“Heaven will direct it.”

Posted by Dan C. on

Heaven will direct it

For those of you unfamiliar with Shakespeare’s Hamlet, the above title is actually a quotation in Act 1, Scene 4 that was spoken by the least recognized of the three characters in that Scene. The three characters are of course Hamlet, the Prince of Denmark, his best friend Horatio, and a soldier named Marcellus, another of Hamlet’s friends.

In the scene, Hamlet, Horatio, and Marcellus are standing on the ramparts of Elsinore in the bitter cold, waiting for the ghost of Hamlet’s father to appear. Sounds of Hamlet’s Uncle Claudius and his courtiers feasting and drinking merrily echo from inside the castle, and Hamlet tells his friends that Claudius’s constant revelry is soiling Denmark’s reputation, blotting out all that is good in the country.[i]

The ghost of Hamlet’s father appears and beckons Hamlet to speak with him about exacting revenge for Hamlet’s Claudius having murdered him (Hamlet’s father).

An interesting conversation ensues between the three friends concerning whether or not Hamlet should follow and speak with the ghost. Hamlet is determined to follow and bids Horatio and Marcellus not try and stop him.

It was also during that conversation that Marcellus utters the famous line:

“Something is rotten in the State of Denmark,” to which Horatio responds with a far less famous line:

“Heaven will direct it.”[ii]

As one summary tells us, concerning the situation in Denmark,

Something is rotten because ghosts don’t just tend to appear in normal times when everything is spiritually well with the kingdom.

But more than that: for the ghost (or supposed ghost) of the late king to appear: something’s not right, and Marcellus, as a soldier and a sentinel keeping watch on the castle battlements, is trained and primed to know when something’s wrong.[iii]

It was Horatio’s “Heaven will direct it.” forthright conclusion concerning the ongoing State of Denmark that caught my attention when I only recently read it!

Perhaps Horatio’s response grabbed my attention because I’ve thought many times in recent days and months that “Something is Rotten in the State of Denmark.” perfectly describes what we see all around us in our own nation and indeed in our fallen world. Between natural disasters, wars and rumors of wars, and the rampant lies from the halls of political power is it any wonder that some of us might question if our nation will even survive and return to a time of national stability and prosperity?

I have to also admit that Horatio stating matter-of-factly that “Heaven will DIRECT it.” sort of jumped off of the page and hit me between the eyes. One library of notable quotations remarked that Horatio was expressing his Christian faith.[iv] It’s well known that Shakespeare’s England was a primarily a Protestant Christian nation. The words “Heaven will direct it.”, while acknowledging God’s providence and sovereignty over the affairs of men, seem, in this old soldier’s small brain, to carry a weightier meaning than just saying something like “God will sort it all out in the end.”

By saying “Heaven will direct it,” we are wading into connected streams, the sovereignty of God and God’s providence. John Piper provides helpful and easily digestible definitions for both:

“God’s sovereignty is his right and power to do all that he decides to do.”[v]

God rules over and owns everything in His entire creation, precisely because He made everything. What God decides to do can be called His sovereign purposes. God’s providence can then be defined as the ‘how’ of what God decides to do; how He carries out His divine purposes:

“Absolutely everything that needs to be done to bring about his purposes, God sees to it that it happens.”[vi]

Perhaps one of the clearest illustrations of both the sovereignty of God and His divine providence is found in Peter’s sermon at Pentecost:

22 “Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know— 23 this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. 24 God raised him up, loosing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it.” (ESV)

We know that God, our sovereign creator, after Adam and Eve rebelled in the Garden of Eden, determined to save His people from their sins and restore His perfect creation after the rebellion and sin of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. Peter, speaking to the assembled crowd, tells his Jewish audience that Jesus was delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God (providence), then was crucified by the hands of lawless men (providence), but then was raised up by God (sovereignty & providence).

Back to Shakespeare, Hamlet and his companions. Something certainly was rotten in the state of Denmark, just as something is rotten in our world and in our beloved nation. Will the nation survive? Will there be an end times great revival, or is a once great country under God’s judgment? A sovereign God can decide to save the world, ‘resurrect’ a nation lost in sin, or He can decide to consign it to the dust bin of history, just as He did with the Roman Empire.

Theologians, speculators, and prognosticators abound. We, as Christians and believers in the resurrected Savior know what we would like to see in our future, but none of us can be certain, even from scripture, what lies ahead.

What we do know at least two things.

Firstly, we can agree with Horatio’s response to Marcellus’ “Something is rotten in the state of Denmark”. God is sovereign over all the affairs of men, “Heaven will direct it.” Might that mean that God might be bringing judgment upon a nation when things get “rotten”? I’ll let you answer that ne for yourselves.

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, our commission from God and our mission as believers, to preach the gospel to a lost world, and make disciples of all nations (Matt 28:19-20), is still our business until He comes (Luke 19:13). As we have said many times through the years, “The main thing is still the MAIN THING!!!

[i] Hamlet Act 1, Scene 4 Summary & Analysis | LitCharts &

[ii] Ibid.

[iii] Ibid.

[iv] Heaven will direct it. – William Shakespeare, Horatio in Hamlet, Act 1, Scene 4 (allgreatquotes.com)

[v] Are God’s Providence and God’s Sovereignty the Same? | Desiring God

[vi] Ibid.

