Inmillennialism: Redefining the Last Days A Review by Jack Kettler
Inmillennialism: Redefining the Last Days
By Michael A. Rogers
McGahan Publishing House (2020)
Michael A. Rogers Bio:
Rogers holds a BS in electrical engineering from Auburn University and an MS in Telecommunications and Information Systems Management from Christian Brothers University in Memphis, TN. He worked as an Alabama Power Company engineer and as a Systems Development Manager for Memphis Light, Gas, and Water. He was ordained to the gospel ministry in 1990 by Grace Chapel Primitive Baptist Church in Memphis. He has served as pastor of Caraway (AR) Primitive Baptist Church and Grace Covenant, a Primitive Baptist Church in Gadsden, AL. He and his wife Betty live in Opelika, AL, and are Hopewell Primitive Baptist Church members. His book, “Inmillennialism: Redefining the Last Days,” is a finalist for the Southern Christian Writers Conference 2021 Notable Book Award.
What others are saying:
“This book must take an important place in the literature concerning the kingdom of God, the manner of Christ’s coming at the ‘end of the age,’ and the nature of the blessed hope.” – Tom J. Nettles, Ph.D. Former Professor, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
“Inmillennialism is superior to the existing prophetic systems because it rests on simple contextual analyses and is more complete.” – Doug Albertson. Executive Director, African Canadian Continuing Education Society
“I came away from reading Inmillennialism with a fresh sense of God’s providence, the power of God’s grace in the Person and work of Jesus Christ, and a deeper understanding that this world is headed toward that time when the Prince of Peace reigns in the hearts of all men and rules over all the nations.” – Wade Burleson. Pastor, Historian, Author
A Review:
Rogers uses an introductory analogy between Copernicus and Ptolemy’s view of the solar system to illustrate his Inmillennialism model in contrast with other eschatological prophetic models, and it will be a helpful distinction for many.
There are many important subjects in the book. One example is, explaining the Greek use of Parousia (presence) and Erchomai (coming) and clears up confusion on the uses of these two words.
Rogers does a remarkable job explaining what is known as “cosmic collapse imagery” in explaining how Jesus answered his disciples’ questions about the end of the world, making it understandable how the apocalyptic imagery is used.
Rogers shows how the idea of eschatological gradualism is essential for understanding the present reign of Christ in 1 Corinthians 15:25.
In addition, Rogers convincingly places the accounts of the ten virgins and the separation of the sheep and the goats at the end of the Mosaic age in the 1st Century instead of at the end of time at the Second Coming of Christ. Thus, eliminating the need to separate Matthew’s account into a 1st Century account ending at Matthew 24:34 and then transitioning in Matthew 24:35, leading to the Second Coming account with a new division starting at Matthew 24:36.
In this reviewer’s opinion, the most important part of the book is Rogers’ correction of the errors made by James Stuart Russell in the book on the Parousia. Rogers corrects Russell’s errors yet keeps his basic interpretive model intact. Roger’s work will no doubt be invaluable and prevent many from slipping into a hyper or a full preterism model.
There are many helpful eschatological charts throughout the book. Maybe Rogers already has. In case not, Rogers should develop a PowerPoint of these eschatological charts. Their illustrative and explanatory power was significant.
After forty years of studying eschatology, Roger’s book is eye-opening and breaks fresh ground. If the reader of this review is a student of eschatology, this book should be purchased.
“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)
A Look Communion, a brief overview by Jack Kettler
What is Communion? In this primer, consider the significant differences on the topic of communion. As a disclosure, this writer is coming from the Reformed/Presbyterian perspective.
Communion:
In brief, communion takes place in Christian worship, where the bread and wine are consecrated and distributed to the congregants.
Five Differing views:
Undoubtedly, many will disagree with the five groupings and the brief definitions for each group listed. The definitions are from online public sources. For a more detailed definition, the reader should consult the actual Churches themselves for this.
The Roman Catholic View:
“Transubstantiation is, according to the teaching of the Catholic Church, the change of the whole substance of bread into the substance of the Body of Christ and of the whole substance of wine into the substance of his Blood.” – Wikipedia
The Eastern Orthodox View:
“Eucharist (from the Greek εὐχαριστία, or eucharistia, meaning thanksgiving or giving thanks) is a holy mystery (or sacrament) that is celebrated during the Divine Liturgy within the Orthodox Church where the consecrated bread and wine, through the power of the Holy Spirit becomes the Precious Blood and Body of Jesus Christ, that is consumed by prepared Orthodox Christians. Other names for the Eucharist include: the Holy Gifts, Communion, and the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ Orthodox Christians believe that the Real Presence of God (not merely a sign) is present after the consecration of the Gifts.” – OrthodoxWiki
The Lutheran View:
“Lutherans believe that the Body and Blood of Christ are truly and substantially present in, with and under the forms of consecrated bread and wine. The Lutheran doctrine of the Real Presence is also known as the sacramental union. Lutherans use the term ‘in, with, and under the forms of consecrated bread and wine’ and ‘sacramental union.’” – Wikipedia
The Zwinglian Memorial View:
“The Zwinglian view is called the ‘memorial’ view. And as I said, Christ is not present in the elements either literally or spiritually. In the Zwinglian view, the Lord’s Supper communion is a commemoration of the death of Christ. The partaker is simply reminded of the benefits of redemption and salvation brought about in Christ’s death.” – Quora
The Reformed View:
“In Reformed theology, the Lord’s Supper or Eucharist is a sacrament that spiritually nourishes Christians and strengthens their union with Christ. The outward or physical action of the sacrament is eating bread and drinking wine. Reformed confessions, which are official statements of the beliefs of Reformed churches, teach that Christ’s body and blood are really present in the sacrament, but that this presence is communicated in a spiritual manner rather than by his body being physically eaten. The Reformed doctrine of real presence is sometimes called mystical real presence or spiritual real presence.” – Wikipedia
Summary of the five views on communion:
· Transubstantiation – Roman Catholic (formulated by Thomas Aquinas)
· Real Presence, celebrated during the Divine Liturgy – Orthodox (some church fathers)
· Real or Sacramental union – Lutheran Churches (Martin Luther)
· Real Spiritual Presence – Reformed and Presbyterian Churches (John Calvin)
· Memorial – Baptist, and Mennonite Churches (Ulrich Zwingli)
The view of John Calvin in more detail:
“The rule which the pious ought always to observe is, whenever they see the symbols instituted by the Lord, to think and feel surely persuaded that the truth of the thing signified is also present. For why does the Lord put the symbol of his body into your hands, but just to assure you that you truly partake of him? If this is true let us feel as much assured that the visible sign is given us in seal of an invisible gift as that his body itself is given to us.” – Institutes
What does the Scripture say? Some of the key texts appealed too in the context of the debate on the body and blood of Christ in communion.
“Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, ‘Take, eat; this is my body.’” (Matthew 26:26 ESV)
“And as they were eating, he took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to them, and said, ‘Take; this is my body.’” (Mark 14:22 ESV)
“And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, ‘This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.’” (Luke 22:19 ESV)
“The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?” (1Corinthians 10:16 ESV)
For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, ‘This is my body, which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.’ In the same way, also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” (1Corinthians 11:23-25 ESV)
Literal or metaphorical? Two problems for the literal or real presence view.
First: Does Christ’s body take on elements of omnipresence, or is His human nature absorbed into the divine nature with the real corporal presence view? If Christ’s body appears all over the world during communion services, surely this would confirm the suspicion of the confusion of Christ’s two natures. In the early church, a heresy promoted an incorrect understanding of Christ’s humanity. It was the heresy of Docetism, which comes from the Greek verb δοκεῖν dokein, “to appear,” or “to seem.” According to Docetism, Jesus only seemed or appeared to have a human body.
The above objection regarding omnipresence and Christ’s human nature becoming divine is similar to the prayers offered to human saints who are in heaven. Do the resurrected saints take on attributes of God, namely, omnipresence? Without becoming omnipresent, how could they hear many prayers from different times and places? Christ, in His two natures, which includes His body, is now “seated at the right hand of God.” See Ephesians 1:20.
Faithful to the Scriptures, the Council of Chalcedon 451A.D. in its creedal statement, in essence, says, Jesus Christ is at the same time fully God and fully man. The real corporal presence view undercuts and confuses the two natures of Christ when communion is practiced. Therefore, it is incorrect.
Another question raised, do we take the passages literally that say, “this is my body,” when Luke seems to add a qualification saying, “Do this in remembrance of me” Luke 22:19. Doing this in remembrance mitigates against a literal view by an appeal to the memorial aspect of communion. Therefore, the “is” must figurative and spiritual. It is no different from when Jesus said, “I am the vine,” (John 15:2) or “I am the door” (John 10:7).
Second: Is this cannibalism?
In Matthew 26:26 Jesus was with the disciples at the “last supper” in which He said, “Take, eat; this is my body.”
Is there another portion of Scripture that will shed light on the literalness of the passage?
While not talking about the Lord’s Supper, Jesus, in John’s gospel, provides an interpretive key and explains what eating His flesh and drinking His blood meant and an error in reasoning among some disciples.
On the surface to some, Jesus’ saying was scandalous. His teaching seemed to imply cannibalism.
From Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible, we learn more about this:
“The Jews therefore strove among themselves … Fell to cavilling and disputing one among another; some understanding Christ, and others not; some being for him, and vindicated what he said; and others being against him, and who were the majority, objected, saying how can this man give us his flesh to eat? Which is to be understood, not physically, but as morally impossible and unlawful; since, with the Jews, it was not lawful to eat the flesh of any creature alive, and much less the flesh of man; for the Jews understood Christ of a corporeal eating of his flesh, being strangers to a figurative or spiritual eating of it by faith, in which sense he meant it.” (1)
John records the words of Christ:
“I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh. The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, how can this man give us his flesh to eat? So Jesus said to them, truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.” (John 6:51-54 ESV)
Some of the disciples took the word of Christ literally, as seen from the next passage:
“When many of his disciples heard it, they said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” (John 6:60 ESV)
At the time of Christ’s teaching, some disciples forsook Him because of their incorrect literal understanding.
Jesus defuses this false idea about literally eating His flesh and blood when He said: “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.” (John 6:63 ESV)
In John 6:63, Jesus qualified His seemingly controversial saying by appealing to the spiritual nature of His Words. What is more, if the text on the Lord’s Supper is literal, why was there no protest from the faithful disciples? The words “Take, eat; this is my body” and “…unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you” must be spiritual.
From Barnes Notes on the Bible, this is borne out:
“The flesh – Your carnal views and desires, and the literal understanding of my doctrine. By this Jesus shows them that he did not intend that his words should be taken literally…
They are spirit – They are spiritual. They are not to be understood literally, as if you were really to eat my flesh, but they are to be understood as denoting the need of that provision for the soul, which God has made, by my coming into the world.” (2)
The Apostle John’s words must undoubtedly influence how we understand the other gospels and a proper understanding of “Take; this is my body.” To ignore John is to ignore the broader context of Scripture. A literal interpretation of the Lord’s Supper is the result of over compartmentalizing the text.
The Roman Catholic view and cannibalism:
Roman Catholics who take a literal interpretation of the passage have had to explain why the Eucharist is not cannibalism. This question is fair and is raised by many non-believers. So much so that the question has been addressed. For one example, see The Eucharist & Cannibalism by Michael Foley
In most cultures, there are long-standing taboos against cannibalism. Therefore, the passage is not literal, but one of Jesus using a figurative metaphor to elucidate the spiritual nature of His body and blood in communion.
Biblical examples that imply cannibalism and by deduction condemn it:
In the following passages Leviticus 26:29; Deuteronomy 28:53-57; Jeremiah 19:9; Lamentations 2:20; Ezekiel 5:10, the horrors of God’s judgment is seen. The result at times of God’s judgment is witnessed in the eating of human flesh of Israelite children when, for example, a city was under siege.
For example, consider Jeremiah’s rhetorical question:
“Look, O Lord, and see! With whom have, you dealt thus? Should women eat the fruit of their womb, the children of their tender care…?” (Lamentations 2:20 ESV)
In addition, from a rabbinic commentary on cannibalism:
“With regard to humans: Although [Genesis 2:7] states: “And the man became a beast with a soul,” he is not included in the category of hoofed animals. Therefore, he is not included in the [above] prohibition. Accordingly, one who partakes of meat or fat from a man – whether alive or deceased – is not liable for lashes. It is, however, forbidden [to partake of human meat] because of the positive commandment [mentioned above]. For the Torah [Leviticus 11:2] lists the seven species of kosher wild beasts and says: “These are the beasts of which you may partake.” Implied is that any other than they may not be eaten. And a negative commandment that comes as a result of a positive commandment is considered as a positive commandment.” – Rabbi Eliyahu Touger’s translation of part of Ma’achalot Assurot – Chapter 2
Old Testament Roots of communion:
The “cup of blessing,” in which thanks are offered during the Passover remembrance in the Seder. The Seder is where each adult diner drinks four cups of wine, representing aspects of the redemption of the Israelites from slavery under the Egyptians by the blood of the Passover lamb.
In Christian communion, the red wine symbolizes the blood of Christ, who was the Passover lamb, and who redeems us from the slavery of sin.
If the comparison of Passover and Communion is all that is said scripturally, then this would lend support for a purely memorial understanding of the Lord’s Supper. While not devoting time to raising questions about the purely memorial view, let it be noted that because of Christ’s divine nature, Christ must be spiritually present in communion because of His omnipresence.
In closing, selections from the Westminster Standards:
Westminster Larger Catechism: Questions 168-170: Q. 168. What is the Lord’s Supper?
