Category: Theological Reflections

Categories
Poetry Quotations Theological Reflections

Marks of Scripture’s Divinity (Today)

From John Dryden’s Religio Laici

[Some proofs of the divinity of Scripture �though by no means all Dryden mentions]

Whether from length of Time its worth we draw,

The World is scarce more Antient than the Law:

Heav’ns early Care prescib’d for every Age;

First, in the Soul, and after, in the Page.

Or, whether more abstractedly we look,

Or on the Writers, or the written Book,

Whence, but from Heav’n, cou’d Men unskill’d in arts,

In several Ages born, in several parts,

Weave such agreeing Truths? or how or why

Shou’d all conspire to cheat us with a Lye?

Unask’d their Pains, ungrateful their Advice,

Starving their Gain, and Martyrdom their Price.

Categories
Opening Scripture Theological Reflections

Adam in Covenant (Yesterday)

�And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am the Lord: and I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them. And I have also established my covenant with them, to give them the land of Canaan, the land of their pilgrimage, wherein they were strangers� (Exodus 6:2-4). This passage has caused some trouble to conservatives, if for no other reason, as a proof-text for the division of the Pentateuch into different sections, some attributable to an Elohist and others to a Yahwist (along the lines of the many variations of the JEDP theory). Robert Candlish has an explanation that is more elegant, more simple, more devout and more contextual. It is as follows:

That statement, I apprehend, can scarcely be taken literally to mean that the name��Jehovah��by which the Supreme Being announced himself to Moses and the Israelites in Egypt had never been in use before among the patriarchs.

It rather points, as I think, to the different of signification between the two names;�the one, Eloim, denoting sovereignty and power, the other, Jehovah, suggesting the idea of faithfulness or unchangeableness (Mal. iii. 6); �and to the suitableness of the two names to the two eras in question respectively. In former patriarchal times, God appears chiefly in the character of one choosing or electing those who are to be the objects of his favour, giving them �exceeding great and precious promises,� and ratifying and confirming with them a most gracious covenant. With such a transaction on his part, the assertion of absolute sovereignty and almighty power is in harmony and in keeping. Now, on the other hand, when he is about to come forward and interpose for the purpose of fulfilling those old assurances, and with that view wishes to secure the confidence of the new generation in whose experience and with whose co-operation the work is to be done, �the appeal to the immutability of his nature, as proving or implying �the immutability of his counsel� (Heb. vi. 17), is relevant and appropriate. Formerly he spoke as the omnipotent ruler over all, whose hand none can stay, to whom none can say what does thou! Now he speaks as the I am, �the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever.�

During the times of the patriarchs God had made promises; and they had not seen them fulfilled (cp. Hebrews 11:9,13). Now the time has come for God to fulfill His promises, and so He declares that He will be known to the children of Israel as Jehovah �as the God of promise, as the God who keeps covenant. And so in the same text where he says that he was not known to the patriarchs by the name Jehovah he goes on to say that he will establish his covenant with them. Jehovah is, as Dr. Campbell-Morgan has said, the God who accommodates himself to the needs of His people; He is, as has been often pointed out, the unchangeable and self-existent one; but while I have no doubt that his name, Jehovah, expresses those truths, there can be equally no doubt that it expresses his character as a God who makes and keeps covenants. Indeed, as Candlish observes, His immutability is in close connection with his covenant faithfulness; and as will be argued below, his accommodation to his people is also in connection with his making of covenants.

Now that God is a God who makes and keeps covenants is a fact egregiously patent on the face of Scripture; Noah (Genesis 9:9), Abraham (Genesis 17:4), Moses and the children of Israel (Exodus 19:5) and David (2 Samuel 7) are all examples of this. The night that Christ is betrayed He gives the cup to the disciples �saying , This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you� (Luke 22:20). Covenant concepts pervade Scripture: marriage is a covenant bond (Malachi 2:14); the patriarchs enter into covenants with others (Genesis 26:38-31, 31:44); Christ is brought again from the dead �through the blood of the everlasting covenant� (Hebrews 13:20).

All of what has been said is directly relevant to question as to whether in the Garden of Eden Adam and Even were under a covenant (often called the covenant of works). This is by no means universally received. The late Dr. Ernest Kevan, to take but one example, in his little book on the Lord�s Supper goes out of his way to deny the existence of the covenant of works. At least one objection that is raised to this doctrine is the fact that the early chapters of Genesis do not speak of a covenant. This is not a fatal objection, because there may be covenant arrangements present in passages that do not expressly use the term. Jeremiah 33:20 speaks of God�s covenant with day and with night. The succession of day and night was established at the beginning of creation; but in the creation narrative the word covenant was not used. Therefore it is perfectly possible for a covenant to be present in a passage even if the term is not specifically used.

