Author Archives: Mark Herzer

John Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress, A Study Guide, Lesson 9

Leave a reply

STUDY SESSION 9

Introduction (pp. 119-137)

            Christian and Hopeful leave the delectable mountain and run into several unique characters on their way towards the Celestial City. Ignorance, Flatterer, and the Enchanted ground await them. One altercation between the two (Christian and Hopeful) is very instructive for all of us.

 

Readers

Narrator (119) – a good amount

Christian (120) — large amount

Ignorance (120) — very little (he’ll show up again later)

Hopeful (122) — large amount

man in the Robe -Flatterer (127) — a sentence or two

The Shining One (128) — a few lines

Atheist (129-30) — short (a few lines)

 

Vocabulary

“white as a clout” († 121) = “a proverbial expression, more usually in the form ‘as place as a clout’. (A clout was a sheet.)” (p. 305)

mist (122) = missed

Caytiff (123) = a coward

“he went to the walls” († 125) = “the weakest go to the wall” was proverbial. In medieval churches, which did not have pews, benches were set along the walls for the aged and infirm.” (pp. 305-6)

Habergeon (126) = (pronounced, ha’ bur jun) “a medieval jacket of mail shorter than a hauberk” (Webster) or “a short, sleeveless coat of mail”

brunts (127) = shock or stress (as of an attack)

tro (69, 137) = trow (believe, think)

 

Questions (pp. 119-137)

Page #

120      How does Ignorance intend to get into the Celestial city (cf. Luke 18:12)? What is his response to Christian’s challenge?

121      Describe “little faith.” What happened to him? What did Christian mean when he said that the “Thieves got most of his spending Money”?

123      Why did Christian more or less rebuke Hopeful? Explain the nature of the issue.[1]

123      How does Christian distinguish Little Faith from Esau? What is meant by “typical” (“Esau’s Birth-right was Typical”)?

125      Christian and Hopeful discuss the differences between believers and that some are of little faith while others have great grace. We are all different when tried. How should we respond when we see other believers struggle so much?[2] Read below:

“Young converts often view temptations, conflicts, and persecutions, in a very different light than experienced believers do. Warm with zeal, and full of confidence, which they imagine to be wholly genuine, and knowing comparatively little of their own hearts, or the nature of the Christian conflict, they resemble new recruits, who are apt to boast what great things they will do: but the old disciple, though much stronger in faith, and possessing habitually more vigour of holy affection, knows himself too well to boast, and speaks with modesty of the past, and diffidence of the future…” (Scott, 178)

130      They encountered “Inchanted grounds” in their journey. What does this represent? How does this show up in our generation? What does it look like now? How does one know that he or she has not fallen prey to the woes of the enchanted ground?

132      Hopeful explains what experiences he had before coming to Christ. Are these the regular experiences of coming to Christ? Must a person undergo all of them? What ones (if any) do you think must happen?

He also talks about his attempts to mend his life (133). Why do most people respond this way? Is this conversion?

Explain the illustration of the debt to the Shop-keeper (133). Is it true to say “I have committed sin enough in one duty to send me to Hell” (134)? Explain.

135      How is this “Sinner’s Prayer” (as it were) different from the modern version? Did this one prayer convert him?

135      Bunyan revealed his remarkable pastoral and theological insight into the nature of conversion when answering why he didn’t leave off praying. Why didn’t he leave off praying when it didn’t “stick” or “work” the first time? What lessons should we learn from this?

136      NOTE: “believing and coming was all one” — two different verbs but the same idea. Coming to Christ is to believe in Him (it is not the same as coming to the “altar”).

 

Observations & Notes

SPENDING MONEY (122)

The notation takes this to mean the Christian’s (“Little Faith’s”) sense of assurance. Faint-heart, Mistrust, and Guilt all conspired to ruin “Little Faith.” Scott says that “these robbers represent the inward effects of unbelief and disobedience” (Scott, 172). Kelman says, “It may be permissible, without pressing the allegory too far, to see in the detailed account of the attack a very definite sequence of spiritual experiences. Faint-heart speaks, Mistrust robs, Guilt strikes down.” (cited in Calhoun, 73)

JEWELS (122, 123)

All believers have jewels, namely, that they are meet for heaven and are accepted by the Lord on account of Christ. The jewel represents that they are true believers and perhaps this is the “seed of God” spoken of in 1 Jn. 3:9. Nonetheless, “But he may by sin lose his comforts, and not be able to perceive the evidences of his own safety: and even when again enabled to hope that it will be well with him in the event; he may be so harassed by the recollection of the loss he has sustained, the effects of his misconduct on others, and the obstructions he hath thrown in the way of his own comfort and usefulness, that his future life may be rendered as constant scene of disquietude and painful reflections.” (Scott, 174) David Calhoun (74) cites a passage from another author regarding this allusion:

A Scottish woman ‘underwent a dangerous operation that might have robbed her of her speech. After the operation, [her] pastor visited her in the hospital. Turning to him, she whispered, ‘The jewels are all safe!’ Her phrase refers to a scene in which the character Little Faith is robbed. The assailants make off with his spending money but fail to find his jewels—his belief in Christ. The woman in hospital uses the image to signal that both her voice and her faith have survived the operation. (Hofmeyr, The Portable Bunyan, 100)

NOTE (127): “a man black of flesh, but covered with a very light Robe” — this is a reference to a false teacher, a false minister of the gospel (cf. 2 Cor. 11:13-14) as p. 128 indicates. Unfortunately, this wicked figure (false apostle) misled Christian and Hopeful and entrapped them in a net.

ATHEIST (129-130)

This is a very curious encounter because atheism wasn’t as prominent in that generation. There were some but most of them were not very influential or popular.

INCHANTED GROUND (130)

Christiana will encounter this ground as well. The Guide explains what it means: “For this inchanted Ground is one of the last Refuges that the Enemy to Pilgrims has; wherefore it is as you see, placed almost at the end of the Way, and so it standeth against us with the more advantage.” (278) One is most tired at the journey’s end and entertains a little rest. In resting, one falls asleep and never awakes. Alexander Whyte said that this enchanted ground “proved so fatal to so many false pilgrims, and so all but fatal to so many true pilgrims” (Bunyan Characters, 2:273).

Spurgeon’s initial word on this is searching and worth pondering. “There are, no doubt, many of us who are passing over this plain; and I fear that this is the condition of the majority of churches in the present day. They are lying down on the settles of Lukewarmness in the Arbours of the Enchanted Ground.” (Pictures from Pilgrim’s Progress, 182)

[1] “Bunyan, as a Calvinist, was, of course, a firm believer in the perseverance of the saints; so he could not have had Little-faith lose his jewels. Hope was not the first or last to be ‘almost angry’ in an argument about the doctrine of perseverance.” (Calhoun, 73-74)

[2] “But for such footmen as thee and I are, let us never desire to meet with an enemy, nor vaunt as if we could do better, when we hear of others that they have been foiled, nor be tickled at the thoughts of our own manhood, for such commonly come by the worst when tried.” (Bunyan, Pilgrim’s Progress, 126)

 

John Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress, A Study Guide, Lesson 8

Leave a reply

STUDY SESSION 8

Introduction (pp. 115-119)

Christian and Hopeful escaped Giant Despair’s Doubting Castle. In this session, we will read of Christian’s experience of the “delectable Mountain.” He encounters four shepherds (Knowledge, Experience, Watchful, and Sincere) on that mountain.

 

Readers

Narrator (115) – a good normal amount

Christian (115) — normal amount

Shepherds (115, 117) — relatively short

Hopeful (119) — short

 

Vocabulary

stile (115) = a step or set of steps for passing over a fence or wall (a small ladder)

staves (115) = staffs

thither (115) = to that place; there

 

Questions (pp. 115-119)

Page #

117      Christians come upon the “delectable Mountains” and gain some respite. What do you think these mountains represent?

117      Though the name is simple, explain the description given to the Hill called “Errour.” See 2 Tim. 2:17, 18. What kind of “errors” should we avoid in our generation?

118      Christian and Hopeful are led to Mount Caution, the very mountain in which they almost died. After that, they are shown “a By-way to Hell.” Explain what this represents.

118      Why is it important to recognize that a door to Hell can be found right in the middle of the delectable mountain? What lessons should we learn here?

119      They were given a sight of the Celestial City through the “Perspective Glass.” When did they best see the celestial city? When in peace or when afraid? Is getting a glimpse of the “Celestial City” a vital necessity? Why or why not? If someone has never gotten a sight of it, can he or she persevere?[1] Why or why not?

 

Observations & Notes

DELECTABLE MOUNTAINS

Maureen Bradley lists many interpretations (below, pp. 74-75). Thomas Scott says, “The Delectable Mountains seem intended to represent those calm seasons of peace and comfort, which consistent believers often experience in their old age.” (Scott, 163) Horner takes it to be “a fellowship in association with the Palace Beautiful. Instruction, comfort and rest are to be found here” (p. 271).

