"For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister,
 and to give his life a ransom for many."--- (Mark 10:45)


PART 1: INTRODUCTION

A “ransom” is “the money or price paid for the redemption of a prisoner or slave, or for goods captured by an enemy; that which procures the release of a prisoner or captive, or of captured property, and restores the one to liberty and the other to the original owner.”(Webster)  There is no such thing as a ransom being paid and accepted without entailing the obligation of the one accepting the ransom to free the captive.  This is not only universally true in human affairs; but it is the picture of redemption presented throughout holy Scripture.  Christ gave His life as a ransom, and those ransomed must be released.  If the ransom was paid for all men without exception, then all of them must be set free.  But all men are not redeemed by Christ, for many remain slaves of sin and Satan; therefore Christ did not give Himself as a ransom for them.

Most Christians have been taught that Christ died for all, for every person that ever lived or ever shall live.  If asked the question “For whom did Christ die?” they will respond that the Bible says He died for “the whole world”, for “all men”; and think that there is no more to be said.  But the use of these and the like expressions proves nothing, for they are ambiguous, and derive their scope from the various contexts in which they are found.  “All men” can be used generally of all sorts of men, of all the nations, or of the Gentiles in distinction from the Jews.  The “whole world” can mean the evil world system (1 John 5:19), or the whole Roman world (Romans 1:8), or the saved throughout the world (1 John 2:2).  While this ambiguity exists, one can prove nothing from the occurrence of these expressions alone.

The nature of a ransom, on the other hand, is a clear and definite concept; and where the word is used, that concept is expressed. There has never been a ransom paid with the result that the captive remained in prison unless it has been through faithless violation of the ransom agreement.  This is impossible in the case of a ransom paid to Divine justice!  No ransom agreement in Scripture has ever included a condition for release beyond the payment of the ransom; nor can any ransom arrangement be found in Scripture that did not have reference to particular persons or specific property.


Blood Redemption

Redemption is a closely-related word that also has a definite meaning.  To redeem someone (or something) is to deliver him, properly and usually by the payment of a ransom.  In the New Testament, this is used most often of our deliverance from condemnation and wrath and spiritual death by the death of Jesus Christ.  Redemption was accomplished by the offering and acceptance of a substitute – one who died in our place.  If Jesus had not died for us, we would have been liable to the penalty of our sins; but now we are freed forever from all guilt and condemnation through the offering of Jesus Christ once for all. 

But the rest, the unbelieving world, lies under the wrath of God (John 3:18, 36).  The heathen, who know not God, and who have never heard the gospel are alike under wrath for their sins (Ephesians 2:3; 5:6).  Christ's sacrifice  “propitiates” God, that is, appeases Him and turns away His wrath (1 John 2:2).  Men are damned for this reason only – because their sins, both original and actual, demand punishment. They “cry out for vengeance” against the injured honor, justice, holiness, and goodness of God.  

It follows, that no one can be damned whose sins have been taken away by the Lamb of God.  God's justice does not permit Him to punish the same sins twice.  This is the very essence of substitutionary atonement.  If one could be brought into jeopardy again for the same crimes already punished in Christ, then His vicarious sufferings would accomplish nothing!   So, those for whom Christ died must be released!  The redemptive work of our glorious Savior actually “obtained eternal redemption” for them.

Those who say that Christ paid for the sins of all men cannot explain how it is that millions of them can then be lost.  What – we ask again – is the reason Scripture gives for the wrath of God that is poured out in endless punishment in Hell?  Their sins! (John 8:24; Romans 1:18, 2:6; Ephesians 5:6; Revelation 14:11)   When this point is pressed, some will say that men are finally punished for only one sin – the rejection of Christ.  But this is not what the Bible says!  And if it were true, it would not explain why the heathen who have never heard of Jesus Christ, and therefore cannot reject Him, are lost.


The Power of God

What is most important about the doctrine of particular redemption is not the extent of the atonement, but its efficacy – its ransoming power.  The atonement preached in most places today is only efficacious on condition of faith.  It does nothing for the unbeliever until he both hears the gospel (which many do not) and chooses to receive it as truth.  Until that moment, for him in particular, it is as if it had never happened.  And if that moment never comes, if he goes through life never hearing the word of salvation, or if he hears it, but never believes it, he will be just as damned as if Jesus had never gone to the cross at all!  What this amounts to is that God's best effort – employing His infinite love, wisdom and power, and the sacrifice of His dear Son, is by itself insufficient to save anyone!  God intends to save everyone, and bends heaven and earth to His will to accomplish this  purpose, but nevertheless miserably fails!  Is this not blasphemy?

Now, Calvinists grant that the sinner is not actually saved (justified, sanctified, regenerated, etc.) until he believes the gospel. What we deny is that anyone for whom Christ died can continue his whole life in unbelief and receive no benefit from the fact that Christ died for him.  In other words, the fact of the elect sinner's identification with Christ in His death , and of the substitutionary nature of His atonement makes it impossible for God to ever punish him, and therefore guarantees that he will at some time be saved.  If my sins were imputed to Christ, and He died as a result, then God has “boxed Himself in”.  The transaction cannot be revoked.  The deal is done – it can't be undone.  If this is not sufficient to ensure my salvation, then what is?  

The fact that a condition must be met before my status actually changes from lost to saved does not make the ultimate success of Christ's redeeming work uncertain.  Christ loved me and died for me with the intention and purpose of saving me; and that is what must occur.  The Westminster Confession states:

To all those for whom Christ hath purchased redemption, he doth certainly and effectually apply and communicate the same; making intercession for them; and revealing unto them, in and by the Word, the mysteries of salvation; effectually persuading them by his Spirit to believe and obey...(8:8)



The  Myth of Free Will

But is it possible for God to guarantee that the condition will be fulfilled?  Doesn't that lie within the power of the man's free will alone?  Not if we believe the Bible!  The Bible declares in no uncertain terms that nothing shall be impossible with God.   The idea that the freedom of man's will somehow lies outside the realm of Divine sovereignty is not taught in the Bible – it is an assumption we make until our thinking is corrected by God's revelation.   One unequivocal proof text will suffice: “He came unto his own, and his own received him not.  But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.“ (John 1:11-13)  John says here that the new birth does not occur as the result of a decision we make, but solely at the will of a sovereign God (see also John 3:3-8).  When Jesus says “Ye must be born again”, He does not command Nicodemus to get born again – He only declares its necessity.  God initiates.  Man is passive until God works in him to will and to do, of His mere good pleasure.  (Philippians 2:13)  Faith and repentance are “gifts of God” (Ephesians 2:8, Acts 11:18) in the sense that we begin to exercise them after we have been “born again” – made alive by the omnipotent power of the Holy Spirit.  We are incapable of making the decision to receive Christ until our eyes have already been opened to see His glory, and our old stony heart has been replaced by an heart of flesh!  



For the Elect Only

But does the Bible actually teach that Christ only died for some people and not for others?  Yes!  There are many Scripture statements in which the mission of Christ is defined in relation to particular persons distinguished from the rest of the world:
 
And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.  (Matthew 1:21)

I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.
(John 10:11)

All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.  For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.  And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.  (John 6:37-39)

Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. (Acts 20:28)

Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it. (Ephesians 5:25)





PART 2: PAUL'S DOCTRINE

We have seen that the very nature of biblical redemption requires a particular and an efficacious atonement.  But there is conclusive proof of another kind in the eighth of Romans:

“And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us? He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things? Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth. Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.” (Romans 8:28-34)

Paul's purpose is to assure believers that “all things work together for good” to them.  We are not to fear, no matter what befalls us; because our final salvation is guaranteed.  Paul refers in verse 28 to “them that love God”, who are “the called according to his purpose”.  In verse 29, they are called “whom he did foreknow” and “brethren” of the Son.  In verse 30, they are referred to as “whom he did predestinate”, and these same  persons “whom he called”, “whom he justified”are “also glorified”.  He is evidently speaking of the saved – and no one else – throughout the context.  But they are the saved as viewed from the Divine perspective: as those chosen of God from eternity, called in time, and destined to eternal glory.   They are called in verse 33, “God's elect”.

The theme of God's sovereign activity pervades.  They are distinguished from others as “the called” of God.  They have received not only the outward, audible call of the gospel, but the special and effectual call that actually brought them into a saving relationship with God.  He “foreknows” them, which means “fore-loves”, and implies His choosing of them. (See Amos 3:2, 1 Corinthians 8:3, Romans 11:2)  He has “predestinated” them to salvation.  In time, He calls and justifies them by giving them the gift of faith, which He does not give to all.  Their final glorification at the last day is spoken of as if already accomplished – so certain it is of fulfillment.

There is a transition at the end of verse 30 where we read, “What shall we then say to these things?”  Then follows a series of four arguments for the perfect security of the believer, based on the foregoing facts, presented as questions.  Our main concern is with the second argument, but it will be helpful to glance at each of them in turn.  

Argument 1. If God be for us, who can be against us? (verse 31)

The first argument for the complete security of believers is from the sovereignty of God.  If God is “for us”in the sense that the foregoing verses describe, if He has chosen and predestined us to salvation and called us in accord with His purpose, then who can prevent Him from achieving His aim?  Even our enemies' attacks cannot hurt us; for they will be used by God to further our salvation!

Argument 2. He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things? (verse 32)
 
The second argument for the security of the believer employs an argument from the greater to the less.  It relies on the fact of God's rationality and consistency.  God is not unstable or capricious like we are.  Everything He does makes sense.  If He did not withhold His own Son from us, why would He withhold anything else necessary to our salvation?  Once the greatest gift of all has been given, once He has been “delivered... up for us all”, our calling, justification and glorification, which cost God nothing, may be absolutely depended on to follow.  “How shall He not freely give us all things?”


Now, it is important for us to realize that every correct inference from Scripture has the same authority as the Scripture itself.  As the Westminster Confession puts it, “The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture:”  Whatever “by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture” is in a sense “contained” in Scripture.  

If this sounds strange, consider that Jesus Christ often quoted Scripture that only indirectly spoke to the point he was making, and then drew an inference from it, which put an end to any argument.  The following example is sufficient to illustrate:

But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. (Matthew 22:31-32)

Now, the necessary implication of this argument in Romans 8:32 is that Christ was “delivered up” for the elect, for their redemption – and for no one else.   For if He had been offered for all men without exception, then God would certainly, according to this argument, save all men without exception.  There is no escaping this conclusion except by denying the validity and force of the inspired apostle's argument.

Argument 3. Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth (verse 33).

The third argument for the believer's security is that we need not fear any accusation in the court of God's  judgment; for it is God Himself that has chosen us for His own and has already declared us righteous.  Once that is done, the judge is finished with his work, and the court session is over.  No further charges can be brought!  Who would dare to challenge His judgment?  How would he appeal to a higher court?

Argument 4. Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us  (verse 34).  If we were going to be condemned, who would condemn us?  Would this not be the prerogative of Jesus Christ?  Is it not against God that all our sins were chiefly directed?  Is not His lawful representative the Son of God, into whose hands all judgment has been committed?  Yet this is the very One who, acting as our great High Priest, has provided our atonement and forever intercedes for us.

Thus Paul is seen not only to teach the election and predestination of some to salvation, but that the purpose of Christ's death was to redeem these, and no others.  Furthermore, he makes a great point of the doctrine by using it as an argument for our perfect and eternal security in Christ.  Once again, if Christ had died for all men without exception, merely to make their salvation possible, that doctrine would furnish no proof of our security in Christ.  One might reply to it, “Christ died for me?  Good!  But He died for Judas, and Judas was finally lost.  There's no security in that!”  But if such a thought is abhorrent to Scripture, then the argument we have made must stand.

The difficulties raised and the objections made to this doctrine, which are legion, have been fully answered countless times in the standard Calvinistic theologies and commentaries, and the seeker for truth will find his labor richly rewarded by digging in these gold-mines.  But it is not necessary to know the answers to all the questions that can be raised before embracing a doctrine that has been  proved from holy Scripture.
 




PART 3: ALTERNATIVE VIEWS

Those who reject particular redemption fall into four main groups.  The first group, called Universalists claim that Hell is not really eternal punishment, and that all men will eventually be saved.  This minority view is generally not considered evangelical; but it is at least logical.  

A second view is that Christ did not intend by the atonement to redeem anyone, but merely to cancel the legal covenant and to obtain the right to establish new terms of salvation and a new covenant.  This view is called “Neo-nomianism”, from the Greek words for “new” and “law”.   It escapes me how anyone who professes to take the actual words of the New Testament seriously could propose such a thing.  There is not one word of such an arrangement in the Bible.

The third, usually called the Arminian view, or hypothetical universalism, is that redemption has been “provided” for everyone, but on condition that it be appropriated.  But what does it mean to “provide” redemption?  In the nature of the case, “to provide redemption” is the same thing as “to redeem”, just as “to provide deliverance” means “to deliver”.  If a captive is not delivered, then what was provided was only an effort to deliver; which however failed!  

The idea of the work of Christ as provisional, but not effective, is neither biblical nor reasonable.  Did Christ merely pay the price into some trust fund, to be available upon certain conditions?  Does he get a refund of the unused portion?  Of course not!  This was no monetary payment, but an irreversible, irrevocable act of satisfaction.  The price was paid once for all, and, according to Scripture, Jesus “obtained eternal redemption for us” (Hebrews 9:12).  

“Yes!” some will say.  “Redemption was obtained – for those that God knew beforehand would believe, of their own free will.”  But then, this is to concede the argument, and to grant the particularity of the atonement.  All that remains is  to understand that God's will – not man's – determines who will believe; and therefore, to embrace the truth of Divine election.  From thence it will follow that the atonement was made for these, and that it ensures their salvation.

But the Arminian view conflicts with Scripture at every point.  It sets forth a “redemption” that does not necessarily redeem, a “salvation” that does not always save.  According to Arminians, Christ loves believers no more than He loved Judas, who was, according to Scripture (Mark 14:21, John 17:12, Acts 1:25), predestined to destruction.  According to that view, Christ died for the millions already in Hell when He was crucified.  (To what purpose?)  According to them, it is we ourselves who determine our own eternal destinies – not the sovereign God. (But see Romans 9:15-18.)  God has no power over the human will, they say.  (But see Psalms 110:3, Acts 16:14, Philippians 2:13.)  They object that God would be wicked if He were to predestinate some to Hell and some to Heaven; so that doctrine, even though revealed in the pages of Scripture with startling fullness, clarity and emphasis (Romans 9:19-24), cannot be true.  The best thing to be said for this view is that it is consistent in its denial of the biblical doctrine of God's sovereignty in every phase and aspect of salvation.


An Attempt at Compromise

A fourth view is the inconsistent position that election and predestination are true, but nevertheless, the atonement was not made for the elect only.  This view, called “hypothetical universalism”, and sometimes “Amyraldianism”, after the man who proposed it, claims that there is a kind of dependence and order in the decrees of God as follows:

First, God decreed to save mankind by Christ, through faith.

Second, foreseeing that the natural man would not receive Christ; He chose certain ones to be given the gift of faith and be saved.

This theory has no scriptural basis beyond an arbitrary rigidity of  interpretation of general expressions and inferences therefrom, which I have already addressed.  It is further liable to the following objections:  

It Makes God Illogical
 
Decrees 1 and 2 both imply that man is lost.  Amyrauldians with particular redemptionists agree that man has lost his freewill to good.  To design a salvation that depends on faith, of which man is incapable, and a reception, which man will not give it, is not reasonable.  

Furthermore, the second decree never achieves the goal stated in the first, which is “to save mankind”.  Mankind surely means “all mankind”; since the whole idea of this theory is to give a reason why Christ supposedly died for all.  But all mankind are not saved, so the goal is not reached.  Is this consistent with the boundless, perfect wisdom of God?

On the other hand, if it be said that “mankind” as a species is intended, and is saved by this plan – even if all are not – then it may be replied that it would have been a more straightforward way of achieving that goal to simply set out to save those who are actually going to be saved.  And in that case, there is no reason for Christ to die for everyone.


Election Not An Afterthought

By this theory, election from eternity is (ironically) transformed into an afterthought!  Is it not rather the basis of the atonement?  The purpose of Christ's work is to save particular persons, those “given Him by the Father”(John 6:37-40).  In Ephesians 5:25, these same persons are called”the church”, which He “loved, and “gave Himself for”.  Hebrews 2:9-17 is clear and emphatic that Christ died for the elect:

But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.  For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.  For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren, Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee.  And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me.  Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.  For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.  Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

Verse 9 is often quoted out of context to prove that Christ died for all men without exception.  But what sense does it make to seize on the expression “every man”, as if it can only mean the whole human race, when every other reference in this entire paragraph to the people for whom Christ died is distinctive of the people of God?  Observe that, in his first mention of the objects of redemption in this epistle, at 1:14, he has already drawn attention to their election, calling them “those who shall be heirs of salvation”.  It is for the sake of these “children” of God, His “brethren” that He is incarnated (2:14), and suffers death.  He does not take on Him the nature of angels nor of men in general, but of “the seed of Abraham”.  It is for “the people” that He makes reconciliation (2:17).  

Does all this perhaps give us an idea of the author's intended scope when he used the Greek word pas (“all”, “the whole”, “each one”) rendered “every man” in 2:9?  Christ died for all – for each and every one of the heirs, sons, children, brethren, and people of God the writer is speaking about.  The extent of a general expression is defined by the context in which it is found.

The same phenomenon occurs in 1 Corinthians 15:22-23, where we read, “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.  But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.”  Here we find “all” and “every man”, but to whom do they refer?  Absolutely all die in Adam, it is true; but the other all can only mean “they that are Christ's”, who are “made alive” (resurrected in glory) “at His coming”!  




