Why, you may ask, do I need to understand all of this? I accept Christ died for my sins. I’m glad He did. However, I see no need to spend all this time wrangling over ‘who’ He died for and exactly ‘what’ He did. Does it really matter?

To borrow the words from the back of Eerdmans Publishing Company’s printing of this book, “The atonement is the very center of the Christian faith.” What could be more important than our foundation? Understanding that upon which our faith rests will empower our walk. If for no other reason (and there are more), Christians should not feel content to just acknowledge, ‘Jesus died for me.’ While all the terms Murray will discuss are familiar to me, while I might be able to give a scant definition for each, it is for this reason I look forward to continuing the quest with Murray as my guide.

Murray begins chapter six with these words, “When we think of the application of redemption, we must not think of it as one simple and indivisible act. It compromises a series of acts and processes. . .calling, regeneration, justification, adoption, sanctification, glorification [to name a few]. These are all distinct [in]. . .meaning, function, and purpose. . .”

With that in mind, Murray sets forth in this chapter to show us:

- each aspect of our redemption takes place in a certain order

- the order of application is established by God

- Scripture clearly implies the order

Murray turns to several Scriptures to show not only the components of redemption but their order of application. First, in Jn 3:3-5 we find regeneration preceding entrance into God’s kingdom. Next, in 1 Jn 3:9 we find one must be born of God before he/she is delivered from sin’s dominion. Next, in Jn 1:12 we find faith preceding adoption. Further, in Eph 1:13 we see hearing and believing precede our being sealed of the Spirit. Finally, in Rom 8:30 we find calling comes before justification which comes before glorification.

Because this section of Romans 8 lays out such a distinctly ordered list, Murray tackles the question: Is this order Divinely arranged or laid out at Paul’s convenience? Murray then sets forth, from the context, to show the order is no accident. Let’s look, with him, at Rom 8:28-30.

“(28) And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose. (29) For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. (30) Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.”

First note in verse 28 Paul’s words, “called according to His purpose”. These words show purpose and thus imply a plan or pattern. Next, in verse 29 we see the continuing progression of thought and the further indication of order. Further, if we look at specific terms we see their order is not accident.

Take, ‘foreknew’ in verse 29 and ‘glorified’ in verse 30. Obviously these two terms cannot be reversed. Not only that, but it is clear foreknowledge (vs 29) and predestination (vs 30) precede calling, justification and glorification (vs 30). It is just as apparent glorification (vs 30) must follow calling and justification (vs 30). Thus the only question remaining is: Does calling or justification come first? Murray purports that since the others are all in their proper positions, there is no reason to believe Paul reversed the order on these two.

Next the author lays out the relationship between faith and justification (he is speaking of an actual justification). Scriptural language, he says, clearly shows faith precedes justification (Rom 1:17; 3:22, 25-28, 30; 5:1; Gal 2:15, 3:24; Phil 3:9). We see the order in Rom 3:22-24.

“Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:”

Thus Murray concludes, “. . .faith is God’s appointed instrument through which He dispenses [the grace of justification].” Further, he says, faith is connected with calling and calling clearly precedes justification since we are ‘justified by faith.’ (Rom 3:28, 5:1; Gal 2:16, 3:24)

Next he tackles regeneration. Where does this fall in the order of our redemption? Murray concludes it comes prior to faith. He says, “Faith is a whole-souled act of loving trust and self-commitment. Of that we are incapable until renewed by the Holy Spirit.” (Jn 6:44, 65).

Going on he shows regeneration follows calling. Scripture teaches “. . .that salvation in actual possession takes its start from an efficacious summons on the part of God and that summons. . .carries in its bosom all of the operative efficacy by which it is made effective.”

Murray concludes this introductory chapter by laying out the Scriptural order of events which flow from Christ’s redemptive act being applied to us. The rest of the chapter will deal individually with each aspect, in order. The order laid out in Scripture is this:

calling, regeneration, faith and repentance, justification, adoption, sanctification, perseverance, and glorification

If you have ever heard these terms and wondered exactly what they mean, stay tuned. Or, better yet, get a copy and read it. While I seek to provide more than just a ‘flavor’ in my reviews, I must omit much which is greatly beneficial. I encourage you, whether you agree with Murray’s point, or not, take up the book and read!

Lest you wonder why the order of application matters, Murray closes this chapter thus, “Salvation is of the Lord in its application as well as in its conception and accomplishment.” The order is no accident!

He said, “When I was on the Mexico Mission trip in April 2009, we had the privilege of experiencing four different worship services with our Mexican brothers. The entire services were conducted in Spanish and were unintelligible to us, apart from translation. At one point, the man praying spoke in Spanish and Bruce translated what he had prayed, saying, “We thank You for lending us life and health.” Bruce then commented, “That is how they pray, and I love that! I love the way they say that.”Notice how different that is from what we are used to praying. We are prone to say, “Thank you Lord for giving us life and health.”Which, I ask you, is the proper mindset? I have to say that I prefer the Mexican way of praying! Is it not better to think of life and health as benefits from God which He loans to us for a time instead of benefits that He gives to us? If I think of those blessings as things given to me, then it tends to create an entitlement mentality. When my health fails or a life is taken, we think that God has robbed us of something we deserve or something that we have a right to. We then will think that God took something from us after giving it to us. When they disappear we might be tempted to ask, “God, why didn’t you give these things to me?”If, however, I think in terms of only being a borrower of life and health, then I have a right mindset. God does indeed lend these things to us for a time. We are beggars who have no claim on such blessings. If we enjoy them, we are only borrowing them from God for a short period.Eventually my health will fail and my life will end. Thinking of myself as a borrower keeps these blessings in perspective. I have no inalienable right to them. I am not an autonomous, self-sufficient person who is gifted more than others. I am a beggar who borrows life from the Living God. When He no longer lends me these things, how can I cry against Him for not giving me something I have no right to in the first place? Is it not true that every blessing we have received has merely been lent to us?”I challenge you to meditate on this. Perhaps you will find it as eye opening as I did.

