Jesus and Zoology

This article first appeared in The Banner of Truth Magazine

John Stott famously wrote that “many Christians have a good doctrine of redemption, but need a better doctrine of creation,” and urged people to be ornithologists or what he called, tongue-in-cheek, orni-theologists, in light of Jesus's command to Consider the birds.1 If we love the Bible we should not only be ornithologists but zoologists too, to some extent, as the Bible mentions over 120 species in its pages.2

That is not so easy for many of us today who live in urban settings and see very little of animals. Some cats and dogs, a few birds and squirrels, perhaps, but little otherwise. In Jesus's day far more people came across animals in their everyday life, whether living in the countryside or in the town. Certainly Jesus interacts with and speaks about many animals. Camels, chickens, dogs, donkeys, fish, foxes, goats, oxen, scorpions, sheep, snakes, sparrows, vultures, wolves. Nearly a score are mentioned in the Gospels altogether.

Jesus and the animals

Most homes at that time would have been set up so that one part of the house was occupied by human beings and the other part by animals. Farmyard smells would be normal.3 We know that when Jesus was born, there was no room where humans normally slept and so he was born among the animals and at first placed in a manger, originally designed for feeding animals. Because of that setting a tradition has developed that oxen and donkeys were present at the birth. That cannot be proved, any more than we can be certain that Joseph and Mary travelled from Nazareth to Bethlehem on a donkey rather than on foot.4 However, the reference to shepherds in Luke 2 alerts us to the fact that they were looking after sheep near the place where Jesus was born.5

Luke tells us that when Jesus was six weeks old his poor parents sacrificed two young doves or pigeons at the Temple, as required by the law.6 The sacrificial system would have brought many Jews into regular contact with animals. The smell of blood, offal and roasting meat would have been familiar to Jewish people.

It would seem that Jesus cleansed the Temple at least twice, once at the beginning and once at the end of his ministry. In John 2:14, 15 it specifically says that In the temple courts he found people selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple courts, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables.7

As he grew up, it is likely that Jesus would have interacted with and observed various animals, although there is no direct evidence for this.

At the beginning of his ministry, Jesus was baptised by John, a man whose very basic diet consisted of locusts and wild honey made by wild bees.8 John declared Jesus to be the Lamb of God pointing to him as the Passover Lamb.9 When John had baptised Jesus, a dove descended on the Messiah symbolising his anointing by the Spirit.10 Straight after his baptism he was thrust out by the Spirit into the wilderness to be confronted by the Devil. Mark 1:12, 13 says that during those forty days He was with the wild animals, and angels attended him.11 As in Luke 2, where shepherds, sheep and angels are referenced, it reminds us that in this universe, there are heavenly creatures who are pure spirit, animals with no immortal soul and human beings who, like Jesus, God incarnate, have a soul and a body. As C S Lewis once put it “Humans are amphibians - half spirit and half animal. As spirits they belong to the eternal world, but as animals they inhabit time.”12 The wild animals would perhaps include striped hyenas, wolves, Arabian leopards and lions.

Jesus's disciples included several fishermen and several miracles feature fish – either being caught from the lake or multiplied in order to feed multitudes.13 Tilapia were perhaps the most common fish at the time. Jesus sends out his disciples to fish for people.14 In Matthew 12:40 he refers to the great fish that swallowed and vomited out Jonah, a picture of Jesus's own resurrection.15

In the parables of the wedding feast and the prodigal son, there are references to fattened cattle used for a feast.16 Then there is Jesus casting demons into the herd of pigs, unclean animals for Jews, on the other side of the Sea of Galilee. The pigs then ran into the sea and drowned.17 In Luke 14:19 a man says that he cannot follow Jesus because he has just bought five yoke of oxen, and is on his way to try them out.

In the final week of his life, Jesus deliberately rides into Jerusalem on a donkey to fulfil the prophecy in Zechariah 9:9. A donkey rather than a horse as it speaks of a royal peace bringer.18 In many cultures the sound of the rooster or cockerel crowing is common, especially in the early morning. Jesus predicts that Peter will deny him three times before the cockerel crows.19

Jesus's references to animals as he teaches

In the course of his teaching, Jesus makes several references to different animals. He clearly accepts that we can learn from the animal kingdom. Fish and fishing have already been mentioned but also, teaching on prayer, Jesus pointed out that if a child asks its father for a fish, he will not give them a snake, or if he asks for an egg, he will not give them a scorpion.20 Fish and snakes are both scaly, eggs and scorpions bear no obvious resemblance. Jesus might have come into contact with snakes and scorpions. Some 42 species of snake are said to exist in the area today, half of these being venomous.21 As for scorpions, 21 of the one thousand known types can be found in the area today, only five of which are poisonous. The most dangerous is the yellow scorpion or deathstalker.22 In John 3:14 Jesus refers to the bronze snake Moses held up in the wilderness, which foreshadows the cross. When the seventy or seventy-two return from their mission Jesus tells them he has given them authority to trample on snakes and scorpions and to overcome all the power of the enemy; nothing will harm them.23 Like John, Jesus refers to the Pharisees and Sadducees and others as snakes and vipers who poison people with their false teaching.24

The biggest concentration of animal references comes perhaps in Matthew 10:16, where some four animals are mentioned. Jesus says to his disciples that he is sending them out like sheep among wolves. Therefore he says they need to be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves. Proverbially, the latter two are known for their subtlety and for their innocence (doves are simple and transparent). Wolves were known as predators, especially against sheep.

Sheep, of course, are mentioned many times by Jesus. He tells us he is the Good Shepherd who cares for his sheep.25 He also sees the people as sheep without a shepherd.26 They lack the leadership the Good Shepherd can give. In Matthew 25 there is a parable about the end of the world where the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, standing for the righteous and the wicked.27 Certain types of sheep and goats, especially in the east, can look similar and are often kept together. In Hebrew the two are not always sharply distinguished. In John 21 Peter is told by Jesus to feed and take care of his sheep and lambs.

In a striking image in Matthew 11:29, 30 Jesus calls on all to take his yoke upon them and learn from him, for he is gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For he says my yoke is easy and my burden is light. The picture is of oxen, Christ and his disciple under the same easy yoke.

Using a powerful zoological image, Jesus laments over Jerusalem, saying, Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing.28 More than one reference is made to birds, especially sparrows, mainly to encourage believers to see that if God looks after little birds he will also look after them.29

The Canaanite woman in the Tyre and Sidon area refers to Gentiles as dogs, as does Jesus, when she asks him to heal her daughter. It was a common term in that time, Jesus is impressed with her reply.30 In Matthew 7:6 Jesus himself warns against giving what is holy to dogs or throwing pearls to pigs.31 Dogs then, of course, were not often pets but tended to be the disease ridden, wild or scavenger mongrel type.

At one time Jesus told a man who wanted to follow him that Foxes have dens and birds have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head.32 He also refers to Herod Antipas, a deceitful destroyer, as that fox.33

A famous saying of Jesus is that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.34 A camel, probably a one humped dromedary, would be one of the biggest animals around, elephants being native to Africa and India but not, at least by that time, to the middle east.

Another saying of Jesus says Wherever there is a carcass, there the vultures will gather.35 Vultures, it is well known, look for carrion. Wherever there is a dead body, they will swoop down When Jesus comes again it will be very visible and obvious.

The only other obvious reference to animal life is where Jesus, warning of hell, describes it as the place where worms do not die and the fire is not quenched.36 When a body is buried, the worms, as we say, eat it. These worms are not earth worms but maggots, which hatch from the eggs that flies lay on dead bodies. There are also “worms” that do not die, in hell, that continuously eat away at the souls of unconverted sinners.

Such references remind us that when we encounter animals, there are lessons to be learned, if we are awake to the possibility. At the very least we should have in mind the lessons that shrewd snakes, innocent doves, well fed birds, unholy dogs, foxes in their dens, yoked oxen, incongruous camels, gathering vultures and never dying worms can teach us.

Footnotes

1 John R W Stott, The Birds, Our Teachers: Essays in Orni-theology 2008

2 See the online Wikipedia article Animals in the Bible (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animals_in_the_Bible)

3 See Kenneth E Bailey Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes, cultural studies in the Gospels 2008

4 The ox and ass tradition is based on Isaiah 1:3

5 Luke 2:8-21

6 Luke 2:24

7 Matthew 21:12-17, Mark 11:15-19, Luke 19:45-48, John 2:13-16

8 Matthew 3:4, Mark 1:6

9 John 1:29, 36; see also Revelation 5:6-13

10 Matthew 3:16; Mark 1:10; Luke 3:22; John 1:32

11 Interestingly, in this context, when Satan quotes Psalm 91:11, 12 For he will command his angels concerning you to guard you in all your ways; they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone. he forbears to quote the succeeding verse (13) You will tread on the lion and the cobra; you will trample the great lion and the serpent. Perhaps a little too close for comfort. See Matthew 4:1-11, Luke 4:1-13.

