Meanwhile, this Sunday Night in North Finchley … 4 Part 1

Sermon preparation for the record and for the day ahead:

—•— Sonship as a Matter of Life and Death —•—

Part 1

Eighty years after Jochebed his mother entrusted him to the waters of the Nile in his tarred basket of bulrushes, Moses returned to Egypt with a message for Pharaoh and some miracles to back it up. We are always liable to be diverted away from messages by miracles but in this case the message is embedded in the meaning of the miracles. Moreover the meaning of the miracles is reflected in the contextual details of the departure of Moses from Midian as well.

Exodus 04[18-23]

18 • Moses went back to Jethro his father-in-law and said to him,
“Please let me go back to my brothers in Egypt
to see whether they are still alive.”
• And Jethro said to Moses, “Go in peace.”
19 • And the LORD said to Moses in Midian,
“Go back to Egypt,
for all the men who were seeking your life are dead.”

20 • So Moses took his wife and his sons
and had them ride on a donkey,
and went back to the land of Egypt.
• And Moses took the staff of God in his hand.
21 And the LORD said to Moses,
“When you go back to Egypt,
see that you do before Pharaoh
all the miracles that I have put in your power.
• But I will harden his heart,
so that he will not let the people go.

22 • Then you shall say to Pharaoh,
‘Thus says the LORD, Israel is my firstborn son,
23 • and I say to you, “Let my son go that he may serve me.”
• If you refuse to let him go, behold, I will kill your firstborn son.’”

If we take time to outline vv. 18-23 we will see that we have three contrasting pairs, In 18f. we have a matter of life and death: Moses asks to go see: ‘whether my brothers in Egypt are still alive .’ and God tells him: ‘all the men who were seeking your life are dead.’ In 20f. we have a contrast of tenderness and hardening: Moses has ‘his wife and his sons ride on a donkey,’ but Pharaoh’s soon-to-be proverbial hardening is revealed before the journey even starts. Vv. 23f. is a tale of two firstborn sons to be announced in the face of Pharaoh’s hardness: ‘Israel is my firstborn son, let him go that he may serve me.’ opposed to ‘If you refuse I will kill your firstborn son.’

This is Moses’s second attempt to check on his people but, whereas the first attempt ended in disaster, this one will succeed. In his first attempt, Moses tried to ‘help’ his beleaguered fellow Israelites while still operating from the palace and his interfering left a dead Egyptian buried in the sand, which manslaughter having been discovered, Moses had had to flee for refuge. It is fairly certain that ‘the son of Pharaoh’s daughter’ did not ask for permission to go and visit his relatives but the husband of Jethro’s daughter does ask permission and it is granted when Jethro graciously and peaceably dismisses him.

It might seem strange to us that Moses doesn’t just tell Jethro that God has told him that his relatives in Egypt are still alive and that he has a mission to accomplish. By putting the matter to Jethro in the way that he does Moses is neither being deceitful nor indicating any doubt about what God has told him concerning the Israelites. By putting his request in terms of the Israelites still being alive, Moses is indicating to Jethro that this is a matter both of blood and of honour.

Apparently it is after Moses has spoken to Jethro that God gives Moses the welcome news that there is nothing now to fear from the body-in-the-sand incident of forty years ago. We know from Exodus 2:15 that ‘When Pharaoh heard of it, he sought to kill Moses,’ so there must have been a change of Pharaoh but surely, if the former Pharaoh was to be properly honored, even in death, Moses should now be the enemy of the son as he was of the father? Apparently not, the father Pharaoh being dead, Moses is no longer persona non grata in the Egypt of his son.

Of Moses’s two sons we read in Exodus 18:3-4 that ‘ … The name of the one was Gershom (for [Moses] said, "I have been a sojourner in a foreign land"), (4) and the name of the other, Eliezer (for he said, "The God of my father was my help, and delivered me from the sword of Pharaoh").’ In Exodus 18 they are being brought back to the camp of Israel by their Grandfather because Moses had send them home at some stage but in Exodus 4 they are on their way to Egypt with Zipporah their mother. In Exodus 4 the details are so sparse that we couldn’t know from there even that there were two of them and we are left to deduce that they were quite small from the fact that they share a donkey with their mother. Moses’s tenderness in providing the donkey contrasts quite shockingly with the disposition of God as they continue towards Egypt:

Exodus 04[24-31]

24 • At a lodging place on the way
the LORD met him and sought to put him to death.
25 • Then Zipporah took a flint and cut off her son’s foreskin
and touched Moses’ feet with it
and said, “Surely you are a bridegroom of blood to me!”
26 • So he let him alone.
It was then that she said, “A bridegroom of blood,”
because of the circumcision.

27 • The LORD said to Aaron,
“Go into the wilderness to meet Moses.”
• So he went and met him at the mountain of God and kissed him.
28 • And Moses told Aaron
all the words of the LORD
with which he had sent him to speak,
and all the signs that he had commanded him to do.

29 • Then Moses and Aaron went
and gathered together all the elders of the people of Israel.
30 • Aaron spoke all the words
that the LORD had spoken to Moses
and did the signs in the sight of the people.
31 • And the people believed;
and when they heard
that the LORD had visited the people of Israel
and that he had seen their affliction,
they bowed their heads and worshiped.

These eight verses have the records of three significant meetings and all three are about representation. It is hard enough to understand vv. 24-26 without removing them out of their context so let’s just outline the three meetings in order to get as much help as possible with vv 24-26. Vv. 24-26 tells us of a ‘meeting’ between the wife of Moses and God over the life of one of Moses’s sons, presumably Gershom, the firstborn. Vv. 27f. tell of a meeting between Moses and Aaron at the ‘mountain of God.’ Vv. 29-31 tell of the meeting with ‘all the elders of the people of Israel’ at which ‘the people believed.’

As representatives the elders believe and worship on behalf of the entire nation and, because of Moses’s weakness, Aaron will speak for Moses at least at the beginning of his ministry. Aaron is introduced to the miracles that have been given for performance as signs but at the same time Zipporah is learning about the significance of circumcision in a most traumatic way!

Just as we need to see this incident in the context of representation, we also need to bring to it the things that have been done and said beforehand. Was Moses visiting his kinsmen a matter of life and death? So is this a matter of life and death! Will Pharaoh’s attitude be one of hardness of heart? What does that say about God’s disposition towards Gershom here? Why, since Moses sent two sons off to Egypt with their mother, is only one son involved in this incident if not because there is a direct link between the threat to Pharaoh’s firstborn in v. 23 and the threat to Moses’s firstborn in v. 24?

Because the threat is to Moses’s son rather than to Moses. It doesn’t help that all the English versions seem to want to ‘help’ us by importing Moses into v. 25 where, in Hebrew, the feet don’t have to be his and he doesn't have to there. Moreover, and just to seal this, the ‘bridegroom of blood,’ that Zipporah declares, is better read as ‘kinsman’ than as ‘bridegroom.’ We wouldn’t hold Moses to having claimed more actual brothers than Aaron because of his request of Jethro to ‘let me go back to my brothers in Egypt,’ so we shouldn’t insist that Moses must be there because Zipporah talks about ‘a kinsman of blood.’

We could describe God’s disposition towards Gershom as that of the angel of death seeing no sign why he should ‘pass over’ the little encampment there and allow Moses’s heir join in the Exodus experience. Just as with the real Passover, the sign is the shedding of blood and the seal of circumcision is enacted at the very start of the Exodus just as it brings the Exodus to an end at Gilgal [Joshua 5:1-7]. After Gershom’s circumcision we can’t think that what God says about Israel being his firstborn son is only a manner of speaking.

We shouldn’t lose sight of Zipporah in this and her declaration here is fit to be put beside Rahab’s declaring for the God of Israel to the two spies (again at the end of the Exodus) and with Ruth’s resolution in Ruth 1:16-17 ‘But Ruth said, “Do not urge me to leave you or to return from following you. For where you go I will go, and where you lodge I will lodge. Your people shall be my people, and your God my God. (17) Where you die I will die, and there will I be buried. May the LORD do so to me and more also if anything but death parts me from you.”’

And having come this far and added Zipporah to the ranks of ‘Mothers in Israel,’ we should take a break by pointing to yet another mother ‘pierced’ by the stern disposition of God against her son:

Luke 02[33-38]

33 • And his father and his mother
marveled at what was said about him.
34 • And Simeon blessed them
• and said to Mary his mother,
“Behold, this child is appointed
for the fall and rising of many in Israel,

• and for a sign that is opposed
35 • (and a sword will pierce through your own soul also),
• so that thoughts from many hearts may be revealed.”

36 • And there was a prophetess,
Anna, the daughter of Phanuel,
of the tribe of Asher.
• She was advanced in years,
having lived with her husband seven years
from when she was a virgin,
37 and then as a widow until she was eighty-four.
• She did not depart from the temple,
worshiping with fasting and prayer night and day.
38 And coming up at that very hour
she began to give thanks to God and to speak of him
to all who were waiting for the redemption of Jerusalem.

Don’t let Anna’s representation of all the other mothers in Israel distract you. Nor should you get in a turmoil about Joseph being called ‘his father,’ because ‘Pepe’ (if you’ve got the Latin) is taking a representative role in this passage as well. The sword piercing through Mary’s own soul is foreshadowed by Zipporah’s experience with her firstborn and the blood of Gershom’s circumcision, which points to the slaying of the lamb and the Passover, also points inexorably and wonderfully to the death on the cross of ‘the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world.’

SNAP! 6

The Freedom-giver’s story
turned the world upside down
for it changed the lives of people
as it spread from town to town.
And, shinning through the darkness,
see the message plain today
written large so he that runs may read
that ‘Jesus is the Way.’

He said:
‘I am the Way, I am the Truth, I am the Life,
no one comes to the Father but by me.
The Spirit will lead you into all truth,
you shall know the truth,
and the Truth shall set you free.’