Recently I picked up a book by John MacArthur. One of the subjects I have been pursuing, of late, is the value and proper use of my mind. Thus the title intrigued me. MacArthur published “The Vanishing Conscience” in 1994. While many books are quickly dated, the problems addressed on these pages is as old as Adam. Thus I have found it interesting, enlightening, and at times inspiring.

Years ago I picked up the habit of reading a book’s preface. Since then I have come to realize how ‘telling’ it can be. Like the introductory paragraph on a thesis paper, the preface quickly tells me whether the author knows his/her stuff. While most are not extensive enough to reveal upcoming doctrinal error, a good preface will demonstrate whether the book is worth my time.

While I have listened to enough of Pastor MacArthur’s sermons to know I would benefit from his work, I found the preface to be not only a great introduction, but a valuable one. Because the book’s chapters are long, and because the preface is meaty, I decided to write a separate review before I tackle the rest of the book.

In part one of The Vanishing Conscience, MacArthur addresses ‘A Sinful Society’. Thus he begins his preface with a look at our current mental attitudes toward sin and self-worth. Today, he says:

- Pride is a status symbol
- Moral responsibility for our own actions has been replaced by victimization
- The Church willingly embraces these cultural ideas.
- As a result, the Christian response to sin has been dramatically impacted.
- Our concern over sin has declined.
- Our concern for self esteem has increased.
- Christians often deny sin’s effects
- Christians tend to explain sin using culturally acceptable (and thus unbiblical) terms

Because John MacArthur lives in the cesspool of the west, I suspect these sins were ‘in his face’ so to speak long before the rest of us frogs began to feel the water’s heat. However, 15 years after the book’s publication, I doubt any thinking Christian, anywhere, in North America, would challenge these statements.

This cultural downgrade has so permeated the church as to create some frightening results. Think about it. If there is no such thing as sin, there can be no such thing as repentance! If there is no such thing as depravity, there is no need for redemption! If there is no such thing as personal guilt, there is no need for a personal Savior! In other words, when a society has lost its moral conscience, they become an amoral people who see no need for repentance, redemption, or a Redeemer.

In fact, for a current review of our culture - and the direction it is headed - read Romans 1:18-32! Parts read almost like a current newspaper headline!

MacArthur, however, is not calling Christians to attempt social reform. He is not saying Christians need to start a picket line or join social reformation committees or seek governmental control. He says, “The weakness of the church is not that we’re to uninvolved in the politics or administration of our society, but that we too easily absorb the false values of an unbelieving world. . .God’s purpose in the world. . .is the proclamation of the message of sin and salvation to individuals, whom God sovereignly redeems and calls out of the world.”

With these words in mind, consider Titus 2:11-14:

“For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in the present age, looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself His own special people, zealous for good works.”

Christians are called to be different - that is MacArthur’s point. We are to be salt and light in a dull and dark world. Yet, in our era, at least in North America, the church has not been an influence, they have been influenced.

There are numerous folks who might disagree with the non-political tone of John MacArthur’s writing. However, MacArthur’s focus is the church. The church, thus Christians, MUST return to their focus before they can have a godly impact upon the world. MacArthur says, “Only as the church becomes holy can it begin to have a true, powerful effect, on the outside world — and it won’t be an external effect, but a changing of hearts. That is the focus of this book.”

While the author’s Dispensational eschatology clearly effects his thinking about how much impact Christians can and will have in society in the future, it is important to note our Lord’s focus while on earth. The Jews sought a King - an earthy king who would set up an earthly throne and impact society from a political standpoint. However, this is not what Jesus came to do. This is not what He told His disciples to do. His focus was clearly spiritual. His command to His disciples was clearly spiritual.

This does not forego Christians in politics. This does not silence Christians before kings and governors. It just sets our primary focus. This book’s goal, then, is to point us to our real duties. These, the author says include:

- Working out our own sanctification
- Focusing on the sin in our own lives
- Committing to biblical thinking
- Looking at ourselves like God sees us

I invite you to join in following Pastor MacArthur’s line of reasoning. First we will look at our sinful society, then he will addresses the nature of sin, and, in closing, provide some valuable insight into handling our sin. I suspect, however, my review will not end there. For, in true MacArthur form, there is always more. Thus the book actually closes with three valuable appendixes - two which are sermons by ‘dead guys’. I suspect I will find them to be more than review worthy!

I’ll admit in that context the question seems silly. However, that is the beauty of illustrations. They often reveal the foolishness in our thinking. While we know dropping a glove into a mud puddle will have a negative effect on our glove, we fail to make the logical connection that dropping our thoughts into a cesspool will have a negative effect on our mind.

What we put into our minds stays there! To indulge in thought sins is to molest our conscience. (Tit 1:15) We need to give this some serious thought. Images, fantasies, ideas - once introduced to the mind, live on through our lifetime. In other words, what we put into our minds (or allow our children to put into their minds) stays. By molesting our conscience, we show how little value we place on one of God’s most precious gifts.