Various meanings have been applied to the Delectable Mountains. Some see them as representing nothing in particular other than a time of quiet rest. Others see these mountains as a picture of the local church. Still others say that the mountains represent the ministry of the Word of God by godly pastors and its effect on pilgrims. While all these are good interpretations of the Delectable Mountains, might I add another possibility? The Puritans called the Sabbath a ‘market day for the soul.” Could these mountains represent the Sabbath and all that Sabbath rest entails (i.e., a day set aside for instruction in Sunday school, for sitting under the preaching of godly ministers, and for meditation on Scripture and prayer)? If this is what they represent, how do the Delectable Mountains remind you of a market day for the soul? (Bradley, 74-5)

FOUR SHEPHERDS

Whyte sees these four shepherds (Knowledge, Experience, Watchful, and Sincere) as the basic characteristics of a good pastor. Thomas Scott takes these names to be “the more extensive acquaintance of many aged Christians with the Ministers and Churches of Christ…” (Scott, 163)

[1] “Sometimes this vision is revealed to Pilgrims much more clearly than at other times; but no language can describe the glory of the vision, whenever and however it is manifested to the soul; for eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither hath it entered into the heart of man to conceive the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. But God reveals them by his Spirit, and sometimes doubtless with such a revelation as language cannot compass” (Cheever, 420).

John Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress, A Study Guide, Lesson 7

Leave a reply

STUDY SESSION 7

Introduction (pp. 95-115)

At this point, Hopeful joins Christian after Faithful is killed. On their journey, they encounter “By-ends” and several other men. They end up being captured by Giant Despair.

 

Readers

Narrator (95) – normal amount

Christian (97) — normal amount

Hopeful (97) — normal amount

By-ends (97) — a large amount

Mony-love (99) — a good amount

Mr. Save-all (99) — short

Mr. Hold-the-world (100) — short

Demas (104) — short

Vain-Confidence (108) — one line

Giant Despair (109) — little

Mrs. Diffidence — little (means a lack of faith or confidence, mistrust, distrust, doubt, etc. and not reticence as it is now used, see † 304).

 

Vocabulary

By-ends († 97) = “a ‘by-end’ is a secondary consideration” (303)

Fainings (97) = feigning’s = pretender, disguiser

Conje (99) = conge, a farewell, a ceremonious bow, a formal permission to depart (Webster)

Save-all (99, see †) = “a miserly person who saves all his money. Bunyan may also intend this character to represent the belief that Christ died for all, not only the elect.” (303)

Gripe (99) = a covetous man, one who grasps and clutches tightly

cousenage (99) = cozenage (pronounced “cousin –eej”) the art of cheating, fraud

ridged (99) = rigid

benefice (101) = an ecclesiastical office which is funded by an endowment

stalking horse (102, see †) = a proverbial saying (?)

Lucre (103) = monetary gain; profit (often used negatively “filthy lucre”)

surfeit (107) = means excess, effects of excess

stile (108) = a step or set of steps for passing over a fence or wall (a small ladder)

rate (110) = to rebuke angrily or violently (berate)

halter (110) = a rope with a noose for hanging a person

 

Questions (pp. 95-115)

Page #

96        Christian and Hopeful enter into a “brotherly covenant.” What do you think that means? Is it a good thing? Would it help us in our generation? Why or why not?

97        Describe the kind of family from which By-ends comes. What kind of picture is he trying to paint?

98        How is he different from the “stricter sort” of religious people? Explain what he is saying.

98        How did By-ends get his name?

99        How does By-ends describe Christian and Hopeful? Why? Does this happen often?

100      By-ends understanding of the Christian walk is all wrong. What kind of people would make this statement? Explain how one can argue By-ends case.

100      Mr. Mony-love believes they have Scripture and Reason on their side. How would he come to that conclusion?

101      Explain By-ends’s question?

102      NOTE: See Jn. 6:25ff. Christian gives good examples from Scripture. By-ends and his friends could not answer and yet, they thought before they had a good case. Being convinced by something doesn’t mean you are right! It must be in accordance with Scripture.

104      Who is Demas (2Tim. 4:10)? Are there men and women like him in the church today?

104-5   Why would it have been wrong for Christian and Hopeful to accept Demas’s invitation? Isn’t an effort to make a profit legitimate?

106      What made Hopeful different from Lot’s wife? Hopeful wanted to go into the Silver-mine whereas Lot’s wife only turned and looked – what was the difference between the two? How helpful was Christian in preventing Hopeful? What can we learn from him?

109      Why didn’t Hopeful express his disagreement with Christian more forcefully?

110      Giant Despair suggests that they commit suicide. Why would some Christians actually consider that?

114      How did they escape Doubting Castle?[1] How do we get the same key?

 

Observations & Notes

BROTHERLY COVENANT (97)

Puritans often covenanted with each other as well as privately before the Lord. This was their holy resolve to pursue godly matters. Some times, they wrote down their covenants with God.

RIVER OF GOD (107)

“…Pilgrims, having been enabled to resist the temptation to turn aside for lucre, were indulged with more abundant spiritual consolations. … All believers partake of this sacred influences [of the Spirit], which prepare the soul for heavenly felicity, and are earnests and pledges of it: but there are seasons when he communicates his holy comforts in larger measure; when the Christian sees such glory in the salvation of Christ… forgets, for the moment, the pain of former conflicts and the prospect of future trials; finds his inbred corruptions reduced to a state of subjection, and his maladies healed by lively exercises of faith in the divine Savior… Then communion with humble believers, (the lilies that adorn the banks of the river) is very pleasant; and the soul’s rest and satisfaction in God and his service are safe, and his calm confidence is well grounded…” The writer takes these to be the “abundant consolations of the Spirit” (T. Scott, 150-151)

[1] “The promise of eternal life, to every one without exception, who believeth in Christ, is especially intended by the key; but without excluding any of other of ‘the exceeding great and precious promises’ of the gospel” (Thomas Scott, 162).

John Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress, A Study Guide, Lesson 6

Leave a reply

STUDY SESSION 5

Introduction (pp. 83-95)

Christian and Faithful come upon the Town of Vanity. Evangelist had already warned them of its dangers. In Vanity Fair, our Pilgrims meet with men and women who are greatly offended by their speech and lifestyle. Their faith is tried and Faithful dies as a martyr.

 

Readers

Narrator (83) – a good amount

Christian (83) — normal amount

Faithful (83) – normal amount (he dies)

Evangelist (83) —about two pages

a citizen of Vanity (87) — one line

Lord Hate-good – a judge (90) — not too much

Envy (91) — half a page

Superstition (91) — very short

Pickthank (92) — very short

Mr. Blind-man, No-good, etc. (94-5) — short statements

 

Vocabulary

“quit your selves” (85) = conduct yourselves

thorow (86, 87) = through

Bedlams (87) = madman, lunatic

Pillory (88) = “a device formerly used for publicly punishing offenders consisting of a wooden frame with holes in which the head and hands can be locked” (Merrian-Webster)

on’t (90) = “of it”

Pickthank (91 — see †) = “one who ‘picks a thank’, i.e. flatters, or curries favour” (302)

Runagate (92) — a vagabond, fugitive, runaway

Sirrah (92) — “sir” (pronounced “seer –rah”)

 

Questions (pp. 83-95)

Page #

85        Both the town and the fair were called “vanity.” Simple as the question might be, what does “Vanity Fair” represent? Why must all Pilgrims go through (“thorow”) it? Isn’t there a way to avoid it?

86        Explain what Bunyan is referring to on p. 86 (the exchange between Beelzebub and the Prince of Princes).[1]

87        Why was there such a “hubbub” over the Pilgrims’ arrival into the Town of Vanity? What “three” things made these Pilgrims so different from the rest of the people? Should that be the case with all Christians? Why or why not?

87-88   Why would the people of Vanity think that the Pilgrims were lunatics (“Bedlams”)? Is their anger against the Pilgrims reasonable? Is this depiction realistic? Why or why not?

88        When the Pilgrims were beaten, they did not respond in anger. Why was that? Can all Christians do that? Ought they? Why or why not? How will you know if you will be able to when the time comes?

91-94   The Judge[2] along with witnesses against the Pilgrims present their case. Explain how they come across as sane and lawful in this court of law? Are all “legal” matters necessarily holy and good? Could a trial like this happen in America? Why or why not?

95        We are told that Christian escaped. How did that happen?[3] What does this teach us?

 

Observations & Notes

PROPHET (84)

Christian called “Evangelist” a “Prophet.” Why? Reformers and Puritans often called preachers and/or evangelists “Prophets.” Preaching was a form of prophesying. Prophesying meant either foretelling (speaking about future events) or forth-telling (setting forth God’s truth as revealed in His Word). Many of them believed that eminent godly men could prophesy regarding the future. Though we may disagree with them, some of the anecdotes are quite interesting if not persuasive.

