Prophetical Character Of The Psalms

"The moral struggle between godliness and ungodliness, so vividly depicted in the Psalms, culminates in Holy Scripture, in the life of the Incarnate Son of God upon earth. It only remains to show that the Psalms themselves definitely anticipated this culmination. Now there are in the Psalter at least three psalms of which the interest evidently centers in a person distinct from the speaker, and which, since they cannot without violence to the language be interpreted of any but the Messiah, may be termed directly and exclusively Messianic. We refer to Ps. ii., xlv., cx.; to which may perhaps be added, Ps. lxxii. It would be strange if these few psalms stood, in their prophetical significance absolutely alone among the rest. And hence the impossibility of viewing the psalms generally, notwithstanding the drapery in which they are outwardly clothed, as simply the past devotions of the historical David or the historical Israel. The national hymns of Israel are indeed also prospective; but in general they anticipate rather the struggles and the triumphs of the Christian Church than those of Christ himself."

William Smith, A Dictionary Of the Bible Comprising Its Antiquities, Biography, Geography, and Natural History, p. 776

Moral Characteristics Of The Psalms

"Foremost among these meets us, undoubtedly, the universal recourse to communion with God. Connected with this is the faith by which the Psalmist everywhere lives in God rather than in himself. It is of the essence of such faith that his view of the perfections of God should be true and vivid. The Psalter describes God as He is: it glows with testimonies to His power and providence, His love and faithfulness, His holiness and righteousness. The Psalms not only set forth the perfections of God, they proclaim also the duty of worshiping Him by the acknowledgment and adoration of His perfections. They encourage all outward rites and means of worship. Among these they recognize the ordinance of sacrifice as an expression of the worshiper's consecration of himself to God's service. But not the less do they repudiate the outward rite when separated from that which it was designed to express. Similar depth is observable in the view taken, by the psalmists, of human sin. In regard to the law, the psalmist, while warmly acknowledging its excellence, feels yet that it cannot so effectually guide his own unassisted exertions as to preserve him from error (Ps. xix.). The Psalms bear repeated testimony to the duty of instructing others in the ways of holiness (Ps. xxxii., xxxiv., li.). This brings us to notice, lastly, the faith of the psalmists in righteous recompense to all men according to their deeds (Ps. xxxvii., &c.)."

William Smith, A Dictionary Of the Bible Comprising Its Antiquities, Biography, Geography, and Natural History, p. 776