Redeeming Love

Perhaps more importantly, an atonement designed to save everyone (or to save no one in particular) can never be the proof of the greatness of God's love for His people (As stated in 1 John 3:16, 4:9-10).  For without the subsequent decree of election, it does nothing for anyone.   The Divine act that makes all the difference then becomes the effectual call, or regeneration.  The atonement then is pushed into the background.  But this does not accord with the tenor of Scripture.  It amounts to a denial that in the cross of Christ we see displayed the special love that God has for His elect people, “redeeming love”, as it used to be called.  What a difference this makes in how we view the love of God for us!  Has “God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten Son” to make a general provision for its salvation, and then decided to only elect some to benefit from it?  There is a gross incongruity here that is inconsistent with the jealous, possessive, intensely personal, overcoming love that moved our Lord Jesus to willingly lay down His life in agony rather than allow any of His people to be lost.



The Preaching Of The Cross

There is not a single example in the whole New Testament of the kind of “evangelistic” preaching that we see today.  The apostles never said to unbelievers, “God loves you, and has a wonderful plan for your life.”  Read the sermons in the book of Acts, and you will find that no unbeliever is ever told that God loves him in particular, or that He sent Jesus to die for him in particular.  The assurance of God's everlasting love is reserved for the comfort of the people of God.  Yes, Nicodemus was told that God loved “the world” of men and sent His Son to save it; but he was not told that God loved everyone with a redeeming love, or that God loved him, or that Christ died to save him in particular.  

What was preached is that Christ died for sinners, for their salvation; and that it is each man's duty to repent and believe the gospel, in which case he will be saved and inherit all the promises of God.  All are invited, yes, commanded to receive the Lord, to seek Him, to call upon His name; and are assured that those who do will find mercy.   The gospel is for all kinds of people; men, women and children from every place and culture and language, of every age and every walk of life.  The invitation is unrestricted – “Whosoever will” may come.  Those who believe the gospel and are saved then go on to learn that they were “chosen” from the foundation of the world “unto salvation through the sanctification of the spirit and belief of the truth” (2 Thessalonians 2:13).  They come to understand that they love God because He first loved them (1 John 4:19).  They rejoice in the sure and certain hope of the glory of God(Romans 5:2).


Our Great High Priest

When the High Priest of Israel went into the holy of holies once a year to make symbolic atonement for the sins of the people, he wore a breastplate on his front with twelve jewels bearing the names of the twelve tribes of Israel (Exodus 28:17-21,29), and two epaulets on his shoulders likewise bearing their twelve names (Exodus 28:9-12).  He offered the blood of an unblemished victim for them and for no other.  He then lifted up his hands and blessed them on the basis of the atonement made, making intercession for them, and them only.  

This was not a real atonement, as the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews insists (Hebrews 10:4,11). The purpose of this whole ceremony – as of all the ceremonies of the law, was to preach the gospel until Christ came.  It was to provide a picture of that great High Priest to come, who would truly redeem His people from their sins.  Therefore every detail has a fulfillment in the antitype.  There is nothing prescribed that is extraneous – nothing described that is without meaning.

When Jesus Christ, of whom the Aaronic High Priest was the type, went to the cross, He bore on His heart and upon His shoulders the names of the spiritual Israel He was sent to redeem (John 17:2), and no others.  He makes intercession for them alone (John 17:9).  Otherwise, the details of the breastplate and the epaulets so conspicuous in the type would have no corresponding fulfillment in the antitype!  The particularity of redemption is not some doctrine made up by men, but the doctrine of holy Scripture, from Genesis to Revelation.

Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood... to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

Soli Deo gloria!

Howard Douglas King
Revised November 16, 2014

The Great French Reformer

 

Part 1: Early Exploits

 
O give thanks unto the LORD; call upon his name: make known his deeds among the people. Sing unto him, sing psalms unto him: talk ye of all his wondrous works. Glory ye in his holy name: let the heart of them rejoice that seek the LORD.  Seek the LORD, and his strength: seek his face evermore.   Remember his marvellous works that he hath done; his wonders, and the judgments of his mouth;  O ye seed of Abraham his servant, ye children of Jacob his chosen.  He is the LORD our God: his judgments are in all the earth.  (Psalm 105:1-5)

 

Introduction

It is a pity, if not a tragedy that Protestant Christians have so little knowledge of their glorious heritage!   We do not “remember His marvellous works” or “talk of His wonders” because we do not know them.  There was a time when books were expensive, and yet every Christian home had a Bible and Foxe's Book of Martyrs.  It is not so today.  Yet there has never been a time when the recounting of God's mighty work in sixteenth century Europe has been more needed.

The man who is the subject of our attention tonight is virtually unknown.  Long ago, as a young Christian, I heard of the following incident:

“In the summer of 1536 a young preacher came to the house of Viret in Geneva, intending to stop there for only a night.  He had been in Italy and was on the way to Basle where he had spent some time as an exile from France. Some one—Du Tillet or Caroli—discovered him, and went and brought Farel to see him. He was already in high repute as the author of the Institutes of the Christian Religion, and Farel met, for the first time, John Calvin, from the country of his noble friends, Lefèvre and Olivetan.  Farel thought what Beza afterwards said, 'God conducted him hither,' and was resolved to secure his services in that city. He at once presented the case to the guest of Viret.

'I cannot bind myself to any one church,' says Calvin, 'but I would endeavor to be useful to all.  I have my plan for study before me, and I am not one of those who can afford to be always giving without receiving.'

'Now,' said Farel, with that manner and voice which filled thousands with awe, 'I declare to you, in the name of the Almighty God—to you who only put forth your studies as a pretence—that if you will not help us to carry on this work of God, the curse of God will rest upon you, for you will be seeking your own honor rather than that of Christ.'

The conscience of the young traveler was so touched that he never forgot it. Toward the close of his life he said, 'As I was kept in Geneva, not properly by an express exhortation or request, but rather by the terrible threatenings of William Farel, which were as if God had seized me by his awful hand from heaven, so was I compelled, through the terror thus inspired, to give up the plan of my journey'.”

This is all that I knew about the man for many years.  Who is William Farel?  I say “is” and not “was” for I have no doubt that he lives before God, among those who have earned their everlasting rest.  I will try to give you just a glimpse of this hero of the faith tonight.

Here is Philip Schaff's assessment:

“The pioneer of Protestantism in Western Switzerland is William Farel. He was a travelling evangelist, always in motion, incessant in labors, a man full of faith and fire, as bold and fearless as Luther and far more radical, but without his genius.  He is called the Elijah of the French Reformation, and 'the scourge of the priests.'  Once an ardent papist, he became as ardent a Protestant... he felt himself divinely called, like a prophet of old, to break down idolatry and to clear the way for the spiritual worship of God according to his own revealed word.

He was a born fighter; he came, not to bring peace, but the sword.  He had to deal with priests who carried firearms and clubs under their frocks, and he fought them with the sword of the word and the spirit.  Once he was fired at, but the gun burst, and, turning round, he said, 'I am not afraid of your shots.' He never used violence himself, except in language.  He had an indomitable will and power of endurance. Persecution and violence only stimulated him to greater exertions.  His outward appearance was not prepossessing: he was small and feeble, with a pale but sunburnt face, narrow forehead, red and ill-combed beard, fiery eyes, and an expressive mouth.

Farel had some of the best qualities of an orator: a sonorous and stentorian voice, appropriate gesture, fluency of speech, and intense earnestness, which always commands attention and often produces conviction.  His contemporaries speak of the thunders of his eloquence and of his transporting prayers.  His sermons were extemporized, and have not come down to us.  Their power lay in the oral delivery.  We may compare him to Whitefield, who was likewise a travelling evangelist, endowed with the magnetism of living oratory.  In Beza’s opinion, Calvin was the most learned, Farel the most forcible, Viret the most gentle preacher of that age.

The chief defect of Farel was his want of moderation and discretion.  He was an iconoclast.  His violence provoked unnecessary opposition, and often did more harm than good. Oecolampadius praised his zeal, but besought him to be also moderate and gentle.  'Your mission,' he wrote to him, 'is to evangelize, not to curse. Prove yourself to be an evangelist, not a tyrannical legislator.  Men want to be led, not driven.'  Zwingli, shortly before his death, exhorted him not to expose himself rashly, but to reserve himself for the further service of the Lord.

"… He was a conqueror, but not an organizer of his conquests; a man of action, not a man of letters; an intrepid preacher, not a theologian.  He felt his defects, and handed his work over to the mighty genius of his younger friend Calvin.  In the spirit of genuine humility and self-denial, he was willing to decrease that Calvin might increase.  This is the finest trait in his character.”

D'aubigny describes the character of the young Farel this way:

“God had bestowed rare qualities on William Farel, such as were fitted to give him a great ascendency over his fellows.  Possessing a penetrating mind and lively imagination, sincere and upright, having a greatness of soul that never allowed him, at whatever risk, to betray the convictions of his heart, he was remarkable also for ardour, fire, indomitable courage, and daring, which never shrunk from any obstacle.  But, at the same time, he had all the defects allied to these qualities; and his parents were often compelled to check his impetuosity.”

He then compares Farel with Luther, as follows:

“Of all the reformers, Farel and Luther are perhaps those whose early spiritual developments are best known to us, and who had to pass through the greatest struggles.  Quick and ardent, men of conflict and strife, they underwent the severest trials before attaining peace.  Farel is the pioneer of the Reformation in France and Switzerland; he rushes into the wood, and hews down the aged giants of the forest with his axe.  Calvin came after, like Melancthon, from whom he differs indeed in character, but whom he resembles in his part as theologian and organizer.  These two men, who have something in common with the legislators of antiquity,—the one in its graceful, the other in its severe style,—built up, settled, and gave laws to the territory conquered by the first two reformers.”


As I have read and re-read the history of Farel, I have been struck with Farel's resemblance to the Apostle Paul.  Like Paul, who “after the most straitest sect of his religion lived a Pharisee” before his conversion, and afterward became the most zealous for Christ, Farel was changed from a fanatical Papist into a zealot for the gospel.  Both were rejected and persecuted by their native countries, while never losing their love for kin and homeland, and ever after seeking their benefit.  The zeal of Paul, the willingness to expose himself to severe abuse and violence over and over again, his patient continuance and determination, his great faith in the inevitable triumph of truth – in all these the character of William Farel is reminiscent of the great Apostle to the gentiles.

 

Early Life and Conversion

Philip Schaff gives us the following account of his origins:

“Guillaume Farel, the oldest of seven children of a poor but noble family, was born in the year 1489 (five years after Luther and Zwingli, twenty years before Calvin) at Gap, a small town in the alps of Dauphiné in the south-east of France, where the religious views of the Waldenses were once widely spread.  He inherited the blind faith of his parents, and doubted nothing.  He made with them, as he remembered in his old age, a pilgrimage to a wonder-working cross which was believed to be taken from the cross of our Lord.  He shared in the superstitious veneration of pictures and relics, and bowed before the authority of monks and priests.  He was, as he said, more popish than popery.

At the same time he had a great thirst for knowledge, and was sent to school at Paris.  Here he studied the ancient languages (even Hebrew), philosophy, and theology.  His principal teacher, Jacques Le Fèvre (1455–1536), the pioneer of the Reformation in France and translator of the Scriptures, introduced him into the knowledge of Paul’s Epistles and the doctrine of justification by faith, and prophetically told him, already in 1512: 'My son, God will renew the world, and you will witness it. 'Farel acquired the degree of Master of Arts (January, 1517), and was appointed teacher at the college of Cardinal Le Moine.”

His conversion involved a deep struggle, as it often does in men who are conscientiously committed to error.  Farel could not do anything by halves.  If Romanism was false, he would have to forsake it all, regardless of the cost.  If it was true, he could not betray it.  He was a man of unquestioned integrity.  Sums of money were often entrusted to him for distribution to the poor.  His devotion to the practices of Popery was sincere and he took pleasure in fasts and prayers and all the rituals of Rome because he thought they pleased God.  But he studied Hebrew and Greek diligently, that he might understand the Bible.  LeFevre kept pointing him to the Scriptures; and at length he gave up the defense of his errors and submitted to the truth.

William Blackburn writes:

“When about thirty years of age, Farel could no longer have a good conscience and remain in the Romish church.  He forsook her communion, with a feeling of abhorrence toward himself and of the errors in which he had so long been enthralled.  Not far from this time he was recommended by Lefèvre and elected to a professorship in the celebrated college founded by Cardinal Lemoine, one of the four principal colleges of the theological faculty in Paris, equal in rank to the Sorbonne.  He soon became the regent, an honor which had always been given to men of learning and eminence.  He filled the office with great credit to all concerned, during the short time that a persecution was preparing, and his name was held in delightful remembrance by his colleagues and students.”

 


A Leading Reformer

Being a man of great heart and indomitable will, Farel immediately distinguished himself as a leader among the Reformed Christians in Paris.  His testimony was bold and uncompromising.  It was not long before he was in trouble.  The aged LeFevre suffered daily attacks by his enemies at the Sorbonne, the bastion of Roman theology.  His life was in danger.  He fled to Meaux, where the Bishop, Briconnet, was busy reforming his diocese.  There LeFevre began his work of translating the New Testament into French.

When LeFevre escaped the wrath of the Sorbonne, they turned their guns on the remaining reformers.  It was not long before Farel and his friends also found it necessary to escape to Meaux, which was fast becoming the center of the evangelization of France.  Soon, opposition arose from the Franciscans in Meaux, who joining hands with the Sorbonne, moved the French Parliament to crush the reform in Meaux.  The Bishop had not the courage to resist, and forsook the Reformation to save his life.  He agreed to persecute the cause that he had boldly advocated before.  This was in 1523.  All was now  changed. 

LeFevre was once again attacked, and only escaped because of the King's intervention.

According to D'aubigne:

“Farel, who had not so many protectors at court, was compelled to leave Meaux.   It would appear that he first repaired to Paris;  and that, having unsparingly attacked the errors of Rome, he could remain there no longer, and was forced to retire to Dauphiny, whither he was eager to carry the Gospel.” [Dauphiny was his homeland.]

 


Flight to Switzerland

While at home, he labored for the conversion of his family, and won his brothers to the Reformed faith.  Not stopping with that, he approached his friends and neighbors, and soon was preaching throughout the district anywhere he could get an audience.  The persecution became hot, and he was sought everywhere; but he escaped at last over the Swiss border into Basle, where he met up with the great Swiss Reformer, Oecolampadius, forming a friendship that would last a lifetime. 

The celebrated Erasmus was also at Basle, but he was busy cultivating the favor of Rome, and had little to do with the poor Protestant refugees from France.  Erasmus, who had played such a crucial role in the start of the Reformation with his attack on the immoral clergy, and his publication of the first printed Textus Receptus, subsequently turned his back on that Reformation, attacked its leaders, and made peace with Rome.  He resented the boldness of Farel, which threatened to bring persecution on all who befriended him.  Farel, on his part, despised the cowardice of Erasmus, and made no secret of it.  Erasmus confronted Farel, accusing the latter of having called him a ”Balaam” (who helped Israel's enemy for money).  Farel denied having used that word, but Erasmus began to press him on what he deemed his extreme and dangerous positions.  The result was not favorable to  Erasmus, for he was plainly worsted in the ensuing debate.

It was in Basle that Farel received ordination to the ministry by Oecolampadius.  He then returned into France to aid his comrades in spreading the gospel.  Blackburn describes his leadership role in this way:

“He was, at Montbeliard, 'like a general on a hill, whose piercing eye glances over the field of battle, cheering those who are actively engaged with the foe, rallying those ranks which are broken by an impetuous charge, and animating those who hang back through fear.'  Behind him were Basle and Strasburg, as a base of operations, whence he drew his supplies of tracts and books.

The refugees at Basle were forming a Tract and Bible Society, and raising up colporteurs (travelling booksellers) to scatter the truth through France.  The presses then were constantly occupied in printing French books, and these were sent to Farel, who put them into the hands of book-hawkers, and these simple-hearted men passed through the country, calling at almost every door.  Anemond was a true chevalier in this good work, which was moving forward with such strength that Erasmus was on the rage, and the Sorbonne in alarm.  He sent to Farel all the useful books he could get, and one of his large plans was for Farel to use the pen, while he raised a fund and a force to work the presses, day and night, and thus flood all France with the truth.  He was anxious to see the New Testament printed in French, and widely circulated in the provinces.

At the urgent advice of his friends Farel wrote several small books, among which was 'A summary of what a Christian ought to know, in order to trust God, and serve his neighbor.'  The last one passed through several large editions, and was widely circulated.”

At this time, a great disruption occurred.  The Emperor Charles V defeated the King of  France.  Blackburn relates:

“The work of the spiritual army was greatly disturbed by the defeat of the royal army at Pavia, in February 1525.  The king was taken prisoner and was on the way to Madrid...  All France was full of mourning, and the Romanists began to declare that this great disaster was provoked by Heaven, because the new doctrines had been tolerated in the kingdom.  The 'heretics' must be expelled!   People and parliament, church and throne, joined hand in hand to banish the gospel...  The camp was broken up; the forces scattered, and the cause seemed to be lost.

Nor was this all. Another strong force was leaving the field where there had been such great success. Farel was pulling up his stakes at Montbeliard. It has been hinted that Erasmus, whose anger still burned against him, may have done much to excite a persecution too bitter for him to endure. But another reason has been given by those who lament that Farel’s warlike zeal sometimes carried too far, and brought unnecessary opposition against him.

One day, about the time of the king’s defeat at Pavia, Farel was walking on the banks of a little river that runs through Montbeliard, beneath a lofty rock on which the citadel is built.  It was the day of the feast of saint Anthony, and when he came to the bridge he met a procession which was crossing it, and headed by two priests bearing the pretended image of the saint.  Farel suddenly found himself face to face with these superstitions, without seeking it.

A violent struggle took place in his soul.  His blood boiled at the sight of such a delusion practiced upon the people.  Should he give way?  Should he hide himself?  Should he gaze and be silent?  He could not be a coward, and would not let his silence give consent to the imposture.  He knew that he was exposing himself to the fate of Leclerc, yet he boldly advanced, grasped the image of the holy hermit from the arms of the priest, and tossed it over the bridge into the rivers—as bold a deed as that of the Chevalier Bayard when he stayed an army at the bridge of the Garigliano.  Then turning to the awe-stricken crowd he exclaimed, 'Poor idolaters, will ye never cease from your idolatry!”