12 C S Lewis, Screwtape Letters, Letter VIII, 1942

13 Matthew 14:17-21, 15:34-38; Mark 6:38-44, 8:6-9; Luke 9:13-17; John 6:9-13

14 Matthew 4:19; Mark 1:17

15 Jonah is also mentioned in Luke 11:30. The species of the fish is unknown.

16 Matthew 22:4; Luke 15:23, 27, 30

17 Matthew 8:30-32; Mark 5:11-13, Luke 8:32, 33

18 Matthew 21:2-7; Mark 11:2-7; Luke 19:30-35; John 12:14, 15

19 Matthew 26:34, 74, 75; Mark 14:30, 72; Luke 22:34, 60, 61; John 13:38, 18:27

20 Matthew 7:10, Luke 11:11, 12

21 A Bar and G Haimovitch A Field Guide to Reptiles and Amphibians of Israel 2011, 117-201

22See Hadassah University Medical Center online article (https://www.hadassah.org.il/en/er_bites_and_stings/)

23 Luke 10:19

24 Matthew 3:7, Luke 3:7; Matthew 12:34, 23:33

25 John 10:11, 14, etc

26 Matthew 9:36

27 See verses 32, 33

28 Matthew 23:37, see also Luke 13:34

29 Matthew 6:25, 26, 10:29-31. Ravens are specified in Luke 12:24 See also the passing references to birds in the parables, Matthew 13:4, 32; Mark 4:4, Luke 8:5, 13:19

30 Matthew 15:26, 27, Mark 7:27, 28

31Pigs and dogs were unclean animals under Jewish law. Pigs are pronounced unclean in Leviticus 11:7, 8.

32 Matthew 8:20, Luke 9:58

33 Luke 13:32

34 Matthew 19:24, Mark 10:24, 25, Luke 18:25

35 Matthew 24:28, Luke 17:37

36 Mark 9:48, referencing Isaiah 66:24

66 Books You Must Read Before You Die

At some point early in this century or before, people started to talk about what they wanted to do before they died, their bucket list as it is called. This soon transmuted into lists of places to visit, films to see and books to read. We are now familiar with lists such as 100 Books to read before you die or The forty best books to read before you die. Such lists include novels such as Jane Eyre or 1984 and non-fiction titles such as The Diary of Anne Frank. Occasionally, you will see spiritually helpful items such as Augustine's Confessions or Pilgrims Progress mentioned and even the Bible itself and its sixty six books in such lists but not often.

The 66 best read books of all time

When we consider how massively influential the sixty-six books that make up the Bible are, it is perhaps surprising to learn how little read they are. Surveys suggest that many intelligent people have never actually read the sixty-six, even some who profess to be Christians.

This is strange in some ways as the sixty-six books that form the Bible are together the best selling, most widely available, most often translated books on planet earth.

When it comes to those sixty-six books, the Bible is far and away the best selling set of books of all time. The Guinness Book of World Records estimates that more than 5 billion copies of the Bible have been printed. Other texts are not even close to that figure. The Quran - only 800 million copies; The Book of Mormon - only 120 million. Quotations from Chairman Mao Zedong or the little red book has several hundred million copies in print but is nowhere near the Bible in number.

The Wycliffe Global Alliance tell us that the world's 7.9 billion people speak some 7378 languages. At present 717 of these languages have all 66 books translated and 3495 languages, some 7.04 billion people, have some part of the Bible. Work is currently going on with a further 828 languages, covering another 67.6 million people.

There are people who cannot read the sixty-six books of the Bible for themselves, then, but a vast number can - and yet so many of them choose not to do so. While they are busy reading Moby Dick or Lord of the Rings, the sixty-six get short shrift.

Encouraging people to read the Sixty-six

So what can we, we who have read the sixty-six, or most of them, do to encourage others to read them?

It is generally agreed that the best place to start is with one of the Gospels is. Mark is shortest, Matthew is good for religious people and Luke is for anyone. John also suits everyone but is different to the others in being more theological in style. All the sixty-six are about the Lord Jesus Christ but it is most obvious in the Gospels which provide us with portraits of Jesus, focusing especially on his death and resurrection.

Only two or three others of the sixty-six are seen under separate cover. Paul's Letter to the Romans is sometimes done like that. That is useful as it sets out Paul's theology for us in a systematic way. Do read Romans. The Old Testament Book of Psalms is also sometimes seen like that. It contains 150 hymns and prayers reflecting on God's Law and the coming Messiah. The book is best loved by those already converted to Christ.

New Testament

The 27 books of the New Testament are often seen bound in one volume, of course, either with or without the Psalms. Once people have read the Gospels, one would encourage them to read the Book of Acts, also sometimes found under separate cover. It gives the history of the church from the Christ's ascension to the end of Paul's three missionary journeys.

Most of the rest of the New Testament is letters. First, Paul's 13 letters to churches and individuals. There are nine to churches in Rome, Corinth, Galatia, Ephesus, Philippi, Colossae and Thessalonica then four to individuals. Of the latter, the two to Timothy and the one to Titus deal with matters of particular interest to pastors who should read and re-read those books.

Next is the Letter to the Hebrews. We are not sure who wrote it but, if not Paul, it must be by someone in his circle. It particularly focuses on the High Priesthood of Christ. We then have seven short general letters - three by John, two by Peter, one each by James and Jude. These are important too and not to be neglected.

The last book in the New Testament is Revelation (not Revelations). It is a book full of symbolism and not easy to read or understand but once you start spotting things like the way the writer, John, uses the number seven, it begins to make sense. One great help to understanding it better is to get to know the Old Testament books.

Genesis to Esther

A full Bible not only has the 27 books of the New Testament but the 39 books of the Old Testament too. These are again all about Jesus Christ but because they were written long before he was born this is usually less obvious. These books contain prophecies, types and shadows of what was going to come. Chapters, like Isaiah 53 are very obviously about Jesus but in some cases this is much harder to spot.

The first five books were written by Moses and take us from the world's creation to the time just before God's people enter the Promised Land. Genesis and Exodus are easy to read as they are mostly story but Leviticus and Numbers are not so easy nor is Deuteronomy.

After those five come Joshua and Judges, taking us from the conquest of the land to the time just before the first king of Israel. After Judges there is a little book called Ruth, which is not only a charming story but a real pointer to King David and to Jesus himself.

Next come three big books, so big the Jews divided each of them in two. First come the Books of Samuel then the Books of Kings. They take us from Samuel, the last of the Judges, through Saul, David and Solomon on to the kings who ruled over the divided kingdoms north and south, down to the time when Judah was sent into exile in Babylon. The third book, Chronicles, goes all the way from Adam to the exile. The opening chapters are not easy to read as they are mostly genealogies. There are things in Chronicles you will not find anywhere else so it is a must read.

After Chronicles comes Ezra and Nehemiah, both about the Jews' amazing return from the exile. The Book of Esther follows, a remarkable story about the providence of God to his people when still in exile. The striking thing about it is that it never mentions God by name. It would be great book to start with for anyone wanting to read the Bible.

Job to Malachi

After all that history, we get five books usually referred to as books of wisdom. The first, Job, is from a time before Moses and deals with the difficult subject of suffering. The beginning and end are easy to read but many chapters lie between, not always easy to read, where Job's friends try to prove to him he is suffering because he has done something wrong, which we know he has not. It is a fascinating and important work that is worth reading and re-reading.

We have mentioned the Book of Psalms, mostly by David. There is also the Book of Proverbs, mostly by his son Solomon. A large part of Proverbs is taken up with proverbs, brief and pithy sayings oozing with wisdom that point in one way or another to Jesus Christ, the wisdom of God. In this section we also have The Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes, not always easy books to interpret but full of wisdom about our relationship with God and with one another.

The rest of the Old Testament is given over to the prophets, major and minor. Major and minor refer to the length of the books they left, not their importance. There are four major ones and twelve minor ones, all worth reading. Of the major ones, Daniel who lived in exile in Babylon is perhaps the easiest, as the first six chapters tell stories about him and his three friends. The second six chapters are more like Revelation. Isaiah is long but there are many prophecies of Messiah that are full of interest and plenty of encouraging verses about the future. Jeremiah and Ezekiel are among the most difficult books to read but are worth reading for the way they point forward to Christ. Where would we be without Jeremiah 31 or Ezekiel 36? With Jeremiah there is a bonus - a little book called Lamentations, a lament over the destruction of Jerusalem. Right in the middle there are some tremendously encouraging words about how great is God's faithfulness.