The Reality of the Christian’s Warfare–J.C. Ryle

Posted by Dan C. on

image

Whether we are Churchmen or not, one thing is certain,—this Christian warfare is a great reality, and a subject of vast importance. It is not a matter like Church government and ceremonial, about which men may differ, and yet reach heaven at last. Necessity is laid upon us. We must fight. There are no promises in the Lord Jesus Christ’s Epistles to the Seven Churches, except to those who “overcome.” Where there is grace there will be conflict. The believer is a soldier. There is no holiness without a warfare. Saved souls will always be found to have fought a fight.

It is a fight of absolute necessity. Let us not think that in this war we can remain neutral and sit still. Such a line of action may be possible in the strife of nations, but it is utterly impossible in that conflict which concerns the soul. The boasted policy of non-interference,—the “masterly inactivity” which pleases so many statesmen,—the plan of keeping quiet and letting things alone,—all this will never do in the Christian warfare. Here at any rate no one can escape serving under the plea that he is “a man of peace.” To be at peace with the world, the flesh and the devil, is to be at enmity with God, and in the broad way that leadeth to destruction. We have no choice or option. We must either fight or be lost.

It is a fight of universal necessity. No rank, or class, or age, can plead exemption, or escape the battle. Ministers and people, preachers and hearers, old and young, high and low, rich and poor, gentle and simple, kings and subjects, landlords and tenants, learned and unlearned,—all alike must carry arms and go to war. All have by nature a heart full of pride, unbelief, sloth, worldliness, and sin. All are living in a world beset with snares, traps, and pitfalls for the soul. All have near them a busy, restless, malicious devil. All, from the Queen in her palace down to the pauper in the workhouse, all must fight, if they would be saved.

It is a fight of perpetual necessity. It admits of no breathing time, no armistice, no truce. On week-days as well as on Sundays,—in private as well as in public,—at home by the family fireside as well as abroad,—in little things like management of tongue and temper, as well as in great ones like the government of kingdoms,—the Christian’s warfare must unceasingly go on. The foe we have to do with keeps no holidays, never slumbers, and never sleeps. So long as we have breath in our bodies we must keep on our armour, and remember we are on an enemy’s ground. “Even on the brink of Jordan,” said a dying saint, “I find Satan nibbling at my heels.” We must fight till we die.

Let us consider well these propositions. Let us take care that our own personal religion is real, genuine, and true. The saddest symptom about many so-called Christians, is the utter absence of anything like conflict and fight in their Christianity. They eat, they drink, they dress, they work, they amuse themselves, they get money, they spend money, they go through a scanty round of formal religious services once or twice every week. But of the great spiritual warfare,—its watchings and strugglings, its agonies and anxieties, its battles and contests,—of all this they appear to know nothing at all. Let us take care that this case is not our own. The worst state of soul is “when the strong man armed keepeth the house, and his goods are at peace,”—when he leads men and women “captive at his will,” and they make no resistance. The worst chains are those which are neither felt nor seen by the prisoner. (Luke 11:21; 2 Tim. 2:26.)

We may take comfort about our souls if we know anything of an inward fight and conflict. It is the invariable companion of genuine Christian holiness. It is not everything, I am well aware, but it is something. Do we find in our heart of hearts a spiritual struggle? Do we feel anything of the flesh lusting against the spirit and the spirit against the flesh, so that we cannot do the things we would? (Gal. 5:17.) Are we conscious of two principles within us, contending for the mastery? Do we feel anything of war in our inward man? Well, let us thank God for it! It is a good sign. It is strongly probable evidence of the great work of sanctification. All true saints are soldiers. Anything is better than apathy, stagnation, deadness, and indifference. We are in a better state than many. The most part of so-called Christians have no feeling at all. We are evidently no friends of Satan. Like the kings of this world, he wars not against his own subjects. The very fact that he assaults us, should fill our minds with hope. I say again, let us take comfort The child of God has two great marks about him, and of these two we have one. HE MAY BE KNOWN BY HIS INWARD WARFARE, AS WELL AS BY HIS INWARD PEACE.

Ryle, J. C. (1889). Holiness: Its Nature, Hindrances, Difficulties and Roots (pp. 80–82). William Hunt and Company. (Public Domain)

“The Sands of Time Are Sinking”

Posted by Dan C. on

image

The Sands of Time Are Sinking

1. The sands of time are sinking;
the dawn of heaven breaks;
the summer morn I’ve sighed for,
the fair sweet morn awakes;
dark, dark has been the midnight,
but dayspring is at hand,
and glory, glory dwelleth
in Emmanuel’s land.

2. The King there in His beauty
without a veil is seen;
it were a well-spent journey,
though trials lay between:
the Lamb with His fair army
on Zion’s mountain stands,
and glory, glory dwelleth
in Emmanuel’s land.

3. O Christ, He is the fountain,
the deep, sweet well of love!
The streams on earth I’ve tasted;
more deep I’ll drink above:
there to an ocean fullness
His mercy doth expand,
and glory, glory dwelleth
in Emmanuel’s land.

4. The bride eyes not her garment,
but her dear bridegroom’s face;
I will not gaze at glory,
but on my King of grace;
not at the crown He giveth,
but on His piercéd hands;
the Lamb is all the glory
of Emmanuel’s land.

5. Oh! Christ He is the fountain,
The deep sweet well of Love!
The streams on earth I’ve tasted,
More deep I’ll drink above:
There, to an ocean fullness,
His mercy doth expand,
And glory—glory dwelleth
In Immanuel’s land.