The freedom that he gave up
was the freedom that he gave.
See those nail-pierced hands of Jesus
still stretched out with power to save.
And the life he gave a ransom
is the life he gives to men.
See him, through the clouds, ascending:
‘This same Jesus will come again.’

The darkness that he passed through
brought our souls into his light,
by submission and subjection,
Jesus won the freedom-fight,
as the fruit of his rejection,
to our God we’re reconciled,
in the silence of the victim,
hear the cry of a new-born child!

CODA:
‘And if the Son shall free you, you shall be free indeed.’

From the Cliff-edge of Mt. Nebo 4

From where Moses stood:On the edge of the promised land, Moses stood here and saw far more than physical geography. He saw a political map of the twelve tribes and a redemptive history stretching away to the coming of the Messiah.

—•— What is an Evangelist? —•—

Mark Heath has posted a helpful summary of officers in New Frontiers Churches in his ‘wordandspirit’ journal. I find the distancing of apostles in the New Frontiers movement from the apostleship of the twelve apostles helpful and look forward to the day when they are able to say ‘different from the twelve and from Paul.’ In the meantime I feel provoked to re-examine what I, as a ‘Word and Spirit’ cessationist, ought to think about evangelists.

To fast forward through all the background for church offices we should make the following points with no explanations or deviations. There are two and two only groups of officers in the churches, denominated respectively as ‘overseers’ (bishops) and ‘servants’ (deacons). The overseers are distinguished primarily by their ability to teach but not all of them specialize in doing so, so there is one office but distinctions between officers. Similarly with deacons there are degrees of attainment and experience brings change and responsibility. Some terms, elder, pastor and teacher, are shown to be synonymous with overseer so it is not a great leap to see the link between the ‘… great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus’ [1 Timothy 3:13] that deacons gain and the term ‘evangelist’.

Ephesians 4[07-14]

7 • But to each one of us grace was given
according to the measure of Christ’s gift.
8 • Therefore He says:
“When He ascended on high,
He led captivity captive,
And gave gifts to men.”

9 • (Now this, “He ascended”;
what does it mean
but that He also first descended
into the lower parts of the earth?
10 He who descended is also the One who ascended
far above all the heavens,
that He might fill all things.)

11 • And He Himself gave
some to be apostles,
some prophets,
some evangelists,
and some pastors and teachers,
12 • for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry,
• for the edifying of the body of Christ,

13 • till we all come
to the unity of the faith
and of the knowledge of the Son of God,
• to a perfect man,
to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ;
14 • that we should no longer be children,
tossed to and fro
and carried about with every wind of doctrine,
by the trickery of men,
in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting,

Let’s skip over why so many past theologians have thought that evangelists disappeared along with apostles and prophets and take it for granted that this is something that continues with us. To put it in the terms we were using earlier, there are still deacons who serve well and gain great confidence in the faith and we need to fit them into Ephesians 4. Forgive me also for jumping over any discussion about why apostles and prophets should be considered to continue or to have ceased because such discussions are not key to the functioning of evangelists. We’re done with fast forwarding now; it’s time to play at normal speed.

Three functional pairings out of five ‘giftings’: The first pairing is that of apostles and prophets because we could helpfully translate Ephesians 4:11a-c as ‘And He Himself gave on the one hand the apostles, on the other hand, the prophets.’ A different kind of grammatical construction makes the third pair a different kind of pairing so that ‘pastors and teachers’ are lumped together as one part of the second pairing: evangelists and pastors-and-teachers. It is not out of order to make the equation that evangelists are to apostles what pastors / teachers are to prophets. Draw a diagram to see how that maps onto the text. I’d do it for you but I’m somewhat technologically challenged as you can see from the lack of permalinks around this post. (My apologies if I’ve learned how to do them by the time you read this.)

The one-handing of evangelists and the other-handing of pastors / teachers fits in very well with the separation of ministries into overseer and servant. We could ask why Paul doesn’t just talk about bishops and deacons but his purpose here isn’t to establish once again that there are two offices in the church, moreover, the one-is-to-the-other diagram doesn’t work with deacons and overseers per se; deacons need to have gained great confidence in the faith before we can expect any semblance of an apostolic function to be seen in them.

Differentiation and development: Because of the grammar used we are able to look at the pastor / teacher pairing as a differentiation within the office of overseer. Because of the word used we are able to see degrees of development in the office of deacon. We always have been capable of underestimating the value of deacons because we tend to define the limitations of the work that deacons should be doing in terms of work that apostles ought not to be doing. It is therefore the more frustrating that we are so capable of limiting the work of an evangelist to a limit that does not embrace the apostolic functions apparently entailed to the place of the evangelist in Ephesians 4.

Not in Word only: This tendency is not helped by focussing on the vocal nature of these ministries because it is all too easy to see that they have the common characteristic of being publicly vocal and miss that speaking is the means to ends rather than ends themselves. The ends of these ministries are listed as ‘for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ.’ And let’s not get distracted for the minute about whether the work of the ministry is what the saints are to be equipped for or what the ministries are themselves for or both. However these are split up, they are all directed towards the church. This goes with the territory for pastors and teachers but against the grain a little for evangelists. We are inclined to consider that the gifts of pastors and teachers are inwardly directed and that would accord easily with these purposes but we are equally predisposed to see the giftings of an evangelist to be outwardly directed and that is not reflected in these purposes.

Except that the work of the evangelist is to these purposes and outwardly directed when the function of the evangelist is seen to involve planting new churches and serving reconciliation between churches without being the sort of super-elders that diocesan bishops both aspire to and fail to be because diocesan bishops are also a misinterpretation of what an officer is for. I suggest that exploring the role of an evangelist as we find it delimited in Ephesians 4 should go some distance towards fulfilling the purposes of equipping the saints and edifying the church.

Selah 5

Psalm 4:4

Be angry, and do not sin; ponder in your own hearts on your beds, and be silent. Selah.

A city in the valley, lit and warm and barred
to me because of principle. And Esau with two wives
belonging to these people! My heart, cold
as this stone, clutches emptiness to hold.

Me in this place, within constraint, between two lives
and if and when? … and then you’ll be my God.

The woman of my longing — morning dawns to dread!
No Rachel here. A cousin, yes! But facing me this ‘Leah.’
A custom of these people! Exile hope; lies; toiled-
for, lack-love marriage; grasped-at vision; spoiled.

Me for a servant’s bonds and bound for all to see
the ladder’s in the round and round and round I tread.

This valley of decision, cleared of mine, until
there’s only me to fret about, an exile coming home,
the father of these people. Come the day
here comes the other man, some ghost to lay.

Me down to sleep at last. When sinew shrunk on bone
reminds me to remember, I’ll remember and be still.

18th Century Theology with Thomas Boston 5

Thomas Boston was a Scottish preacher of genius. His writings are more readily available than ever before, in book form (including the ubiquitous Fourfold State of Man ), increasingly on the web (including bits of the ubiquitous Fourfold State of Man), on unsearchable CD rom and 0n searchable CD rom.

—•—The Spirit of Bondage—•—

Unbelievers are actuated by a spirit of bondage, suitable to their state of bondage under the covenant of works, Gal. 4:24, 25. A slavish fear and a servile hope are the weights hung upon them by that covenant, causing them to go: sin is avoided, duty performed, not out of love to God and holiness, but out of love to themselves. (Works VIII 572) A law-work cannot miss to be straitening to a sinner. Conviction of sin, of heart, lip, life, and nature, cannot but press sore; the spirit of bondage, girding the soul with the cords of death, and the curse of the broken law, makes a strait entry, Rom. 8:15. (Works X 318)

This fear of God is to be found in the unconverted; they have the spirit of bondage again to fear, (Works IX 77) Satan and our corrupt hearts are ready to drive forward this fear of God’s wrath to exceed all bounds: and no wonder, for when it has got over the boundaries, it makes fearful havoc in the soul’s case, like a consuming fire, deadening all good motions towards God, and quickening evil ones, to the dishonour of God, and one’s own torment; and no case out of hell is liker hell than this, both in respect of sin and misery. But when the Spirit of God has a saving work in view, he can easily make the spirit of bondage subservient to the spirit of adoption. (Works IX 80) The service he performed for you was hard service; the yoke he puts upon you is easy, and the burden light, Matt. 11:30. He served as a bond-servant for you; he requires you to serve him as a son serveth his father, Mal. 3:17. If his people make their own service harder, they owe it not to his Spirit, but to their own spirit, or a worse, Rom. 8:15, “For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear.” (Works VII 540 cf. Works VII 333 n. l )

Question… But can saints have no such slavish fear of God? Answer: As all the graces of the Spirit are imperfect and mixed in the saints, so is their fear of God not without a mixture of that slavishness. Hence saith Jesus unto his disciples, Matt. 8:26, “Why are ye so fearful, O ye of little faith?” It is the same word as 2 Tim. 1:7. It is true, God never again gives them the spirit of bondage; but they may, through unbelief, take up a spirit of bondage again. But seeing they can never again lose the Spirit of adoption, neither can they lose that grace of filial reverential fear altogether: so that there is still as much difference betwixt them and hypocrites, as betwixt the malefactor fearing the judge, and a son’s fearing his father; who appears enraged against him, and about to put him out of his house; which yet will not kill natural affection. (Works IV 484f.)

Now, there is a twofold word to be believed by all those who would enter into the covenant of grace in a saving manner, namely, the word of the law, and the word of the gospel. The believing of the former is a faith of the law; and of the latter, a faith of the gospel. The faith of the law is the work of the Spirit of God, as well as the saving faith of the gospel, though wrought by him in a very different manner. The former he works by the law, as a Spirit of conviction and bondage, convincing of sin and misery, Rom. 8:15, with John 16:8. The latter he works by the gospel, as a quickening Spirit, a Spirit of saving illumination and adoption. (Works I 359f.)