The last twelve books are all prophets. The Book of Jonah is the best known. It is different to the others and is well known for how it tells the story of Jonah being sent to Nineveh, refusing to go, then being first swallowed then vomited out by a great fish. The other minor prophets, with strange names like Habakkuk or Haggai, are all worth reading too. The first, Hosea, is all about the love of God. Most of the minor prophets are short. Obadiah is only one chapter. It is not always clear who prophesied when but the last three, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi, all prophesied after the return from exile. It would be another four hundred years after the last of these before John the Baptist began to prophesy and make way for Messiah Jesus.

How many?

So how many of these sixty-six have you read? How many of them do you know well? They are the most important sixty-six books in existence. Some are more important than others, it is true, but all are God breathed and have something important to teach us about the Lord Jesus Christ and serving him. Do not allow the dust to gather on these amazing books. Read them and read them again. They will be more valuable to you than anything by Dickens or Tolstoy, as great as those writers were, or even Calvin or Spurgeon for that matter. If you never get to read The Great Gatsby or Brave New World it is a pity but if you neglect these sixty-six books it will be a tragedy indeed.

In 2014 Andy Miller published The Year of reading dangerously where he describes how he read some fifty books he had never got round to reading before. How did he do it? Just by getting on with it. There was no big secret. What about you and these sixty-six? If you read three or four chapters a day, you could easily read all sixty-six in a year. There are various plans that will take you through all the books in a shorter or longer period. You will never regret time spent reading them. So get started today.

This article first appeared in In Writing

Causes of Salvation in Reformed Thinking

This article first appeared in The Banner of Truth Magazine

In 1896, a collection of sermons by Southern Presbyterians appeared. Alongside the work of Dabney, Palmer, Girardeau and others is a sermon by a now forgotten minister called Walter William Moore (1857-1926). His sermon on James 1:18 is called The three causes of salvation. (Southern Presbyterian pulpit: a collection ..., Presbyterian Committee of Publication, Richmond Va, 1896, pp 277-286)

Moore was professor of Hebrew at Union Seminary, Virginia and a leading Southern Presbyterian in the first quarter of the twentieth century. In 1904 he became the first president of Union and in 1908, moderator of the General Assembly. Author of several books, in 1897 he delivered the Stone Lectures at Princeton Seminary, as well as a number of other prestigious lecture series.

James 1:18, Moore tells us, reveals three things about our salvation - the source (Of his own will begat he us); the means (with the word of truth); the object (that we should be a kind of first-fruits of his creatures.). He reminds us how philosophical writers are accustomed to distinguish three kinds of cause – efficient, instrumental, final. The efficient cause is the power that produces the result and without which no result can be produced; the instrumental cause, the means by which the power is applied; the final cause, the object contemplated in producing the effect

With a train, the efficient cause of motion is steam; the instrumental cause, the engine; the final cause, the transportation of passengers or produce. The efficient cause of a letter is the writer; the instrumental cause, the pen; the final cause, why it was written. When a tree is felled, the efficient cause is the one who chops it down; the instrumental cause, the axe; the final cause, the purpose for which the tree is felled.

When it comes to redemption, Moore says, leaning on Calvin, the efficient cause is God. The power that regenerates a human soul is nothing less than divine. He demonstrates this from his text and other Scriptures. The instrumental cause is God's Word. The Word has no power in itself, the Spirit must activate it but it is the instrument God uses to save. The final cause, from man's side, is That we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures. Moore explains the Old Testament background and says the great idea in connection with firstfruits is consecration, absolute devotion to God's service. James is saying that the object of our salvation is consecration to God's service.

For what purpose, then, are sinners saved? That they may finally escape the punishment due them for their sins? Yes, but that is secondary. That they may finally attain to the happiness of heaven? Yes, but that is secondary. The primary object of our salvation is consecration to God's service (p 285)

Calvin

If this way of considering salvation sounds unfamiliar, this was not the case in the past. Moore acknowledges that the roots of his method lie with the philosophers and with Calvin. In The Institutes, focusing on Romans 3:24-29 rather than on James, Calvin makes a fourfold rather than threefold distinction. He writes, with regard to our salvation, of

• The efficient cause - the Triune God and his grace. He alone is the author and executor of our salvation. Without the Father's love, there would be no salvation.

• The material cause - Christ and his righteousness alone. His righteousness is the ‘material’ granted to us as the substance of our salvation. The Son's obedience is crucial.

• The sole instrumental cause - faith. Faith alone, which comes through the illumination of the Spirit, is the tool God uses to grant us the salvation stored up in Christ.

• The final cause or purpose for granting us this salvation - that God might manifest his righteousness as the God who is just and justifies his people. That is, the final cause is the revelation of God’s glory.

(John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 3.14.17. Library of Christian Classics, John T MacNeil, Ford Lewis Battles, Presbyterian Publishing Corporation, UK, 1960)

Reformer Zacharias Ursinus (1534-1583) is similar

We must observe, therefore, that it cannot be said that we are justified in the same sense by the grace of God, by the merits of Christ and by faith. The first must be understood of the moving cause, which is in God; the second of the formal cause, which is in Christ and the third of the instrumental cause, which is in us. We are justified by the mercy or grace of God as the chief moving cause, by which God was led to justify and save us; justified by the merits of Christ, partly as by the formal cause of our justification, inasmuch as God accepts of us in view of the obedience of Christ applied unto us and accounts us as righteous seeing that we are covered with this as with a garment and partly as the moving and meritorious cause, inasmuch as God on account of this acquits and frees us from the condemnation of the law. We are justified by faith as by an instrumental cause by which we apprehend the righteousness of Christ imputed unto us.

(Zacharias Ursinus, Commentary … on the Heidelberg Catechism, USA, 1888 edition, p 331)

Aristotle

This way of thinking is based on the way Aristotle and his successors taught and is everywhere in Reformed teaching.

For Aristotle there were four types of cause to any event. Take a sculptor making a sculpture for example.

• The efficient cause - the person who will carry out the project, the sculptor.

• The formal cause - the idea for the sculpture that the person has in his head, the form he intends the block of stone to take.

• There is also the material cause - the block of stone, the actual material that will be the substance of the sculpture.

• Last, the final cause - this is the purpose for which the whole project was conceived.
  
  

These are obviously not all causes in the same sense, but the word cause is applied to all four aspects as without any one of them the sculpture would not exist. After Aristotle, people spoke also of the instrumental cause, which equates to the tool that the sculptor uses to make the statue.

Obviously, one needs to be careful when making use of a secular method but as an analytical tool this one is clearly very useful.

Puritans and their contemporaries

This way of thinking and expounding is common enough among the Puritans and their contemporaries. Here are some examples.

In 1609 in The highway to heaven by Royalist Thomas Tuke (c 1580-1657) speaks of five or more causes. (Thomas Tuke, The Highway to Heaven; or the doctrine of Election, etc, Nicholas Okes, London, 1609). These are the internal impulsive cause leading to justification, which is God's grace and benevolence; the external impulsive or meritorious efficient cause, which is not our own works, virtues or obedience but Christ by his obedience; the material cause, in two parts, - remission of sins and God’s accepting of us as righteous men; the formal cause, “the free imputation of Christ’s righteousness, by which Christ’s merit and obedience are applied to us by virtue of that near communion whereby he is in us and we in him; the final cause: in respect of God, his glory “in an admirable composition of justice and mercy”; in respect of ourselves: that we may be pleasing to God, having peace of conscience and true tranquillity of mind and true piety.