What does our conscience do? Our conscience condemns or condones our thoughts and actions. It works as our soul’s warning system. (Rom 2:15). It is our best critic. It knows us better than anyone else because, it abides in the secret place in our heart.

Many times we rationalize sin. However, unless we have seared our conscience by repeated abuse, we can never fool that little voice. Thus, when we sin, our conscience hammers us; we feel guilty. In fact, our conscience speaks with such authority, we are forced to deal with it in one of three ways:

- we seek to cover our sin (ex: Adam and Eve, David and Bathsheba)

- we justify ourselves (Adam blamed God, today we say we are victims or call our sin a disease)

- we turn a blind eye - don’t heed our conscience - don’t seek to understand God’s law (if we don’t acknowledge the wrongness of our act we feel we don’t need to deal with the attitude behind the act).

Our conscience is God’s gift to us which reveals our guilt. Our guilt is produced by sin. How does the Bible define sin?

1 Jn 3:4 says, “Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness.” Sin is any transgression of God’s law.

1 Cor 16:22 says, “If anyone does not love the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be accursed. O Lord, come!” Sin is failure to love God.

Jn 16:8-9 says, “And when He has come, He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: of sin, because they do not believe in Me;” Sin is not believing in Jesus.

How does our culture view sin?

MTV says sin is based upon one’s own preference. “No sin is as evil as the kill joy attitude of those who think sin is an absolute standard that offends a holy God. Thinking that is the worst sin.”

Obviously there exists a major dichotomy. The two extremes will not be reconciled, yet without doubt one will impact the other. We need to realize today the world’s definition has infiltrated the church. John MacArthur says, “Christians are casualties of our culture’s redefinition of human behavior.”

Churches have allowed the world to redefine God’s law and character. They have created a god who is tolerant of evil. So suitable is this lie, so acceptable is it to our fallen nature, we MUST constantly be exposed to an accurate presentation of God’s Word. Only in this way will we see clearly to distinguish truth from error.

In his sermon, “Keeping A Pure Mind”, Pastor John MacArthur asks an extremely important question: What sin is the most serious? His answer: Sins of the mind.

Why? Sins which occur in our mind are known only to us and to God. A woman who would never consider committing adultery might fantasize over a novel character. A man who would never look at pornography might relish sexually explicit mental images. You know what I mean.

We easily indulge in thought sins. No one sees our mind. Nothing but our conscience stands between us and the internal sins we commit. These sins can happen anywhere and anytime. Furthermore, we cannot flee from our own thoughts.

All sin begins in our mind. Consider James 1:13-15: “Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone. But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full–grown, brings forth death.”

Have you ever wondered why Jesus was so hard on the Pharisees? Weren’t they, at heart, good guys? Didn’t they have it right ‘for the most part’? Certainly their contemporaries saw them as really good guys.

The Pharisees’ issues were in their minds. In other words, they were great at outward compliance to God’s law. In fact, they even made it harder to obey by creating more laws. Certainly they looked righteous. However, Jesus saw their hearts. Their mind sins were great. This is why Jesus’ first major sermon was what we call ‘The Sermon On The Mount.’ He showed them (and us) who they really were!

What should be going on in our minds? Worship and love toward God. We are created to worship. Mind sins replace our worship with sinful thoughts. These sins are the ones we overlook the most, the ones we engage in the most, the ones we confess the least.

Do you want to know who you really are? Take a good look at your thought life.

How, then do we deal with thought sins? John MacArthur gives us four ways:

1) Confess our sins. Before we confess these sins, we must take an honest look at our thoughts. Dig deep. Cut to the quick. Then confess and forsake. It won’t be easy. If you are a Christian, it is necessary.

2) Refuse these sins. How? MacArthur suggests we make a covenant with God that we will, by His grace, refuse to indulge in thought sin. Remember what Job said, “I have made a covenant with my eyes; Why then should I look upon a young woman?” (Job 31:1) I have used this as a powerful tool because, if I cannot keep my word to myself, I certainly can’t claim I will keep my word to anyone else.

Further MacArthur says we must feed on God’s Word. Not only because it is our sword in the battle with our mind, but also because it will sharpen our conscience. This, in turn, will make us more sensitive to thought sins.

3) Avoid these sins. Like any other sin, there exist tools which Satan uses to ‘tempt’ us. What triggers your thought sins? Identify and avoid these areas like the plague.

4) Cultivate our love for God. While the other points are reactive - ways to combat the sins when they attack - this proactive response is the most important of all. The real power for fighting our sin comes from a correct view of God which leads us to love and worship Him. From this flows the ability to conquer those sins which hinder us from communion with the One we love.

Let us never forget: “As in water face reflects face, So a man’s heart reveals the man.” (Prov 27:19)

Both men grab flotation devices. In horror, however, you watch the one man approach the water’s edge, flotation device extended. “Here!” he yells, “Grab hold and I’ll drag you in!”

“Fool!” you cry. “He is drowning! You must go and save him!”

In desperation your eyes turn to the other man. At first it seems he has disappeared. Then, with relief you find him, already nearly to the drowning man. As the drama, he reaches the dark blob, just in time. With great efficiency he secures the flotation device and drags the sea’s victim from its grasp.

Who, I wonder, saved that drowning person? The man who offered ‘a way,’ or the man who drug the sea’s victim from its grip? It is this question Murray addresses in this final section of part one - redemption accomplished. So none can misunderstand his focus, Murray clarifies his point. The question he will answer in chapter four is: “Who did Jesus die to save?”

