First, whosoever will not use such ordinary means as God hath appointed, tempts God[1]: if he use extraordinary, (as here the Devil would have Christ do) when nobody went about to thrust him down, willfully to have cast himself down, were great madness: or when a man hath a faire pair of stairs to go down by to call for a Cherub to carry him, or for the wind to fly down, Psalm 18. 10[2] were great wantonness[3].
There is an humor in man[4], that we are all given unto by nature; to be marvelous desirous to try conclusions, in matters that are rare, and unknown unto them contemning things common, and to be fond after strange novelties[5]. It was told them as plain as could be, that they should not reserve of the Manna till morning, and they needed not to have reserved it, they had flesh every day: and yet forsooth they would needs keep it[6], if it were but for an experiment sake, to try whether it would stink or no, Ex. 16. 20[7]. And though they were forbidden to gather on the Sabaoth day, and on the even had enough for two days, and it was told them they should find none; yet they must needs try. When a thing cannot bee had without great difficulty, it is our manner to have a vehement longing after it, as when David was in a hold, and the garrisons of the Philistines were in Bethlehem, then being thirsty, no water would serve his turn, but that in Bethlehem, 2. Sam. 23. 15. But when three mighty men, had broken into the host of the Philistines, & had brought him of it, he cared not for it[8].
Notes
What does it mean to “tempt God?” Andrews takes it as presumptuous misuse of what God has provided. God has given us “ordinary means” to live in this world. While God is capable of miracles, we are not to presume God will provide such a miracle. To jump from a building and to expect God to save us is to presume upon God’s goodness. You will also hit the ground.
We would agree that the person who jumped from the tower was a madman. But are there places in which we do presume upon God’s goodness? Do we do something foolish and say, “I did this for God, so God will bless me?” I have seen very heated conversations on the question as to whether a particular decision is a matter of trusting God or presuming upon God. While leaping from a building may an easy call, there are other matters which are less clear.
For instance, a man with a perfectly stable job quits his job and moves him family to a new city to attend seminary to be a pastor. Is this a pious act of faith, or a presumptuous tempting of God (God, I gave up my job, so you have to take care of my family)?
We are susceptible to this ploy not merely through false piety. It can also come about because we want what we do not have. It is easy to seek to justify our vain curiosity on the supposedly pious ground.
The test which Andrews lays out for us is this: Has God provided an “ordinary means” to accomplish this end? It is not presumption to take the stairs down to the ground floor. Perhaps if we asked ourselves pointedly, “What is the ordinary means to accomplish this end” we would be spared much sorrow.
[1] By “ordinary means”, Andrews means the normal way in which something is done. When just proceed in the world without asking to
[3] God has appointed “ordinary means” for us to conduct our lives. We use ladders and walk down stairs. If we jump off a building and say, “God catch me!” We are either crazy or extremely sinful.
[5] We are always curious about those things which have not experienced. We tend to ignore those things of which we have had experience. This was an issue which would have been a matter of consideration at this time. There was a great deal of exploration. Modern science was beginning to test everything. The question of curiosity a live issue at the time of this sermon. Consider the following notice by Francis Bacon in a letter to his uncle, Lord Burghley dated 1592:
I confess that I have as vast contemplative ends, as I have moderate civil ends: for I have taken all knowledge to be my province; and if I could purge it of two sorts of rovers, whereof the one with frivolous disputations, confutations, and verbosities, the other with blind experiments and auricular traditions and impostures, hath committed so many spoils, I hope I should bring in industrious observations, grounded conclusions, and profitable inventions and discoveries; the best state of that province. This, whether it be curiosity, or vain glory, or nature, or (if one take it favourably) philanthropia, is so fixed in my mind as it cannot be removed. And I do easily see, that place of any reasonable countenance doth bring commandment of more wits than of a man’s own; which is the thing I greatly affect. (Bacon 1857–74, VIII, 109)
[6] Truly, this would be something they would “have to” do.
[7] Exodus 16:18–20 (ESV) 18 But when they measured it with an omer, whoever gathered much had nothing left over, and whoever gathered little had no lack. Each of them gathered as much as he could eat. 19 And Moses said to them, “Let no one leave any of it over till the morning.” 20 But they did not listen to Moses. Some left part of it till the morning, and it bred worms and stank. And Moses was angry with them.
[8] When David could not get into Bethlehem, he said, I wish I could drink from the well in Bethlehem. Andrews’ point is we human have a tendency to want what we cannot have and look into what is not our business. It was this tendency for a sort of discontentment which the Devil is seeking to exploit by means of this temptation.
Matth. 4. Ver. 7. Iesus said vnto him, It is written againe: Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God[1].
Considering that Saint James says chap. 4. 5. The Scripture speaketh nothing in vaine[2]: & that as our Savior Christ saith John 10. 35, No scripture can be disappointed[3]; it may seem strange that the Devil coming armed with The sword of the spirite[4], (for so is the word of God termed, Ephes. 6. 17.) Christ gives not place, but opposes himself to answer[5]. We see that a message coming in the name of the Lord, this very name abashed Nehemiah(Neh. 6. 10) at the first hearing, till he perceived it was contrary to the law of God, and so came not from him[6]: which here we see to be the cause, why Christ does not yield by and by, upon the hearing of the Word, but sets himself to make answer: forsomuch as the word is not of force, Quia dicitur[7] onely, but Quia creditur, as Augustine notes[8]. If there bee not the mixture of faith with it, (whereof Paulspeakes, Heb. 4. 2.) it is nothing worth. And therefore, the bad spirit was nothing abashed or daunted, at the hearing of the bare names of Jesus and Paul, Act. 19. 15, but answered, I know them, but who are ye?[9] They did not believe, and therefore could do them no good, but were wounded themselves: glorious names would not serve the turn[10]. So was it here used without faith.[11]
When the Scripture is here urged against one, a man would think it were not to be answered by citing another place of Scripture; but by some tradition of the Elders, Mark 7. 1 or some gloss, or other shift[12]; but we see our Savior answers here no other way but by Scripture.
Because the wolf comes sometimes disguised in a sheep’s skin, it is no reason that therefore the very sheep should lay away their fleeces[13]: so here, because the Devil uses the Word, as the slaying letter, 2. Cor. 3. 6 or as the sword to kill men with[14]; it is no reason why Christ may not therefore use it in his own defense[15].
Why then (will some say) one of these two inconveniences will follow: [1] that hereby we shall think the Scripture is of the Devil’s side, as well as of Christ’s side, & so divided; as in like sort they make a division of Christ, when one holds with Paul, another of Apollos, 1 Cor. 1. 13[16]. No, it is not so, Christ alleges[17] not this Scripture in that sort, as one nail to drive out another: but by way of harmony and exposition, that the one may make plain the meaning of the other[18].
For albeit the Devil shows himself to be the Devil, in citing that text so, as might best serve for his purpose: in that, whereas the Psalm whereout he taketh it, has it thus, That he might keepe him in all his wayes; which words he leaves out[19]. For if he had cited that, he could not thereby have enforced any casting down: for the angels have no charge over a man, but in his ways; & from the top of the pinnacle there was no way, but down the stairs on his feet[20]. He was not (relying on the angels) to cast himself down with his head forward. But the Devil has a wrest, to make the string sound high or low, as he list[21]; or if that will not serve, he hath a rack to stretch them out, as some did Saint Paul’s Epistles, 2. Pet. 3. 16[22]. He can set them on the tenters, to prove, that down the stairs, or over the battlements, all is one, the angels shall safeguard him.
Though this (I say) be the Devil’s corruption, which the late writers have well spied: yet Christ (we see) is not willing to take advantage of that, but uses a wiser course[23]; for so are we to think, that he went the best way to work, that is, the conference of Scripture with Scripture, which Christ here practices, and commends unto us.
In every art, all propositions are not of a like certainty, but some be grounds and principles so certain, as that no exception is to be taken against them. From them are others derived, by a consequence called deduction, not so certain as the other: from these again to others, to the twentieth-hand[24]. So is it in Divinity [theology]. Christ here reduces the Devil’s argument & place, to a place most plain to be confessed. For the Jews valuing of the means, had to consider, that God fed them with Manna, which they knew not, to teach them, that Man liueth not by bread onely, Deut. 8.3[25] condemning the same: and in Deut. 6. 16 bad [said, exhorted] them they should not tempt their Lord their God, as in Massah, when they cried for bread.[26]
The Lord curses him, that makes flesh his arm, and withdraws his heart from God, Jer. 17. 5[27]. They sacrificed unto their yarn, because their portion was plentiful, Hab 1. 16[28]. Job condemns the making gold our hope, or the wedge of gold our confidence, chap. 31. ver. 24[29]. As then we[30] must not deify the means, attributing all sufficiency to them: so, we may not nullify them, & think too basely of them, but use them, that we tempt not God, according to his Word.