In his major treatise, On Justification of 1633, George Downame (c 1566-1634), Bishop of Derry and one of the best Aristotelians of his time, sets out the efficient causes of justification, saying that the efficient cause is principally God himself and instrumentally, on one hand, God's Word and sacraments and, on the other, our faith in Jesus Christ. He says

when we say that faith does justify, we do not mean that it justifies absolutely or in respect of its own worth and dignity; and much less, that it does merit justification, either as it is an habit, or as it is an act, but relatively in respect of the object which it does apprehend, that is, Christ, who is our righteousness. (George Downame, A treatise of justification, Felix Kyngston for Nicolas Bourne, London, 1633, p 14)

The often pithy Anglican commentator John Trapp (1601-1669), looking at Romans 3, says “men are said to be justified effectively by God, apprehensively by faith, declaratively by good works.” (John Trapp, A Commentary Or Exposition Upon All the Books of the New Testament Wherein the Text is Explained, Some Controversies Discussed, etc, RW to be sold by Nath. Ekins, London, 1656,)

In a body of divinity published by prolific lay writer Edward Leigh (1602-1671) in 1654, a similar approach is found, this time with four elements. In Chapter 7 of that work it says “God justifies judicially, Christ’s blood meritoriously, Faith instrumentally, Works declaratively (Romans 3:24,28 and 4:5; Mark 5:36; Luke 8:50; Acts 13:39).” (Edward Leigh, A systeme or body of divinity consisting of 10 books, etc, AM for William Lee, London, 1654, p 528).

The Christian in complete armour by William Gurnall (c 1616-1679) is rightly famous. Early in that work he says of justification that the moving cause is the free mercy of God; the meritorious one, the blood of Christ and the instrumental one, “faith with all the sweet privileges that flow from it.” (William Gurnall The Christian in Complete Armour: A Treatise of the Saints' War Against the Devil, Wherein … etc. Edinburgh, 1865 edition, p 95).

John Owen (1616-1683), writing in 1674 on the Holy Spirit, is again similar

The purging of the souls of them that believe from the defilements of sin is, in the Scripture, assigned unto several causes of different kinds; for the Holy Spirit, the blood of Christ, faith, and afflictions, are all said to cleanse us from our sins, but in several ways, and with distinct kinds of efficacy. The Holy Spirit is said to do it as the principal efficient cause; the blood of Christ as the meritorious procuring cause; faith and affliction as the instrumental causes – the one direct and internal, the other external and occasional. (John Owen, A Discourse Concerning the Holy Spirit. See Works Vols 3 and 4. See Chapter 5 Book 4)

There is also a place where the author of Pilgrim's Progress, John Bunyan (1628-1688) says that Christians must warily distinguish betwixt the instrumental and the meritorious cause of justification. The latter is Christ, with what he has done and suffered. (John Bunyan, Salvation by grace, 1675. See Works Vol 1. See Section IX on Justification by faith).

In 1692 Walter Marshall (1616), in a sermon opening and applying the doctrine of justification, made the causes five, speaking not only of God being the efficient cause and faith being the instrumental cause but also of the impulsive cause being grace; the means effecting or material cause, the redemption of Christ and the formal cause, the remission of sins (Walter Marshall, The Gospel Mystery of Sanctification: Growing in Holiness by Living in Union with Christ Parkhurst, UK, 1692. See Appendix, The Doctrine of Justification Opened and Applied).

Later writers

This way of proceeding can be traced down the years in the works of many good reformed writers. Again, some examples.

In 1740, a brief collection of sermons by George Whitefield (1714-1770) was published. The volume contained an opening address on Whitefield by Josiah Smith (1704-1781) of Charleston, South Carolina. In the course of describing Whitefield's preaching, he says that he, on one hand,

earnestly contended for our justification as the free gift of God, by faith alone, in the blood of Christ, an article of faith delivered to the saints of old.

and on the other

took special care to guard against the licentious abuse of it, and would not make void the law, when he asserted that good works were the necessary fruits and evidences of true faith. 

He told people plainly

and with the clearest distinction, that a man was justified these three ways; meritoriously by Christ, instrumentally by faith alone, declaratively by good works. (George Whitefield, Fifteen sermons preached on various important subjects … To which is prefixed, a sermon, on ... Whitefield. By Joseph [ie Josiah] Smith VDM, Mathew Carey, 118, Market-St, Philadelphia, 1794. See p 14)

There is a similar reference to Calvinistic Methodist Martin Madan (1725-1790) in the works of Wesleyan Methodist John Fletcher of Madeley (1729-1785). In a 1773 work we read

By Christ only are we meritoriously justified, and by faith only are we instrumentally justified in the sight of God; but by works, and not by faith only, are we declaratively justified before men and angels (Martin Madan quoted in John Fletcher, Five checks to Antinomianism. See Works, p 239). 

In 1840, Canadian Presbyterian James Bennet wrote of justification (James Bennet, Justification as revealed in Scripture, in opposition to the Council of Trent, and Mr. Newman's lectures Hamilton, Adams & Co, UK, 1840,)

• The material cause is not the inner man made holy as Trent decreed but Christ or his perfect righteous.
• The instrumental cause is faith that lays hold of this hope to unite us with One who cannot but be justified.
• The meritorious cause is the Saviour who has deserved that all whom he lays hold of and who apprehend that for which they are apprehended should be treated as himself.
• The efficient cause is the whole Deity ….
• The final cause is the glory of God for which all things but especially moral and accountable agents exist …. that grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.

Preaching on John 18:37, American Presbyterian Charles Seymour Robinson (1829-1899) says of salvation

The original cause is the grace of God; the meritorious cause is Christ's atonement; the efficient cause is the Holy Ghost; but the instrumental cause is the "Word of truth" (John 15:8), and faith therein (https://biblehub.com/sermons/john/18-37.htm (accessed July 18, 2024)).

In 1859 the Strict Baptist George Wyard (1803-1873) said that salvation has several parts - “its moving cause is love, the love of God; its meritorious cause is blood, the blood of Christ; its efficient cause power, the power of the Spirit.” In other places he puts it differently, for example later expanding on this and adding to the meritorious and material cause of it, which is the blood and righteousness of the Lord Jesus and the efficient and applying cause of it, the Holy Ghost,

The enjoying and realising cause, faith in the Son of God by the Spirit; the promoting and confirming cause, the word of life through the Spirit and the ultimate and final cause, everlasting happiness with and complete conformity to Christ in eternal glory, for whom God justifies he glorifies. (George Wyard A series of pastoral letters ... on the leading doctrines of the gospel UK, 1859, pp 44, 74)

A more modern example of this sort of statement is that of A W Pink (1886-1952). In A Fourfold Salvation, written in 1938, he writes of salvation that the ...

Originating cause is the eternal purpose of God, or, in other words, the predestinating grace of the Father.

Meritorious cause is the mediation of Christ, this having particular respect to the legal side of things, or, in other words, His fully meeting the demands of the law on the behalf and in the stead of those he redeems.

Efficient cause is the regenerating and sanctifying operations of the Holy Spirit, which respect the experimental side of it, or, in other words, the Spirit works in us what Christ purchased for us. Thus, we owe our personal salvation equally to each Person in the Trinity, and not to one (the Son) more than to the others.

Instrumental cause is our faith, obedience, and perseverance; though we are not saved because of them, equally true is it that we cannot be saved (according to God’s appointment) without them.

(A W Pink, A Fourfold Salvation, Vol 17 No 7 Studies in the Scriptures, Sovereign Grace Publishers, 1938, p 20)

A final example would be that of R C Sproul (1939-2017) who also distinguishes causes in order to help us understand and maintain the unique role of faith. One way to think of these causes, he says, is to view them as various layers of the answer to the question, “Why are we saved?” There are four answers to this one question.

1. God determined to save us by his grace.
2. Christ and his righteousness.
3. Faith in Christ, not our own works.
4. That God might be glorified.

Each has its own place, if understood correctly. And each must stay in its own place to be understood correctly. He says that the causes of eternal salvation are three.

Efficient cause – it is always said in Scripture to be the mercy and free love of the heavenly Father towards us who believe.

Material cause - Christ, with the obedience by which he purchased righteousness for believers.
Instrumental cause - must be faith. He quotes Calvin, “Faith is thus the instrumental cause by which righteousness is applied to us.”

(R C Sproul https://www.ligonier.org/learn/series/what-is-reformed-theology/faith-alone-part-2#: ~:text=The%20Reformers%20said%20that%20the,Christ%20is%20given%20to%20us.

Accessed July 18, 2024)

This way of approach has perhaps been forgotten by some today but, in its various forms, it is worth re-examining as a useful tool for explicating the Reformed understanding of salvation.