While universalists run to verses which contain the words, ‘world,’ ‘all,’ and ‘every one,’ Murray says these words do not always “mean every member of the human race.” Consider 1 Cor 6:12 as an example. Here Paul says, “All things are lawful for me, but all things are not helpful. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.”

Murray queries, is the Apostle Paul really saying, in this verse, he can do anything, that nothing he does or would ever want to do is against the law? Obviously not. In fact, taken in context, a Christian would never consider Paul is using the word all as completely encompassing.

Thus, Murray reminds us context in key. Context rules in interpretation - first the immediate context, then the broader context, and then the overall teaching of Scripture.

Murray further clarifies his point. He is not saying Christ’s death does not, in a general way, benefit every man. He is saying, however, it does not benefit every man, in a saving way. Thus he explains, “The question is not whether many benefits short of justification and salvation accrue to men from the death of Christ. . .Christ is head over all things and is given all authority in heaven and in earth.” (Phil 2:8-9) “. . .the enjoyment of certain benefits, even by the non-elect and reprobate, falls within the design of the death of Christ. . .the real question is: on whose behalf did Christ offer Himself a sacrifice? On whose behalf did He propitiate the wrath of God?. . .whom did He redeem from the curse of the law, from the guilt and power of sin, from the controlling power and bondage of Satan?” Specifically then, who is the ‘us’ Paul refers to in 1 Thess 5:10? Whose sins is Paul saying Christ died for in 1 Cor 15:3?

The answer to these questions is bound up in the meaning of ‘redemption.’ Scripture sets some strict guidelines for our definition of the term. Murray clarifies, “What does redemption mean? It does not mean ‘redeemability,’ that we were placed in a redeemable position. It means that Christ purchased and procured redemption.”

In Scripture Christ’s redemption rings with a triumphant note (Rev 5:9, Heb 9:12, Titus 2;14, Heb 1:3, Jn 6:38-39). His work is not semi-complete. It is not partial. As He said, on the cross, “It is finished.”

For the believer this is the best news because our “security inheres in Christ’s redemptive accomplishment. . .If some of those for whom atonement was made and redemption was wrought perish eternally, then the atonement is not. . .efficacious.” I’m not sure there could be a more scary thought for an honest believer who acknowledges the strength of his remaining sin!

Nonetheless, there are many who would object. Thus Murray uses the rest of the chapter to address the more common objections and the verses typically turned to by universalists.

The first objection he addresses is: Your position is inconsistent with a full and free offer of the gospel. To this Murray replies, “What is offered to man in the gospel?. . .the probability of salvation. . .the opportunity?” No, he responds, the gospel offers salvation! “He could not be offered as Savior and as the One who embodies in Himself salvation full and free if He simply made the salvation of all men possible or merely had made provision for the salvation of all. . .It is because Christ procured and secured redemption that He is an all-sufficient and suitable Savior.”

Murray proves his point from Rom 8:31-39. Here we read:

“(31) What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? (32) He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things? (33) Who shall bring a charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. (34) Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us. (35) Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? (36) As it is written: “For Your sake we are killed all day long; We are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.” (37) Yet in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us. (38) For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, (39) nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.”

Let us put forth the mental effort to follow Murray’s argument. Who is addressed in verse 31? Obviously those spoken of in verses 28-30 (those who love God, those who are called, those who are predestined, called, justified, and glorified). What then is the scope of ‘for us all’? ‘All’ cannot be broader than ‘us’ because Paul is essentially saying, ‘for all of us’. Thus the ‘us’ in verse 32 is the same as the ‘us’ in verse 31.

Furthermore, everyone who benefits from Christ’s death becomes a beneficiary of all the other gifts of grace (vs 32). Verse 33 is even more restrictive as both election and justification are mentioned. In fact, this verse points back to the predestination and justification mentioned in verses 28 to 30.

Finally, we see Paul, in verse 34, tying Christ’s death together with God’s justification and the vindication of the elect. Here again we must interpret the terms, ‘for us’ in light of verse 31. Further, death, resurrection, and intercession are all tied together in these verses. Thus we cannot make one more universal than the others. To leave us with no doubt, Paul concludes this section with strongly emphatic words which make it clear “the security of those to whom he is speaking.”

Murray’s second argument is based on Scripture’s teaching that “all for whom Christ died also died in Christ.” (Rom 6:3-11; 2 Cor 5:14, 15; Eph 2:4-7; Col 3:3). In Romans 5:8-9 we find Paul teaching “all who died in Christ rose again with Him.” Rose to what? Newness of life (Rom 6:4-5; 2 Cor 5:14-15; Col 3:3).

Thus, Murray points out:

- all for whom Christ died, died in Christ.

- all who died in Christ, rose in Christ to newness of life

- to die with Christ is to die to sin

- to rise with Christ is to live a life of obedience

- Therefore - Christ died only for those who die to sin and live to righteousness

His point made, Murray then directly addresses several passages commonly used to support universal atonement. He specifically looks at 2 Cor 5:14-15 and 1 Jn 2:2. In both cases he shows the misinterpretation errors of those who use these to say Jesus died for everyone. If you hold to universal atonement, I encourage you to read his clear exegesis. He closes this section with these words:

“It is easy for the proponents of universal atonement to make offhand appeals to a few texts. But this method is not worthy of the serious student of Scripture. . .when we examine Scripture we find that the glory of the cross of Christ is bound up in the effectiveness of its accomplishment.”