Out of these two grounds, may every question be resolved: for every proposition must be proved out of the ground.[31] So that, as we may not think the arm of God to be so shortened, that he cannot help without means: so are we not to think basely of God, for ordaining means[32].
Secondly, we heard, that the Devil’s allegation was taken out of the Psalm, and one of the most comfortable places of all the Psalms[33]. Christ by not standing in disputation about the words and meaning of the text, commends to us the safest and wisest way to make answer in such like cases. Our Savior would warn us, that the Psalm 91 is not fit matter for us to study on, when we are on the top of the pinnacle: he therefore chooses a place of a contrary kind, to counterpoise himself, standing in that tickle place[34].
The Law (we know) is a great cooler to presumption. If one tamper much with the Psalms, being in the case of confidence, he may make the fire too big[35]. Faith is the fire which Christ came to put on the earth[36], and it is seated between two extremes, Distrust, and Presumption. Distrust is as water to it, which if it be powered on in abundance, it will make it to be smoking flax, or utterly quench it[37]: Presumption (on the other side) is a gunpowder to it, which being thrown into it, it will blow it up, and make it fly all about the house[38]. Christ was to take heed of over-heating his faith. Luther [writing] upon the Galatians saith, the 91[st] Psalm is no meet study for many men’s humors in our days: they had more need of a corrosive, to eat out the soar of the root and bottom[39].
Notes
In this section, Andrews provides instruction on how to understand and make use of Scripture. The first proposition is that Scripture is not a magic recitation. He gives the example of the exorcists who heard of Paul exorcising demons in the name of Jesus. These men, who did not have faith in Jesus, who did not belong to him, thought that merely using the name would give them power. It was not so. It is not the saying of the words, but the believing reception of the words which is efficacious. An unbeliever handling the Scripture will not profit them.
The Devil is the ultimate unbeliever and hence his quotation of the Scripture was not to his profit.
Second proposition: One would have supposed that Jesus would have contested the Devil’s presentation by arguing over the meaning of the passage (indeed, the Devil takes the passage out of context, as Andrews will argue later in this section). But Jesus rebuts the Devil by showing that Scripture is to be read as a harmonious whole. Yes, the Scripture here in this way, but it also provides further clarity on our relationship to God in another place. We must consider both passages to understand either.
All our understanding of the Scripture must be as harmonious. If we come to an understanding which results in conflicts where either one or the other passage must be right (where one nail drives out another), our understanding is incorrect.
The Devil misuses the Scripture in a way to cause a conflict with other passages, and a conflict even with the immediate Psalm.
This leads Andrews to make a comment on the question of God’s use of ordinary means to perform ends. The common way to come down from a pinnacle is by the stairs, not to leap and let the angels catch you before you hit the ground. God is not bound by the means. He most commonly provides us by breach by cause the grain to grow from the ground. But God is not bound by means. He can provide bread in the wilderness without apparent means.
He provides a final observation on the use of the Scripture. There are passages which give us much comfort and hope such as the 91st Psalm. Taken by itself, without reference to the rest of Scripture, could easily lead one to presumption:
Psalm 91:1–13 (ESV)
91 He who dwells in the shelter of the Most High
will abide in the shadow of the Almighty.
2 I will say to the Lord, “My refuge and my fortress,
my God, in whom I trust.”
3 For he will deliver you from the snare of the fowler
and from the deadly pestilence.
4 He will cover you with his pinions,
and under his wings you will find refuge;
his faithfulness is a shield and buckler.
5 You will not fear the terror of the night,
nor the arrow that flies by day,
6 nor the pestilence that stalks in darkness,
nor the destruction that wastes at noonday.
7 A thousand may fall at your side,
ten thousand at your right hand,
but it will not come near you.
8 You will only look with your eyes
and see the recompense of the wicked.
9 Because you have made the Lord your dwelling place—
the Most High, who is my refuge—
10 no evil shall be allowed to befall you,
no plague come near your tent.
11 For he will command his angels concerning you
to guard you in all your ways.
12 On their hands they will bear you up,
lest you strike your foot against a stone.
13 You will tread on the lion and the adder;
the young lion and the serpent you will trample underfoot.
This could lead one to think that no danger will ever befall me. But we must not read these promises as absolute and disregard the remainder of the Scripture. Consider the life of Christ, himself. He was arrested, falsely accused, beaten, then crucified. He himself promised we would have trouble in this world. We have the book of Job and Ecclesiastes as well as the Psalms and Proverbs.
Our reading of the Scripture must be of the whole, not isolated parts. Read alone without reference to whole could lead to despair or presumption; the twin dangers which the Devil has sought to exploit in the first two temptations.
Christ’s defense to the Devil’s misuse of Scripture was more Scripture.
What this means for our application is that our knowledge of the Scripture must be more complete. I do not recall the precise reference, but I recall reading in Chrysostom an admonition to the congregation that they go out unarmed, because they do not know the Scripture.
[1] Matthew 4:7 (ESV) “Jesus said to him, “Again it is written, ‘You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.’ ””
[2] James 4:5 (ESV) “Or do you suppose it is to no purpose that the Scripture says, ‘He yearns jealously over the spirit that he has made to dwell in us’?” Andrews takes the proposition used in the particular in James, do you suppose this one particular statement is of “no purpose,”, i.e., vain and applies it generally. This is an appropriate use of the passage, because the specific application presumes the general. If the Scripture could speak in vain, then the particular instance could be vain. However if the Scripture always speaks to purpose, then all particular instances speak to purpose.
[3] John 10:35 (ESV) “If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be broken—” I am not sure where Andrews got the word “disappointed.” It is possible conceptually to obtain “fail” as an idea related to the Greek verb used in this place: the verb means to untie, to loose, to set free, to destroy. So one could see a metaphorical use which would have the connotation of “disappoint.” But the word “broken” was used going back to Tyndale, and was used in the Geneva.
[5] The argument runs thus, The Scripture cannot fail in its effect. The Devil quotes from the Bible and says to Jesus, “Do you really believe this promise that you will be hurt if you fall?” The Devil seems to have caught Jesus in a dilemma.
[6] The passage reads: “9 For they all wanted to frighten us, thinking, “Their hands will drop from the work, and it will not be done.” But now, O God, strengthen my hands. 10 Now when I went into the house of Shemaiah the son of Delaiah, son of Mehetabel, who was confined to his home, he said, “Let us meet together in the house of God, within the temple. Let us close the doors of the temple, for they are coming to kill you. They are coming to kill you by night.” 11 But I said, “Should such a man as I run away? And what man such as I could go into the temple and live? I will not go in.” 12 And I understood and saw that God had not sent him, but he had pronounced the prophecy against me because Tobiah and Sanballat had hired him.” When Nehemiah first heard considered the words might come from God he was concerned. But upon understanding that this was not God’s word to him, he put it aside. By analogy: The Devil’s use of Scripture gives the appearance of being a word from God, but it was a misuse of the text.
[8] Latin, What is believed. The source is quoted by Calvin in the Institutes: “At longe aliter de Verbo sacramentali docet Augustinus (hom. in Ioann. 13.): ‘Accedat, inquit, verbum ad ele mentum, et fiet sacramentum. Unde enim ista tanta virtus aquae ut corpus tangat, et cor abluat, nisi faciente verbo? non quia dicitur, sed quia creditur. Nam et in ipso verbo aliud est sonus transiens, aliud virtus manens. Hoc est verbum fidei quod praedicamus, inquit Apostolus (Rom. 10:8.). Unde in Actis Apostolorum, Fide mundans corda eorum (Act. 15:9.). Et Petrus Apostolus, Sic et nos Baptisma salvos facit, non depositio sordium carnis, sed conscientiae bonae interrogalio (1 Petr. 3:21.). Hoc est verbum fidei quod praedicamus: quo sine dubio, ut mundare possit, consecratur et Baptismus.’” John Calvin, Institutio Christianae Religionis, vol. 2 (Berolini: Gustavum Eichler, 1834), 352. “Far different is the teaching of Augustine concerning the sacramental word: ‘Let the word be added to the element and it will become a sacrament. For whence comes this great power of water, that in touching the body it should cleanse the heart, unless the word makes it? Not because it is said, but because it is believed. In the word itself the fleeting sound is one thing; the power remaining, another. ‘This is the word of faith which we proclaim,’ says the apostle [Rom. 10:8]. Accordingly, in The Acts of the Apostles: ‘Cleansing their hearts by faith’ [Acts 15:9]. And the apostle Peter: ‘Thus baptism … saves us, not as a removal of filth from the flesh, but as an appeal … for a good conscience …’ [1 Peter 3:21 p.]. ‘This is the word of faith which we proclaim’ [Rom. 10:8], by which doubtless baptism, that it may be able to cleanse, is also consecrated.’” John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion & 2, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, vol. 1, The Library of Christian Classics (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2011), 1279.
