Biblical theology is theology drawn from the Bible rather than theology imposed onto the Bible. Biblical theology helps Christians understand the broad biblical message, discern developments in the canon, and see how each particular text fits in with the larger story of Scripture. In studying biblical theology, interpreters try to determine what the authors of the Bible thought or believed in their own historical contexts and on their own distinctive terms.
Köstenberger, A. J. (2012, 2016). Biblical Theology. In Faithlife Study Bible. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press.
Having a biblical opinion about Jesus means you have a theology. Everyone has a theology, it just depends on how informed or uninformed it is, or how shallow or deep it is.
Pastor Nate Pickowicz’s wife Jessica Pickowicz wrote a wonderful study guide to go along with the recently published Biblical Theology: A Systematic Summary of Bible Truth by John MacArthur and Richard Mayhue. She also set up a Facebook group of women last year who are interested in going through the study together. Her lessons have been just right: biblical, thought provoking, studious, and readable & doable.
This past June, Jess paused the weekly study for the summer so she could attend to Bible studies in her home church. She promised to resume in September. That time is here. The next study guide lesson begins on Thursdays, so the time for the next chapter of Biblical Doctrine is tomorrow. We resume with the chapter on Pneumatology, or study of the Holy Spirit.
Please feel free to join us ladies studying through this wonderful book Biblical Doctrine. I agree with this opinion from Mr Forbis. I’ve been through several systematic theology books or programs and this book is the best.
Biblical Doctrine is a hefty tome, but through Jess’s guided study, we do ten pages a week. Taking one bite of the elephant per week, with other like-minded ladies, is a great way to study through the doctrines of God, be edified, and learn more about our wonderful savior. Please join us!
King Sennacherib and his crown prince Arda-Mullissi after the battle of Lachish in 701 BC. From the palace at Nineveh. Source Looklex Encyclopedia
Who is Nahum?
He was an Old Testament prophet about whom we know little. Nahum the Elkoshite is a short form of the name Nehemiah. His name means ‘consolation’ and he might have been from Capernaum, which means ‘town of Nahum’ or he might have been from Al-Qosh in modern-day Iraq. No one knows for sure. What we do know for sure is that his book of prophecy, technically, an oracle’ is a prophecy against Nineveh of the Assyrian empire, for persecuting God’s people of Judah.
Of his prophecy, we know a lot. His three chapter oracle against that mighty capital city is muscular, vivid, and tough to read. God’s character is on sharp display here, and part of His character is His wrath. Gregory Cook named his commentary “Severe Compassion” because of God’s severity in dealing with His enemies and His compassion in dealing with His people. Nahum shows this in all its starkness.
Jonah preached God’s coming judgment to the Ninevites and they repented, from the King to the lowest slave. God stayed His hand of judgment. Unfortunately, about 100 years after Jonah’s preaching, the Ninevites had returned to the God-dishonoring ways and the judgment Jonah had promised was coming. Nahum preached that, to the Ninevites through preaching to Judah, whom Assyria was harassing and persecuting. Nahum’s oracle promised Judah and end once for all of the wars and torment by the Assyrians.
When John MacArthur preached a sermon called “Who Is God?” he began with Nahum.
Roy Gingrich was a pastor and Bible teacher who is known for having created outlines for the books of the Bible, including the Major and Minor prophetical books. I find them extremely helpful. Here, Gingrich introduces Nahum’s book and I comment after each line-
A. IT IS POETICAL IN ITS FORM—It is the most poetic of all the prophetic writings.
I found it a wonder to read because of its language and poetry.
B. IT IS VIVID AND FORCEFUL IN ITS STYLE—We can see the actions described by Nahum.
It takes your breath away in parts, it is so vivid. You can almost hear the clatter and strorm of invading chariots and the screams and cries of the Assyrians.
C. IT IS ANIMATED AND LIFE-LIKE IN ITS PRESENTATION—There is nothing artificial or unrealistic in the book’s descriptions.
Yes. Despite the war materiel being antiquated it is very present-day.