Notes On The Authorship Of Hebrews

Hebrews, Epistle to the.-I Canonical authority. Was it received and transmitted as canonical by the immediate successors of the apostles? The most important witness among these, Clement (A.D. 70 or 95), refers to this Epistle in the same way as, and more frequently than, to any other canonical book. Little stress can be laid upon the few possible allusions to it in Barnabas, Hermas, Polycarp, and Ignatius. It is received as canonical by Justin Martyr, and by the compilers of the Peshito version of the New Testament. Basilides and Marcion are recorded as distinctly rejecting the Epistle. But at the close of that period, in the North African church, where first the Gospel found utterance in the Latin tongue, orthodox Christianity first doubted the canonical authority of the Epistle to the Hebrews. To the old Latin version of the Scriptures, which was completed probably about A.D. 173, this Epistle seems to have been added as a composition of Barnabas, and as destitute of canonical authority. During the next two centuries, the extant fathers of the Roman and North African churches regard the Epistle as a book of no canonical authority; but in the fourth century its authority began to revive. At the end of the fourth century, Jerome, the most learned and critical of the Latin fathers, reviewed the conflicting opinions as to the authority of this Epistle. He considered that the prevailing, though not universal view of the Latin churches was of less weight than the view, not only of ancient writers, but also of all the Greek and all the Eastern churches, where the Epistle was received as canonical, and read daily and he pronounced a decided opinion in favor of its authority. The great contemporary light of North Africa, St. Augustine," held a similar opinion. The 3rd Council of Carthage, A.D. 397, and a Decretal of Pope Innocent, A.D. 416, gave a final confirmation to their decision. But such doubts were confined to the Latin churches from the middle of the second to the close of the fourth century. All the rest of orthodox Christendom from the beginning was agreed upon the canonical authority of this Epistle. Cardinal Cajetan, the opponent of Luther, was the first to disturb the tradition of a thousand years, and to deny its authority. Erasmus, Calvin, and Beza questioned only its Authorship. Luther, when he printed his version of the Bible, separated this book from St. Paul's Epistles, and placed it with the Epistles of St. James and St. Jude, next before the Revelation; indicating by this change of order his opinion that the four relegated books are of less importance and less authority than the rest of the New Testament.-II. Who was the author of the Epistle? - The superscription, the ordinary source of information, is wanting; but there is no reason to doubt that at first, everywhere, except in North Africa, St. Paul was regarded as the author. Clement ascribed to St. Luke the translation of the Epistle into Greek from a Hebrew original of St. Paul. Origen believed that the thoughts were St. Paul's, the language and composition of St. Lake's or Clement's of Rome. Tertullian names Barnabas as the reputed author according to the North African tradition. The view of the Alexandrian fathers, a middle point between the Eastern and Western traditions, won its way in the Church. Luther's conjecture that Apollos was the author has been widely adopted; Luke by Grotius; Silas by others. Neander attributes it to some apostolic man of the Pauline school, whose training and method of stating doctrinal truth differed from St. Paul's. The distinguished name of Ewald has been given recently to the hypothesis that it was written by some Jewish teacher residing at Jerusalem to a church in some important Italian town, which is supposed to have sent deputation to Palestine. If it be asked to what extent, and by whom, was St. Paul assisted in the composition of this Epistle, the reply must be in the words of Origen, "Who wrote [i.e. as in Rom. xvi. 22, wrote from the author's dictation] this Epistle, only God knows." The similarity in phraseology which exists between the acknowledged writings of St. Luke and this Epistle, his constant companionship with St. Paul, and his habit of listening to and recording the Apostle's arguments, form a strong presumption in his favor. III. To whom was the Epistle sent? - Some critics have maintained that this Epistle was addressed directly to Jewish believers everywhere others have restricted it to those who dwelt in Asia and Greece. This question was agitated as early as the time of Chrysostom, who replies, to the Jews in Jerusalem and Palestine. The argument of the Epistle is such as could be used with most effect to # church consisting exclusively of Jews by birth, personally familiar with and attached to the Temple-service. Ebrard limits the primary circle of readers even to a section of the church at Jerusalem.-IV. Where and when was written -Eastern traditions of the fourth century, in connection with the opinion that St. Paul is the writer, name Italy and Rome, or Athens, as the place from whence the Epistle was written. Either place would agree with, perhaps was suggested by, the mention of Timothy in the last chapter. The Epistle was evidently written before the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. The whole argument, and specially the passages viii. 4 and sq., ix. 6 and sq., and xiii. 10 and sq., imply that the Temple was standing, and that its usual course of Divine service was carried on without interruption. The date which best agrees with the traditionary account of the authorship and destination of the Epistle is A.D. 63, about the end of St. Paul's imprisonment at Rome, or year after Albinus succeeded Festus as Procurator. - V. In what language was it written? Like St. Matthew's Gospel, the Epistle to the Hebrews has afforded ground for much unimportant controversy respecting the language in which it was originally written. The earliest statement is that of Clement of Alexandria, to the effect that it was written by St. Paul in Hebrew, and translated by St. Luke into Greek. But nothing is said to lead us to regard it as a tradition, rather than a conjecture suggested by the style of the Epistle. Bleek argues, in support of a Greek original, on the grounds of (1.) the purity and casy flow of the Greek; (2.) the use of Greek words which could not be adequately expressed in Hebrew without long peraphrase ; (3.) the use of paronomasia; and (4.) the use of the Septuagint in quotations and references. - VI. Condition of the Hebrews, and scope of the Epistle. --The numerous Christian churches scattered throughout Judea (Acts ix. 31; Gal. i. 22) were continually exposed to persecution from the Jews (1 Thess. ii. 14); but in Jerusalem there was one additional weapon in the hands of the predominant oppressors of the Christians. The magnificent national Temple might be shut against the Hebrew Christian; and even if this affliction were not often laid upon him, yet there was a secret burden which he bore within him, the knowledge that the end of all the beauty and awfulness of Zion was rapidly approaching. What could take the place of the Temple, and that which was behind the veil, and the Levitical sacrifices, and the Holy City, when they should cease to exist? What compensation could Christianity offer him for the loss which was pressing the Hebrew Christian more and more? The writer of this Epistle meets the Hebrew Christians on their own ground. His answer is-"Your new faith gives you Christ, and, in Christ, all you seek, all your fathers sought. In Christ, the Son of God, you have an all-sufficient Mediator, nearer than angels to the Father, eminent above Moses as a benefactor, more sympathizing and more prevailing than the high-priest as an intercessor: His sabbath awaits you in heaven; to His covenant the old was intended to be subservient; His atonement is the eternal reality of which sacrifices are but the passing shadow; His city heavenly, not made with hands. Having Him, believe in Him with all your heart, with a faith in the unseen future, strong as that of the saints of old, patient under present, and prepared for coming woe, full of energy, and hope, and holiness, and love." Such was the teaching of the Epistle to the Hebrews.