Candle in the wind conscience in natural man Part 2

Keep listening 

Although the conscience of the unbeliever is imperfect and fallible he ought to be encouraged to listen to it. Like a Supreme Court judgement or one from the House of Lords (or should we say Strasbourg?) the conscience speaks categorically and absolutely. There is no room for further appeal. (11 Kant spoke of conscience as the "Categorical imperative". A Professor Shairp in the 19th century spoke of it as "The absolute in the soul". In his "Sermon on Human Nature" Butler says that "without being consulted" the conscience magisterially asserts itself in approving or condemning), In each case conscience must be followed. At one point in his Christian Directory Richard Baxter opposes this view. (Richard Baxter, Christian Directory, Soli Deo Gloria Reprint, Grand Direction X: " ... There is a dangerous error. .. that a man is bound to do everything which his conscience telleth him is the will of God and that every man must obey his conscience as if it were the lawgiver of the world, whereas indeed it is not ourselves but God who is our lawgiver. Conscience is not authorised to make us any duty which God bath not made us, only to discern the law of God and call upon us to observe it: an erring conscience is not to be obeyed, but to be better informed.") He calls it a dangerous error to think that the conscience must always be followed. What about when the conscience is misinformed? One recognises his point but once you begin to ignore or disobey your conscience, confusion and trouble are bound to follow. Surely Luther's famous dictum is correct, "To act against conscience is neither right nor safe". Matthew Henry agrees, "We must never be over-awed either by majesty or multitude to do a sinful thing and go against our consciences." It is surely never right for a man to do what he believes to be wrong. "Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves" (Romans 14:22).

There is a dilemma here of course. RC Sproul has dubbed it the "double jeopardy dilemma". (R C Sproul, Right and Wrong: Ethics and the Christian Today, Scripture Union, 1986, p. 93). If we follow conscience into sin we are guilty. Yet to act against conscience is also a sin. This is not to support the Roman Catholic idea of what is called invincible ignorance, rather it is to stress that it is imperative that all men seek to conform their moral record to the revealed will of God. When we mention Luther's dictum quoted above we must remember that he began by saying "My conscience is captive to the Word of God". It is not enough to set your watch by the kitchen clock, you must also be sure that the clock is conforming to the astronomical standards of time. Bishop Charles Gore, the first Bishop of Birmingham, got it right when he said "Man's first duty is to enlighten his conscience not to follow it". Do not waste time and cause damage by endeavouring to get anyone to act against their conscience. Instead concentrate on encouraging them to keep their moral record informed by the Word of God. Listening to your conscience is not a problem. It is a good thing. It is in the inadequacies of the moral record that the problem lies.

The content

We can understand, then, why John Knox could say to Mary, Queen of Scots, that her conscience was useless- because it was not properly informed! What matters so much is the content of the moral standard to which conscience bears witness. Jiminy Cricket's advice in song "always follow your conscience" is fine as far as it goes, but what good is it if my moral record is ill-informed?

Oswald Chambers points out in his book on Biblical psychology that to speak of educating the conscience is half truth, half error. As A H Strong puts it, conscience itself can only be educated "in the sense of acquiring greater facility and quickness in making decisions". (Chambers p 219, Strong p 500).

Chambers uses the illustration of the effects of coloured light. We need the pure white light of Jesus Christ shining in our hearts if we are ever to see things as they really are. The education we need is for God's requirements to be laid on our hearts.

Similarly, in his book on Ethics, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the German theologian who died at the hands of the Gestapo, speaks of people in his day who said, "Adolf Hitler is my conscience". By that they meant that the Fiihrer was their moral standard. The ramifications of such a hopeless statement are now obvious to all. Rather, as Bonhoeffer rightly says, people should say, "Jesus Christ is my conscience".

The high court of conscience is not the highest court, it can only look to a higher one, the law of God itself. Paul makes this clear in 1 Corinthians 4:4, My conscience is clear, but that does not make me innocent. It is the Lord who judges me. (The apostle is a notorious example, before his conversion, of an excusing conscience where his actions were anything but pleasing to God. Cf. Acts 23:1, 26:9; Philippians 3:4-6; 2 Timothy 1 :3; John 16:2).

As Herman Ridderbos and many of the older Reformed commentators point out, the reference here is not so much to the inadequacy of conscience but to the importance of the coming judgment. (Ridderbos, Pauline Theology, p 292ff.). What matters is not what our peers think or what other men think. Not even what we think ourselves. What matters is God's verdict. However, the verse also implies the imperfect nature of the conscience and this ought to be remembered. The judgment of conscience does not mean the end of all dispute - something to which those who break the law in just causes ought to give careful thought.

The healthy conscience is often consistent, although never infallible. A healthy conscience is not easily fooled. It is stubborn. It is not swayed by popular opinion or fear of danger. Obstinate, persistent and inflexible your conscience is a good friend to have when it is right, but it is a real handicap otherwise. A misinformed conscience can lead you into big trouble and also cause harm to others. It is something like a magnetic compass. While the needle points to magnetic north all is well. But if at some stage you enter a strong magnetic field which is not that of the earth itself disaster may well follow if you continue to rely on that compass. Or to put it another way, following your nose is a good way to get to a place, but first you have to point your nose in the right direction!

Resistible

Another problem with the conscience, even the well informed conscience, is that although it is usually persistent it can be resisted. The conscience can pursue a man for crimes committed decades ago. Even the memory of a relatively minor misdemeanour can haunt a person for years. "The torture of a bad conscience is the hell of a living soul" wrote Calvin. "I would bear any affliction rather than be burdened with a guilty conscience" said Spurgeon. Thunderbolts, tornadoes, a dungeon full of snakes, being burnt at the stake- all were preferable to him. (C H Spurgeon, see the entry under "Conscience" in Tom Carter, Spurgeon at his Best, Baker Book House, 1988).

Some people have even taken their own lives rather than live with their accusing conscience. The conscience truly is, at times, "an awesome force with which to reckon" (Rudnick, p 127). Nevertheless, it can be resisted. If it cannot be ignored it can still be defied. An active conscience will guarantee nothing. If desensitised enough it can even be hardened to the point where it virtually ceases to function.

Inadequate yet an ally

We need a balanced view of the strengths and weaknesses of conscience. On the one hand, the conscience is inadequate to save a man.

"Did any man's conscience, unenlightened by the Spirit, ever tell him that his sins deserved damnation?" asks Spurgeon. "Did it ever lead any man to feel an abhorrence of sin as sin? Did conscience ever bring a man to such self-renunciation that he totally abhorred himself and all his works and came to Christ?"

Such questions have to be answered in the negative. The conscience is not the same as God's own Word.

On the other hand, the conscience is still a God-given gift witnessing to the state of our relationship with our Maker. It is an eternal voice speaking into this temporal life, "a certain mean between man and God", "a line connecting man to his Creator". (The phrases are those of Calvin and P E Hughes respectively.) Every man has a conscience, even total pagans. In each case the conscience is a potential ally, a fifth columnist, in the war to recapture the souls oflost men and women. Thanks be to God for the conscience!

Gary Brady BA is the minister of Childs Hill Baptist Church, London

Candle in the wind conscience in natural man Part 1

This article originally appeared in Fouondations

Matthew Henry speaks of conscience somewhere as, "the candle of the Lord which was not quite put out". Though it is not God's voice as such, the conscience, including the moral record in the heart and a man's mind or opinion, is a good gift from God. However, like every other good gift from God, the conscience has been affected by the Fall of man. George Washington spoke of the conscience as "that little spark of celestial fire" and the Puritan George Swinnock called it a "deputy deity in the little world man". Such expressions are acceptable as long as we remember that conscience is only a spark and the deputy is a fallible deputy at best.

Fallen

It has been denied by some but it is a fact that man had a conscience, that is a moral faculty, even before the Fall. The way Eve responded to the serpent by stating God's command concerning the tree of the knowledge of good and evil shows this. When Adam and Eve fell man fell. When man fell his conscience fell too. The Dutch theologian G C Berkouwer, in his work on the doctrine of man, rightly insists that any inclination to good characteristic of the conscience is:

dispelled by the reality of man's inclination to evil. .. We can never look to conscience as something which enables man to retain a relative goodness in a special organ standing outside the effects of corruption. (G C Berkouwer, Man: The Image of God, Eerdmans, 1962, p.170)

Similarly, the great Jonathan Edwards though he spoke of the natural conscience as being "as it were, in God's stead, as an internal Judge" yet he also argues very strongly in many places for the biblical doctrines of original sin and total depravity. In a sermon on Hosea 5:15 he says, Natural conscience remains, but sin, in a great degree, stupefies it, and hinders it in its work. (See Jonathan Edwards in Nature of True Virtue and On Original Sin and sermon, p. 61 in Select Works, Vol. 11, Banner of Truth Trust, 1958, quoted and summarised in REO White, The Changing Continuity of Christian Ethics 2 volumes. Paternoster Press, 1981, 2:259,260).