A. The Lord’s supper is a sacrament of the New Testament, wherein, by giving and receiving bread and wine according to the appointment of Jesus Christ, his death is showed forth; and they that worthily communicate feed upon his body and blood, to their spiritual nourishment and growth in grace; have their union and communion with him confirmed; testify and renew their thankfulness, and engagement to God, and their mutual love and fellowship each with other, as members of the same mystical body.
Q. 169. How hath Christ appointed bread and wine to be given and received in the sacrament of the Lord’s supper?
A. Christ hath appointed the ministers of his word, in the administration of this sacrament of the Lord’s supper, to set apart the bread and wine from common use, by the word of institution, thanksgiving, and prayer; to take and break the bread, and to give both the bread and the wine to the communicants: who are, by the same appointment, to take and eat the bread, and to drink the wine, in thankful remembrance that the body of Christ was broken and given, and his blood shed, for them.
Q. 170. How do they that worthily communicate in the Lord’s supper feed upon the body and blood of Christ therein?
A. As the body and blood of Christ are not corporally or carnally present in, with, or under the bread and wine in the Lord’s supper, and yet are spiritually present to the faith of the receiver, no less truly and really than the elements themselves are to their outward senses; so they that worthily communicate in the sacrament of the Lord’s supper, do therein feed upon the body and blood of Christ, not after a corporal and carnal, but in a spiritual manner; yet truly and really, while by faith they receive and apply unto themselves Christ crucified, and all the benefits of his death.
Westminster Confession Chapter XXIX Of the Lord’s Supper:I. Our Lord Jesus, in the night wherein He was betrayed, instituted the sacrament of His body and blood, called the Lord’s Supper, to be observed in His Church, unto the end of the world, for the perpetual remembrance of the sacrifice of Himself in His death; the sealing all benefits thereof unto true believers, their spiritual nourishment and growth in Him, their further engagement in and to all duties which they owe unto Him; and, to be a bond and pledge of their communion with Him, and with each other, as members of His mystical body.
II. In this sacrament, Christ is not offered up to His Father; nor any real sacrifice made at all, for remission of sins of the quick or dead; but only a commemoration of that one offering up of Himself, by Himself, upon the cross, once for all: and a spiritual oblation of all possible praise unto God, for the same: so that the popish sacrifice of the mass (as they call it) is most abominably injurious to Christ’s one, only sacrifice, the alone propitiation for all the sins of His elect.
III. The Lord Jesus has, in this ordinance, appointed His ministers to declare His word of institution to the people, to pray, and bless the elements of bread and wine, and thereby to set them apart from a common to an holy use; and to take and break the bread, to take the cup, and (they communicating also themselves) to give both to the communicants; but to none who are not then present in the congregation.
IV. Private masses, or receiving this sacrament by a priest, or any other alone; as likewise, the denial of the cup to the people, worshipping the elements, the lifting them up, or carrying them about, for adoration, and the reserving them for any pretended religious use; are all contrary to the nature of this sacrament, and to the institution of Christ.
V. The outward elements in this sacrament, duly set apart to the uses ordained by Christ, have such relation to Him crucified, as that, truly, yet sacramentally only, they are sometimes called by the name of the things they represent, to wit, the body and blood of Christ; albeit, in substance and nature, they still remain truly and only bread and wine, as they were before.
VI. That doctrine which maintains a change of the substance of bread and wine, into the substance of Christ’s body and blood (commonly called transubstantiation) by consecration of a priest, or by any other way, is repugnant, not to Scripture alone, but even to common sense, and reason; overthrows the nature of the sacrament, and has been, and is, the cause of manifold superstitions; yes, of gross idolatries.
VII. Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements, in this sacrament, do then also, inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally but spiritually, receive and feed upon, Christ crucified, and all benefits of His death: the body and blood of Christ being then, not corporally or carnally, in, with, or under the bread and wine; yet, as really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses.
VIII. Although ignorant and wicked men receive the outward elements in this sacrament; yet, they receive not the thing signified thereby; but, by their unworthy coming thereunto, are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, to their own damnation. Wherefore, all ignorant and ungodly persons, as they are unfit to enjoy communion with Him, so are they unworthy of the Lord’s table; and cannot, without great sin against Christ, while they remain such, partake of these holy mysteries, or be admitted thereunto.
“To God, only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ forever. Amen.” (Romans 16:27) and “heirs according to the promise.” (Galatians 3:28-29)
Notes:
1. John Gill, Exposition of the Old and New Testaments, John, (Grace Works, Multi-Media Labs), 2011, p. 226.
2. Albert Barnes, THE AGES DIGITAL LIBRARYCOMMENTARY, Barnes’ Notes on the Bible, John, Vol. 1 p.1153.
Mr. Kettler has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife Marea attend the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr. Kettler is the author of the book defending the Reformed Faith against attacks, titled: The Religion That Started in a Hat. Available at: www.TheReligionThatStartedInAHat.com
For more research:
Short Treatise on the Lord’s Supper by John Calvin:
Does Romans 13 on submission contradict other portions of Scripture? By Jack Kettler
“For rulers are not a terror to good works, but the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he, beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.” (Romans 13:1, 3-4)
The purpose of this study is to provoke thought and debate. Many questions will be asked to accomplish this:
Is the state ruler always the minister of God for good? Also, does the ruler continually execute wrath upon him that does evil?
Some governments like China forcibly make women kill their unborn children through abortions. Other governments, like in America, teach damnable lies to young children about sex, genders, and practices.
Is it a contradiction to say that a government is doing good and opposing evil when it is practicing evil and persecuting good?
What does Isaiah say about this?
“Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!” (Isaiah 5:20)
If Christians willingly submit to wicked lies, is not this a violation of Isaiah’s teaching? The astute reader should see the problem between Isaiah 5:20 and Paul’s understanding in Romans 13:1-4.
For example, consider a modern-day contemporary understanding of Romans 13:
According to Rev. John E. Warmuth, a Lutheran pastor from Wisconsin, in his online sermon, Romans 13:1-10 OUR ULTIMATE OBEDIENCE IS TO GOD:
“One of the oddities I find in all of this, concerns Adolf Hitler. He was certainly not a God-fearing man. Yet he had a favorite section of the Bible which happens to be our text, Romans 13:1-10. It may have been the only part of the Bible he liked. I think we can understand why, too. At first these verses appear to give validity to his totalitarian type of governing. Hitler read those words to mean the people of Germany owed him ultimate allegiance and obedience no matter what, and whatever peoples he conquered would owe him that, too.
What Hitler did not see in these words, however, is that they point out OUR ULTIMATE OBEDIENCEIS TO GOD. While it includes submission to governing authorities as well as love for our fellow man, the emphasis in these verses is that OUR ULTIMATE OBEDIENCE IS TO GOD. Notice the repeated phrases “authority. . . God has established,” “authorities. . . have been established by God,” “rebelling against what God has instituted,” and “he is God’s servant,” all of which point to God as the ultimate authority. All earthly authorities come from God the ruler of all. And the ultimate Authority says we owe obedience to the earthly authorities he allows to have authority here. Why?
First, it is simply because God says so. That should be reason enough. We want what God wants so we submit to them. Christians in the Roman Empire were to submit to the ungodly pagan Emperors and yes, the people of Germany were to submit to the authority of Hitler.”
Warmuth’s interpretation is typical of many contemporary interpretations of the subject, yet false. As will be seen, the section of Romans 13 on submission contains clear examples of exceptions to unlimited authority.
Romans 13:1, 3-4 teaches that believers submit to rulers who punish evil. Hitler was a promoter of evil deeds and persecuted the righteous. How can anyone maintain that Hitler punished evil as a minister of God? When Hitler had Christian pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer arrested and murdered, was he a minister of God for good? Was Hitler a minister of God for good when he had six million Jews murdered? These difficult questions cannot be brushed away.
The danger:
Are believers unwittingly calling rulers who promote evil as good? Is an individual who says Hitler punished evil when he punished good in reality fall under the woe Isaiah 5:20?
Warmuth and others like him are trapped in a contradiction and violating Isaiah’s woe.
Paul says in Romans 13 because the magistrate does good and is a terror towards evil-doers, does one owe them obedience. Hitler did not meet the standards of Romans 3:1, 3-4. To call him a minister of God for good is outrageous. Good for what? Does keeping the trains running on time like his tyrannical Italian partner Mussolini make them good rulers?
The obedience to a magistrate is conditioned upon three things that are inescapable in the text:
· For [because] rulers are not a terror to good works, but the evil. (verse 1)
· For [because] he is the minister of God to thee for good. (verse 3)
· For [because] he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. (verse 4)
These three passages have conditions in them that qualify submission. How can a Christian say that Hitler was not a terror to good works or that he executed wrath on him that doeth evil when he murdered Jewish people in contradiction to verse 4?
As said, those advocating submission to Hitler based upon Romans 13 are caught in a contradiction with other portions of Scripture, namely, Isaiah 5:20.
The Protestant Reformation would never have happened, given the interpretation of submission to wicked rulers advocated like Warmuth. Warmuth did say that the ultimate authority of obedience is to God. God raised Pharaoh up and had Moses and Israel resist him. How can the example of Pharaoh and Moses in the book of Exodus be brought into harmony with Romans 13?
How does a Hitler-like ruler get into power?
“And he changeth the times and the seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings: he giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding.” (Daniel 2:21)
It is indeed true that it is God who places a Hitler-like ruler in power. God has His reasons, and without knowing the mind of God, man cannot know, see (Deuteronomy 29:29).
A Biblical pattern of resistance to ungodly rulers:
In the book of Judges, God allowed enemies of Israel to reign over them due to their unfaithfulness. Then God would raise up a judge to deliver His people from having to submit to ungodly rulers like the Philistines.
The question that needs to be asked:
Is the pattern seen in the book of Judges contradictory to modern-day interpretations of Romans 13? Because of Israel’s unfaithfulness, God brought foreign tyrants to oppress His people in order to bring them to repentance. Then God raised up His judges to resist, not submit to the Philistines and others.
Are there contradictions in Scripture? God forbid, absolutely not! Therefore, modern-day interpretations of Romans 13 that call for submission to a Hitler-like figure are false given the pattern in the book of Judges and Pharaoh and Moses’ account. Therefore, it can be said that particular individual magistrates can be resisted if violating the conditional clauses in Romans 13:1, 3-4.
Moreover, to call a Hitler-like ruler good would be in violation of Isaiah’s woe in 5:20. Paul and Isaiah do not contradict one another? The examples are seen in the book of Judges also do not contradict Paul in Romans 13. That is where the virtually unlimited submission view of Romans 13 ends up contradicting other Scriptures.
Today God raises pastors up instead of the Old Testament judges to call wicked magistrates to repent from political lies and other forms of wickedness.
A contemporary example of Godly resistance:
In California, John MacArthur, Grace Community Church pastor, refused to submit to government lies about the China virus scam-demic and opened God’s Church from the lockdown mandate.
Christians are not to submit to political lies any more than theological lies. A lie is a lie and must be resisted and rebuked.
Hypothetical question with echoes of reality:
A criminal gang seizes the government’s control by taking over the White House and murdering everyone in it. Subsequently, the criminal gang declares themselves to be the government. In this scenario, does a Christian, according to Romans 13, have to submit? If so, would the actual legitimate government have to submit, or could they plan to retake the government? If the legitimate government, after its overthrow, be allowed to resist, why should Christians be forced to submit to a lawless criminal gang that declared themselves to be a government?
As a necessary brief aside:
Today, Christians in America, the people find themselves at the precipice in light of the wicked gang of globalists that have overthrown the legitimate government. Under the form of government enjoyed in America is a social contract form of government, which involves the consent of governed. The consent of the governed hinges upon free and fair elections. Under the contract theory, if the government cannot guarantee this, no longer is obedience required.
More importantly, the Bill of Rights is understood to mean that “Rights” come from God and are inalienable and cannot be taken or rescinded. Under the Constitution of the United States, sovereignty resides in the people as the ultimate authority. The people contracted with their elected representatives to preserve this agreement. Under this system, rulers who attempt to revoke God-given rights are tyrants and to be resisted.
Therefore, “…That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to affect their Safety and Happiness….” Thomas Jefferson
Back to the theological issue at hand, consider John Calvin’s view on rulers:
In a commentary on the Book of Daniel, Calvin observed that contemporary monarchs pretend to reign “by the grace of God,” but the pretense was “a mere cheat” so that they could “reign without control.” He believed that “Earthly princes depose themselves while they rise up against God,” so ‘it behooves us to spit upon their heads than to obey them.’”
Is Calvin, when saying, “…it behooves us to spit upon their heads than to obey them,” in violation of Romans 13? Not at all. Calvin’s view of the separation of powers is also seen in his view of the Church government, which likewise separates Church power from the state.
Does a Christian always have to submit to a church? No, but some conditions must be met before a church membership covenant or civil social contact may be dissolved.
The Marks of a True Church:
1. The gospel is preached
2. The sacraments are administered biblically
3. Church discipline practiced
Marks of the God-ordained State:
1. God’s ministers are ordained and not a terror to good works.
2. Continual executing wrath against evil-doers.
3. Because of fear of God’s ministers, evil is deterred.
In God’s plan of redemption, which entity is higher, the church or state?
When the state, like the church, loses the marks of legitimacy, the believer is free from submission and may seek a church that is faithful to Scripture. Likewise, a citizen is free from statist authority when that authority becomes an agent of evil. The state, like a church, can lose its authority.