William Smith, A Dictionary Of the Bible Comprising Its Antiquities, Biography, Geography, and Natural History, p. 317-318

Science So Falsely Called

        "O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you, avoiding worldly and empty chatter and the opposing arguments of what is falsely called knowledge." (1 Timothy 6:20)

        The Greek word for knowledge in 1 Timothy 6:20 is gnosis, which seems to indicate that the Apostle Paul was exhorting Timothy to oppose an early form of Gnosticism. He was combating ascetic elements by emphasizing the goodness of marriage and meats (1 Timothy 4:1-4). The Law is good when rightly applied (1 Timothy 1:8). The goodness of created things is rooted in the intrinsic goodness of God.

        Gnosticism is a system of empty speculation and false, supernatural mythology, which began forming in the first century. Moreover, it was perhaps the greatest foe that Christianity had for the first few centuries after the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Paul argued against the idea of matter being evil by stressing the goodness of things created by God. Things are not corrupt in and of themselves, but how they are used is a separate issue.

        What the Apostle Paul teaches is contrary to many other ways of life. One encyclopedia, for example, says, "Most wanderer groups—especially those responsible for the formation of the new religions of Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism—shared the belief that this world has suffering and potentially endless rebirth. This negative evaluation of the world came to be called samsara."

        In contrast, Paul asserts that this world is good and calls regulations of mandatory abstinence "doctrines of demons." Pleasure itself is not a bad thing. He speaks pejoratively of "endless speculation" (1 Timothy 1:3-4). The rendering of "science so falsely called" found in the Authorized Version is ascribable to the Vulgate and its usage of scientia. The term science in the seventeenth century had a more general application than it does in modern English.

Tim Staples' Goofy Claims About 1 Corinthians 11:27-29

• Discussion:

          -The purpose of this article is to interact with a few claims that Roman Catholic apologist Tim Staples has made regarding 1 Corinthians 11:27-29 and transubstantiation. He even says that his proof-text is perhaps the "plainest of all." Following are excerpts from the author along with a rebuttal:

          "According to St. Paul, a constitutive element involved in a Christian’s preparation to receive the Eucharist is “discerning the body.” What body is St. Paul talking about that must be “discerned” you ask? It’s really not very hard to tell. He just said, in verse 27, “Whoever . . . eats . . . in an unworthy matter will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.” Any questions?"

          No, Paul is talking about unity amongst brethren and correcting abuses of the Lord's Supper. In 1 Corinthians 10, he uses the analogy of a body in describing what the church is supposed to be. The church at Corinth was divided amongst classes of wealth (1 Corinthians 11:20-22). This passage does not speak to the nature of the communion wafer.