6. E’en Anwoth was not heaven—
E’en preaching was not Christ;
And in my sea-beat prison
My Lord and I held tryst:
And aye my murkiest storm-cloud
Was by a rainbow spann’d,
Caught from the glory dwelling
In Immanuel’s land.

7. But that He built a heaven
Of His surpassing love,
A little New Jerus’lem,
Like to the one above,—
“Lord, take me o’er the water,”
Had been my loud demand,
“Take me to love’s own country,
Unto Immanuel’s land.”

8. But flowers need night’s cool darkness,
The moonlight and the dew;
So Christ, from one who loved it,
His shining oft withdrew;
And then, for cause of absence,
My troubled soul I scann’d—
But glory, shadeless, shineth
In Immanuel’s land.

9. The little birds of Anwoth
I used to count them blest,—
Now, beside happier alters
I go to built my nest:
O’er these there broods no silence,
No graves around them stand,
For glory, deathless, dwelleth
In Immanuel’s land.

10. Fair Anwoth by the Solway,
To me thou still art dear!
E’en from the verge of Heaven
I drop for thee a tear.
Oh! if one soul from Anwoth
Meet me at God’s right hand,
My Heaven will be two Heavens,
In Immanuel’s land!

11. I’ve wrestled on towards Heaven,
‘Ganst storm, and wind, and tide;—
Now, like a weary traveler,
That leaneth on his guide,
Amid the shades of evening,
While sinks life’s ling’ring sand,
I hail the glory dawning
From Immanuel’s land.

12. Deep waters cross’d life’s pathway,
The hedge of thorns was sharp;
Now these lie all behind me,—
Oh, for a well-tuned harp!
Oh, to join Hallelujah
With yon triumphant band,
Who sing where glory dwelleth
In Immanuel’s land!

13. With mercy and with judgment
My web of time He wove,
And aye the dews of sorrow
Were lustered with His love!
I’ll bless the hand that guided,
I’ll bless the heart that plann’d,
When throned where glory dwelleth
In Immanuel’s land.

14. Soon shall the cup of glory
Wash down earth’s bitterest woes,
Soon shall the desert brier
Break into Eden’s rose:
The curse shall change to blessing–
The name on earth that’s bann’d,
Be graven on the white stone
In Immanuel’s land.

15. Oh! I am my Beloved’s,
And my Beloved’s mine!
He brings a poor vile sinner
Into His “house of wine:”
I stand upon His merit,
I know no other stand,
Not e’en where glory dwelleth
In Immanuel’s land.

16. I shall sleep sound in Jesus,
Fill’d with His likeness rise,
To live and to adore Him,
To see Him with these eyes:
‘Tween me and resurrection
But Paradise doth stand;
Then—then for glory dwelling
In Immanuel’s land!

17. The bride eyes not her garment,
But her dear Bridegroom’s face;
I will not gaze at glory,
But on my King of Grace—
Not at the crown He giveth,
But on His pierced hand:
The Lamb is all the glory
Of Immanuel’s land.

18. I have borne scorn and hatred,
I have borne wrong and shame,
Earth’s proud ones have reproach’d me,
For Christ’s thrice blessed name:
Where God His seal set fairest
They’ve stamp’d their foulest brand;
But judgment shines like noonday
In Immanuel’s land.

19. They’ve summoned me before them,
But there I may not come,—
My Lord says, “Come up hither,”
My Lord says, “Welcome home!
My King now at His white throne,
My presence doth command,
Where glory—glory dwelleth
In Immanuel’s land.

“The Sands of Time Are Sinking,” was written by Anne Ross Cousin from Roxburghshire in Scotland and was first published in 1857 in The Christian Treasury. Mrs. Cousin was the wife of a pastor in the Free Church of Scotland. Her hymn is based on a collection of letters written by Samuel Rutherford (1600–1661), a Scottish pastor who was also from Roxburghshire. Many of the phrases and images from the hymn’s 19 verses come from these letters and provide a glimpse into Rutherford’s life and ministry.

©Public Domain

Does God (Really) Desire All to Be Saved?

Posted by Dan C. on

Article by Tony Reinke, Senior writer, desiringGod.org

On the extent of who will be saved, the Bible makes two clear points:

  1. God desires that all sinners be saved (1 Timothy 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9; Ezekiel 18:23; Matthew 23:37).
  2. God chose some people from eternity past (the elect), to be saved unconditionally, and only those elect will genuinely respond to the gospel and be saved (Matthew 22:14; John 6:37, 44, 65; 8:47; 10:26–29; Romans 8:29–30; 9:6–23; 11:5–10; 1 Corinthians 1:26–30; Ephesians 1:4–5; 1 Thessalonians 1:4; 2 Thessalonians 2:13; James 2:5).

But how these two biblical truths (that seem to contradict) actually relate, has perplexed theologians and inquiring Christian minds for many centuries, sparking vigorous debates and (more recently) fiery comment threads on Facebook.

This pair of doctrines force questions like:

    • Can God genuinely will that all be saved (1), and yet only choose to save only some, the elect (2)?
    • Is it even logical to hold that God can at the same time will salvation for all (1), and not will salvation for all (2)?
    • If (1) and (2) are true, is God schizophrenic or confused? (1 Corinthians 14:33)
    • Or can a sovereign, all-powerful God who does whatever he pleases, hold wishful desires for the salvation of all that he cannot fulfill?
    • Which leads to asking, is there a power in the universe greater than God, frustrating his desires?
    • Or can God will in different ways simultaneously?
    • Or should modern Christians simply downplay election in order to highlight God’s desire for the salvation of all?
    • Because if we equally hold to election, isn’t our general offer of the gospel to all sinners disingenuous?
    • And won’t election erode the energy and incentive for global missions and evangelism that we derive from God’s desire for all to be saved?
    • And how does the ultimate aim of God’s own glory factor into this discussion?