The priests stood confused and motionless.  With the loss of their saint, they lost their presence of mind.  Their superstitious fear seemed to rivet them to the spot.  But someone cried out, 'the image is drowning!'  The priests recovered from their stupor.  The multitudes shouted in rage, and gazed at the image floating away.  Farel let them gaze and rave, and taking advantage of their devout attention to the saint, he escaped their violence.  For a time he hid himself among his friends.

The duke and his court soon left the city, and having no strong arm to defend him, Farel had an additional reason for leaving Montbeliard.  In the spring he took a secret refuge at Basle.  He always took an interest in the church he had left, as a minister will ever do in the flock where were gathered the first-fruits of his labors.  But being denied official permission to return, he went instead to Strasburg, where he preached to the French exiles there for 15 months, before being called to Berne, in German-speaking Switzerland.”

D'aubigne describes the situation at the beginning of the Swiss reformation:

“The history of the Swiss Reformation is divided into three periods, in which the light of the Gospel is seen spreading successively over three different zones.   From 1519 to 1526 Zurich was the centre of the Reformation, which was then entirely German, and was propagated in the eastern and northern parts of the Confederation.  Between 1526 and 1532 the movement was communicated from Berne: it is at once German and French, and extended to the centre of Switzerland from the gorges of the Jura to the deepest valleys of the Alps.  In 1532 Geneva became the focus of the light; and the Reformation, which was here essentially French, was established on the shores of the Leman lake, and gained strength in every quarter.  It is of the second of these periods—that of Berne—of which we are now to treat.

Although the Swiss Reformation is not yet essentially French, still the most active part in it is taken by Frenchmen.  Switzerland is yoked to the chariot of Reform, and communicates to it an accelerated motion.  In the period we are about to treat of, there is a mixture of races, of forces, and of characters, from which proceeds a greater commotion.  In no part of the Christian world will the resistance be so stubborn; but nowhere will the assailants display so much courage.  This petty country of Switzerland Romande, enclosed within the colossal arms of the Jura and the Alps, was for centuries one of the strongest fortresses of the Papacy.  It is about to be carried by storm; it is going to turn its arms against its ancient masters; and from these few hillocks, scattered at the foot of the highest mountains in Europe, will proceed the reiterated shocks that will overthrow, even in the most distant countries, the sanctuaries of Rome, their images and their altars.”

 


The Swiss Campaign Begins

Farel begins his Swiss campaign in a little town called Aigle, in the most unimpressive manner, as Blackburn relates:

“To this small town, in December 1526, a man was making his way, on foot and in the rain. He wished to conceal his name, for he was one whom persecution had made an exile from France.  He was of middle stature, with red beard, quick eyes, fearless face, and the step of a native mountaineer...  With him walked a single friend.  Night closed around them, and the rain fell heavy and cold.  They lost their path, a very dangerous thing for Alpine travelers on whom the snow might be falling before morning.  Drenched and chilled, they sat down almost in despair.  'Ah!' said the chief one, 'God, by showing me my helplessness in these little things, has willed to teach me how weak I am in the greatest, without Jesus Christ.'

'It is no little thing to be lost,' we imagine the other replying.  'We shall perish if we stay here.'

'Let us perish then trying to find our way.'  Then rising, they bent forward on their dark journey, feeling for stepping places among the rocks, plunging through bogs, wading through the waters, crossing vineyards, fields, hills, forests and valleys, and, at length, dripping with rain and covered with mud, they reached the village of Aigle.

He assumed a new name, hoping, as he afterwards said, 'by pious frauds to circumvent the old serpent that was hissing around him.'  He represented himself to be a schoolmaster—Ursinus—and he waited for a door to be opened that he might appear as a reformer.

Ursinus gathered the children and began his work with no fixed salary.  His modest lessons were mingled with new and strange doctrines.  His scholars wondered when he told them of the good book and the great God who gave it, the true cross and the Lord of glory who died upon it.  They had something to believe, to tell, to expand their minds and elevate their souls.  The teacher was encouraged; by feeding the Savior’s lambs, he would soon have sheep to feed.

When the day’s work was done, Master Ursinus left the schoolroom and the primers, and took refuge in his poorly furnished lodging place.  It became a palace, for the Bible was the light thereof.  He applied himself, with absorbing interest, to the Greek and Hebrew Scriptures, and the few works of learned theologians that he had brought with him.

Master Ursinus went a step farther in his work. He cautiously set about teaching the parents as well as the children. He showed them that purgatory was a mere invention, there was no such place. Then he exposed the delusion practiced in the invocation of the saints...

Thus he went on teaching in a quiet way for some months.  A flock gathered around him, loving the good man, who did more for them than anyone had dreamed of doing before.  If they were puzzled by the thought that one so great should come among them in their out-of-the-way corner, it was all explained by his simple goodness of heart.  And he told them of Him who condescended from heaven to earth, from the throne to a manger, from the crown to the cross, and they understood and believed.  He thought the looked-for moment had come, and he might tell them who he was, and what was his mission.  'I am William Farel, minister of God,' said he one day. 

The villagers thought none the more nor any the less of him for that.  It was to them like any other unheard-of name.  But the priests and magistrates were in amazement and terror.  They had heard of William Farel.  They now saw among them that very man whose name had already become so fearful.  They dared not do anything but let him have his way.  Nor did he consult with flesh and blood. He had quietly taken the tower; now he would take the town by a bold movement.  He ascended the pulpit, and openly preached Jesus Christ to the astonished multitude.  The work of Ursinus was over; Farel was himself again.”

 


Conquest of Neuchatel

A fierce contest followed, but when the dust settled,  Popery had met defeat, and Aigle had been won for Christ.  Farel  moved on to evangelize other cities and towns in French-speaking Switzerland.  One of these was Neuchatel.  D'aubigne writes:

“The people of Neuchatel had a great respect for ancient rights, and it was easy to take advantage of this state of feeling, considering the general ignorance, to maintain the innovations of Popery.  The canons improved the opportunity. For the instructions of the Gospel they substituted pomps and shows.  The church, situated on a steep rock, was filled with altars, chapels, and images of saints; and religion, descending from this sanctuary, ran up and down the streets, and was travestied in dramas and mysteries, mingled with indulgences, miracles, and debauchery.


The soldiers of Neuchatel, however, who had made the campaign of 1529 with the Bernese army, brought back to their homes the liveliest enthusiasm for the Evangelical cause.  It was at this period that a frail boat, quitting the southern bank of the lake, on the side opposite Morat, and carrying a Frenchman of mean appearance, steered towards the Neuchatel shore.  Farel, for it was he, had learnt that the village of Serrière, situated at the gates of Neuchatel, depended in spiritualities on the evangelical city of Bienne, and that Emer Beynon, the priest of the place, 'had some liking for the Gospel.'  The plan of his campaign was immediately drawn up.  He appeared before parson Emer, who received him with joy; but what could be done?  for Farel had been interdicted from preaching in any church whatever in the earldom.  The poor priest thought to reconcile everything by permitting Farel to mount on a stone in the cemetery, and thus preach to the people, turning his back upon the church.

A great disturbance arose in Neuchatel.  On one side the government, the canons, and the priests, cried 'Heresy!' but, on the other, 'some inhabitants of Neuchatel, to whom God had given a knowledge of the truth,' flocked to Serrière.  In a short time these last could not contain themselves: 'Come,' said they to Farel, 'and preach to us in the town.'

This was at the beginning of December.  They entered by the gate of the castle, and leaving the church on the hill to the left, they passed in front of the canons' houses, and descended through the narrow streets inhabited by the citizens.  On reaching the market-cross, Farel ascended a platform and addressed the crowd, which gathered together from all the neighbourhood,—weavers, vine-dressers, husbandmen, a worthy race, possessing more feeling than imagination.  The preacher's exterior was grave, his discourse energetic, his voice like thunder: his eyes, his features, his gestures, all showed him a man of intrepidity.  The citizens, accustomed to run about the streets after the mountebanks, were touched by his powerful language.  'Farel preached a sermon of such great efficacy,' says a manuscript, 'that he gained over much people.'

Some monks, however, with shaven crowns, glided among his hearers, seeking to excite them against the heretical minister.  'Let us beat out his brains,' said some.  'Duck him, duck him!' cried others, advancing to throw Farel into a fountain, which may still be seen near the spot where he preached.  But the reformer stood firm.

This first preaching was succeeded by others.  To this Gospel missionary every place was a church; every stone, every bench, every platform was a pulpit.   Already the cutting winds and the snows of December should have kept the Neuchatelans around their firesides; 'the canons made a vigorous defence;' and in every quarter 'the shorn crowns' were in agitation, supplicating, menacing, howling, and threatening,—but all was useless.  No sooner did this man of small stature rise up in any place, with his pale yet sunburnt complexion, with red and unkempt beard, with sparkling eye and expressive mouth, than the monks' labour was lost: the people collected around, for it was the Word of God that fell from his lips.  All eyes were fixed on him: with open mouth and attentive ears they hung upon his words.  And scarcely does he begin to speak, when 'Oh! wonderful work of God!' he himself exclaims, 'this multitude believes as if it had but one soul.'

The Word of God carried the town, as it were, at the first assault; and throwing down the devices Rome had taken ages to compose, established itself in triumph on the ruins of human traditions.  Farel saw in imagination Jesus Christ himself walking in spirit through the midst of this crowd, opening the eyes of the blind, softening the hard heart, and working miracles, so that scarcely had he returned to his humble residence before he wrote to his friends with a heart full of emotion: 'Render thanks with me to the Father of mercies, in that he has shown his favour to those bowed down by a weighty tyranny;' and falling on his knees, he worshipped God.”

Farel moved southward, bringing the Reformation to Lausanne, and at length appearing to lead the campaign for the Reform of Geneva, the most difficult and the greatest achievement of his illustrious career. 

 




Part 2: The Genevan Campaign

The little city-state of Geneva, Switzerland was destined to become a fortress of the Reformation; but no one would have guessed it at the beginning of the sixteenth century.  In fact, there is not a more striking example of God's special providence toward a people since perhaps the founding of the nation of Israel.  The strategic importance of the little country of Switzerland  for the Protestant Reformation lay chiefly in its location at the heart of continental Europe, nestled between France, Germany, Austria and Italy.  Geneva lay at the southwest corner of Switzerland, at the southern tip of the Jura mountains, on the eastern border of  France and the northern border of Savoy.

The Genevan republic had been battling to maintain its liberties against the combined powers of their powerful southern neighbors, the Duke of Savoy and the Pope (acting through the bishop of Geneva) for decades, when in 1532, William Farel appeared on the scene.   Geneva's battle for independence was about to take a new turn.  From being a merely political contest, it was to become a spiritual war.  The Huguenots were for independence from Roman usurpations, and they were gradually coming to see  that Rome was corrupt and evil; but they were far from understanding or appreciating the gospel and the positive side of the Reformation. 

Farel was specially equipped by God for the work that lay before him.  Here is a description by D'Aubigne:

“He was one of those whose simple, serious, earnest tones carry away the masses.  His voice of thunder made his hearers tremble.  The strength of his convictions created faith in their souls, the fervor of his prayers raised them to heaven.  When they listened to him, 'they felt', as Calvin says, 'not merely a few light pricks and stings, but were wounded and pierced to the heart; and hypocrisy was dragged from those wonderful and more than tortuous hiding-places which lie deep in the heart of man.'  He pulled down and built up with equal energy.  Even his life – an apostleship full of self-sacrifice, danger and triumph – was as effectual as his sermons.  He was not only a minister of the Word; he was a bishop also.  He was able to discern the young men fitted to wield the weapons of the gospel, and to direct them in the great war of the age.

 
And here is another:

A catholic in his youth, fanatic in abstinence and maceration, Farel had embraced salvation through grace with all the living ardour of his soul, and from that hour everything appeared to him under a new face.  His desire to enlighten his contemporaries was intense, his heart intrepid, his zeal indefatigable, and his ambition for God’s glory without bounds.  A difficulty never stopped him; a reverse never discouraged him; a sacrifice, even were it that of his life, never alarmed him.  He was not a great writer; in his works we meet occasionally with disorder and prolixity; but when he spoke he was almost without an equal.  The energetic language which transported his hearers had been derived from the writings of the prophets and apostles; his doctrine was sound, his proofs strong, his expressions significative.  Poets are made by nature, orators by art, but preachers by the grace of God; and Farel had the riches of nature, of art, and of grace.  He never stopped to discuss idle or frivolous questions, but aimed straight at the conscience, and exhibited before those who listened to him the treasures of wisdom, salvation, and life that are found in the Redeemer.  Full of love for truth and hatred for falsehood, he inveighed energetically against all human inventions. 

In his eyes the traditions of popery were a gulf in which horrible darkness reigned, and hence he laboured to extricate souls from it and plant them in the soil of God’s Word.  His manly eloquence, his lively apostrophes, his bold remonstrances, his noble images, his action frank, expressive, and sometimes threatening, his voice that was often like thunder (as Beza tells us), and his fervent prayers, carried away his hearers.  His sermon was not a dissertation but an action, quite as much as a battle is.  Every time he went into the pulpit, it was to do a work. Like a valiant soldier he was always in front of the column to begin the attack, and never refused battle.  Sometimes the boldness of his speech carried by storm the fortress he attacked; sometimes he captivated souls by the divine grace he offered them.  He preached in market-places and in churches, he announced Jesus Christ in the homes of the poor and in the councils of nations.  His life was a series of battles and victories. Every time he went forth, it was conquering and to conquer.

We left Farel last time in Neuchatel, where his prodigious and indefatigable labors had led to the Reformation of the city.  For some time after, he labored in  other cities that lay between Neuchatel and Geneva; but Geneva was in his sights from at least 1521.  D'aubigne observes:

A general who desires to capture an important city, first makes sure of his position and occupies the surrounding country: and so Farel, desirous of winning Geneva to the gospel, first set about enlightening the neighbouring people. His operations were not strategic certainly; he thought only of converting souls; and yet his labours in the Vaudois towns and villages admirably prepared the way for his successes among the huguenots [of Geneva]...

In October of 1532, Farel entered Geneva, bearing letters of authorization from mighty Berne to preach the gospel there.  Geneva was allied to that powerful Protestant city, whose armies were feared throughout Europe, and also to Catholic Friburg.  This alliance was essential to the Genevans, who were threatened by such adversaries as the Pope, the Emperor, and the Duke of Savoy – any one of which should have been able to crush Geneva with ease.  Calvin's cousin, Robert Olivetan, was already there, quietly evangelizing while serving as a tutor to the children of one of the leading Huguenots.  Farel, upon entering the city, immediately tried to persuade him to use his rare gifts and learning to translate the whole Bible from the Hebrew and Greek originals into French.  Resistant at first, Olivetan finally relented.  He completed the great work in 1535, shortly before his premature death, at the age of 32.

While the Genevans had ousted their wicked bishop-prince in 1527 (he fled the city in terror, after an outraged populace demanded and obtained the release of a young woman he had abducted for his pleasure) the city was still effectively governed by his agents in the Episcopal council, and the canons.  The elected rulers (syndics and councilmen) were, most of them, still Catholics.  Besides, they were in fear of riots by the people, stirred up by the priests and friars.  They needed the alliance with Protestant Berne, but they dared not allow Farel to preach.  So they sent him to the Episcopal palace to be examined by the Romanist authorities, with a promise of safe-conduct.  These officers of Rome would not allow him to speak, but instead abused him with insults, spitting, and blows.  Despite the presence of two councilmen, Farel was badly beaten up, and barely escaped with his life.  Farel was blamed for the uproar, and banished from the city.  So fearful were the Catholics of the gospel!

Farel retreated, but he was not so easily defeated.   If he could not be there himself, he would send another to carry on the work.  His young apprentice, Anthony Froment would go next into the battle, as a schoolmaster.  Quietly, peacefully, he made inroads and gained a following among the people, including some of note, whose conversions sent shock waves through Catholic Geneva.  The Protestants of Geneva had by this time gained a decree of the council that required the word of God to be preached in every parish (this was a concession to Berne); but it was not being enforced. On New Year's Day, 1533, Froment, with a large crowd of Protestants and sympathizers preached to a large crowd at a great square called the Molard.  His text was Matthew 7:15, 'Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits.'  The Romanists, being described in vivid detail, resorting to the only argument they had, drew their swords.  A bloody riot was averted only by the arrival of the secular authorities, the abrupt ending of the sermon, and the flight of Froment.  Sheltered for a time within the city, his opportunity for usefulness was at an end.  It was his turn to leave the city, having fulfilled his part well.

Soon after, the Evangelicals celebrated the first communion service in Geneva.  It was a small, private affair; but when word of it leaked out, it caused a great uproar.  The minister who had presided, a man named Guerin, was exiled from the city.  Many of the Catholics were itching to shed Protestant blood.  The days ahead were filled with murders, attempted murders, and riots, in which the Protestants were sometimes left no choice but to defend themselves. The next Evangelical banished was Calvin's cousin, Olivetan, who was at that time translating the Scriptures into French, with whom we have already met.  D'aubigne writes:  

“Evangelical zeal was the occasion of the persecution.  Its enemies were angered; they could not understand the inappreciable life then fermenting among their people.  If a meeting was suppressed in one house, it was held in another.  ‘They could not find any remedy against this.’ 

One, however, offered itself. A Dominican monk, an Inquisitor of the Faith, had just arrived in Geneva. ‘He is a great orator,’ was the report in the city, ‘a fervent catholic...  He had come to preach the Lent sermons...  ‘Deliver us from this heresy,’ said the heads of the Dominicans to him.  The monk, flattered by this confidence and proud of his mission, prepared a fine discourse, and the next day or the next but one after Guerin’s departure he went into the pulpit.  St Dominic’s church was crowded, and a good many evangelicals, including Olivetan, were present. 