          "St. Paul uses unequivocal language in describing the nature of the Eucharist by using the language of homicide when he describes the sin of those who do not recognize Christ’s body in this sacrament and therefore receive him unworthily. He says they are “guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.” According to Numbers 35:27, Deuteronomy 21:8, 22:8, Ezekiel 35:6, Rev. 18:24, 19:2, and elsewhere in Scripture, to be “guilty of blood” means you are guilty of shedding innocent blood in murder. This is not the language of pure symbolism. This is the language of real presence. Think about it: If someone were to put a bullet through a picture of a real person, I am sure the person represented in the photo would not be thrilled about it, but the perpetrator would not be “guilty of blood.” But if this same perpetrator were to put a bullet through the actual person you better believe he would be “guilty of blood.”

          Tim Staples asserts that what the Apostle Paul spoke of in 1 Corinthians 11:27-29 "is not the language of pure symbolism." At the same time, ironically, Tim makes a connection in the exact symbolic sense he argues against. The Corinthians who partook of communion with a guilty conscience did not literally murder Jesus Christ. The definition of "symbolic" used by Tim Staples appears to have been redefined and suited to advance his own theological agenda.

          "It does not come as a surprise to Catholics that St. Paul would refer to the Eucharist as “bread” and “wine.” We do it commonly in the Church. This is so for at least two key reasons. First, Jesus is “the true bread come down from heaven” and “true drink” according to John 6:32 and verse 55. It is entirely proper to refer to the Eucharist as such because the Eucharist is Jesus. Second, in human discourse we tend to refer to things as they appear. This is called “phenomenological” language. We say “the sun will rise at 5:45 am tomorrow.” Does this mean we are all geocentrists who believe the sun rotates around the earth? I hope not!"

          The utilization of language does not in and of itself prove that one has properly applied it in a given context. Nowhere in Scripture does one find a hint of the communion elements being the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ.

          The water used in baptism does not become the Holy Spirit that it illustrates. The water represents the Spirit and His regenerating work, just as the bread and wine used in the Last Supper represents the finished atonement of Jesus Christ.

Evolution And Language Development

"Much of the resistance to Darwinism "all the way up" comes from scientists and philosophers who deny the capacity of natural selection to produce specifically human mental qualities like the capacity for language. Foremost among these is Noam Chomsky, founder of modern linguistics, who describes a complex language program seemingly "hard-wired" into the human brain, which has no real analogy in the animal world and for which there is no very plausible story of step-by-step evolution through adaptive intermediate forms. Chomsky readily accepts evolutionary naturalism in principle, but (supported by Stephen Jay Gould) he regards Darwinian selection as no more than a place holder for a true explanation of the human language capacity which has not yet been found."

Phillip E. Johnson, Objections Sustained, p. 60

Does Easter Come From Eostre?

The major problem with associating the origin of Easter with the pagan goddess Eastre/Eostre is that we have no hard evidence that such a goddess was ever worshiped by anyone, anywhere. The only mention of Eastre comes from a passing reference in the writings of the Venerable Bede, an eighth-century monk and historian. Bede wrote, “Eosturmonath has a name which is now translated as ‘Paschal month,’ and which was once called after a goddess of theirs named Eostre, in whose honor feasts were celebrated in that month. Now they designate the Paschal season by her name, calling the joys of the new rite by the time-honoured name of the old observance” (De Temporum Ratione). And that’s it. Eostre is not mentioned in any other ancient writing; we have found no shrines, no altars, nothing to document the worship of Eastre. It is possible that Bede simply extrapolated the name of the goddess from the name of the month.

In the nineteenth century, the German folklorist Jakob Grimm researched the origins of the German name for Easter, Ostern, which in Old High German was Ostarâ. Both words are related to the German word for “east,” ost. Grimm, while admitting that he could find no solid link between Easter and pagan celebrations, made the assumption that Ostara was probably the name of a German goddess. Like Eastre, the goddess Ostara was based entirely on supposition and conjecture; before Grimm’s Deustche Mythologie (1835), there was no mention of the goddess in any writings.