These are just a few of the thick questions involved.

Finding the answers is like climbing Mount Everest. Not everyone is up for the climb, but we believe it can be done, and there are guides to help if you want to make the attempt. John Piper offers himself as a Sherpa of sorts for the steep climb in his new little book, Does God Desire All to Be Saved?

If you’re asking these types of questions — and if you’re up for the climb — the 50-page book is available as a free download here, or purchase here.

Tony Reinke (@tonyreinke) is a senior teacher for Desiring God, host of the Ask Pastor John podcast, and author of Ask Pastor John: 750 Bible Answers to Life’s Most Important Questions (2024). He lives in the Phoenix area with his wife and three children.

Dr. Constable’s Expository Notes on Matthew 24:34

Posted by Dan C. on

“Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.” (Matt 24:34, KJV)

I recently attempted a detailed study of Matthew 24:34. that study included, in  the following order:

  1. 9 translations of the passage
  2. The Greek definitions of the key  term “generation” and the key phrase “be fulfilled” in Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance and Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament
  3. Commentary entries  for Matthew 24:34 from 7 commentaries, Including Dr. Constable’s Notes, which I am including in this blog post, due to those notes including a thorough academic treatment of the  views of various interpreters, along with detailed citations.  Without further ado, below are Dr. Constable’s notes. Enjoy!

Dr. Constable’s Expository Notes for Matthew 24:34

Jesus first stressed the importance of what He would say.

What did He mean by “this generation?” Many interpreters have concluded that Jesus meant the generation of disciples to whom He spoke (cf. Matthew 11:16; Matthew 12:39; Matthew 12:41-42; Matthew 12:45; Matthew 16:4; Matthew 17:17; Matthew 23:36). Some within this group of interpreters have concluded that because these signs did not occur before that generation of disciples died Jesus made a mistake. [Note: E.g., M’Neile, p. 355.] This solution is unacceptable in view of who Jesus was. Other interpreters in this group have concluded that since these signs did not appear during the lifetime of that generation of disciples Jesus must have been speaking metaphorically, not literally. [Note: E.g., Kik, pp. 10-12; and Plummer, p. 338.] They say the destruction of Jerusalem fulfilled what Jesus predicted. This solution is also unacceptable because there is nothing in the text to indicate that Jesus meant that the disciples should understand the signs non-literally. Moreover numerous similar prophecies concerning Messiah’s first coming happened literally.

Perhaps Jesus meant that the generation of disciples that saw the future signs would also witness His return. [Note: Carl Armerding, The Olivet Discourse, p. 44; Charles Lee Feinberg, Israel in the Last Days: The Olivet Discourse, p. 22; Toussaint, Behold the . . ., pp. 279-80; Barbieri, p. 78; Bailey, in The New . . ., pp. 51-52.] However the demonstrative pronoun “this” (Gr. aute) seems to stress the generation Jesus was addressing. But this pronoun could refer to the end times rather than to that generation. [Note: George Benedict Winer, Grammar of the Idiom of the New Testament, p. 157.] I prefer this view.

Other interpreters have noted that “generation” (Gr. genea) can refer to a race of people, not just to one generation (cf. Matthew 16:4; Philippians 2:15). [Note: Cremer, pp. 148-49.] They conclude that Jesus meant the Jewish race would not end before all these signs had attained fulfillment. [Note: E.g., English, p. 179; and Gaebelein, 2:214-15.] This is a possible solution, but it seems unusual that Jesus would introduce the continuing existence of the Jewish race to confirm the fulfillment of these signs.

Another view has focused attention on the words “take place” or “have happened” (Gr. genetai) that occur in all three synoptic accounts. The Greek word meant “to begin” or “to have a beginning.” Advocates affirm that Jesus meant that the fulfillment of “all these things” would begin in the generation of His present disciples (cf. Matthew 24:33), but complete fulfillment would not come until later. [Note: E.g., Cranfield, “St. Mark 13,” Scottish Journal of Theology 7 (July 1954):291; C. E. Stowe, “The Eschatology of Christ, With Special Reference to the Discourse in Matt. XXIV. and XXV.,” Bibliotheca Sacra 7 (July 1850):471; Mark L. Hitchcock, “A Critique of the Preterist View of ’Soon’ and ’Near’ in Revelation,” Bibliotheca Sacra 163:652 (October-December 2006):467-78.] However, Jesus said “all” those things would begin during that generation. It is possible that “all” those things would begin during that generation if one interprets “all those things” as the signs as a whole (cf. Matthew 24:32). The earliest signs then would correspond to the branches of the fig tree becoming tender. This would be the first evidence of fulfillment shaping up. “This generation” then “represents an evil class of people who will oppose Jesus’ disciples until the day He returns.” [Note: Neil D. Nelson Jr., “’This Generation” in Matthew 24:34 : A Literary Critical Perspective,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 38:3 (September 1996):385. See also Lawrence A. DeBruyn, “Preterism and ’This Generation,’” Bibliotheca Sacra 167:666 (April-June 2010):180-200.]

My study was prompted by the preterist assertion that ALL Bible prophecy was fulfilled in 70 A.D. I just wanted to do a Paul Harvey and discover “the rest of the story”. If you would like the complete study, just let me know and where to send it.