VANITY FAIR (85)

Calhoun says that this Vanity Fair represents “the days of Charles II and the Restoration. Kelman comments that ‘in the figures of these two pilgrims austerely walking through the noisy streets of Vanity, we can see the forms of such men as Owen, Baxter, Goodwin, and Howe, walking apart amidst the dance of contemporary English life.” (Calhoun, 65)[4] Cheever gets at the essence of this city: “Vanity Fair is the City of Destruction in its gala dress, in it most seductive sensual allurements. It is this world in miniature, with its various temptations.” (Cheever, 363)

Barry Horner makes an important observation from this (something we must always remember). When the Pilgrims entered Vanity Fair, they did not “incorporate the lifestyle of Vanity into their methodology; they are not to reach out with the media that are so popular in Vanity.” Rather, they witnessed by their holy lifestyle, by speaking the truth of Scripture and by their manifest graciousness. “In this situation, it is particularly the uncluttered consistency of the truth, its uncompromising proclamation, even unto death, that begins to make inroads into Satan’s entrenched domain.”[5]

Cheever perceives another danger in Vanity Fair. It is something against which our own generation must fight. “Vanity Fair itself may be full of professed pilgrims, and the pilgrimage itself may be held in high esteem, and yet the practice of the pilgrimage, as Christian and Faithful followed it, may almost have gone out of existence. With the increase of nominal Christians there is always an increase of conformity to the world; and the world appears better than it did to Christians, not so much because it has changed, as because they have changed; the wild beasts and tame ones dwell together, not so much because the leopards eat straw like the ox, as because the ox eats flesh like the leopard.…there is not so such a marked and manifest distinction between the church and the world as there should be; their habits, maxims, opinions, pursuits, amusements, whole manner of life, are too much the same; so that the Pilgrims in our day have lost the character of a peculiar people, not so much because they have become vastly more numerous than formerly, as because they have become conformed to the world, not like strangers, but natives in Vanity Fair” (Cheever, 371-2).

FIVE THOUSAND YEARS AGONE (85)

Following Bishop Ussher and other similar divines, almost all the Puritans calculated the year of the earth from Adam unto their present time to be a bit over 5,000 years old. Bunyan is stating that the town of Vanity existed from the beginning.

BEELZEBUB, APOLLYON, AND LEGION (85-86)

These three “contrived here to set up a Fair…” The town is a trap, it is the world in which we live; it is seduction of the world (“This Fair therefore is an Ancient thing, of long standing, and a very great Fair.” p. 87). It is remarkably similar to the role of Babylon in the book of Revelation (chs. 17-18). The beast carries Babylon (Rev. 17:3, 7, 8) and Beelzebub, Apollyon, and Legion erected this Fair. The world and its “stuff” present themselves to us. Will we yield to vanity or will we reject her wares? That was the question Christian and Faithful had to answer with their very lives.

[1] Note, this small episode is not found in some versions of Pilgrim’s Progress, for example, it is not found in The Pilgrim’s Progress from this World to That which is to Come, Special Tercentenary Edition (New York: American Tract Society, n.d.).

[2] Apparently, the Judge’s words and manners mirror some of the judges who served on King Charles, cf. Cheever, 368.

[3] “But he that over-rules all things, having the power of their rage in his own hand, so wrought it about, that Christian for that time escaped them, and went his way.” (95)

[4] Calhoun is citing Kelman, The Road, A Study of John Bunyan’s ‘Pilgrim’s Progress’ (Port Washington, NY, 1970), 1:205.

[5] Horner, 368-370.

 

John Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress, A Study Guide, Lesson 5

Leave a reply

STUDY SESSION 5

Introduction (pp. 55-66)

Christian needed good Christian fellowship and he meets with Faithful after braving the “Valley of the shadow of Death. “ Faithful tells of his own personal encounters. After a season of godly fellowship, they run into Talkative which opens up for them another important opportunity to discuss holy matters.

 

Readers

Narrator (66) – a shorter role though by no means very short

Christian (67) – a great amount

Faithful (67) – more than Christian

Talkative (74) – several pages

 

Vocabulary

Vale (67) = valley

bedabled (68) = bedabbled, namely, to wet or soil by dabbling

“writ for a wonder” (69, see †) = “it would be surprising”

tro (69) = trow (believe, think)

hectoring (72, 73) = intimidate, harass, bully

Prating-row (76) = from “prate” (pratingly is the adverb) to chatter, talk long and idly

bruit (77) = pronounced like “brute”; it means noise, report, rumor, etc.

churl (77) = a rude ill-bred person; peasant like

Turk (77) = often used to mean a Muslim

“you lie at the catch (80, see †) = “you are watching for an opportunity to catch me out”

peevish (82) = easily irritated or bothered

 

Questions (pp. 66-83)

Page #

66        Explain what “Pope and Pagan” meant. Why did he not fear them? Was his assessment of “Pagan” accurate? Of Pope?

69        What allure does “Wanton” represent (69)? Is that a concern in our generation? How is the proverb (22:14) cited by Christian relevant to the situation? What did he mean he wasn’t sure if he wholly escaped her? [

69-70   The “Old Man” was “Adam the first.” What does he represent? Who is this man that kept knocking Faithful down? What is the point of this encounter? How do we avoid this danger or pitfall?

71        Faithful met Discontent in the Valley of Humility. What was Discontent’s method of argumentation?

72        Summarize Shame’s line of argument. Is his argument used today? What was Faithful’s response? Which for you is more formidable, Discontent or Shame?

76        Is “Talkative” someone we might run into? What would he or she look like? How does Christian describe him? What kind of “religion” is found in Talkative’s house (77)?

79-80   In discussing the grace of God in the heart, Talkative mentions his first point. What was it and why did Faithful insist in making a distinction from Talkative’s first point? Explain Faithful’s answer.

80        Isn’t a great knowledge of Gospel Mysteries a sure sign that a person is a genuine convert? What was Faithful’s response? Is he right?

81        Faithful further explains what “grace in the soul” looks like. What is “an experimental confession”? Also, how does Faithful’s explanation unmask Talkative’s religion? What is the difference?

 

Observations & Notes

POPE AND PAGAN (66)

This is one of those curious historic observations Bunyan made which turned out to be incorrect. He viewed the two giants as being practically dead. Paganism suffered a severe blow in the seventeenth century but it grew in great force in the eighteenth. Papism never died and had (and still has) more power than Bunyan expected. However, Catholicism did not have the official backing like it used to in England. Perhaps it was his limited understanding of the world that made him view Catholicism as being so weak or as Calhoun suggested, maybe he had an expectation according to God’s purpose for his Church.[1] [The “old man” papism talks about more people being burned. This is a reference to Queen Mary’s bloody reign. Regarding this, Fox’s Acts and Monuments gives a thorough account and this book was the only other books Bunyan had next to the Bible (while in prison).]

This scene has been changed in the Dangerous Journey (where Paganism is alive and Papism is the same). Some versions delete the scene entirely.[2] Paganism is a growing giant in our generation and historians of philosophical ideas have shown that it had not really died during Bunyan’s era (it merely did not have the political clout to influence society).[3]

SEVEN TIMES WORSE (68)

This is probably a reference to Luke 11:26, “Then it goes and takes along seven other spirits more evil than itself, and they go in and live there; and the last state of that man becomes worse than the first.” Pliable’s state is worse off than before. Apostasy does not just place a man in the same situation as before; it makes him worse. (cf. 2 Pet. 2:22)

WANTON (69)

Spurgeon’s words on Faithful’s statement are sobering. “I know not whether I did wholly escape her, or no.”

The probability is, that the temptations of the flesh, even when resisted, do us an injury. If the coals do not burn us, they blacken us. The very thought of evil, and especially of such evil, is sin. We can hardly read a newspaper report of anything of this kind without having our minds in some degree defiled. There are certain flowers which matters that they scatter an ill savour as they are repeated in our ears. So much for Wanton’s assault on Faithful. From her net, and her ditch, may every pilgrim be preserved!”[4]

ADAM THE FIRST AND MOSES (70-71)

Puritans held a variety of views concerning the relationship between the covenant made with Adam (Covenant of Works) and the one made with Moses (Mosaic Covenant). Many of them believed that the Mosaic Covenant was a re-publication of the Covenant of Works and in some manner very similar to it.[5] Yet, the Mosaic Covenant had an element of grace through its sacrificial system and promises.

This encounter teaches that once a believer looks to the old way of trusting in his human efforts to save himself, he will be pummeled with the harsh demands of the law — there can be no mercy in the Law. To obey the law because one is saved is proper but to be inclined towards the law (to Adam the First) in the sense depicted by Bunyan is to court spiritual disaster and death.

TRUE GOSPEL SENSE OF THOSE TEXTS (79)

Puritans believed in “typological” interpretations. Namely, there is the literal sense but also a deeper Gospel sense to many parts of the Bible. It is different from the true allegorical sense found in Medieval theologians who believed each passage had four senses to it. What is truly wonderful and edifying about the Puritans was their insistence on digging deeper to gain something beneficial for their souls. We see something similar in Spurgeon. Many modern readers and exegetes find this method to be distasteful.

[1] Cf. Calhoun, Grace Abounding, 81-82 n.40.

[2] Cf. Horner, Pilgrim’s Progress: Themes and Issues, 420-422.

[3] For example, Thomas Hobbes is a good example of a type of paganism against whom men like Cudworth devoted their intellectual attacks. In the end of seventeenth century, “Deism” began to develop. Cf. Alister McGrath, The Twilight of Atheism: The Rise and Fall of Disbelief in the Modern World (New York: Doubleday, 2004).

[4] Spurgeon, Pictures from Pilgrim’s Progress, 146-147. Also, see Bradley’s helpful observations in her study, p. 49.

[5] Cf. Pieter de Vries, John Bunyan on the Order of Salvation, translated by C. van Haaften (New York: Peter Lang, 1994), 100-102.

John Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress, A Study Guide, Lesson 4

Leave a reply

STUDY SESSION 4

Introduction (pp. 55-66)

            In this study, Christian will go through two valleys, the Valley of Humiliation and the Valley of the Shadow of Death. He will be confronted by the dreaded Apollyon and will also encounter two men who will give a bad report. Christian’s conflicts in the Valleys represent the kinds of trials through which each believer must go.