Words are cheap. Too often we turn to our own understanding, our own logic, our own experience to support our case. In so doing we forget: the Bible is our only source for a proper understanding of the atonement. Further, it is the only norm by which to test our understanding. Murray says, “No temptation is more subtle and plausible than the tendency to construe the atonement in terms of our human experience and thus to make our experience the norm.”

Murray closes with this warning, “[When] We drag down the meaning of Christ’s atoning work, . . .we evacuate it of its unique and distinctive glory. . .[This] is trifling with the most solemn spectacle in all history, a spectacle unparalleled, unique, unrepeated, and unrepeatable. To approximate this spectacle to the analogy of our human experience is to disclose a state of mind and feeling insensitive to the alphabet of Christianity.”

Regardless of your position, may we both tread with care as we articulate our beliefs - making sure, at every step, we are not misinterpreting God’s word and presenting a false gospel, thus making ourselves false teachers!

In closing the first part I asked if you noticed anything striking about these men and the prophecies relating to them and their posterity. As I read and re-read and meditated on Jacob’s final words, I was struck by one point: God’s grace.

God’s grace is so obvious in this list. Judah, a man who proved himself unworthy, is transformed into a leader and granted the lineage of Christ by a pure act of grace. Levi, one called cruel and angry, one cursed by his father for his acts, God graciously chose to make the father of Israel’s priestly line. While God would have been just in allowing both brothers to bear the punishment due their crimes, in both cases He chose, instead, to raise their descendants to positions of honor.

Dan is called a judge by Jacob. At first glance, this could be taken as a positive statement indicating an honor given to this tribe. However, the words which follow suggest a major moral character deficit resulting in dishonesty. Samson, an Israelite judge with a shaking character, was a Danite.The tribe was crafty in their relations with others (Judg 18:1). In fact, one might wonder if some of the Pharisees couldn’t trace their lineage back to Dan. However, Jacob must have loved this son enough to sorrow over his failures. Thus he closed with his only expression of hope of salvation in the whole prophecy. Nonetheless, Dan is omitted from the list of tribes in Rev 7.

Gad is spoken of as being trampled down but overcoming in the end. Perhaps Gad was a man of great persistence. Surely the land they inherited experienced numerous invasions. Unlike Isaachar, Gad fought valiantly and overcame their enemies. Moses alludes to this as well in his blessing in Deut 33.Asher Like Zebulun’s prophecy, Asher’s reveals little about the recipient’s character. Apparently Asher’s offspring were allotted the ‘bread basket’ of Canaan. They obviously made the most of this asset since they are called ‘rich.’ Thus we do learn this second son of Leah’s handmaid spawned an industrious, hard working tribe.

Naphtali was, apparently, a good speaker - perhaps a poet or a story teller. The phrase ‘a deer let loose’ also seems to imply he was a wild man - perhaps most at home in the fields and woods. Commentators take the deer allusion in various ways. However they do refer to the tribe’s military prowess, speed, and agility. Further in the song of Deborah and Barak we see a descendent who used eloquent words (Judg 4). Joseph Unlike the other words spoken to and of his sons, Jacob’s words to and of Joseph ring of blessing. While he alludes to Joseph’s betrayal and speaks of God’s providential care, Jacob uses the word ‘bless’ or ‘blessing’ six times in his speech. Like Judah’s prophecy, Jacob speaks much longer and has much good to say. Also, of note, we find Jacob using five different terms to identify God - perhaps to show some of the ways God had (and would) make Himself real to Joseph and his descendants.Jacob calls God, “Mighty God of Jacob,” “Shepherd,” “Stone of Israel,” “God of your father,” and “Almighty.” Because of the strong relationship Joseph had with God, no doubt these words were a comfort as well as a reminder to him.

Benjamin provides perhaps the most unexpected prophecy. This favorite son of Jacob who appears so docile (even immature) in the scenario with Joseph is called a ravenous wolf by his father. He is pictured as both devouring and dividing all day long (morning and night). This seems to imply greed.Calvin supports this assumption when he points out the plundering aspect which predominated this tribe. However, we do well to remember Israel’s first king (a great warrior), Saul, came from Benjamin. While another who truly was a wolf devouring and dividing Christians, Saul of Tarsus, was transformed by God’s grace into Paul the valiant apostle.

Sadly it has become almost the norm to consider the Old Testament of secondary importance to the New Testament. Some even consider the Old Testament outdated and thus unnecessary to our walk as believers. However, Israel’s sons - the twelve tribes of Israel, play a predominate role in Christian history. Therefore, for this and many other reasons we do well to read through the Old Testament with care.

“All Scripture” - every word. I read a lot of books. As a result, I have a well-developed habit of skimming. Thus I must force myself to slow down and focus on the words and phrases as I read my Bible. By slowing down and reading each word then spending some time thinking about the meaning the biblical author sought to convey, I have found rich truths tucked away in the most unlikely places.

Take Jacob’s final words to his sons in Genesis 49. While this can easily be seen as just another list or just another piece of Hebrew poetry, the prophetic words spoke by Jacob to his sons are rich with insight into not only the men’s characters, but also reflective on the type of people their offspring would become. Furthermore, they are instructive of God’s character and ours.

While this list is not ‘strictly’ chronological, there is only one noticeable deviation from basic birth order (by mother). I wonder if this was not purposeful. Thus the list begins with Reuben, Jacob’s firstborn.