This is one reason why in the 19th century Scots holiness teacher Oswald Chambers, German Lutheran Franz Delitzsch, English doctor Alfred Schofield and others who wrote on the conscience all insisted that it is wrong to speak of conscience as the voice of God. Similarly, A H Strong, in his Systematic Theology, quotes D W Faunce approvingly, Conscience is not God - it is only part of one's self. To build up a religion about one's conscience as if it were God is only a refined selfishness. (A H Strong, Systematic Theology, Pickering & Inglis, 1962, reprint of 1907 edition, p. 501).

Chambers says "If conscience were the 'voice of God' it would be the most contradictory voice ever heard." To demonstrate this he instances the conscience of a Hindu mother and that of a Christian mother. (Oswald Chambers, Biblical Psychology, London, 1912, p. 217).

Schofield asserts that conscience is no more God's voice than the piano is Paderewski's voice. It will respond to a little girl's touch as much as to the master's. (A T Schofield, The Springs of Character, London, p 198).

Conscience is not the single virtue untainted by the Fall. Every faculty in every man is affected by the sin of our father Adam. We are separated from God. His image in man has been defaced, shattered. Just like all God's other gifts conscience is misused, abused and defective. This is true also of the record of God's requirements in our hearts (the moral record) and our capacity to think correctly (the mind).

The moral record

The mediaeval Roman Catholic scholar Aquinas spoke not of the moral record but of sunteresis or synderesis. The word was apparently first used by the Greek church father Origen to denote man's nature or the remnant of the image of God after the Fall. Aquinas held that this faculty, which supplied moral principles, was itself infallible. Later this idea was upheld by certain mystics but denied by the Jesuits who were happy to supply its place with their own rules. Although the term synderesis was used by the Puritans there was no suggestion that it was anything less than fallible. When Paul says in Romans 2:15 that the Gentiles have the requirements of God's Law written on their hearts he cannot be suggesting that each individual is born with an innate and thorough knowledge of God's Law. If that were so why would there have been any need for the revelation at Sinai? Paul is not holding up the very limited conformity of the Gentiles as a moral example. The point he is driving at, in fact, is that "there is none righteous, no not one" (Romans 3:10). As Professor John Murray points out in his commentary on Romans, Paul specifically states that it is the requirements of the Law that are written in men's hearts. (See John Murray, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans, New International Commentary on the New Testament, Eerdmans, 1955-65. In other words, everyone has some idea of right and wrong, but not a clear idea of God's holy law. Even if fallen man's conscience functioned perfectly it would not be bearing witness to a full and accurate record of God's commands. Thus in John Bunyan's classic, but lesser known allegory, The Holy War, we read that Mr Mind had only, "some old and rent and torn parchments of the law of good Shaddai in his house". (John Bunyan, The Holy War in Works, 3 volumes, Baker Book House, 1977 reprint of 1875 edition, first published 1682, 3:263) We should not be surprised, therefore, to find men not only excusing and defending themselves for things such as murder, idolatry and immorality contrary to God's Law; but also condemning themselves for eating meat or travelling in a car or missing mass, things not forbidden in the Law. Conscience itself is a witness not a lawmaker. It can only act on the evidence available and the known law.lt is like a skylight not a light bulb, a means of knowledge not a source. It refers us back to our own moral standard and urges us, with varying strength, to comply. If our moral record is faulty, proper obedience to God will be impossible. There are a number of contenders for the role of chief informant to the moral record. Tradition and trends vie with the truth. This is the reason sometimes for inward confusion and conflict. In his Bishop Sanderson Lectures, Christopher Wordsworth warns against following the example of men however learned or pious they may be. We must teach our consciences not to consider highest the opinions of others or even our own opinions as such but the Word of God.

Conscience proper

The conscience itself is also imperfect, of course. It is not useless, but it is unreliable. It can be variable, deceived, corrupted, intermittent or simply unable to cope with complex issues. Bunyan has Mr Conscience as the town recorder. After the fall of the town of Mansoul he would have terrible fits at times when he would "make the whole town of Mansoul shake with his voice" and yet at other times he would say nothing at all. (Bunyan 3:261) We can all identify with that state of affairs. Speaking of this element in conscience Oswald Chambers uses the illustration of what Ruskin called "innocence of sight". Artists are usually trained to paint what they see, not what they believe is there. The fallen conscience is like an untrained artist, it makes the mistake of not recording exactly what it sees. There is always a distortion.

The mind

Further, when conscience's faulty message is assessed in a man's thoughts he often suppresses it or finds other ways of ignoring it. In Holy War terms Mansoul becomes convinced that Mr Conscience is mad and not worth listening to. We see "the whole town in a rage and fury against the old gentleman". "Yea" says Bunyan "the rascal crew at some times would be for destroying him". (Bunyan 3:262) John 3:19-21 reminds us of the usual reaction of the fallen conscience.

God's spy

Everyone has a moral awareness. Anthropologists have failed to discover a totally amoral society. All realise there is right and there is wrong. The beginning of Paul's argument in his letter to the Romans makes clear that even unbelievers know there is a God, a God who will judge them concerning right and wrong. Therefore, even though the information available to the conscience is incomplete "the echo of the voice of God" does reach them. Jacques Ellul notes that, "The protests that indignity and injustice evoke from unbelievers as well as Christians indicate that the voice of conscience has not been utterly silenced and obliterated." (Ellul, quoted by P E Hughes, Christian Ethics in Secular Society, Baker Book House, 1983, p. 33).

It is important for believers to remember this. God has a "spy" in the hearts of unbelievers, what Thomas Brooks called "a preacher in the bosom". The conscience, however imperfectly, gives a man at least some idea of what God thinks of him and of his actions. Of course, the better informed a man's conscience the better the preaching; the more effective the espionage. This is why the unbeliever so often studiously avoids going to church or reading the Bible or having contact with Christians. He wants to "turn down the volume" or "do a deal" with his conscience. He will do almost anything to pacify it. We can almost always reckon on a man having a conscience that is active in some area. It is important for Christians to bear this in mind when witnessing to unbelievers. Where a man's conscience is relatively healthy we have an ally on the inside. As we bear witness to the truth from without, so does conscience within. Like Paul, we should aim to set forth the truth plainly, commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God (see 2 Corinthians 4:2). We seek to enlighten the conscience of the unbeliever with the lamp of God's Word.

What is the conscience? Part 2 (First of two articles in parts)

Complexity

Before we come to a formal definition perhaps we should warn against the temptation of thinking about the conscience simplistically. Whatever it is, the conscience is something complex. Recognising this, some of the Puritans allowed their imaginations free rein in order to describe the worlcings of conscience. William Perkins speaks of conscience being assisted by mind, the storehouse and keeper of rules and principles and by memory, the recaller of omissions and commissions.

In THE HOLY WAR Bunyan is even more elaborate with Mr Conscience the Towncrier who goes mad. Richard Sibbes says, 'God hath set and planted in man this court of conscience, and it is God's hall, as it were, where he keeps his first judgement .... his assizes. And conscience doth all the parts. It registereth, it witnesseth, it judgeth, it executes, it doth all. ' (Quoted by Packer, AMONG GOD'S GIANTS, Kingsway, Eastbourne, 1991, pp 143, 145). Such pictures are helpful as long as we keep in mind the complex mysteries involved. The worlcings of conscience include the process of perceiving what is required, assessing this and then deciding how to proceed or what judgement to give on the subject. This culminates in an over-riding impression of 'ought' or 'ought not'. Although this may happen very quickly a host of mental perceptions and emotions are involved. For instance there is the comprehension of right and wrong; using the memory, mind and will; a resulting complacency, delight or pride, on the one hand;or disquiet, shame and pain on the other as reward or punishment is contemplated.

The breadth of mental and emotional intetplay involved can be gauged from the variety of legitimate illustrations employed by different writers in their attempts to bring out the manifold character of conscience. These include spy, watchdog, monitor, bloodhound, window, skylight, mirror, pope, lash, sword, barometer, sundial, alarm clock, plumbline, sense of taste etc! These various illustrations highlight the fact that conscience cannot be thought of as a simple mechanism or reflex.