Now, a further line of evidence is found in Hosea 6:6,7 God is inditing Ephraim and Judah and says this: �For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice: and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings. But they like men have transgressed the covenant: there have they dealt treacherously against me.� The marginal rendition of verse 7a is: �But they like Adam have transgressed the covenant�. If that is correct, then it is perfectly obvious that Adam was in some covenant which he transgressed. We read of one transgression of Adam: �and he did eat� (Genesis 3:6g). At that point, then, he violated the covenant of works. Of course, many will prefer the rendering �like men�. This, though, does not help the case against the covenant of works at all. For it would compare the people of Ephraim and Judah to men in general, and the teaching would then be that all men have transgressed a covenant; which would suppose that all men were in a covenant to begin with, and we are back again at the covenant of works. There is an alternative rendering, which takes the phrase in question to indicate the name of a place: this understanding would have God comparing the people of Ephraim and Judah to some unknown breakers of an unknown covenant at a location, which is as far as I know, also unknown. Allusions in Scripture are frequently to some other event contained in Scripture, something well known (see, e.g., 2 Corinthians 11:3, Psalm 106:7, Matthew 11:21-24, 12:3,4). Thus an allusion to an obscure event at a minor location, apart from lacking rhetorical punch, seems unlikely on the face of it. To this we may add the testimony of the following versions, who do not translate �at� but rather �like� or �as�: RV1909, RV1960, RV95, LBLA, ASV, YLT, NIV, NASB, The Message, Amplified, NLT, ESV, NKJV, Darby, Coverdale, Geneva, JPS, NLV, HCSB, NirV, LITV, Louis Segond, Semeur, Nuova Diodati, O Livro, Russian Synodal Version, Vulgate, Luther. It must be a reference to a known covenant and a known transgression of that covenant. Only one would seem to match: Adam’s violation of the covenant of works.

Now in addition to what might be considered as minor supports to this doctrine, there is of course the great passage in Romans 5 where a parallel is drawn between Adam and Christ: a parallel that seems to require that if Christ’s role as the head of a new humanity is a covenant role, then Adam’s role as the original head of humanity would also be covenantal: but a detailed discussion of this chapter is outside of my present scope. And in addition due weight should be given to the remark of T.E. Wilder that we don’t have to labour to find an occasional hint of a covenant concept in Genesis �the covenantal indications there are obvious and overwhelming.

Scripture is pervaded with covenant concepts; God is a God who makes covenants; there may be covenants in texts where the term is not used. Let me add another evidence for the existence of the covenant of works. The Westminster Assembly wrote: �The distance between God and the creature is so great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto him as their Creator, yet they could never have any fruition of him as their blessedness and reward, but by some voluntary condescension on God�s part, which he hath been pleased to express by way of covenant� (WCF 7.1). As I have been considering the Creator-creature distinction in recent weeks, the truth of the Assembly�s statement has been borne in upon me. Without some voluntary condescension on God�s part there could be no reward, no fruition of him as blessedness. And yet, Scripture does hold out to us an enjoyment of God and a communion with him. �And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes: and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away� (Revelation 21:3,4). The culmination of the apocalyptic vision is the fulfillment of the covenant announced to Abraham (Genesis 17:7), and consists in the enjoyment of God. At the same time, Scripture reveals that God is absolute, independent, underived and noncontingent (Romans 11:36). But we are just the opposite. We can never attain to this, except by some voluntary condescension on God�s part. And how will God express that? On the basis of His revelation of Himself as the God of the covenant, no other way is so consistent with all the rest of Scripture, as the way of covenant. The creation narrative is consistent with this point of view. We can trace covenantal elements in the details given to us of Adam’s prelapsarian position. Beyond that, there is still more. As Exodus 6:2-4 shows, Jehovah is the name of God considered as the God of the covenant, the God who enters into and fulfills covenants. And when we come to Genesis 2:4ff, we find that the text does not simply say that it is God who does this or that, as was true in Genesis 1:1-2:3. No, now it is Jehovah God who plants a garden, who places man in it, who provides for him food and occupation and companionship, who stipulates that he shall not eat of one tree. It is the God considered as the covenant-making and keeping God who is brought to our attention.

I believe, then, in the covenant of works. I believe it because the Scripture impels me in that direction. And I believe it because the name of my God is Jehovah.