Reuben’s life, you may recall, revealed a mixed character. While he was the only brother who sought to spare Joseph’s life, he later revealed his contempt for Jacob by sleeping with his father’s concubine. For this act he lost his birthright. By the time the brothers meet up with Joseph in Egypt, Reuben is no longer treated as the leader. Thus it comes as no surprise Jacob calls this son “unstable as water” suggesting he and his descendant will not excel.John MacArthur pointed out three things of note:- No person of importance came from this tribe.

- In Moses’ final blessing on Israel (Deuteronomy 33) he often reinforce Jacob’s words from Genesis 49. However, Moses only prays Reuben will not die out. That does not sound like a strong and blessed tribe.

- “Unstable as water” actually means “boiling” and alludes to instability.

Simeon & Levi are grouped together in Jacob’s words - perhaps because, together, they plotted an evil plan to avenge Dinah’s disgrace in Shechem. Certainly we know Jacob was not pleased by their acts because these two, second and third in line for the birthright, were also passed over.It is interesting to note it Joseph held Simeon in prison between the brothers’ first and second visits to Egypt. Perhaps Joseph did so to humble him because of his earlier cruelties. Jacob alludes to this cruelty (in both men) as extending to both man and beast. John MacArthur points out:Simeon was

- The smallest tribe in Moses’ 2^nd census (Num 26:14)

- The only tribe which did not receive a blessing from Moses (Deut 33:8)

- The only tribe which ended up sharing their territory (with Judah) (Josh 19:1-9)

Levi was

- Scattered throughout the land (as prophesied) but, by God’s grace and their loyalty (Ex 32:26) became the priestly tribe.

Judah provides, perhaps, the most amazing picture of God’s redemptive grace. Judah goes from conspiring to kill Joseph, to plotting to deceive his daughter-in-law, to fornicating with a supposed harlot while frolicking with heathens, to the spokesperson and leader of his brother. It is clear from Jacob’s words, Judah is the recipient of the birthright. Thus this no good scoundrel has been transformed into a man of courage and responsibility (as seen in his words and actions both times the brothers went to Egypt).Jacob speaks long about Judah, and it is certainly ironic he has says much which is positive. He says Judah will be praised, will triumph over his enemies, will be honored (perhaps this means even worshiped) by the other tribes, will be strong, will beget kings, and, ultimately, the Messiah will come through his line. MacArthur also points out:- In the wilderness, the tribe of Judah went out first - a place of honor (Num 10:14)

- Judah enjoyed the largest population in both of Moses’ censuses (Num 1:27; 26:22)

- Jacob’s words about tying a donkey to a choice vine indicate the tribe would enjoy abundant prosperity.

Zebulun is the only son about whom Jacob speaks only of the tribe’s future location. Jacob says Zebulun will benefit from the sea and enjoy a location near it. Moses alludes to and reinforces this blessing in Deut 33:18. When the land was divided, Zebulun’s allotment was in the richest area in the land-to-sea trade route.While we know little of Zebulun’s life, the words of Jacob, by their brevity, suggest he was neither a great sinner nor a valiant saint. A middle son (Leah’s sixth), Zebulun appears to have stayed in the background. Isaachar is compared to a strong donkey which lies down between two burdens. Surely this is a reflection on the man’s laziness. Jacob speaks to the result of this attitude in saying he (and his offspring) will desire a pleasant land and rest, but as a result will become slaves. Further, while Isaachar is actually Jacob’s 5^th son, he is placed after Zebulun. Could this be another sign of Jacob’s frustration with his son’s heart attitude?Scripture records this tribe as being strong and valiant (1 Chr 7:1-5). However, Calvin points out they were content to pay tribute to their neighbors as long as they could dwell in a fertile and pleasant land. Thus of Jacob’s words Calvin says, “. . .it is probably that their indolence is censured, because their want of energy hindered them from remaining in possession of that liberty. . .divinely granted unto them.”Because the list is long, we will complete it next time. However, I wonder, have you noticed anything striking about any of these men and the prophecies relating to them and their posterity?

Why did God make us thinking creatures? Why did He give us the ability to reason? Why of all the creatures He created, did He make man accountable? Most important, perhaps, why, when we know we will be held accountable for our thoughts and actions, do we take our mental gifts and responsibilities so lightly?

In Chapter three, John Stott addresses the question, “Why use our minds?”. He delineates six distinct reasons, four of which we covered last time.

His fifth reason is: the mind is key in presenting the gospel. Romans 10:13, 14, 17 tell us faith comes by hearing the Word of God. One could preach all day to a wolf on the evil of killing a sheep, but, at days end, the result would be a bored wolf and a hoarse speaker. However, God did not make man thus.

In 2 Cor 5:11 Paul speaks of “persuading men” to believe the gospel. His use of the word ‘persuading’ revels the gospel presentation is “an intellectual exercise”. Persuade means to marshal our arguments in an effort to convince someone to change their mind (Acts 19:8-10). It also refers to explaining, proving, and proclaiming - all appeals to the mind.

New Testament preaching always included a clear presentation of “a body of doctrine about Christ.” Thus Stott says, “. . .the kind of evangelism for which I am pleading. . .is not academic. . .but rational. . .all human beings think, because God made a human being a thinking creature.” Lest one should doubt this statement, we have only to look at Christ’s teaching and those to whom He spoke.

Stott goes on to quote Gresham Machen from his book “The Christian Faith in the Modern World.” He said, “There must be the mysterious work of the Spirit of God in the new birth. Without that, all our arguments are quiet useless. But because argument is insufficient, it does not follow that it is unnecessary. What the Holy Spirit does in the new birth is not to make a man a Christian regardless of the evidence, but on the contrary to clear away the mists from his eyes and enable him to attend to the evidence.”