Let those, who, by the power of the spirit of bondage, have had the law opened before them in its spirituality, for their conviction, speak and tell, if they found themselves able to incline their hearts toward it, in that case; nay, whether the more that light shone into their souls, they did not find their hearts more and more unable to comply with it. (Works VIII 57f.) They are of a slavish spirit who are under [the covenant of works]; whereas the saints are acted by a son-like spirit. For, says the apostle, Rom. 8:15, “ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.” As the slave is moved with fear, not with love; so is it with them. (Works XI 273) Look at those whose soul exercises have issued in putting their case in the hands of a Physician of no value. There are many who, being awakened by a spirit of conviction, and are really exercised about their souls’ condition, put their case to Christ for healing. But not being able or willing to wait his time, till the wound be sufficiently searched, but being for peace at any rate, they are offended in him, and so put themselves in the hand of the law that wounded them. Thus they make themselves whole, not by the believing application of the blood of Christ, but by their prayers, tears, and external reformation. And so they settle down upon their lees, farther from Christ than ever. (Works III 72)

Consider the entertainment which [Christ] meets with when he comes to teach souls inwardly by his Spirit. Men do what they can to stop their ears, like the deaf adder, that they may not hear his voice. They “always resist the Holy Ghost:” “They desire not the knowledge of his ways;” and therefore bid him “depart from them.” The old calumny is often raised upon him on that occasion, John 10:20, “He is mad, why hear ye him?” Soul-exercise, raised by the spirit of bondage, is accounted, by many, nothing else but distraction, and melancholy fits; men thus blaspheming the Lord’s work, because they themselves are beside themselves, and cannot judge of those matters. (Works VIII 67) The spirit of bondage witnesseth the truth [that there is a sentence passed in the court of heaven, and standing, against ungodly men, evil-workers], convincing the sinner that he is a dead man, Rom. 7:9, and that he stands in need of a remission, chap. 3:19. This testimony is true; for it is the testimony of the Spirit of God, whereby he brings sinners to see their need of Christ. (Works VI 483)

The Spirit of the Lord speaks to the soul as it were out of the midst of the fire; but there is blackness, darkness, and tempest, mixed with this light. And here consider the [twofold] matter … of this conviction, … (1.) Sin, John 16:8, “He will reprove the world of sin.” The Spirit of the Lord convinces the man that he is a sinner, and sets his particular sins in order before him, Ps. 50:21. Then sins that are out of mind, as dead and buried, have a fearful resurrection, Rom. 7:9. The spirit of bondage leads his prisoner in chains, through the several parts and steps of this life, to his very birth; and shows him convincingly his sins in them: lets him see such ill in sin as he never saw before, how heinously God takes it, and that with the several aggravations thereof. (2.) Misery, John 16:8. The Spirit of the Lord convinces him, that he is lost and undone, Luke 15:17. Being convicted and found guilty, sentence passes on him within his own breast, whereby he sees himself doomed to eternal death. He is convinced, as if an angel from heaven should tell him, that he is under God’s wrath and curse, and that therefore, if he die in that case, he will perish for ever. He sees God to be his enemy; his word to speak no good of him, and all God’s creatures his enemies in some sort ready armed against him. (Works I 564f.)

The Lord, the Judge, sends out other messengers, and they apprehend the sinner, lay hands on him to carry him, whether he will or not, before the judgment-seat, and oblige him to abide his trial. And these are two: the Spirit of bondage, and an awakened conscience, John 16:8, 9; Prov. 20:27. These will catch the man, and hunt him till they find him out, when they have got their order, Jer. 2:27. They apprehended Paul when going to Damascus, and left him not till he appeared, and submitted himself. But it is not always so. Some that are apprehended get out of the messenger’s hands, and make their escape unhappily. When they are caught, they are unruly prisoners: they struggle and wrestle, and strive against the Spirit, and their own consciences, Acts 7:51; they go no farther with them than they are dragged. They get the mastery at length over their conscience, break its bonds, and stifle its convictions, and so grieve and quench the Spirit, that they get away to their own ruin; like Cain, Saul, Felix, &c. But none of God’s elect ever get away altogether. (Works I 583f.) Then the elect soul is infallibly sisted at length before the judgment-seat. The Spirit of bondage and the awakened conscience apprehend him afresh, and bring their prisoner in chains of guilt unto the bar trembling, and he can escape the trial no longer, before a holy God, Acts 16:29, 30. Then what fear, sorrow and anxiety, seize the prisoner’s soul, while he sees a just Judge on the throne, a strict and severe law laid before him, and he has a guilty conscience within! And he must undergo a trial for his life; not the life of the body only, but of soul and body for evermore. These things may seem idle tales to some; but if ye have not experienced the reality of them, ye shall do it, or dreadful shall the judgment after death be to you. (Works I 584 )

How hopeless is the case of many that have never yet been awakened by the Spirit of conviction! The forerunners of the effectual call are not yet come unto you. (Works I 566) Let us take a view of those who are lying dead upon their murdered convictions. Our Lord has taken some persons in hand to cure them, and by the Spirit of conviction, he has begun to let blood of the heart vein of their beloved lusts. But the pain of this operation hath made them disagree with the Physician, start up and break the lancet, and stifle their convictions. And now their wound is whole, their convictions are gone, and their conscience, which was so uneasy before, is now as dead as stone. Go where they please, they are not troubled. Darts are as stubble. (Works III 71) When the natural conscience is awakened by the Spirit of conviction, it will indeed rage and roar, and put the whole man in a dreadful consternation; awfully summon all the powers of the soul to help in a strait; make the stiff heart to tremble, and the knees to bow; set the eyes weeping, the tongue confessing; and oblige the man to cast out the goods into the sea, which he apprehends are likely to sink the ship of the soul, though the heart still goes after them. Yet it is an evil conscience which naturally leads to despair, and will do it effectually, as in Judas’ case; unless either lusts prevail over it, to lull it asleep, as in the case of Felix, Acts 24:25, or the blood of Christ prevail over it, sprinkling and purging it from dead works, as in the case of all true converts, Heb. 9:14, and 10:22. (Works VIII 81f.)

[B]y the Spirit of the Lord, acting as a spirit of bondage, there is a criminal court erected in the man’s breast; where he is arraigned, accused, and condemned for breaking the law of God, (Works VIII 190) [A] man believes … [t]hat he is a sinner, a breaker of the law’s commands, liable to divine vengeance. The law pronounces him a guilty man, and he believes the report of the law concerning himself in particular; and so, by this faith, his heavy and sorrowful heart echoes back to the voice of the law, guilty, guilty! Rom. 3:19. This faith is a divine faith, founded upon the testimony of God in his holy law; and rests not in the testimony of men, whether spoken or written. The Spirit of God as a Spirit of bondage, brings home the law to the man’s conscience, and persuades him, that that law is the voice of the eternal God, and the voice of that God to him in particular; and so convinces him of sin upon God’s own testimony. (Works I 360)

The means the Spirit makes use of is the word; hence we read of preaching repentance. And (1.) The law serves to break the hard heart, Jer. 23:29, “Is not my word like a fire? saith the Lord; and like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces?” It is like the Baptist preparing the way for the Messiah’s coming. Hence it is called, “The Spirit of bondage,” Rom. 8:15. (2.) The gospel serves to melt the hard heart, like a fire, Jer. 23:29, forecited; and so bow and bend it from sin unto God. The soul is driven by the law, but drawn by the gospel. The Lord comes in the still small voice. (Works II 413) Time was when [the convicted sinner] could not think of parting from among [the world’s society]; but could get no rest among them; seeing every moment the city of destruction ready to be overthrown, and himself to be swallowed up in the ruins. This is a new sight that one gets, not by the sight of the eyes, but from the word, by the Spirit acting as a Spirit of bondage on the soul and conscience; awakening, convincing, and persuading into a firm belief of the report of the law, with application to one’s own particular case. (Works V 354)

[T]he Spirit of the Lord makes use of both parts of the word. … The law, to break the hard heart. Jer. 23:29, “Is not my word – like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces? saith the Lord.” It goes before like John Baptist to prepare the way of the Lord into the heart. And the Spirit of the Lord making use of it in a soul, is called “the Spirit of bondage,” Rom. 8:15. And here each part of the law has its proper use. (Works VI 386)

The work of the Spirit for persuading and enabling us to embrace Christ, is threefold: namely, conviction, saving illumination, and the renewing of the will. But conviction is not a work of the Spirit, of the same kind with the other two. Conviction is a work of the Spirit, acting as “a spirit of bondage” upon us, Rom. 8:15. The Spirit, acting as a Spirit of bondage, convinceth us of our sin and misery; John 16:8, “And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment.” Acts 2:37, “Now, when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter, and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?” (Works VII 85)

[A man’s belief that he is a sinner] rests not on the testimony of man, whether spoken or written; but is a divine faith, founded upon the testimony of God, in his holy law, demonstrated by the Spirit of bondage, to be the voice of the eternal God, and the voice of that God to him in particular. (Works VIII 582f.) He can no more look upon the curse as some strange thing, belonging only to some monsters of wickedness, and not to him: for the Spirit of the Lord, as a Spirit of bondage, applies it closely to him; as if he said, thou art the man. (Works VIII 583)

Our Lord breaks his people’s hearts by his Spirit, and yet by the same Spirit binds them up again. In the first work he is the Spirit of bondage; and some may be long under his hand this way. Hence we read of some “who, through fear of death, were all their lifetime subject to bondage,” Heb. 2:15. (Works IX 560) [B]y his Spirit acting upon them, as a Spirit of bondage, he sets home on their consciences, the holy law in the commands and curse thereof, as of divine authority, and binding on them in particular. Hereby they are convinced of their sin and misery, seeing their sin as heinous in the sight of God, and his wrath due to them for their sin: they are filled with remorse, terror, and anxiety; are made to pant for relief, feel an absolute need of Christ and his righteousness, and despair of relief by any other way, Acts 2:37, and 16:29, 30. (Works VIII 551)

[T]he faith of the law is the work of the Spirit of God, as well as the saving faith of the gospel; though wrought in a different manner. The former he works as a Spirit of bondage, convincing of sin and misery, by the law, Rom. 8:15, with John 16:8. The latter he works as a quickening Spirit, enlightening the soul in the knowledge of Christ, by the gospel, 2 Cor. 3:17, 18. (Works VIII 582) The bonds laid on [the] consciences [of the person united to Christ] by the Spirit of God, acting as the Spirit of bondage, are taken off, never more to be laid on, Rom. 8:15, “For ye have not received the Spirit of bondage again to fear.” (Works VIII 206f.)