D. IT IS RAPID IN ITS MOVEMENT—It moves from scene to scene with lightning-like rapidity.
I use the term muscular. Like the book of Mark, with its use of the word ‘immediately’ and its short active sentences, Nahum ‘s poetry is less Elizabeth Barrett Browning and more modern-day war poet Sigfried Sassoon.
E. IT IS MAJESTIC IN ITS MORAL DESCRIPTIONS OF GOD—No other Bible book excels Nahum in this respect.
Soaring in its powerful descriptions of the power of God, I agree, no other book has an equal in showing God’s moral character
F. IT IS UNITARY IN ITS THEME—It has one theme, the soon-coming destruction of Nineveh.
Woe to God’s enemies! This book made me grateful I am not His enemy but by His grace, I am His friend!!
X. THE VALUE OF THE BOOK
The book has great value because of its teachings concerning God’s righteousness. It teaches that God ultimately destroys the wicked and delivers the righteous. It teaches that God is severe to His enemies and good to His friends. (Gingrich)
You can buy Gingrich’s outlines on Amazon here Kindle editions, or through his web page here. They are also available through Logos software.
If you would like to read reviews of Cook’s commentary Severe Compassion, some are here on Goodreads.
I pray you read Nahum, even better, Jonah then Nahum, and move on to other Minor Prophets. These books are so named not because they are less-than but because of their brevity compared to the Major Prophets such as Isaiah or Ezekiel. God’s moral character, His severe compassion, and His power. Nineveh was destroyed and obliterated so thoroughly that the city itself as never even found until 1845, 2000 years after the prophecy came true.
Yet, look at this. God is great in love and compassion. Only three nations are mentioned in the future literal 1000 year kingdom to come, Israel, Egypt, and…Assyria:
In that day there will be a highway from Egypt to Assyria, and the Assyrians will come into Egypt and the Egyptians into Assyria, and the Egyptians will worship with the Assyrians. In that day Israel will be the third party with Egypt and Assyria, a blessing in the midst of the earth, whom the Lord of hosts has blessed, saying, “Blessed is Egypt My people, and Assyria the work of My hands, and Israel My inheritance.” (Isaiah 19:23-25)
What was a day in the life like for a person who lived in New Testament Bible times? It depended on what trade the person made their living. Last time I looked at the woman of Thyatira, Lydia, a seller of purple. Today I’m interested in what a day in the life of a tanner would be like.
House of Simon the Tanner, Jaffa. In “Traveling in the Holy Land through the Stereoscope”
A tanner was a worker of hides. Tanner definition:
Tanning is the process of treating skins and hides of animals to produce leather. A tannery is the place where the skins are processed. (Source)
Tanners were low status people in the Jewish community. They dealt with unclean hides and death. They had to touch dead animals. Plus, they were Gentiles, two strikes. And they smelled bad. Three strikes.
Normally their workshop would be just one or two rooms and a courtyard far from a residential area. You might remember this was a requirement for Lydia’s trade, the dyer who used snail shells (or a plant) to extract and ferment purple, another malodorous process.
Said to be Simon’s house. It may or may not be, but it is in Joppa and it is ‘by the sea’.
Simon was a Tanner in Joppa. He housed Peter for many days according to Acts 10:32, Acts 9:43, Acts 10:17, Acts 10:6. Luke is very precise and mentions Simon’s trade three times in short order. So it is significant that the Lord stationed Peter with a Gentile tanner, showing that Christianity is a religion where all are welcome.
There are only two other biblical references to leather itself; where leather girdles are mentioned (the end product of tanning) and those are in 2 Kings 1:8; Matthew 3:4).
Therefore send to Joppa and invite Simon, who is also called Peter, to come to you; he is staying at the house of Simon the tanner by the sea. (Acts 10:32).
And Peter stayed many days in Joppa with a tanner named Simon. (Acts 9:43).
Despite the infrequent mentions, leather was important and used in many goods. Thus, tanning was an important trade, just a trade that no one liked to be around.