After a short introduction the monk began with loud voice and ardent zeal to decry the Bible, to abuse the heretics, and to exalt the pope.  ‘He uttered without restraint all that came into his head.’  ‘I will blacken them so,’ he had said, ‘that they shall never be washed clean.’  Great was the excitement among the huguenots. ‘  If any one of us is so bold, as to move his lips,’ they said, ‘such a little liberty makes our masters bawl out like madmen; but they are allowed to pour out their poison and infect the world with it.’ 

Olivetan, who was present during the sermon, could hardly contain himself, but as soon as it was ended, he got upon a bench, thinking it would be wrong of him not to make the truth known.  ‘Master,’ he said, ‘I desire to show you honestly from Scripture where you have erred in your discourse.’  These words created great astonishment.  What! a layman presume to teach the Church …  The priests and some of their creatures surrounded Olivetan, abused him, pushed him off the bench, and would have beaten him.  ‘Whereupon up came Claude Bernard, Jean Chautemps, and others, who took their friend away from the monks and people who desired to kill him.’…  But he did not escape so easily: the council sentenced him to banishment, without hearing or appeal.  Everyone regretted him: ‘He was a man,’ they said, ‘of such learning, godly life and conversation!’  Olivetan was forced to leave.  Geneva, suffering under a violent commotion, cast off the evangelists one after another, as the sea casts up the fragments of a wreck.”


William Blackburn relates what happened next:

“All seemed lost in the storm that swept through Geneva in the year 1533. We can glance at only a few other of the sad effects.  There was talk that these banishments were not enough.  Farel had been driven away, but after him rose up Froment.  He had been expelled, but Guerin appeared in his stead. He had been cast out, but then came Olivetan.  This fourth leader had been banished, and now somebody else would suddenly take his place.  The whole band must be expelled or treated with worse cruelties.   There were secret plots formed in the house of the grand-vicar—an armed attack, a fight on the Molard, a plan to burn out the Huguenots, and a reign of terror.

There was the restoration of the bishop-prince, Peter la Baume, who, six years before, had carried off a young girl to his castle, and raised a tempest that bore him away into banishment.  There were all his revenges upon the innocent, some of them being thrust into prison, and some put to flight.   Chautemps escaped; but his wife, the delicate, accomplished, devoted and heroic Jaquema, must pay for it by suffering rough treatment in a narrow cell.  Claudine Levet saw her house again despoiled, and her husband fleeing for the mountains; and if he had not been overtaken, seized, and cast into a deep dungeon, she would have suffered in his stead.  These are mere specimens of the persecution.  There was almost everything to please the sister Jeanne de Jussie in making up her journal, and telling how the women met to 'make war and kill the heretic wives, in order that the breed might be extirpated,' and how, with their little hatchets and swords and caps full of stones, 'there were full seven hundred children, from twelve to fifteen years old, firmly resolved to do good service along with their mothers.”

Yet, amid all this storm and uproar, there was a voice from My Lords of Berne.  Messengers went and told them all about this madness for popery and this violence against their ministers.  They were aroused, like a 'bear robbed of her young.'  Papal Friburg should not drive out of the re-allied city the men whom Protestant Berne sent there to preach the gospel. They 'did not mince matters.'  They gave the Genevan council something to think about, and to put its members in a fearful dilemma.  The council was called; there was something new; the looks of all were anxious; the premier, with an air of consternation, offered a letter from the Bernese senators: 'We are surprised that in your city the faith in Jesus Christ, and those who seek it, are so greatly molested. … You will not suffer the word of God to be freely proclaimed, and you banish those who preach it.”

The Council deliberated:

“What should be done?  'If we yield to what Berne demands, the priests will get up fresh disturbances.'  It will not do to put down the priests, for Friburg insisted on their presence and power.  This course, then, seemed full of danger. But was the other any safer?  'If we refuse,' said they, very solemnly, 'Berne will break off the alliance, and the reformed will revolt.'  This course was dangerous.  And they knew not what to do...”

The priest party sent for a doctor of the Sorbonne to preach the Christmas sermons.  This was Guy Furbity, a man of great pomp and little discretion. He, being a Dominican, was expected to preach in the convent de Rive; but, in order to make the victory the more effective, he was led by an armed escort to the cathedral of St. Peter, some time before the Christmas week.  There he declaimed about the soldiers dividing our Lord’s garments, and the heretics dividing the church, calling the latter by all the worst of names.

Just before Christmas a deputation came from Berne, bringing Farel, Viret, and Froment, and insisting that they should be heard, and that the friar Furbity should be arrested for abusing their honors, their ministers, and good Christians generally.  The friar went so far that the senate of Geneva put him under close guard.  The grand-vicar ordered French Bibles to be destroyed, and forbade anyone to preach without his license.  But the preachers taught in private houses and waited for Berne to open the public doors.

'You must arrest Furbity and bring him to trial for insulting us,' said the Bernese, 'and he must prove from Scripture what he has declared, or recant.'  The Genevese hesitated.  It would offend Friburg. 'If you prefer Friburg to us,' replied Berne, 'then choose her.  But what about those large sums of money which you owe us for defending your city?  What about the articles of alliance?  Refuse our request, and we must have a settlement.  We will remove the seal from the articles, and you will look no more to us for help.'  The senate of Geneva could afford to give up the alliance with papal Friburg, rather than that with Protestant Berne.  They therefore let the Bernese summon Furbity to a discussion with Farel.

It was, no doubt, one of the gladdest days of Farel’s life, when he met this friar in an open debate.  It was a delight not often afforded to the reformers.  Furbity agreed to prove his points by Scripture.  Many subjects were discussed through several days.  The friar broke down in his undertaking, especially on the eating of no meat in Lent.  'I cannot prove it from Scripture,' said he, with fading pomp.

'This is keeping your promise admirably,' said Farel, 'that you would maintain from Scripture, before all the world, and to your latest breath, what you have been preaching.”

The friar found himself mastered.  He apologized to the Bernese commissioners, and hoped for the liberty of trying his eloquence in quarters where he might have less to do with the Bible.  But Berne was in earnest...  He must recant, and that in the cathedral.  Then he might leave the city.  Pale and trembling he went into the pulpit, and instead of recanting his errors before the people, who were already convinced of them, he began to complain of injustice and persecution!  The Bernese insisted on his recantation.  He refused and thus was false to his own promises.  The people became indignant.  They wrongly set upon him and almost killed him.  The Bernese interfered, and put him into prison.  There he was visited by Farel, Viret, and Caroli.  On seeing this last one, he almost fainted away, for Caroli had been his divinity tutor, and had left the Romish faith.  For two hours they labored with him, but he persisted in his errors. He was kept for two years in prison, and finally released at the intercession of Francis I...  By Farel’s triumph over him in the debates, a strong turn was given to the Reformation.

During the next Lent a milder monk was preaching in one of the churches. He was enjoined by the senate to publish the pure gospel, and not allude to the adoration of the Virgin Mary, prayers to the saints, purgatory, and such like subjects.  He promised to obey but did not keep his word. The Bernese deputies heard his sermons, and then asked that one of their ministers might preach, promising that he should not attack the mass, nor image worship, nor any peculiar tenet of popery.  They said it was reported that their preachers kept in dark corners, met at an inn for worship, and dared not appear in the churches.  But the Genevese senate feared to offend Friburg and the bishop, and the request was not granted. The people tried another plan that very day.

In a few hours the bell of the Franciscan church was ringing, and the people flocking thither almost carrying Farel.  They set him up in the pulpit, and he preached without interruption.  It was the first Protestant sermon in a Genevan church.  Everyone was astonished, and the grave question was, who of the citizens had rung the bell.  'It was not by our consent,' said the senate.  'We had no hand in it,' said the Bernese envoys, 'it looks like a wonderful providence.'  The Friburgers declared that it must not be permitted again, or they would break off their alliance.  The senators asked the Bernese to send away the preachers.  'Not at all,' said the Bernese, who begged Farel to bear in mind the critical state of the city, and be moderate in his attacks upon the errors of the priests.  In April 1534, the Friburgers carried out their threat, tore the seal from their treaty, and left Geneva in the hands of Berne and the reformers.

It was a great victory for the Protestant cause, whose weapons were those of peace and good will to men.  At Whitsuntide Farel administered the Lord’s supper to a large number of communicants.  For a moment there was fear of a disturbance, for a priest entered the church in full dress, as if he intended to break up the services.  All were breathless.  He walked up to the table, threw off his robes, declared that he thus renounced popery, and wished to be received into the little band of disciples, and sat down with the communicants.  The exiles began to return, and the prisoners to see hope of release.  By degrees one church after another was opened to the preachers.

The Romanists began to make a new use of their old weapons.  The bishop and the canons approved of a plan to surprise the city by night, expel the civil rulers, take the government in their own hands, and sweep out the new doctrines and the new church.  The plot came to light, and the bishop came to grief.  The pope next tried the 'thunders of the Vatican,' and Geneva, with her allies, was excommunicated from the church of Rome.  This act raised up Huguenots in the streets and in the senate, and finally Geneva broke with the bishop-prince and with the pope.

Smaller plots were laid.  A servant girl was engaged by certain priests to take off the ministers by mixing poison with their food.  It happened that Farel ate nothing that day, Froment dined elsewhere, and only Viret partook of the poisoned dish.  He felt the effects of it immediately, and, although his life was saved, his health never recovered entirely from the shock.  Not long after a still more atrocious attempt was made to poison the bread and wine at the Lord’s supper.  These plots excited a sympathy for the reformed and a general hatred against the priests and their party.

The preachers now resided with the Franciscans and gained many of these monks over to the reformed faith.  One of these was James Bernard, the brother of Farel’s host.  They often talked of the Scriptures together, and the Franciscan agreed to defend the new doctrines before an assembly of his own brethren and those of St. Bernard.  Thus, to Farel’s delight, a disputation was held for nearly four weeks, when all the main points between Romanists and Protestants were discussed... The result was most happy.  Many of the priests became obedient unto the faith, and the people were strengthened.  Claudius Bernard, Farel’s host, demanded that the senate make a public acknowledgement of the Reformation, and declare that popery was no longer the religion of Geneva.  But the senators hesitated, lest there should be a renewal of disturbances.

One day Farel was invited to preach in the Magdalen church.  He went, and, as he entered, the priest left the mass and hastily retired, leaving Farel the pulpit and the audience.  The vicar complained.  The senate ordered Farel to confine himself to the two churches already open to him and his brethren.  A few days afterward Farel appeared in another church, and for this was brought before the senate.  He listened respectfully to their rebukes, and then begged to be heard.  He urged 'that the Reformation was the work of Divine Providence, and to delay its progress was to oppose God’s will; besides, almost the whole city had declared in its favor.  Issue right commands if you wish the servants of God to render you willing obedience.  Give God the glory, and aid the victory of truth over error, especially when you behold some of the most zealous defenders of popery converted to the true religion.'  The senate did not withdraw their prohibition, and were reminded that 'we must obey God rather than men.'  There were some Gamaliels in that senate who would not allow any forcible measures.

Another day, August 8, 1535, the bell of the Franciscan church was ringing, and Farel was on the way thither, when he was met by a strong body of men.  They obliged him to go to the cathedral, the very throne of Romanism in the city, on whose pillar had once been nailed the 'great pardon.'  There, in the pulpit of St. Peter’s, he declared what had not rung to its roof for centuries.  He was himself again, with his loud voice and his torrent of eloquence.  He could not endure the images and relics that were thickly seen in all corners.  No doubt he said many severe things, which excited the people against these idolatries, and when they came again in the evening in great numbers, the work of image-breaking commenced in downright earnest.  Vandel, Baudichon, and others led the way, and they left mourning enough for the monks.  The next day they visited other churches and made rough havoc of the images.

The senate, not knowing whereunto this would grow, joined with the council of Two Hundred, and they summoned Farel to appear before them.  He went with several other ministers, Franciscans, and citizens.  He addressed them with firmness and moderation at first, and then warming with Scripture and the greatness of his cause, he employed all his bold and masterly eloquence in defense of the faith.  'We do not wish those priests, who cannot receive our doctrines, to be punished,' said he, 'but we pray for their conversion.  We are here to preach, not to persecute.  We are ready to seal the truth with our blood.'  He then prayed most fervently that God would give light to the members of the council, so that they might act wisely in behalf of the people who needed salvation.   All was respectful, earnest, powerful, and convincing.

The councilors were touched, moved, and decided.  They asked the Romish clergy to come forward and state their arguments.  The monks confessed their ignorance, and those higher in rank simply hurled back their contempt for Farel and their defiance of the council.  It was firmly resolved to abolish popery, and to establish Protestantism.  In the evening of the same day, August 10, the vicar was informed of the proceedings, and that his services were no longer desired.  The mass was forbidden, even in private houses.  The Bible was to have its place and its power.  The bishop-prince removed to the little town of Gex, and the see was declared vacant.   The monasteries were suppressed, and an opportunity was given for Sister Jeanne to hear that fearful preacher, William Farel, on whom she had expended so much of her wit and her wailing.

Whether Sister Jeanne heard Farel or not, we cannot tell, but he preached to the nuns of St. Claire, and showed that Mary and Elizabeth were not shut up in convents, but were excellent mothers at their homes.  They had been thrown into horrors long before by certain women who told them, 'If the heretics win the day they will certainly make you all marry, young and old, all to your perdition.'  So they chose to leave Geneva, rather then live among the heretics.

The citizens met on the twenty-first of May, 1535, and took an oath to support the Reformation.  Geneva was rising into a Protestant state, quite theocratic in its government and powerful in its influence upon the world. Michelet, who is a moderate Roman Catholic, declares, 'Europe was saved by Geneva.'  And who saved Geneva?  So far as mere men are concerned, due credit must be given to William Farel.”

Perhaps the most important single act of Farel was his enlisting of John Calvin to aid in the reformation of Geneva.  Farel was always looking for recruits, and was always short of good men.  Calvin, a fellow Frenchman, he knew by reputation, chiefly from his famous Institutes of the Christian Religion, just recently published.  Here is Wylie's account:

“One day, towards the end of August, 1536, a stranger, of slender figure and pale face, presented himself at the gates of Geneva.  There was nothing to distinguish him from the crowds of exiles who were then arriving almost daily at the same gates, except it might be the greater brightness that burned in his eye.  He had come to rest only for a night, and depart on the morrow.  But as he traversed the streets on his way to his hotel, a former acquaintance – Du Tillet, say some; Caroli, say others – recognised him, and instantly hurried off to tell Farel that Calvin was in Geneva.

When, nearly a year ago, we parted with Calvin, he was on his way across the Alps to visit Renee, the daughter of Louis XII. of France, and wife of Hercules d'Este, Duke of Ferrara. 'He entered Italy,' as he himself said, 'only to leave it,'  though not till he had confirmed the illustrious princess, at whose court he sojourned, in her attachment to the Protestant faith, in which, despite the many and peculiar trials to which her constancy exposed her, she steadfastly continued to her life's end.

His eldest brother dying, Calvin recrossed the mountains, on a hasty journey to his birth place, most probably to arrange the family affairs, and leave Noyon for ever.  Where shall he next go?  The remembrance of the studious days he had passed at Basle returned to him with irresistibly attractive force, and now, accompanied by his brother Antoine, and his sister Maria, he was on his way to his former retreat; but the direct road through Lorraine was blocked up by the armies of Charles V, and this compelled him to make a detour by Switzerland, which brought him to the gates of Geneva. 

With startled but thankful surprise Farel received the news that the author of the Christian Institutes was in the city.  God, he thought, had sent, at a critical moment, the man of all others whom he most wished to associate with himself in the work of reforming Geneva.  Farel had begun to feel the difficulty of the task he had in hand.  To break this people from their habits of lawless indulgence, nurtured by the contests in which they had won their liberty, would indeed be no easy matter.  They would spurn all attempts to coerce them, and yield only to the force of a stronger will, and the sway of a loftier genius.  Besides, the highest organising skill was demanded in the man who should set up a moral tribunal in the midst of this licentious city, and found on this unpromising spot an empire which should pervade with its regenerating spirit nations afar off, and generations yet unborn.  Believing that he had found in Calvin one who possessed all these great qualities, Farel was already on his way to visit him. 

Farel now stands before the author of the Institutes. He beholds a man of small stature and sickly mien.   Were these the shoulders on which he should lay a burden which would have tasked the strength of Atlas himself?  We can well believe that Farel experienced some moments of painful misgivings.  To re-assure himself he had to recall to mind, doubtless, the profound wisdom, the calm strength, and the sublimity of principle displayed on every page of the Institutes.  That was the real Calvin. 

Now Farel began to press his suit.  He was here combating alone.  He had to do daily battle against an atrocious tyranny outside the city, and against a licentious Libertinism within it.  'Come,' he said to the young Reformer, 'and be my comrade in the campaign.'  Calvin's reply was a refusal.  His constructive and practical genius was then unknown even to himself.  His sphere, he believed, was his library; his proper instrument of work, his pen; and to cast himself into a scene like that before him was, he believed, to extinguish himself.  Panting to be at Basle or at Strasburg, where speaking from the sanctuary of a studious and laborious privacy, he could edify all the Churches, he earnestly besought Farel to stand aside and let him go on his way. 

But Farel would not stand aside.  Putting on something of the authority of an ancient prophet, he commanded the young traveler to remain and labour in Geneva, and he imprecated upon his studies the curse of God, should he make them the pretext for declining the call now addressed to him.  It was the voice not of Farel, but of God, that now spoke to Calvin; so he felt; and instantly he obeyed.  He loved, in after-life, to recall that ' fearful adjuration,' which was, he would say, 'as if God from on high had stretched out his hand to stop me.'

Calvin's journey was now at an end.  He had reached the spot where his life's work was to be done.  Here, in this grey city, clinging to its narrow rocky site, the calm lake at its feet, and the glories of the distant mountains in its sky, was he for twenty-eight years to toil and wage battle, and endure defeat, but to keep marching on through toil and defeat, to more glorious victory in the end than warrior ever won with his sword, and then he would fall on sleep, and rest by the banks of that river whose narrow stream he had crossed but a few minutes before. He gave his hand to Farel, and in doing so he gave himself to Geneva.”