 

Readers

Narrator (55)

Christian (57)

Apollyon or ‘foul Fiend’ (57) — three pages

“two Men” (62) — one page

 

Vocabulary

Apollyon (55) = destroyer, the Devil

strodled (59) = straddled

bestir (59) = to rouse to action, to get going

amain (59) = with all his strength (adv.)

brast (61) = burst

dint (61) = stroke, blow; “by dint of” means “by force of” or “because of the sword”

Satyr (62) = Greek mythology, half horse/goat and man; can mean a lascivious or lewd man

Quagg (63) = quagmire

Gin (66) = a snare or trap

 

Questions (pp. 55-66)

Page #

55        What does the “Valley of Humiliation” represent? Why does it follow his stay in the “house Beautiful”?

57        Explain what this encounter with Apollyon (Rev. 9:11) represents in a Christian’s life.

57        Why would Apollyon call himself “Prince and God”? What might he be referring to when he mentions “after a while to give him the slip; and return again to me…”? Would you say that this was common?

58        What does Apollyon mean when he says that THE PRINCE (Christ) “never came …to deliver any that served him out of our hands”? Is that true? What was Christian’s answer?

58        Apollyon accused Christian of many failures. The second sentence helpfully explains why Christian had to carry the burden so long. He says, “Thou didst attempt wrong ways to be rid of thy burden, whereas thou shouldest have stayed till thy Prince had take it off.” Explain this accusation, this (shall we say) “insightful” statement — or what would this look like in someone’s experience?

59        When Christian was beaten down by Apollyon, he “nimbly reached” out to grab the “Sword” to stab Apollyon. What does this represent? What does the sword represent (cf. Eph. 6).

62        Christian meets “two Men” who give a bad report about what is ahead. Who do they represent? Are there people like that on every Christian’s journey?

63        What does the Valley of the Shadow of Death represent? Is it a metaphor of spiritual death or a picture of literal physical death? Something else? Explain the kind of ditches mentioned on pp. 62-63. What is Bunyan talking about when he mentions King David?

63        In this Valley, Christian takes up the weapon “All-prayer.” Why didn’t the sword work? Also, explain how this is different from the occasional prayers found in religious people and many professing Christians.

65        What kind of struggle did Christian have with these voices? Do all believers go through this? Have you?

 

Observations & Notes

VALLEY OF HUMILIATION & APOLLYON (55)

As Spurgeon notes, Christian was equipped with his armor. Spurgeon believed that Christians are led to this point when they slowly depart from God (Pictures from Pilgrim’s Progress, 133). We do read that “he caught a slip or two” (p. 55). However, it is not uncommon for Christians to fall into such a valley after fellowshipping with the saints in the church of Jesus Christ. Quite often, we go down to the Valley of Humiliation after enjoying a mountain experience in the Lord’s assembly. In that valley, we often meet our enemy, Satan who accuses us (and has ample ammunition on account of slips and falls).

THE SWORD (59)

When Christian “nimbly reached” for the sword, he was able to thrust Apollyon with it to ensure his safety. Thomas Scott says, “The Christian, therefore, ‘almost pressed to death,’ and ready ‘to despair of life,’ will, by the special grace of God, be helped again to seize his sword, and to use it with more effect than ever. The Holy Spirit will bring to his mind, with the most convincing energy, the evidences of the divine inspiration of the Scripture, and enable him to rely on the promises: and thus at length the enemy will be put to flight, by testimonies of holy writ pertinently adduced, and more clearly understood than before.” (pp. 83-84)

THE TREE OF LIFE (61)

Thomas Scott says that this represents “the present benefits of the redemption of Christ.” (p. 85) He notes that the Lord often heals the Christian, pardons his sins, and renews his strength and comforts after his victory over temptations.

TWO MEN (62)

“These men were spies, not Pilgrims: and they related what they had observed at a distance, but had never experienced.— They represent those who have been conversant with godly people and ‘bring an evil report on the good land,’ to prejudice the minds of numbers against the right ways of the Lord.” (Thomas Scott, 97)

THE VALLEY OF THE SHADOW OF DEATH & QUAGG (62-3)

In this valley, men and women may fall into heresy (‘deep Ditch’) or despairing of God’s mercy (‘Quagg’) which is similar to the “Slough of Despond.”[1] It is often a “dark” time (p. 63) and the believer is not sure which way to go. It is “night in Christian’s soul” (says Cheever, p. 334) and one that tries most Christians. “In these opposite ways,” says Thomas Scott, “multitudes continually perish; some concluding that there is no fear, others is no hope.” (p. 99) The editor takes the Quagg to mean moral failures, like David’s sin with Bathsheba (p. 299).

This valley represents “a variation of inward discouragement, distress, conflict and alarm, which arises from prevailing darkness of mind, and want of lively spiritual affections; by which a man is rendered reluctant to religious duties and heartless in performing them…” (Thomas Scott, 85).

ALL PRAYER (63)

Maureen Bradley’s words on this are very helpful. “Christian passes hard by the mouth of hell in the midst of the valley. Such were the sparks and hideous noises coming out of this hole, which cared not for Christian’s sword (the Word of God), that he was forced to use another weapon, which was called All-prayer. Many are the times when a person is so distressed that he is not even able to read the Word of God but can only cry out in agonizing prayer to God and cling to Christ.” (The Pilgrim’s Progress: Study Guide, 43)

WHISPERINGLY SUGGESTED (65)

As the editor of this edition of Pilgrim’s Progress notes (p. 299), Bunyan struggled with blaspheming against God. The Puritans often spoke of this and one of the methods to distinguish between one’s own voice and the voice of the “Fiend” was to consider two things. Did this wicked thought rush upon you out of no-where? If yes, then they rightly suggested that the thought did not erupt from our nature (most likely). Second, Did you embrace the thought or suggestion? In other words, once this “voice” was heard, did you consider it and make it your own or did you reject it with holy hatred? If you rejected it and ran from the thought, then you are not guilty, they would have argued. (cf. Thomas Brook’s Precious Remedy Against Satan’s Devices)

[1] Mason says, “The ditch on the right hand is error in principle, into which the blind— as to spiritual truths, blind guides — lead the blind, who were never spiritually enlightened. The ditch on the left hand, means outward sins and wickedness, which many fall into. Both are alike dangerous to pilgrims; but the Lord will keep the feet of his saints. (1 Sam. ii. 9)” (p. 74)

Larger Catechism, #102-104, pt. 1

Leave a reply

The Larger Catechism

Questions 102-104

102. Q. What is the sum of the four commandments which contain our duty to God?

A. The sum of the four commandments containing our duty to God is, to love the Lord our God with all our heart, and with all our soul, and with all our strength, and with all our mind.[444]

103. Q. Which is the first commandment?

A. The first commandment is, Thou shall have no other gods before me.[445]

104. Q. What are the duties required in the first commandment?

A. The duties required in the first commandment are, the knowing and acknowledging of God to be the only true God, and our God;[446] and to worship and glorify him accordingly,[447] by thinking,[448] meditating,[449] remembering,[450] highly esteeming,[451] honouring,[452] adoring,[453] choosing,[454] loving,[455] desiring,[456] fearing of him;[457] believing him;[458] trusting[459] hoping,[460] delighting,[461] rejoicing in him;[462] being zealous for him;[463] calling upon him, giving all praise and thanks,[464] and yielding all obedience and submission to him with the whole man;[465] being careful in all things to please him,[466] and sorrowful when in any thing he is offended;[467] and walking humbly with him.[468]