Leather was widely used in biblical times: for sandals and shoes, and for straps and harnesses for horses, donkeys, and camels; the nod, a skin bottle for storing and transporting liquids, is still widely used in the Middle East. All writing materials were also produced from hides. A ritually important use of leather and parchment since ancient times is for Torah scrolls, tefillin, the straps of which must be made from ritually clean animals, and the contents of mezuzot. (Source)
Joppa (Jaffa) is now an old neighborhood in the city of Tel Aviv. It’s by the sea. You might remember Jonah fled from the LORD at Joppa where he boarded a ship bound for Tarshish.
As in Greece and Rome, tanneries had to be located on the outskirts of the towns, far from residential quarters. According to the Mishnah (BB 2:9) a tannery should be situated on the east side of the town only, at least 50 cubits from the outskirts. This was because tanning was a primitive, malodorous process. The residents of an alley or lane could prevent one of their neighbors from becoming a tanner (Mishnah BB 21b). For all these reasons the tanner’s status in society was low. (Source)
As with Lydia’s purple dyeing, that trade and tanning needed to be on the east side because the winds were from the west most of the year, and would blow the odors away from the residential area if the manufacturing was done on the east side.
A Tanner’s dwelling and his workshop location was limited by his trade also. By necessity, they had to be close to to salt water seas.
Simon’s house was by the seashore, as is true of the tanneries along the Syrian coast today, so that the foul-smelling liquors from the vats can be drawn off with the least nuisance, and so that the salt water may be easily accessible for washing the skins during the tanning process. (Source – The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia)
Tanning was a low-status job, so tanners were because of their trade low on the totem pole. As with Lydia’s trade (dyeing of purple), by Jewish tradition, a wife could sue for divorce based on the unpleasantness of her husband’s tanning trade, and it would be granted. An unnamed Jewish Babylon Talmudic scholar of the 6th-12th century-
explains that they are exempt because their bad odor, having penetrated their flesh, cannot be removed. This, he said, was why they had their own synagogues in his day in Babylon. The tanner’s trade was among those from which neither king nor high priest might be appointed, not because the tanner is ritually unfit, but because his occupation is despised
Poor Simon. So, geographically, ritually, and societally, a tanner endured a low status and a marginal communal living. Simon no doubt had friends, even the hated tax-collectors had friends, prostitutes and other tax collectors though they may have been. But a tanner’s trade prevented him from enjoying the full force and joys of communal living and even worship.
Joppa (or Jaffa as it’s called today, the oldest part of modern-day Tel Aviv) is about 45 miles from Jerusalem. On the map, you can see Nazareth to the northeast and Lake Tiberias (Sea of Galilee) beyond that.
So what did a tanner DO? The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia describes the multi-step process. Simon would have had skins percolating in various stages of the process.
Within are the vats made either of stone masonry, plastered within and without, or cut out of the solid rock. The sheep or goat skins are smeared on the flesh side with a paste of slaked lime and then folded up and allowed to stand until the hair loosens. The hair and fleshy matter are removed, the skins are plumped in lime, bated in a concoction first of dog dung and afterward in one of fermenting bran, in much the same way as in a modern tannery. The bated skins are tanned in sumach, which is the common tanning material in Syria and Palestine. After drying, the leather is blackened on one side by rubbing on a solution made by boiling vinegar with old nails or pieces of copper, and the skin is finally given a dressing of olive oil.
That was the short version. Here’s the more descriptive process from Wikipedia.
The steps in the production of leather between curing (which involved salting) and tanning are collectively referred to as beamhouse operations. They include, in order, soaking, liming, removal of extraneous tissues (unhairing, scudding and fleshing), deliming, bating or puering, drenching, and pickling. Simon was busy. He either skinned the animal himself of got the skins from a skinner.
