Antidepressant use has doubled in the US over the last ten years. Jack says he knows why.

About 6 percent of people were prescribed an antidepressant in 1996 — 13 million people. This rose to more than 10 percent or 27 million people by 2005, the researchers found."

1 in 10, huh?  Do you?

""Not only are more U.S. residents being treated with antidepressants, but also those who are being treated are receiving more antidepressant prescriptions," they added.

More than 164 million prescriptions were written in 2008 for antidepressants, totaling $9.6 billion in U.S. sales, according to IMS Health."

9.6 billion bucks worth of depressed people.

"The rise in antidepressant prescriptions also is seen despite a series of public health warnings on use of antidepressant drugs beginning in 2003 after clinical trials showed they increased the risk of suicidal thoughts and behaviors in children and teens."

Actually, I was purposely vague.  I know why, too.  But Jack Lewis (or C.S. for you formal ones) has a better description.

"C. S. Lewis, in Mere Christianity, deals with the three theological virtues of Faith, Hope, and Charity.   In the chapter on Hope, Lewis says that "most people ... know that they do want, and want acutely, something that cannot be had in this world."  People seek for this something in the things of this world, but they invariably are disappointed.  There are, Lewis says, three ways of dealing with this fact.  The "Fool's Way" is to decide that the repeated disappointments are due to some defect in the things themselves; but perhaps the next thing tried will not have that defect; let's try another.  The "Way of the Disillusioned `Sensible Man'" is to deny and repress the feeling altogether; it is just "wishful thinking" or "adolescent romanticism." "

Hey, I've been there.  When I was young (and when I was not young, too, truth be told) I always figured that the thing in the catalog or on the store shelf would satisfy me...temporarily, anyway.  Somehow they just didn't have the same zing once I'd gotten my grimy paws on them. 

"The "Christian Way" is to recognize, according to Lewis, that "if I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world" since "creatures are not born with desires unless satisfaction for those desires exists" (p. 120).  Therefore Christians must keep alive in themselves "the desire for their true country," while not despising the earthly blessings that provide a foretaste of it.  (All of the above can be found in Mere Christianity)"

Our problem is that we look for satisfaction without God.  It's the same faulty reasoning that leads us to teach morals to those who reject God.  Without God, there's nothing.  Zero.  See, everyone recognizes we have needs and desires.  Then we use our brilliantly rational pointy heads to determine that Amazon.com (/Payless/insert your favorite shopping place-desire filler) has the solution to that desire. 

Scripture says that with God is fullness of joy.  In contrast then, if where God is there is fullness of joy, then where God is not there is no joy.  Something that far too many fail to get is that it doesn't get any better after death.  Here, all of us share in God's blessings in some form.  After death, those recognizing their sinfulness and trusting Jesus for their salvation go to Heaven and fullness of joy, and those in rebellion against Him go to hell and absolute suffering forever. 

So what then, if we're living a christian life by biblical standards, doesn't it look like (from a bird's eye view) it would be rather a depressing life?  I mean, Jesus said that the great commandment is to love God more than anything else and to love your neighbor the way you love yourself.  That means the christian life is a life of sacrifice and putting others first.  Someone is saying, "Where's the joy in that?"  God is the joy.  Whatever you're doing (within the Bible's commands - doing things that are purportedly for God but have other motives written all over them is not what we're talking about), whether serving, suffering or whatever, if you're trusting in God's sovereign control over your life and recognizing that God has a plan even for the (in our minds) bad things, there will be joy in things that should, by all rights, be unjoyful.

More than that, there will be a satisfaction in it that is uncanny if a worldling is trying to understand it.  The only depression that comes from serving Christ is with those who do it for the wrong reasons. 

- - - - -

Source links:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32274077/ns/health-mental_health/

http://homepage.mac.com/edcook/lewis-desire.html

Israel's Future in the Program of God

Okay, so I've already sent this paper to three people, so because I'm naturally lazy I'm going to just post a copy on here.  Plus there might be some who would read it on here but wouldn't necessarily ask for it.  If you don't want to read it then skip this post.