Farel and Calvin labored together in Geneva until they were both expelled in 1538 by a hostile city council.  The city was plunged into chaos, and suffered serious losses and disasters through the misrule of these ungodly senators and syndics, until a series of remarkable providences discredited them and restored the people to their right minds.  Realizing at last the value of the two ministers they had driven away, they begged Calvin to return and to teach them the good and right way.  Calvin was loth to return to a place that had so severely abused him.  His friend and mentor, Martin Bucer, tried to retain him at Strasbourg, where he was pastoring a church of French refugees.  He had rather do anything than go back to Geneva; but, chiefly because of Farel's persuasive counsel, he determined to once more sacrifice himself for the cause of God.  Through his exile, he had gained a wider ministry, participating in some of the major Protestant councils; and moreover had been recognized as one of the leaders of the Reformation throughout Europe.  Accordingly, when at length he arrived in Geneva, he had grown greatly in the esteem of that people; and was much more effective in the days ahead as a result.


Farel having been settled elsewhere in Switzerland, Calvin returned in 1541 without him, but they remained close friends until Calvin's death in 1564.  Surprisingly, Farel married late in life, and lived to the ripe old age of 76, serving God to the end of his days.

 

Howard Douglas King

Revised November 10, 2014

The following is taken from J. H. Merle D'aubigne's History of the Reformation in the Time of Calvin, Book 6, Chapter 14.  It has been abridged and otherwise edited for clarity and ease of understanding.  Nothing of substance has been altered.  D'aubigne's sources for this history are impeccable, the chief ones being John Fox, George Buchanan, and John Knox.  Otherwise, one could hardly credit the remarkable prophecies of Wishart, his striking resemblance to the prophets of the Old Testament, and his martyrdom, so reminiscent of the passion of Christ himself.

 

INTRODUCTION

IN the summer of 1544, a pious man of about thirty-one years, named George Wishart, returned from England to eastern Scotland.  He was a brother of the laird of Pittarow, in the county of Mearns.  While at Montrose, six years earlier, he had read the Greek New Testament with several youths whom he was educating, and had been cited by the bishop to appear before him.  Wishart had then prudently retired to Cambridge, in England, where he devoted himself to study for six years.  In 1544, some Scottish commissioners who came into England respecting a treaty with Henry VIII took him back with them to Scotland.  He went first to Montrose, his old abode, and thence to Dundee, where he wished to preach the Word of God. 

His personal appearance was entirely prepossessing.  He was amiable, unassuming, polite.  His chief delight was to learn and to teach.  He was tall; his black hair was cut short, his beard was long.  His physiognomy was indicative of a somewhat melancholy temperament.  He wore a French cap of the best material, a gown which fell to his heels, and a black doublet.  There was about his whole person an air of decorum and grace.  He spoke with modesty and with great seriousness.  He slept on straw, and his charity had no end, night nor day.  He loved all men.  He gave gifts, consolation, assistance: he was studious of all means of doing good to all and hurt to none.  He distributed periodically among the poor various articles of clothing, always saving his French cap.

 

DRIVEN FROM DUNDEE

Wishart's reputation having preceded him, a multitude of hearers gathered about him at Dundee.  He expounded in a connected series of discourses the doctrine of salvation, according to the Epistle to the Romans, and his knowledge and eloquence excited general admiration.  But the priests declared everywhere that if he were allowed to go on, the Roman system must inevitably fall to the ground.  They therefore sought the assistance of an influential layman, Robert Mill, who had once professed the truth, but had since forsaken it.  One day, just as Wishart was finishing his discourse, Mill rose in the church and forbade him in the queen's name and the regent's to trouble them any more.

Wishart was silent for awhile, with his eyes turned heavenward, and then looking sorrowfully on the assembly he said "God is witness that I never intended your trouble, but your comfort.  But I am assured that to refuse God's Word and to chase from you his messenger shall not preserve you from trouble, but shall bring you into it.  I have offered unto you the word of salvation, and with the hazard of my life I have remained among you.  But and if trouble unlooked-for apprehend you, turn to God, for He is merciful.  But if ye turn not at the first he will visit you with fire and sword."  When he had thus spoken, he came down from the pulpit and went away at once into the western part of Scotland.

 

PREACHING IN THE WEST

Having arrived at Ayr, he preached there to large numbers of people who gladly received his words.  Dunbar, bishop of Glasgow, as soon as he was informed of it, hastened to the town with a body of men and took possession of the church in order to prevent Wishart from preaching.  The reformer's friends were indignant at this step.  The earl of Glencairn, the laird of Loch Norris, and several gentlemen of Kyle went to Wishart and offered to get possession of the church and to place him in the pulpit.  "No," said the evangelist, wisely, "the bishop's sermon will not much hurt: let us go to the market cross."  They did so, and he there preached with so much energy and animation that some of his hearers, who were enemies of the truth till that day, received it gladly.  Meanwhile the bishop was in the church with a very small audience.  There was hardly anyone to hear him but some vestry attendants and some poor dependents.  They were expecting a sermon, but he had forgotten to put one in his pocket.  He made them the best excuses he could.  "Hold us still for your bishop," he said, "and we shall provide better the next time."  He then with haste departed from the town, not a little ashamed of his enterprise!

 

PREACHING TO THE PLAGUE-STRICKEN

The reformer heard on a sudden that the plague had broken out at Dundee four days after he left the town, and that it was raging cruelly.  He resolved instantly to go there.  "They are now in trouble and will need comfort," he said to those who would fain hold him back; "perchance this hand of God will make them now to magnify and reverence that word which before, for the fear of men, they set at light part."  He reached Dundee in August, 1544, and announced the same morning that he would preach.  It was necessary to keep apart the plague-stricken from those who were in health, and for that purpose he took his station at the east gate of the town.  Those who were in health had their place within the city, and those who were sick remained without.  Such a distribution of an audience was surely never seen before! 

Wishart opened the Bible and read these words "He sent his word and healed them." (Psalm 107:20)  "The mercy of God," said he, "is prompt to fall on all such as truly turn to Him, and the malice of men can neither add to nor diminish his gentle visitation."  "We do not fear death," said some of his hearers; "nay, we judge them more happy that should depart, than such as should remain behind."  That east gate of Dundee (Cowgate) was left standing in memory of Wishart when the town walls were taken down at the close of the eighteenth century, and it was still carefully preserved as late as 1875.  Wishart was not satisfied with speech alone, he personally visited the sick, fearlessly exposing himself to infection in the most extreme cases.  He took care that the sick should have what they needed, and the poor were as well provided for as the rich.  The town was in great distress lest the mouth from which so much sweetness flowed should be closed.

 


ATTEMPTS ON HIS LIFE

Nevertheless, at the cardinal's instigation, says Knox, a priest named Wighton took a sword, and concealing it under his gown mixed with the crowd as if he were a mere hearer, and stood waiting at the foot of the steps by which Wishart must come down.  The discourse was finished, the people dispersed.  Wishart, whose glance was keen and whose judgment was swift, noticed as he came down the steps a priest who kept his hand under his gown, and as soon as he came near him he said, "My friend, what would ye do?"  At the same moment he laid hold of the priest's hand and snatched the weapon from him.  The assassin fell at his feet and confessed his fault.

Swiftly ran the report that a priest had attempted to kill the reformer, and the sick who heard it turned back and cried, " Deliver the traitor to us, or else we will take him by force."  And so indeed they rushed on him.  But Wishart put his arms round the assassin.  "Whosoever troubles him," said he, "shall trouble me, for he has hurt me in nothing."  His friends however insisted that for the future one of them, in arms, should accompany him wherever he went.

When the plague had ceased at Dundee, Wishart thought that, as God had put an end to that battle, he called him to another.  It was indeed proposed that he should hold a public disputation.  He inquired of the bishops where he should be heard.  But first he went to Montrose "to salute the kirk there," and although sometimes preaching the Gospel, he was "most part in secret meditation, in the which he was so earnest, that night and day he would continue in it." 

While there, he received a letter purporting to be written by his friend the laird of Kynneir, who being sick desired him to come to him.  But it was a trick of the cardinal.  Sixty armed horsemen were lying in wait behind a hill to take him prisoner.  He set out unsuspecting, but when he had gone some distance, he suddenly stopped in the midst of the friends who were accompanying him and seemed absorbed in deep musing.  Then he turned and went back.  "What mean you?" said his friends, wondering.  "I will go no further," he replied: "I am forbidden of God.  I am assured there is treason."  Pointing to the hill he added, "Let some of you go to yon place, and tell me what they find."  These brave men reported with all speed what they saw.  "I know," said he, "that I shall end my life in that bloodthirsty man's hands, but it will not be of this manner."

 

HIS NIGHT OF PRAYER

Shortly after, he set out for Edinburgh in spite of the entreaties of the laird of Dundee, and went to lodge at Innergowrie at the house of a Christian man named James Watson.  A little after midnight two men of good credit who were in the house, William Spalding and John Watson, heard him open his door and go down stairs.  They followed him secretly, and saw him go into the garden and walk for some time up and down an alley.

Wishart, persuaded that he was drawing near to his end, and thinking of the horrors of martyrdom and of his own weakness, was greatly agitated and felt the need of calling upon God that he might not fail in the midst of the conflict.  He was heard sighing and groaning, and just as day began to dawn, he was seen to fall on his knees and afterwards on his face.  For a whole hour his two friends heard confused sounds of his prayer, interrupted now and then by his tears.  At length he seemed to grow quiet and to have found rest for his soul.  He rose and went quietly back to his chamber.

In the morning his anxious friends began to ask him where he had been.  He evaded the question. "Be plain with us," they said, "for we heard your groans, yea, we heard your mourning, and saw you both upon your knees and
upon your face."  "I had rather ye had been in your beds," said he, "for I was scarce well occupied."  And as they urged him, he spoke to them of his approaching death and of his need of God's help.  They were much saddened and wept. 

Wishart said to them "God shall send you comfort after me. This realm shall be illuminated with the light of Christ's Evangel as clearly as ever was any realm since the days of the apostles.  The house of God shall be built into it : yea, it shall not want, whatsoever the enemy imagine to the contrary, the very top-stone.  Neither shall this be long to; there shall not many suffer after me, till that the glory of God shall evidently appear and shall once triumph in despite of Satan.  But alas!  If the people shall be afterwards unthankful, then fearful and terrible shall the plagues be that after shall follow."  Wishart soon after went into the Lothians, that is, into the shires of Linlithgow, Edinburgh, and Haddington.



WISHART AND KNOX

A man like Wishart assuredly belongs to the history of the Reformation. But there is another motive leading us to narrate these circumstances.  The great reformer of Scotland was trained in the school of Wishart.  Among those who followed the latter from place to place as he preached the Gospel was John Knox.  He had left St. Andrews because he could not endure either the superstition of the Romish system or the cardinal's despotism, and having betaken himself to the south of Scotland he had been for some time tutor in the family of Douglas of Langniddrie.  He had openly professed the evangelical doctrine, and the clergy in their wrath had declared him a heretic and deprived him of the priesthood.  Knox, attracted by the preaching and the life of Wishart, attached himself to him and became his beloved disciple.  In addition to his public discourses, to which he listened with eager attention, he received also instructions in private.  He undertook for Wishart a duty which was full of danger, but which he discharged joyfully.  During Wishart's evangelical excursions he kept watch for the safety of his person, and bore the sword which his friends had provided after the attempt of the Dundee priest to assassinate him.  Knox was soon to bear another sword, the sword of the Spirit, like his master.

 

MINISTRY NEAR EDINBURG

The earl of Cassilis and some other friends of Wishart had appointed to meet him at Leith, and as that town is very near Edinburgh, they had advised him not to show himself until their arrival.  After awaiting them for a day or two he fell into a deep melancholy.  "What differ I from a dead man," said he, "except that I eat and drink?  To this time God has used my labours to the disclosing of darkness, and now I lurk as a man that was ashamed and durst not show himself before men."  "You know," said his friends, "the danger wherein ye stand."  "Let my God," he replied, "provide for me as best pleases him." 

On the following Sunday, fifteen days before Christmas, he preached on the parable of the sower.  From Leith he went to Brownston, Lanooniddrie and Ormiston, and preached on the Sunday, both morning and afternoon, at Inveresk to a large concourse of people. Two Franciscan friars came and stood by the church door, and whispered some thing to those who were going in to turn them back.  Wishart observing this said to some who were near the pulpit, "I heartily pray you to make room to these two men; it maybe that they be come to learn."  Then addressing the monks he said, "Come near, for I assure you ye shall hear the word of verity, which shall either seal unto you this same day your salvation or your condemnation." 

He continued his discourse, but the two friars, who had taken up their places, did not cease whispering right and left, and troubling all that stood near them.  Wishart turned sharply to them and said "O sergeants of Satan, and deceivers of the souls of men, will ye neither hear God's truth nor suffer others to hear it?  Depart, and take this for your portion; God shall shortly confound and disclose your hypocrisy within this realm; ye shall be abominable unto men, and your places and habitations shall be desolate." 

He then resumed his sermon, and preached with so much power that Sir George Douglas, brother of the earl of Angus, who was present at the meeting, said publicly after the sermon, "I know that my lord governor and my lord cardinal shall hear that I have been at this preaching (for they were then in Edinburgh).  Say unto them that I will avow it, and will not only maintain the doctrine that I have heard, but also the person of the teacher to the uttermost of my power."   Those who were present greatly rejoiced at these words, spoken by so influential a man.

As for Wishart, it was enough for him to know that God keeps his own people for the end to which he calls them.  He preached in other places to large numbers, and with all the more fervour, for his persuasion and assertion that the day of his death was at hand.  After Christmas he passed into Haddingtonshire.  The cardinal, hearing of his purpose, had informed the earl of Bothwell, who immediately let it be known, both in the town and in the country, that no one was to go and hear that heretic under pain of his displeasure.  The prohibition of this powerful lord had its effect.  The first day there was a large gathering to hear Wishart, but the next day his audience was very small. 

 

HIS LAST SERMON

A new trial now came to afflict him.  His friends in western Scotland had promised to come to Edinburgh to discuss with him the means of advancing the cause of the Gospel.  Now on the third day after his arrival in Haddingtonshire, when he had already entered the church and was about to go into the pulpit, a messenger approached and handed him a letter.  He opened it.  His friends at Ayr and other places wrote to tell him that certain obstacles prevented them from fulfilling their promises.

Struck with sorrow, he called for John Knox, who had waited upon him carefully from the time he came to Lothian.  "I am wearied of the world," said he, "for I perceive that men begin to be wearied of God."  Knox wondered that Wishart should enter into conversation with him before the sermon, which he was never accustomed to do, and said to him, "Sir, the time of sermon approaches, I will leave you for the present to your meditations.”  He then took the letter and withdrew.

Wishart, left to himself, began to walk about slowly at the back of the high altar.  He paced to and fro, sadness depicted on his countenance, and everything about him revealing the deep grief that was in his soul.  This lasted about half an hour. 

At length he passed into the pulpit.  The audience was small, as it had been the day before.  He had not power to treat the subject he had proposed: his heart was too full, and he must needs unburden it before God.  "O Lord," said he, "how long shall it be that thy holy Word shall be despised and men shall not regard their own salvation?  I have heard of thee, Haddington, that in thee would have been at a vain clerk's play two or three thousand people, and now to hear the messenger of the eternal God, of all the town or parish cannot be numbered one hundred persons.  Sore and fearful shall the plagues be that shall ensue this thy contempt, with fire and sword shalt thou be plagued.  And that because ye have not known nor will not know the time of God's merciful visitation."

After saying these words he made a short paraphrase of the second table of the law.  He exhorted to patience, to the fear of God, and to works of mercy; and impressed by the presentiment that this was the last time he should publicly preach, he made (so to speak) his last testament, declaring that the spirit of truth and judgment were both in his heart and on his lips.

He quitted the church, bade farewell to his friends, and then prepared to leave the town.  "I will not leave you alone," said Knox to him.  But Wishart, who had his approaching end constantly before his eyes, said "Nay, return to your bairns [his pupils], and God bless you.  One is sufficient for a sacrifice."  He then compelled Knox to give up the sword, and parted with him.  The laird of Ormiston, who was at the time with Wishart, had invited him to his house in the country.  They set out on their journey with several gentlemen of the neighbourhood.  The cold was severe, and they therefore travelled on foot.  While at supper Wishart spoke of the death of God's children.  Then he said with a cheerful smile "Methinks that I desire earnestly to sleep.  We'll sing a psalm."  He chose Psalm 51, and struck up the tune himself: "Have mercy upon me, O God, according to thy lovingkindness."  As soon as the psalm was ended, he went to his chamber and to bed.



THE ARREST

A little before midnight a troop of armed men silently approached, surrounded the house that no one might escape, and demanded Wishart.  But neither promises nor threats could induce Ormiston to deliver up his guest. They then went for the earl of Bothwell, the most powerful lord of that region.  Bothwell came, and said to the laird, "It is but vain to make him to hold his house, for the governor and the cardinal with all their power are coming.  But and if you will deliver the man unto me, I will promise upon my honour that he shall be safe and sound, and that it shall pass the power of the cardinal to do him any harm or scathe."  Ormiston, confiding in this promise, told Wishart what had occurred.

"Open the gates," replied he, immediately; "the blessed will of my God be done."  Bothwell entered, with several gentlemen who accompanied him.  Wishart said to him, "I praise my God that so honourable a man as you, my lord, receives me this night in the presence of these noblemen; for now I am assured that, for your honour's sake, ye will suffer nothing to be done unto me besides the order of law."  The earl replied "I shall preserve your body from all violence, neither shall the governor nor cardinal have their will over you: but I shall retain you in my own hands till that either I shall make you free or else restore you in the same place where I receive you."  Immediately after giving this promise, the earl set out with Wishart for Elphinston.  The cardinal, bent on getting possession of Wishart's friends, sent five hundred horsemen to Ormiston to seize the laird, together with the lairds of Brownston and Calder.  Brownston fled through the woods, but the other two were carried off to Edinburgh castle.  Wishart was removed to the strong castle of Hailes on the banks of the Tyne, the principal mansion of Bothwell in the Lothians. 