[444] Luke 10:27. And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. [445] Exodus 20:3. Thou shalt have no other gods before me. [446] 1 Chronicles 28:9. And thou, Solomon my son, know thou the God of thy father, and serve him with a perfect heart and with a willing mind: for the LORD searcheth all hearts, and understandeth all the imaginations of the thoughts: if thou seek him, he will be found of thee; but if thou forsake him, he will cast thee off for ever. Deuteronomy 26:7. And when we cried unto the LORD God of our fathers, the LORD heard our voice, and looked on our affliction, and our labour, and our oppression. Isaiah 43:10. Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. Jeremiah 14:22. Are there any among the vanities of the Gentiles that can cause rain? or can the heavens give showers? art not thou he, O LORD our God? therefore we will wait upon thee: for thou hast made all these things. [447] Psalm 95:6-7. O come, let us worship and bow down: let us kneel before the LORD our maker. For he is our God; and we are the people of his pasture, and the sheep of his hand. To day if ye will hear his voice. Matthew 4:10. Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. Psalm 29:2. Give unto the LORD the glory due unto his name; worship the LORD in the beauty of holiness. [448] Malachi 3:16. Then they that feared the LORD spake often one to another: and the LORD hearkened, and heard it, and a book of remembrance was written before him for them that feared the LORD, and that thought upon his name. [449] Psalm 63:6. When I remember thee upon my bed, and meditate on thee in the night watches. [450] Ecclesiastes 12:1. Remember now thy Creator in the days of thy youth, while the evil days come not, nor the years draw nigh, when thou shalt say, I have no pleasure in them. [451] Psalm 71:19. Thy righteousness also, O God, is very high, who hast done great things: O God, who is like unto thee! [452] Malachi 1:6. A son honoureth his father, and a servant his master: if then I be a father, where is mine honour? and if I be a master, where is my fear? saith the LORD of hosts unto you, O priests, that despise my name. And ye say, Wherein have we despised thy name? [453] Isaiah 45:23. I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear. [454] Joshua 24:15, 22. And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD…. And Joshua said unto the people, Ye are witnesses against yourselves that ye have chosen you the LORD, to serve him. And they said, We are witnesses. [455] Deuteronomy 6:5. And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. [456] Psalm 73:25. Whom have I in heaven but thee? and there is none upon earth that I desire beside thee. [457] Isaiah 8:13. Sanctify the LORD of hosts himself; and let him be your fear, and let him be your dread. [458] Exodus 14:31. And Israel saw that great work which the LORD did upon the Egyptians: and the people feared the LORD, and believed the LORD, and his servant Moses. [459] Isaiah 26:4. Trust ye in the LORD for ever: for in the LORD JEHOVAH is everlasting strength. [460] Psalm 130:7. Let Israel hope in the LORD: for with the LORD there is mercy, and with him is plenteous redemption. [461] Psalm 37:4. Delight thyself also in the LORD; and he shall give thee the desires of thine heart. [462] Psalm 32:11. Be glad in the LORD, and rejoice, ye righteous: and shout for joy, all ye that are upright in heart. [463] Romans 12:11. Not slothful in business; fervent in spirit; serving the Lord. Numbers 25:11. Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, hath turned my wrath away from the children of Israel, while he was zealous for my sake among them, that I consumed not the children of Israel in my jealousy. [464] Philippians 4:6. Be careful for nothing; but in every thing by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God. [465] Jeremiah 7:23. But this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people: and walk ye in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well unto you. James 4:7. Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. [466] 1 John 3:22. And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight. [467] Jeremiah 31:18. I have surely heard Ephraim bemoaning himself thus; Thou hast chastised me, and I was chastised, as a bullock unaccustomed to the yoke: turn thou me, and I shall be turned; for thou art the LORD my God. Psalm 119:136. Rivers of waters run down mine eyes, because they keep not thy law. [468] Micah 6:8. He hath showed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?

 

The Sum of the Four Commandments

LC # 98 stated that the first four commandments contained our duty to God and that the last six pertained to our duty to man. The LC #102 answer copies the lawyer’s response to Jesus’ question of what is written in the law. In terse fashion, the answer summarizes the first four commandments or our duty to God (Lk. 10:27): “The sum of the four commandments containing our duty to God is, to love the Lord our God with all our heart, and with all our soul, and with all our strength, and with all our mind.” Jesus said, “On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.” (Mt. 22:40)[1]

First of all, let us observe how our duty to God is defined in terms of loving Him. This command comes from Deut. 6:5 and it perfectly summarizes our duty to God. Watson defined this love: “It is a holy fire kindled in the affections, whereby a Christian is carried out strongly after God as the supreme good.”[2] This “holy fire” goes out “strongly after God.” Watson faithfully captures the essential teaching of Scripture. Loving God never meant just an emotional attachment or deference. It required our whole being. Vos explained it like this:

This means not merely an emotional attitude toward God, but an all-inclusive practical devotion to God that leads us to honor and obey him in every element, sphere, and relationship of our life. Everything in our life must be determined by our love to God. Thus there can be nothing in our life separate from our religion. We may not draw a boundary line and mark off any sphere or area of life and say that in that area our relation to God does not count. Whatsoever we do, we must do all to the glory of God.[3]

This makes perfect sense once we consider how love often affects us. If we truly love something, it consumes our attention, affections, goals, mind, strength, imagination, etc. We use the word loosely when we say the following things: “I love snow.” “I love it when he smiles.” “I love eating pizza.” But we understand God calls us to love Him much more differently than that. What we love most drives and captivates us. No one else can call us to love Him as He does because no one else is worthy of it.

Secondly, we should also observe the quality (and quantity) of love God requires of us. We must love God “with all our heart, and with all our soul, and with all our strength, and with all our mind.” Our whole being must be involved. All our heart, soul, strength, and mind mean our total allegiance and devotion. The full bent of the individual’s personality (and/or personhood) is towards God. Some take the heart to be the emotions, the soul to be one’s consciousness, the strength to be the person’s drive, and the mind to be the individual’s intelligence or cognitive abilities.[4] However we label the differing faculties of a human soul, all of them must be engaged in loving God. In practical terms, this means (as Vos noted above), we cannot just love God with our emotions and yet despise him with our mind. Furthermore, if we neglect spending any energy and strength in loving and serving him, then our professed “love” to God fails. To love Him with all our strength means that some energy must be expended towards God. Here we meet with a challenge — have we expended any energy on Him? Some church-goers seek the minimalist approach — neither “all our strength” nor “any of our strength” is expended. Easy religion with no demands typifies their love. Life demands so much energy from them that they could hardly spare any for God! May our Lord preserve us from such foolishness. The same could be said for loving God with all our mind (more on this in LC #104). Some pew sitters believe nothing should be required of their minds — they want entertainment and not thought!

Loving God with all our mind demands that we submit our reason to His revelation. Just like submitting our wills to His commands, so we must submit our reason to His Word. If our minds reject His revelation as foolishness or as nonsense then what are we saying? What is it that we love? We can only know God through His Word and to discount it means we reject God. Too many people say they love God but look down on the “petty” and “narrow” demands of the Bible. Surely, God wouldn’t want me to be a fundamentalist? To love God with all our mind embraces all that He teaches and our reason submit, believes, and accepts His revelation — we believe in order to understand and we believe all that He teaches because we love Him with all our mind.

Thirdly, if we love God wholeheartedly, then surely it will manifest itself concretely. A man’s love for his wife rings hollow if he never manifests it in any discernable and concrete manner. He could profess to love her but his actions say something else. Though this logically follows, yet the Bible also expressly teaches this point: “For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome.” (1Jn. 5:3) That is, our love to God must concretely show itself by our obedience. One’s seemingly cheerful demeanor, exuberant emotions, jubilant happiness, etc. as a professing Christian without obedience to God’s Word express nothing less than ungodly hypocrisy. Wholehearted love to God of course involves emotions and this love also becomes evident in the believer’s personality (cheerfulness, etc.) but it must first emerge in one’s obedience to God’s commandments.

 

The First Commandment

The first commandment is, “You shall have no other gods before me.” (Ex. 20:3) We do not believe it was by accident that this is the first commandment. In fact, the first four commandments focus on our duty to God because that is the most important. Vos explains why this is the very first commandment: “Because this commandment is the foundation upon which the others depend. Our obligation to God is the source and basis of all to other obligations. It is the primary and fundamental obligation of our life.”[5] Without this commandment, the other three commandments make little sense. As God possesses our exclusive allegiance, it paves the way for the other duties. If God is our God exclusively, then it makes perfect sense why we ought not to take His name in vain.

Given our sinful idolatrous nature, we must first be prohibited from pursuing other deities.[6] In marriage, the man must first be devoted exclusively to his wife. If that is not in place, then all his kind acts and gestures would be meaningless. Similarly, the first commandment is indeed “the foundation upon which the others depend.”

 

Duties Required in the First Commandment

One of the rules we must remember in order to rightly understand this commandment is, “where a sin is forbidden, the contrary duty is commanded…” (LC #99). Of course the prohibition from having other gods entails the command to have God as our God. If not, the first commandment implicitly could call for either atheism or indecision. Someone could have “no other gods” and yet not have the true God as his God and this would be atheism. It could also be argued that the person is not supposed to have any other god as their god and yet remain undecided about the true God. This is not merely a logical possibility but actually a constant problem in the church. Many profess to not believe in other gods (Allah, Hindu gods, etc.) and yet remain aloof, “respectfully” distant from, or indifferent to the true God. They acknowledge that God is their creator and that He exists but it goes no further than that.

This is why we must understand the commandment to be more than a prohibition. Using the marriage analogy again, a married man may not pursue other women and yet be utterly indifferent to the woman he married. She is merely a woman to him, not his wife (not withstanding the vows, etc.). This sad state of affairs happens enough in marriages. In this commandment, God does not only push away other suitors but commands the exclusive allegiance of His people because He redeemed them and made them His. The LC therefore offers a very full account of those positive duties to God in the first commandment.

 

1. Know and acknowledge God

“The duties required in the first commandment are, the knowing and acknowledging of God to be the only true God, and our God…” In order to acknowledge God, we must first know Him. Solomon was instructed to “know the God of your father and serve him with a whole heart and with a willing mind…” (1Chron. 28:9). As we know Him, we acknowledge Him, that is, we acknowledge God to be who He is. Notice how the catechism phrases it. We are called to acknowledge God “to be the only true God, and our God…”

Looking at this from the opposite perspective will help us to understand its importance. If we acknowledge God to be one of the gods, then we have not truly acknowledged Him. Many in Israel were willing to do this but that is insufficient. Furthermore, our subtle modern method also supplants the teaching of this commandment. Could we not acknowledge God to the true God for me? Making no absolute truth claims, the post-modern novice claims God to his God and is the true God for himself — he never ventures away from his personal claim. “You may claim another to be the true God for yourself and I claim this God for myself. Neither one of us is right or wrong; we are both happy and religious.” There is yet a third way of evading the point (a version similar to the post-modern position). As long as we acknowledge a god to be our god then we are safe! This third option stays clear of atheism but opens itself to polytheism, pantheism, generic theism, etc. Many modern pundits believe we just need to be religious (since all religions are about the same, they claim). The first view is polytheism, the second is subjectivism, and the third is modern (false) spirituality.