[9] Acts 19:13–16 (ESV) “13 Then some of the itinerant Jewish exorcists undertook to invoke the name of the Lord Jesus over those who had evil spirits, saying, “I adjure you by the Jesus whom Paul proclaims.” 14 Seven sons of a Jewish high priest named Sceva were doing this. 15 But the evil spirit answered them, “Jesus I know, and Paul I recognize, but who are you?” 16 And the man in whom was the evil spirit leaped on them, mastered all of them and overpowered them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded.”
[10] The name of Jesus was not a magic word, which merely saying commands evil spirits.
[11] The words of Scripture are not magic. They are used by the Spirit when received by faith.
[12] One would think that the response to be presented with a proposition from Scripture and being told, do you believe this? Would respond with, “You have misinterpreted the passage. It does not mean what you say it means.” The “tradition of elders” means an authoritative interpretation of the most respected teachers. A “gloss” means an explanatory paraphrase. A “shift” would be something else which would “shift” the basis of the proposition.
[13] The metaphor is based upon Jesus’ words in Matthew 7:15 that false prophets will come “in sheep’s clothing”, i.e., disguised as a sheep and thus a true follower. Andrews means, that just because a false prophet comes in sheep’s clothing is no reason to give up the flock. More particularly, just because you are defined by the Scripture, it does not mean that you should give up the Scripture when it is misused by someone. A present application of this proposition would be found in those who some proposition out of the Bible which appears to either contradict the rest of Scripture or which makes the Bible sound unfair or unjust. In response, rather than permitting the Bible to defend itself, we run to some other source of authority.
[14] 2 Corinthians 3:4–6 (ESV) “Such is the confidence that we have through Christ toward God. 5 Not that we are sufficient in ourselves to claim anything as coming from us, but our sufficiency is from God, 6 who has made us sufficient to be ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.”
[15] The Devil’s misuses the Scripture is no reason for Christ to abandon the Scripture.
[16] The Corinthian church had broken up into factions which each claimed they were followers of a particular teacher, such as Paul, or Apollos, or Peter. The letter addresses this ungodly fracturing.
[17] An “allegation” here does not mean an accusation in a legal document which has yet to be proved, but rather an assertion.
[18] Andrews here lays down a rule of interpretation. Scripture is not to be read in such a way that one text trumps another: like hammering a nail on a nail drives the bottom nail out of the wood. This can happen when one reads the Bible as if it were a series of separate books which have been cobbled together, the books with different ends and different authors. Rather, the Scripture is to be read as a consistent harmony. We cannot take Scripture out of context, and in the end, the context is the entire Bible. This principle was set forth in the Westminster Confession as follows: “VII. All things in scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all;p yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.” Westminster Assembly, The Westminster Confession of Faith: Edinburgh Edition (Philadelphia: William S. Young, 1851), 19.
to guard you in all your ways. The Geneva has “to kepe thee in all thy ways” as does the Matthew’s translation. The difference between Andrews and the Geneva or Matthews is “to keep him” and “to keep you.”
[20] This is an interesting reading of the verse: the verse was not a promise that the angels would protect no matter the psalmist did (here referring to the Messiah). But the protection was afforded for him being where he was called to be.
[21] He compares the Devil’s speech to one tuning a stringed instrument: The Devil can twist the string however much he desires so that it will play the note he wishes to obtain, that is, he can make words sound however he wishes them to sound.
[22] 2 Peter 3:14–16 (ESV) “14 Therefore, beloved, since you are waiting for these, be diligent to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace. 15 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.” The Devil can even twist Scripture to a bad end.
[23] Rather than demonstrate that the Devil has misapplied the Scripture in place here, Christ has chosen a different form of response by referencing other Scripture to show that Scripture as a whole must be read in harmony.
[24] Any area of knowledge consists of basic principles or axioms which are taken as certain. From those basic principles other propositions may be determined by means of deduction.
[25] Deuteronomy 8:1–3 (ESV) “The whole commandment that I command you today you shall be careful to do, that you may live and multiply, and go in and possess the land that the Lord swore to give to your fathers. 2 And you shall remember the whole way that the Lord your God has led you these forty years in the wilderness, that he might humble you, testing you to know what was in your heart, whether you would keep his commandments or not. 3 And he humbled you and let you hunger and fed you with manna, which you did not know, nor did your fathers know, that he might make you know that man does not live by bread alone, but man lives by every word that comes from the mouth of the Lord.”
[26] Deuteronomy 6:16 (ESV) “You shall not put the Lord your God to the test, as you tested him at Massah.” Andrews is underscoring not merely that Jesus is reading the Bible as a harmony, but even the two verses he has quoted so far in response to the first two temptations are part of the same exhortation to the Israelites in the wilderness. First, God tested them so that they would learn they need to live upon God and not merely upon physical objects, like bread. God is the God of bread. Second, they should not “test” God by complaining that God is not meeting their immediate demands.
25 if I have rejoiced because my wealth was abundant
or because my hand had found much,
26 if I have looked at the sun when it shone,
or the moon moving in splendor,
27 and my heart has been secretly enticed,
and my mouth has kissed my hand,
28 this also would be an iniquity to be punished by the judges,
for I would have been false to God above.
[30] We must not understand the things in the world as having an efficacy in-and-of themselves. Food does not support our life because food has it in itself to support life, but because God has caused food to support our life. This is not to deny the reality or usefulness of food (for instance), but to understand that food is a creation and is subject to the Creator: “God in his ordinary providence maketh use of means, yet is free to work without, above, and against them, at his pleasure.” Westminster Assembly, The Westminster Confession of Faith: Edinburgh Edition, Chapter 5.3 (Philadelphia: William S. Young, 1851), 35.
[31] There must be a proper basis for any conclusion.
[32] Two points: First, we must not think that God’s power is limited to the use of means. God can work without means. Second, we must not think God is weak because he uses means.
[33] The Devil chose his text to tempt Jesus by using one of the most comforting passages among all of the Psalms.
[34] When we are in such a “ticklish” place, dangerous place, Jesus gives the proper way to respond. It is not a time for arguing.
[35] It would be easy to take certain texts, such as those which speak of God’s love and mercy out of the context of the entire Bible. God is a God mercy, but equally a God of justice. We are given the Psalms for comfort and the Law for direction.
[36] Luke 12:49 (ESV) “I came to cast fire on the earth, and would that it were already kindled!”
[37] If we find ourselves beset by distrust of God, it can act to quench faith, like water being poured on a fire.
[38] Presumption is a misuse of faith. Bringing presumption to faith is like bringing gunpowder to a fire.
[39] At this time, the greater problem is presuming upon the grace of God, rather than being fearful that God will hold anyone to account.
Years ago I had dinner with a psychiatric professor at UCLA. He said we don’t know what antidepressants do or why they work or why they don’t. A recent study concludes its even worse than that
Although “the serotonin hypothesis of depression is still influential,” Moncrieff and coauthors noted, citing widely adopted textbooks published as recently as 2020 and surveys indicating that “85-90 percent of the public believes that depression is caused by low serotonin or a chemical imbalance,” the primary research indicates there is “no support for the hypothesis that depression is caused by lowered serotonin activity or concentrations.”
The Devil’s dart is▪ Cast thee downe[1]: but he bestows some great cost on this. With the self-same armor that Christ bare off the other dart, does the Devil sharpen and harden this: he does not so in any other of the temptations, therefore we are to look for great matter: he brings scripture, that he may be the better credited. He speaks not now after the manner of men, 1. Cor. 9. 8[2], so that it is not he now that speaks, but Scripture, as Paul reasons there. You see (saith he) I counsel you to nothing, but that the Psalms will bear you out in[3].
The Devil knew well by his own fall, how dangerous the sin of presumption is, it cost him dearly[4], and so did Davidlikewise, and therefore of all other, he prays to God to keep him from presumptuous sins: Ps. 19. 13[5]. He knew also what it was to abuse the goodness, patience and long suffering of God, Rom. 2. 4.[6] Therefore he avouches it by Scripture: he tells him it will be long to go down the stairs, and teaches him a nearer way, but a jump, or to cast himself down, and to fear no hurt, for the Angels have charge of him[7].
And even so he persuades men now-a-days; that they need not go down faire and softly, in fear and trembling, but to defer all till their dying hour, & then commend themselves to God, and throw themselves upon Gods mercy, and that fiery Chariot that took up Elijah[8] shall come and fetch up them: or else an angel shall carry them up, let them be sure they shall have no harm, for they be God’s darlings, and God doth so dote on them, that he will not suffer them in any case to receive the least hurt that may be[9].