" “The Egyptian, the Babylonian, and the Persian rose, filled the planet with sound and splendor, then faded to dream-stuff and passed away; the Greek and the Roman followed; and made a vast noise, and they are gone; other people have sprung up and held their torch high for a time, but it burned out, and they sit in twilight now, or have vanished. The Jew saw them all, beat them all, and is now what he always was, exhibiting no decadence, no infirmities of age, no weakening of his parts, no slowing of his energies, no dulling of his alert and aggressive mind. All things are mortal but the Jew; all other forces pass, but he remains. What is the secret of his immortality?” (Twain, pp.249).

So penned Mark Twain in an 1899 article for Harper’s Magazine.  While Mr. Twain is not typically one who would be quoted in a paper on biblical prophecy, I found his quotation helpful regarding the incredible continued existence of the nation of Israel to this day.  The fact that the nation of Israel still exists today when great civilizations of the past are done and gone is seen for its true significance when one recognizes the prophecies of God for Israel not only allow but also require its continued existence.  There is much written in the Bible about the end of the earth and Israel is right in the middle of those prophecies. 

One thing that must be made clear from the outset is that Israel’s future in God’s plan only partially relates to salvation.  As individuals, Jews come to saving faith in the same way that Gentiles do.  Yet, Israel stands in a special place in the plans of God.  God made specific promises to Abraham and others that have not been fulfilled as yet.  Likewise, there are prophecies regarding Israel that have also not been fulfilled. 

In the brief time we have, it will be impossible to examine all the different viewpoints that scholars have taken on various prophecies relating to Israel, so the purpose of this paper will be primarily to show how this writer understands God’s prophecies concerning Israel’s future.  There are four things I want to look at in the Bible regarding God’s future plans for Israel. 

First, understanding prophecies regarding Israel’s future in the last days depend completely on how one interprets the covenants given to the Patriarchs and later to Israel as a nation.  In the book of Genesis, we see Abraham (or Abram) is chosen from among all the people of all the nations of the world and chosen to be the recipient of God’s blessing.  This blessing was not given because of any goodness in Abraham or any foreseen inclination towards God, but was simply an outpouring of God’s grace upon a sinful man.  In Genesis 12, God called Abram to follow His directions, promising blessing for Abraham if he complied.  Later, in Genesis 15:18-21, the Lord made an unconditional covenant to Abraham: The Lord described a specific area of land and fixed the boundaries out clearly, promising that land to the descendants of Abraham.  That land has never been fully occupied by the nation of Israel.  Because we know God does not lie and that His promises cannot be broken, we must conclude that in the end times, Israel will inhabit that land which God promised to Abraham. 

We know God’s covenant with Abraham was unconditional.  In Genesis 15, Abraham was uncertain of the truth of God’s promises.  “So He said to him, “Bring Me a three-year-old heifer, a three-year-old female goat, a three-year-old ram, a turtledove, and a young pigeon.” Then he brought all these to Him and cut them in two, down the middle, and placed each piece opposite the other; but he did not cut the birds in two…And it came to pass, when the sun went down and it was dark, that behold, there appeared a smoking oven and a burning torch that passed between those pieces.” (Genesis 15:9-10,17). 

Later, God appeared to Jacob and made the promise specifically to his children.  “The LORD… said: “I am the LORD God of Abraham your father and the God of Isaac; the land on which you lie I will give to you and your descendants. ¹⁴ Also your descendants shall be as the dust of the earth; you shall spread abroad to the west and the east, to the north and the south; and in you and in your seed all the families of the earth shall be blessed. ¹⁵ Behold, I am with you and will keep you wherever you go, and will bring you back to this land; for I will not leave you until I have done what I have spoken to you.”” (Genesis 28:13-15).  God clearly promised that the land that he had given to Abraham’s seed was specifically for the descendants of Jacob.

These promises were unconditional.  When God made the covenant with Abraham, He alone passed between the dead carcasses.  This meant that he alone took responsibility to fulfill it.  There was nothing Abraham was required to do.  God simply chose to bless him.  Jacob was asleep when God made the pledge to him.  God left no conditions on Jacob that required completion. 