Skins typically arrived at the tannery dried stiff and dirty with soil and gore. First, the ancient tanners would soak the skins in water to clean and soften them. Then they would pound and scour the skin to remove any remaining flesh and fat. Next, the tanner needed to remove the hair from the skin. This was done by either soaking the skin in urine, painting it with an alkaline lime mixture, or simply allowing the skin to putrefy for several months then dipping it in a salt solution. After the hairs were loosened, the tanners scraped them off with a knife. Once the hair was removed, the tanners would “bate” (soften) the material by pounding dung into the skin, or soaking the skin in a solution of animal brains. Bating was a fermentative process which relied on enzymes produced by bacteria found in the dung. Among the kinds of dung commonly used were those of dogs or pigeons.
The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, 1915
Sometimes, the dung was mixed with water in a large vat, and the prepared skins were kneaded in the dung water until they became supple from bacterial enzyme action, but not too soft. The ancient tanner might use his bare feet to knead the skins in the dung water, and the kneading could last two or three hours. This combination of urine, animal feces, and decaying flesh made ancient tanneries malodorous. Children employed as dung gatherers were a common sight in ancient cities. Also common were “piss-pots” located on street corners, where human urine could be collected for use in tanneries or by washerwomen. (Source)
It was all very gross. I included the longer version so you can get an idea of what Simon dealt with every day. Hard labor, marginalization, and smelly, chemical-y dung and urine filled processes.
So now we can understand perhaps why Luke included the fact that Peter stayed with Simon the Tanner and mentioned that Simon was a tanner three times in rapid succession. Here, finally, we see as with all walks of life, tanners were finally enjoying fellowship in faith with other disciples. Peter choosing to stay with Simon (Acts 9:43) certainly helped equalize the rungs on the ladder and pointed to the fact that Jesus and only Jesus was primary and exalted. Prostitutes, tax-collectors, dyers, and tanners were fully included in the faith as much as wealthy men (Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus), lawyers (Paul) and luxury merchants (Lydia).
The cross is the great equalizer, and Jesus is full of grace and mercy. The societal inclusion for Simon the Tanner must have been heart-warming to him and his love for Jesus must have abounded all the more. Here at last, he could worship among the faithful, and not in a separate synagogue. On his one day of rest, his voice raised in hymns of praise must have been forceful and joyous.
The thread of Christianity depends on a unity from one generation to the next of mutual understanding of our important words. Hence the Word of the Week.
Aseity
When we affirm that God is eternal, we are also saying that He possesses the attribute of aseity, or self-existence. … Unlike creation, God is self-existent, uncaused, and independent. ~RC Sproul
What does it mean that He is self-existent? It means in simple language, go down to verse 4, here it is again, four words. I told you John’s economy of words is stunning. “In Him was Life.” In Him was Life. John 5:26 says it again, that in God is life and in the Son is life. This is an amazing statement. Life not bios, not just physical life, but zoe, the biggest, broadest term for all kinds of life. And what it’s saying is this. Life was in Him. What do you mean by that? Well look at it from a negative standpoint. He didn’t receive life from any other source. He didn’t develop life from some other power. This is self-existence. He wasn’t given life, He didn’t receive life, He possesses it as an essential of His nature. In Him was life. ~John MacArthur
Scriptures:
For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like Me. (Isaiah 46:9)
I AM who I AM. (Exodus 3:14)
For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself. (John 5:26)
The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything. (Acts 17:24-25)
Speak to doctrinal or biblical living expectations, and the hits are low. Speak against a hugely popular “Christian celebrity” and the hits are high. But that is OK, because if any woman learns something that crosses the line for her, biblically, and avoids yet another Christian-ish celebrity author, than I’m happy. Essay views for the day before and after I’d reviewed Girl, Wash Your Face:
Rachel Hollis’s writing is great and her stories are affecting, but that’s often the issue. Engaging and skillful writers who connect with an audience over a slim veneer of Christianity are rife these days, to the detriment of women who need and want depth of scripture for life’s issues.