SNAP! 5

Shadrach, Meshach, Abed Nego were stoked into the fire,
the old king took a look in just to watch the flames climb higher.
Those three wise men in the fire stood
accompanied by the Son of God;
the fire couldn't touch them for the Lord was on their side.

He was the:
fourth man in the fiery furnace,
third man going to Emmaus,
second man to represent us,
God's only Son.

Cleopas and a friend of his were walking home by night,
a stranger came and talked with them and showed them what was right.
How their hearts did burn within
as he showed how the Scriptures spoke of him,
their fears and doubts were banished as the Lord walked by their side.

Adam was the founder of the dying human race,
condemned to crucify until the Saviour took his place.
Adam's sin meant the fall of man,
salvation was God's rescue plan,
the love of Jesus bought it for the Lord is on our side.

Meanwhile, this Sunday Night in North Finchley … 3

Sermon preparation for the record and for the day ahead:

—•—What did the first nine plagues ever do for us?—•—

Preparing to come out of bondage and into an inheritance is no easy step. We should not underestimate the effect of the first nine plagues in preparing the way for the exodus. It is quite obvious that those plagues had the beneficial effect, as far as the Israelites were concerned of softening up the Egyptians. Yes, Pharaoh’s heart was still hard but that doesn’t mean that the Egyptian people were as resolute or as strong after nine plagues as they were at the beginning of them. The picture the Bible gives us is of a nation ruined by what the plagues had wrought on them.

We don’t need to look any further than the complete and utter freedom that the Israelites enjoyed to keep the first Passover to see how much had changed during the course of the nine plagues. How, during the bricks-without-straw era, would the Israelites have been able to stage such an act? The Egyptians would have been down on them like the oppressor nation that they were but not any more.

Psalm 76:5 ‘The stouthearted were stripped of their spoil; they sank into sleep;
all the men of war were unable to use their hands.’

Egypt still had the power to keep the Israelites there and the power to destroy but the power to enforce labour from them had been destroyed and it had been destroyed by the first nine plagues. However, only looking at one side of this equation will miss a very important lesson. The first nine plagues had an effect on the Israelites as well.

Just consider what the Israelites were like before the nine plagues, during the time of bricks-without-straw. A more pathetic people can hardly be imagined than those in Exodus 6:9 who ‘…did not listen to Moses, because of their broken spirit and harsh slavery’ who complained that Moses and Aaron were the cause of their troubles. On the eve of the nine plagues there was not a sign that these slaves were about to be transformed into a martial nation. It isn’t that the people who left Egypt after the tenth plague were a fully-formed army but nonetheless, contrast those who ate the Passover with their belts fastened ready for action with their former selves when crushed under the weight of bondage and you get a glimpse of what the nine plagues did for Israel.

It is important to know that the Israelites did not start the period of bondage as unwilling to be led, unable to imagine things getting better and thoroughly demoralized. In fact when we consider the generation before Moses’s generation we find a very different picture is presented to us by the resistance that the Israelite women showed to Pharaoh. First of all we have the story of the Hebrew midwives and that contains the essence of the story of the other Israelite women within it.

Exodus 01[15-22]

15 • Then the king of Egypt said to the Hebrew midwives,
one of whom was named Shiphrah and the other Puah,
16 • “When you serve as midwife to the Hebrew women
and see them on the birthstool,
if it is a son, you shall kill him,
but if it is a daughter, she shall live.”
17 • But the midwives feared God
and did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them,
but let the male children live.

18 • So the king of Egypt called the midwives and said to them,
“Why have you done this, and let the male children live?”
19 • The midwives said to Pharaoh,
“Because the Hebrew women are not like the Egyptian women,
for they are vigorous
and give birth before the midwife comes to them.”
20 • So God dealt well with the midwives.
• And the people multiplied and grew very strong.

21 • And because the midwives feared God, he gave them families.
22 • Then Pharaoh commanded all his people,
“Every son that is born to the Hebrews you shall cast into the Nile,
but you shall let every daughter live.”

We generally concentrate on what the Hebrew midwives do in this story and the summary of our thinking is pretty much that God rewarded the midwives for disobeying Pharaoh and in spite of them deceiving Pharaoh. Now, since the disobedience and the deception are pretty much of a muchness, we are probably giving too much weight to our nice little equation that a lie is a lie is a lie and it is tempting just to defend the midwives as doing the best they were able in impossible circumstances — breaking the commandment, of course, but doing so legitimately because they were doing so not to lie for lying’s sake but to save lives. Put it this way, Pharaoh was a mortal enemy in the full meaning of the word ‘mortal’. His desire was to have rid of the Hebrew identity by eliminating all the male children at birth and it is perfectly righteous to deceive a mortal enemy.

Pharaoh was incredibly arrogant in his mortal oppression of the Hebrews. For a start he did not seem to see that he was attacking the whole reason for existence for the midwives but more than that, he doesn’t seem to get it that in attempting to kill the Hebrew sons he was attacking Hebrew motherhood. His total disregard for women was at the root of the downfall of his dynasty because he did not take notice of a very fundamental linkage — that it would be, to put it in archetypal terms, the seed of the woman who would bruise the serpent’s head.

The midwives seem to have deduced, quite correctly, that the disdain that Pharaoh had towards their womanhood was derived from a disdain that he had for women in general so that, when they said, ‘the Hebrew women are not like the Egyptian women.’ he was set up to believe them. It was entirely in character for Pharaoh to extend his genocidal plan to make it an obligation for all his people to drown the Hebrew boys. As soon as he did this, of course, it made his entire people the mortal enemies of the Hebrews and legitimately liable to deception.

However, no matter how great the temptation to use the Hebrew midwives as an example of the righteousness of deceiving a mortal enemy, there remains the difficulty that the vigour of the Hebrew women was an actual reality. If Pharaoh had checked he would have no doubt discovered that many of the Hebrew women were being delivered without the midwife being in attendance. The decadence of Egyptian womanhood was evident away back in the days when Potiphar’s wife tried to seduce Joseph whereas these Hebrew women, including the midwives, looked back to Sarah who gave birth to the patriarch Isaac when she was in her nineties.

Now, it is a still a temptation to dwell now on the truthfulness of what the midwives said to Pharaoh, and draw out the lesson that when we are deceiving a mortal enemy, it is generally a good rule to be as truthful as possible in what we say to deceive. It isn’t that the midwives never assisted at the birth of a baby boy but when they gave a reason for their general inability to comply with Pharaoh’s demand they were demonstrating why there were many little Hebrew boys out there. With regard to the fact that they had, out of reverence for God, never killed a baby boy was a truth with which they were economical. In their reply to Pharaoh they used as much of the truth as they could in order to deceive him utterly.

No, the lesson we take from the incident of the Hebrew midwives is that that generation of women could be favorably contrasted not only with their Egyptian contemporaries but also with their own sons on the eve of the plagues. Shiphrah and Puah were representatives of a galaxy of strong mothers-in-Israel in a day when they were called upon to be the first line of resistance to an attack on the very existence of Israel’s children.

One more name from that generation needs to be singled out. She was the daughter of one of the twelve sons of Jacob but born when he was old. Here is her generation as we find it recorded in Exodus 06[14-20]

14 • These are the heads of their fathers’ houses:
the sons of Reuben, the firstborn of Israel:
Hanoch, Pallu, Hezron, and Carmi;
these are the clans of Reuben.
15 • The sons of Simeon:
Jemuel, Jamin, Ohad, Jachin, Zohar,
• and Shaul, the son of a Canaanite woman;
these are the clans of Simeon.

16 • These are the names of the sons of Levi
according to their generations:
Gershon, Kohath, and Merari,
the years of the life of Levi being 137 years.
17 The sons of Gershon: Libni and Shimei, by their clans.
18 • The sons of Kohath:
Amram, Izhar, Hebron, and Uzziel,
the years of the life of Kohath being 133 years.
19 • The sons of Merari:
Mahli and Mushi.
These are the clans of the Levites according to their generations.

20 • Amram took as his wife Jochebed his father’s sister,
• and she bore him Aaron and Moses,
• the years of the life of Amram being 137 years.

Note how the families of tribes of Reuben and Simeon are passed over quickly save that it is mentioned that Shaul was son of Simeon and ‘of a Canaanite woman.’ The families of the tribe of Levi are drawn out for one more generation to establish the families and, to give a rough chronology, three ages at death are given. The captivity in Egypt was long but the startling evidence of this text is that Jochebed the mother of Moses, who led the Israelites out of Egypt, was the granddaughter of Jacob. It is difficult to make the figures add up precisely since we do not have ages of fathers at the birth of their sons to put beside their ages at death but however we stack the figures up it seems necessary for us to recognise that Jochebed was older than normal childbearing age when her children were born.