If ever the Devil came in his likeness, it was here. In the first of Sam. 28.18. he came but in the guise of a Prophet[10]: so that instead of saying, Is Saule among the Prophets?[11] it might have been said, “What, is the Devil among the prophets?” But here he has used himself so cunningly, that if ever he was transformed into an angel of light, here it is verified. 1. Cor. 11. 14[12] for he comes here like a white devil, or like a Divine[13], he comes with a Psalter in his hand, and turns to the place, & shows our Savior the 91st Psalm vers. 11. and 12[14]. wherein first we are to note, that the Devil reads Psalms, as well as we, and hath the words of Scripture in his mouth. And 1. Sam. 28. he counterfeited Samuel so right, and used the very words that he had used, that they could not know him from Samuel: so, here he counterfeited the voce of David[15], Act. 19. 15[16].
This will make us shake off security, considering that God does (for our trial) sometime deliver the adversary the key of the armory, whereby he is able to hold argument with an Archangell, Jude 9[17], yea, with Christ himself, as we see here. How careful therefore had we need to be, to find out a fit answer for him? For only to assault us does he read he Scriptures: yea, but not to anu good end, but even thereby to deceive the simplicity of men; as here, to make them put their souls in adventure to the last hour.[18]
He has indeed a grace with some vain youths of the Court[19], & ungodly Atheists, to set them a scoffing at the Scripture, as Is. 28. 22. But with others, that have the Scriptures in more high reverence, he goes another way to work, making it to them the savor of death, Roman. chapt. 7. vers. 10.[20]
The words which he uses in the name of Samuel, he uses to make Saul despair: and here he uses David’s words to cause presumption, and to make them our bane. And not every Scripture: but if there be any Scripture more full of heavenly comfort than another, that of all other will the Devil abuse; as indeed the Psalms are; and of all the Psalms, this 91. Especially, and in that part, if any one sentence be sweeter than another, that of all other will the Devil abuse[21].
Mark the second verse here cited. He shall giue his Angells charge ouer thee, to keepe thee in all thy ways[22]. These last wordes the Devil leaves out, because they make not for his purpose. They shall beare thee in their hands, that thou dash not thy foote against a stone[23]. And we shall see nothing can be spoken more comfortable: as first, in that it is said, that the Angels have charge over vs in all our ways: Exod. 23. 20. Behold I send my Angell before thee, to guide thee in the way[24], and to comfort, and confirm us: as when Jacob was in fear of his brother Esau, the Angel met him, Gen. 32. 1. and to defend us in all dangers[25], and succor us in all necessities, spreading their wings over vs, and pitching their tents about us, Ps. 34. 7.[26]
Secondly, this charge not only concerns our head and principal members, but also our feet: yea, God’s providence reaches even to the hairs of our head, for they are numbered, Mat. 10. 30[27].
Thirdly, this charge of theirs is not only to admonish us when danger comes, but they are actually to help us, as it were putting their hands between the ground and us. Mat. 13. 41[28] they shall take the rubs and offences out of our way[29].
Fourthly, this do they not of courtesy, as being creatures given of nature to love mankind, but by special mandate and charge they are bound to it, and have a praecipe [Latin, mandate/charge] for it, yea, the very beasts & stones shall be in league with us. Job. 5. 23[30].
This Psalm, and these verses containing such comfort, hath the Devil culled to persuade men, that being such sweet Children of God, they may venture whether and upon what they will; for the Angels attend them at an inch. He bids them put the matter in adventure[31], and then but whistle for an angel, and they will come at first[32]: he carries them up to the top of the pinnacle, and shows them their own case in Annas and Herod; and tells them God will require no more of them, than he did at their hands: & all the way as they go up, he sings them a Psalm of the mercies of God[33]: he carries them up with a song, that God’s mercy is above all his works, Psalm. 145. 9[34]. And with Psalm. 103.8 how gracious and long-suffring God is, who rewards us not according to our deserts[35]: and Psalm. 136. That his mercie endureth for euer[36]: God therefore being so full of mercy, will take all things in good part. But this mercy theDevil tells them of, differs from the mercy David [the Psalmist] meant: for the mercy David speaks of, is coupled with judgement[37], Ps. 101. 1. I will sing mercie and iudgement to thee O Lord[38]: and Ps. 85. 10. Mercie & truth are met together, Iustice and peace haue kissed each other[39]. Thus I say they shall have music all the way[40], & if any at the height think it a great way down: no, saith the Devil, you need but a jump from your baptism into heaven, you shall need no stairs at all[41].
Notes:
This section raises the matter which Bonhoffer so strikingly called “cheap grace”:
CHEAP GRACE IS THE mortal enemy of our church.[1] Our struggle today is for costly grace.
Cheap grace means grace as bargain-basement goods, cut-rate forgiveness, cut-rate comfort, cut-rate sacrament; grace as the church’s inexhaustible pantry, from which it is doled out by careless hands without hesitation or limit. It is grace without a price, without costs. It is said that the essence of grace is that the bill for it is paid in advance for all time. Everything can be had for free, courtesy of that paid bill. The price paid is infinitely great and, therefore, the possibilities of taking advantage of and wasting grace are also infinitely great. What would grace be, if it were not cheap grace?
Cheap grace means grace as doctrine, as principle, as system. It means forgiveness of sins as a general truth; it means God’s love as merely a Christian idea of God. Those who affirm it have already had their sins forgiven. The church that teaches this doctrine of grace thereby confers such grace upon itself. The world finds in this church a cheap cover-up for its sins, for which it shows no remorse and from which it has even less desire to be set free. Cheap grace is, thus, denial of God’s living word, denial of the incarnation[2] of the word of God.
Cheap grace means justification of sin but not of the sinner. Because grace alone does everything, everything can stay in its old ways
Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Discipleship, ed. Martin Kuske et al., trans. Barbara Green and Reinhard Krauss, vol. 4, Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2003), 43. The Devil comes to us and tell us that God is all made up of mercy and grace, and that we, having been baptized can fall right into heaven (as he strikingly ends this section).
This false portrayal of God has been a danger throughout the history of the church. In our age, it is coupled with the idea that a God who punishes sin is unworthy to be God. It is presumption on our part: we presume that God will forgive all and everything, that sin is a very small thing.
Thomas Brooks explains that such a lie of Satan must be combated with the utmost gravity and consideration of the truth of the circumstance:
Remedy (3). The third remedy against this device of Satan is, seriously to consider, That sins against mercy will bring the greatest and sorest judgments upon men’s heads and hearts. Mercy is Alpha, Justice is Omega. David, speaking of these attributes, placeth mercy in the foreward, and justice in the rearward, saying, ‘My song shall be of mercy and judgment,’ Ps. 101:1. When mercy is despised, then justice takes the throne.4 God is like a prince, that sends not his army against rebels before he hath sent his pardon, and proclaimed it by a herald of arms: he first hangs out the white flag of mercy; if this wins men in, they are happy for ever; but if they stand out, then God will put forth his red flag of justice and judgment; if the one is despised, the other shall be felt with a witness.5
See this in the Israelites. He loved them and chose them when they were in their blood, and most unlovely. He multiplied them, not by means, but by miracle; from seventy souls they grew in few years to six hundred thousand; the more they were oppressed, the more they prospered. Like camomile, the more you tread it, the more you spread it; or to a palm-tree, the more it is pressed, the further it spreadeth; or to fire, the more it is raked, the more it burneth. Their mercies came in upon them like Job’s messengers, one upon the neck of the other: He put off their sackcloth, and girded them with gladness, and ‘compassed them about with songs of deliverance;’ he ‘carried them on the wings of eagles;’ he kept them ‘as the apple of his eye’ &c.6 But they, abusing his mercy, became the greatest objects of his wrath. As I know not the man that can reckon up their mercies, so I know not the man that can sum up the miseries that are come upon them for their sins. For as our Saviour prophesied concerning Jerusalem, ‘that a stone should not be left upon a stone,’ so it was fulfilled forty years after his ascension, by Vespasian the emperor and his son Titus, who, having besieged Jerusalem, the Jews were oppressed with a grievous famine, in which their food was old shoes, old leather, old hay, and the dung of beasts. There died, partly of the sword and partly of the famine, eleven hundred thousand of the poorer sort; two thousand in one night were embowelled; six thousand were burned in a porch of the temple; the whole city was sacked and burned, and laid level to the ground; and ninety-seven thousand taken captives, and applied to base and miserable service, as Eusebius and Josephus saith.1 And to this day, in all parts of the world, are they not the off-scouring of the world? None less beloved, and none more abhorred, than they.2
And so Capernaum, that was lifted up to heaven, was threatened to be thrown down to hell. No souls fall so low into hell, if they fall, as those souls that by a hand of mercy are lifted up nearest to heaven. You slight souls that are so apt to abuse mercy, consider this, that in the gospel days, the plagues that God inflicts upon the despisers and abusers of mercy are usually spiritual plagues; as blindness of mind, hardness of heart, benumbedness of conscience, which are ten thousand times worse than the worst of outward plagues that can befall you. And therefore, though you may escape temporal judgments, yet you shall not escape spiritual judgments: ‘How shall we escape, if neglect so great salvation?’ Heb. 2:3,3 saith the apostle. Oh! therefore, whenever Satan shall present God to the soul as one made up all of mercy, that he may draw thee to do wickedly, say unto him, that sins against mercy will bring upon the soul the greatest misery; and therefore whatever becomes of thee, thou wilt not sin against mercy, &c.