 

BOTHWELL SELLS OUT

That did not satisfy the cardinal, who wanted Wishart more than all.  The queen-mother, Mary of Guise, who was not on friendly terms with Bothwell, promised him her support if he would give up the evangelist.  The cardinal, on his part, "gave gold, and that largely."  Gold and women have corrupted all worldly and fleshly men from the beginning," says Knox.  The earl raised some objections: "but an effeminate man", adds Knox, "cannot long withstand the assaults of a gracious queen." 

Wishart was first taken to Edinburgh castle, and at the end of January, 1546, the regent gave him up to the cardinal, who confined him at St. Andrews, in the sea tower.  The assistance of a civil judge was, it seems, necessary to give validity to the judgment.  The cardinal requested one of the regent, Arran, but one of his councillors, Hamilton of Preston, said to him "What, will you deliver up to wicked men those whose uprightness is acknowledged even by their enemies?  Will you put to death those who are guilty of no more crime than that of preaching the Gospel of Christ?  What ingratitude towards God!"

The regent consequently wrote to the cardinal that he would not consent that any hurt should be done to that man without a careful investigation of his cause.  The cardinal, on receiving this letter, flew into a violent passion.  "It was only for civility's sake" said he, "that I made the request.  I and my clergy have the power in ourselves to inflict on Wishart the chastisement which he deserves."  He invited the archbishop of Glasgow, and all bishops and other dignitaries of the Church, to assemble at St. Andrews on February the 27th to consult on the matter, although it was already decided in his own mind.

 

THE MOCK TRIAL

The next day the dean of St. Andrews went to the prison where Wishart was confined, and summoned him in the cardinal's name to appear before the judges on the morrow.  "What needed" replied the prisoner, "my lord cardinal to summon me to answer for my doctrine openly before him, under whose power and dominion I am thus straitly bound in irons?  May not my lord compel me to

answer to his extorted power?"  On March 1st the cardinal ordered all the household servants of his palace to put themselves under arms.  The civil power, it is remembered, had refused to take part in the proceedings, and therefore Beatoun took its place.  His men at once equipped themselves with lances, swords, axes,  and other warlike array.  It might have been thought that some military action was in hand, rather than a gathering of priests who assumed to busy themselves about God's Church.

These armed champions, putting themselves in marching order, first escorted the bishops with great ceremony to the abbey church, and then went for Wishart.  The governor of the castle put himself at the head of the band, and so they led the prisoner "like a lamb to sacrifice."  As he entered the door of the abbey church, he threw his purse to a poor infirm man lying there, and at length he stood in the presence of the numerous and brilliant assembly.  To invest the proceedings with due formality, Beatoun had caused two platforms to be erected, facing each other.  Wishart was set on one of them, and the accuser, Lauder, took his place on the other. 

The dean, Winryme, then appeared in the pulpit.  This worthy churchman, who was charged to deliver the customary sermon, was secretly a friend to the Gospel.  He read the parable of "the good seed and the tares" (Matthew 23:24-30), and set forth various pious considerations which told more against the judges than against the accused, and which the latter heard with pleasure.

 

THE PROSECUTION

When the sermon was ended, the bishops ordered Wishart to stand up on his platform to hear the accusation.  Then rose the accuser, John Lauder, a priest whom the chronicler calls a monster, and, facing Wishart, unrolled a long paper full of threatenings and devilish maledictions; and, addressing the guiltless evangelist in cruel words, hurled pitilessly at him all the thunders of the papacy.  The ignorant crowd who heard him, expected to see the earth open and swallow the unhappy reformer; but he remained quiet, and listened with great patience and without a change of countenance to the violent accusations of his adversary.  When Lauder had finished reading at the top of his voice the threatening indictment, he turned to Wishart, his face "all running down with sweat," says the chronicler, "and frothing at the mouth like a boar, he spat at Mr. George's face, saying, 'What answerest thou to these sayings, thou renegade, traitor, and thief, which we have duly proved by sufficient witness against thee?'" 

Wishart knelt down and prayed for the help of God.  Then rising, he made answer with all sweetness, "My lords, I pray you quietly to hear me, so that instead of condemning me unjustly, to the great peril of your souls, you may know that I have taught the pure Word of God, and that you may receive it yourselves as the source from which health and life shall spring forth for you.  In Dundee I taught the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans, and shall show your discretions faithfully what fashion and manner I used when I taught, without any human dread..."

At these words the accuser interrupted him, and cried with all his might, "Thou heretic, renegade, traitor, and thief, it was not lawful for thee to preach,...
and we forethink that thou hast been a preacher too long."  Then all the prelates, terrified at the thought that he was going to set before that vast audience the very substance and pith of his teaching, said one to another, "He is so crafty, and in Holy Scriptures so exercised, that he will persuade the people to his own opinion and raise them against us."  Wishart, perceiving that he had no chance of a fair hearing before that ecclesiastical court, said, "I appeal from my lord cardinal to my lord the governor."

"What," replied Lauder, "is not my lord cardinal the second person within this realm, chancellor of Scotland, archbishop of St. Andrews, bishop of Mirepoix.. ?"  He recited so many titles, says the chronicler, that you might have laden
a ship with them.  "Whom desirest thou to be thy judge?" cried Lauder.

Wishart replied with meekness, "I refuse not my lord cardinal, but I desire the Word of God to be my judge, and the temporal estate, with some of your lordships mine auditory; because I am here my lord governor's prisoner."  But the priests mocked him, saying, "Such man, such judge!"  According to them, the laymen who might have been appointed his judges were heretics also, like him.

The cardinal,without further delay, was going to have sentence of condemnation passed; but some who stood by counselled him to read the articles of accusation, and to permit Wishart to answer to them, in order that the people might not be able to say that he was condemned without a hearing.

Lauder therefore began "Thou, false heretic, renegade, traitor, and thief, deceiver of the people, despisest the holy Church's, and in like case contemnest my lord governor's authority; for when thou preachedst in Dundee, and wert charged by my lord governor's authority to desist, thou wouldst not obey, but perseverest in the same.  Therefore the bishop of Brechin cursed thee, and delivered thee into the hands of the devil, and gave thee commandment that thou shouldest preach no more; yet notwithstanding thou didst continue obstinately."  Wishart replied, "My lords, I have read in the Acts of the Apostles that it is not lawful for the threatenings and menaces of men to desist from the preaching of the evangel."

Lauder continued, "Thou, false heretic, didst say that a priest standing at the altar saying mass was like a fox wagging his tail in July."  Wishart denied it, ”My Lords, I said not so.  These were my sayings: the moving of the body outward, without the inward moving of the heart, is nought else but the playing of an ape, and not the true serving of God."

Lauder again charged, "Thou false heretic, traitor and thief, thou saidst that the sacrament of the altar was but a piece of bread baken upon the ashes."  Wishart answered, "I once chanced to meet a Jew when I was sailing upon the water of the Rhine.  By prophecies and many other testimonies of scripture I approved that the Messiah was come, the which they called Jesus of Nazareth.  He answered, 'You adore and worship a piece of bread baken upon the ashes, and say that is your God.'  I have rehearsed here the sayings of the Jew, which I never affirmed to be true."  At these words the bishops shook their heads, spitting on the ground and crying out, and showed in all ways that they would not hear him.

Lauder cried, "Thou, false heretic and renegade, hast said that every layman is a priest, and that the pope hath no more power than another man."  Wishart boldly answered, "I have read in some places of St. John and St. Peter, of the which one sayeth, He hath made us kings and priests; the other sayeth, He hath made

us the kingly priesthood.  Wherefore I have affirmed any man, being cunning and perfect in the Word of God and the true faith of Jesus Christ, to have his power given him of God.  And again I say, any unlearned man, and not exercised in the Word of God, nor yet constant in his faith, whatsoever estate or order he be of, hath no power to bind nor to loose."

These words greatly amused the assembly; the reverends and the most reverends burst out laughing, mocking Wishart, and calling him an imbecile.  The notion that a layman should have a power which the holy father had not seemed to them the very height of madness.  "Laugh ye, my lords?" said the messenger of Christ. "Though that these my sayings appear scornful and worthy of derision to your lordships, nevertheless they are very weighty unto me and of great value, because they stand not only upon my life but also the honour and glory of God."



THE SENTENCE

Some pious men who were in the assembly were indignant at the madness of the prelates and affected by the invincible patience of Wishart.  But others cried aloud, "Wherefore let we him speak any further?"  A man named John Scot, who stood behind Lauder, said to him, "Tarry not upon his witty and godly answers, for we may not abide them, no." 

There was no due form of trial, nor any freedom of discussion, says Buchanan, but a great din of voices, shouts of disapprobation, and hateful speeches.  The accuser thundered from his platform, but that was all.  The bishops unanimously pronounced that the pious Wishart must be burnt.

Falling on his knees, Wishart prayed and said "O immortal God, how long shalt thou suffer the madness and great cruelty of the ungodly to exercise their fury upon thy servants which do further thy Word in this world.  O Lord, we know surely that thy true servants must needs suffer persecution for thy name's sake, affliction and troubles in this present life which is but a shadow; but yet we desire thee, merciful Father, that thou defend thy congregation which thou hast chosen before the beginning of the world."

The sentence must be pronounced, but the bishops were afraid to pronounce it before the people.  They therefore gave orders to have the church cleared, and
this could only be done slowly, as many of the people who had a wish to hear Wishart were removed with difficulty.  At length, when the prelates and their
colleagues found themselves almost alone, sentence of death was passed on Wishart, and the cardinal ordered his guards to take him back to the castle.  Confined in the governor's room, he spent the greater part of the night in prayer.

 

HIS LAST MEAL

The next morning the bishops sent to him two friars who asked him if he did not want a confessor."  I will make no confession unto you," he answered; "go and fetch me yonder man that preached yesterday, and I will make my confession unto him."  When Winryme was come, they talked together for some time. Then the Dean said, " Have you a wish to receive the sacrament of the supper?"  "Assuredly," replied Wishart, "if it be administered according to the institution of the Lord, with the bread and the wine."  Winryme then went to the cardinal and declared to him that the man was innocent.  Beatoun, inflamed with anger, said, "And you, we have long known what you are!"  Winryme having inquired if he might give the sacrament to the prisoner, "No," replied the cardinal,"it is not fitting to grant any of the benefits of the Church to a heretic."

The next morning at nine o"clock the governor of the castle informed Wishart that the communion was refused him.  Then, as he was going to breakfast with his dependents and servants, he invited Wishart to join them at the meal.  "Right willingly," he answered, "especially because I know that you and yours are good men and are united with me in the same body of Christ."

When the table was spread and the members of the household had taken their places, Wishart said to the governor, "Give me leave, for the Saviour's sake, to make a brief exhortation."  It was to him an opportunity of celebrating the true Supper.  He reminded his hearers of the institution of the sacred feast, and of the Lord's death. He exhorted those who sat at table with him to lay aside all hatred, to love one another and to lead a holy life.  After this he gave thanks, and then took the bread and brake it, and gave of it to such as he knew were willing to communicate, and bade them feed spiritually on Christ.  Taking a cup, he spoke of the blood shed for the remission of sins, drank of it and gave them to drink.  "I shall no more drink of this cup," said he, "no more eat of this bread in this life; a bitterer draught is reserved for me, because I have preached Christ.  Pray that I may take that cup with patience, as the Lord's appointment."  He concluded with further giving of thanks and then retired to his chamber.

 

THE EXECUTION

On a plot of ground to the west of the castle and not far from the priory, men were already busily engaged, some in preparing the pile, others erecting
the gallows.  The place of execution was surrounded by soldiers, and the gunners had their cannon in position and stood beside them ready to fire.  One
would have thought that preparations were making for a siege.  The cardinal had ordered these measures, fearing lest Wishart's many friends should take him away, and perhaps still more for the sake of making a display of his own power.  Meanwhile the windows in the castle-yard were adorned with hangings, silken draperies, and velvet cushions, that the cardinal and the prelates might enjoy at their ease the spectacle of the pile and of the tortures which they were going to inflict on that righteous man.

When all was ready, two of the deathsmen entered Wishart's prison.  One of them brought and put on him a coat of black cloth, the other tied small bags of gunpowder to various parts of his body.  Next they bound his hands firmly behind him, put a rope round his neck and a chain about his waist, and led him forth in the midst of a party of soldiers.

 

HIS BOLD CONFESSION

When he came to the pile he knelt down and prayed.  Then he rose and said to the people "Christian brethren and sisters, be not offended in the Word of God for the affliction and torments which ye see already prepared for me; but I exhort you that you love the Word of God, and suffer patiently and with a comfortable heart, for the Word's sake which is your undoubted salvation and everlasting comfort.  My doctrine was no old wives' fable, after the constitutions made by men.  But for the true evangel, which was given to me by the grace of God, I suffer this day by men, not sorrowfully, but with a glad heart and mind.  For this cause I was sent: that I should suffer this fire, for Christ's sake.  This grim fire I fear not.  Some have said of me that I taught that the soul of man should sleep until the last day.  But I know surely and my faith is such that my soul shall sup with my Saviour Christ this night (ere it be six hours), for whom I suffer this."  Then he prayed "I beseech thee, Father of heaven! to forgive them that have of any ignorance, or else have of any evil mind, forged any lies upon me: I forgive them with all my heart.  I beseech Christ to forgive them that have condemned me to death this day ignorantly." 

The hangman fell on his knees before him and said, "I pray you forgive me."  "Come hither to me," replied Wishart; and he kissed him, and added, "Lo, here is a token that I forgive thee.  My heart, do thine office."  He was then bound with ropes to the stake, and said, "Saviour of the world, have mercy on me!  Father of heaven, into thy hands I commit my spirit."  The executioner lighted the fire.



LAST WORDS

The cardinal and his accomplices beheld from the windows the martyr and the fire which was consuming him.  The governor of the castle watching the flames exclaimed, "Take courage."  Wishart answered, "This fire torments my body, but noways abates my spirit."  Then catching sight of the cardinal at the window with his courtiers, he added, "He who in such state, from that high place, feedeth his eyes with my torments, within few days shall be hanged out at the same window to be seen with as much ignominy as he now leaneth there in pride."  This was literally fulfilled about two months later. 

He had hardly uttered those words when the rope was tightened about his neck, so that he lost the power of speaking.  The fire reduced his body to ashes; and the bishops, full of steadfast hatred of this servant of God, caused an order to be published that same evening through all the town, that no one should pray for their victim under the severest penalties.  They knew what respect was felt for him by many even of the Catholics themselves.

There are people who say that religion is a fable.  A life and a death such as those of Wishart show that it is a great reality.





 

The English noun, “people” can mean two very different things.  Often it is a plural, and means “persons”.  But in many cases, it is singular, and means “a nation”.  Accordingly, in the New Testament, it has been used to translate two different Greek words.

When we say, “the people of God”, we are not talking about the individual, but about the collective.  It is not just the sum total of chosen and called and faithful individuals: it is God's “holy nation”, His “peculiar people” (1 Peter 2:9), His “family” or “household”:

“For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named...” (Ephesians 3:14-15)

Dispensationalists dichotomize the church and Israel, claiming that they are two different peoples of God, with two different destinies.  But Scripture contradicts their claim.  There, we find that there is but one family or household of God, consisting of all the saints who are already in heaven and those that are still on earth.  There is no division according to dispensation hinted at.

The unity of the people of God in all ages is indicated in many different ways in Scripture.  When, for example, it is said in Romans 4:11-12 that Abraham is “the father of all who believe”, it means that all believers, circumcised and uncircumcised, belong to the same household of faith. 

When God took Israel out of Egypt and brought them into covenant with himself, he said that they would be His people, and He would be their God.  These are the two sides of the covenant.  We cannot have God for our God and not be at the same time His people.  Hence, we find the identical language once used of Israel (Leviticus  26:12) in words addressed to the church:

“And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you. And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.” (2 Corinthians 6:15-18)

 
There is no place in Scripture where it says that there are two peoples of God, and to use the singular with the definite article is to imply that there is only one.  Otherwise, it would be necessary to say, “one of the families”, or “this family”, or to use some qualifier to distinguish which people of God one is talking about at the moment.  Some Dispensationalists distinguish God's “earthly wife” and His “heavenly bride”.  In fact, in the case of plural marriages in the Bible, both wives and all their progeny still constituted one family.  Jacob himself is a perfect example.  The one nation of Israel came from two wives and their two handmaids.

But God is not a bigamist.  He only has one wife, the true and spiritual Israel, comprised of the faithful in all ages.  The believing Jews with whom Christ established the New Covenant in His blood, are the true bride of Christ – the body of which He is head and savior (Ephesians 5:23).

That body eventually became predominately a Gentile body, but it is the true heir of spiritual Israel in the former times.  It is in some ways new; but it is not so new that there is no continuity with the old.   Jews who believe in Christ from now on will be incorporated into the mainly Gentile church, just as the Gentiles were at first joined to a primarily Jewish church.

Paul tells us plainly in the much-avoided ninth chapter of Romans that there is but one chosen and called people of God, made up of Jews and Gentiles.

“What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? As he saith also in Hosea, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved. And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.” (Romans 9:22-26)


For Peter, all humanity is comprehended in two groups, “the house of God”, and “them that obey not the gospel of God”.  Obviously, there is no second “people of God” in his mind.