Consider Presbyterian founder John Knox and the state:
In Scotland, John Knox challenged the civil authorities’ who were influenced by the corrupt church of his day by holding services on weekdays to counter what the Romanist priests spoke about on Sundays. His rebuke to England in (1554) led to the development in theology known as resistance to tyrants. He defended the common people’s right and duty to resist if State officials ruled contrary to Scripture. Knox even said, “Resistance to tyranny is a duty to God.” It seems that Knox contradicts Romans 13 if an unlimited view of submission to the government is taken. If there are limits on the application to Romans 13, then Knox was justified. If not, then Knox is wrong and must be judged as misinterpreting Scripture.
Thankfully, Knox saw that obedience in Romans 13 is conditioned. John Knox made this clear in his tirade against tyrants. See, The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women. Knox believed in resistance to wicked rulers. Would Knox have worn a mask in worship if Queen Mary had decreed it? It is commonly known that Knox was an opponent and antagonist of the Queen. If John Knox was in violation of Romans 13, should he be excommunicated by the Presbyterians in absentia, a Latin term for absent?
Would the Protestant Reformation ever have happened given certain interpretations of Romans 13?
Martin Luther opposed the Pope of Rome and the worldly princes who carried out the Pope of Rome’s wishes. Was Luther in violation of Romans 13? If consistent, modern-day interpreters like Warmuth would have condemned to founding father of America and submitted to and backed King George.
In conclusion:
Reformation-era Scotsman George Buchanan has a solution to the proper interpretation of Romans 13:
“Paul, then, is not concerned here with those who act as magistrates but with magistracy itself, that is, with the function and duty of those who are set over others; and he is not concerned with any particular type of magistracy, but with the form of every lawful magistracy. His argument is not with those who think that bad magistrates ought to be restrained, but with those who reject the authority of all magistrates….In order to refute their error Paul showed that magistracy is not only good but also sacred, the ordinance of God, indeed, expressly established to hold groups and communities of men together in such a way that would recognise the blessings of God towards them and refrain from injuring one another.” (1)
The idea that Paul is speaking of is how the magistracy should be, not how a magistrate may be. God ordains the magistracy. This does not mean that a wicked ruler like Hitler cannot be resisted.
Buchanan’s understanding of Romans 13 absolves itself of contradictions with other Scriptures.
Historical examples of civil disobedience by Christians:
1. William Tyndale, the English translator of the Bible, was condemned as a heretic, tried and executed in 1536.
2. John Bunyan, a Nonconformist clergyman who was arrested for preaching without a license and failing to attend the Church of England, wrote Pilgrim’s Progress in his jail cell.
In almost every place where the Reformation had success, there was some form of civil disobedience or armed rebellion:
1. Spanish Netherlands: Battle of Leyden, 1574 [The Dutch led by William the Silent won their independence as the United States of the Netherlands].
2. Sweden: Gustavus Vasa broke Sweden off from Denmark and established the Lutheran church in 1527.
3. Denmark: The Protestant party of the nobility overthrew the Catholic dynasty in 1536.
4. Germany: Martin Luther was protected by the Duke of Saxony against the political and military power of Charles V, the Holy Roman Emperor. The Peace of Augsburg of 1555 established the ruler’s religion in the German states. The Counter-Reformation led to the Thirty Years War. The Peace of Westphalia (1648) ratified the Peace of Augsburg.
5. Switzerland: Cantons established Protestantism by vote of the community.
6. Scotland: John Knox openly defied the authorities by holding services on weekdays to refute what the priests preached on Sundays. His Admonition to England (1554) developed a theology of resistance to tyranny. He upheld the right and duty of the common people to resist if state officials ruled contrary to the Bible. [“Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God”] (2)
Does the reader agree with or reject these examples?
Romans 13:1-4 properly understood does not command virtually absolute obedience to wicked rulers by contradictorily saying that, for example, in the case of Hitler, he was a minister for good.
Romans 13:1, 3-4, and Isaiah 5:20 are not contradictory. Paul’s argument in Romans 13 is qualified. Paul’s qualification can be understood that a magistrate who does evil and does not execute wrath against evil-doers is doing good would fall under Isaiah’s woe. Hopefully, Christians will rethink erroneous ideas about submission to wicked rulers.
The common person and Christian pastors can call ungodly rulers to repentance and resist unlawful decrees.
“For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.” (1 Corinthians 15:25)
Christ is reigning now. How can Christ’s progressive reign be completed when believers are to remain subjugated to wicked magistrates? The thunder of John Knox is needed!
“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)
“To God, only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ forever. Amen.” (Romans 16:27) and “heirs according to the promise.” (Galatians 3:28-29)
Notes:
1. George Buchanan, A Dialogue on the Law of Kingship Among the Scots, ed. Roger Mason, p. 113; 121.
2. Francis Schaeffer: Vol. 5, A Christian Manifesto; Chapter 7: The Limits of Civil Obedience, (Westchester, Illinois, Crossway Books), pp. 467-474. Mr. Kettler has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife Marea attend the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr. Kettler is the author of the book defending the Reformed Faith against attacks, titled: The Religion That Started in a Hat. Available at: www.TheReligionThatStartedInAHat.com
Decisional regeneration is the teaching that a person must make a conscious decision to accept Christ. They are usually characterized by praying a sinner’s prayer, walking down a church aisle, raising a hand, thus signifying by a public action for what is necessary to be converted or regenerated by the Holy Spirit.
Second, is this methodology biblical? In this overview, this question will be answered in accordance with the consideration of Scripture. Does regeneration or conversion happen by following a formula? Can a formula cause God to act? If so, is this saying that a formula causes the Holy Spirit to react according to a methodology? Can the soul winner’s formula bind God and cause Him to act?
Others have advocated formulas like this, such as the Roman Church in its doctrine of transubstantiation and baptismal regeneration when priests pronounce the rightly worded formula. As a result bread, and wine is transformed into Christ’s actual flesh, and blood, and the water used in baptism causes God to respond with a regenerative action.
It is admitted that God is sovereign and freely acts in accordance with His will. God can indeed act in the regeneration of a sinner at the time of a humanly directed formula if He wills. Disagreeing with decisional regeneration formulas certainly is no way diminishes the need for public confessions of faith. Usually public expressions of faith are witnessed in church membership vows and not forsaking the assembly of the saints. See Hebrews 10:25.
It is altogether too common, to observe those who have followed the formula and never demonstrated any indication of a changed life or soon falling away. For example:
“As for what was sown on rocky ground, this is the one who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy, yet he has no root in himself, but endures for a while, and when tribulation or persecution arises on account of the word, immediately he falls away.” (Matthew 13:20-21 ESV)
At times in formulistic revivalism, sufficient warnings are given warning those walking the aisle that they need to bring forth the fruits of repentance, which is good. See Matthew 3:8.
If Christ is in an individual, there will be some evidence of a changed life. Exceptions to this would be regeneration immediately prior to death.
“They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us.” (1 John 2:19 ESV)
“Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? And in thy name have cast out devils? And in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” (Matthew 7:22-23 KJV)
The evidence contrary to decisional regeneration is the biblical teaching that humankind is dead in sin and trespasses, and no individual is able to exercise faith in Christ apart from His redeeming grace. Following a formula can no more convert an individual than using a formula or visualizing can make a person monetarily rich, AKA, Napoleon Hill’s “Think & Grow Rich” philosophy. Hill is often credited with being the father of the “name it and claim it” theology.
The issue of grace plus works is an issue of utmost importance. That is why questioning formulistic methodology is not being contentious, but instead is an issue of growing in the grace and knowledge of our Lord. The Christian should always be on guard against allowing a bad theology of works or human merit to enter into the life of the church. “But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and forever. Amen.” (2Peter 3:18 KJV)
In a similar vein, Paul and Jude tell the church: “For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.” (2Timothy 4:3-4 ESV)
“But as for you, teach what accords with sound doctrine.” (Titus 2:1 ESV)
“Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.” (Jude 1:3 ESV)
Consider the following Scriptures that confirm that God’s grace does not follow a formula in the regeneration of a sinner. In addition, these Scriptures indicate that God works first in a sinner’s heart, before a response by an individual.
“And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live.’ (Deuteronomy 30:6)
“A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you and heart of flesh.” (Ezekiel 36:26)
“And I will give them and heart to know me, that I am the LORD: and they shall be my people, and I will be their God: for they shall return unto me with their whole heart.” (Jeremiah 24:7)
“Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.” (2Corinthians 3:3)
“And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins.” (Ephesians 2:1)
“Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost.” (Titus 3:5)
“For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people.” (Hebrews 8:10)
“This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them.” (Hebrews 10:16)
The Holy Spirit gives life. The verb tenses in the above passages that have been underlined are action verbs on God’s part. For example, “I will,” “And you hath he quickened,” “God will.” In the above passages, God’s actions result in a change in a man’s nature. See again Ephesians 2:1.
The conversion formula or method does not square with the above Scriptures in which God gives life to those dead in sin, thus, bringing them to life. The unconverted sinner is incapable of any meritorious work. Specifically, this methodology would make salvation dependent upon making a decision. Does walking aisle, repeating a formulistic prayer trigger God into action? If a person’s conversion is closely tied to a public formulistic conversion event, it must be asked, when did the conversion really take place? Before or after walking the aisle?
If conversion happens after following a formula, the works of a man enter in, a heresy:
To be consistent with the above Scriptures, one can argue that the real conversion happened before following the formula. Following the formula was a result of the conversion, not vice versa. Moreover, this issue is one of grace versus works. In this light, there is nothing trivial at all about questioning formulistic methodology.
Believers are to guard against false doctrine: “Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood. I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them.” (Acts 20:28-30 ESV)
“I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.” (Galatians 1:6-9 ESV)
As noted, it can be argued by some that the above disagreement with decisional regeneration is quibbling about petty issues; all that is important is saving souls. Many people will testify that their conversion happened at an evangelistic meeting where formulistic conversion preaching was used. While this argument may seem to have some weight, it is a surrender to pragmatism and unsound doctrine in violation of the Pauline exhortations from Timothy and Titus. Is gospel preaching going to be reduced to a sales presentation, or going through the numbers to get responses?
Also, elements of emotionalism are used in formulistic evangelism. Emotionalism at these events usually involve testimonies and musical performances. While in and of themselves, these things may be permissible. However, to use them to stimulate the emotions in order to gain a response like walking the aisle can be dangerous and produce results that not reflect a true conversion at all.
Moreover, formulistic revival methodology, when used outside the church, is even more problematic. Where does the responder go for spiritual growth after walking the aisle at a crusade meeting? What is the theology of the counselors at the crusade meetings that talk with the responders? This is not a trivial issue. This writer has firsthand experience and has seen Roman Catholics and other sectarians used in large crusades as counselors.
In closing: “If you were to do a survey of church history, reading books and documents from the first century all the way to the early nineteenth century, you would find no mention of “decisions for Christ.” Similarly, one would find no reference to the altar calls, which are the culmination of every modern evangelistic crusade. Those elements, which are found in nearly every evangelical church today, were inventions generally attributed to evangelist Charles Finney who lived from 1792 to 1875. He emphasized the need for a decision, usually made by “coming forward” to approach the altar. Becoming a believer became synonymous with making a decision and proving that decision by taking physical action. It is important to note that this system is foreign to the Scriptures.” – Tim Challies, November 24, 2004, Decisional Regeneration. See the link below.
It is hoped that this study will cause contemplation and refinement of revival meetings, leading to a preaching methodology that is faithful to Scripture.
“Iron sharpens iron, and one man sharpens another.” (Proverbs 27:17 ESV)
Mr. Kettler has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife Marea attend the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr. Kettler is the author of the book defending the Reformed Faith against attacks, titled: The Religion That Started in a Hat. Available at: www.TheReligionThatStartedInAHat.com
What does the “already but not yet” eschatological motif mean?
Explanatory Quotations:
“The theological concept of “already” and “not yet” was proposed by Princeton theologian Gerhardus Vos early in the 20th century, who believed that we live in the present age, the ‘now,’ and await the ‘age to come.’” – Wikipedia
“The theological concept of “already but not yet” holds that believers are actively taking part in the kingdom of God, although the kingdom will not reach its full expression until sometime in the future. We are “already” in the kingdom, but we do “not yet” see it in its glory. The “already but not yet” theology is related to kingdom theology or inaugurated eschatology.” – ‘Answers’ as quoted at the monergism web site.”
The idea of “already but not yet,” teaches that the kingdom of God will not reach its full manifestation until the second coming of Christ. Nevertheless, there are aspects of the kingdom that are a present reality. Said another way, there are present and future aspects of the kingdom of God. We have salvation now, but still await glorification that happens in the resurrection at the end of redemptive history.
It may be asked, what is inaugurated eschatology? Inaugurated eschatology is used to describe the view that the kingdom of God was established at the death and resurrection of Jesus. Jesus brought the kingdom of God, which has both present and future realities. In the Old Testament, Israel was a type of the kingdom inaugurated by Christ. The kingdom from the 1st century onward incorporates the church into itself as a central reality. This reality does not dismiss the future conversion and re-graphing of Israel into the New Covenant. See Romans 11:26 and the future conversion of Israel.
In the Old Testament, there are aspects of this “already but not” yet motif. In Psalm 97. it is declared that the “Lord reigneth.” The full reign of God will not happen until the end of history when His foes are forever banished.