Categories
Quotations Theological Reflections

The Limits of Reason

From John Dryden’s Religio Laici, Preface

So that we have not lifted up our selves to God, by the weak Pinions of our Reason, but he has been pleased to descend to us: and what Socrates said of him, what Plato writ, and the rest of the Heathen Philosophers of several Nations, is all no more than the Twilight of Revelation, after the Sun of it was set in the Race of Noah. That there is some thing above us, some Principle of motion, our Reason can apprehend, though it cannot discover what it is, by its own Vertue. And indeed ’tis very improbable, that we, who by the strength of our faculties cannot enter into the knowledge of any Beeing, not so much as of our own, should be able to find out by them, that Supream Nature, which we cannot otherwise define, than by saying it is Infinite; as if Infinite were definable, or Infinity a Subject for our narrow understanding. They who wou’d prove Religion by Reason, do but weaken the cause which they endeavour to support: ’tis to take away the Pillars from our Faith, and to prop it only with a twig: ’tis to design a Tower like that of Babel, which if it were possible (as it is not) to reach Heaven, would come to nothing by the confusion of the Workmen. For every is Building a several way; impotently conceipted of his own Model, and his own Materials: Reason is always striving, and always at a loss, and of necessity it must so come to pass, while ’tis exercis’d about that which is not its own proper object. Let us be content at last, to know God, by his own Methods; at least so much of him, as he is pleas’d to reveal to us, in the sacred Scriptures; to apprehend them to be the word of God, is all our reason has to do; for all beyond it is the work of Faith, which is the Seal of Heaven impress’d upon our humane understanding.

Categories
Poetry Quotations Theological Reflections

Paltry Penitence

First, a famous lady giving a classic example of the problem of this post’s title.

�Dear Lord, if you spare this town from becoming a smoking hole in the ground, I’ll try to be a better Christian. I don’t know what I can do … umm … ooh! The next time there’s a canned food drive I’ll give the poor something they’d actually like instead of old lima beans and pumpkin mix.�

(Marge Simpson, The Simpsons, Vol 1. of The Complete Third Season, Collectors Edition, �Homer Defined� 07:51-8:10)

Second, John Dryden explaining that God will not be satisfied with your absurd offers to make up for sin.

From John Dryden’s Religio Laici

[Of the moral inadequacy of Deism in the light of man’s sin]

Dar’st thou, poor Worm, offend Infinity?

And must the Terms of Peace be given by Thee?

Then Thou art Justice in the last Appeal;

Thy easy God instructs thee to rebell:

And, like a King remote, and weak, must take

What Satisfaction Thou art pleas’d to make.

But if there be a Pow’r too Just, and strong

To wink at Crimes, and bear unpunish’d Wrong;

Look humbly upward, see his Will disclose

The Forfeit first, and then the Fine impose:

A Mulct thy Poverty could never pay

Had not Eternal Wisdom found the way:

And with C�lestial Wealth supply’d thy Store:

His Justice makes the Fine, his Mercy quits the Score.

See God descending in thy Humane Frame;

Th’ offended, suff’ring in th’ Offenders Name:

All thy Misdeed to him imputed see;

And all his Righteousness devolv’d on thee.

For granting we have Sin’d, and that th’ offence

Of Man, is made against Omnipotence,

Some Price, that bears proportion, must be paid;

And Infinite with Infinite be weigh’d.

See then the Deist lost: Remorse for Vice,

Not paid, or paid, inadequate in price:

What farther means can Reason now direct,

Or what Relief from human Wit expect?

That shews us sick; and sadly are we sure

Still to be Sick, till Heav’n reveal the Cure:

If then Heaven’s Will must needs be understood.

(Which must, if we want Cure, and Heaven, be Good)

Let all Records of Will reveal’d be shown;

With Scripture, all in equal balance thrown,

And our one Sacred Book will be That one.

Categories
Poetry Quotations Theological Reflections

Nice Heresies for Wealthy People

From John Dryden’s Religio Laici

[Of the moral inadequacy of paganism in the light of man’s sin]

If Sheep and Oxen cou’d attone for Men

Ah! at how cheap a rate the Rich might sin!

Categories
Quotations Theological Reflections

Don’t Feel Your Feet

From H.C.G. Moule’s article on justification by faith in volume 3 of “The Fundamentals”

We are here warned off from the temptation to erect Faith into a Saviour, to rest our reliance upon our Faith, if I may put it so. That is a real temptation to many. Hearing, and fully thinking, that to be justified we must have Faith, they, we, are soon occupied with an anxious analysis of our Faith. Do I trust enough? Is my reliance satisfactory in kind and quantity? But if saving Faith is, in its essence, simply a reliant attitude, then the question of its effect and virtue is at once shifted to the question of the adequacy of its Object. The man then is drawn to ask, not, Do I rely enough? but, Is Jesus Christ great enough, and gracious enough, for me to rely upon? The introspective microscope is laid down. The soul�s open eyes turn upward to the face of our Lord Jesus Christ; and Faith forgets itself in its own proper action. In other words, the man relies instinctively upon an Object seen to be so magnificently, so supremely, able to sustain him. His feet are on the Rock, and he knows it, not by feeling for his feet, but by feeling the Rock.