Much time passed and the children of Israel did become a great nation.  But they turned away from God and served foreign idols.  God appeared to Jeremiah the prophet during this time of apostasy.  He promised a new covenant with Israel to replace the Mosaic covenant (This covenant was conditional based on their obedience to it.  They disobeyed and broke the covenant (Ex. 19-24.)).  In laying out the new covenant to Jeremiah, God said that this covenant would be in the future – “Behold, the days are coming” (Jeremiah 31:31) – and that, “I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. ³⁴ No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.” (Jeremiah 31:33-34). 

Furthermore, God affirmed his promise to keep the covenant in strong terms, “Thus says the LORD, who gives the sun for a light by day, the ordinances of the moon and the stars for a light by night, who disturbs the sea, and its waves roar (The LORD of hosts is His name): “If those ordinances depart from before Me, says the LORD, then the seed of Israel shall also cease from being a nation before Me forever.”” (Jeremiah 31:35-36).  Also, “Thus says the LORD: “If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, says the LORD.”” (Jeremiah 31:37). 

Those were very strong terms.  This was not a conditional covenant.  God affirmed that he was going to do it regardless of their obedience.  Finally, in relation to the land, he said, ““Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, that the city shall be built for the LORD from the Tower of Hananel to the Corner Gate. ³⁹ The surveyor’s line shall again extend straight forward over the hill Gareb; then it shall turn toward Goath. ⁴⁰ And the whole valley of the dead bodies and of the ashes, and all the fields as far as the Brook Kidron, to the corner of the Horse Gate toward the east, shall be holy to the LORD. It shall not be plucked up or thrown down anymore forever.” (Jeremiah 31:38-40).  John MacArthur writes, “When New Covenant promises are ultimately fulfilled to Israel in its regathering to its land, rebuilt Jerusalem will meet certain specifications.” (MacArthur, pp.1107.) 

The second prophecy in the Bible relating to Israel that has not been fulfilled is Ezekiel’s vision of the temple, described in Ezekiel 40-48.  The Lord showed Ezekiel what it will look like and describes what will take place in it.  Some commentators speculate that because the description does not fully match Israel’s current geography (Ezek. 47:2-12), and because it describes sacrifices taking place in the temple (Ezek. 40:38-43), this is clearly intended to be a symbolic prophecy rather than a literal one.  I would suggest that if that were so, why spend eight chapters describing it in such detail?  Further, because we know that the description of the temple does not match the temple built by Israel after they returned to their land, and because there is no physical temple in the New Jerusalem (Revelation 21:22), it is not unreasonable to assume that this temple, if accepted literally, will in fact be present during Christ’s millennial reign on earth.  There are interpretation issues, certainly: for instance, the issue of sacrifices in the temple.  Charles Feinberg, in his commentary on Ezekiel, comments on this, “…the redemptive work of the Lord Jesus Christ on Calvary brought Old Testament sacrifices to an end for us all.  It may be a poor expression to speak of [sacrifices] as nullified by the atonement of Christ, for it must be recognized that Old Testament sacrifices never had any redemptive efficacy (Heb. 10:4).  But just as the Old Testament sacrifices could have value in pointing forward to the death of Christ, why may they not have an equal value in pointing back to the death of Christ as an accomplished fact?” (Feinberg, pp.234.)  Ultimately, we must recognize that if, as it seems clear to me, this temple is to be present in the millennium, those issues which we do not understand now will be made clear to us then by God. 

The third prophecy relating to Israel is in Romans 11:26, “…and so all Israel will be saved”.  This is a clear promise that will be fulfilled at a future date with the nation of Israel.  There are various interpretations of ‘all Israel’ among commentators: The most obvious and straightforward interpretation is that Paul means that at some future point in history (after the fullness of the Gentiles has been saved – Rom.11:25), there will be a complete conversion of the Jewish nation.  Some suggest that Paul is referring to all Israelites who are destined to be saved; yet this seems hardly worth stating.  Another interpretation is that Paul is referring to spiritual Israel (i.e. converted Gentiles and Jews – the Israel of God, Gal. 6:16).  This seems just as unfeasible to me, however.  As J.C. Ryle notes, “It cannot possibly mean the Gentiles, because they are mentioned in the verse which directly precedes our text, in direct contrast to the Jews.” (Ryle, pp. 33.)  Also, the whole of chapter eleven, Paul was drawing a contrast between Jews and Gentiles as nations.  One could hardly assume that Paul had suddenly switched from a literal Israel to a spiritual Israel unless one came to the text seeking to find that conclusion.