Sadly, many of Hollis’s ideas are not based on a strong Christian foundation. Thus, her book and its advice fails to rely on the atoning work of Jesus on the cross for our sins, and instead promotes a secular worldview of self-sufficiency. It’s about raising our self-esteem, which I am good and plenty sick of reading about from supposed Christian authors. The book is mainly grrrrrl power self-bootstraps advice, so I gave the book a thumbs-down.
Hollis’s theology should give you all you need to know about whether to take her advice in Girl:
Tim Challies reviewed the book, saying it is not only not good, but is antithetical to the Bible. Read more here.
Sheologians writer Summer White Jaeger published a review of the book. One thing I like to do when I write, or speak, or come to believe something based on my faith is to check it against the word, of course. But I also like to check against what other Christians are saying. I don’t exist in a vacuum, and I always need to ensure that my narrow center line of life & doctrine is still on the center line, not varying to the left or right.
I was pleased to see that Jaeger’s concerns in part 1 of the review were similar to mine. She noted that Hollis is giving out life advice to the general Christian female world from her vantage point of all of 35 years old. She noticed Hollis doesn’t mention much about sin. And so on. Read part 1 here and Jaeger’s part 2 is here. Final thoughts here.
Also: Katie at Uncomfortable Grace (on Facebook) wrote a short review, also, here
Jesus never called us to chase after power, money, and fame (and He actually had quite a bit to say about those things). He called us to lay our pursuit of all that stuff down and follow Him. He said, “Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.” (Matthew 10:39)
The Theology Gals reviewed Girl, Wash Your Face and spoke of Hollis’s faith in general from a discernment aspect, here.
Michelle Lesley reviewed it here in a larger essay that recommends or doesn’t recommend various teachers.
Rebekah Womble at Wise in His Eyesreviewed Hollis’s book. She held it to the light of scripture and found it lacking, as did the other reviewers. I love how the different women raise different issues, though, but all of them compared the book to scripture and find it fails the test. I liked Womble’s review quite a bit.Womble wrote:
I want to start by acknowledging that Rachel does have some good things to say in the book. In particular, she shares poignant episodes from her life that brought me to empathize with the trials she has endured, and I could appreciate her speaking out of her own personal experiences.
But unfortunately, much of Girl, Wash Your Face is fraught with contradictory statements. Since most of what Rachel writes are her own ideas and opinions—not originating in the Bible as the objective standard of truth—this is to be expected. As fallen human beings, each one of us is prone to accept as true only what we want to believe.
Here are some examples of the book’s antithetical creeds:
I wrote 2 companion pieces to my book review of Girl, Wash Your Face, about the problem of and solution to Christian Celebrity Moms like Hollis, here-
This post first appeared on The End Time in September 2012. I notice that my “Throwback” essays that I choose are usually prophecy. I am sad that eschatological topics have become marginalized, or too “controversial” to discuss. Many people avoid them altogether. This should not be so. They exist to orient us to our actual home, heaven, to excite us about the work we do now for when we see Him later, and to encourage us. (1 Peter 2:11, 1 Thessalonians 4:18).
I’m excited for what lay ahead and of course mainly to be rid of this body of death and sin no more! There are exciting times ahead, whether we enter into them through death’s door or through the rapture, we are all one day closer to it than we were yesterday. Be excited!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Imagine how excited JESUS is! I like to think that He is excited as any groom who awaits his bride would be. As the moment draws closer the more excited any groom becomes. He is eager, thinking of all the love He has for his soon to be bride.
Jesus is the ultimate bridegroom, so His love and excitement is superlative and perfect, excellently outpacing our excitement at His soon return!
I know we sense the nearness of the time. We know the rapture can happen imminently, it has always been imminent. But the time seems so close, and we’re excited to see our Groom.
Our Groom is even more excited to claim His Bride, I am sure!
Don’t you think so too?!
“And Jesus said to them, “Can the wedding guests mourn as long as the bridegroom is with them? The days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast.” (Matthew 9:15).
The long dry spell of life without Him bodily on earth is almost over.
John the Baptist said,
“The bride belongs to the bridegroom. The friend who attends the bridegroom waits and listens for him, and is full of joy when he hears the bridegroom’s voice. That joy is mine, and it is now complete.” (John 3:29).