Looking at the Scriptures:
In the Old Testament, God’s reign is on the earth:
“The Lord reigneth; let the earth rejoice; let the multitude of isles be glad thereof. Clouds and darkness are round about him: righteousness and judgment are the habitation of his throne. A fire goeth before him, and burneth up his enemies round about. His lightnings enlightened the world: the earth saw, and trembled. The hills melted like wax at the presence of the Lord, at the presence of the Lord of the whole earth.” (Psalm 97:1-5 KJV)
Daniel pictures the kingdom and its growth:
“As you looked, a stone was cut out by no human hand, and it struck the image on its feet of iron and clay, and broke them in pieces. Then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver, and the gold, all together were broken in pieces, and became like the chaff of the summer threshing floors; and the wind carried them away, so that not a trace of them could be found. But the stone that struck the image became a great mountain and filled the whole earth.” (Daniel 2:34-35 ESV)
The kingdom has come:
“But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.” (Matthew 12:28 ESV)
The kingdom of heaven will grow in history:
“He put another parable before them, saying, “The kingdom of heaven is like a grain of mustard seed that a man took and sowed in his field. It is the smallest of all seeds, but when it has grown it is larger than all the garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and make nests in its branches.” (Matthew 13:31-32 ESV)
The kingdom of God will grow in history:
“And he said, “With what can we compare the kingdom of God, or what parable shall we use for it? It is like a grain of mustard seed, which, when sown on the ground, is the smallest of all the seeds on earth, yet when it is sown it grows up and becomes larger than all the garden plants and puts out large branches, so that the birds of the air can make nests in its shade.” (Mark 4:30-32 ESV)
The kingdom is not far away:
“Being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, he answered them, “The kingdom of God is not coming in ways that can be observed, nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or ‘There!’ for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you.” (Luke 17:20-21 ESV)
Not yet is everything in subjection:
“You made him for a little while lower than the angels; you have crowned him with glory and honor, putting everything in subjection under his feet.” Now in putting everything in subjection to him, he left nothing outside his control. At present, we do not yet see everything in subjection to him.” (Hebrews 2:7-8 ESV)
A present reality:
“For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.” (1 Corinthians 15:25 ESV)
The Mediatorial Reign of Christ:
Christ’s reign is described as the mediatorial reign. What is the mediatorial reign of Christ? When does this mediatorial reign take place?
The mediatorial reign of Christ is present now as noted by the Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary: “25. must—because Scripture foretells it.
Till — There will be no further need of His mediatorial kingdom, its object having been realized.
Enemies under his feet—(Luke 19:27; Ephesians 1:22)” (1)
To add to this: “Christ sustained and exercised the function of mediatorial King as well as of Prophet and Priest, from the time of the fall of man, when he entered on his mediatorial work; yet it may be said that he was publicly and formally enthroned when he ascended up on high and sat down at the Father’s right hand (Psalms 2:6; Jeremiah 23:5; Isaiah 9:6) after his work of humiliation and suffering on earth was “finished” and until his Second Coming.” – Wikipedia
In closing:
From Anthony Hoekema, The Bible and the Future regarding the fruits of the “already”:
“We may say that in the possession of the Spirit we who are in Christ have a foretaste of the blessings of the age to come, and a pledge and guarantee of the resurrection of the body. Yet we have only the firstfruits. We look forward to the final consummation of the kingdom of God, when we shall enjoy these blessings to the full.” (2)
The mediatorial reign of Christ is ongoing during church history and is another confirmation of the “all ready” motif. How so? To be in Christ is to be part of His Kingdom. To enter into the kingdom involves repentance and faith in Jesus as Lord and Savior.
Our benefits now in Christ, “the already”:
“For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, “Abba! Father!” The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.” (Romans 8:14-17 ESV)
The “already” and “not yet” motif helps us understand the death and resurrection of Christ. Christ has delivered us from power by sin and death and has now empowered us to live a life where we no longer practice sin. We now live with the indwelling power of the Holy Spirit.
Finally, because of the “not yet,” the church must still pray:
Our Father, which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy Name. Thy Kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, As it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our trespasses, As we forgive them that trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation, But deliver us from evil. For thine is the kingdom, The power, and the glory, For ever and ever. Amen. Matthew 6:9–13
Notes:
Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, Commentary on the Whole Bible, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Zondervan, 1977), p. 1222.
Anthony Hoekema, The Bible and the Future, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Eerdmans), p. 67.
Mr. Kettler has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife Marea attend the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr. Kettler is the author of the book defending the Reformed Faith against attacks, titled: The Religion That Started in a Hat. Available at: www.TheReligionThatStartedInAHat.com
For more research:
Messiah the Prince; or, the Mediatorial Dominion of Jesus Christ.
What does the Lord mean by phrases such as “the time is a hand,” “must shortly come to pass,” and “I come quickly” in the book of Revelation? The Greek words used in the texts that will be under consideration in this study. Three of the words, in particular, are tάχει, ταχύ,and ἐγγύς.
Our study will explore how these words are used in the New Testament and what they mean. The study will serve as a brief introduction to preterist eschatology.
Definition of preterism:
Preterism, a Christian eschatological view that interprets some or all prophecies of the Bible as events, which have already happened. – Wikipedia
First New Testament entry:
“The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly (tάχει) come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John.” (Revelation 1:1 KJV)
Strong’s Lexicon:
soon
tάχει (tachei)
Noun – Dative Neuter Singular
Strong’s Greek 5034: Quickness, speed, hastily, immediately. From the same as tachus, a brief space, i.e. in haste.
Sample of a parallel passage to see how τάχει is used:
Acts 22:18 N-DNS
GREEK: ἔξελθε ἐν τάχει ἐξ Ἰερουσαλήμ
NAS: out of Jerusalem quickly, because
KJV: and get thee quickly out of Jerusalem:
INT: go away with speed out of Jerusalem
Second New Testament entry:
“Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand (ἐγγύς).” (Revelation 1:3 KJV)
Strong’s Lexicon:
near
ἐγγύς (engys)
Adverb
Strong’s Greek 1451: Near. From a primary verb agcho, near. “And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand (ἐγγύς).” (Revelation 22:10 KJV)
Sample of a parallel passage to see how ἐγγύς is used:
John 6:4 Adv.
GREEK: ἦν δὲ ἐγγὺς τὸ πάσχα
NAS: the feast of the Jews was near.
KJV: of the Jews, was nigh.
INT: was moreover near the Passover
Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance:
at hand, near, nigh, ready.
From a primary verb agcho (to squeeze or throttle; akin to the base of agkale); near (literally or figuratively, of place or time) — from, at hand, near, nigh (at hand, unto), ready.
Third New Testament entry:
“Behold, I come quickly (ταχύ): hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown.” (Revelation 3:11)
Strong’s Lexicon:
soon.
tαχύ (tachy)
Adverb
Strong’s Greek 5035: Quickly, speedily. Neuter singular of tachus, shortly, i.e. without delay, soon, or suddenly, or readily.
Sample of a parallel passage to see how tαχύ is used:
Matthew 28:7 Adv.
GRK: καὶ ταχὺ πορευθεῖσαι εἴπατε
NAS: Go quickly and tell His disciples
KJV: And go quickly, and tell his
INT: And quickly having gone say
Additional Scriptures where these Greek words appear:
“And he said unto me, these sayings are faithful and true: and the Lord God of the holy prophets sent his angel to shew unto his servants the things which must shortly (τάχει) be done.” (Revelation 22:6)
“Behold, I come quickly (ταχύ): blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book.” (Revelation 22:7)
“And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand (ἐγγύς).” (Revelation 22:10)
“And, behold, I come quickly (ταχύ); and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.” (Revelation 22:12)
“He which testifieth these things saith, surely I come quickly (ταχύ). Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.” (Revelation 22:20) (Underlining emphasis mine)
From the three parallel passages listed, the Greek words tάχει Acts 22:18, ἐγγύς John 6:4, ταχύ Matthew 28:7 convey an imminent, not a distant futuristic meaning.
Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers from the 19th century regarding tάχει admits that:
“Shortly. — On this word much controversy has turned. Its force, “speedily,” affords a groundwork, and, it must be admitted, a plausible one, to the preterist school of interpreters, who hold that the whole range of Apocalyptic predictions was fulfilled within a comparatively short time after the Apostle wrote.” (1)
Ellicott is one of the few commentators who favors a futuristic interpretation for the above phrases and Greek words that acknowledges that there is a non-futuristic (preterism) interpretation available.
Now an in-depth survey on how the Greek words in these imminent time texts, plus some additional New Testament variants are used is in order.
From James Glasgow’s The Apocalypse:
Various Intimations of a Speedy Coming of Christ Were Fulfilled in the Beginning of the Gospel Age.
“These are expressed principally by the words ἐγγύς and ταχύ in the Revelation, and ἐγγίζω in the Gospels and Epistles. I shall exhibit a few examples:
Matt. 3:2; 4:17; 10:7: “The kingdom of heaven is at hand” — ἤγγικεν.
Matt. 26:45: “The hour is at hand” — ἤγγικεν.
Mark 1:15: Luke 10:9, 11: “The kingdom of God is at hand” — ἤγγικεν.
Mark 14:42: “He that betrayeth me is at hand” — ἤγγικεν.
Luke 16:8: “The time draweth near” — ἤγγικεν
Luke 21:20: “The desolation thereof” (of Jerusalem)” is nigh” — ἤγγικεν.
Rom. 13:12: “The day is at hand”— ἤγγικεν.
Heb. 10:25: “Ye see the day approaching” — ἐγγίζουσαν.
James 5:8: “The coming of the Lord draweth nigh” — ἤγγικεν.
1 Pet. 4:7: “The end of all” (Πάντων — of the spiritually dead in the previous verse) “is at hand” — ἤγγικεν.
Matt. 26:18: “My time is at hand” — ἐγγύς.
Luke 21:31: “The kingdom of God is nigh at hand” — ἐγγύς.
Phil. 4:5: “The Lord is at hand” — ἐγγύς.
Rev. 1:3: 22:10: “The time is at hand” — ἐγγύς.
The examples now given relate principally to time; but the words in more than forty instances refer to place and denote immediate contiguity.
So ταχύ and cognates may be exemplified:
Luke 14:21: “Go out quickly into the streets” — ταχέως.
Luke 16:6: “Sit down quickly” — ταχέως.
John 11:31: “She rose up hastily [quickly]” — ταχέως.
1 Cor. 4:19: “I will come to you shortly.” — ταχέως
2 Thess. 2:2: “That ye be not soon (ταχέως) shaken” — ταχέως.
2 Pet. 1:14: “Shortly (ταχινή) I must put off this tabernacle.”
John 13:27: “That thou doest, do quickly” — τάχιον.
Acts 12:7: “Rise up quickly” — ἐν τάχει.
Rom. 16:20: “God shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly” — ἐν τάχει.
Matt. 28:7: “Go quickly (ταχύ) and tell His disciples.” — ἐν τάχει.
John 11:29: “She rose quickly” — ταχύ.
Rev. 1:1; 22:6: “Things which must shortly come to pass” — ἐν τάχει.
Rev. 2:16: “I will come to Pergamos quickly” — ταχύ — in the Neronian persecution.
Rev. 3:11: “I come quickly” — ταχύ: viz. on Jerusalem.
Rev. 11:14: “The third woe cometh quickly” — ταχύ — in three and a half years.
Rev. 22:7, 12, 20: “I come quickly” — ταχύ.
If we are content to be guided by the Scripture usage of the words, the truth of the section will be at once established.
But many are not disposed to acquiesce in this. They prefer their pre-formed theories, — as that the Lord has never yet come again since His ascension, and consequently that the various promises of coming quickly meant that He would not come for at least 1870 years, and perhaps not for an indefinite number more. This applies both to pre-millenarians and post-millenarians, though from different standpoints — so very non-natural is the principle of scriptural interpretation which multitudes dogmatically lay down, and so purblindly do they adopt a position which charges the apostles either with error or with deception. Nothing can be taught more plainly in human vocables, than the apostles (as well as John the Baptist and Jesus Himself), in such places as those cited, taught that His coming after the ascension was to be expected quickly (ταχύ), in the plain meaning of that term.” (2)
Conclusions:
If taken at face value, the passages in Revelation are speaking of something that was to take place soon, not the distant future. The imminent return of Christ that we see in the Revelation passages are events that were to happen quickly. The words soon and quickly do not make sense if not taken literally. Consult any thesaurus for synonyms of these words. If quickly, shortly do not mean what they say in their everyday usage, what do they mean? If these words do not mean what they say in everyday usage, what about other words in the Bible? As in this case, a non-literal use of these words is destructive of language. John uses apocalyptic imagery in his Revelation; however, Revelation 1:1, and 1:3 is ordinary language and would not fall under the rules for interpreting the apocalyptic genera of literature.
The only reason not to take these words literally comes down to forcing a different meaning in order to justify an unnatural or, as James Glasgow notes, a pre-formed theory. These texts, if taken literally, support the idea that the book of Revelation is historically fulfilled prophesy, except for the final two chapters, which pictures the new heaven and new earth and literal physical second coming of Christ. See Revelation 1:1, 3 and Revelation 22:6, 10. To echo James Glasgow, do these Greek time text words mean that John’s prophecy in Revelation will not happen for over 2000 years and counting.
Additionally, consider how the Apostle John in 22:10 is told: “…seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand.” Compare Revelation 22:10 with Daniel 12:4. Daniel is told to “shut up the words and seal the book.” Daniel’s prophesy deals with the coming of the Messiah. See Daniel 9:24-27. The fulfillment of Daniel’s prophesy would happen in approximately 500 years. Daniel is told to “seal the book,” and John is told, “seal not…the prophecy” of this book. These two commands are exact opposites, proving that John’s Revelation was to be fulfilled shortly in the first century. The biblical conclusion is that the texts of Revelation show quite literally, “The time is at hand” 1:3, and “…which must shortly be done,” and “Behold, I come quickly” 22:6.