However it was that she got to take a place among the lively Hebrew women of Shiphrah’s and Puah’s generation, Jochebed was called on to give birth to her youngest child during the time when Pharaoh had given up on the midwives being able to dispatch the Hebrew boys and was calling on the Egyptians to do it. Let’s look at the strength of her resolve when her son was born:

Exodus 02[01-08]

1 • Now a man from the house of Levi went
and took as his wife a Levite woman.
2 The woman conceived and bore a son,
and when she saw that he was a fine child,
she hid him three months.
3 • When she could hide him no longer,
she took for him a basket made of bulrushes
and daubed it with bitumen and pitch.
• She put the child in it
and placed it among the reeds by the river bank.
4 And his sister stood at a distance
to know what would be done to him.

5 • Now the daughter of Pharaoh came down to bathe at the river,
while her young women walked beside the river.
• She saw the basket among the reeds and sent her servant woman,
and she took it.
6 • When she opened it,
she saw the child,
and behold, the baby was crying.
She took pity on him and said,
“This is one of the Hebrews’ children.”

7 • Then his sister said to Pharaoh’s daughter,
“Shall I go and call you a nurse from the Hebrew women
to nurse the child for you?”
8 • And Pharaoh’s daughter said to her, “Go.”
• So the girl went and called the child’s mother.

Pharaoh’s disdain for women rises up to bite him once more in this story. We are presented with the story of three women here and we know the names of two of them from later on in the account. Jochebed and Miriam her daughter were beneath Pharaoh’s attention as Hebrew women, although it is possible that they were notable simply because of seniority in a major family. On the other hand, although Pharaoh’s daughter would have been known to him, we never know her name although she is responsible for naming Moses and for taking him into Pharaoh’s household. It is inconceivable that a son of Pharaoh’s would have been able to do this but an insignificant daughter was allowed to bring the one who would become the nemesis of the entire dynasty into the palace and sponsor his growing up there. What did it matter to Pharaoh if the Hebrew girls were allowed to live and what did it matter to him that his daughter wanted to amuse herself in this way?

If Pharaoh was aware that Moses was a Hebrew, it is fairly certain that he never entertained the thought that anyone would choose to align himself with a group of slaves when he had a place in the palace. Jochebed knew better and her choice of method to save the boy’s life shows that her trust was placed entirely in the God of history. Pharaoh wouldn’t even acknowledge the recent history of the salvation of his nation at the hand of the Hebrew slave, Joseph, but Jochebed’s preparation of the bulrush basket covered in tar shows a knowledge of the way that God preserved the human family, eight strong in the Ark, through the flood. The means that would have been used to destroy Moses was thus transformed into the means of his survival and the crying that would have given him away during the first three months of his existence now stirred up maternal instincts in Pharaoh’s daughter.

Moses might have been called ‘the son of Pharaoh’s daughter’ but Jochebed knew — by the recognition that first saw that ‘he was a fine child’, by his preservation in the basket and by the answer to her prayers that he was returned to her to nurse — Jochebed knew that God had a purpose for Moses. How great her vision was we do not know but her struggle to preserve her son’s life is representative of the struggles of a whole generation. Their vigour, fear of God and resistance to the mortal enemy of their people would have had poor reward if the preserved generation had continued to be the beaten and ground-down bunch of slaves that wouldn’t listen to Moses eighty years later. But just as God provided the idea of the basket to Jochebed and the opportunity for Miriam to suggest to Pharaoh’s daughter that she fetch ‘a nurse from the Hebrew women,’ he also sent the nine plagues to strengthen Israel in the measure that they weakened Egypt.

Moses himself honored his mother with another mention of her name:

Numbers 26[52-59]

52 • The LORD spoke to Moses, saying,
53 • “Among these the land shall be divided for inheritance
according to the number of names.
54 • To a large tribe you shall give a large inheritance,
and to a small tribe you shall give a small inheritance;
every tribe shall be given its inheritance in proportion to its list.

55 • But the land shall be divided by lot.
• According to the names of the tribes of their fathers
they shall inherit.
56 • Their inheritance shall be divided
according to lot between the larger and the smaller.”

57 • This was the list of the Levites according to their clans:
of Gershon, the clan of the Gershonites;
of Kohath, the clan of the Kohathites;
of Merari, the clan of the Merarites.
58 • These are the clans of Levi:
the clan of the Libnites,
the clan of the Hebronites,
the clan of the Mahlites,
the clan of the Mushites,
the clan of the Korahites.
• And Kohath was the father of Amram.
59 The name of Amram’s wife was Jochebed the daughter of Levi,
who was born to Levi in Egypt.
And she bore to Amram Aaron and Moses and Miriam their sister.

It tells us three things about Jochebed, that she was the daughter of Levi, that she was born in Egypt and that she bore her husband, Amram, three children. The first two facts make explicit what is implied elsewhere but note that the context here is all about inheritance. Inheritance is about patrimony and size, but we see here that it isn’t only about patrimony and size. Two things are very relevant. 1) God would control the lot that would select which tribe and family would inherit where and 2) mothers are important in sonship as well as fathers.

God gave the mothers in their tenacity the means to preserve their sons and he gave the nine plagues to turn these sons back into the sort of men that their mothers had wanted them to be. He uses means to guard his inheritance and to bring us into ours. These mothers-in-Israel were stirred up to do whatever it took to preserve life and bring their sons to the inheritance in the land that they, true daughters of Abraham, were looking for. We should not be surprised that God chose a mother, Mary, to bring a special child into the world and fight for his preservation, and that that son then did what it took to claim the inheritance on our behalf and bring many sons to glory.

Selah 4

Psalm 4:2

O men, how long shall my honour be turned into shame? How long will you love vain words and seek after lies? Selah.

Pseudo-conjoined but stranger fraternals from long before birth;
from womb-battering struggle to ‘Grasper’ and ‘Red-as-the-Earth’.
One, patience subverted to stirring a savoury snare,
to hunt hunter, exhausted; the other, the elder, the heir,
thus prizing the bounty.

Exchange the birthright for a bowl of lentil stew,
a cheat-the-belly, filling up of you
to leave you empty.


Primogenitured choice, designated receiver of blessing to come.
Self-destructing intent: bless and die when the hunter gets home.
The mother usurps, instigating the turn of the tide.
Her son, pliant, and, blindness (the father’s) a good place to hide
playacting the story.

Extract the blessing in a sweat of purloined suit:-
• Taste,
• touch
• and smell all tally,
• though hearing is out.
Skin, smothering glory.

Proto-generic — specifically waiting to claim back the lot.
In two groups advancing — appeasement the heart of the plot.
A meeting of brothers; (a cleansing? a healing? a break
with disjointed experience?) — for family-value, a wake
cements the division.

Accept the bribe for now and let your brother go
or take this chance of cleaving to him — No!
Abandoned the vision.

18th Century Theology with Thomas Boston 4

Thomas Boston was a Scottish preacher of genius. His writings are more readily available than ever before, in book form (including the ubiquitous Fourfold State of Man ), increasingly on the web (including bits of the ubiquitous Fourfold State of Man), on unsearchable CD rom and 0n searchable CD rom.

Freedom of the Will

Freedom of will is a power in the will, whereby it doth of its own accord, without it, choose or refuse what is proposed to it by the understanding. And man hath this freedom of will in whatever state he be. But this power of the will is not of the same extent in all states. In the state of innocence, it extended both to good and evil; that is to say, man had a freedom of will, whereby he could wholly turn, either to the one side or the other, to good or evil, proposed by his understanding: and that man was created thus mutable, was suitable to the state of trial. (Works VII 27) This is that state of innocence in which God placed man in the world. It is described in the holy Scripture with a running pen, in comparison of the following states; for it was of no continuance, but passed away as a flying shadow, by man’s abusing the freedom of his will. (Works VIII 11) Now, the special act of providence about the fall of our first parents, was that God left them to the freedom of their own will; and the use they made of that, was, that they went freely, of their own accord, to the side of sin. (Works VII 27)

…our first parents had a freedom of will. Freedom of will is a liberty in the will, whereby of its own accord, freely and spontaneously, without any force upon it, it chooses or refuses what is proposed to it by the understanding. And this freedom of will, man hath in whatever state he be. But there is a great difference of the freedom of the will in the different states of man. … The freedom of will that man had in the state of innocence was different from [freedom of will in the states of nature, grace or glory]. In [the state of innocence, man] had a freedom of will both to good and evil; and so had a power wholly to choose good, or wholly to choose evil: which differences it from the freedom of will in the state of grace. He had a free will to good, yea, the natural set of his will was to good only, Eccl. 7:29, being “made upright;” but it was liable to change through the power of temptation, and so free to evil also, as mournful experience has evidenced. Man was created holy and righteous, and received a power from God constantly to persevere in goodness, if he would! yet the act of perseverance was left to the choice and liberty of his own will. … To illustrate this a little, we may observe some resemblance of it in nature. God creates the eye, says one, and puts into it the faculty of seeing, and withal he adds to the eye necessary helps by the light of the sun. As for the act of seeing, it is left to man’s liberty; for he may see if he will, and if he will he may shut his eyes. The physician, again, by his art procures an appetite, and provides convenient food for the patient: but the act of eating is in the pleasure of the patient; for he may eat, or abstain from it if he will. Thus God gave Adam strength and power to persevere in righteousness, but the will he left to himself. (Works I 246 -247)

A former friendship and favour [is implied in the nature of reconciliation]. God and man were once in good terms. There was a time wherein they met and lovingly conversed together. When Adam dropped from the fingers of his Creator, he was the friend and favourite of Heaven. He had the law of God written on his heart, and a strong bent and inclination in his will to obey it. In that state there was no place for reconciliation: for then there was no breach between God and his creature. (Works I 460f.) The parts of the image of God impressed on his soul, were, knowledge on his mind, righteousness on his will, and holiness on his affections. His knowledge was a sufficient understanding of what was necessary to make him completely happy, Gen. 1:26; Col. 3:10. His righteousness was a perfect conformity of his will to the will of God; and his holiness was the perfect purity of all his affections; Eccl. 7:29, “God made man upright.” (Works VII 20-22) God left man to the freedom of his own will in [the covenant of works]. He was not the cause of his fall; he moved him not, nor could he move him to it; James 1:13, “For God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man.” Such is the holiness of his nature. He gave him a power to stand if he would, and he took not away from him any grace given; but, for his trial, left him to his freedom of will, with which he was created. God made him good and righteous, and the natural set of his will was to good only, Eccl. 7:29. But it was liable to change, yet only to change by himself; he could only be made evil or sinful by his own choice. (Works XI 229f.)