To acknowledge or recognize God “to be the only true God, and our God” means that we truly call upon Him as the true God that He has revealed Himself to be. When Israel was mistreated harshly by the Egyptians, the Israelites “cried to the Lord, the God of our fathers…” (Deut. 26:7). To acknowledge Him entails calling upon Him. We dishonor God if we profess to know Him and to not call upon Him. It does not differ from not acknowledging Him. God tells Israel that He had chosen them “that you may know and believe and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor shall there by any after me.” (Is. 43:10) God wanted Israel to know that He is God and that there never was and never will be any other god. All the other “gods” are “false gods” (Jer. 14:22).

The phrase also means that God is also our God! Not only is He alone the true God but He is also our God — by faith, we place our trust and dependence upon God through Jesus Christ. To say God is our God means He is ours through the covenant. A “relationship” exists between God and the individual through the terms God determined. Using the preface of the Ten Commandments, He is our God because He saved us! So the first commandment can only begin to make sense to those who have been saved by God’s grace. With the Psalmist we declare, “Whom have I in heaven but you? And there is nothing on earth that I desire besides you.” (Ps. 73:25)

 

2. Worship and Glorify Him

The catechism states that we are “to worship and glorify him accordingly.” It is a duty to worship and glorify God: “O come, let us worship and bow down: let us kneel before the LORD our maker. For he is our God; and we are the people of his pasture, and the sheep of his hand.” (Ps. 95, 6, 7); “Give unto the LORD the glory due unto his name; worship the LORD in the beauty of holiness.” (Ps. 29:2) Jesus refuted Satan by saying, “You shall worship the Lord your God and him only shall you serve.” (Mt. 4:10)

To have God as our God and not worship Him would deny the essential thrust of the first commandment. God is the Creator and our God and by virtue of being an Infinite glorious being, He must be worshipped. God is not an equal to be merely acknowledged or noticed — to truly know Him and acknowledge Him necessitates worship. We are to glorify and enjoy Him forever. That would be the natural response had we not fallen into sin. In Isaiah 6, we see the seraphim worshipping God and the sight of God in Rev. 4 evoked worship (Rev. 4:8-11). A truly refined musician acknowledges and adores wonderful music while an untrained individual hearing the same music might be bored by the musical piece. In a similar way (albeit a very weak analogy), sinners do not naturally worship and glorify God — they cannot recognize God as worthy of worship and honor.

For that reason, God commands and summons His people to worship Him. When in the Spirit, believers yearn for all of creation to praise Him (cf. Pss. 113 & especially 148). To truly acknowledge God means we worship and glorify Him. Again, “O come, let us worship and bow down: let us kneel before the LORD our maker. For he is our God; and we are the people of his pasture, and the sheep of his hand.” (Ps. 95:6, 7) This is what believers want to do!

[1] The second part is of course our duty to man, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” (Mt. 22:39)

[2] Thomas Watson, The Ten Commandments (London: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1970), 6.

[3] Johannes G. Vos, The Westminster Larger Catechism: A Commentary (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2002), 260.

[4] Cf. Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke, The Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday, 1970), 880.

[5] Vos, The Westminster Larger Catechism, 260.

[6] Cf. James Fisher, The Assembly’s Shorter Catechism Explained, By Way of Question and Answer. In Two Parts. (Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, nd), 224.

Larger Catechism, #100-101, pt. 2

Leave a reply

The Larger Catechism

101 Q. What is the preface to the ten commandments?

A. The preface to the ten commandments is contained in these words, I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.[436] Wherein God manifesteth his sovereignty, as being JEHOVAH, the eternal, immutable, and almighty God;[437] having his being in and of himself,[438] and giving being to all his words[439] and works:[440] and that he is a God in covenant, as with Israel of old, so with all his people;[441] who, as he brought them out of their bondage in Egypt, so he delivereth us from our spiritual thraldom;[442] and that therefore we are bound to take him for our God alone, and to keep all his commandments.[443]

Sovereign God

In this preface, we learn three basic truths about God. First of all, it reveals something of God’s sovereign nature. “Wherein God manifesteth his sovereignty, as being JEHOVAH, the eternal, immutable, and almighty God; having his being in and of himself, and giving being to all his words and works:…” The phrase “I am the LORD your God…” reveals the name of God as YHWH, his covenant name (Ex. 6:3). God makes Himself known to His people. The names of God always revealed something of His character and YHWH means He is who He is: “And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.” (Ex. 3:14) YHWH is later (in Is. 44:6) revealed as “the King of Israel” (“Thus saith the LORD [YHWH] the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD [YHWH] of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.”). As His name reveals, He is sufficient, needing nothing and depending on no one: “having his being in and of himself, and giving being to all his words and works” (cf. Acts 17:24, 28).

His name reveals His unique nature and manifests His character. We serve, worship, and obey a God whom we know. This God who revealed Himself as YHWH is by virtue of His name sovereign. Vos put it this way:

No creature may question the righteousness of any act of God: to do so is the height of impiety and irreverence. The sovereignty of God also implies that God is ultimate: there is no principle or law above or beyond God to which God himself is responsible. God is responsible only to himself; his own nature is his only law. There is nothing above or beyond him. God’s sovereignty is manifested in a special way in his work of redemption. Redemption from sin is wholly God’s work, and its benefits are bestowed wholly according to God’s sovereign good pleasure. He saves exactly whom he purposes to save, and does so by his absolute, almighty power.

We can only know and understand God because of His revelation. In giving us the commandments, He first reveals Himself to us. By saying “I am YHWH…” much is implied in the name (as enumerated in the catechism). Surely we should remember this as we study the Ten Commandments. They are God’s commandments and God has revealed Himself to us — we must know and understand whom we obey; we obey His commandments and not just abstract moral principles or laws.

 

Covenant God

The second thing we learn is that God is our covenant God: “I am the LORD your God…” The LC says, “that he is a God in covenant, as with Israel of old, so with all his people…” A believer serves his God. A husband loves his wife and not just any wife. The essence of the covenant is that God is our God and that we are His people. We find this in all the expressions of the covenant. It is found in the Abrahamic (Gen. 17:7), the Mosaic (Ex. 6:6, 7; 19:4, 5; Lev. 11:45; Deut. 4:20; 29:13), the Davidic (2K. 11:17; 2Chron. 23:16), and the New Covenant (Jer. 24:7; 31:33; 32:37f.). The God who revealed Himself as the great “I AM” is also our God.

Is this God (as expressed in Exodus 20) our God? Can we say that the God who revealed Himself to Israel and gave the Ten Commandments is the Christian’s God as well? Has He entered into a covenant with us? If He is our God, then His Word ought to binds us. To say this God is our God but these commandments do not pertain to us would demand some sort of an explanation.[1] At least for now, we need to affirm that this same God is in a covenant with us, His New Covenant people. The phrase “and that he is a God in covenant, as with Israel of old, so with all his people” means that as God related to Israel through the covenant so He is “a God in covenant” with us as well.

The phrase therefore teaches two things. One is that God enters into a relationship with His people by means of the covenant.[2] As He did so with Israel, so He did so with us. Secondly, as already implied, we, as New Covenant people, are in a covenant relationship with the same God. The God who gave the Ten Commandments is also our covenant God. Romans 3:29 says, “Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also.” It is the same God in both the Old and New Testaments.

God is not polygamous. His covenant is with His people, one people in Christ; we are all one (Jews and Gentiles) in Christ. It is the one people who through history included both Jews and Gentiles; God does not have a separate covenant with the Jews and a different covenant with Gentiles — He only has one wife prepared for Himself (cf. Rev. 21-22).

 

Redeeming God

The preface reveals a wonderful third truth about God. God is a redeeming God. His grace precedes our obedience: “who, as he brought them out of their bondage in Egypt, so he delivereth us from our spiritual thraldom…” As the God in covenant delivered Israel from their bondage in Egypt so He delivered us from our spiritual bondage to sin and under the devil’s power.

The divines used a very powerful and pregnant passage to support this theological statement. They cite Luke 1:74-75: “that we, being delivered from the hand of our enemies, might serve him without fear, in holiness and righteousness before him all our days.” Using OT language and imagery, Zechariah prophesied that God had “redeemed his people” (v. 68). This redemption is the salvation envisioned and promised in the OT: “has raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David, as he spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets from of old, that we should be saved from our enemies…” (vv. 70-71). This is OT language used to explain the role of John the Baptist preparing the way of the Lord. The Messiah’s coming brings about deliverance from our enemies: “to show mercy promised to our fathers and to remember his holy covenant, the oath that he swore to our father Abraham, to grant us that we, being delivered from the hand of our enemies, might serve him without fear, in holiness and righteousness before him all our days.” That deliverance was in keeping with his “holy covenant” he made with Abraham.

The statement clearly teaches that the coming of Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant and that His coming is also described in terms of deliverance. That deliverance, we learn in the NT, is ultimately more powerful than any deliverance from foreign political powers. That deliverance is “from our spiritual thralldom/bondage.” That is how the NT explains Zechariah’s prophecy in Colossians 1:13-14, “He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.” Zechariah foresaw their/our deliverance and we clearly understand that deliverance in terms of deliverance from spiritual bondage (and the full redemption of all things to follow).