Be Blessed!

Book Review – Authorized: The Use and Misuse of the King James Bible–Mark Ward

Posted by Dan C. on

imageThe King James Version has shaped the church, our worship, and our mother tongue for over 400 years. But what should we do with it today?

The KJV beautifully rendered the Scriptures into the language of turn-of-the-seventeenth-century England. Even today the King James is the most widely read Bible in the United States. The rich cadence of its Elizabethan English is recognized even by non-Christians. But English has changed a great deal over the last 400 years, and in subtle ways that very few modern readers will recognize. In Authorized Mark L. Ward, Jr. shows what exclusive readers of the KJV are missing as they read God’s word.

In their introduction to the King James Bible, the translators tell us that Christians must “heare CHRIST speaking unto them in their mother tongue.” In Authorized Mark Ward builds a case for the KJV translators’ view that English Bible translations should be readable by what they called “the very vulgar,” and what we would call “the man on the street.” – Amazon.com

I am just over half-way through this book and it’s hard to even put down! I already have James White’s excellent book, The King James Only Controversy. and while it is also an excellent book, this book isn’t quite as challenging as White’s,(and other articles and books I have read), It really digs into both the use and misuse of the KJV, as the title suggests. Here’s short sample from Chapter 6, Ten Objections to Reading Vernacular Bible Translations:

BIBLES AND INTERSTATES

Think of the Bible as a road down which you are driving. When I drive from work to home, I have to weave through some tight turns while going through the mountains. There are a few places where the driving is difficult, especially if it’s rainy or dark. The Bible contains rainy, dark, twisty passages. Peter saw Paul’s writings as difficult (2 Pet 3:16). I think I could safely add that certain minor prophets are, shall we say, obscure. Certain sayings of Jesus are hard to understand too (“Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you”). Jesus says in Matthew 13 that he purposefully used parables to hide truth from some of his hearers. Some of the Bible is difficult driving, and God intended it that way.

But part of my drive home, a part that wends through beautiful conifer-covered hills, has been recently paved. I noticed this the other day because the ambient noise dropped drastically, and the car all of the sudden felt like it was sailing smoothly over glass.

That’s what a recent vernacular English translation does. The difficult driving around tight turns is still there, because God put some demanding passages in the Bible. But the going is smooth. The actual English at the word and sentence level is not bumpy or awkward but natural.

Ward, Mark. Authorized: The Use and Misuse of the King James Bible . Lexham Press. Kindle Edition.

Here’s link to the Kindle version at Amazon Books, where I purchased it for $5.99:

Authorized: The Use and Misuse of the King James Bible: Ward, Mark: 9781683590552: Amazon.com: Books

Be Blessed!

They Shall Inherit the Earth

Posted by Dan C. on

Robert Eyton

“Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.”—ST MATTHEW 5:5.

The word which is translated meek has acquired for itself a meaning which is, to say the least, unfortunate. A meek man means to many people a tame man, one easily imposed upon. A meek person, from their point of view, is a person who has not much energy, is generally deficient in spirit, and consequently carries the burdens of the family. We count such persons as perhaps useful, as almost on the same level with the camel or the donkey in the animal sphere of existence, useful to carry loads and to expect little in return; but we should hardly say that they were ever likely to inherit the earth, or indeed to inherit anything, except the burdens that their neighbors could manage to thrust on them.

But the meekness of this Beatitude is certainly not mere tameness of nature, mere insensibility, mere want of “go.” It is not the “natural product of a tasteless tree,” it is the Divine outgrowth of a strong natural stock. If we read it “Blessed are the gentle,” we get a better idea of its meaning, only there again the gentleness is that which comes not from want of force, but from a strong and tranquil self-control. Meekness is the result of self-conquest, not of want of fire. It is not a tame insipidity, it is not an amiable flaccid inutility; that is not meekness in the sense of the Beatitude: nor is it the soft, yielding disposition whose cry is, “anything for a quiet life,” that grows into this gentleness. Meekness is a virtue that comes of a strong stock, it must be the outgrowth of a nature that has felt, and felt strongly, and learnt to control its feelings, learnt that real strength lies not merely in the power of letting oneself go, but in the power of holding oneself in. It is from those experiences that the true meekness, the gentleness of the Beatitude is the outcome.

The characteristics of the virtue, whether we call it meekness or gentleness, are something of this kind:—

I. It is willing to bear without retaliation. It is strong enough not to hit back, and that not from contempt but from real self-mastery. It knows that, very often, an injury is not meant, that, e.g., people say cruel things out of an angry feeling, which they do not mean, or false things out of mere idleness. It knows that the temptation to pay them back in kind is an unworthy one; it is strong enough, great enough, not to take refuge in disdain, but to make allowances, to wait, to be silent, to hope that the time will come when the slanderer will answer himself; at any rate, it will not allow itself to add to strife.

So the great model of meekness, our Master and only Saviour, Jesus Christ, comes before us to-day,* meek, and riding on an ass. We understand at once the absence of empty self-assertion. He calls to us, “Learn of Me; for I am meek and lowly in heart,” and teaches thus the lesson of His own gentleness. But no one can study His character and not see that meekness and gentleness are the result of self-control. Strong severity broke forth at times when His soul was moved by the spectacle of those who, under the garb of religion, worked for their own ends. “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law,—judgment, mercy, and faith.” “Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.” “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, for ye are like unto whited sepulchers, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness.” “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchers of the righteous, and say, ‘If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.’ Wherefore, ye be witnesses unto yourselves that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.” “Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?” This is the language of ideal gentleness,—this withering sarcasm, this stern reprobation!