The prophecies in Revelation were fulfilled during the “Great Tribulation” of 70 A.D., involving the destruction of Jerusalem. Bluntly stated, these imminent passages are either true or false. The overwhelming evidence from the New Testament usage is that tάχει, ταχύ,and ἐγγύς, and their variations are imminent when understood in their plain literal sense. Moreover, the reading of these fulfilled prophecies in Scripture is most edifying as with other fulfilled prophecies.
Objections:
First:
If most of the prophecies of John’s Revelation are already fulfilled, does not this make the book useless for Christians of later centuries? This is a bizarre objection. Would not this objection apply to other prophecies in the Old Testament that is fulfilled like the first coming of Christ? Fulfilled prophecies about Christ are faith-building. If John’s Revelation is fulfilled prophecy, how could it not be the same as other fulfilled prophecies like the virgin birth?
Second:
In general, modern scholarship places the date of the composition of the Book of Revelation around 90-110 A.D. If so, this would necessarily invalidate a First Century fulfillment of the prophecies of John’s Revelation.
However, the pendulum swings. Today, more scholars are taking a second look and placing the date of the writing of Revelation before 70 A.D., during the persecution of Nero. It should be noted that throughout church history, variations of preterism have always existed. With that said, preterism is not some new innovative doctrine. As the pendulum swings, preterism in its various forms is making a resurgence.
As the pendulum swings, modern scholarship is looking again at the dating of Revelation. For example:
John A. T. Robinson, in his Redating the New Testament, makes the following points:
“It was at this point that I began to ask myself just why any of the books of the New Testament needed to be put after the fall of Jerusalem in 70. As one began to look at them, and in particular the epistle to the Hebrews, Acts and the Apocalypse, was it not strange that this cataclysmic event was never once mentioned or apparently hinted at (as a past fact)?” p. 10.
“One of the oddest facts about the New Testament is that what on any showing would appear to be the single most datable and climactic event of the period as the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 is never once mentioned as a past fact. . . . ‘The silence is nevertheless as significant as the silence for Sherlock Holmes of the dog that did not bark’” p. 13.
“It is indeed generally agreed that this passage must bespeak a pre-70 situation. . . . There seems therefore no reason why the oracle should not have been uttered by a Christian prophet as the doom of the city drew nigh.” pp. 240-242. (3)
John A. T. Robinson was a bishop of the Church of England. He was also a lecturer at Trinity College, Cambridge, and later Dean of Trinity College.
An argument from silence generally is invalid, but not always, and in Robison’s example of “Sherlock Holmes and the dog that did not bark.” The silence of the dog in a police investigation can be powerful evidence, much like the silence of an alarm system not working. Likewise, Robison drawing attention to the New Testament documents not referencing the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. is weighty and significant. The fallacy of an argument from silence is really against and argument from ignorance, which Robison’s argument has no part.
Robinson uses evidence from the New Testament itself, and historical information outside of the Scriptures to argue for an early dating of John’s Revelation. Robinson makes the case that the fall of Jerusalem is not mentioned anywhere in the New Testament. He sees this as an indicator that Jerusalem’s destruction happened after the New Testament was completed. Robinson’s argument is monumental and should be considered. With his book, Robinson has brought new respectability to proponents of an early pre-70 A.D. date for the writing of the New Testament.
* See links below for a detailed discussion regarding evidence for arguments for a prior to 70 A.D. date to John’s Revelation. The fact is there have always been advocates for an early date for John’s Revelation in church history are seen in the links below.
Notes:
Charles John Ellicott, Bible Commentary for English Readers, Revelation, Vol.8, (London, England, Cassell and Company), p. 533.
James Glasgow, The Apocalypse: Translated and Expounded (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1872), p. 59-61.
John A. T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament, (Louisville, Kentucky, Westminster John Knox Press, reprinted 1977), pp. 10, 13, 240-242.
Mr. Kettler has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife Marea attend the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr. Kettler is the author of the book defending the Reformed Faith against attacks, titled: The Religion That Started in a Hat. Available at: www.TheReligionThatStartedInAHat.com
A Devotional Study on 2 Corinthians 5:14-15 by Jack Kettler
“For the love of Christ compels us, because we judge thus: that if One died for all, then all died; and He died for all, that those who live should live no longer for themselves, but for Him who died for them and rose again.” (2Corinthians 5:14-15 NKJV)
An objective of this study will be to examine a favorite proof-text of those who promote the universal atonement of Christ that is limited in its efficacy as opposed to the specific effectual atonement of Christ. The conclusion of this study will end with a life application of the text.
A definition of universal atonement is:
Jesus died as a propitiation for the sins of all humankind without exception but without the certainty of its benefits for any.
According to this view, if the benefits were efficacious for all, then universal salvation for all would be inescapable. According to the universal atonement adherents, this is unacceptable since it would mean everyone, in the end, is saved. Universal salvation is un-biblical; therefore, the atonement is weakened of any efficacy. The atonement in this view is then merely hypothetical and dependent upon some action that the hypothetical recipient must perform.
A definition of the specific efficacious view of the atonement:
Specific efficaciousatonement states that God the Father intended the work of salvation to provide a real substitutionary atonement for the elect of God. Consequently, Christ died for His sheep, those whom the Father had given to Him.
Today in evangelicalism, the universal atonement doctrine is the majority viewpoint. The universal atonement has not always enjoyed this status. This study will take the contrary position or Reformed view that the atonement of Christ was specific and efficacious. The Reformed view limits the atonement to those for whom it is intended, Christ’s sheep.
Both viewpoints limit the atonement. The universal view limits the atonement to those who respond in some way.
The commentary evidence will consist of two historical sources, along with two contemporary sources that argue for the specific view.
Starting with Matthew Poole:
Matthew Poole was born at York, England, in 1624, and educated at Emmanuel College, in Cambridge. He became minister of St. Michael-le-Quernes, London, in 1648, and devoted himself to the Presbyterian cause. He was one of the great Puritans theologians. Few names will stand so high as Poole’s in the Biblical scholarship of Great Britain.
Matthew Poole’s Commentary:
“The love of Christ signifieth either that love towards the sons of men which was in Christ before the foundation of the world; for even then (as Solomon telleth us, Proverbs 8:31) he was rejoicing in the habitable part of the earth, and his delight was with the sons of men: which love showed itself in time, in his coming and assuming our natures, and dying upon the cross for us; John 15:13: Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. Or else it signifieth that habit of love to Christ, which is in every believer; for it is true of either of these, that they constrain a believer’s soul.
Because (saith the apostle) we thus account, or reason, that if one died for all. All here is interpreted according to the various notions of men, about the extent of the death of Christ. Some by the term understanding all individuals; some, all the elect, or all those that should believe in Christ; others, some of all nations, Jews or Gentiles. Be it as it will, that point is not to be determined by this universal particle, which is as often in Scripture used in a restrained sense, as in a more general sense. The apostle here concludeth,
that if one died for all, then were all dead; which is to be understood of a spiritual death, as Ephesians 2:1. And the apostle’s argument dependeth upon this, that if all, for whom Christ died, had not been dead in sin, there then had been no need of his dying for to expiate their sin, and to redeem them from the guilt and power of it; but be they what they would, for whom Christ died, whether all individuals, or all the elect only, his dying for them was a manifest evidence that they were dead.
And he died for all those for whom he died, not only to redeem them from the guilt of sin, but also from their vain conversation; that they which live by his grace, might not make themselves the end of their life, and live to serve themselves, and gratify their own corrupt inclinations; but might make the service of Christ, the honour and glory of him who died for them, and also rose again from the dead, the end of their lives; arguing the reasonableness of a holy and Christian life, from the love and end of Christ in dying for them; according to that, Romans 14:7,8: For none of us, liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself. For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live, therefore, or die, we are the Lord’s. This is one way by which a believer fetcheth strength from the death of Christ to die unto sin, and from his resurrection to live unto newness of life; he concluding: If Christ died, and rose again for him, that then he was once dead in trespasses and sins; and therefore he judgeth himself obliged, now that he is made spiritually alive, not to live to himself, or serve his own profit, honour, reputation, lusts, or passions, but to live in obedience to him, and to the honour and glory of him, who died to redeem him from the guilt and power of sin, and rose again to quicken him to newness of life and conversation, to the honour and glory of his Redeemer.” (1)
The contemporary Simon J. Kistemaker:
Simon J. Kistemaker was a New Testament scholar. He served as Professor of New Testament at Reformed Theological Seminary. Kistemaker studied at Calvin College and Calvin Theological Seminary before obtaining a Th.D. from the Free University in Amsterdam. – Wikipedia
Simon J. Kistemaker, New Testament Commentary:
“14. For the love of Christ controls us, because we are convinced that one died for all. Thus all died.
The brevity of this verse need not diminish its pertinent message. These few words present the gospel that must be understood in the context of this chapter. Paul opposes the intruders and reminds the members of the Corinthian church of his faithfulness toward them as a minister of that gospel. Fully aware of the discord the intruders cause, he seeks to remove the conflict by reminding his readers of the gospel of Christ.
a. “For the love of Christ controls us.” The connection between the preceding verse and this one is clear. Paul is in his right mind as he preaches the gospel of salvation. That gospel demonstrates the indescribable love of Christ toward his people.
The New Testament employs the expression the love of Christ only three times: Paul asks the rhetorical question, “Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?” (Rom. 8:35); he refers to the dimensions of Christ’s love and states that it surpasses human knowledge (Eph. 3:18–19); and he notes that the love of Christ controls us (v. 14). God originates this love, for he sent his one and only Son to redeem sinners (John 3:16; Rom. 5:8). He elects his people in love and makes them more than conquerors through Jesus Christ (Rom. 1:7; 8:37).
Some translators supply an objective genitive in this sentence: “our love for Christ.” But most scholars understand the phrase as a subjective genitive: the love that Christ has for us. We are not saying that Christ’s love for us does not elicit our love for him, but the intent of this verse is to reveal Christ’s death as evidence of his love.
The Greek verb synechei, which I have translated “controls,” reveals some variations. Here are a few representative versions:
“The love of Christ impels us” “For Christ’s love compels us” “For the love of Christ urges us on” “For the love of Christ overwhelms us” “For the love of Christ lays hold of us.”
The significance of this Greek verb is that Paul and all believers are completely dominated by the love of Christ, so that they live for him. As Paul writes elsewhere, “I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me” (Gal. 2:20). As for Paul himself, he states that Christ controls him. And this claim his opponents can never utter, for they are governed not by Christ but by their own ambitions.
b. “Because we are convinced that one died for all. Thus all died.” The clause one died for all, which eloquently expresses Christ’s love, is the gospel in summary—perhaps a creedal statement of the early church. We acclaim the truth of this statement, because all Scripture testifies to it (refer to 1 Cor. 15:3). It is by reading God’s Word that we come to this conclusion.
That Christ died on Calvary’s cross is fact; that he died for all is gospel. But how do we explain the two terms for and all?
First, let us take the preposition for (Greek, hyper). It occurs in John 11:50, where the high priest Caiaphas suggests to the Sanhedrin that he would rather see one man die for the people than to see the whole nation perish. The preposition hyper with reference to Christ’s death means substitution, as for example in the words of the institution of the Lord’s Supper, “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many” (Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20). Christ gave his body for his followers (Luke 22:19; 1 Cor. 11:24; and see John 6:51). He suffered and died for sinners (1 Peter 2:21; 3:18); and he laid down his life for his own (1 John 3:16). In the statement, “Christ died for our sins” (1 Cor. 15:3), the term hyper conveys the meaning that Jesus is both our representative and substitute. Christ represents us by pleading our cause before the Father (1 John 2:1), and he is our substitute by taking our place and being the bearer of our sins (v. 21). Similarly, “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, by becoming a curse for us” (Gal. 3:13). When the preposition hyper occurs in the context of Christ’s death, it signifies substitution. Hence, the fact that Christ lifted the curse from humanity through his death is indeed a summary of the gospel.
Next, the adjective all occurs twice in this verse and once in verse 15. Does Paul have in mind that Christ died for every human being? Or is he referring to every believer? We can say that the atoning death of Christ is sufficient for all people but efficient for all true believers. Jesus elected Judas Iscariot to be one of the twelve disciples, yet he calls him “a devil” and describes him as “the one doomed to destruction” (John 6:70; 17:12). Only those who appropriate Christ’s death in faith are included in the word all. We must examine, therefore, the usage of the word first in Paul’s epistles and then in verses 14 and 15. Thereafter we can fully appreciate the meaning of this passage.
The use of “all” in Paul’s letters does not always mean universality. The apostle refuted the Corinthian motto “All things are permissible” (1 Cor. 6:12; 10:23) in the contexts of sexual immorality and of food offered to idols. And Paul’s statement “For all things are yours” (1 Cor. 3:21) appears in his discussion about earthly and heavenly wisdom. As always, the context determines the sense of a given expression.
If we look closely at the wording of verses 14 and 15, we notice that the expression all is modified by three persons or qualities: the governing love of Christ, the pronoun us, and those who live for him. Christ died for all who believe in him, for faith is an essential element in the believer’s redemption. To all true believers Christ extends his redeeming love. Although the pronoun us often refers to Paul and his co-workers, here it is broad enough to embrace all Christ’s followers.
In addition, this text must be explained in harmony with similar passages (Rom. 5:18; 1 Cor. 15:22). Only those who have true faith in Christ Jesus receive eternal life, are reconciled to God, and are justified. Those who have died with Christ are recipients of eternal life (Rom. 6:8). They are the ones who are united with him in his death and resurrection and are alive to God.