O, we long to hear His voice, but He longs for His Bride, and waits for the Father to tell the Son:
“GO GET YOUR BRIDE.”
“For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord. Therefore encourage one another with these words.” (1 Thessalonians 4:16-18).
Be encouraged! We are one day closer to that moment than we were yesterday!
There is something in us that deep down, quite disbelieves the Gospel could be so simple.
Years ago when I was teaching fourth graders, they thought that the more you wrote, the better the answer. They thought that the bigger the words they used, the better. The more complicated their essay was, the better grade they were going to receive.
Sometimes that’s the case, but usually not. Less is more.
Ernest Hemingway is famous for his writing rules. He always said that shorter sentences and vivid words, but not longer words, made for a clearer story.
Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures (1 Corinthians 15:1–4).
The Gospel is short & simple. It’s deep and mysterious, but on the surface it’s simple. If a man repents of his sin and asks the risen Savior who died for those sins to forgive him, he is saved. A person is saved by grace, not by works. He is not saved by complex hierarchical rituals, or lengthy creeds, or religious systems based on byzantine schemes. He is saved by grace, a free-to-us gift from Christ. (Ephesians 2:8–9).
For all its simplicity, the Gospel is narrow. It is simple and understandable, but narrow. There is no other way into heaven.
John Bunyan in his autobiography Grace Abounding, wrote of a dream he’d had. It involved walking up to a base of a tall mountain with a wall around it.
Now, this mountain and wall, etc., was thus made out to me—the mountain signified the church of the living God; the sun that shone thereon, the comfortable shining of His merciful face on them that were therein; the wall, I thought, was the Word, that did make separation between the Christians and the world; and the gap which was in this wall, I thought, was Jesus Christ, who is the way to God the Father (John 14.6; Matt. 7.14).
But forasmuch as the passage was wonderful narrow, even so narrow, that I could not, but with great difficulty, enter in thereat, it showed me that none could enter into life, but those that were in downright earnest, and unless they left this wicked world behind them; for here was only room for body and soul, but not for body and soul, and sin.
We can’t bring anything with us as we pass through that narrow gate. We do not add to the Gospel nor do we take away from the Gospel. Its simplicity is part of what makes it clear. Grace abounds when its efficacy is bestowed upon us.
Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar. (Proverbs 30:5-6)
But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:8).
John Owen’s treatise on indwelling sin is a devastating look at our internal selves, both regenerate and unregenerate. It’s devastating because he draws out the reality of our sin, something, to be honest, most of us would rather just glance at then away, than study for any length of time.
It’s worth it though.
Owen uses the picture of ‘streams’ in several ways when describing sin or grace. Either way, when he uses the word-picture, it’s potent. In his last three chapters, which I believe to be his best, Owen remarks about the situation for the Christian why he at first was fervent but then as time goes on loses his oomph so to speak. Here are a few excerpts.
Decays in degrees of grace caused by indwelling sin
Upon the first conversion and calling of sinners unto God and Christ, they have usually many fresh springs breaking forth in their souls and refreshing showers coming upon them, which bear them up to a high rate of faith, love, holiness, fruitfulness, and obedience; as upon a land-flood, when many lesser streams run into a river, it swells over its bounds, and rolls on with a more than ordinary fulness. Now, if these springs be not kept open, if they prevail not for the continuance of these showers, they must needs decay and go backwards.
What would cause the springs to decay and go backwards?
Some great sin lying long in the heart and conscience unrepented of, or not repented of as it ought,
Neglect your great sin at your peril.
If it be neglected, it certainly hardens the heart, weakens spiritual strength, enfeebles the soul, discouraging it unto all communion with God, and is a notable principle of a general decay. … His present distemper was not so much from his sin as his folly, — not so much from the wounds he had received as from his neglect to make a timely application for their cure.