Let no man quarrel, that God made Adam liable to change in his goodness; for if he had been unchangeably holy, he behoved to be so either by nature or by free grace: if by nature, that were to make him God; if of free grace, then there was no wrong done him in withholding what was not due. And he would have got the grace of confirmation, if he had stood the time of his trial (Works I 246 -247) If it be asked, why man was not set beyond the possibility of change. It is to be remembered, that absolute immutability is the peculiar prerogative of God himself, and every creature, in as far as it is a creature, is incapable of being so immutable. Yet the creature may be in some sense made immutable, that is, so as it shall not be possible for it actually to fall from its goodness, though there is still a changeableness in its nature. Now, if man had been created without so much as a remote power in himself to change himself, he had not been a free agent; but God might have so established him, as that he could not actually have fallen; yet that would have been owing to confirming grace. The which, why the Lord did not bestow on him, it belongs not to us to define; only he was no debtor to him for it. (Works XI 229f.)

If we would see the foundation and plan of this mystery, we must look back before all ages unto the depths of the eternal counsels in the breast of God, before the world was, now revealed to us by the Gospel. … [T]he ground upon which it was raised … was the eternal foresight of man’s fall from a state of holiness and happiness, into a state of sin and misery, Rom 9:21. This presupposes a twofold purpose. 1. A purpose of creating man; … 2. A purpose of permitting man to fall, to leave him to the freedom of his own will, and not to hinder his falling away. God was not the cause of man’s fall; for, saith the apostle, James 1:13, “Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man.” But had he not permitted, or willed not to hinder his fall, it could not have happened; Rev. 3:7, “These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth, and shutteth, and no man openeth.” This permission taking place in time, was then decreed from eternity; Eph. 1:11, “Being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will.” (Works X 436)

—•—

Man abused his own liberty or freedom of will, and complied with the temptation, and so broke the covenant. He only himself was the true and proper cause of his own falling: not God, for he can never be the author of sin; not the devil, nor Eve, for they could only tempt and entice, but not force him. It was his own choice; he did it freely without co-action or compulsion; and he could have stood if he would. And thus was the fatal step made, whereby the covenant was broken. (Works XI 230) Man being thus left to the freedom of his own will, abused his liberty in complying with the temptation, and freely apostatised from God. And so man himself, and he only, was the true and proper cause of his own sinning. Not God, for he is unchangeably holy; not the devil, for he could only tempt, not force: therefore, man himself only is to blame; Eccl. 7:29, “God made man upright, but they have sought out many inventions.” (Works I 254)

In the natural corrupt state, man has a free will only to evil; Gen. 6:5, “Every imagination of the thoughts of his heart is only evil continually.” Eph. 2:1, “He is dead in trespasses and sins.” He freely chooseth evil without any force on his will; and he cannot do otherwise, being under the bondage of sin. (Works I 246 -247) … in the state of corrupt nature, the power of the will extends only to evil; Gen. 6:5, “And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” (Works VII 27) The decree of God about the permission of sin does not infringe the liberty of man’s will. For sin doth not follow the decree by a necessity of co-action or compulsion, which indeed would destroy human liberty; but by a necessity of infallibility, which is very consistent with it. It is sufficient unto human liberty, or the freedom of man’s will, that a man act without all constraint, and out of choice. Now, this is not taken away by the decree. Men sin as freely as if there were no decree, and yet as infallibly as if there were no liberty. And men sin, not to fulfil God’s decree, which is hid from them, but to serve and gratify their vile lusts and corrupt affections. (Works I 161)

—•—

In the state of grace, man has a free will, partly to good and partly to evil. Hence the apostle says, Rom. 7:22, 24, “I delight in the law of God after the inward man. But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin, which is in my members.” In this state, the will sometimes chooses that which is good, and sometimes that which is evil. This freedom of will is in all regenerate persons who have in some measure recovered the image of God. They choose good freely, by virtue of a principle of grace wrought in them by the sanctifying operations of the Divine Spirit; yet through the remainders of corruption that abides in them, their wills are sometimes inclined to that which is evil. (Works I 246 -247)

Christ’s Spirit begins his work with conviction of sin and misery. He makes the captives to see where they are, whose they are, and what is their case. This rouses them out of their lethargy, makes them prize this liberty; it makes them glad to come away with their deliverer: “O Israel thou hast destroyed thyself, but in me is thine help.” (Works IX 576) In the state of grace, [the power of the will] extends partly to good, and partly to evil; Rom. 7:23, “But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin, which is in my members.” (Works VII 27)

Access to God, as children to a Father, Eph. 3:12, as one friend to another [and f]reedom from the slavery of sin and Satan, John 8:32 [are benefits that accompany justification, adoption and sanctification.] The war being ended, and peace concluded, the communication betwixt heaven and earth is opened. They may export thither all their wants, petitions, and requests, being sure that they will be taken off their hands; and import supplies of all kinds necessary to make them happy, light, life, strength, &c. They that are sanctified by the Spirit, are loosed from the Egyptian bondage, and made the Lord’s freemen. Though Satan and sin molest them, and put them hard to it, they shall never get them back again into their former house of bondage. But they shall, like a dog snarling at the horses heels, be bruised under their feet at length; and the soul shall be more than conqueror. (Works I 578)

[Jesus proclaims] [l]iberty, that is, freedom of Spirit in the service or God; 2 Cor. 3:17, “Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.” The Spirit of Christ is called a free spirit, because he makes free. Satan’s captives may yield some obedience to God, but it is burdensome, because they act therein as slaves, from a slavish fear of hell and wrath. But Christ’s freemen act from a nobler principle, love; Rom. 8:15, “For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear, but ye have received the spirit of adoption, whereby ye cry, Abba, Father.” 1 John 4:18, “There is no fear in love, but perfect love casteth out fear; because fear hath torment; he that feareth is not made perfect in love.” (Works IX 581)

—•—

In the state of glory, man has a free will to good only. In this state, the blessed choose good freely; and being confirmed in a holy state, they cannot sin. (Works I 246 -247) And in the state of glory [the power of the will] extends only to good; Heb. 12:23, “To the spirits of just men made perfect.” (Works VII 27)

The Lord is pleased often to represent unto us the glorious state of the saints, by speaking of them as clothed in “white garments.” It is promised to the conqueror, that he shall be “clothed in white raiment,” Rev. 3:5. The elders about the throne are “clothed in white raiment,” chap. 4:4. The multitude before the throne are “clothed with white robes,” chap. 7:9; “arrayed in white robes,” ver. 13; “made white in the blood of the Lamb,” ver. 14. I own, the last two testimonies respect the state of the saints on earth; yet the terms are borrowed from the state of the church in heaven. All garments, properly so called, being badges of sin and shame, shall be laid aside by the saints when they come to their state of glory. But if we consider on what occasions white garments were wont to be put on, we shall find much of heaven under them.
The Romans, when they made their bond-servants free, gave them a white garment as a badge of their freedom. So shall the saints that day receive their white robes; for it is the day of “the glorious liberty of the children of God,” Rom. 8:21, the day of “the redemption of their body,” ver. 23. They shall no more see the house of bondage, nor lie any more among the pots. If we compare the state of the saints on earth with that of the wicked, it is indeed a state of freedom, whereas the other is a state of slavery; but, in comparison with their state in heaven, it is but a servitude. A saint on earth is indeed a young prince, and heir to the crown; but his motto may be, “I serve;” “for he differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all,” Gal. 4:1. What are the groans of a saint, the sordid and base work which he is sometimes found employed in, the black and tattered garments which he walks in, but badges of this comparative servitude? But from the day the saints come to the crown, they receive their complete freedom, and serve no more.

They shall be fully freed from sin, which of all evils is the worst, both in itself, and in their apprehension too; how great then must that freedom be, when these “Egyptians, whom they see to-day,” they “shall see them again no more for ever.” They shall be free from all temptation to sin: Satan can have no access to tempt them any more, by himself, or by his agents. A full answer will then be given to that petition they have so often repeated, “Lead us not into temptation.” No hissing serpent can come into the paradise above; no snare or trap can be laid there, to catch the feet of the saints: they may walk there without fear, for they can be in no hazard; there are no lions’ dens, no mountains of leopards, in the promised land. Nay, they shall be set beyond the possibility of sinning, for they shall be confirmed in goodness. It will be the consummate freedom of their will, to be for ever unalterably determined to good. And they shall be freed from all the effects of sin: “There shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain,” Rev. 21:4. What kingdom is like unto this? Death makes its way now into a palace, as easily as into a cottage; sorrow fills the heart of one who wears a crown on his head: royal robes are no defence against pain, and crying by reason of pain. But in this kingdom no misery can have place. All reproaches shall be wiped off; and never shall a tear drop any more from their eyes. They shall not complain of desertions again; the Lord will never hide his face from them: but the Sun of Righteousness shining upon them in his meridian brightness, will dispel all clouds, and give them an everlasting day, without the least mixture of darkness. A deluge of wrath, after a fearful thunder-clap from the throne, will sweep away the wicked from before the judgment-seat, into the lake of fire: but they are, in the first place, like Noah, brought into the ark, and out of harm’s way. (Works VIII 319f.)