“Thus all died” is a brief statement that appears self-evident, if not superfluous. But the statement is a continuation of the preceding clause: “one died for all.” There the verb to die has a literal meaning that alludes to Christ’s physical death on the cross. Here that same verb may be taken in a figurative sense, namely, the removal of the curse of death (Gen. 2:17; 3:17–19; Gal. 3:13). Hence, the death of all who died points to the death that Christ, as both their representative and substitute, experienced for all his people. I make three observations: Paul draws a consequence from the previous clause by saying thus in “thus all died”; next, the Greek literally says “the all” to specify a particular group; and last, the verb died in this short clause shows the past tense and single action. The action occurred at Calvary but its significance is for the present.
In other places, Paul pointedly states that God delivered his Son for us all (Rom. 8:32); now he also seems to say, “Christ died for us all.” All who have died metaphorically at the cross died with him, for Christ and his people are one body (1 Cor. 12:27; Eph. 1:23; Col. 1:18, 24). On the cross of Calvary, Christ Jesus delivered the deathblow to death and set his people free from the bondage of sin (Rom. 6:6–7).
15. And he died for all, so that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised.
a. “And he died for all.” With the conjunction and, Paul repeats the words of verse 14. He returns to the literal use of the verb to die to indicate the death of Christ at Golgotha. But the short clause that features the word all is explained by a lengthy sentence.
b. “So that those who live might no longer live for themselves.” The purpose of Christ’s redemptive work is that his people, set free from the curse of sin, now enjoy life in fellowship with him. They are no longer spiritually dead but are the recipients of new life in Christ. Selfish goals and ambitions are set aside, because believers’ purpose now is to live for the One who died for them. Says Paul, “For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord” (Rom. 14:7–8).
c. “But for him who died for them and was raised.” In Greek, the stress is on the phrase for them, a phrase that is placed emphatically between “for him who” and “died and was raised.” Paul calls attention to this phrase and intends it as an explanation of the preceding clause (“and he died for all”). He states that Christ died and was raised for those people who now live for him and produce spiritual fruit (Rom. 6:11; 7:4). Through his death, Christ set them free from the power of this world. And through his resurrection, he places them under his dominion to have them serve him as citizens in his kingdom.
Lastly, the two concepts died and raised are intimately related to the phrase for them and govern it. It is one thing to say that Christ died as our substitute, but to say that he was raised as our substitute is inexact. Accordingly, with respect to his resurrection, Christ is our forerunner (Phil. 3:21). God raised him from the dead with the intent that we too shall be like him. Christ is the firstfruits of the resurrection harvest (1 Cor. 15:20, 49).” (2)
John Murray:
Professor John Murray (1898-1975) recognized in his lifetime as one of the leading Reformed theologians in the English-speaking world. In 1929, he was invited to teach Systematic Theology at Princeton, and did so for one year, before joining the Faculty of the newly formed Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia. There he shared with such scholars and Christian leaders as J. Gresham Machen and Cornelius Van Til in the great struggle to maintain the old Princeton tradition in theology, represented by the Hodges and B. B. Warfield. John Murray remained at Westminster until his retirement in 1966.
John Murray’s Elucidation of 2Corinthians 5:14-15:
“The second biblical argument that we may adduce in support of the doctrine of definite atonement is that drawn from the fact that those for whom Christ died have themselves also died in Christ. In the New Testament, the more common way of representing the relation of believers to the death of Christ is to say that Christ died for them.
But there is also the strand of teaching to the effect that they died in Christ (cf. Rom 6:3-11; 2 Cor. 5:14; Eph. 2:4-7; Col 3:3). There can be no doubt respecting the proposition that all for whom Christ died also died in Christ. For Paul says explicitly, “one died for all: therefore all died” (2 Cor. 5:14) – there is denotative equation.
The significant feature of this teaching of the apostle for rest is, however, that all who died in Christ rose again with him. This also Paul states explicitly. “But if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him, knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more, death hath no more dominion over him” (Rom. 6:8, 9).
Just as Christ died and rose again, so all who died in him rose again in him. And when we ask the question what this rising again in Christ involves, Paul leaves us in no doubt – it is a rising again to newness of life … (Rom 6:4, 5; 2 Cor. 5:14; Col 3:3).
To die with Christ is, therefore, to die to sin and to rise with him to the life of new obedience, to live not to ourselves but to him who died for us and rose again. The inference is inevitable that those for whom Christ died are those and those only who die to sin and live to righteousness. Now it is a plain fact that not all die to sin and live in newness of life. Hence, we cannot say that all men distributively died with Christ. And neither can we say that Christ died for all men, for the simple reason that all for whom Christ died also died in Christ. If we cannot say that Christ died for all men, neither can we say that the atonement is universal – it is the death of Christ for men that specifically constitutes the atonement…
In concluding our discussion of the extent of the atonement it may be well to reflect upon one or two passages which have frequently been appealed to as settling the debate in favour of universal atonement. 2 Corinthians 5:14, 15 is one of these. On two occasions in this text, Paul says that Christ “died for all.” But that this expression is not to be understood as distributively universal can be shown by the terms of the passage itself when interpreted in the light of Paul’s teaching.
We have found already that according to Paul’s teaching all for whom Christ died also died in Christ. He states that truth emphatically – “one died for all: therefore all died.” But elsewhere he makes perfectly plain that those who died in Christ rise again with him (Rom 6:8). Although this latter truth is not stated in so many words in this passage, it is surely implied in the words, “he (Christ) died for all in order that those who live should not henceforth live unto themselves but unto him who died for them and rose again.” …
Hence, those referred to as “those who live” must have the same extent as those embraced in the preceding clause, “he died for all.” And since “those who live” do not embrace the whole human race, neither can the “all” referred to in the clause, “he died for all” embrace the entire human family. Corroboration is derived from the concluding words of [2 Cor. 5:15], “but to him who died for them and rose again.” Here again the death and resurrection of Christ are conjoined and the analogy of Paul’s teaching in similar contexts is to the effect that those who are the beneficiaries of Christ’s death are also of his resurrection and therefore of his resurrection life.
So when Paul says here, “died for them and rose again” the implication is that those for whom he died are those for whom he rose, and those for whom he rose are those who live in newness of life. In terms of Paul’s teaching then and, specifically, in terms of the import of this passage we cannot interpret the “for all” of 2 Corinthians 5:14, 15 as distributively universal. So far from lending support to the doctrine of universal atonement this text does the opposite.” (3)
John Gill:
John Gill (23 November 1697 – 14 October 1771) was an English Baptist pastor, biblical scholar, and theologian who held to a firm Calvinistic soteriology. Born in Kettering, Northamptonshire, he attended Kettering Grammar School, where he mastered the Latin classics and learned Greek by age 11. – Wikipedia
John Gill, Exposition of the Old & New Testaments:
“The persons for whom Christ died are all; not every individual of mankind, but all his people, all his sheep, all the members of his church, or all the sons he, as the great Captain of salvation, brings to glory. Wherefore this text does not make for the doctrine of general redemption; for it should be observed, that it does not say that Christ died for “all men”, but for “all”; and so, agreeably to the Scriptures, may be understood of all the persons mentioned. Moreover, in the latter part of the text it is said, that those for whom Christ died, for them he rose again; he died for no more, nor for others, than those for whom he rose again: now those for whom he rose again, he rose for their justification; wherefore, if Christ rose for the justification of all men, all would be justified, or the end of Christ’s resurrection would not be answered; but all men are not, nor will they be justified, some will be condemned; hence it follows, that Christ did not rise from the dead for all men, and consequently did not die for all men: besides, the “all” for whom Christ died, died with him, and through his death are dead both to the law and sin; and he died for them, that they might live, not to themselves, but to him; neither of which are true of all the individuals of mankind: to which may be added, that the context explains the all of such who are in Christ, are new creatures, are reconciled to God, whose trespasses are not imputed to them, for whom Christ was made sin, and who are made the righteousness of God in him; which cannot be said of all men.” (4)
The following Scriptures establish this restriction or limitation in greater precision:
“Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions; he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.” (Isaiah 53:4-5)
Christ wounded for our transgressions, not everyone’s.
“He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities. Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.” (Isaiah 53:11-12)
We see explicit qualifiers in the above Isaiah passages that restrict Christ’s death, using words like many (not all) bare their (again, not all).
“And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.” (Matthew 1:21)
Matthew could not be more explicit; Jesus “shall save his people.” Jesus effectively paid for the sins of His people.
“Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.” (Matthew 20:28)
The Son of man came to be “a ransom for many” (not all).
“For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.” (Matthew 26:28)
“And he said unto them; this is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many.” (Mark 14:24)
In these two passages, Christ says His blood is shed “for many” (not everyone). If Christ’s atonement was universal, this type of restrictive language makes no sense.
“I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine. As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.” (John 10:14-15)
Christ lays down His life for “the sheep,” not the goats.
“I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word….I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine….And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them….And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth….Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word….Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.” (John 17:6, 9-10, 19, 20, 24)
Christ’s high priestly intercessory prayer is for those (they) whom the Father had given Him. Not every person who has ever lived or will live.
“And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.” (Acts 13:48)
Only those who were ordained to eternal life believed. Christ’s atoning sacrifice was intended for and effective for those who were ordained to eternal life.
“Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.” (Acts 20:28)
The Church, not the world, is purchased with his own blood.
“He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us [elect] all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?” (Romans 8:32)
God delivered up his Son for us all, the elect.
“But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory.” (1Corinthians 2:7)
“For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” (2Corinthians 5:21)
Christ bears the sins of His people by actually paying for our sins to the satisfaction of the Father.
“In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace.” (Ephesians 1:7)
Our redemption involves delivering us from our sins. Christ’s blood was the redemption price that paid for our salvation, according to the richesof his grace. This redemption is real and effective for those for whom it was intended.
“Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ, also loved the church, and gave himself for it.” (Ephesians 5:25)
Christ gave himself for the His Church, not everyone indiscriminately.
In the above Scriptural passages, it is quite clear that the design of the atonement was limited. Christ died for His people, i.e., the Church. In John chapter seventeen, the intercessory prayer of the Lord Jesus Christ was restricted to His people. It was not a universal prayer for every person on earth.
An objection to this understanding:
The most common argument against the restriction seen in the above passages is verses that speak of Christ’s atoning death in a universal sense, such as 2Corinthians 5:14. In addition, the apostle says he is the propitiation for our: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world in 1John 2:2. The apostle also tells us that Jesus is called the Saviour of the world in John 4:42, and another passage; The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world John 1:29. The apostle Paul also appears to suggest a universal view of the atonement when he says, “Who gave himself a ransom for all” 1Timothy 2:6.
It should be noted, that these verses are easily found to be in harmony with other passages that support the doctrine of limitation or a restriction in the extent of atonement by understanding that the Scriptures use the words; “world,” or “all” many times in a qualified sense. There is nothing in the broader context of Scripture that demands these passages have to mean every person in the whole world.
Understanding this limitation is unmistakable, especially when other Scriptural passages are taken into account that act as qualifiers. For example, we see that; and it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed Luke 2:1, And all went to be taxed, every one into his city Luke 2:3. These passages could not be talking about every individual in the whole world. This decree of Caesar did not pertain to the indigenous Indians in the Americas and to those in Africa. To think so would be absurd.
Moreover, when the Pharisees said, do you see how you can do nothing? Behold, the world is gone after him in John 12:19. Can anyone maintain that every person in the world went after or followed Christ? Clearly, there is a restriction or limit to the word “world.” The word “world” by the context has to be limited to what happening in the nation of Israel during the First-Century. It should be abundantly clear that the word or phrases “all” or “all the world” do not mean every person on the planet. These types of objections fail to mitigate against the limitation of the atonement because it takes certain words out of context by forcing an absolute universal meaning onto the words.
In summary:
Those arguing for a universal atonement when seeing the passage in 2Corinthians, “died for all” presume that “all” refers to all human beings or everyone.
The Corinthian passage can be rendered “One died for all.” Thus, “all died.” If this translation is correct, the passage is saying the same thing as Paul teaches in Roman 5:15.
“But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many.” (Romans 5:15 NASB)
In 2Corinthians 5:14-15, it should be noted that Paul does not say that Christ died for all that were dead, but that all were dead for whom He died.
Those disagreeing with this specific atonement of Christ need to ask themselves if they somehow think this limitation is unfair. What is unfair about “For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion” (Romans 9:15)?
Application:
Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers:
“(15) Should not henceforth live unto themselves.—St. Paul was not writing a theological treatise, and the statement was accordingly not meant to be an exhaustive presentment of all the purposes of God in the death of Christ. It was sufficient to give prominence to the thought that one purpose was that men should share at once His death and His life; should live not in selfishness, but in love; not to themselves, but to Him, as He lived to God. (Comp. Romans 6:9-11; Ephesians 2:5-7.) Now we see the full force of “the love of Christ constraineth us,” and “we love Him because He first loved us.” If He died for us, can we, without shame, frustrate the purpose of His death by not living to Him?” (5)
The purpose of Christ’s death was that the people for which He died, the “all”, may no longer live for themselves, rather, live for Him and in Him who for their sake died and was raised.
Notes:
Matthew Poole’s Commentary on the Holy Bible, 2Corinthians, Vol. 3, (Peabody, Massachusetts, Hendrickson Publishers, 1985) p. 615.
Simon J. Kistemaker, New Testament Commentary, 2Corinthians, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Baker Book House, 1986), p. 186-190.
John Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Eerdmans, 1996), pp. 69-72.
John Gill, Exposition of the Old and New Testaments, 2Corinthians, (Grace Works, Multi-Media Labs, 2011), p. 520.
Charles John Ellicott, Bible Commentary for English Readers, 2Corinthians, Vol.7, (London, England, Cassell and Company), p. 281.