We have been delivered from a greater bondage and therefore our obligations are greater and not lesser. Vos put it like this:

Every child of God has been redeemed from a “house of bondage” vastly more powerful, cruel, and tyrannical than the physical bondage of ancient Egypt. This statement in the preface to the Ten Commandments causes us to realizes (a) that as Christians, we have been delivered from bitter slavery; and (b) that this deliverance was not our own achievement, but was accomplished by the sovereign, almighty power of God. (Vos)

As Israel received the Ten Commandments with their redemption behind them so we stand before His law with our redemption accomplished. We are in a parallel position. We are the redeemed people before a gracious God who calls us to obey His commandments. As the NIV translated it, “Therefore… in view of God’s mercy…” (Rom. 12:1). We obey in view of His mercies! “For the grace of God has appeared, bring salvation for all people, training us to renounce ungodliness…” (Titus 2:11-12).

  1. Always remember that redemption precedes obedience.

It is because we are redeemed by Christ, we seek to obey His Word. We do not obey to save ourselves but obey in view of His mercies. We believe and are justified and therefore we are saved; in that estate of salvation, we work out our salvation with fear and trembling.

  1. If we forget this order, we fall into legalism.

Once we confuse this order (redemption precedes obedience), we will fall into “legalism.” That is, we will tend to believe that our obedience somehow merits God’s favor, pardon, acceptance, etc. We may never explicitly state that our works saves us but our slavish spirit will act as if that were the case.

  1. This preface must always accompany our study of the Ten Commandments.

Without it, a Muslim could practically agree with everything. Without it, the “Law” stands on its own with a God commanding obedience. There are no grace and mercy in view and we will stand condemned each time. We must look at the Ten Commandments through the lens of redemptive grace or we will fall prey to works righteousness.

 

Our God and His Commandments

The preface to the Ten Commandments leads us to this point: “and that therefore we are bound to take him for our God alone, and to keep all his commandments.” As Israel had God as their God, that He was their God by means of the covenant, and that He redeemed them, so we are in the same position or condition. We stand as a covenant people redeemed by grace called upon to obey all his commandments.

To put it more plainly, can we truly accept this God as our covenant God and refuse to accept his commandments? What about all the Ten Commandments? Do we get to pick and choose which of the Ten Commandments should bind us? Has God’s moral law for Israel changed?

Hebrews 1:1ff. teach that God continually revealed Himself to his people. But in the final stage of redemptive history, “he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.” If Israel had to obey in terms of the Old Covenant (OC) revelation, then how much for us in terms of the New Covenant: “For since the message declared by angels proved to be reliable, and every transgression or disobedience received a just retribution, how shall we escape if we neglect such a great salvation?” (Heb. 2:2-3) In the OC, Israel was to obey because God was their God: “Therefore shall ye keep mine ordinance, that ye commit not any one of these abominable customs, which were committed before you, and that ye defile not yourselves therein: I am the LORD your God.” (Lev. 18:30) “Therefore shall ye observe all my statutes, and all my judgments, and do them: I am the LORD.” (Lev. 19:37) If that holds true in terms of what they received, how much more for us?

The “lesser to the greater argument” applies here (or an a fortiori argument, an argument from yet a stronger reason). We have a greater and stronger reason to obey His commandments. Somehow we have drawn the opposite conclusion. We reason that since we are in the NC, we are less bound. But God has not become less holy and what He has done for us is far greater than what He did for Israel (in redemptive historical terms). As Peter said (1Pet. 1:15, 16), “But as he who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct, since it is written, “You shall be holy, for I am holy.”” The verse he cited comes from Lev. 19:2. The same rule and principle used in the OT applies to us, and even more so. Peter goes on to add this inducement (1Pet. 1:17-19):

And if you call on him as Father who judges impartially according to each one’s deeds, conduct yourselves with fear throughout the time of your exile, knowing that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot.

Because he cited Leviticus 19:2 to challenge NC believers, we learn something important here. In fact, the casual way with which Peter appeals to the Old Testament should challenge us all. Since he mentioned how the prophets were serving us (1 Pet. 1:12) in the beginning of the chapter, therefore he cites Lev. 19:2 because God’s Word pertains to all of His people.

Peter assumes that the OT writings are authoritative and normative for his Christian readers, regardless of their previous ethnic origin. He makes no distinction between the Jewish and the Gentile Christian in his application, nor does the span of time between Leviticus and his letter mitigate the relevance of God’s ancient revelation of himself. By quoting from Leviticus, Peter establishes the principle that the holiness to which the Christian is called in Christ is consistent with God’s character as revealed in the ancient covenant with Israel. However, Peter does not enjoin on his Christian readers the specifics of the Levitical religion of ancient Israel. In terms of moral transformation, the goal of both the old and the new covenants is the same—to create a people who morally conform to God’s character.[3]

God’s moral character is spelled out in His law. Those laws in the OC and especially the Ten Commandments were not “incidental.” They revealed something of His holy character. For example, the “speed limit” is arbitrary. Its only moral force comes from the Bible’s teaching concerning obedience to civil magistrates. However, there is nothing intrinsically binding in the speed limit since it is arbitrary. God’s law, on the other hand, reveals His character and we are called to be conformed to His character. So the preface reveals “a declaration of God’s authority to enforce, and of his mercy to oblige us to the obedience of, those laws, which he delivers.”[4]

[1] I well understand the dispensational arguments regarding this but we cannot enter into that debate at this time.

[2] An interesting debate within the Reformed camp has recently garnered some attention. Did Adam ever exist outside of the covenant and was the covenant an extra layer placed (graciously) on Adam? See Jeffrey C. Waddington, “Sic et Non. Views in Review: Westminster Seminary California Distinctives? Part III. II. The Reformed Two Kingdoms Doctrine,” The Confessional Presbyterian 10, (2014): 189-204 (esp. 193-194).

[3] Wayne Grudem, 1 Peter, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, vol. 17 (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 113.

[4] Ezekiel Hopkins, The Works of Ezekiel Hopkins, 3 vols. (Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria, 1997), 1:271.

 

Larger Catechism, #100-101, pt. 1

Leave a reply

The Larger Catechism

Questions 100-101

100 Q. What special things are we to consider in the ten commandments?

A. We are to consider in the ten commandments, the preface, the substance of the commandments themselves, and several reasons annexed to some of them, the more to enforce them.

Question 100[1]

This question serves as a brief introduction to what is to come. First, it tells us what is the biggest “division”[2] in the Ten Commandments, namely, the preface and the “substance of the commandments.” How we understand the two parts and how they relate serve as important keys to rightly understanding the purpose of God’s law. The second point reminds us that some of the commandments offer “reasons” for the commandment (e.g., second and fifth commandments). These reasons compel us to obey them that much more. For example, a mother can declare she is your mother and that should be reason enough to obey her. She could also add more details of her relationship to you (I sacrificed for you, gave up many opportunities to be with you, prayed for you, live as an example before you, etc.). This would make the son’s obedience that much more compelling.

 

101 Q. What is the preface to the ten commandments?

A. The preface to the ten commandments is contained in these words, I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.[436] Wherein God manifesteth his sovereignty, as being JEHOVAH, the eternal, immutable, and almighty God;[437] having his being in and of himself,[438] and giving being to all his words[439] and works:[440] and that he is a God in covenant, as with Israel of old, so with all his people;[441] who, as he brought them out of their bondage in Egypt, so he delivereth us from our spiritual thraldom;[442] and that therefore we are bound to take him for our God alone, and to keep all his commandments.[443]

[436] Exodus 20:2. I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. [437] Isaiah 44:6. Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God. [438] Exodus 3:14. And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. [439] Exodus 6:3. And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them. [440] Acts 17:24, 28. God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands…. For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. [441] Genesis 17:7. And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. Romans 3:29. Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also. [442] Luke 1:74-75. That he would grant unto us, that we being delivered out of the hand of our enemies might serve him without fear, In holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of our life. [443] 1 Peter 1:15, 17-18. But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation…. And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man’s work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear: Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers. Leviticus 18:30. Therefore shall ye keep mine ordinance, that ye commit not any one of these abominable customs, which were committed before you, and that ye defile not yourselves therein: I am the LORD your God. Leviticus 19:37. Therefore shall ye observe all my statutes, and all my judgments, and do them: I am the LORD.

 

Introduction

The important role of the preface to the ten commandments must be carefully understood. If we do not take it seriously or we relativize it, then the ten commandments will merely stand out as external laws from God having no real and personal relationship to us. The preface helps us to see that we obey a redemptive God and not some sovereign arbitrary deity who wields absolute authority as our creator (cf. like Allah). The preface sets the right context for the commandments.

Furthermore, people debate over the binding nature of this or that commandment (especially the fourth). That may be all well and good (though it is not) but those concerns cannot be rightly answered if the believer does not accurately grasp the role of the preface. In fact, unless one can affirm the preface for himself, the ten commandments will elude him. It is in the preface we learn of our specific relationship to the Law maker.

Unfortunately, some have used the preface to disregard the ten commandments. They argue that the preface automatically limits itself to the Israelites: “This law was given to Israel exclusively, which is seen in the opening word.”[3] The law should have been rejected, they argue.

