wine into old wineskins. The wine would swell and burst the old skins. Then the wine would be lost, and the skins would be ruined. New wine must be put into new wineskins. Both the skins and the wine will then be safe.
--- Matthew 9:17.
On This Day 365 Amazing And Inspiring Stories About Saints, Martyrs And Heroes
Daily Readings / CHARLES H. SPURGEON
Morning - May 30
“Take us the foxes, the little foxes that spoil the vines.” --- Song of Solomon 2:15.
A little thorn may cause much suffering. A little cloud may hide the sun. Little foxes spoil the vines; and little sins do mischief to the tender heart. These little sins burrow in the soul, and make it so full of that which is hateful to Christ, that he will hold no comfortable fellowship and communion with us. A great sin cannot destroy a Christian, but a little sin can make him miserable. Jesus will not walk with his people unless they drive out every known sin. He says, “If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love, even as I have kept my Father’s commandments and abide in his love.” Some Christians very seldom enjoy their Saviour’s presence. How is this? Surely it must be an affliction for a tender child to be separated from his father. Art thou a child of God, and yet satisfied to go on without seeing thy Father’s face? What! thou the spouse of Christ, and yet content without his company! Surely, thou hast fallen into a sad state, for the chaste spouse of Christ mourns like a dove without her mate, when he has left her. Ask, then, the question, what has driven Christ from thee? He hides his face behind the wall of thy sins. That wall may be built up of little pebbles, as easily as of great stones. The sea is made of drops; the rocks are made of grains: and the sea which divides thee from Christ may be filled with the drops of thy little sins; and the rock which has well nigh wrecked thy barque, may have been made by the daily working of the coral insects of thy little sins. If thou wouldst live with Christ, and walk with Christ, and see Christ, and have fellowship with Christ, take heed of “the little foxes that spoil the vines, for our vines have tender grapes.” Jesus invites you to go with him and take them. He will surely, like Samson, take the foxes at once and easily. Go with him to the hunting.
Evening - May 30
“That henceforth we should not serve sin.” --- Romans 6:6.
Christian, what hast thou to do with sin? Hath it not cost thee enough already? Burnt child, wilt thou play with the fire? What! when thou hast already been between the jaws of the lion, wilt thou step a second time into his den? Hast thou not had enough of the old serpent? Did he not poison all thy veins once, and wilt thou play upon the hole of the asp, and put thy hand upon the cockatrice’s den a second time? Oh, be not so mad! so foolish! Did sin ever yield thee real pleasure? Didst thou find solid satisfaction in it? If so, go back to thine old drudgery, and wear the chain again, if it delight thee. But inasmuch as sin did never give thee what it promised to bestow, but deluded thee with lies, be not a second time snared by the old fowler— be free, and let the remembrance of thy ancient bondage forbid thee to enter the net again! It is contrary to the designs of eternal love, which all have an eye to thy purity and holiness; therefore run not counter to the purposes of thy Lord. Another thought should restrain thee from sin. Christians can never sin cheaply; they pay a heavy price for iniquity. Transgression destroys peace of mind, obscures fellowship with Jesus, hinders prayer, brings darkness over the soul; therefore be not the serf and bondman of sin. There is yet a higher argument: each time you “serve sin” you have “Crucified the Lord afresh, and put him to an open shame.” Can you bear that thought? Oh! if you have fallen into any special sin during this day, it may be my Master has sent this admonition this Evening, to bring you back before you have backslidden very far. Turn thee to Jesus anew; he has not forgotten his love to thee; his grace is still the same. With weeping and repentance, come thou to his footstool, and thou shalt be once more received into his heart; thou shalt be set upon a rock again, and thy goings shall be established.
Morning and Evening
BATTLE HYMN OF THE REPUBLIC
Julia Ward Howe, 1819–1910
Some trust in chariots and some in horses, but we trust in the name of the Lord our God. (Psalm 20:7)
To have implicit trust in God’s faithful care and protection is never easy in times of danger or strife. Yet even in the midst of the terrible Civil War between the Northern and Southern states, a remarkable woman named Julia Ward Howe proclaimed her confidence in God’s triumphant power in this inspiring text.