Definition

Now we come to a definition. It is clear that when the Bible speaks about the conscience it is really speaking about the heart or soul or spirit itself. More definitely, it is referring to a particular aspect of the soul or, better, the soul's worlcings. We should not think of the conscience as a department of man's personality or a faculty of his soul. It is useful to speak of it in these terms for the purposes of study but it is important to realise that the conscience is, in fact, simply one aspect of man's personality, one function of his soul, namely the moral worlcing or reasoning. Hence the complexity we have spoken of. Hence the way in which the Bible is willing to talk about the heart rather than using the more specific term, the conscience. The 'joint knowledge' is not necessarily something shared with God himself. Rather it is a knowledge we share with ourselves. Put simply, the conscience is man's power of self-reflection and of self-criticism. It is the moral reason. American Milton Rudnick helpfully defines it as, 'the self in the process of ethical deliberation and evaluation ... '. He says, 'It is not someone or something else worlcing in or u~ man, but the moral self at worlc, involving all of a man's rational and emotional faculties.' (Milton Rudnick, CHRISTIAN ETHICS FOR TODAY, Baker, Gtand Rapids, 1979, pp 125,126). In Sibbes' words, 'The soul reflecting upon itself.' We can agree, too, with Kenneth Kirlc who, earlier this century, wrote, 'The exigencies of language force us often enough to speak of conscience as a distinct entity; but we must continually remind ourselves that it is no such thing ... conscience is myself so far as I am a moral man. ' (8 Kenneth Kirk CONSCIENCE AND ITS PROBLEMS, Longmans, London, p 57).

Conscience is remarlcable. It is one of the things that distinguishes us from the animals. In his mid-twentieth century classic on the subject Norwegian Ole Hallesby writes, 'It is through the conscience that man acquires a consciousness of his humanity and is thus distinguished from the brute ... This ... is very remarlcable. A sort of doubling of our personality takes place. The 'I' takes a position, so to speak, outside of itself. .. it then pronounces judgment upon itself ... Then follows the most remarlcable result of all. The judgment which the 'I' pronounces upon the 'I' is entirely objective and unbiased ... at the judgment bar of conscience it is the accused person himself who passes judgment. ' (9 0 Hallesby, CONSCIENCE, (tmns. C J Carlsen), NF, London, 1950, p 11). As remarkable as the conscience is we must not place it above other abilities, however. As R L Dabney points out in his PRACTICAL PHILOSOPHY conscience is not a separate faculty. Why should we think of our ability to judge ourselves as somehow essentially different from our ability to judge others? It is only the filet that we ourselves are involved that makes us feel the process is so much more rematkable. (R L Dabney, THE PRACTICAL PHILOSOPHY, 1897, Sprinkle Reprint 1984, pp 282, 283).

Romans 2:14,15

The nearest the New Testament comes to anything like a definition of conscience is in Romans 2:14,15. A number of things emerge from these verses.

Firstly, everyone has a conscience, even pagans. The conscience belongs to man as man. These verses also help us to distinguish and identify the elements involved in making a moral decision. Although the word conscience is often used to refer to the whole process of making moral decisions there are in fact at least three clearly identifiable strands in the process.

1. The requirements of the Law of God which are written on every man's heart. The Moral Record.

2. The conscience itself which makes its judgments on the basis of the preceding element. The Conscience Proper.

3. A man's thoughts, his opinions. These come as he makes a decision on the basis of the mediation of his conscience. The Mind or Opinion.

When we use the word conscience, therefore, we should really restrict it to this second aspect of moral decision making, although it is easy to see why the word is also used for the whole process. The Dutchman, Willem A Brakel wrote of the three elements as knowledge (ie of God's will and law), witness (ie of conformity or lack of it) and acknowledgement (ie of deserving punishment or reward). (W A'Brakel, THE CHRISTIAN'S REASONABLE SERVICE, SDG, p 317).  This corresponds to the Puritan idea, gleaned from Aquinas and the Schoolmen, of the conscience worlcing syllogistically. A syllogism is an inference from two premises, one major and one minor. The Puritans spoke of syllogisms of duty and syllogisms concerning our state before God. Jim Packer gives an example of the former in an essay on the Puritan Conscience, 'God forbids me to steal (major premise) To take this money would be stealing (minor premise) Therefore I must not take this money (conclusion)' He also quotes two from Ames concerning our state before God, 'He that lives in sinne, shall dye: I live in sinne, therefore I shall dye.' 'Whosoever believes in Christ, shall not dye but live. I believe in Christ; therefore I shall not yie but live.' (Packer, p 143)

The major premise corresponds to the moral record (referred to as sunteresis or 'nature'), the minor one to the conscience proper (suneidesis). The conclusion is the work of the mind, defending or accusing. Some would suppose that the conscience only acts in a negative, condemning way. One twentieth century theologian spoke of it as 'alien, dark, hostile and sinister'. This may have been the Greek view but Paul points out that there are times when even the Gentile conscience can provoke thoughts which excuse as well as accuse. A person can have either a 'bad conscience' or a 'good conscience'. (Strictly speaking, of course, it is not the conscience that is good or bad, any more than a barometer is bad if it correctly predicts stormy weather.)

Certainly a Christian can have a good conscience. This is clear from 2 Corinthians 1:12 and 1 Timothy 1:19, for instance. Romans 2:14,15 plainly teaches the moral responsibility of all men. As Waiter Chantry has observed, 'Conscience alone has witnessed sufficiently to the moral law, so that everyone is without excuse.'

Past, Present and Future

It would seem that the judgements of conscience can concern not only past and present but also the future (some would draw this conclusion from Romans 2:14,15 itself). In this latter role conscience acts more like a guide than a judge. Packer speaks of conscience as 'a mentor,prohibiting evil (Acts 24:16, Romans 13:5)' (future), 'a witness declaring facts (Romans 2:15, cf John 3:20f (present) and 'ajudgeassessing desert (Romans 2:15; 9:1; 2 Corinthians 1:12)' (past). Hallesby also observes that conscience is generally at its weakest during sin (present) (Contrast this with, 'Conscience is a cowanl, and those whose faults it has not strength to prevent it seldom has justice enough to accuse.' (Oliver Goldsmith, THE VICAR OF WAKEFIELD, 1766) but at its strongest after the event (past). Conclusion The conscience is not the result of evolution. It is not simply the interiorisation of cultural norms or of social mores. The conscience undoubtedly bears witness to the culture and the morality around about it but this in no way explains its origin or how it functions. Nor is conscience 'the voice of God' except as far as it is part of his general revelation to each individual of the existence of right and wrong and the need for judgement. It is rather what Opperwall labels, 'the internalised voice of those whose judgment of a person counts with him. It is the inner voice that testifies for the moral authorities that we recognise'. (R Opperwall, article on conscience in THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPEDIA, ed G Bromiley, Eenlmans, Grand Rapids, 1975, p 762). Keil says it is, 'not the echo of an immediate divine self-evidence at every moment, but the knowledge of a divine law which every man ... bears in his heart .... an active consciousness of a divine-law established in man's heart ... '. (Keil, pp 162, 165). Thus it is a most important voice, one you dare not ignore. Fallen conscience's judgements are inevitably inadequate, nevertheless they always bear some relation to the coming judgement. The voice is not as loud or as clear as before the Fall but it is still there anticipating, in Bishop Butler's words 'a higher and more effectual sentence which shall hereafter second and affirm its own'. (Bishop Butler, quoted by REO White, p 232). God has given every man a soul. The word conscience refers to that aspect of the soul concerned with morality. The conscience bears witness to the moral record in a person. On the basis of its witness decisions are made about right and wrong. We do not always like the witness that our conscience bears. Sometimes we do not even agree with it. We must all realise, however, 40 that the voice of conscience ought not to be ignored. John MacArthur (John MacArthur Jr, THE VANISHING CONSCIENCE, 1994, p 61) suggests that the conscience may be the most under-appreciated and least understood attribute of humanity. He may well be right. Modern psychology, he goes on to suggest, is more concerned to silence it than to understand it. Let those who seek to make Christ the Lorl of their conscience not do the same.

Rev Gary Brady BA is pastor of Childs Hill Baptist Church, London

'Conscience ... is as essential a part of man's motal nature as feeling is of his physical constitution. It is also like the other noble powers of his mind, indestructible. Neither life nor death, nor time nor eternity, nor the happiness of heaven, nor the misery of hell, will be able to extinguish this spade of momllife within the human breast.' John King,

What is the conscience? Part 1 (First of two articles in parts)

This article first appeared in Foundations

'What are conscience?' is Pinocchio' s question in the Walt Disney adaptation of Collodi's charming children's story. The grammar is wrong but the question is a good one. What is the conscience? Of course, we all have an idea of what conscience is. We all know we have one. We can think, perhaps, of the hard times it has given us. People say 'My conscience is playing on me' or 'My conscience pricked me'. We know what it is to have something 'on your conscience'. We know about a bad or guilty conscience and, hopefully, a good conscience too. However, as one writer points out, 'of the number that make use of the word nineteen in twenty perhaps may be ignorant of its true meaning.' (CA Pierce CONSCIENCE IN THE NEW TESTAMENT, SCM, London 1955 p 5)

He is not exaggerating. Other words found in the Bible are used quite loosely. People still talk about 'living in sin' and use phrases like 'as ugly as sin' or 'more sinned against then sinning'. But how often is the word understood in its Biblical sense, the transgression of God's law? It is the same with the word conscience. The word is seldom used with any precision. In every day use it can have a range of meanings. We are all familiar with the word but how many of us have a carefully defined biblical cocncept of what the conscience is?