Thomas Brooks, The Complete Works of Thomas Brooks, ed. Alexander Balloch Grosart, vol. 1 (Edinburgh; London; Dublin: James Nichol; James Nisbet and Co.; G. Herbert, 1866), 28–29.
Therefore, we must be careful to watch for this deception playing out in our own hearts, when we excuse and minimize our own sin.
[2] 1 Corinthians 9:7–10 (ESV) “7 Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard without eating any of its fruit? Or who tends a flock without getting some of the milk? 8 Do I say these things on human authority? Does not the Law say the same? 9 For it is written in the Law of Moses, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain.” Is it for oxen that God is concerned? 10 Does he not certainly speak for our sake? It was written for our sake, because the plowman should plow in hope and the thresher thresh in hope of sharing in the crop.” Paul supports his argument by referencing the Scripture. The Devil uses the same technique.
[3] The Devil provides an emphasis to this temptation which he does not make with his other temptations: I am not asking you to do anything other than what is specifically stated in the Scripture, specifically the Psalms.
13 Keep back your servant also from presumptuous sins;
let them not have dominion over me!
Then I shall be blameless,
and innocent of great transgression.
[6] Romans 2:4 (ESV) Or do you presume on the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that God’s kindness is meant to lead you to repentance?
[7] Why go down the stairs when you can just jump (cast yourself down) and the angels will catch you.
11 And as they still went on and talked, behold, chariots of fire and horses of fire separated the two of them. And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven. 12 And Elisha saw it and he cried, “My father, my father! The chariots of Israel and its horsemen!” And he saw him no more. Then he took hold of his own clothes and tore them in two pieces.
[9] Rather than repent today just wait. And then, at the last minute, cast yourself upon God’s mercy and his angel will take you to heaven
[10] Saul having been abandoned by God goes to the witch at Endor and asks her to raise Samuel from the dead. An apparition appears who looks like Samuel and tells Saul he will die the next day. What actually took place has been a matter of debate. Andrews takes it that the Devil appeared in the likeness of Samuel.
10 When they came to Gibeah, behold, a group of prophets met him, and the Spirit of God rushed upon him, and he prophesied among them. 11 And when all who knew him previously saw how he prophesied with the prophets, the people said to one another, “What has come over the son of Kish? Is Saul also among the prophets?” 12 And a man of the place answered, “And who is their father?” Therefore it became a proverb, “Is Saul also among the prophets?” 13 When he had finished prophesying, he came to the high place.
[12] 2 Corinthians 11:14 (ESV) And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.
[13] A divine would be a well-trained pastor or theologian, an expert in divinity.
[15] He pretended to be Samuel when Saul went to the witch at Endor. And the Devil pretends to speak like David when he comes to Jesus, since David wrote many of the Psalms.
[16] Acts 19:13–17 (ESV) 13 Then some of the itinerant Jewish exorcists undertook to invoke the name of the Lord Jesus over those who had evil spirits, saying, “I adjure you by the Jesus whom Paul proclaims.” 14 Seven sons of a Jewish high priest named Sceva were doing this. 15 But the evil spirit answered them, “Jesus I know, and Paul I recognize, but who are you?” 16 And the man in whom was the evil spirit leaped on them, mastered all of them and overpowered them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded. 17 And this became known to all the residents of Ephesus, both Jews and Greeks. And fear fell upon them all, and the name of the Lord Jesus was extolled.
9 But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, was disputing about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a blasphemous judgment, but said, “The Lord rebuke you.”
[18] Our armoury would be our defense against the Devil, in particular the Scripture itself. But here we see that the Devil can make use of the Scripture against. Therefore, we had better be prepared to know who to defend ourself against his wiles.
[19] The King’s court. The Devil has assistants in the government.
[20] For some, the Scripture does not bring relief but brings condemnation, hence, death: Romans 7:9–11 (ESV)
9 I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. 10 The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me. 11 For sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me.
Andrews is also making an allusion to 2 Corinthians 2:14–16 (ESV)
14 But thanks be to God, who in Christ always leads us in triumphal procession, and through us spreads the fragrance of the knowledge of him everywhere. 15 For we are the aroma of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing, 16 to one a fragrance from death to death, to the other a fragrance from life to life. Who is sufficient for these things?
[21] The Devil can turn any part of Scripture to his advantage. He uses words in one place to cause despair; in another place to tempt presumption. He can take the Psalms which are of all parts of the Bible most comforting and turn them into a plea for sin!
[24] The reference here is to the Israelites leaving Egypt and going into Canaan. God has promised to go with them to assure their protection and success. Exodus 23:20 (ESV)“Behold, I send an angel before you to guard you on the way and to bring you to the place that I have prepared.”
[25] Of Isaacs two sons, Jacob was the one who inherited the promise to Abraham. Following the conflict with Esau, Esau promised to kill Jacob. Jacob had fled to the extended family’s home in Haran. When Jacob returned to Canaan, he feared that Esau would finally execute his revenge. God kept his promise and Esau met Jacob kindly.
40 Just as the weeds are gathered and burned with fire, so will it be at the end of the age. 41 The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all law-breakers, 42 and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
[29] While we may not realize it, angels may have removed difficulties or obstacles without our notice.
The fifth device that Satan hath to draw the soul to sin is,
Device (5). To present God to the soul as one made up all of mercy. Oh! saith Satan, you need not make such a matter of sin, you need not be so fearful of sin, not so unwilling to sin; for God is a God of mercy, a God full of mercy, a God that delights in mercy, a God that is ready to shew mercy, a God that is never weary of shewing mercy, a God more prone to pardon his people than to punish his people; and therefore he will not take advantage against the soul; and why then, saith Satan, should you make such a matter of sin?
Thomas Brooks, The Complete Works of Thomas Brooks, ed. Alexander Balloch Grosart, vol. 1 (Edinburgh; London; Dublin: James Nichol; James Nisbet and Co.; G. Herbert, 1866), 27.
[36] His mercy/steadfast love endures forever is a repeated refrain in this Psalm:
Psalm 136:1–2 (ESV)
Give thanks to the Lord, for he is good,
for his steadfast love endures forever.
2 Give thanks to the God of gods,
for his steadfast love endures forever.
[37] God is not a God of mercy only, but of judgment and mercy. The mercy is when God withholds deserved judgment. The Devil is portraying a God of all mercy and no-judgment. The word translated as “mercy” in Andrews’ Bible and translated “steadfast love” in the ESV actually makes this point well. It is the Hebrew word Hesed:
It is not possible to convey precisely ḥesed ‘s semantic range as encountered in profane usage with one Eng. word. ḥesed is not “grace,” and the often suggested “favor” is insufficient. First, ḥesed occurs tangibly in concrete situations and at the same time transcends the individual demonstration and envisions the actor. In this regard, the term exhibits affinities with Eng. “kindness,” and with “goodness” as well (see 3c). ḥesed does occur in relation to particular social forms; its configuration may even be governed by them, but it is never the obvious, the obligatory. It is a human demeanor that alone can fill a form with life and is in some cases (not always) the very requirement for the birth of a community. Jepsen (op. cit. 269) attempted to describe the intention as good will that becomes good deed. This notion is certainly included but is alone insufficient. I suggest an expression for magnanimity, for a sacrificial, humane willingness to be there for the other (Stoebe, diss. 67; id., VT 2 [1952]: 248). It is a given that ḥesed always has to do in some way with the life of the other, and that one expects and hopes from the recipient of such ḥesed a similar willingness that in turn surpasses the obligatory.
Ernst Jenni and Claus Westermann, Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1997), 456.
The dart itself is, Cast thy self down[1]: which consists of two points[2]. First, the casting down: secondly, that he himself was to cast down himself.
For the first, it is general, the neglect of ordinary means; as here: whereas the ordinary way was down the stairs, he would have him leap, or throw himself over the battlements. And here a man may see to what end the Devil’s halting comes[3]: he brings a man up by little & little to some high place, that so he may send him at once with his head downward. All the preferments that he bestows on a man, is not to any-other intent, but that he may do as the Devil himself did, (who being on high, did cast himself down) and so be like him. John 8. 23[4], that is, from beneath, not from above: who fell from heaven like lightning, Luke 10. 18[5].