“For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?”  (1 Peter 4:17)

This next text requires more explanation:

“Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus; Who was faithful to him that appointed him, as also Moses was faithful in all his house. For this man was counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as he who hath builded the house hath more honor than the house. For every house is builded by some man; but he that built all things is God. And Moses verily was faithful in all his house, as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken after; But Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end.” (Hebrews 3:1-6)


In Hebrews 3:2, we read that “Moses was faithful in all his house”.  But whose house?  Not his own, for we read in verse 5, that he was a “servant” in that household.  No, the house referred to belongs to “Him that appointed him” (verse 2).   It is the house – the family – of God.   This is confirmed by the Old Testament text quoted from, where God says, “My servant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all mine house.” (Numbers 12:7)

But Christ is “a son over His own house” (verse 6), the one He built (verses 3,4), in which Moses was a servant.  And true believers are members of that household (verse 6).  There are not two different households here – Moses' and Christ's – but one House of God that runs through both dispensations.

Here is another proof from the same book:

“Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it. For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it...  Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief: Again, he limiteth a certain day, saying in David, Today, after so long a time; as it is said, Today if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts. For if Joshua had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.  There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.” (Hebrews 4:1-9)


Paul has just said that the “rest” spoken of by David was not fulfilled by Joshua when he had led Israel into the land, and settled them there.  He concludes that the particular rest of which he was speaking “… remaineth... to the people of God.”  It was first promised to Old Testament Jews, and yet he says that it remains to be entered by Christians who live in New Testament times.  If there were two peoples of God, it would not at all follow that the rest would be automatically transferred from the one to the other.  But there is only the one, and whatever has been promised to them, must be fulfilled to them.  There can be no mistaking this “people of God” for the nation of Israel, for the people that Paul is exhorting to enter into that rest are Jewish Christians under persecution from the unbelieving nation. And if one tries to limit it to Jewish Christians, he thereby runs into the truth that believing Jews and Gentiles are one body in Christ.  “The people of God” therefore, must be understood of all believers in all ages.

Perhaps the clearest proof of the unity of God's people is found in the greatest theological treatise ever written, Paul's Epistle to the Romans.

“For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches. And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert grafted in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree; Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee. Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in. Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again. For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?” (Romans 11:16-24)


What does the olive tree represent?  The answer is not far to seek.  As the subject under discussion is the destiny of national Israel, it stands to reason that the olive tree represents Israel.  The root of Israel is the patriarchs: Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.  The nation derives its holiness from its fathers (verse 16).  It “is beloved for their sakes” (verse 28).

But the tree is distinct from national Israel, for it has had some of its natural branches cut off, and branches from a wild olive tree grafted in.  National Israel would include all the natural branches, and would not include anything else.  The natural branches all grew out of the stock of the tree, but these were cut off because of unbelief (verse 20).  They stand for those who were “of Israel, but not Israel”(Romans 9:6).  And the branches grafted in are Gentiles who have believed the gospel, those who “stand by faith” (verse 20).

So, the good olive tree of Romans 11 can only be one thing: it is the true, spiritual Israel of God, consisting of Abraham, the father of all who believe, and all his spiritual seed in both testaments of Scripture.  It is the one people of God, the “children of the promise”, the “election of grace”, the “household of faith”, the redeemed of all ages, the universal church, the Israel of God.

 

Howard Douglas King

For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works. (Tit 2:11-14)

 

Paul opens his epistle to the Christian minister, Titus, with a series of particular directions to the several classes of people, consonant with the peculiar circumstances of each grouping.  He addresses in turn aged men, aged women, young women, young men, and (after an aside to Titus himself, urging him to maintain an exemplary deportment) bond-servants.  In the passage before us, he  gives two reasons why all these classes of men “should live  soberly, righteously, and godly, (as he has just sketched out) in this present world”; first because of the “blessed hope” of the Savior's return to inaugurate a future world where these things will be rewarded, and the contrary behavior punished.  This blessed hope, as the Greek construction clearly shows, is the same thing as the “glorious appearing” of our Lord Jesus Christ.  The second reason is because the Lord Christ bought us with His life's blood in order that He might make us a “special nation”, “zealous of good works”.

One Reason why the second advent is called “the blessed hope” is because it marks the end of this age and the beginning of that longed-for and everlasting age which is to come.  The New Testament commonly distinguishes two “worlds” or ages:

And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come. (Matthew 12:32)

But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life. (Mark 10:30)

Who shall not receive manifold more in this present time, and in the world to come life everlasting. (Luke 18:30)


Therefore in the resurrection whose wife of them is she? for seven had her to wife. And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage: But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection. (Luke 20:33-36)

Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come: (Ephesians 1:21)

For bodily exercise profiteth little: but godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come. (1 Timothy 4:8)


A Second Reason why the second advent is called “the blessed hope” is because when once that event occurs, everything moves inexorably and rapidly forward to the consummation.  When Christ returns, what we know as the history of the world is at an end.

The great commission having been fulfilled, the preaching of the gospel for the conversion of sinners will be at an end. The celebration of the sacraments will cease, having been ordained only until “the end of the age“(Mathew 28:20), “till he come”(1 Corinthians 11:26).  All these things will have served their purpose.

The longsuffering of God toward the world for the sake of His elect will be ended when the last elect sinner is converted (2 Peter 3:9-10).  The church will then be complete, and the work of redemption at an end.  Then he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (2 Thessalo-nians 1:10).  All the dead in Christ, the saints of all ages, shall rise (1 Corinthians 15:22-23), and all the living saints shall be caught up and transformed (1 Corinthians 15:51 with 1 Thessalonians 4:17).  Christ shall then present His perfected bride to himself (Ephesians 5:25-27). 

Immediately upon the return of Christ, a series of final events commences: the glorification of the faithful, the resurrection of the dead, the final and eternal judgment of all men, the renovation of the earth by fire, the inauguration of eternal bliss on the renewed earth.  It is proper and natural then, that we should be taught to focus on the return of Christ as the event that signals the fulfillment of all our hopes.

 

A Third Reason is that all these other eschatological events will be the acts of the Savior Himself, performed as the completion of His Mediatorial mission of saving the world.  He will personally call the dead out of the graves.  He Himself will judge the world.  It is He, and none other, who will dissolve the frame of earth, and refashion it to a new perfection! 

When He comes, He will set all things to rights.  Nothing will be right until then.  And when He does it, it cannot ever be undone.  Nothing less than this complete consummation of the happiness of the elect and the removal of all evil from the world forever will serve the perfect purposes of God, who has resolved upon our perfect blessedness in Christ!

To separate the second coming of our Lord from the other constituent parts of the consummation is nothing less than to diminish its importance, as well as its place of centrality to Christian hope.

We should be  “looking for” this blessed hope, like a new bride “looking for” her husband who has had to be away from her for a time.  The word used here denotes expectancy.  The sense is that we are to reach out towards it and desire to take hold of it.  This grand expectation should be so much a part of us, that it transforms our lives.  It should loosen our grip on all things merely temporal.  It should make us careless of what may happen to us, whether we live long or not, whether we prosper in this world or not, whether we suffer or not.  The return of our Beloved overshadows all these trivial things in the hearts of those that love Him and long for His appearing.

“But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none; And they that weep, as though they wept not; and they that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not; and they that buy, as though they possessed not; And they that use this world, as not abusing it: for the fashion of this world passeth away.” (1 Corinthians 7:29-31)

 

Howard Douglas King

 

What do I mean by evolution?  The theory that all living things – plants and animals – developed by small steps from a common ancestor by natural selection over millions of years.

Is evolution compatible with the Bible, as some teach?  The creation account in Genesis is confirmed and alluded to in numerous places all through the Bible. Moses, Jesus and Paul were all creationists.  The Bible flatly contradicts evolution at every point.  Note:

God created the world and every thing in it, all very good, in six calendar days.  These days are cycles of day and night, not indeterminate periods, as some claim.  This is not poetry or myth, but plainly history, albeit elegantly written.

The world was made about six thousand and sixty years ago. This last fact is deduced from the chronological information given in the Bible.  There is a continuous dated history that proceeds from Genesis chapter one to the time of the Prophet Daniel.  His prophecy of the “seventy weeks” bridges the gap to the coming of Christ.   

God made the earth on the first day, the atmosphere on the second, the sea and the dry land, and all the vegetation on the third day, the sun, moon and stars on the fourth day, the birds and the fish on the fifth day, land animals and man on the sixth day.  Every creature was made with the ability to reproduce after its own kind.  Man was separately created, directly from the earth, in the image of the creator.


Observe that, according to the Bible:

1. The cosmos is not eternal and self-existent; nor is it ruled by capricious “gods”, nor by blind impersonal forces, but by the One True and Living God, who made it all for His glory, and rules over all.  “In the beginning God created...”

2. The earth is not billions of years old, nor is life hundreds of millions of years old.  There is no time in the biblical record for the gradual random change that evolutionism posits, and without which it loses all appearance of plausibility.

3.Plants and animals do not share a common ancestor.  None of the creatures do.  Each was made individually, essentially just as it is today.

4. The biblical order is incompatible with the order given by evolutionists.  For example, the sun, moon and stars were made
three days after the earth was.  Birds were made before fishes.  If you make these days to be “ages”, the Bible still cannot be reconciled to evolution.

5. Reproduction does not lead to new kinds of animals.  The record stresses the fact  that each plant and animal produces offspring of the same kind.  Natural selection operates within kinds in a fallen world to enable them to adapt and survive.

6. There was no defect in the original creation.  All was “very good”.  Nature was not “red in tooth and claw” until after the fall, when by one man's sin, death entered the world.  Without death, and lots of it, there can be no natural selection.


The case against evolution comes down to the conflicting claims of fallible scientific models versus the unchanging truth of the infallible word of God.  While it is true that we can demonstrate the absurdity of evolution from reason alone, the fundamental question remains, “Yea, hath God said?”  This is the evangelist's challenge, to eliminate all the excuses men make up to justify rejecting the word of God.  We cannot bring them to faith, but we can leave them without excuse.

To this end, it is possible and useful to show that evolutionary theory not only is not supported by science; but that the facts of science militate against it.  Our subject could occupy us for months or years – the evidence is so vast!  We only have time to survey the field and touch on a few vital facts:

1.There is no evidence that evolution has ever taken place.

2. Evolution by random mutations is impossible.

3. Irreducible complexity proves design.

 

1. There is no evidence that evolution has ever taken place.

We do not see evolution taking place today.  The changes we see in the genome are all degenerative.  Genetic information is only being lost.  This is true even in adaptation by natural selection, and in artificial selective breeding.  The new genetic information needed for the gradual improvement of species is pure fiction.  There is no possible source, just as there could have been no source for the original genetic information in an impersonal universe.

Mutations are the result of randomized damage to the genome.  Like random errors in a computer program, they never improve the operation, but rather impair or destroy functionality.  When enough errors accumulate, the computer will crash; and that would eventually be the destiny of all living things if the Lord had not made other plans for us.

What about the fossil record?  Doesn't that prove evolution has
occurred? Actually, it proves the opposite!

There is a complete absence of the predicted transitional forms in the fossils.  There are no ape-men, or reptile/mammals, or fish/amphibians.  All the animals appear fully-formed and in definite, recognizable kinds, most of them representing phyla that are still alive today.

So-called “living fossils” are found in the fossil record in the same form as their living counterparts.  How is it that they did not change over tens of millions of years?

The “millions of years” that evolutionists talk about is an illusion created by the misinterpretation of geologic data.  None of the fossils come with dates or histories.  Dating depends on presuppositions; thus it is not a completely objective process.   Data not conforming to presuppositions is rejected as anomalous.  Recent research has shown that the data are inconsistent with a very old earth (The RATE Project).

Fossils are rarely formed in normal circumstances.  Dead plants normally decompose on the ground.  Most dead animals are eaten by other animals or disposed of by man.  Fossilization requires a rapid burial, and a gravesite that is not disturbed until the mineralization has occurred.  The vast fossil graveyards all over the world demand a better explanation than uniformitarians can give.  The global catastrophe of a worldwide flood in the days of Noah is not a myth or a children's story, but sober fact.

The geologic column is a myth.  It exists nowhere in the world.  Fossils are found in different orders in different places.  Petrified trees and animals have been found extending through many layers of sedimentary rock.  Human artifacts are commonly found in coal seams which are deemed millions of years old.

A stack of  rock layers is sometimes found that is folded, which shows that all of them were in a plastic state at the same time.  This proves that they were laid down in a short time, for they would not long remain plastic.  (This also indicates that enormous forces were at work in the flood that have never been seen at work since.)

There was never enough water in the Colorado River to carve the Grand Canyon out of hardened rock, nor is it possible for it to have been shaped the way it is unless all the rock layers were soft and erodible at the same time.  If you step into wet cement, you can leave a deep footprint, but once it has set, you can walk on it for a hundred years without leaving a mark.  The rapid formation of a rock canyon was observed when Mount St. Helens erupted.    

There is abundant evidence of a young earth and cosmos:  the salinity of the oceans, the orbit of the moon, the brightness of the sun, the depth of sediment on the ocean floors, etc.  Uniformitarian assumptions lead to contradictions.

 

2. Evolution by Random Mutations is Impossible

Almost all mutations are too small to have an impact on survival.

Almost all mutations are definitely harmful.  We age and die primarily because of accumulated copying errors (@6000 by age 15). 

All mutations destroy genetic information and lead to degeneration of the kind.

John Sanford (Read his book, Genetic Entropy.) estimates that each of us passes on about a hundred genetic mutations to our children each generation.

Random mutations cannot produce the long chain of beneficial mutations required for progress.  Even if there were beneficial mutations. 

DNA is protected from alteration by many mechanisms: the error correction system, the rejection of imperfect or foreign bodies in the cell, the reproductive hurdle.  For a mutation to be passed on, it must occur in a reproductive cell, that is, an egg or a sperm.  If one of the 200 million spermatozoa discharged at one time is mutated, it has an infinitesimal chance of being the one to win the race.  On the other hand, defective zygotes are commonly aborted.

Mutations cannot and do not generate new genetic information. When Richard Dawkins was asked in an interview if he knew any mechanism whereby new information could be added to the genome, he got a puzzled expression, looked around for a long time without saying anything, and then said something completely unrelated to the question.  You can watch the video on Youtube.

 

3. Irreducible Complexity Proves Design

The creation – indeed, every creature is astonishingly complex.  It is evident to every unprejudiced observer that infinite intelligence was needed to create the world.  But evolutionists claim that this complexity is a function of principles of variability and development “built into” the universe – and of very long periods of time.  Mere complexity, no matter the degree, does not trouble them.

What drives them crazy is when we point out to them instances of “irreducible complexity”.  What we mean by this is created systems that are composed of interdependent  parts that could not have evolved by one small change at a time.  Michael Behe's famous illustration of the principle is a simple mousetrap.  (Read his book, Darwin's black Box.)  Mousetraps are evidently designed.  Each part contributes to a systemic function, but is useless by itself.  There is no increased fitness in a living thing when it develops a useless new part.  There is no Darwinian explanation for the accretion of many small changes that do the animal no good, but finally organize themselves into a marvelous new organ. 

The eye is illustrative.  Every eye has many parts that are all necessary to sight.  None of them would be of any use without all the rest.  Not only must all these parts be present, but they must be adjusted to fit and to work together.  In addition, the eye must interface with the brain through an extremely complex network of nerves, with the heart through special blood vessels, and with the light available from the world outside so that the mind experiences accurate, clear and distinct images that are updated instantly and continuously.  It is evident that natural selection could never account for all this.  There is no reason why the individual parts would be retained until the eye had become fully  functional.

There is no more exciting field of scientific discovery today than cell biology.  To say that the cell is not a product of design is like saying that New York City happened by chance.  The complexity of the cell is comparable to the complexity of a major city.  There is no system that man has created for himself that does not have its counterpart – really, its archetype in the cell.  Manufacturing, reproduction, transportation, maintenance, sanitation, security, energy production, and information systems that are more efficient and more reliable than anything we can contrive have existed from the beginning in every living cell. 

And all these systems function together in a seamless way as one supreme system for the health of the cell.  But more, these cells cooperate to form and sustain the organs, and all the systems of the whole body.  The structural and functional unity of the body depends on the compatibility of its building blocks, which share a common system at the micro level.

Evolutionists are so afraid of the Intelligent Design movement that they have gone to court to try to stop it.  Richard Dawkins' book, The Blind Watchmaker, was written to refute it.  Dawkins, one of the most virulent atheists  of our time, who blasphemes God continually in His books, and incites his followers to ridicule religious people, claims that the “overwhelming appearance of design” in nature is an illusion that can be explained by the fact of evolution.  So he grants that nature appears designed, but insists that it isn't!

 

Howard Douglas King

Revised September 16, 2014

Christians should not be afraid to witness to the evolutionist.  He is extremely vulnerable to a calm and serious approach.  By asking him the right questions, we can expose his intellectual and spiritual bankruptcy.  Here are some examples:

1). Is the universe eternal? 

Possible answers:
“Yes.”
Your answer: “How does that square with the law of causation, that is one of the foundations of all science and all rational thought and discourse?  Even the smallest thing is assumed to have a cause. How can the whole thing be un-caused when every part has a cause?  Can the universe be its own cause?”

“No, it's thirteen billion years old.”
Your answer: “What was there before that?”
If he says, “Nothing”, then you ask “How could everything come from nothing?”
If he says there was “The singularity” or something implying the existence of matter or energy, space, time or the laws of nature, then ask him, “Where did that come from?”


2. Is our sense of the value of human life an illusion?

“Yes. We are no more special than other animals.”
Your answer: “But we kill animals, don't we?  Is it okay to kill people?”
“No. I believe we have value.”
Your answer: “Well why do you believe that?”


3. Do good and evil really exist?

“Yes, and I think it's evil to try to enslave our minds to religion.”
Your answer: “Why do you think that?  What is the source of knowledge and standard of right by which you judge?  How can there be good and evil at all in an impersonal universe?”

“No, they're just conventions we've agreed to live by.”
Your answer: “Then you have no reason not to do a little evil now and then when nobody is watching?”


If you ask questions like these, you may get some interesting answers.  Often, the evolutionist will get frustrated when he realizes he has no answer.  Don't take it personally if he gets insulting.  That's his natural reaction when his illusions are threatened.  After all, evolutionists think that evolution is a fact that explains everything.  When they begin to realize that it explains nothing, they sometimes forget their manners.  Really, that's a good sign!  It means you're getting to them.