The author closes this point thus: “So then in our evangelical proclamation we must address the whole person (mind, heart, and will) with the whole gospel (Christ incarnate, crucified, risen, reigning, coming again and much else besides.)”

John Stott’s final exhortation for using our minds is based on the ministry and its gifts. “The gifts most to be coveted and prized. . .are the teaching gifts, since it is by these that the church is most ‘edified’ or built up.” He reminds pastors they are called, first and foremost, to feed their flock (Acts 20:28, 1 Peter 5:2, Col 1:28, 1 Tim 3:2). Furthermore, those who would commend themselves to God must do so, in part, by their knowledge (2 Cor 6:6).

Stott closes this chapter the striking words of Dr. Donald Barnhouse. “If I only had three years to serve the Lord, I would spend two of them studying and preparing.” How many of us would have placed our priorities thus?

In chapter four, the author sets forth four ways in which we should act upon our knowledge. He says, “God never intends knowledge to be an end in itself but always to be a means to some other end. . .Knowledge carries with it the solemn responsibility to act on the knowledge we have, to translate our knowledge into appropriate behavior.”

First, Stott says, knowledge should lead to worship. This is a clear tie back to his first point in chapter three. “True knowledge of God,” he says, “will result not in our being puffed up with conceit. . .but in our falling on our faces before God in sheer wonder. (Rom 11:33). . .Whenever our knowledge becomes dry or leaves us cold, something has gone wrong. (Luke 24:32)” Is your heart overflowing in praise and adoration to your King? Does the love of God so consume you, you can scarce hold it in? Or, does this world hold your heart and mind?

Second, Stott says our knowledge should lead us to faith. Many would say the Christian faith is a ‘blind’ faith. Through the centuries those on the outside have assumed our faith is merely a trumped up hope in something unreal. However, Stott claims, “It is our knowledge of God’s nature and character which elicits our faith.” Real faith is based on real knowledge of a real God!

Third, the author says our knowledge should lead us to holiness. He says, “. . .the more our knowledge grows, the greater our responsibility to put it into practice (Ps 119:34, Jn 13:7, Phil 4:9).” As Thomas Manton once said, “We should neither be all ear, nor all head, nor all tongue, but the feet must be exercised.” Today I fear we are neither all ear, nor all head but far too free in our use of our tongues and the improper use of our feet!

Finally Stott says our knowledge should lead us to love. Pure knowledge can lead to legalism. Without the tempering of humility and love for our Lord, all our knowledge will create is a pietistic, proud person who thinks far too highly of themselves. We must seek to use our knowledge to fan the flames of our love. For as Paul warned in 1 Cor 13:2, “And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.”

Stott closes with these exhortations:

“What we need is not less knowledge, but more knowledge, so long as we act upon it. . .knowledge is attained [thus]. . .we must pray and we must study.” Daniel 10:12 says, “Then he said to me, “Do not fear, Daniel, for from the first day that you set your heart to understand, and to humble yourself before your God, your words were heard; and I have come because of your words.”

God has promised to reward us if we earnestly seek to know Him. We do well to remember Proverbs 2:1-6. “My son, if you receive my words, And treasure my commands within you, So that you incline your ear to wisdom, And apply your heart to understanding; Yes, if you cry out for discernment, And lift up your voice for understanding, If you seek her as silver, And search for her as for hidden treasures; Then you will understand the fear of the LORD, And find the knowledge of God. For the LORD gives wisdom; From His mouth come knowledge and understanding;”

As we close our review of this powerful little book, I cannot help but think of our Lord’s exhortation to the “Loveless Church” in Revelation 2:2-5. “I know your works, your labor, your patience, and that you cannot bear those who are evil. And you have tested those who say they are apostles and are not, and have found them liars; and you have persevered and have patience, and have labored for My name’s sake and have not become weary. Nevertheless I have this against you, that you have left your first love. Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent and do the first works, or else I will come to you quickly and remove your lampstand from its place––unless you repent.” (emphasis mine)

Here is a church who ‘tested’ those who said they were apostles. How did they test them? Obviously by determining how closely these ‘apostles’ held to the doctrines revealed in Scripture. How would they know doctrine? Obviously by applying themselves diligently to the study of Scripture - in other words, by taking seriously their need to gain knowledge. Yet, their knowledge left them worse than useless because they did not use it to drive their hearts to a deeper love of and worship of their God and King. Thus they stood in real danger of losing their faith!

God forbid we either be lazy, never taking the time and effort to seek knowledge, or always coming to but never attaining true, heart changing knowledge.

However, just because one believes in the sovereignty of God, does not, necessarily, mean they have the right view of His goodness. This is a point Jeremiah Burroughs stressed in his book, “The Rare Jewel of Christian Contentment.” It is the reason we ask ‘why’ when hard providence enters our life. It is the drive behind our anger and frustration when life takes turns we did not expect and do not desire. It is an area in which I have struggled.

A recent sermon along with personal reading and meditation brought new light to this subject. Not long ago I had the privilege of listening to Pastor D.J. Dickey as he reviewed Satan’s temptations of Christ. The underlying theme of Satan’s first temptation struck me hard. Satan was tempting Jesus to doubt God’s goodness!

In Matt 4:3-4 we read, “Now when the tempter came to Him, he said, “If You are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread.” But He answered and said, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.’”"