II. Another characteristic which also proves the claim of meekness to strength is its willingness to subordinate mere personal claims—I mean claims so far as they are merely personal and not official. For a man may be ever so meek, and yet rightly insist on the deference due to his office. We see, e.g., that a judge must act in this way; he may not give away from gentleness anything that belongs to his position. And everyone has his place and his duties, whose claims he cannot allow to be subordinated to his own preferences; he must fill his place and do his duties. So far the gentle man is as strong and firm as anyone.

Nay, he is all the more so because he is not agitated by those merely personal questions which so often obscure official dignity. He shews his strength by thinking nothing of them, ignoring them, putting them on one side; he shews his real dignity not by self-assertion, but by discharging his duty and filling his place. These things he must do, these he may not forego, even if they involve a state which seems like assertion of dignity, he must submit to it; for the service of God demands that he should not forego any of his duties, or of what belongs to them. But all mere personal questions, which weaken and confuse the real issues, he is strong enough, and brave enough, to put on one side. Moses was the meekest of men as far as mere personal questions were concerned, he put them aside at once, he would not look at them; but when Moses is exercising his God-appointed office as leader of his people there is no shrinking and no tameness about him. He gave away nothing that belonged to his duties, or pertained to the exercise of his prerogatives.

The meek man may then come into collision with others, because he does the duties committed to him by God, but the one thing he will not do is to project his own personality, or to cherish petty grievances, from an overbearing sense of his own claims. He is strong enough to ignore all that, strong enough to refuse to regard mere personal injury.

The gentleness, then, that is blessed is the gentleness that bears with provocation and controls irritation and refuses to resent personal injury, while at the same time it is strong and brave in the discharge of its duties. It can say “no,” and stick to it without losing its temper over the matter. It has the power to put on one side mere personal irritations, mere questions of offended dignity; it has the strength to control self, to put God’s cause before its own feeling, to act with the single eye; it presents that combination of firmness with gentleness which is so powerful, if so rare. And surely our own experience will tell us how strong and how blessed a thing is meekness of this kind. How often have we felt the withering power of our own irritability; how often have we grieved over the way in which our own impatience has spoiled our best work. “If only I hadn’t lost my temper,” we say, because we feel the weakness of it. Conversely have we not felt that the real good of our life has come, not from our shrewdness, nor from our power of brain, but out of our self-control? How often have we mourned over the lack of an influence which we felt we should have had if we had been more self-controlled! We feel, above all, in dealing with children the strength of meekness. There is a sovereignty that belongs to an iron will—we all own it and we all hate it: there is another sovereignty that belongs to insolent brutality or to mere violent temper, the sovereignty that creates a solitude, and calls that peace. We hate that still more, and get out of its way if we can. But there is a sovereignty, against which we do not rebel, that belongs to the loving compulsion of those who, having learnt to control themselves, are able to influence others by a word or a look, in a way which is only intelligible to those who can trace the secret of their power. Such power belongs to those into whose hearts something of Christ’s meekness has entered, of whom it may be said in truth, “His gentleness has made them great.” Wherein too lies the power of Christ? Surely in Him we see the strength of meekness, “the omnipotence of gentleness and the gentleness of omnipotence.” The gentle God comes and walks among men, and they are conscious of a force and a power within Him that no Cæsar had ever excited. “As soon as He said I am He, they went backward, and fell to the ground.” There was something in Him unapproached and unapproachable, the moral majesty of gentleness.

And this it is which is always justifying the apparent paradox which tells us that “the meek shall inherit the earth.”

Gentleness does win its way where violence only provokes hostility. Moral power is real power. No doubt for a time it may have to yield to brute force. It is no match immediately for bloodthirsty battalions; but all history and all experience prove that the victory of violence is short-lived and the triumph of gentleness is enduring. Even while gentleness is under the yoke it does not lose its sovereign attributes. None feel its essential enduring superiority more keenly than those who, for a time, overwhelm it by brute force. “It is John the Baptist whom I beheaded,” cries Herod. “Why does he plague me still?” So mere force pays involuntary homage to the moral majesty of the meek and gentle. And surely all our modern experience points in the same direction. The man who is self-controlled, who does not make enemies, who is true and straight, is the man who is felt in our modern life, and will be more felt as the democracy advances, as the power that once belonged to privilege and rank and to being “the son of your father” disappears. The days of the loud-mouthed pretenders are passing away; even fluency of speech is becoming less accepted as a sign of supreme virtue by us slow-speaking Saxons. We are coming to the days when the artificial distinctions of class will cease, when the moral methods of influence will alone have any weight, when “force” will be felt finally to be “no remedy,” and a high position will be only valued for the duties involved in it. It is here, I believe, that our great trial lies—the thing that sifts us. In the movement of men’s minds, much that was once taken for granted has at last become an open question. The thing which is asked is not, “Is it the correct thing to believe this?” but, “What is the moral effect of this or that belief?” “Are Christians showing the spirit of Christ? Do they care for His ideals?” Or have they let themselves fall into the temptation of using His Name and calling upon Him as their leader, while they use methods which He would never have endured? We cannot remember too often that it is by moral methods, and not by physical, nor even, except in a subordinate way, by intellectual, that the Kingdom of God is being set up. The real test of each man and woman who is called upon to act in any public fashion is whether he or she really believes in moral methods, believes in them enough to act on them, believes in them rather than in fraud or trickery or force. The effect of self-discipline, of the gentleness that comes from self-control, can never be really estimated here. We live in a fog; we cannot see clearly what is success and what is failure, nor can we see “the seed growing secretly;” we can only mark quick returns and big results. We live in a hurry. It is hard to collect ourselves for calmness and breadth of view and self-command. We need to remember that strong language does not always cover strong purpose, and that to possess the earth something more is needed than the showy and specious achievements of mere rhetoric. In quiet, unperceived places, in secret strivings after self-discipline, in wrestling with the devils of hasty temper and violent methods, gentleness is established within us, and wherever gentleness is established, thence flows power. How it wins its victories and where it reaches to we do not know; we know not how much we owe to the prayers of the meek.