So, while the word Easter most likely comes from an old word for “east” or the name of a springtime month, we don’t have much evidence that suggests anything more. Assertions that Easter is pagan or that Christians have appropriated a goddess-holiday are untenable. Today, however, it seems that Easter might as well have pagan origins, since it has been almost completely commercialized—the world’s focus is on Easter eggs, Easter candy, and the Easter bunny.

https://www.gotquestions.org/easter-origins.html

Bad Catholic Apologetics On Isaiah 64:6 And Sola Fide

• Discussion:

          -The purpose of this article is to respond to a few claims that Roman Catholic apologists have made regarding Isaiah 64:6. Following are a few excerpts from an article along with a critique:

          "This pertains to a particular historical situation, not to a general condition. The passage appeals to a time when Israelites once had a right relationship with God, when God helped them against their enemies because they waited on him, gladly did right, and remembered his ways."

          Several passages in Scripture have a more direct significance and application to the original audience than to readers in later generations. Prophecy has an immediate group of listeners and also a future fulfillment. There are indications which point to Isaiah 64:6 having a universal application.

          "When they sin against him and did not repent and return to their former state, he abandoned them to the will of their enemies, so that even Jerusalem and its Temple were destroyed. (Isaiah speaks of this prophetically, before it happened.)"

          The sinful state described in Isaiah 64:6 is applied to the entire human race elsewhere in Scripture. In Psalm 14, David describes the pagan world as corrupt and having turned away from the living God. He is clearly speaking of all people. Paul quotes that Psalm in describing the state of Israel (Romans 3:10-18). Every mouth will be silenced as the whole world is held accountable before God (Romans 3:19-20).

          "It was during that period of continued sin, leading up to the destruction of Jerusalem in 586 B.C., that they had “become like one who is unclean”–they hadn’t always been like that. In this state, even the nation’s acts of righteousness appeared like filthy rags to God, so he wouldn’t help them: “When you spread out your hands in prayer, I will hide my eyes from you; even if you offer many prayers, I will not listen. Your hands are full of blood; wash and make yourselves clean. Take your evil deeds out of my sight! Stop doing wrong, learn to do right!” (Is 1:15-17)."

           Why cannot Isaiah 64:6 apply to every person? It attests to the depths of human depravity and our utter inability to redeem ourselves.

Interaction With The Problem Of Divine Hiddenness

        God gave the Jews signs, yet they still did not believe in Him (Matthew 12:39; 16:4). Consider, for example, them making a golden calf after being miraculously rescued from Egypt. The Jews did not accept Christ even though He performed miracles, which were verifiable to their senses. The problem for us is not evidential, but our sinful heart.

        God has revealed Himself to us. He has given to us special revelation (Luke 16:29-31). He has revealed Himself to us through creation (Romans 1:20). He has revealed Himself to us through the person of Jesus Christ (Hebrews 1:1-3). He speaks to us daily through the Holy Scriptures.

        If miracles happened frequently, then they would cease to be miracles. They could no longer be used for the specific purposes that God ordains. Miracles would be ordinary events, which no longer capture our attention.

        God has not manifested Himself directly to human beings throughout most of history. Practically every person of faith has not had such an encounter with Him while on this earth. What makes us so special that we should be treated any differently? We should not be shocked that God does not speak audibly to us right now.

        The question should not so much be why God does not reveal Himself to us in a more obvious way, but when is enough evidence enough? There are people who would not be satisfied, even if He spoke audibly to them or brought someone back from the dead.

Abortion And The Incarnation

        *The New Testament clearly indicates that Jesus Christ received a human nature at the moment of His conception (Luke 1:26-37). Moreover, John the Baptist leaped with joy in the womb of his mother (Luke 1:15, 44).
        *If the pro-choice position is correct, then what was the mass of flesh in Mary's womb? When exactly did it gain the status of personhood? What was the state or condition with respect to Christ's flesh and blood prior to Him taking on these?
         *If this mass of flesh makes up a human person because of its own special qualities and not because of a connection with something else, then that would lead to Nestorianism because the person of Christ would include two distinct persons.
         *If this mass of flesh does not make up a human person in and of itself but takes on personhood at a later point in time, then that would lead to Apollinarianism because Christ's human nature would temporarily be without a human soul. In order to consistently uphold the incarnation, the pro-life stance is a requirement.