At first glance it may seem Satan is simply tempting Jesus to appease His hunger. At its most basic level this is true. However, look a little deeper. By his very suggestion (that Jesus turn stones into bread), Satan is casting a negative light on God’s care and provision.

Satan is suggesting Jesus ask God, “Don’t You know I’m hungry? Don’t You care I haven’t eaten anything in 40 days? You sent Me here. You told Me to stay. I did what You said, and look how You’ve treated Me.”

Sound familiar? If not, you may have never been forced to accept from God’s hand something which, in every aspect, appeared to you not only bad but awful! Thus we see Satan is tempting Jesus (as he tempts us) to question God’s goodness and care.

You may say, “I’ve never said, or even thought, such things.” I wonder, though, do you ever worry? Do you ever stew about situations in life? Have you ever been angry at God? Have you ever quit trusting Him and taken things into your own hands - determined to take care of something He has obviously bungled?

Not only do we find Satan using this simple suggestion, “God is NOT good” to tempt our Lord, we see him using it to tempt Eve. Is that not what he said? “Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, “Has God indeed said, ‘You shall not eat of every tree of the garden’ ?”" (Gen 3:1)

What is Satan suggesting? Is it not that God is not good? After all, if God were good, why would He deny her access to something which is obviously so beautiful, and healthy, and desirable? Satan delights in causing Christians to doubt God’s care, and presence, and goodness. Certainly we can testify to this in our own lives.

Sadly, however, the comparison to Eve’s temptation and Jesus’ temptation end with the tempter’s question. As we all know (and experience daily), Eve fell for it (as we are prone to do). Jesus, however, did not. Why?

The answer is quite simple, really. Jesus focused on explicitly obeying God’s word. Look again at His answer to Satan in verse 4. “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.” What does this mean? Jesus is saying His will is to do the work He was sent to do. So should our answer be. Yet, how can it be?

First, we must not be caught off guard. As Burroughs pointed out in his book, the time to prepare is before the battle. No one goes into battle with half-made armor. No one goes to battle with a dull sword. No one goes to battle with a lame mount. If we are to prevail, we must prepare.

Even after everything Jesus had been through, even after suffering depravation for 40 days and nights, even when He is physically at His lowest, Jesus was not unarmed. His strength lay in God’s word. Thus the Psalmist can say, “My flesh and my heart fail; But God is the strength of my heart and my portion forever.” (73:26).

Thus our Lord calls us to come to the standard. It goes back to knowledge. It goes back to commitment. It goes back to ‘who’ or ‘what’ really holds our heart. When Satan tempts us to question God’s goodness, we must return to what we know　is true. As our Lord showed by example, we must trust God’s word, regardless of what our eyes tell us is true.

May God grant us the grace that, with Paul, we may live our days proclaiming, “We are troubled on every side, yet not distressed; we are perplexed, but not in despair; Persecuted, but not forsaken; cast down, but not destroyed;” (2 Cor 4:8-9)

I thought I understood. I thought I had a grasp on the redemption. However, the more I read the more I realize how little I really apprehended. Thus I am finding this book very valuable reading.

In chapter three, John Murray sets for the perfection of the atonement. He begins with his thesis statement, “. . .the satisfaction of Christ is the only satisfaction for sin and is so perfect and final that it leaves no penal liability for any sin of the believer.”

His point: to suggest human ability must be added to Christ’s work in order to satisfy God perverts Scripture’s teaching (Rom 8:1) and robs Jesus of the glory He earned by His work on the cross (Heb 1:3). Murray, anticipating objections which will be raised against such a statement, addresses the four major supports for his thesis in this chapter.

First he addresses the redemption’s historic setting. Scripture teaches Jesus’ work was accomplished once for all without our participation or cooperation. Jesus performed a real act in real time and space. Murray points to Gal 4:4-5 where we read, “But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.” Murray points out Both the incarnation and redemption “. . .are historically located and neither is suprahistorical or contemporary.”

Second he addresses the finality of our Lord’s work. He calls our redemption , “. . .a completed work, never repeated and unrepeatable.” Christ continues as our high priest, but the atonement is not an ongoing event. Murray goes on to say, “. . .the atonement of which Scripture speaks is the vicarious obedience, expiation, propitiation, reconciliation and redemption performed by the Lord of glory when, once for all, He purged our sins and sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.” (Heb 10:12)

Third Murray speaks of the uniqueness of Jesus’ work. “It is indefensible and perverse to. . .reduce the vicarious sacrifice of Christ to a denomination that will rob it of the unique and distinctive character which the Scripture applies to it.” In support of this point the author quotes from Hugh Martin who said, “Vicarious sacrifice. . .is one solitary, matchless, Divine transaction - never to be repeated, never to be equaled, never to be approached.”

John Murray’s final defense of his thesis is the intrinsic efficacy of Christ’s work. Scripture says Jesus’ work fully satisfied God’s justice. God didn’t just graciously accept something less than full satisfaction. Murray put it this way, “Christ. . .did not make a token payment which God accepts in place of the whole. Our debts are not canceled; they are liquidated.” Thus we read in Hebrews 10:14, “For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.” Also in Hebrews 5:9 we are told, “And having been perfected, He became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him,”

Next time we will delve into the extent of the atonement. The upcoming chapter will take more time to cover and more work to comprehend. I leave you with this verse from Psalms 103:12: “As far as the east is from the west, So far has He removed our transgressions from us.” Thank God He did!!!