A survey of biblical material relating to the conscience and an examination of the Greek word employed in the New Testament will enable us to attempt a biblical definition.

The Old Testament

There is no actual reference to the conscience in the Old Testament. (The LXX translation of Ecclesiastes 10:20 using the Greek word for conscience is a case of mistranslation.)The Hebrews did not seem to find it necessary to use such a term. This was probably because as God's chosen people they received direct revelation from God and so were not as immediately aware of conscience as the Gentiles. Old Testament believers spoke more readily of their hearts reflecting on revelation, as in the Psalms (see Psalms 16:7, 40:8 and 119:11).

Nevertheless, the idea of conscience is certainly present in a number of places and some modem translations introduce the word at certain points. In the opening chapters of Genesis we read that Adam and Eve, following their disobedience, were ashamed of their nakedness and hid in fear at the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day (Genesis 3:8,10). What else is this but the earliest manifestation of man's conscience at worlc? There are other places where the word heart clearly stands for the conscience. Thus in Genesis 20:5,6 the Gentile Abimelech speaks with God. ' .. .I have done this with a clear conscience and clean hands.' Then God speaks to him in a dream, 'Yes, I know you did this with a clear conscience, and so I have kept you from sinning against me.' (NKJV). We also read Job's words, 'I will maintain my righteousness and never let go of it; my conscience will not reproach me as long as I live.' (Job 27:6 NIV).

On at least two occasions David' s conscience is seen to be at worlc. 'And it came about aftetwards that David's conscience bothered him because he had cut off the edge of Saul's robe.' (1 Samuel 24:5 NASB). Also 'David was conscience-stricken after he had counted the fighting men.' (2 Samuel 24:10 NIV), cf Samuel 25:31, 35. Similarly, in Psalms 32, 38 and 51 the conscience is active. Psalm 32:3,4 is descriptive of the pangs of a bad conscience, 'When I kept silent my bones wasted away through my groaning all day long. For day and night your hand was heavy upon me; my strength was sapped as in the heat of summer.' Psalm 38:3-5 is similar and Psalm 51:10 speaks of David's desire for a good conscience ('Create in me a pure heart, O God, etc.') It was on the basis that every man has a conscience that the Law was given and that the prophets preached. A striking example is the way in which Nathan dealt with David following his adultery with Bathsheba (1 Samuel 12). In the story of Joseph and his brothers the conscience plays an important role (see Genesis 42:21). 1 Kings 8:38; Job 4:16,17; Proverbs 20:27 and 28:1 and Ecclesiastes 7:22 are other places where some have detected possible references to the conscience.

The New Testament

In the Gospels there is no direct reference to conscience (excepting the questionable instance of John 8:9 where the word appears in some manuscripts). However, there is reason to believe that there were occasions when the conscience was in view. For example, in Luke 12:57 Jesus asks the people, 'Why don't you judge for yourselves what is right?'. This appeal is directed to .the conscience. Similarly, some writers suggest that in Matthew 6:22,23 where Jesus refers to having a 'single eye' he is talking about the conscience. A pure heart · must also be something similar to or allied with a clear conscience (Matthew 5:8). In Mark 3:5 Jesus rails at the 'stubborn hearts' or hardened consciences of the Pharisees. The meaning of John 1:9 is a matter of debate amongst Reformed and Evangelical writers but Calvin and others may well be right when they see conscience as at least partly the point of reference here.

The bulk of direct New Testament references to conscience are found in Paul's letters. In fact, of the thirty or so uses of the word twenty are in his writings. Two others are found in speeches by him recorded in Acts and five are in the letter to the Hebrews which if not by Paul is certainly characteristic of him. The only other New Testament writer to use the word is Peter, in his first letter. It is, therefore, very much a Pauline word. But where did Paul get it from? At one time it was widely thought to be a specialist word taken from Stoic philosophy but it has now been demonstrated to have been an every day word going back, in one form or another, to at least the sixth century BC. It has been suggested that it was a 'catchword' amongst the Corinthian believers taken up by Paul and used not just in writing to them but, consequently, as part of his own Christian vocabulary. (See Pierce's book)

Certainly Paul and other New Testament writers were happy to take up words and fill them with Christian meaning. Peter does this in his letters more than once and Paul, for example, takes up the word Saviour (soter) in this way. Like the Old Testament and the Gospels, the rest of the New Testament is perfectly able to speak about the conscience without using the word. For example, in 1 John 3:19-21 the apostle uses the word heart where the word conscience would fit equally well. 'This then is how we know that we belong to the truth and how we set our hearts (consciences) at rest in his presence whenever ow hearts (consciences) condemn us. For God is greater than our hearts (consciences), and he knows everything.' However, in the writings of Peter and especially of Paul the word conscience itself is used.

Etymology

The Greek word is suneidesis. It is universally agreed that the word is made up of two parts. The first part (sun) means 'with' or 'together' (Cf the English words, synchronised or symphony). The second part (eidesis) is from one of the Greek words meaning 'to know'. The root meaning, therefore, is 'to know together' or 'joint knowledge' or 'knowledge shared (with another)'. The English word is from Latin and is made up in exactly the same way, CON-SCIENTIA. Some other modem European languages are similar. So in Welsh you have CYD-WYBOD, in Swedish SAM-VETE, etc.

This does not bring us immediately to a biblical definition. There has been much debate as to who shares this 'joint knowledge'. Obviously there is, on the one side, the person himself, but who is the other? Many have maintained that the other must be God. Conscience has been spoken of as 'The voice or oracle of God', 'The vicar of Christ' or even 'God's intimate presence in the soul' . (Phrases of Lord Byron, of John H Newman and of William Worlsworth respectively. Cf the definition 'Privity of the soul with the omnipresent, omniscient God' von Schubert).

Such phrases are often used on the basis that the etymology proves that what conscience reveals to a man's mind must be knowledge shared with· God. Thus we have definitions like that of Aquinas and approved by the Puritan William Ames, 'a man's judgement ofhimself, according to the judgement of God of him'. Ames' tutor William Perkins is similar. He sees God and man as 'partners in the knowledge of one and the same secret'.

Conscience is undoubtedly part of God's general revelation but to speak of it simply as God's voice agreeing with ours is potentially confusing.

Usage

It is unwise to base a definition of a word on etymology alone. The way a word is used matters much more. (September is not our seventh month. There is surely nothing sinister about left-handed people.) Scholars are not in total agreement about the usage of the word suneidesis and its family of related words. It is clear, nevertheless, that when the Greeks used this and related terms it was not always in the context of moral judgments. There is an example where Socrates' young disciple Alcibiades speaks of being conscious he could put up no resistance to the power of his teacher's arguments. (5 C Maurer, THEOLOGICAL DICTIONARY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, ed G Kittel (trans G Bromiley), p 900), There is no moral element here. Least of all, in Greek thought, is there any necessary connection between conscience and God.

In the New Testament we find a related word being used in a context where God is clearly not the one who shares the knowledge. In Acts 5:2 we read that 'with his wife's full knowledge' Ananias kept back money from the apostles while claiming it was being given over. The word used is sunoida, 'to know with another'. Ananias knew what he was doing and so did his wife. He knew with her. Then in Acts 12:12 and 14:6 the NIV speaks of something 'dawning' on Peter and of Paul and Bamabas 'finding out about' a thing. Words from the same family are again used. Thus, at their most basic, these words can simply mean 'to become conscious or, 'to realise'.

Most interesting in this connection is Hebrews 10:2. There the ASV speaks of worshippers who 'would have had no more consciousness of sins'. The word used is the same as that found in Hebrews 10:22, 'having our hearts sprinkled to save us from a guilty conscience' (NIV. Cf TCNT: ' ... purified by the sprinkled blood from all consciousness of wrong.') In Hebrews 10:2 it is really only the addition of the words 'for their sins' that brings in a moral element. At root the Greek word does not necessarily imply anything more than 'knowing'.

(Continued)