So that howsoever in outward show he may seem to befriend vs, yet this is his inward intention and scope. As the Edomites in time of the prosperity of the Israelites, pretended great good will to them: but in the day of their calamity, they were they that cried, Downe with them, downe with them, Psalm. 137.7[6].
God’s manner is, when he means to exalt a man, he will first humble him, and make him low, Matt. 23. 12. The Devil’s manner is (we see) clean contrary. Is.14. 14, to lift them up to the clouds, that he may bring them down to the grave, yea to the lowest grave, Psalm. 86. 13[7]. He carries them the higher, to throw them down with the greater violence. He lifts up Adam with a conceit [an idea, a thought] to be like God[8], to the very top of perfection to the intent he might be like the beast that perishes Psal. 49. 20.
The second hath some matter of comfort:
The Devil is here a suitor to him[9], to do it himself. Why does not the Devil cast him down?[10]
First, it was not in his power; or if it had, yet would not that have served his turn: then there had been no sin of presumption in it. There must be two persons that must concur in our downfall: well may the Devil induce and move us to it; but unless we ourselves be consenting, & cast ourselves down, there can be no downfall to hurt us. For as Chrysostom saith, Nemo laeditur nisi a seipso[11]: so Nullum precipitium nisi voluntarium[12]. The Devil did not cram Eve with the forbidden fruit: but when she saw it, she took it, and eat it, Gen. 3. 6. So the Devil when he enters into the soul of a man (which he counts his palace) he does not break open the door, no, nor so much as draw the latch[13]; but when he comes, he finds it swept and garnished, Luke 11. 25[14] and so goes in. There must therefore be a reaching out of the hand, & an opening of the door by ourselves, and so a casting down of yourself, or else though the Devil thrust sore at thee that you may fall, the Lord will help you, Ps. 118. 13.[15]
In Deut. 22. 8. God has caused battlements to be made on every house top, by which we may stay ourselves[16]: the Devil tells God, that he had made a hedge about Job1. 10. so that unless Job step over it, or break it down, he is safe.
Notes
Andrews notes two details of the temptation. From these two details, he draws application. First, the temptation is to be cast down. This would require one first to be up, so that it would be possible to fall. Application: God brings a man down before he raises him to usefulness. The first move with God is a move of humility. The Devil works in the opposite direction. He plays to human pride. The Devil raises a man to a place of prestige, of pride so that the man can fall into sin.
Second, the Devil does not throw a man down. To be thrown done is not a sin. Therefore, the Devil must use our desires, our volition against us. Unless we willing sin, we do not sin at all. God provides a protection for you to prevent our fall: it is like the small wall raised around edge of a roof. There is a wall about us. And so when we sin, it comes from our own willingness.
[1] This is the attack, the temptation of the Devil: Cast yourself down.
[2] A common manner of analyzing a text at this time among English theologians was to break down a proposition into its constituent parts. Here, Andrews breaks it down into the primary verb: casting down; and the agent of that action, “he himself.”
[3] Here we can see why the Devil stopped at this place.
21 So he said to them again, “I am going away, and you will seek me, and you will die in your sin. Where I am going, you cannot come.” 22 So the Jews said, “Will he kill himself, since he says, ‘Where I am going, you cannot come’?” 23 He said to them, “You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. 24 I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins.”
[5] Luke 10:17–20 (ESV) 17 The seventy-two returned with joy, saying, “Lord, even the demons are subject to us in your name!” 18 And he said to them, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven. 19 Behold, I have given you authority to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing shall hurt you. 20 Nevertheless, do not rejoice in this, that the spirits are subject to you, but rejoice that your names are written in heaven.”
12 I give thanks to you, O Lord my God, with my whole heart,
and I will glorify your name forever.
13 For great is your steadfast love toward me;
you have delivered my soul from the depths of Sheol.
[8] Genesis 3:1–6 (ESV) Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God actually say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree in the garden’?” 2 And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, 3 but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’ ” 4 But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. 5 For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” 6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate.
[9] The Devil is pressing a “suit” (like a “lawsuit”). He is asking for something.
[10] Why doesn’t the Devil just throw Jesus down, instead of asking Jesus to jump?
[13] When the Devil comes, he does not need to force entry; it is opened for him.
[14] Luke 11:24–26 (ESV) 24 “When the unclean spirit has gone out of a person, it passes through waterless places seeking rest, and finding none it says, ‘I will return to my house from which I came.’ 25 And when it comes, it finds the house swept and put in order. 26 Then it goes and brings seven other spirits more evil than itself, and they enter and dwell there. And the last state of that person is worse than the first.”
[16] The Mosaic law required a small fence to be placed around the edges of the house roof. Roofs were flat and were used as living space. Andrews uses this as an image our soul. God has provided a protection for us. This is then extended to the image of Job, where it is said that God has placed a fence around Job (a hedge) to protect him. From this he concludes, that unless we willing go, the Devil will not succeed.
Here is a helpful summary of the problems which may arise with memory:
When memory serves as evidence, as it does in many civil and criminal legal proceedings, there are a number of important limitations to the veracity of that evidence. This is because memory does not provide a veridical representation of events as experienced. Rather, what gets encoded into memory is determined by what a person attends to, what they already have stored in memory, their expectations, needs and emotional state. This information is subsequently integrated (consolidated) with other information that has
already been stored in a person’s long-term, autobiographical memory.
What gets retrieved later from that memory is determined by that same multitude of factors that contributed to encoding as well as what drives the recollection of the event. Specifically, what gets retold about an experience depends on whom one is talking to and what the purpose is of remembering that particular event (e.g., telling a friend, relaying an experience to a therapist, telling the police about an event).
Moreover, what gets remembered is reconstructed from the remnants of what was originally stored; that is, what we remember is constructed from whatever remains in memory following any forgetting or interference from new experiences that may have occurred across the interval between storing and retrieving a particular experience.
Because the contents of our memories for experiences involve the active manipulation (during encoding), integration with pre-existing information (during consolidation), and reconstruction (during retrieval) of that information, memory is, by definition, fallible at best and unreliable at worst.
Mark L. Howe and Lauren M. Knott , “The fallibility of memory in judicial processes: Lessons from the past and their modern consequences” Memory, 2015, Vol. 23, No. 5, 633–656, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2015.1010709
First, let’s note the particulars of what is said:
“This is because memory does not provide a veridical representation of events as experienced.” Memory is not an objective recordation of a historical event. We know that even a photograph can be deceptive. We only see what is before the camera, not all of the things which remain outside of the photograph. Look up the Beijing Olympics sky jump location: On television it appears to be a located on a snow covered mountain. But it was really an artificial structure in an industrial park next to what looks to be a nuclear reactor.
This example considers only one dimension of the problem: what can be seen. When it comes to reality involving human actors, the number of potential variables in play, sights, sounds, emotions, thoughts, et cetera, make a comprehensive “recording” of the event impossible. No one human being could possibly know everything was is present at any one time. Hence, our memory is not a complete recordation of the past.
So, the first limitation is attention: “Rather, what gets encoded into memory is determined by what a person attends to.”
Next, to be efficient, it will not be necessary for our memory to record everything taking place. Existing memories and expectations of what should occur can fill out what is actually recorded. The old Spiderman cartoons from the 1960’s repeatedly used certain elements as fillers (for instance, Spiderman swinging through some location). The stock segments were interspersed into the new episode. And so, memory depends upon “what they already have stored in memory, their expectations.”
The way in which the memory is taken down also depends upon our emotional state: this may effect the information we attend to as well as the way in which it is stored. For example, a particularly fearful event will be kept differently than an insignificant occasion. You can remember that time you almost died, but you have no idea what you saw on your way to work three years ago on a Tuesday in March.
Moreover, the information is then kept alongside of what you already known and have remembered: There is an integration of that information with your existing life: “This information is subsequently integrated (consolidated) with other information that has
already been stored in a person’s long-term, autobiographical memory.” This can result in the information being smoothed out, accommodated into a consistent whole.
But memory only becomes functional (for purposes of testimony) when it is retrieved. There are a host of problems which can arise when it comes to “finding” the memory. And then, once it is found, not necessarily everything is retrieved: “What gets retrieved later from that memory is determined by that same multitude of factors that contributed to encoding as well as what drives the recollection of the event. Specifically, what gets retold about an experience depends on whom one is talking to and what the purpose is of remembering that particular event (e.g., telling a friend, relaying an experience to a therapist, telling the police about an event).”
The memory is recalled is not an exact reproduction of what was originally recorded. Due to the way in which memory is stored and encoded, the memory must “reconstructed”. This too can result in changes from the original event:
“Moreover, what gets remembered is reconstructed from the remnants of what was originally stored; that is, what we remember is constructed from whatever remains in memory following any forgetting or interference from new experiences that may have occurred across the interval between storing and retrieving a particular experience.”