Back to the streams-
But now, if the utmost diligence and carefulness be not used to improve and grow in this wisdom, to keep up this frame, indwelling sin, working by the vanity of the minds of men, will insensibly bring them to content themselves with slight and rare thoughts of these things, without a diligent, sedulous endeavour to give them their due improvement upon the soul.
As men decay herein, so will they assuredly decay and decline in the power of holiness and close walking with God. The springs being stopped or tainted, the streams will not run so swiftly, at least not so sweetly, as formerly.
Some, by this means, under an uninterrupted profession, insensibly wither almost into nothing. They talk of religion and spiritual things as much as ever they did in their lives, and perform duties with as much constancy as ever they did; but yet they have poor, lean, starving souls, as to any real and effectual communion with God. By the power and subtlety of indwelling sin they have grown formal, and learned to deal about spiritual things in an overly manner; whereby they have lost all their life, vigour, savour, and efficacy towards them. Be always serious in spiritual things if ever you intend to be bettered by them.
As I was reading this wonderful book, I thought of the Christian’s failure t repent and keep his streams flowing afresh, of a beaver building a dam.
The power of the Holy Spirit allows us to resist sin, but we fail to make as much use of Him and His power as we might. Add onto that, our choice to sin, we pile it on and pile it on,m as logs onto a fire. Or as a beaver onto a dam. Soon the streams of grace are hindered, diverted, tainted, and we wither and dry.
Watch this beaver for a couple of minutes and see the lengths we go to indulge our sin and the decays it causes the streams of grace.
This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, (2 Timothy 3:1-3 KJV)
The word for ‘natural affection’ here in the Greek means family affection. It involves the natural love people have for their parents or their children.
John Owen speaks to this verse from his book Indwelling Sin:
Paul tells us that the Gentiles are ‘without natural affection.’ (Romans 1:31). In this, sin has driven men below the level of the beasts. The instinct to love and care for their young is deeply inlaid in the nature of all living creatures. Yet such is the power and force of indwelling sin in man that it frequently stops this fountain and beats back the stream of natural affections, driving men to neglect and even destroy the fruit of their own bodies to accommodate their lusts. Hence, the practice of infanticide became common in the ancient world, as it has been in all nations, including our own. In this way, sin turns the strong current of nature, darkens the light of God in the soul, and defeats all natural principles, influenced as they are by the command and will of God.”
“But there is worse, for men not only slew but cruelly sacrificed their children to satisfy their idolatrous lusts (Psalm 106:37-38; Ezekiel 16:20-21), often burning them alive. It is beyond our power to explain the secret force and unsearchable deceit that is in our inbred traitor, sin, that can not only stop the course of nature, but even drive it backwards with such violence as to cause men to deal with their own children in a way that a good man would not, for any inducement, deal with his dog.” [emphasis his]
“But it may be good for the best of us to know what the effects the sin we carry about with us has produced in others.”
John Owen, Indwelling Sin in Believers, Chapter 16
Infanticide was not just a problem in the ancient days nor just in Owen’s day. In our day, we face the same. Abortion is infanticide, it is the killing of an infant, albeit not outside the womb as normally thought of when speaking of infanticide, but inside the womb. Either way, a child is killed by people who are supposed to harbor natural affection for them.
Shout Your abortion is a media campaign wherein the premise is that “Abortion is Normal” (their words) and one who has killed one’s child in that manner is supposed to be proud of it. From Wikipedia (I won’t link to their website) it states,
#ShoutYourAbortion is a social media campaign where women share their abortion experiences online without “sadness, shame or regret” for the purpose of “destigmatization, normalization, and putting an end to shame.”
If we turn our mind to the ancient days, did the mothers who put their babies in the burning brazier of a Molech statue skip home and shout their infanticide? One wonders. Today we not only have women without the most natural affection of all slaying their children in abortion clinics from coast to coast, but as Romans 1:32 says, “and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.”
“God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper,” (Romans 1:28)
Any society that does this and gives hearty approval to others who do the same, has most sadly lost its mind. Jesus will have something to say about that on His day. And He won’t have to shout.
the-end-time.org 