The final prophecy relating to Israel is found in the book of Daniel.  The angel Gabriel appeared to Daniel and told him, “Seventy weeks are determined for your people and for your holy city, to finish the transgression, to make an end of sins, to make reconciliation for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy, and to anoint the Most Holy.  “Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the command to restore and build Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince, there shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublesome times.  And after the sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself; and the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.  The end of it shall be with a flood, and till the end of the war desolations are determined.  Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week; but in the middle of the week he shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering.  And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate, even until the consummation, which is determined, is poured out on the desolate.”  (Dan. 9:24-27.) 

The word for weeks is a term that means seven and can denote either days or years.  So ‘week’, in this case, doesn’t necessarily mean weeks of seven days.  Rather, the prophecy refers to 70 weeks of years.  Beginning from Artaxerxes’ command to rebuild the city (Neh. 2:4-8), there are 7 weeks, or 49 years.  From the time of the completion of Jerusalem until Jesus entered Jerusalem at the Feast of Passover and was rejected by the religious leaders, was precisely 69 weeks of 7 years, or 434 years. 

This is explained in more detail in Feinberg’s commentary on Daniel.  With help from Sir Robert Anderson, Dr. Feinberg shows the precise days and explains how the prophecy showed the precise day when Jesus would triumphantly enter Jerusalem.  (Feinberg, pp.128-132.)  This leaves one week of years to be fulfilled.  We read that the ‘city and the sanctuary’ will be destroyed, and that the people that destroy it will be the people of the prince who is to come.  (Dan. 9:26.)  Those who understand the prophecy in a literal way, believe that the final week refers to a seven year period.  This interpretation understands that the Antichrist will make a covenant with the unbelieving in Israel before breaking that covenant in the middle of it.  (Dan. 9:27.)

As we noted at the start of this paper, despite the fall of other great nations, Israel alone remains.  That Israel has not faded into dust is reason for bewilderment among many, yet we recognize that God is not through with the nation.  Romans 11 clearly states that although God has temporarily set Israel aside, there will be a time when they will be brought back to the forefront of God’s plans.  We have just seen that at least four things remain fixed for Israel as a nation to complete.  This reminds us again, as always, that God’s plans trump all human reasoning.  God’s plans will always be fulfilled, regardless of how implausible men of the world think them to be."

Did you think I forgot?

Those of you who remembered that John Calvin's 500th birthday passed about a week ago may have been surprised that I didn't say a thing about it.  Just to set all rumors and shock to rest, yes, I did know it was John Calvin's 500th birthday. 

So last Sunday night, our evening service at church was slightly different.  Basically, I gave a twenty minute presentation of the life of John Calvin, highlighting some aspects not usually covered, or, in some cases, miscovered.  I only mentioned the 'Five Points of Calvinism' in passing.  Shocked?  Me too.  But I felt that the old boy has been unfairly treated, probably in large part due to the five points (which he had nothing to do with forming, incidentally).  It's a little rough because ordinarily I don't speak off that kind of paper.  You can listen if you care to.

And frankly, I'm totally stoked right now.  See, I just got my paper back from Moody on the Future of Israel.  Basically, I was supposed to answer the question, based on Romans 11 (and using other scripture to back this up), is there a future for Israel as a nation.  The answer is a resounding 'Yes!'  It was tough, though, because I got to the paper late, having been working on my other course, Church History, and so I had less time than I wanted to study for it.  God was good, though, and I got it sent out on time.  And today, I got it back with a score of 98 on it.  I was very pleased.  It's not a full treatment, by any means.  I have just shy of 8 pages (my maximum allowed amount) double spaced (basically three and a half pages), so clearly it's not a detailed paper.

Anyhow, that's it for now.  I know...boring.  Sorry.  Life disappoints.  Jesus doesn't.

Is it unethical to steal someone else's blog title?

You'd laugh if I told you how much time I spent looking up whether that word is spelled 'unethical' or 'inethical'.  ...And I claim to be good at spelling.