Mr. Kettler has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife Marea attend the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr. Kettler is the author of the book defending the Reformed Faith against attacks, titled: The Religion That Started in a Hat. Available at: www.TheReligionThatStartedInAHat.com
Biblical considerations and other observations about the “Critical race Theory”
“Critical race theory (CRT), the view that the law and legal institutions are inherently racist and that race itself, instead of being biologically grounded and natural, is a socially constructed concept that is used by white people to further their economic and political interests at the expense of people of colour. According to critical race theory (CRT), racial inequality emerges from the social, economic, and legal differences that white people create between “races” to maintain elite white interests in labour markets and politics, giving rise to poverty and criminality in many minority communities.” – Britannica.
The theory has been misnamed. It is anything but critical. The contradictory or confused race theory would be much more apropos.
For example, how does this theory work, and who is the guilty race in Mexico, Africa, Saudi Arabia, Japan, and China?
The demographics of a country are a more natural explanation employment disparities than intentional racism.
A quick Scriptural refutation of the hypocrisy of the CRT:
“Surely there is not a righteous man on earth who does good and never sins.” (Ecclesiastes 7:20 ESV)
“The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?” (Jeremiah 17:9 ESV)
“As it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one.” (Romans 3:10 ESV)
“For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” (Romans 3:23 ESV)
“And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.” (Matthew 7:3-5 KJV)
Speaking with familiarity with how church discipline works in Presbyterian Churches if any member is caught spreading CRT, they should have the Matthew 18 process begun immediately. The process starts with the local session, then moves to the regional Presbytery, and if needed, then to the General Assembly.
“Moreover, if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglects to hear the church, let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican.” (Matthew 18:15-17 KJV)
The fruit of the CRT is sowing disunity in the Church of Christ and the body politic.
The CRT is a sophisticated but sub intellectual insidious form of sin. It should be cast out the church and individuals promoting this sin, called to repentance. Mr. Kettler has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife Marea attend the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr. Kettler is the author of the book defending the Reformed Faith against attacks, titled: The Religion That Started in a Hat. Available at: THERELIGIONTHATSTARTEDINAHAT.COM
A Devotional Study on Psalm 119:11 by Jack Kettler
“Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee.” (Psalm 119:11 KJV)
Using the older King James Version, we have the use of “hid” in Psalm 119:11. What does this hiding mean? Does this contradict other passages in Scripture about not hiding our faith?
For example, the gospel of Matthew tells us not to hide our light under a bushel, which means not to mask, conceal, or bury our talents and gifts given by God. “Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a basket. Instead, they set it on a lampstand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven.” (Matthew 5:15-16 Berean Study Bible)
In Matthew, we see Jesus unequivocally telling believers not to hide their faith.
However, in Psalm 119:11, the hiding of God’s Word is a good thing. Lexical help will surely be profitable to understand this seeming ambiguity.
From Strong’s Lexicon, we learn more about the Hebrew word צָפַ֣נְתִּי(hidden, hid)and its range of meaning:
I have hidden
צָפַ֣נְתִּי (ṣā·p̄an·tî)
Verb – Qal – Perfect – first person common singular
Strong’s Hebrew 6845: 1) to hide, treasure, treasure or store up 1a) (Qal) 1a1) to hide, treasure, treasure up 1a2) to lie hidden, lurk 1b) (Niphal) to be hidden, be stored up 1c) (Hiphil) to hide, hide from discovery
The lexicon is helpful, allowing us to see that hiding can be storing up or to treasure up, is a good thing.
There is a wrong kind of hiding God’s Word, alluded to in Psalm 40:10:
“I have not hid thy righteousness within my heart…” (Psalm 40:10 KJV)
The Psalmist declares in the first part of Psalm 40:10 that he has not hidden God’s righteousness. Hiding God’s Word would be analogous to putting the light of the gospel under a basket or bushel.
In the Psalm 40:10 passage, the Psalmist states that he has not concealed or hid God’s Word.
As seen from these two passages from Psalms, there are two types of hiding, one good and one wrong. David did not conceal in his heart; God’s righteousness. He did not keep it to himself. On the contrary, he declared God’s righteousness.
The next parallel passages from the New Testament gives a full understanding of the Psalmist’s use of “hid” in Psalm 119:11 by comparison with a similar New Testament word:
“But Mary treasured (συνετήρει) up all these things and pondered them in her heart.” (Luke 2:19 NIV)
“But Mary kept (συνετήρει) all these things, and pondered them in her heart.” (Luke 2:19 (KJV)
From Strong’s Lexicon, we learn about the Greek word συνετήρει (treasured) and its similar range of meaning as the Hebrew צָפַ֣נְתִּי. (hidden). In fact, Psalm 119:11 is listed as a parallel passage to Luke 2:19:
treasured up
συνετήρει (synetērei)
Verb – Imperfect Indicative Active – 3rd Person Singular
Strong’s Greek 4933: From sun and tereo; to keep closely together, i.e. to conserve; mentally, to remember.
The second part of Psalm 40:10 is positive and reads: “I have declared thy faithfulness and thy salvation: I have not concealed thy lovingkindness and thy truth from the great congregation” (KJV)
Likewise, the second part of 119:11 reads: “that I might not sin against thee.” (Psalm 119:11 KJV)
Why did he hide it?
The hiding or treasuring up in 119:11 is for a moral or righteous purpose, namely, “that I might not sin against thee.” Storing God’s Word in the heart is a protection against the enticement to sin.
In closing:
From Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible:
“Thy word have I hid in mine heart, Not only heard and read it, but received it into his affections; mixed it with faith, laid it up in his mind and memory for future use; preserved it in his heart as a choice treasure, where it might dwell richly, and be of service to him on many occasions; and particularly be of the following use:
that I might not sin against thee; the word of God is a most powerful antidote against sin, when it has a place in the heart; not only the precepts of it forbid sin, but the promises of it influence and engage to purity of heart and life, and to the perfecting of holiness in the fear of the Lord; and all the doctrines of grace in it effectually teach the saints to deny all sin and worldly lusts, and to live a holy life and conversation; see 2 Corinthians 7:1.” (1)
An Exposition of Psalm 119:11 from the Treasury of David by C. H. Spurgeon:
“Verse 11. When a godly man sues for a favour from God he should carefully use every means for obtaining it, and accordingly, as the Psalmist had asked to be preserved from wandering, he here shows us the holy precaution which he had taken to prevent his falling into sin.
Thy word have I hid in mine heart. His heart would be kept by the word because he kept the word in his heart. All that he had of the word written, and all that had been revealed to him by the voice of God, — all, without exception, he had stored away in his affections, as a treasure to be preserved in a casket, or as a choice seed to be buried in a fruitful soil: what soil more fruitful than a renewed heart, wholly seeking the Lord? The word was God’s own, and therefore precious to God’s servant. He did not wear a text on his heart as a charm, but he hid it in his heart as a rule. He laid it up in the place of love and life, and it filled the chamber with sweetness and light. We must in this imitate David, copying his heart work as well as his outward character. First, we must mind that what we believe is truly God’s word; that being done, we must hide or treasure it each man for himself; and we must see that this is done, not as a mere feat of the memory, but as the joyful act of the affections.
That I might not sin against thee. Here was the object aimed at. As one has well said, — Here is the best thing — “thy word”; hidden in the best place, — “in my heart;” for the best of purposes, — “that I might not sin against thee.” This was done by the Psalmist with personal care, as a man carefully hides away his money when he fears thieves, — in this case the thief dreaded was sin. Sinning “against God” is the believer’s view of moral evil; other men care only when they offend against men. God’s word is the best preventive against offending God, for it tells us his mind and will, and tends to bring our spirit into conformity with the divine Spirit. No cure for sin in the life is equal to the word in the seat of life, which is the heart. There is no hiding from sin unless we hide the truth in our souls.
A very pleasant variety of meaning is obtained by laying stress upon the words “thy” and “thee.” He speaks to God, he loves the word because it is God’s word, and he hates sin because it is sin against God himself. If he vexed others, he minded not so long as he did not offend his God. If we would not cause God displeasure we must treasure up his own word.
The personal way in which the man of God did this is also noteworthy: “With my whole heart have I sought thee.” Whatever others might choose to do he had already made his choice and placed the Word in his innermost soul as his dearest delight, and however others might transgress, his aim was after holiness: “That I might not sin against thee.” This was not what he purposed to do, but what he had already done: many are great at promising, but the Psalmist had been true in performing: hence he hoped to see a sure result. When the word is hidden in the heart the life shall be hidden from sin.
The parallelism between the second octave and the first is still continued. Psalms 119:3 speaks of doing no iniquity, while this verse treats of the method of not sinning. When we form an idea of a blessedly holy man ( Psalms 119:3 ) it becomes us to make an earnest effort to attain unto the same sacred innocence and divine happiness, and this can only be through heart piety founded on the Scriptures.
EXPLANATORY NOTES AND QUAINT SAYINGS
Verse 11. Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee. There laid up in the heart the word has effect. When young men only read the letter of the Book, the word of promise and instruction is deprived of much of its power. Neither will the laying of it up in the mere memory avail. The word must be known and prized, and laid up in the heart; it must occupy the affection as well as the understanding; the whole mind requires to be impregnated with the word of God. Revealed things require to be seen. Then the word of God in the heart — the threatenings, the promises, the excellencies of God’s word — and God himself realized, the young man would be inwardly fortified; the understanding enlightened, conscience quickened — he would not sin against his God. John Stephen.
Verse 11. Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee. In proportion as the word of the King is present in the heart, “there is power” against sin (Ec 8:4). Let us use this means of absolute power more, and more life and more holiness will be ours. Frances Ridley Havergal, 1836-1879.
Verse 11. Thy word have I hid in mine heart. It is fit that the word, being “more precious than gold, yea, than much fine gold,” a peerless pearl, should not be laid up in the porter’s lodge only — the outward ear; but even in the cabinet of the mind. Dean Boys, quoted by James Ford.
Verse 11. Thy word have I hid in mine heart. There is great difference between Christians and worldlings. The worldling hath his treasures in jewels without him; the Christian hath them within. Neither indeed is there any receptacle wherein to receive and keep the word of consolation but the heart only. If thou have it in thy mouth only, it shall be taken from thee; if thou have it in thy book only, Thou shalt miss it when thou hast most to do with it; but if thou lay it up in thy heart, as Mary did the words of the angel, no enemy shall ever be able to take it from thee, and thou shalt find it’s comfortable treasure in time of thy need. William Cowper.
Verse 11. Thy word have I hid in mine heart. This saying, to hide, imports that David studied not to be ambitious to set forth himself and to make a glorious show before men; but that he had God for a witness of that secret desire which was within him. He never looked to worldly creatures; but being content that he had so great a treasure, he knew full well that God who had given it him would so surely and safely guard it, as that it should not be laid open to Satan to be taken away. Saint Paul also declareth unto us (1Ti 1:19) that the chest wherein this treasure must be hid is a good conscience. For it is said, that many being void of this good conscience have lost also their faith, and have been robbed thereof. As if a man should forsake his goods and put them in hazard, without shutting a door, it were an easy matter for thieves to come in and to rob and spoil him of all; even so, if we leave at random to Satan the treasures which God hath given us in his word, without it be hidden in this good conscience, and in the very bottom of, our heart as David here speaketh, we shall be spoiled thereof. John Calvin.
Verse 11. Thy word have I hid in mine heart. — Remembered, approved, delighted in it. William Nicholson on (1671), in “David’s Harp Strung and Tuned.”
Verse 11. Thy word. The saying, thy oracle; any communication from God to the soul, whether promise, or command, or answer. It means a direct and distinct message, while “word” is more general, and applies to the whole revelation. This is the ninth of the ten words referring to the revelation of God in this Psalm. James G. Murphy, 1875.
Verse 11. In my heart. Bernard observes, bodily bread in the cupboard may he eaten of mice, or moulder and waste: but when it is taken down into the body, it is free from such danger. If God enable thee to take thy soul food into thine heart, it is free from all hazards. George Swinnock, 1627-1673.
Verse 11. That I might not sin against thee. Among many excellent virtues of the word of God, this is one: that if we keep it in our heart, it keeps us from sin, which is against God and against ourselves. We may mark it by experience, that the word is first stolen either out of the mind of man, and the remembrance of it is away; or at least out of the affection of man; so that the reverence of it is gone, before that a man can be drawn to the committing of a sin. So long as Eve kept by faith the word of the Lord, she resisted Satan; but from the time she doubted of that, which God made most certain by his word, at once she was snared. William Cowper.
HINTS FOR PASTORS AND LAYPERSONS
Verse 11. — The best thing, in the best place, for the best of purposes.” (2)
“The Bane and Antidote of Souls
I. THE BANE of souls. What is the bane? Sin. A little word, but a terrible thing. The Bible represents it as a slavery, a disease a pollution, a poison, etc. It is loathsome to the Creator; it is the curse of the creature. This is the bane.
II. The ANTIDOTE of souls. God’s Word contains the power, and the only power, to destroy sin. (Homilist.)” (3)
Notes:
John Gill, Exposition of the Old and New Testaments, Psalms, (Grace Works, Multi-Media Labs, 2011), p. 1375.
C. H. Spurgeon, The Treasury of David, Vol. II, (Nashville, Tennessee, Thomas Nelson), p. 165-166.
David Thomas, The Homilist; or, The pulpit for the people, (England, Wentworth Press), p. 383.