Indeed, the process of reconstruction and then returning the memory can result in changes to the memory. The plasticity of memory itself a matter of research. This has been studied not merely to determine the extent to which memory is fallible or can be manipulated, but also as a means of therapy to help people who have suffered from traumatic memories and maybe suffering from the effects of such memory (for instance, what is often referred to as “PTSD”; this work focuses on something called memory “reconsolidation”).
John Starke, notes that in A Secular Age, Charles Taylor, notes opposing temptations for the self-sufficient and for the believer:
Yet, at the same time, there is a “malaise” amid this self-sufficient humanism: “The sense can easily arise that we are missing something, cut off from something, that we are living behind a screen. . . . I am thinking much more of a wide sense of malaise at the disenchanted world, a sense of it as flat, empty, a multiform search for something within, or beyond it, which could compensate for the meaning lost with transcendence.”59 There is a fear and anxiety that “our actions, goals, achievements, and life, have a lack of weight, gravity, thickness, substance. There is a deeper resonance which they lack, which we feel should be there.”60 There is, then, a temptation among the secular toward transcendence. We cannot seem to live without it. At the same time, we Christians live and breathe in this secular age as well. This self-sufficient humanism becomes part of the muscle memory of our own souls, even if we are often unconscious to its effect. What Taylor tells us about secularists hits awfully close to home in the pews. So, then, while modern self-sufficient secularists are tempted toward belief, believers are constantly tempted toward self-sufficiency. The task of the preacher, it seems, is to aim at this dual temptation.
John Starke, “Preaching to the Secular Age” in Our Secular Age: Ten Years of Reading and Applying Charles Taylor (p. 41). The Gospel Coalition. Kindle Edition.
What I noticed with these two “temptations” is that they an observation of Lancelot Andrews in The Wonderful Combat: There is a temptation to despair, that God will not come for us. There is also the temptation of presumption, the temptation that God will do what I need. I think that these two temptations are the same as the “temptations” noticed by Starke.
There is the temptation that God has abandoned us, or perhaps there is no God at all.
Alone, what did Bloom feel? The cold of interstellar space, thousands of degrees below freezing point or the absolute zero of Fahrenheit, Centigrade or Reaumur: the incipient intimations of proximate dawn.
Ulysses (p. 806). Kindle Edition. The self-sufficient is unsure in this position, but so is the believer. We live in an age when belief is constantly contested, challenged. And thus both are constantly pressured (cross-pressured) into something approximates the others place:
Haunting Immanence Taylor names and identifies what some of our best novelists, poets, and artists attest to: that our age is haunted. On the one hand, we live under a brass heaven, ensconced in immanence. We live in the twilight of both gods and idols. But their ghosts have refused to depart, and every once in a while we might be surprised to find ourselves tempted by belief, by intimations of transcendence. Even what Taylor calls the “ immanent frame ” is haunted. On the other hand, even as faith endures in our secular age, believing doesn’t come easy. Faith is fraught; confession is haunted by an inescapable sense of its contestability. We don’t believe instead of doubting; we believe while doubting. We’re all Thomas now.
Smith, James K. A. (2106-02-06T22:28:15.000). How (Not) to Be Secular (Kindle Locations 195-201). Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.. Kindle Edition.
Notice here the temptations of despair and presumption, and how they play to both groups. The self-sufficient secularist begins at the place of presumption: he has already taken on this temptation, although the temptation is not to presume upon God to act, but to presume upon God to ignore:
Psalm 50:16–21 (ESV)
16 But to the wicked God says:
“What right have you to recite my statutes
or take my covenant on your lips?
17 For you hate discipline,
and you cast my words behind you.
18 If you see a thief, you are pleased with him,
and you keep company with adulterers.
19 “You give your mouth free rein for evil,
and your tongue frames deceit.
20 You sit and speak against your brother;
you slander your own mother’s son.
21 These things you have done, and I have been silent;
you thought that I was one like yourself.
But now I rebuke you and lay the charge before you.
However, the fact of God can never really be shaken. The irreducibility of the world is forcing its way in. In fact, Taylor’s secularist already seems to be outdate. The atheist of Dawkins or Hitchens was an untenable and never going to be popular version. We can see the movement into a rank paganism. Self-sufficiency contains within it a temptation to despair. Hanging on magic is a way to make bread out of stones (indeed, the temptation which the Devil made to Jesus seems to have been a temptation to become a conjurer or a magician in light of contemporary expectations!).
The believer seems to have avoided this, but the constant pressure of the secular age, the battering of doubt is constant:
Nothing is easy about faith in a secular age. “Faith is fraught, confession is haunted by an inescapable sense of its contestability,” Smith writes. “We don’t believe instead of doubting; we believe while doubting. We’re all Thomas now.”
Collin Hansen, “Doubt in our Secular Age,” Our Secular Age: Ten Years of Reading and Applying Charles Taylor (p. 4). The Gospel Coalition. Kindle Edition. This doubt then contains within it a seed of presumption: If God can be doubted, then perhaps I should myself. I should presume that God will not interfere. It is much the same as the temptation to turn stones into bread, but it is not bred from the same despair. It is more of a boast: I guess I’ll have to do it. It is not despair, God won’t come. It is the presumption, there is no God.
Now come we to the Temptation itself, which hath three general heads. First, the ball of wildfire; which is to consume his faith. Secondly, the dart, Cast thy selfe downe; which is to pierce the soul. Thirdly, he tempers the head of his dart with some stronger metal; which is, Scriptum est.
This is a great mote in the Devil’s eye[2], he uses the same term in the former temptation, and here he is up with it again[3]. And all is to this end, that by often bringing it into question whether we be the sons of God; he may at last make it out of question or doubt, that we are not the sons of God: that by & from Si sis, he may bring it to Ne sis; and so we may be like himself[4].
For to this end is all his compassing of sea and land, to make one proselyte like himself, according to the endeavor of the Pharisees, Mat. 23. 15[5] who did in like sort, and when he is made, ye make him (two-fold more) the child of hell, than yourselves: as on the other side, Christ would have us [to be] the sons of God like hm. But see what a dexterity the Devil has, in making things serve for his purpose: he makes oneself same thing serve for two several, yea, contrary purposes. What a goodly grace he has in the first temptation? He uses it there to procure us to desperation: he makes it here serve for presumption[6].
But indeed there be two manners of Si es, or Ifs: the one is a questioning or doubting Si, as, If thou be the sonne of God, shew vs a signe, Mar. 8. 12[7]. Lord if thou wilt, thou canst make me whole. Mat. 8. 2.[8] The other is a plain affirmation, as Phil. 3. 11 If by any means I might attaine to the resurrection of the dead[9]: where we are sure he made no doubt thereof[10]. So here the Devil says, If thou be the Sonne of God, as I now grant indeed. I was in some doubt, but now I confess you are: I am of the voice’s mind, that pronounced you so at your baptism[11].
The Devil (in the former temptation) came out like a malcontent, or a murmurer: here he comes like a flattering parasite, he will pinguare caput eius oleo[12], make his head even swim in the oil of ostentation[13]. But though it be not the same temptation, yet it is the same Devil in both places: for both by the one and other, he seeks the downfall and destruction of man: and though his two Ifs be contrary in themselves, yet are they both also contrary to the will and word of God: for he [God] would not in any case we should distrust him, neither would he that at any time we should cast ourselves down. And therefore, has he caused battlements to be made one every house top, that none might be slain with falling down, Deut. 22. 8[14]. Now he would have him shew himself (thereby) to be the Son of God, for he is now in the sight of all Jerusalem.
It is said, that Christ comes now to put too a spark of fire, that is of faith, & that his will was, it might burn & be maintained. The Devil on the other side, labors by all means possible to quench and put it out: and seeing water would not do it in the former temptation; he goes now about to see, if he can make the very oil itself to put it out, even that very thing whereby it were to be maintained: as indeed it will, if we power out too great a quantity. Or if he cannot quench it, either with water or oil, he will see if he can blow it up with gunpowder.
As seeing the water of distrust will not extinguish his faith, but that he would trust in God: he endeavored now by Scriptures (that magnify the providence of GOD, and the confidence we are to put in him) to set him as far gone in the other extreme, by presuming or trusting too much, that so the fire, which before he would have quenched, may now so flame out, as, not to keep itself within the chimney, but to set the whole house on fire. This is the ball of wildfire of this second Temptation: and so both we see tend to the consuming & nullifying of our faith.
Notes
The Devil will seek by every means to bring us (and did try with Christ) to sin. His resourcefulness in seeking a temptation with the right “bait” can be seen by contrasting the two times he said to Jesus, “If you are the Son of God.”