So, Al Mohler, on his blog this week, posted a little ditty called, "Richard Dawkins Jumps the Shark".  That is a great title, by the way.  Apparently, after Mr. Dawkins' laughable attempt to lobby support for atheism, (Signs on buses, reading, "There's Probably no God".  Key word, 'probably'.) he has now gone to the Grow-an-Atheist end of the platform.  Basically, he's organizing a summer camp designed to help kids renounce God forever.  One wonders why he bothers.  Of course, since he also spent the time to write on the subject, (See, "The God Delusion" if you have a few spare hours that you don't mind never seeing again.) it seems clear that he's pretty big into trouncing God once and for all.  Why do I suddenly have images of a fly trying to attack a dog dancing in my head?  The dog is laughing, incidentally.  Yes, dogs do laugh, contrary to popular opinion (of course, if you disagree, I don't mind listening to you try to prove otherwise).

Anyhow, the article isn't quite as snappy as the title, but one snippet from a news article that Dr. Mohler quotes from caught my attention.  "...There will also be a £10 prize for the child who can disprove the existence of the mythical unicorn."  For some reason, I had thought that atheism was unable to disprove the existence of such things.  Googling, "atheism cannot disprove", I found a site appropriately named, atheism.about.com.  The article it brought up was called, "Atheism is Based on Faith?  Atheism Myths: Atheists Can't Disprove God & Have Faith in God's Nonexistence".  Link, if you care for a read: http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismmyths/a/faith.htm

The writer hadn't done his homework: His results are flawed because his understanding of the God of the Bible is flawed.  Basic principle: Bad foundation makes a weak argument.  I can't really blame him, though, since so many pastors get paid way too much to misrepresent truth about God every Sunday morning (or every other Sunday if it's going halves with the Skit Ministry).  I mean, really: If most professing Christians don't even necessarily affirm that the Bible is God's Word (I'm too lazy to look up the source on that, but if you really want it, drop me a comment about that), it's a bit hard to be upset when atheists misrepresent what Christianity believes.

You can skip the rest of this post if you want.  I don't want to make you miss the Home Shopping Network, after all.  I'm just going to be setting straight this poor deludee (is that a word?  It should be.  Deludee: One who is deluded) on the error of his argument.

"Myth: You cannot prove that God doesn’t exist; therefore, atheism is based on faith."  This is what he wants to disprove.  I suppose that if we stick to the basic premise, he succeeds, but his argument is mostly wrong.  The premise is about the only thing he does prove. 

Their response: "Often theists will try to place atheism and theism on the same plane by arguing that while theists cannot prove that god exists, atheists also cannot prove that god does not exist. This is used as a basis for arguing that there is no objective means for determining which is preferable because neither has a logical or empirical advantage over the other. Thus, the only reason for going with one or the other is faith and then, presumably, the theist will argue that their faith is somehow better than the atheist’s faith."  Actually, the last statement (in bold) is incorrect.  Some will, I won't.  Here's the incorrect assumption on his part: I do not have to prove my faith is better than his faith.  Paul affirms at the start of 1 Corinthians that we aren't necessarily smarter than they are.  Fact is, he says that God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise.  Problem: If we're foolish, how does God expect us to convert anyone?  Answer: He doesn't.  Christians proving their faith is great: Peter tells us to always be ready to give a defense of our faith.  But ultimately, that's not going to convince someone who is deadset in his opinion.  God's Word alone has the power to change men's (and women's) hearts (Heb. 4:12).

The author continues by admitting that the existence of God, without defining who God is, cannot be disproved.  He suggests that that is ours to prove.  But skipping that a second, he says, "Other propositions, however, can be disproven — and conclusively. There are two ways to do this. The first is to see if the proposition leads to a logical contradiction; if so, then the proposition must be false. Examples of this would be “a married bachelor exists” or “a square circle exists.” Both of these propositions entail logical contradictions — pointing this out is the same as disproving them.  If someone claims the existence of a god, the existence of which entails logical contradictions, then that god can be disproven the same way. Many atheological arguments do exactly that — for example they argue that an omnipotent and omniscient god cannot exist because those qualities lead to logical contradictions."  If someone claims the existence of an omnipotent and omnicient God, they are incorrect because such a being is logically contradictory.  I feel almost embarrassed actually answering this one, but here goes:  God is, by his very definition (omnipotent and omniscient) beyond our understanding.  If we consider for half a second: God created the world.  In the Bible, He claims to keep it running on a daily basis.  Also, consider the complexities of the world or even the human body.  If God is the God of the Bible and He does all that He claims to in scripture...you expect to be able to prove him with your mind?  You can't even fully contemplate His universe (not by a longshot, actually) and you feel competent to state that an omnipotent and omniscient God cannot exist?  