No; where the upholding grace is won

We dare not ask, nor heaven would tell;

But sure from many a hidden dell,

From many a rural nook unthought of there,

Rises for that proud world the saint’s prevailing prayer.

Yes, the meek do inherit the earth. Let us no longer be deceived and act unconsciously in the belief that violence, brutality, and haste can effect anything lasting. Whatever these things seem to effect, let us be sure that self-control and meekness and gentleness have a power beyond all else. If we would help forward the kingdom of God, let us learn to resist our hasty impulses, to check our inward irritation, to command ourselves so that we may at least do something towards our great lifework, which is to spread the influence of Christ before “the night cometh, when no man can work.”

Eyton, R. (1896). The Benediction on the Meek. In The Beatitudes (Second Edition, pp. 44–53). Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner & Co. Ltd. (Public Domain)

clip_image002

OnlineSource: They Shall Inherit the Earth (cmfhq.org)

The Vine

Posted by Dan C. on

“I am the True Vine.”—JOHN 15:1.

ALL earthly things are the shadows of heavenly realities,—the expression, in created, visible forms, of the invisible glory of God. The Life and the Truth are in heaven; on earth we have figures and shadows of the heavenly truths. When Jesus says: I am the True Vine, He tells us that all the vines of earth are pictures and emblems of Himself. He is the Divine reality, of which they are the created expression. They all point to Him, and preach Him, and reveal Him. If you would know Jesus, study the vine.

How many eyes have gazed on and admired the great vine at Hampton Court, with its beautiful fruit. Come and gaze on the Heavenly Vine till your eye turns from all else to admire Him. How many, in a sunny clime, sit and rest under the shadow of their vine. Come and be still under the shadow of the True Vine, and rest under it from the heat of the day. What countless numbers rejoice in the fruit of the vine. Come, and take, and eat of the heavenly fruit of the True Vine, and let your soul say: I sat under His shadow with great delight, and His fruit was sweet to my taste.

I am the True Vine. This is a heavenly mystery. The earthly vine can teach you much about this Vine of Heaven. Many interesting and beautiful points of comparison suggest themselves, and help us to get conceptions of what Christ meant. But such thoughts do not teach us to know what the Heavenly Vine really is, in its cooling shade, and its lifegiving fruit. The experience of this is part of the hidden mystery, which none but Jesus Himself, by His Holy Spirit, can unfold and impart.

I am the True Vine. The vine is the Living Lord, who Himself speaks, and gives, and works all that He has for us. If you would know the meaning and power of that word, do not think to find it by thought or study; these may help to show you what you must get from Him, to awaken desire and hope and prayer, but they cannot show you the Vine. Jesus alone can reveal Himself. He gives His Holy Spirit to open the eyes to gaze upon Himself, to open the heart to receive Himself. He must Himself speak the word to you and me.

I am the True Vine. And what am I to do, if I want the mystery, in all its heavenly beauty and blessing, opened up to me? With what you already know of the parable, bow down and be still, worship and wait, until the Divine Word enters your heart, and you feel His Holy Presence with you, and in you. The overshadowing of His Holy Love will give you the perfect calm and rest of knowing that the Vine will do all.

I am the True Vine. He who speaks is God, in His infinite power able to enter into us. He is man, one with us. He is the Crucified One, who won a perfect righteousness and a Divine life for us through His death. He is the glorified One, who from the throne gives His Spirit to make His Presence real and true. He speaks—oh! listen, not to His words only, but to Himself, as He whispers secretly day by day: I AM THE TRUE VINE. All that the Vine can ever be to its branch, I WILL BE TO YOU.

Holy Lord Jesus! the Heavenly Vine of God’s own planting, I beseech Thee, reveal Thyself to my soul. Let the Holy Spirit, not in thought, but in experience, give me to know all that Thou, the Son of God, art to me as the True Vine.

Murray, A. (1898). The Mystery of the True Vine: Meditations for a Month (pp. 15–19). J. Nisbet & Co. (Public Domain)

The Bodily Resurrection of Believers

Posted by Dan C. on

This is a short study of the topic I put together in response to the notion that the resurrection of believers is only spiritual and not a physical resurrection. It might be helpful and might be useful as a resource for discussing the topic. It is designed to be able to assert that the certain scripture passages from the Bible point to our bodily resurrection from the dead at Christ’s second coming. Here are 5 reasons to believe in our physical resurrection from the dead at Christ’s second coming.

1. “Resurrection” in the Bible speaks of physical bodies are being raised.