SNAP! 4

I feel the warmth of your presence and my flowing tears can’t drown
your joyous welcome for a prodigal come home.
There’s a mountain ridge below me even when I’ve fallen down
and every everlasting reason to go on.

Where I go, you’ve been before me so you know the way ahead,
at its sunrise know the ending of each day;
leading me out of temptation, you supply my daily bread,
and into life you are in truth the living way.

In the midst of my confusion you give order to my life,
in the middle of the night you give a song;
for my thirst you gave me water, for my loneliness a wife,
in the measure of my weakness made me strong.

—•—

This song was published in Symphony in 1993 which means that it cuts it as poetry but that doesn't mean that I should presume that anyone could sing it as a hymn. For a start there is its second-last line which is a bit ‘for married men only.’ Maybe a solution would be to make the second verse a chorus? More likely someone else will be able to asset-strip usable lines out of it, in which case it would be good to be informed. The most likely scenario is that nobody will write music for it and it will never be heard. That's maybe why I hardly write songs any more.

Meanwhile, this Sunday Night in North Finchley … 2

Sermon preparation for the record and for the day ahead:

—•—The Bones of Joseph—•—

Genesis 50[19-26]

19 • But Joseph said to them,
“Do not fear, for am I in the place of God?
20 • As for you, you meant evil against me,
but God meant it for good,
to bring it about that many people should be kept alive,
• as they are today.
21 So do not fear;
I will provide for you and your little ones.”
Thus he comforted them and spoke kindly to them.

22 • So Joseph remained in Egypt,
he and his father’s house.
• Joseph lived 110 years.
23 And Joseph saw Ephraim’s children of the third generation.
• The children also
of Machir the son of Manasseh were counted as Joseph’s own.

24 • And Joseph said to his brothers,
“I am about to die,
but God will visit you and bring you up out of this land
to the land that he swore to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob.”
25 • Then Joseph made the sons of Israel swear, saying,
“God will surely visit you,
and you shall carry up my bones from here.”
26 • So Joseph died, being 110 years old.
They embalmed him,
and he was put in a coffin in Egypt.

The tenth plague that was visited onto the Egyptians was directly linked to sonship in Israel by it’s nature. Because of obedience to the command to slay a lamb and then place its blood on the door posts and on the lintel, the firstborn sons of Israel were ‘passed over’ by the plague. Because of Pharaoh’s hardness of heart and his refusal to let Israel go in spite of all his promises during the other nine plagues, the firstborn of every family in Egypt died that night. This irreconcilable loss of sons marked the division of these peoples as Pharaoh at last commanded the children of Israel to leave and the Egyptians thrust the inheritance that their dead sons would now not receive into Israelite hands. Tombs prepared for fathers would now be filled with sons, all over Egypt but the most prominent tomb that would commemorate their loss was to be one that would now stand empty because as the Israelites left, they took the bones of Joseph with them.

Exodus 13[16-22]

16 • (“)It shall be as a mark on your hand
or frontlets between your eyes,
for by a strong hand the LORD brought us out of Egypt.”
17 • When Pharaoh let the people go,
God did not lead them by way of the land of the Philistines,
although that was near.
• For God said,
“Lest the people change their minds when they see war
and return to Egypt.”
18 But God led the people around
by the way of the wilderness toward the Red Sea.

• And the people of Israel went up out of the land of Egypt
equipped for battle.
19 • Moses took the bones of Joseph with him,
• for Joseph had made the sons of Israel solemnly swear,
saying,
“God will surely visit you,
and you shall carry up my bones with you from here.”

20 • And they moved on from Succoth
and encamped at Etham, on the edge of the wilderness.
21 • And the LORD went before them
by day in a pillar of cloud to lead them along the way,
and by night in a pillar of fire to give them light,
that they might travel by day and by night.
22 • The pillar of cloud by day
and the pillar of fire by night
did not depart from before the people.

The tomb of Joseph, the son of Jacob who was separated from his brothers, stood empty on the morning of the Exodus. He — who in life was the symbol of salvation to Egypt and Israel both, and the means of salvation to both — became, in death, the symbol of the curse that Egypt brought upon itself and the sign of that curse was an empty tomb. The father-Pharaoh had arisen who ‘did not know Joseph’ and when he died the son-Pharaoh who replaced him faced his nemesis, Moses, with the arrogant claim not to know the LORD.
Now this son-Pharaoh’s own son lay dead and the bones of Joseph were ready to be taken from the place where his honourable place had been so disgracefully and disastrously forgotten. We are quite right to take up Joseph’s own words to his brothers and echo them concerning the Pharaohs who so conveniently forgot what they owed because, while those Pharaohs meant what they did for evil, God meant it for good.
The honours of inheritance — initially piled onto Joseph when he was released from the prison and then taken from him long after his death — those honours were now returned in kind as his dry bones became the symbol of the life of a new nation, brought out of captivity with, proverbially and literally, ‘not a hoof left behind.’
Joseph, who was first of all given undue prominence by his father as the son of the loved though junior wife, exalted over the heads of his older brothers in the matter of the coat — Joseph, who was then disinherited by the violence, greed and scheming treachery of his brothers — This Joseph, though being dead, now takes his honoured place in the phalanx of the living on route to Canaan, via Sinai.

Joshua 24[28-33]

28 • So Joshua sent the people away, every man to his inheritance.
29 • After these things Joshua the son of Nun,
the servant of the LORD, died, being 110 years old.
30 • And they buried him in his own inheritance at Timnath-serah,
which is in the hill country of Ephraim,
north of the mountain of Gaash.

31 • Israel served the LORD all the days of Joshua,
and all the days of the elders who outlived Joshua
and had known all the work that the LORD did for Israel.
32 • As for the bones of Joseph,
which the people of Israel brought up from Egypt,
they buried them at Shechem,
in the piece of land that Jacob bought
from the sons of Hamor the father of Shechem
for a hundred pieces of money.
• It became an inheritance of the descendants of Joseph.

33 • And Eleazar the son of Aaron died,
• and they buried him at Gibeah, the town of Phinehas his son,
• which had been given him in the hill country of Ephraim.

When’s Jacob died, Joseph was his heir, receiving the birthright and he was privileged in turn to live long enough to ‘see Ephraim’s children of the third generation.’ Jacob’s body was taken back to be buried in Canaan when he died but [Heb 11:22] ‘By faith Joseph, at the end of his life, made mention of the exodus of the Israelites and gave directions concerning his bones.’ Joseph’s bones had to wait. The last words of Genesis are about the bones of Joseph so it is fitting that, in the last few verses of Joshua, the bones of Joseph are finally laid to rest after the conquest of the land.
His burial is placed in between those of Joshua himself, who inherited the leadership from Moses and Eleazar who inherited the high-priesthood from Aaron. The parallels are striking. Joshua died, being 110 years old, the same as Joseph. Eleazar was buried in a town belonging to his son just as Joseph’s bones were buried in land that his father had bought but which his sons inherited. Note the ominous implication that a generation would arise that would parallel the advent of the Pharaoh who did not know Joseph [Joshua 24:31] ‘Israel served the LORD all the days of Joshua, and all the days of the elders who outlived Joshua and had known all the work that the LORD did for Israel.’
Judah was the brother whose tribe was to produce the kings and ultimately the Messiah but the birthright belonged to Joseph and so he is representative of the people to whom the Messiah would come.

From the Cliff-edge of Mt. Nebo 3

From where Moses stood:On the edge of the promised land, Moses stood here and saw far more than physical geography. He saw a political map of the twelve tribes and a redemptive history stretching away to the coming of the Messiah.

I took delivery of a new book this morning and if ever a book represented a lost cause this is it.
Tom McIver in Anti-Evolution: A Reader’s Guide to Writings before and after Darwin. describes it thus:
“Gosse, Philip Henry. Omphalos: An Attempt to Untie the Geological Knot, 1857. London: Van Voorst. Gosse: member of Plymouth Brethren; respected naturalist, marine biologist (popularized the aquarium). Gosse tried to accommodate his strict belief in literal creation with mounting evidence for old earth and succession of fossil organisms. He expected this book to be a triumphant breakthrough, a reconciliation embraced by atheist geologist and fundamentalist alike. Gosse argued for creation with appearance of age: just as Adam was created with a belly-button (‘omphalos’), so too all creatures and the earth itself were created with apparent age — illusory evidence of previous existence. God created all things in cycles of existence, so His creations showed signs of previous stages of the cycle from the moment of creation. He created trees with tree-rings (from non-existent previous growth), and animals with signs of earlier growth and wear — even with excrement in their intestines. The living world had to be created as an ongoing process in order to function. When God created organisms, he necessarily created them at some point in the cycle of existence. He gave each an arbitrary beginning, “but one which involved all previous rotations of the circle, though only as an ideal, or, in another phrase, prochronic,” (Gosse contrasts such “prochronic,” created events with ordinary “diachronic” events which occur “during” time.) Geological strata were created with fossils already in them. “The past conditions or stages of existence in question, can indeed be as triumphantly inferred by legitimate deduction from the present …; they rest on the very same evidences; they are identically the same in every respect, except this one, they were unreal. They exist only in their results; they are effects which never had causes.” Gosse’s theory was rejected by all sides. Most creationists today are embarrassed by the bold totality of Gosse’s concept, but continue to rely on creation with appearance of age for specific cases of refractory evidence.„

Omphalos has been reprinted by the Ox Bow Press, P.O. Box 4045, Woodbridge, Connecticut. They did the reprint in 1998 and I’ve only just noticed but I obtained this copy through http://used.addall.com and, colophonically speaking, it is the most inviting looking paperback reprint I have ever seen. Their back-page blurb is as off-putting as McIver’s:-

“In the mid 1850s, a terrible dilemma presented itself to the distinguished English marine biologist Philip Henry Gosse. The emerging scientific evidence for the great age of the earth and the fossils that were being uncovered was in opposition to the fundamentalist beliefs of the Plymouth Brethren. As a lay preacher of this group, he faced the terrible choice between faith and reason. In a valiant effort to have it both ways, he wrote Omphalos (London, 1857). This work maintained that God created the world the biblical five millenia ago with newly created evidence of a much older world in order to account for continuity such as annual rings on the trees in the Garden of Eden for years that had never existed. The book was met with scorn by the scientific community and suspicion by Gosse’s co-religionists who thought that God was being accused of fraud. A year later, the publication of Darwin’s Origin of Species consigned Omphalos to obscurity.„

So why do I want to read this book? I have liked Gosse’s theory in principle for years and I’ve never been able to get my hands on a copy to read the original. Now I can. The theory appeals to me for itself but also because something so universally but dichotomously derided ought to be worth looking into. I suspect that much of the criticism was ill-placed then and possibly remains missclassified now so it is interesting as an historical event. Already I have some alternative theories to those of McIver and Ox Bow. For example, when Ox Bow talks about ‘co-religionists’ I suspect that they mean ‘Christians’ in general but the Brethren, being Dispensationalists, were perhaps more displeased with the way Gosse dealt with the gap theory.