"Similarly, when a god is defined adequately, it may be possible to construct empirical or logical tests to see if it exists. We can look, for example, at the expected effects which such a god might have on nature or humanity. If we fail to find those effects, then a god with that set of characteristics does not exist. Some other god with some other set of characteristics may exist, but this one has been disproven.

One example of this would be the Argument from Evil, an atheological argument which proposes to prove that an omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent god cannot exist alongside a world like ours which has so much evil in it. If successful, such an argument would not disprove the existence of some other god; it would instead merely disprove the existence of any gods with a particular set of characteristics."  Paragraph one, clear enough.  One issue I might take with it is simply that you assume that this God fits into your little black box.  Assuming he does, you might be correct.  The 'Argument from Evil'...Wow, what an uncatchy title.  Personally, I prefer, 'The Theodicy Dilemma'.  To answer that particular problem, I'd suggest looking up John MacArthur's closing sermon at the 2009 Shepherd's Conference (there's also a short write-up about it on my blog post about the '09 conference, if you can't get the sermon).  MacArthur proves that evil is not a problem from a biblical standpoint, and that God's glory (His and our ultimate end, the Bible tells us) is made greater through it. 

The author (who's name, by the way, is Austin Cline.  I thought that after calling him 'he' this whole post, the only decent thing to do was to include his name) is basically only out to prove in his article that we are incorrect to say that God cannot be disproved.  He used arguments to prove that God can be disproved if God is properly defined.  And I know I stated at the start that his premise is basically correct, but you can scratch that.  Depending, of course, on how God is defined, I don't believe it's possible to disprove God.  It is obvious that God is not like us.  To assume that we can disprove someone who cannot be seen or fully understood attaches a touch of the divine to our intelligence (which subsequently disproves atheism to some degree). 

Most of you found this post boring, but I figured I owed you one about now.  This is what you get.  Hope you're happy.

How does one review a review?

At any rate, be my guest. 

I promised you a review in my last post and here it is.  To give you a quick background: While at the Shepherd's Conference in March, I spotted a small paperback book in Banner of Truth's Puritan Paperbacks series.  The title was "The Bruised Reed".  Now, I'd had my eye out for this little book for some time.  Dr. Mark Dever of Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington D.C. had recommended it, and, more recently I found that D. Martyn Lloyd Jones was blessed by it as well.  Seeing as how it was only about five dollars, and I had a (relatively) free $50 gift card, I bought it.  If you check out my Shepherd's Conference post, you'll find that my list of books bought then is somewhat large.  At any rate, it's large enough to prevent me from getting through it too quickly.  So, I did what any good son does.  I brought some out for my Mom to read and let me know what she thought, since she reads faster than I do.  She liked the Bruised Reed very much.  So much, in fact, that my Dad and Mom bought copies of the book as gifts for the Warner Avenue Christian Academy graduates this year.  Since I was just getting through it myself, and since five new copies of the book had just arrived at church, this seemed an appropriate book to review just at this moment.  That said, the following is my review of The Bruised Reed:

                                                                      -~*~-~*~-~*~-

The Bruised Reed was written by Richard Sibbes, a man often referred to as "The Heavenly Doctor Sibbes".  After reading his book, I can affirm the truth of the title.  Sibbes' writing not only impresses the reader with his love for God, but also his great understanding of God and His love for us.  Richard Sibbes was born in 1577 and converted at the age of 18 under the preaching of Paul Bayne (or Baynes).  Deciding to become a preacher, Sibbes earned his B.Div. in 1610 at the age of 33.  The Bruised Reed was written in his later years, Dr. Sibbes being 53 at the time and passing on five years later.  He died just prior to the English revolution against Charles II by Parliament, led primarily by Oliver Cromwell. 