In the first temptation, the Devil speaks as if he doubts that Jesus is the Son of God. He then seeks to cause Jesus to doubt God: are you really the Son of God? Will God really care for you?
He also compares faith to a fire, which the Devil sought to extinguish.
When the first temptation did not work, the Devil used the exact same words, “If you are the Son of God.” But this time he intended something quite different. Well now, since you are the Son of God—and I believe that voice that spoke from heaven at your baptism—since you are the Son of God we should be able to make good use of that. You are very, very important. There is no possibility that God would desert you.
So, tell you what, let’s just see (and let everyone else see) just how much God will go for you.
We have experienced and we have seen both sorts of temptation. There is the temptation that God has forgotten me, which was discussed in the previous sermon.
But when it comes to this temptation, perhaps the closest modern examples would be the Christian “celebrity pastor.” He acts without humility. He assumes and presumes on those around him. He excuses his sin, because he is under such pressure. He excuses such sin because he is obviously being “blessed.” He can do whatever he wants, because God is on his side.
Such is precisely the Devil’s play here: if he can’t extinguish faith, he will blow up into a wildfire and call the presumption “faith.”
[2] A mote in the eye could have two implications: (1) It would be the only thing you could see, being fastened to your eyeball. (2) It would be a serious irritant. Both meanings work well here.
[3] The Devil prefaced both temptations with the clause “If you are the Son of God” (then you should do this).
[4] Latin: Si sis, nec sis: If you may be, Not you. The sentence is a bit unclear. I take the thought to be, that the Devil makes us like himself by point out we are not the Son of God.
15 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel across sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves.
[6] As noted earlier: there are (at least) two types of temptation. One temptation works on our fear, we are tempted to distrust God out of desperation. One temptation works on our pride, we are tempted to presume upon God. The Devil is able to use the same ground (If you are the Son of God) to work for both temptations.
[7] Mark 8:11–13 (ESV) “11 The Pharisees came and began to argue with him, seeking from him a sign from heaven to test him. 12 And he sighed deeply in his spirit and said, “Why does this generation seek a sign? Truly, I say to you, no sign will be given to this generation.” 13 And he left them, got into the boat again, and went to the other side.”
[8] Matthew 8:1–2 (ESV) “When he came down from the mountain, great crowds followed him. 2 And behold, a leper came to him and knelt before him, saying, ‘Lord, if you will, you can make me clean.’”
[9] Philippians 3:9–11 (ESV) “9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith— 10 that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, 11 that by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead.”
[10] The word “if” can used to express both doubt and certainty. If can mean, I don’t know if it is true. So if it is true, then …. But “if” can also be used to draw together a certain relationship. John Owen tackles as follows:
The first thing occurring in the words as they lie in the entire proposition is the conditional note, Εἰ δὲ, “But if.” Conditionals in such propositions may denote two things:—
(1.) The uncertainty of the event or thing promised, in respect of them to whom the duty is prescribed. And this takes place where the condition is absolutely necessary unto the issue, and depends not itself on any determinate cause known to him to whom it is prescribed. So we say, “If we live, we will do such a thing.” This cannot be the intendment of the conditional expression in this place. Of the persons to whom these words are spoken, it is said, verse 1 of the same chapter, “There is no condemnation to them.”
(2.) The certainty of the coherence and connection that is between the things spoken of; as we say to a sick man, “If you will take such a potion, or use such a remedy, you will be well.” The thing we solely intend to express is the certainty of the connection that is between the potion or remedy and health. And this is the use of it here. The certain connection that is between the mortifying of the deeds of the body and living is intimated in this conditional particle
John Owen, The Works of John Owen, ed. William H. Goold, vol. 6 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, n.d.), 6.
[11] Speaking as the Devil, Andrews says, “The first time I was unsure whether you were actually the Son of God. But now, I believe the voice that spoke from heaven at your baptism. You are the Son of God.”
[12] Latin, to make his head fat with oil, that is, to cover his head in oil. We would say, “He is laying it on thick.” Or “giving him a big head,” flattering him.
[13] In the first temptation, the Devil tried to make Jesus discontent with what God had determined. In this temptation, he sought to flatter Jesus to prideful display.
[14] Deuteronomy 22:8 (ESV) “When you build a new house, you shall make a parapet for your roof, that you may not bring the guilt of blood upon your house, if anyone should fall from it.” God does not seek that we should distrust him. God also does not want for us to throw ourselves from buildings. In fact, in the Mosaic law there was a provision to keep people safe from falling. The houses were made with flat roofs, which were used as a place to get out of the heat in the evening. A short wall was to be built along the sides to keep people safe.
Angels come whet your sight hereon. Here’s ground.
Sharpen your fancies here, ye saints in spiracles.
Here is enough in wonderment to drownds.
Make here the shining mark on white on which 5
Let all your wondering contemplations pitch.
Notes
A clew of wonders! A “clew” is a ball or coil: this matches nicely with “cluster” in the second clause.
The pause coming directly after the an unaccented syllable and a full stop (exclamation point) requires a long before we come to
Clustered miracles!
This pair of clauses is a call to come view. It is akin to a hawker calling to the public, Come see this. He has not provided any “clue” as to what will be review. The motto for the poem is John 14:2, where Jesus says to the worried disciples, “I go to prepare a place for you.” But even that is insufficient to know precisely what the poet will display.
We have a specific call to the angels:
Angels come whet your sight hereon. To “whet” is to sharpen a knife blade (for instance). The angels are being called to look upon this wonder and to sharpen their sight. This is an interesting allusion to a peculiar statement of First Peter:
10 Concerning this salvation, the prophets who prophesied about the grace that was to be yours searched and inquired carefully, 11 inquiring what person or time the Spirit of Christ in them was indicating when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glories. 12 It was revealed to them that they were serving not themselves but you, in the things that have now been announced to you through those who preached the good news to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven, things into which angels long to look.
1 Peter 1:10–12 (ESV) Of this particular passage, Calvin (an exegete who would have influenced Taylor at least indirectly) writes:
The passage indeed admits of a twofold meaning; either that the treasure we have in the gospel fills the angels with a desire to see it, as it is a sight especially delightful to them; or that they anxiously desire to see the kingdom of Christ, the living image of which is set forth in the gospel. But the last seems to me to be the most suitable meaning.
John Calvin, 1 Peter: Commentaries on the Catholic Epistles, electronic ed., Calvin’s Commentaries (Albany, OR: Ages Software, 1998), 1 Pe 1:12.
Here’s ground. He is a solid reason, a solid basis for sharpening your sight.
Sharpen your fancies here, ye saints in spiracles.
He continues with the imagery of the “whet[stone]” and calls upon the saints to sharpen their thoughts. Saints in spiracles: in breath, in spirit. Thus, being paired with the angels likely is a call to the saints in glory.
Breath of life:
Genesis 2:7 (VGCLEM)
7 Formavit igitur Dominus Deus hominem de limo terræ, et inspiravit in faciem ejus spiraculum vitæ, et factus est homo in animam viventem.
Genesis 7:22 (VGCLEM)
22 et cuncta, in quibus spiraculum vitæ est in terra, mortua sunt.
The breath of the omnipotent:
Job 33:4 (VGCLEM)
4 Spiritus Dei fecit me,
et spiraculum Omnipotentis vivificavit me.
Job 33:4 (D-R)
4 The spirit of God made me, and the breath of the Almighty gave me life.
Spirit of man, Prov. 20:27, “spiraculum hominis”
Here is enough in wonderment to drownds.
Here is enough wonder for one to drown in (?). I’m not quite certain of the last word’s import.
A final call to everyone, and hence the reader (which is interesting, because Taylor having kept the poems private included to readers beyond himself):
Make here the shining mark on white on which 5
Let all your wondering contemplations pitch.
Mark this place. All wonder which you will have, put it here. Place upon this thing.
First, Taylor has carefully kept back the cause of wonder. What will be the object of wonder is not stated. Second, it is a call for contemplation.
Modern Christianity (at least as I have experienced) is a religion of action; not wonder. Our wonder is limited. Perhaps we sing about wonder. There are sermons which tell us to wonder but rarely facilitate wonder. That is likely because the preacher has limited experience with contemplation and hence can do little more than tell you contemplate. Contemplation without action is not a common element of piety (again in my experience).
When I have heard any attempt to discuss such contemplation it is always in the context of an analogy to nature. And certainly nature can provide ground for our wonder. But why then is our piety so threadbare as to not afford such things?
But this poem is a call to contemplation, to gaze upon a wonder.
I recently listened to a podcast on how there was a movement from avoiding marvels to calling people to look at marvels and wonders. I should probably give it a new listen in light of this poem to see how if affects my understand: https://historyofphilosophy.net/renaissance-science-daston
memoirandremains 