So why am I not avidly reading it now instead to doing this? Well, I do have other things to do including getting ready for tomorrow and writing a thesis but also I thought it would be good to mark out the theological cliff edge before I start so that I don’t automatically rule out some byway as being closed when that byway might be ‘the strait and narrow’ leading to the edge but not over it. So I’m putting up before me five ¶s from what I believe to be the best cliff edge marking ever done in this area as a guide:
Francis A. Schaeffer, Complete Works. Vol. 2 A Christian View of the Bible as Truth, pp. 136f.:-

“… I will now mention two limits that seem to me to be absolute. The first is that the use of the word bara insists that at the original creation, at the creation of conscious life, and at the creation of man there was specific discontinuity with what preceded.
One other limitation is that Adam was historic and was the first man, and that Eve was made from Adam. It could not be: male-female-male-female-male-female, and then suddenly Zip!—male-female of man. It would be worthwhile here to read again all the New Testament references to the early chapters of Genesis found on pages 12-14. Among these it is most important to recognize that 1 Corinthians 11:8 affirms that Eve came from Adam: “For the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man.” First Corinthians 11:12 and 1 Timothy 2:13 also relate to Eve’s coming from Adam.
Consequently, what is involved here (as in this whole discussion) is not just the first chapters of Genesis, but the authoritativeness of the New Testament as well, and especially the writings of Paul. If Paul is wrong in this factual statement about Eve’s coming from Adam, there is no reason to have certainty in the authority of any New Testament factual statement, including the factual statement that Christ rose physically from the dead. If we say this factual statement about Eve was culturally oriented, then every factual statement of the New Testament can be said to be culturally oriented; and any or all of the factual statements of the New Testament can be dealt with arbitrarily and subjectively. The Bible gives a specific limitation: Adam was created by God, and then Eve was made from Adam by God.
In passing it should be noted that it is not inconsequential that Eve came from Adam; rather, this gives the basis for the absolute unity of the whole human race.
Having set forth these two limitations, I must now say I have never heard anyone holding any form of theistic evolution who follows these two limitations. I think the reason for this is that holding these limitation in any system of theistic evolution would separate the one who holds such an evolutionary theory from the usual evolutionists as completely as holding a totally nonevolutionary theory would. To put that another way, someone affirming these limitations would be as completely separated from those who hold the evolutionary position in its normal form as would someone who did not hold any form of evolution. And this is the reason, I think, it has not been put forward, at least never to the best of my knowledge.„

Just to add that I will also be looking for what Gosse has to say about the discontinuity caused by the fall and the expulsion from Eden.

Selah 3

Psa 3:8

Salvation belongs to the LORD; your blessing be on your people! Selah.

Sunshine in the placid sky,
fresh-plucked olive leaf in mouth,
the rocks' jaws' gaping teeth are worn flat,
the sea's mouth robbed; landfall on Ararat.
East, West, spreading, North and South;
rainbow colours; 'Multiply!'

Sound of victory — a sigh,
shoot of life from sapling death.
The counsel of the wise to silence brought,
the bite of lion's whelp amounts to nought.
Wind of change is dying breath.
Life is hard and then you die.

Risen at the break of day
and still, 'The Way,' 'The Life,' 'The Truth.'
The unchewed cud is bursting from its gut
the ungnawed bone has not had time to rot.
Eagle's flight renews his youth,
counterpoint of 'Gone away.'

I suspect that I ought to give my friend Guy Davies the credit for the last line in the second verse since I think that that's the outline for a sermon he gave while a student 16 years ago. That's how I remember it anyway. The middle lines of the last verse are just about the most vivid I've ever written and I hope they are not thought to be inappropriate descriptions of the resurrection.

18th Century Theology with Thomas Boston 3

Thomas Boston was a Scottish preacher of genius. His writings are more readily available than ever before, in book form (including the ubiquitous Fourfold State of Man ), increasingly on the web (including bits of the ubiquitous Fourfold State of Man), on unsearchable CD rom and 0n searchable CD rom.

The Fourfold State in a Nutshell

1. All mankind were, by Adam’s fall, separated and scattered from God, as sheep gone astray, 1 Pet. 2:25. Mankind was at first joined to God in the bond of the first covenant, and so they were his family about his hand, headed by him, and enjoying his favour. But by sin they broke away from him, and being gone from him, the centre of unity, they were separated in affection one from another, Tit. 3:3. And in this state they remain while out of Christ, scattered and wandering on the mountains of vanity.

2. To bring scattered sinners to God again, Christ was appointed the head to whom their gathering should be, 1 Pet. 2:25, "For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls." Chap. 3:18, "Christ hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God." The first Adam was the head under whom they went away, and he left them wandering, a ready prey for the devourer; the second Adam is the head for their return, by whom they may be brought back unto God, and put up in safety with him for ever, John 11:52. He is the great Shepherd, entrusted by his Father for gathering the strays of mankind, into one stock and fold.

3. There is a double gathering of scattered sinners to Christ. The one is now a doing, has been from the beginning, and will be to the end of the world; and that is a gathering of sinners by the gospel to him into the bond of the covenant of grace, Gen. 49:10. The other is to come certainly at the world’s end, and that is a gathering of them by the angels to meet him in the air, never to set their foot more on the cursed earth, but to go away with him to heaven. And that will be a gathering quickly dispatched, as appears from the text [Ps:50:5 “Gather my saints together unto me: those that have made a covenant with me by sacrifice.”].

4. There are many who will not be gathered to Christ now, whatever pains he is at to gather them, Matt. 23:37, "How often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!" He sets up his standard among them, he calls to them to come to him; but they get away from him. They love better to wander on, than to return; they prefer a vain world, and their deceitful lusts, to Christ; and they love rather to be at their liberty, than to be brought into the bond of his covenant. They cannot endure to be so hedged up, Ps. 2:3. So they refuse to gather to him.

5. Yet there are still some who, with heart and goodwill, gather to him, and willingly come into the bond of his covenant. Efficacious grace makes them willing, Ps. 110:3. They are weary of their distance from God, and their wandering life, seeing how in that case they are exposed to the utmost danger, and are in no safety from the roaring lion, who goes about seeking whom he may devour; and so they willingly gather to Christ, and come into the bond of his covenant, as their only safety.

6. Lastly, At the end of the world, whatever separation there is between these parties now, the wanderers and those within the bond of the covenant, there will be a greater then. The wanderers and the gathered being both raised out of their graves at the sound of the last trumpet: all those gathered within the bond of the covenant, shall be gathered together to Christ in the air, to go with him, and be ever with the Lord; and the wanderers will be brought together on the earth before him, receive their dreadful sentence to depart from him; and then, they going away, the earth will be set on fire. Mankind, in the garden, was a family with God as its head, united, as symbolised by the marriage bond between the man and the woman, and free to choose between good and evil. In glory, we will again be a united family, symbolised by our being taken there by the angels who are also sons of God (but who neither marry not are given in marriage) and we shall be perfectly free there to do the good that will be natural for us to do. We differ from the angels in this, that some of them fell into sin but not all and all of us have fallen in Adam. We, by nature, now have Adam as our head, are alienated from the family of God and have wills that are in bondage to choose evil only. Our course will take us from the wilderness of this world to the lake of fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
(Works V 517-518)

SNAP! 3

At ten in the morning with their duties all done
and the crowd standing round for the kill
they sat on the ground and just looked at the man
they were putting to death on the hill.

His private effects they had claimed as their own,
they divided them up on the ground
but they had to cast lots for his coat
for it seems that no seam in that robe could be found.

The seamless robe that the Master had on
was considered too good to be torn
but the Servant who wore it to Calvary Hill
was torn in the place of his own.

Our first parents sewed fig leaves to cover their shame
but the wind blew their cover apart
and God made them clothing of animal skin
for humanity, naked at heart.

The seamless robe that the Master had on
was considered too good to be torn
but God’s Lamb was led to be nailed to the tree,
to be shorn for the sins of his own.

All heaven must have marvelled as the Son of God said,
"Here I am, send me out in their place."
Swaddled at birth, he was stripped at the death
and to cover the church with his grace.

The sinless life that the Master took on
is eternally part of our race
and you can’t get to God till you go to the Man
on the cross wearing God’s human face.

The seamless robe that the Master had on
was considered too good to be torn
but the Son took upon him the form of a man
and he died in the place of his own.

I don't think that this song would have found a place in Praise! but then SNAP!'s Not Another Praise!