Deeply anguished at the growing conflict between the two sections of the country, Mrs. Howe watched troops marching off to war singing “John Brown’s Body,” a song about a man who had been hanged in his efforts to free the slaves. Julia felt that the catchy camp meeting tune should have better words. In a desire to phrase her own feelings about the dreadful events of the time, she “scrawled the verses almost without looking at the paper.” The national hymn first appeared in the Atlantic Monthly Magazine in 1862, as a battle song for the republic. Before long the entire nation became inspired by her text and united in singing the new words with the old tune.
Mrs. Howe’s hymn has been acclaimed through the years as one of our finest patriotic songs. At one time it was sung as a solo at a large rally attended by President Abraham Lincoln. After the audience had responded with loud applause, the President, with tears in his eyes, cried out, “Sing it again!” It was sung again. And after more than a hundred years, Americans still join often in proclaiming, “Glory! Hallelujah! His truth is marching on!”
Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord; He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored; He hath loosed the fateful lightning of His terrible swift sword; His truth is marching on.
I have seen Him in the watch-fires of a hundred circling camps; they have builded Him an altar in the Evening dews and damps; I can read His righteous sentence by the dim and flaring lamps; His day is marching on.
He has sounded forth the trumpet that shall never call retreat; He is sifting out the hearts of men before His judgment seat; O be swift, my soul, to answer Him; be jubilant, my feet! Our God is marching on.
In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea, with a glory in His bosom that transfigures you and me; as He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free! While God is marching on.
Refrain: Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! His truth is marching on.
For Today: 2 Chronicles 7:14; Psalm 33:12; 144:15; 1 Peter 2:16.
How can we best express our gratitude for those who have died defending their country? Try to honor them by continuing to support the truths for which they fought. Sing as you go ---
Amazing Grace: 366 Inspiring Hymn Stories for Daily Devotions
Martin Luther | (1483-1546)
Sect. XL. — HERE, therefore, I hold you fast in a last-pinch syllogism (as they say). For either the one or the other of your assertions must be false. Either that, where you say, ‘those men were admirable for their understanding in the Sacred Writings, for their life, and for their martyrdom;’ or that, where you say, that ‘the Scriptures are not quite clear.’ But since you are drawn more this latter way, that is, to believe that the Scriptures are not quite clear, (for this is what you harp upon throughout the whole of your book), it remains evident, that it was either from your own natural inclination towards them, or for the sake of flattering them, but by no means from seriousness, that you called those men, ‘men of the greatest understanding in the Scripture, and martyrs of Christ;’ merely in order that you might blind the eyes of the inexperienced commonalty, and make work for Luther by loading his cause with empty words, odium, and contempt. But, however, I aver that neither of your assertions are true, and that both are false. For, first of all, I aver, that the Scriptures are quite clear: and next, that those men, as far as they asserted “Free-will,” were most ignorant of the Sacred Writings: and moreover, that they neither asserted it by their life, nor by their death, but by their pen only; and that, while their heart was travelling another road.
Wherefore this small part of the Disputation I conclude thus. — By the Scripture, as being obscure, nothing ever has hitherto, nor ever can be defined concerning “Free-will;” according to your own testimony. Moreover, nothing has ever been manifested in confirmation of “Free-will,” in the lives of all the men from the beginning of the world; as we have proved above. To teach, then, a something which is neither described by one word within the Scriptures, nor evidenced by one fact without the Scriptures, is that, which does not belong to the doctrines of Christians, but to the very fables of Lucian. Except, however, that Lucian, as he amuses only with ludicrous stories from wit and policy) deceives and injures no one. But these friends of ours, in a matter of importance which concerns eternal salvation, madly trifle to the perdition of souls innumerable.
Thus I might here have concluded the whole of this discussion, even with the testimony of my adversaries making for me, and against themselves. For no proof can be more decisive, than the very confession and testimony of the guilty person against himself. But however, as Paul commands us to stop the mouths of vain talkers, let us now enter upon the Discussion itself, and handle the subject in the order in which the Diatribe proceeds: that we may, FIRST, confute the arguments adduced in support of “Free-will”: SECONDLY, defend our arguments that are confuted: and, LASTLY, contend for the Grace of God against “Free-will.”
The Bondage of the Will or Christian Classics Ethereal Library
Alistair Begg | Truthforlife
Fasting, Weeping, Lamenting
Lecture 1 Esther
Lecture 2 Esther
Lecture 3 Esther
Lecture 4 Esther
Dr. Keith Essex | The Master's Seminary