The book, although short in length (only 128 pages) takes considerably longer to read than the 7x5in. size of the book suggests.  It is comprised of sixteen chapters expounding on the prophecy of Isaiah:

" ¹ “Behold! My Servant whom I uphold,
      My Elect One in whom My soul delights!
      I have put My Spirit upon Him;
      He will bring forth justice to the Gentiles.
       ² He will not cry out, nor raise His voice,
      Nor cause His voice to be heard in the street.
       ³ A bruised reed He will not break,
      And smoking flax He will not quench;
      He will bring forth justice for truth. "

Isaiah 42:1-3

It is later quoted by Matthew (ch.12,vs.18-20) who refers to it's fulfillment by Jesus.

• The Good

Sibbes illustrates effortlessly the love of God for us, particularly in how He demonstrates this love.  The passage talks primarily about a bruised reed - something that anyone but God would cast aside as worthless - and smoking flax - referring to a light that has burned it's wick so low that only a spark remains; an irritation to any but our Lord.  Sibbes discusses our inability in relation to God's care for us, explaining that despite our apparent uselessness, God can and does use us.  Also, he encourages the reader with exhortations to do the will of God as laid out for us in scripture.  He does not use our inability as an excuse to promote inaction, but rather suggests that we should take action in spite our helplessness outside of God. 

• The Bad

Like many of his time period, from what I've heard, Sibbes has an annoying habit of quoting from Song of Solomon and using a non-literal interpretation of the text to refer to the Bride and her Beloved as representing the Church and Christ.  I find this interpretation lacking, though I won't go into why just at the moment.  Still, it's not as bad as Mark Driscoll's dreadful exposition which I still haven't gotten over reading parts of a transcript on.  It's only quoted briefly two or three times, but it's enough to be annoying if you hold the same interpretation as I do on the Song of Songs (which is Solomons). 

There's also the problem of it being an older book.  I suppose you could argue that this is a problem with me, and not the book.  Basically, older books weren't usually written in the ultra-simple way they are today.  Many books today are written with non-readers in mind and tend to be appropriately easy to understand.  Books of Sibbes' era were written under the assumption that the reader was a thinker and could grasp what was being said.  Still, this version is one of the more readable older books I've come across (quite possibly revised to make it clearer), but it still takes time (and a brain that's not begging for sleep) to read. 

Honestly, there's little to criticize here.  Aside from advising you not to listen to someone else reading it aloud (bad idea unless your brain is totally hooked up and ready to follow along), I can't say much else against it.  The only reason 'The Bad' is longer than 'The Good' is because I'm trying to avoid spoilers.

• The Heavenly

Okay, so it's a corny header, but I'll just throw a few more thoughts out there before closing up.  I was tempted to quote a few lines from the book in this review, but honestly, while thinking about it, it occurred to me that even if I preached every Sunday of a year (morning and evening) and presented a different Sibbes quote from this book in each sermon, I would probably still have more unheard ones to put in this post.  For a book of 128 pages, (and small ones at that), that is quite impressive.  Exaggeration?  Maybe slightly, but not by much.  I keep getting blown away by how many wonderful quotes of encouragement and exhortation he shares throughout this slim work. 

The loveliest thing of all about it is that while reading it, I felt like I made a new friend; one that, Lord willing, I'll be able to spend many happy hours with in the future (even as I have already). 

Highly recommended.  If you have it, you have no excuse not to have started reading it yet.  If you don't...well, there are copies online, though I don't recommend online reading.  It's much too hard to focus that way for me.

...And that is officially the world's longest review.  The attempt was to tell you my impressions about the book, share some background on the author to give you an idea of the man who you'll be spending so much time with as you read, avoid spoiling any of the moments (moments which flow much more eloquently from Dr. Sibbes' tongue than mine) from the book and let you know what I thought didn't work.

If you've read it or are reading it currently, drop a comment to let me know what you think of the book, I'd love to hear what you think of it.  All other comments are always welcome, as well.  Thanks for dropping by.