Categories
Poetry Quotations Theological Reflections

Be Content With Ectypal Theology

From John Dryden’s The Hind & the Panther

But, gracious God, how well dost thou provide

For erring judgments an unerring guide!

Thy throne is darkness in the abyss of light,

A blaze of glory that forbids the sight.

O! teach me to believe thee thus conceal’d,

And search no further than thyself reveal’d;

But Her alone for my director take,

Whom thou hast promis’d never to forsake.

My thoughtless youth was wing’d with vain desires;

My manhood long misled by wan’dring fires,

Follow’d false lights; and when their glimpse was gone

My pride struck out new sparkles of her own.

Such was I, such by nature still I am;

Be thine the glory, and be mine the shame.

Good life be now my task: my doubts are done;

What more could shock my faith than Three in One?

Categories
Quotations Theological Reflections

The Odor of a Dead Body

John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion I.17.5

By the same class of persons, past events are referred improperly and inconsiderately to simple providence. As all contingencies whatsoever depend on it, therefore, neither thefts nor adulteries, nor murders, are perpetrated without an interposition of the divine will. Why, then, they ask, should the thief be punished for robbing him whom the Lord chose to chastise with poverty? Why should the murderer be punished for slaying him whose life the Lord had terminated? If all such persons serve the will of God, why should they be punished? I deny that they serve the will of God. For we cannot say that he who is carried away by a wicked mind performs service on the order of God, when he is only following his own malignant desires. He obeys God, who, being instructed in his will, hastens in the direction in which God calls him. But how are we so instructed unless by his word? The will declared by his word is, therefore, that which we must keep in view in acting, God requires of us nothing but what he enjoins. If we design anything contrary to his precept, it is not obedience, but contumacy and transgression. But if he did not will it, we could not do it. I admit this. But do we act wickedly for the purpose of yielding obedience to him? This, assuredly, he does not command. Nay, rather we rush on, not thinking of what he wishes, but so inflamed by our own passionate lust, that, with destined purpose, we strive against him. And in this way, while acting wickedly, we serve his righteous ordination, since in his boundless wisdom he well knows how to use bad instruments for good purposes. And see how absurd this mode of arguing is. They will have it that crimes ought not to be punished in their authors, because they are not committed without the dispensation of God. I concede more � that thieves and murderers, and other evil-doers, are instruments of Divine Providence, being employed by the Lord himself to execute the judgments which he has resolved to inflict. But I deny that this forms any excuse for their misdeeds. For how? Will they implicate God in the same iniquity with themselves, or will they cloak their depravity by his righteousness? They cannot exculpate themselves, for their own conscience condemns them: they cannot charge God, since they perceive the whole wickedness in themselves, and nothing in Him save the legitimate use of their wickedness. But it is said he works by their means. And whence, I pray, the fetid odor of a dead body, which has been unconfined and putrefied by the sun�s heat? All see that it is excited by the rays of the sun, but no man therefore says that the fetid odor is in them. In the same way, while the matter and guilt of wickedness belongs to the wicked man, why should it be thought that God contracts any impurity in using it at pleasure as his instrument? Have done, then, with that dog-like petulance which may, indeed, bay from a distance at the justice of God, but cannot reach it!

Categories
Quotations Theological Reflections

The Cross and the Glory

G. Campbell Morgan, The Crises of the Christ (Kregel, 1989: Grand Rapids), p.157

[Speaking of the transfiguration] In this light Peter spoke again: �Lord, it is good for us to be here: if Thou wilt, I will make here three tabernacles; one for Thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elijah.� [Matt. 17:4] It was a sad blunder, and yet a revelation. �Be it far from Thee, Lord,� [Matt. 16:22] he had said in sight of the Cross. �It is good to be here,� he said in the light of the glory. The Cross? No. The glory? Yes. It was as though he had said: Suffering and passion, and blood and death, I cannot look upon. This glory is what I crave for Thee, my Lord and Master. It was still the speech of love, blind and blundering, but yet love. It seemed as though the Master said in effect: I spoke to you of the Cross, and you were afraid. I spoke also of resurrection, and you did not hear, but come with me into a mountain apart, and in its light and glory My converse shall be still of the Cross.

Categories
Quotations Theological Reflections

What Christ Loves

John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans, Homily 25

For indeed we are not so much in love with money, as is He with our salvation. Wherefore it was not money, but His own Blood that He gave as bail for us. And for this cause He would not have the heart to give them up, for whom He had laid down so great a price. See too how he shows that His power also is unspeakable. For he says, �to this end He both died and revived, that He might be Lord both of the dead and the living.� And above he said, �for whether we live or die, we are His.� See what a wide extended Mastery! see what unconquerable might! see what exact providence over us!