“For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.” (Matt 22:30) 

“and you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you. For you will be repaid at the resurrection of the just.” (Luke 14:14)

“We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not “

“For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first.” (1 Thess 4:16)

Thayer Definition of ‘resurrection’ G386, ἀνάστασις, anastasis

1) a raising up, rising (e.g. from a seat)

2) a rising from the dead

    2a) that of Christ

    2b) that of all men at the end of this present age

Thayer Definition of ‘raised’: G1453, ἐγείρω, egeirō

1) to arouse, cause to rise

    1a) to arouse from sleep, to awake

    1b) to arouse from the sleep of death, to recall the dead to life

    1c) to cause to rise from a seat or bed etc.

    1d) to raise up, produce, cause to appear

Thayer Definition of ‘rise up’ G450, ἀνίστημι, anistēmi

1) to cause to rise up, raise up

    1a) raise up from laying down

    1b) to raise up from the dead

    1c) to raise up, cause to be born, to cause to appear, bring forward

2) to rise, stand up

    2a) of persons lying down, of persons lying on the ground

    2b) of persons seated

    2c) of those who leave a place to go elsewhere

        2c1) of those who prepare themselves for a journey

    2d) of the dead

2. Christ’s resurrection body is the pattern of our resurrection body: (Phil 3:20-21)

“20But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, 21who will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power that enables him even to subject all things to himself.”  (Phil 3:20-21)

3. Romans 8 speaks of the “redemption” of our bodies.

21that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. 22For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. 23And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. (Rom 8:21-23)

4. Jesus speaks of the resurrection as involving the coming forth of individuals out of their tombs.

“28Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice 29and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment.” (John 5:28-29)

5. The Old Testament speaks of the resurrection as being physical:

“And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.” (Dan 12:2)

“25For I know that my Redeemer lives, and at the last he will stand upon the earth. 26 And after my skin has been thus destroyed, yet in my flesh I shall see God, 27whom I shall see for myself, and my eyes shall behold, and not another. My heart faints within me!” (Job 19:25-27)

Online Source: Will the Resurrection of the Body Be a Physical Resurrection from the Dead?

Be Blessed!

What do full preterists (F.P.) and mid-Acts dispensationalists (M.A.D.) have in common?

Posted by Dan C. on

You might think that’s a rather silly question, but please bear with me. While you do, please know that this is purely an academic exercise and not a critique of either full preterism or mid-Acts dispensationalism. Both systems have already been discussed here at The Battle Cry. In fact, I wasn’t planning to spend much more time and ‘ink’ on either one. I’m not a fan of beating dead horses.

I’m writing this post because I’ve spent time visiting and discussing those views at a couple of FB pages dedicated to both systems of interpretating the Bible, and recently noticed some interesting commonalities. Just this morning I found on my own FB page the following graphic, from a full preterist site, which I think demonstrates most of the FP and MAD commonalities I’ve been thinking about lately.:

image

Before I get to those however, I wanted to mention that it seems that either position will tell us that their particular system was commonly believed by many/most of the early church fathers, making it true, while it was only held by some and in some cases a small minority. I believe that exaggerating claims, both groups know that most readers won’t actually check for themselves.

I also found out that there were adherents to both systems throughout church history, neither one was formally developed as part of Protestant scholarship until the 1800’s. Adherents of both systems will offer scriptural “proof”, declaring that they are right and everyone else is wrong, no matter how many doctrinally sound disagreeing arguments are presented to them.

Back to the original graphic, some observations from an old soldier, from the top down:

1. Both groups will tell you something along the lines of “What nobody ever told us…” They mean nobody! Throughout church history (for 2,000 years) no one has told you the real truth, ot even today’s preachers! Do you know any cults that started out with an identical claim? Does that tell you anything?

2. They both claim that it’s all a matter of properly reading the Bible and understanding the audience. They both force their respective “conclusions” into scripture (eisegesis) by any means they can.

a. Full preterists (ALL Biblical prophecy was completed by 70 A.D.) will tell you that certain terms always have one and only one meaning; the one that fits their narrative. If Jesus or an Apostle said that the second coming was ‘near’ is had to be connected to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Therefore, the references to the Thessalonians and Corinthians in the graphic.

b. Mid-Acts dispensationalists chop the text of the Bible into the sections that are only to Jews while others are only to Gentiles. The OT through the middle of Acts, as well as Hebrews through Revelation was written to the Jews and the middle of Acts through Paul’s letter to Philemon were written to gentile believers, including us.

c. Both groups will limit timeless and eternal principles found in the text of scripture only pertained to the immediate audience, whether it be in the OT or the NT. In the above graphic we are told that Noah’s announcement of the flood and Jonah’s warning to Ninevah had nothing to say to us today. Some mid-Acts dispensationalists will tell us that the Law delivered to Israel has nothing to do with us.

3. Having an honest and dispassionate conversation with either group can be extremely difficult. They are so certain about their absolute ‘rightness’ and everyone else’s ‘wrongness’ that just suggesting that there ‘might be’ other sound interpretations of scripture than theirs can bring down everything from condescending responses to ‘divine’ condemnation.

There are probably other commonalties between FPs and MADs that I haven’t discovered, but I’m not going to try and hunt them down.

As a final remark, not too long after I found the above graphic and had started writing this post, I received an IM from one of the FP site admins urging me to carefully consider their ‘rules’ again and either formally ‘agree’ or ‘disagree’ to their terms of engagement by the 16 Feb deadline for the reinstatement of commenting privileges. I’ll probably be banned forever. That’s all right. I even thanked the admin who contacted me for posting the graphic I’ve been discussing!

Be Blessed!