It was a fatal thing, which all the people did when they answered together, “all that the Lord hath spoken we will do.” It was a presumptuous declaration, which sprung from self-confidence and showed clearly that they had no appreciation for that Grace, which had visited them in Egypt and brought them hitherto. They had received grace, they needed grace. With the vow they had made, they had put themselves under the law. The legal covenant had its beginning with the rejection of the Covenant of Grace, and the legal covenant ends with the acceptance of Grace.[4]

This sort of argument borders on being ridiculous because God’s redeemed people were not allowed to “choose” or reject God’s covenant of grace with them. God’s redemption bound them to Himself.[5] They did not stand before God at Mt. Sinai to “negotiate” the terms of their relationship with their Redeemer (who brought them out of Egypt). The sovereign God did not bring through the Red Sea and the desert to solicit their feedback and then broker a covenant relationship. Furthermore, this implies that God had less than perfect intentions. Did God give the law to “trap” them, to make it worse for Israel after He redeemed them? Gaebelein’s reasoning makes God look like a diabolical jinni who offered Israel something that would ultimately harm them.

We cannot see how this truncated view of biblical history does justice to the Bible’s overall redemptive teaching. It assumes what God commanded was only for the Jews. Rather, we should look at it in a way similar to Michael Horton. “The Old Testament is not merely the part of our Bibles that predicted a coming Messiah and was rendered irrelevant when that Messiah arrived; it is part of one full, complete, running drama of redemption, and beginning with Matthew’s Gospel is like walking into a movie halfway into the story. It is like thinking you are telling a good joke when all you can remember is the punch line.”[6]

Israel’s redemption from Egypt was not just for them but a “down payment on the great redemption to be accomplished” by Christ.[7] That is, it is just one act of redemption in the history of redemption signifying the ultimate redemption to come. Their “exodus” was our exodus and in their experience of God’s deliverance from Egypt, they began to experience the ultimate deliverance to come in Christ. The OT pointed to Christ and to what He would do (Lk. 24:25ff.) and the exodus pointed to Christ’s redemption.

The OT moved beyond the great deliverance from Egypt. Jeremiah announced that another deliverance would come: “Therefore, behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when it shall no longer be said, ‘As the LORD lives who brought up the people of Israel out of the land of Egypt,’ but ‘As the LORD lives who brought up the people of Israel out of the north country and out of all the countries where he had driven them.’ For I will bring them back to their own land that I gave to their fathers.” (Jer. 16:14, 15) But that deliverance gave way to the ultimate deliverance, namely, their deliverance from their sin. Zechariah, John the Baptist’s father, blessed the Lord because “he has visited and redeemed his people and has raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David…” (Lk. 1:68ff.) Each deliverance gave way to this final deliverance in Christ.

But the great deliverance accomplished through Jesus Christ would surpass every other deliverance. The old Passover is replaced by the new one, for which Christ Himself has become the sacrificed Passover Lamb (1 Cor. 5:7). The deliverance from Egypt became our deliverance from the power of darkness, from the slavery of sin, so that we might receive a place in the kingdom of Christ (Col. 1:13; 1 Peter 2:9).[8]

The interpretation we offered works on the fundamental assumption of God’s overall redemptive purpose in Scripture — the same God working out His covenant of grace in history in the OT culminates it in Christ. It is the same covenant of grace administered differently in the various covenants but the substance is the same in all. To discount the preface and the Decalogue chops off the redemptive flow of biblical history. We should be able to personally embrace Ex. 20:2, “I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.”

If this preface was sufficient to compel the Israelites to obey God then the reasons for our obedience are that much stronger. That is, if political and national liberation sufficed to bind Israel to God (though the liberation was much more than political and national), then our liberation from sin and our eternal redemption should bind us to Him that much more. The least we could do, as it were, is to obey the Ten Commandments. Greater redemption should not bind us to something less (which seems to be the general thrust of many who reject the Ten Commandments).

[1] Both Vos and Ridgley chose not to comment on this question. They listed the question and answer but neither one gave any explanation. This is not the most helpful question and the LC would have remained intact without it. Also, this question needs no “proof text” since it merely observes what is already plain in the ten commandments. It could say, “We find the ten commandments in these commandments of God.” This statement merely notes what appears to be evident.

[2] Division is not the best word because the ten commandments work as a whole.

[3] Arno C. Gaebelein, The Book of Exodus: A Complete Analysis of Exodus with Annotations (New York: “Our Hope” Publication Office, 1912), 49.

[4] Arno C. Gaebelein, The Book of Exodus, 48.

[5] Sadly, even a Reformed NT scholar said something similar in his essay. See T. David Gordon, “Abraham and Sinai Contrasted in Galatians 3:6-14,” in The Law is not of Faith: Essays on Works and Grace in the Mosaic Covenant, ed. Bryan D. Estelle, J. V. Fesko, and David Van Drunen (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2009), 251.

[6] Michael Horton, The Law of Perfect Freedom (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 1993), 28.

[7] Horton, The Law of Perfect Freedom, 28.

[8] Jochem Douma, The Ten Commandments: Manual for the Christian Life, trans. Nelson D. Kloosterman (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1996), 6.

The Heart of Christ in Heaven Towards Sinners on Earth

Leave a reply

The Heart of Christ in Heaven Towards Sinners on Earth

Have you ever wondered why Christ should care for you as a believer? Why should He love you after your repeated failures and sins? Since He is in heaven and exists in His exalted state, why should He care about me? We feel ourselves to be most unworthy of the least of his mercies. Yet we need to be convinced of our Lord’s goodness, kindness, and love before we draw near to Him by faith. Thomas Goodwin addresses a concern many of us might have had but may not have pondered it as deeply.

We learn from the Gospel accounts that Christ was compassionate and tender. While He was on earth, He exhibited great acts of kindness. But He is in heaven now, no longer in His estate of humiliation. He is physically removed from us and reigns in might and glory. Doesn’t He now despise the lowly things He once experienced? He performed His covenant obligations by obeying His Father unto death. Wouldn’t He be less concerned since He finished His work and reigns in His estate of exaltation? This is how Goodwin pursued the issue.

Goodwin masterfully and almost exhaustively argues that Christ’s disposition, love, tenderness, etc. has not changed in heaven. If He loved while on earth, then He surely loves in heaven. Remember, Jesus beckoned us to come to Him because He is meek and lowly of heart (Mt. 11:28). We must not think that Christ is less concerned and less meek because He has been exalted and removed from us. His nature has not changed even though His estate has. Goodwin says,

Yea, but (may we think) he being the Son of God and heir of heaven, and especially being now filled with glory, and sitting at God’s right hand, he may now despise the lowliness of us here below; though not out of anger, yet out of that height of his greatness and distance that he is advanced unto, in that we are too mean for him to marry, or be familiar with. He surely hath higher thoughts than to regard such poor, low things as we are. And so though indeed we conceive him meek, and not prejudiced with injuries, yet he may be too high and lofty to condescend so far as to regard, or take to heart, the condition of poor creatures. No, says Christ; ‘I am lowly’ also, willing to bestow my love and favour upon the poorest and meanest. (63-64)

But isn’t Christ so Holy and exalted that He could no longer tolerate all our various provocations? That is, we offend Him so often and He is so Holy, why would He take any interest in us?

We are apt to think that he, being so holy, is therefore of a severe and sour disposition against sinners, and not able to bear them. No, says He [Christ]; ‘I am meek,’ gentleness is my nature and temper. As it was of Moses [who was deemed to be meek], who was, as in other things, so in that grace his type; he was not revenged on Miriam and Aaron, but interceded for them. So, says Christ, injuries and unkindnesses do not so work upon me as to make me irreconcilable, it is my nature to forgive: “I am meek.” (63)

Underneath this argument is something Goodwin established earlier in his little treatise. Christ has been appointed to save the people whom the Father gave to Him and to love them to the end. That commission did not end with His humiliation. He willingly, as well as obediently, loves His people in both estates – in the estates of humiliation and exaltation. This pleases the Father. Therefore, we can be certain that Christ still has a heart for us (hence the title): The Heart of Christ in Heaven Towards Sinners on Earth.[1] The longer title summarizes the whole treatise: “A Treatise Demonstrating The gracious Disposition and tender Affection of Christ in his Humane Nature now in Glory, unto his Members under all sorts of Infirmities, either of Sin or Misery.”

Goodwin’s little work is quite difficult to read. He is no Thomas Watson. I’ve read enough Puritans over the years and find Goodwin to be more difficult than most. His writings are dense and difficult to follow — he is creative as well as frustratingly speculative at times. Even Owen is easier (at least for me). However, expending your energy on his writings will be well worth it because it will yield great benefits to your soul as well as weighty thoughts for your mind. You have to follow him closely because he develops a string of arguments that come to a firm and helpful conclusion. If you do not follow him closely, you will not be able to appreciate the conclusions he draws. Because you didn’t see how he got there, his conclusions may not convince you. Often, I’ve had to rehearse his line of thinking to see how he came to a specific conclusion. He trudges through seemingly small and impertinent points but they are being used as little bridges to the next point. So, read him carefully with coffee in hand. Don’t rush through this book and I’m convinced you will greatly appreciate it and immensely benefit from the short treatise. The Heart of Christ in Heaven Towards Sinners on Earth is a gem and probably his best work.

[1] I am using the Banner of Truth edition — Thomas Goodwin, The Heart of Christ (Carlisle: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2011). This edition is only 158 pages long! Various Kindle versions are available and cheaper but the BOT edition is much easier to read.