Here are a few more questions that they can't answer:
 

4. If the human mind is ultimately the product of blind, undirected processes, how can it be trusted?  In that case, all our “reasoning” may be just a trick for purposes of survival.  There is no reason to believe that anything we say is objectively true, is there?
 

5. How did life originate in a world of inanimate matter?  There are about two hundred proteins in the simplest living cell.  What produced them, and how did they get arranged in such a complex fashion, and energized, so that life could begin? 
 

6. Where did the information come from that is found encoded in the DNA of the simplest living things?  The new science of information tells us that information only comes from intelligence, and only exists within designed systems.  It is not information unless it follows the rules of a system of communication – that is, of a language.  It must have a sender and a receiver that also obeys the rules of the language in decoding it and knows how to respond to it.  (Read Werner Gitt's In the Beginning was Information.)
 

7. Who wrote the code?  Coding systems, especially complex coding systems that have transcribers, interpreters, archives, storage systems, libraries, error-correction mechanisms and the like can hardly have come into existence without intention, without a designing intelligence and a master technician.


8. How is it that, in an undesigned universe, one that is supposedly characterized by randomness, there is a regularity and order that allows us to predict outcomes and “do science”?  The God of the Bible upholds all things by the word of His power.  He maintains order, and works miracles when He wishes.  Nothing is truly random.  But atheism can give no reason why science is possible.  On his premises, all his “knowledge” and sense of order may be an illusion.
 

9. Why is the universe and the earth so remarkably “tuned” to the conditions necessary for life?  (Gravitational strength, the distance from the sun, the magnetic field strength, etc.)  Read The Case for a Creator, by Lee Stroebel.
 

10. How could the first living thing reproduce?  The odds against the random creation and juxtaposition of the minimum number of proteins for life are astronomical.  What happens if we factor in the elements of structure and order of a living cell?  Now include the odds of it being so organized that it has the capability of replication?  Anything with odds of one in ten to the fiftieth power is considered impossible. According to the experts in probability theory, nothing that unlikely ever happens.  We're talking about odds many times smaller than that.  But for evolution to occur, the very first living thing, our supposed “common ancestor” had to have that ability from the get-go, or evolution into higher forms would be impossible.

 

11. How did this proposed primitive organism develop animal conscious-ness?  Did it come all at once, or in many small stages?  Logic tells us that there had to be a point when it began.  Until then, there was no reason why the various parts of the nervous system could develop or organize.  Starting out with no brain, how did the brain finally come about?  Until it was functional, it would be a useless organ.

But why assume that consciousness can be explained by material processes? It can't!  Self-consciousness, even of the animal type, involves information, which is neither matter nor energy.


12. How did rationality, which is inseparable from speech and language, evolve from a primitive consciousness by random processes?  In other words, how did that dumb ape become intelligent?  How did he happen to invent abstract thinking and communication?  To do that, he would have had to have already had them, which is a contradiction.


13. How did the consciousness of right and wrong evolve in animals evolving on the basis of survival of the fittest?  Altruism is a great liability in a world of savages.  Honesty and kindness won't get one very far among people without consciences.  It only makes one fit to be a victim.  Conscience, if it could develop somehow in that milieu, would soon have become extinct.
 

14. How (and why) did sexual reproduction replace the original asexual system? How did two different animals get the corresponding complementary parts, physiologies, mechanisms and motivations to make this work?  What are the odds that they lived in the same place, and yet one became a fully-developed female and the other a male?  How did they know what to do with the new equipment?  Why would they want to do it?  Furthermore, no one who has prototyped even a simple machine is foolish enough to expect it to work right the first time and regularly afterward.  This is simply impossible!
 

It can be seen that evolutionists believe in miracles far more incredible than the ones in the Bible.  Why do I say that?  Because these sheer impossibilities that they say must have happened have no purposive cause behind them, no omnipotent, omniscient Deity to perform them.  Apparently, against all odds, they spontaneously “just happen”!  The whole universe, they say, came into existence by a “quantum singularity” (An event with no known cause) that then exploded and generated all the elements (They can't say how), all the stars and galaxies (They're not sure about the details), all life (They don't yet know how life began).  One miracle after another, but no miracle-worker! But we are supposed to be the ones relying on blind faith!

 

Howard Douglas King 

The theory of organic evolution is represented as a scientific theory, or even as a scientific fact; but it is neither.  It is in fact not scientific at all, for it violates the rules that govern the sciences.  First, it substitutes imaginary constructs for facts.  Second, it substitutes fallacies for proofs.


Imagination vs. Observation

For the first, the natural sciences are founded upon careful observation and systematic recording of observed facts by the eye-witnesses.  A fact is something true, something that can be witnessed to; as opposed to something which may be true, which is thought to be true, or even which is likely to be true.  The supposed evolution of non-living substances into living things (if true) would have occurred at a time when there was no scientist around to observe and record the fact.  Hence, the hypothesis is incapable of scientific proof.  It can never be more than speculation.  And speculation is the antithesis of science, which absolutely requires observed facts.

But, you say, scientists are on the brink of creating life in the lab.  On the brink, indeed!  When they have made a single fully-functional, self-sustaining, metabolizing, reproducing real living cell – and only then – will sensible men admit the claim that life can be created by man.  I confidently assert that it will never happen.

But even if they were actually to accomplish that unimaginable feat, it would never prove that life came into existence in that way.  There is a big difference between, on the one hand, a team of highly-intelligent and highly-trained persons producing primitive life in a lab, by employing all the advanced technology at their disposal and, on the other hand, life emerging spontaneously, without any guiding intelligence, in a primitive, chaotic world that never had a trace of life anywhere before!

And by the way, they would still have to demonstrate that the particular version of “life” that they produced in the lab could have evolved, and did evolve, into the higher animals and man.

Evolutionists must believe that matter and energy are eternal; but this cannot be confirmed by human observation.  Their theory requires them to believe that life arose from non-life, but they can never produce one witness to the fact!  They must believe that the marvel of self-consciousness somehow appeared by chance in a world that was wholly dead and devoid of consciousness; but no one has ever observed anything like that happening.  We only see things moving in the opposite direction.

The same is true of every “beneficial mutation” that they claim has led to higher and higher forms of life.  There must have been untold numbers of these, and yet not one has been actually observed.  And where there is no observation, there can be no science.

 

Fallacies vs. Proofs

But, second, evolutionists are poor philosophers.  Why does this matter?  Because science must be able to demonstrate its validity on a philosophical basis, or else it is mere alchemy.  None of the academic disciplines can be allowed to undermine the premises that allow it to exist.  For example, if there is not an orderly universe, then science is impossible.  Yet evolutionists cannot explain how the order we observe in nature got there in the first place.  How can there be physical laws if there is no Lawgiver?  How can there be universal order when there is no entity capable of enforcing it?  How can scientific study be done at all in the evolutionists' world, where randomness ultimately reigns?

Evolutionists, however, too often do not seem to understand the difference between right reason and sophistry.  For they constantly employ logical fallacies to compensate for their lack of a factual basis.   A good example is their insistence that time and chance can account for what would otherwise be impossible: the inevitable progress of nature from chaos to order, from the simple to the complex.

 

Time and Chance

The first thing to be said is that time and chance have never been known to produce orderly complex systems.  Everything man has been able to actually observe tells him that devolution – not evolution – is what really occurs in the world.  In the normal course of events, things tend to deteriorate, run down, wear out, and in the case of living things, die.  Something wholly unique and foreign to human experience must have occurred at some point to account for both the extraordinary vitality that has sustained life for thousands of years in a world that is “winding down”, and the extraordinary mathematical complexity we find in everything we study.

The second thing is that time and chance can never “account for” what can not be shown to have happened at all.  It still remains for evolutionists to produce the eyewitnesses to evolution.  We have the Eyewitness to creation, the Author of it, still living, Whose character is impeccable and Whose testimony cannot be impugned; and we have in our possession faithful copies of His written record of the event.  But they have nothing!  Their appeal to time and chance avails them nothing if they cannot produce observers who can verify that such a process has in fact occurred.

The third thing is that time and chance can never account for what is impossible in itself.  And the evolution of a chaotic universe into a highly-complex ordered system without a guiding intelligence and omnipresent, unlimited power is simply impossible.  That nothing ever occurs without an adequate cause is one of the pillars of true science.  If it were not true, then anything might occur at any time under any conditions whatever; and science (even survival) would obviously be impossible.  But the whole human race through all time has constantly observed this rule in action.  Dogs do not paint Mona Lisas.  Children do not lift houses.  No one can leap miles into the air.  Such things are impossible because there is no adequate cause of those effects.  A Da Vinci can paint a Mona Lisa because of his rare skill and imagination and his knowledge of the technique of painting.  We use great jacks to raise houses because we need force and power proportional to their weight to lift them.  Only small children, political liberals, and evolutionists believe that anything can be accomplished with nothing, given enough time and dumb luck.

The fact is, neither time nor chance are causes of anything.  Time is merely a necessary condition of existence; and chance is a word we use to refer to the (humanly)  unpredictable.  Nothing really happens by chance, for all things are perfectly ordered by the infinite wisdom of a sovereign God.

 

What Evolution Is

No, evolution is not science.  What is it then?  It is the wishful thinking of men whose minds are oppressed with the knowledge that Almighty God is opposed to their evils desires and designs.  It is the great lie of the Enemy of men's souls.  It is the official mythology of the religion of secular humanism.  It is the party line of the corrupt academic establishment.  But it should never be confused with science.

Only the existence of the God of the Bible can account for the world as it is.  Only One infinite in wisdom, power and goodness could have created something out of nothing.

Only the miracle-working God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, and the Prophets could have made all the incredible variety and complexity and beauty and wonders of the natural world!  And it did not take Him long – He did it in just six days!  Only the Living God could have made the living soul of Adam and given a self-conscious, rational voice to creation in the form of its first prophet, priest and King!  Anyone who thinks different is lying to himself.

 

Howard Douglas King



 

Great is our Lord, and of great power: his understanding is infinite. Psalms 147:5


What is infinity?  They tell us that there are a hundred billion stars in an average galaxy, and that there are hundreds of billions of galaxies.  Every star contains an unimaginably large number of atoms, and every atom is composed of many sub-atomic particles.  But if you take the number of atoms in the whole universe, multiply that number by itself as many times as you like, you will only come up with a very, very, very large number – not infinity.

If I had an infinite number of apples, and I gave them all to you, how many would I have left?  One way to look at this is that if I gave you one apple, I would still have an infinite number, so I could go on giving you apples forever, and I would still have all the apples I started with.  Another way is to say that if I gave you all my apples, then I must have given you an infinite number, and I would have none left.  Which do you think is right?

Actually, it's a trick question.  There is no such thing as an infinite number.  Infinitude is not applicable to any created thing, because it is an attribute of God.  The Larger Catechism tells us that “God is infinite in being, glory blessedness and perfection” (Q.7).

God is omnipresent – that is, infinitely extended in space.  The universe, no matter how large it turns out to be, is finite.  The number of galaxies, and stars and suns is definite, as all numbers are.  Eventually, the hypothetical explorer of intergalactic space would come to its end.  But beyond that he would find that there is only God, going on forever, without bound or limit.  “Do I not fill heaven and earth?” says the Lord.  Solomon said, “But will God in very deed dwell with men on the earth? behold, heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house which I have built!“ (2 Chronicles 6:18)

He is eternal – that is, of infinite duration.  He never began to be, because He always was.  And he will never cease to be.  He calls Himself, “I AM”.

God is omniscient – as our text states, “His understanding is infinite.”  Every fact is before His mind as fully as if it were the only fact in the world.  We have to concentrate on one thing at a time to get it clear in our minds, but He sees all things, each in its individuality, in all their complicated relations, simultaneously.  We read that “ He telleth the number of the stars; he calleth them all by their names.” (Psalms 147:4) and the very hairs of our heads are numbered.  In other words, he can tell this hair from that hair, and give you a detailed description of each one without pausing to reflect.

Here's an intriguing thought.  When Jesus healed a sick person, there is no other way He could have done it than to instantly transform, or remove and replace, every one of the affected molecules and restart all the healthy processes simultaneously.  It's no less marvelous than creation itself!

God is omnipotent.  There is no limit to what He can do, except the limit of self-contradiction.  For God, nothing that He wills to do shall be impossible. 

God is infinitely holy.  He is infinitely just, infinitely gracious, infinitely patient and kind.  His love for His people is infinite.

Do you have a problem that is unsolvable?  Do you or does someone you know have a need that you have no idea how to meet?  Go to this great Lord God and ask him to meet that need, to solve that problem!  Then trust Him to handle it with infinite wisdom, for your good and his great glory!

Amen!

 

Howard Douglas King



 

And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.  They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all. (Luke 17:26-27)

But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.  For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. (Matthew 24:37-39)

 
We frequently hear Dispensationalists make the assertion that Jesus' reference to “the days of Noah” has a direct application to our generation, that this generation now living is just like Noah's generation, and that this “fact” (which they claim is observable) is the fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy, and that this is proof that Jesus is coming soon.  It is my purpose to show that every one of these assertions is wrong; that this Scripture has been misinterpreted and misapplied, and that it refers  instead to an event of cosmic significance that occurred just when Jesus said it would, within the generation to which He addressed His words – the destruction of Jerusalem and the scattering of the Jewish nation.

The first thing to observe is that the basis of comparison is not the wickedness of the two periods in view; but rather the insensibility or obliviousness of the people who were about to be judged.  Noah gave warning for 120 years; and it is likely that most people were by the end of that time quite convinced that he was a lunatic, and not to be taken seriously.  So life went on, more or less normally, in spite of the Divine word of warning.  In this respect, the generation of Jews living at the time of the judgment predicted by Jesus was going to be like Noah's generation.  That is the only comparison Jesus draws, and yet – because it does not fit in with the scenario of the end-times hysteria crowd – it is completely ignored.

My second observation is that it is by no means clear that our generation, taken as a whole, is the wickedest in human history since the flood.  Who but God could possibly know such a thing?  Sure, it's easy to list all the worst developments of our time and ignore all the heroes and martyrs and faithful servants of God – not to mention all decent people living lives of virtue all over the world.  But is that sensible?  The gospel is flourishing in parts of the world that were sunk in heathen darkness not long ago!  There is widespread and powerful resistance to the evil that threatens.   Many serve God faithfully, even unto death.  No, I cannot admit that it is obvious that we are living in the modern counterpart of the days of Noah. 

But Jesus was not predicting the state of things just before the second coming anyway.  This I shall now show.

The reference to the days of Noah appears in two places: Luke 17:26-27 and Matthew 24:37-39.  I have quoted the context as it is found in Luke's gospel first for a reason.  Matthew's 24th chapter is better known, since Dispensationalists almost always use it by preference in presenting the Dispensational theory of “the end-times”.  But Luke's text reveals something that might not be so obvious in Matthew.  Let me explain.

The “days of Noah” text in Luke has in view a judgment that is local and historical – not the second coming, which will be global and will mark the end of history.  This is clear from what follows the “Days of Noah” reference:

And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all. Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed. In that day, he which shall be upon the housetop, and his stuff in the house, let him not come down to take it away: and he that is in the field, let him likewise not return back. (Luke 17:26-31)

In Luke's version of the Olivet Discourse, in his 21st chapter, we also find definite indications of a local calamity that is to fall upon Judea and Jerusalem:

And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto. For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people. And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled. (Luke 21:20-24)


In fact, Matthew 24 says the same thing, only in a place more remote from the “Days of Noah” reference.  (Notice that where Luke has “Jerusalem surrounded by armies”, Matthew has “the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet”.  Both these expressions must refer to the same event, which was the sign to flee.)

When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:) Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:
Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house: Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes. And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days! But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day: For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. (Matthew 24:15-21)


Does it need to be said that there is no point in running away when Jesus comes again?  Or that His people need not flee at the presence of their Deliverer?  This simple observation invalidates the entire Dispensational  interpretation of the Olivet Discourse and its theory of a future “great tribulation”.  It shows us that Jesus was not speaking of His second coming at all; but of His coming to judge Jerusalem and the Jews of that generation for rejecting God, murdering the Son of God and persecuting His followers:

Woe unto you! for ye build the sepulchres of the prophets, and your fathers killed them. Truly ye bear witness that ye allow the deeds of your fathers: for they indeed killed them, and ye build their sepulchres. Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they shall slay and persecute: That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation; From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.
(Luke 11:47-51)

 
The context of the Olivet Discourse is set at the start (Matthew 24:1-3; Mark 13:1-4; Luke 21:5-7).  Jesus observes that the glorious temple of Herod and the city would be destroyed before long.  The disciples ask Him two questions: when will this occur, and what is the sign that they should look for.  The second coming is not at all in view by the questioners, nor is it addressed by Jesus in His answers.  Furthermore, the first-century fulfillment of this prophecy is a matter of history.  Between Josephus and Eusebius, every detail is accounted for.

The only signs of the end that Jesus mentions in this entire discourse are the signs of the widespread preaching of the gospel (Matthew 24:14) and the “Jerusalem compassed with armies/ abomination of desolation” mentioned above.  The things usually pointed to as “signs of the end” (i.e. the end of this age) are all ruled out by Jesus himself when he says “but the end is not yet”(Matthew 24:6), and “these are the beginning of sorrows”(Matthew 24:8).  Both of these signs, however, were fulfilled before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.

This reference to the days of Noah does not, therefore, prove that we are living in “the last days” – by which is meant the days just before the return of Jesus Christ.  That event has proved to be a long time off for the first-century disciples; and it may be many generations yet before His personal return.  Any New Testament text that seems to predict His soon return must therefore have a different meaning from what it seems to have.  It is the opinion of this writer that most texts of this class refer not to the second coming, but to the coming in judgment on Jerusalem and the first-century Jews.  One thing is certain: there are many prophecies that must be fulfilled before Jesus can come again: for example, the conversion of Israel (Romans 11).

 

Howard Douglas King

Revised September 24, 2014