“To God, only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ forever. Amen.” (Romans 16:27) and “heirs according to the promise.” (Galatians 3:28, 29)
Mr. Kettler has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife Marea attend the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr. Kettler is the author of the book defending the Reformed Faith against attacks, titled: The Religion That Started in a Hat. Available at: THERELIGIONTHATSTARTEDINAHAT.COM
An Exegetical Study of Romans 8:30 by Jack Kettler
Importantcontext:
“And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.” (Romans 8:28)
“For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.” (Romans 8:29)
“Moreover, whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.” (Romans 8:30)
In the following interlinear layout of the verse, there is the Strong’s number followed by the transliteration of the Greek word, then the Greek word itself, and finally the English words.
Those whom then He predestined these also He called also whom He called these also He justified whom
161 1344 3778 2532 1392
de edikaiōsen toutous kai edoxasen
δὲ ἐδικαίωσεν , τούτους καὶ ἐδόξασεν .
then He justified these also He glorified
In Romans, 3:30 the Aorist Indicative Active verb tense used four times.
The Aorist Indicative Active tense is used for an action that has already been completed in the past with an expectancy of future certainty. Said another way, this tense uses the past tense for the present or future time.
It will be profitable to look at the four instances of the aorist indicative active tense in Romans 8:30 along with Reformed confessional definitions of predestination, calling, justification, and glorification along with a Scripture citation, and dictionary entries.
Strong’s Lexicon
He predestined
προώρισεν (proōrisen) 4309
Verb – Aorist Indicative Active – 3rd Person Singular
Strong’s Greek 4309: To foreordain, predetermine, mark out beforehand. From pro and horizo; to limit in advance, i.e. predetermine.
WESTMINSTER CONFESSION III. Of God’s Eternal Decree:
1. God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.
2. Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions; yet hath He not decreed anything because He foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions.
3. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death.
4. These angels and men, thus predestinated and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed; and their number is so certain and definite that it cannot be either increased or diminished.
5. Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to His eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of His will, hath chosen in Christ, unto everlasting glory, out of His mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving Him thereunto; and all to the praise of His glorious grace.
6. As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath He, by the eternal and most free purpose of His will, foreordained all the means thereunto. Wherefore they who are elected being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ, are effectually called unto faith in Christ by His Spirit working in due season; are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by His power through faith unto salvation. Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.
7. The rest of mankind, God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will, whereby He extendeth or withholdeth mercy as He pleaseth, for the glory of His sovereign power over His creatures, to pass by, and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of His glorious justice.
“Just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will.” (Ephesians 1:4-6)
Easton’s Bible Dictionary on Predestination:
“This word is properly used only with reference to God’s plan or purpose of salvation. The Greek word rendered “predestinate” is found only in these six passages, Acts 4:28; Romans 8:29 Romans 8:30; 1 Corinthians 2:7; Ephesians 1:5 Ephesians 1:11; and in all of them it has the same meaning. They teach that the eternal, sovereign, immutable, and unconditional decree or “determinate purpose” of God governs all events.
This doctrine of predestination or election is beset with many difficulties. It belongs to the “secret things” of God. But if we take the revealed word of God as our guide, we must accept this doctrine with all its mysteriousness, and settle all our questionings in the humble, devout acknowledgment, “Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight.”
For the teaching of Scripture on this subject let the following passages be examined in addition to those referred to above; Genesis 21:12; Exodus 9:16; 33:19; Deuteronomy 10:15; 32:8; Joshua 11:20; 1Samuel 12:22; 2Chronicles 6:6; Psalms 33:12; 65:4; 78:68; 135:4; Isaiah 41:1-10; Jeremiah 1:5; Mark 13:20; Luke 22:22; John 6:37; 15:16; John 17:2 John 17:6 John 17:9; Acts 2:28; 3:18; 4:28; 13:48; 17:26; Romans 9:11 Romans 9:18 Romans 9:21; 11:5; Ephesians 3:11; 1Thessalonians 1:4; 2Thessalonians 2:13; 2Tim 1:9; Titus 1:2; 1Peter 1:2. (See DECREES OF GOD; ELECTION.)
Hodge has well remarked that, ‘rightly understood, this doctrine (1) exalts the majesty and absolute sovereignty of God, while it illustrates the riches of his free grace and his just displeasure with sin.
It enforces upon us the essential truth that salvation is entirely of grace. That no one can either complain if passed over, or boast himself if saved.
It brings the inquirer to absolute self-despair and the cordial embrace of the free offer of Christ.
In the case of the believer who has the witness in himself, this doctrine at once deepens his humility and elevates his confidence to the full assurance of hope.’” (1)
Strong’s Lexicon
He called
ἐκάλεσεν (ekalesen) 2564
Verb – Aorist Indicative Active – 3rd Person Singular
Strong’s Greek 2564: (a) I call, summon, invite, (b) I call, name. Akin to the base of keleuo; to ‘call’.
Westminster Chapter X of Effectual Calling:
i. All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, He is pleased in His appointed and accepted time effectually to call, by His Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death, in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ; enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God; taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them a heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and by His almighty power determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ: yet so, as they come most freely, being made willing by His grace.
“Blessed is the man whom thou choosest, and causest to approach unto thee, that he may dwell in thy courts: we shall be satisfied with the goodness of thy house, even of thy holy temple.” (Psalm 65:4)
Baker’s Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology on Calling:
“Election. “Call” is one of the biblical words associated with the theme of election. In both Hebrew and Greek, “call” can be used in the sense of “naming” (Gen 2:19; Luke 1:13), and in biblical thought to give a name to something or someone was to bestow an identity. Names often encapsulated a message about the person concerned (Ruth 1:20-21; John 1:42; cf. Matt 16:18). When God is the one who bestows names, the action is almost equivalent to creation: “Who created all these? He who brings out the starry host one by one, and calls them each by name. Because of his great power and mighty strength, not one of them is missing” (Isa 40:26).
This theme is developed particularly in Isaiah 40-55, which forms an important background to the New Testament use of the term. The creative “calling” of the stars is matched by the “calling” of Abraham, which meant both the summons to leave Ur and the call to be the father of Israel: “When I called him he was but one, and I blessed him and made him many” (51:2). Similarly Israel the nation has been called-“I took you from the ends of the earth, from its farthest corners I called you” (41:9; cf. 48:12)-and this means that they are “called by my name … created for my glory” (43:7; cf. Hos 1:10). God has bestowed his own name upon Israel as part of the creative act that made Israel his own elect people. Now also the Servant of the Lord has been “called” to be the Savior of the world (42:6; 49:1); and so has Cyrus, to be the instrument of judgment of Babylon (48:15).
Thus in Isaiah “call” brings together the ideas of naming, election, ownership, and appointment, as the word is used with different nuances in different contexts. It connotes the creative word of God, by which he Acts effectively within the world.” Stephen Miller (2)
Strong’s Lexicon
He [also] justified,
ἐδικαίωσεν (edikaiōsen) 1344
Verb – Aorist Indicative Active – 3rd Person Singular
Strong’s Greek 1344: From dikaioo, to render just or innocent.
Concerning justification, the Westminster Confession of Faith reads:
Those of whom God effectually calleth, he also freely justifieth: not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ’s sake alone; not by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them, they receiving and resting on him and his righteousness by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God.
“A man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ.” (Galatians 2:16)
Easton’s Bible Dictionary on Justification:
“Justification
A forensic term, opposed to condemnation. As regards its nature, it is the judicial act of God, by which he pardons all the sins of those who believe in Christ, and accounts, accepts, and treats them as righteous in the eye of the law, i.e., as conformed to all its demands. In addition to the pardon (q.v.) of sin, justification declares that all the claims of the law are satisfied in respect of the justified. It is the act of a judge and not of a sovereign. The law is not relaxed or set aside, but is declared to be fulfilled in the strictest sense; and so the person justified is declared to be entitled to all the advantages and rewards arising from perfect obedience to the law (Romans 5:1-10).
It proceeds on the imputing or crediting to the believer by God himself of the perfect righteousness, active and passive, of his Representative and Surety, Jesus Christ (Romans 10:3-9). Justification is not the forgiveness of a man without righteousness, but a declaration that he possesses a righteousness which perfectly and forever satisfies the law, namely, Christ’s righteousness (2Corinthians 5:21; Romans 4:6-8).
The sole condition on which this righteousness is imputed or credited to the believer is faith in or on the Lord Jesus Christ. Faith is called a “condition,” not because it possesses any merit, but only because it is the instrument, the only instrument by which the soul appropriates or apprehends Christ and his righteousness (Romans 1:17; Romans 3:25 Romans 3:26; Romans 4:20 Romans 4:22; Philippians 3:8-11; Galatians 2:16).
The act of faith, which thus secures our justification, secures also at the same time our sanctification (q.v.); and thus the doctrine of justification by faith does not lead to licentiousness (Romans 6:2-7). Good works, while not the ground, are the certain consequence of justification (6:14; 7:6). (See GALATIANS, EPISTLE TO.)” (3)
Strong’s Lexicon
He also glorified.
ἐδόξασεν (edoxasen) 1392
Verb – Aorist Indicative Active – 3rd Person Singular
Strong’s Greek 1392: To glorify, honor, to bestow glory on. From doxa, to render glorious.
The Westminster Shorter Catechism question 38 states:
Q: What benefits do believers receive from Christ at the resurrection?
A: At the resurrection, believers being raised up in glory, shall be openly acknowledged and acquitted in the Day of Judgment, and made perfectly blessed in the full enjoying of God, to all eternity.
“And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. And this is the will of him that sent me, that everyone which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.” (John 6:39, 40)
“And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.” (Revelation 21:4)
Glorify from International Standard Bible Encyclopedia:
“Glorify
glo’-ri-fi: The English word is the equivalent of a number of Hebrew and Greek words whose essential significance is discussed more fully under the word GLORY (which see). The word “glorious” in the phrases “make or render glorious” is used most frequently as a translation of verbs in the original, rather than of genuine adjectives. In dealing with the verb, it will be sufficient to indicate the following most important uses.
(1) Men may glorify God, that is, give to Him the worship and reverence which are His due (Isa 24:15; 25:3; Ps 22:23; Da 5:23; Sirach 43:30; Mt 5:16, and generally in the Synoptic Gospels and in some other passages of the New Testament).
(2) God, Yahweh (Yahweh), glorifies His people, His house, and in the New Testament, His Son, manifesting His approval of them and His interest in them, by His interposition on their behalf (Isa 55:5; Jer 30:19; The Wisdom of Solomon 18:8; Sirach 45:3; Joh 7:39, and often in the Fourth Gospel).
(3) By a usage which is practically confined to the Old Testament, Yahweh glorifies Himself, that is, secures the recognition of His honor and majesty, by His direction of the course of history, or by His interposition in history, either the history of His own people or of the world at large (Le 10:3; Isa 26:15; Eze 28:22; Hag 1:8). Walter R. Betteridge” Walter R. Betteridge (4)
A sample of cross-references to illustrate additional usages of the Aorist Indicative Active tense:
Matthew 3:17:
“And suddenly a voice came from heaven, saying, ‘This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.’”
Strong’s Lexicon
I am well pleased !
εὐδόκησα (eudokēsa)
Verb – Aorist Indicative Active – 1st Person Singular
Strong’s Greek 2106: To be well-pleased, think it good, be resolved. From eu and dokeo, to think well of, i.e. Approve, specially, to approbate.
Matthew 12:28:
“But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, surely the kingdom of God has come upon you.”
Strong’s Lexicon
has come
ἔφθασεν (ephthasen)
Verb – Aorist Indicative Active – 3rd Person Singular
Strong’s Greek 5348: Apparently a primary verb; to be beforehand, i.e. Anticipate or precede; by extension, to have arrived at.
Romans 9:23:
“And that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory.”
Strong’s Lexicon
He prepared in advance
προητοίμασεν (proētoimasen)
Verb – Aorist Indicative Active – 3rd Person Singular
Strong’s Greek 4282: To prepare or appoint beforehand, predestine. From pro and hetoimazo; to fit up in advance.
1Corinthians 2:7:
“But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages for our glory,”
Strong’s Lexicon
Destined [ordained]
προώρισεν (proōrisen)
Verb – Aorist Indicative Active – 3rd Person Singular
Strong’s Greek 4309: To foreordain, predetermine, mark out beforehand. From pro and horizo, to limit in advance, i.e. predetermine.
Ephesians 2:6:
“And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus.”
[God] raised [us] up with [Christ]
συνήγειρεν (synēgeiren)
Verb – Aorist Indicative Active – 3rd Person Singular
Strong’s Greek 4891: To raise along with. From sun and egeiro, to rouse in company with, i.e. to revivify in resemblance to.
Paul’s argument in Romans 8:30 is distinctive. This argument has been referred to as the golden-chain-of- salvation and has a long tradition. What is meant by this?
William Hendriksen explains this concerning Paul’s argument in the Romans passage calling it The Salvation Chain:
“The Salvation Chain
When Paul states that to those who love God and are called according to his purpose all things work together for good, he is not thinking only of those things that can be seen round about us now, or those events that are taking place now; no, he includes even time and eternity. The chain of salvation he is discussing reaches back to that which, considered from a human standpoint, could be called the dim past, “the quiet recess of eternity,” and forward into the boundless future.
One very important fact must be mentioned: every link in this chain of salvation represents a divine action. To be sure, human responsibility and action is not thereby ruled out, but here (Rom. 8:29, 30) it is never specifically mentioned.
There are five links in this chain. Note that the predicate of the first clause becomes the subject of the next one, a construction called sorites.” * (5)
*Note: The Sorites is an argument made of arguments that involve premises and a conclusion. The premises are arranged so that the consequent of one premise becomes the antecedent of the next. The repeating of information and connection of the premises in the argument is why the Sorites is known as a chain-argument.
Consider Oshea Davis in his excellent analysis of Romans 8:28-30 – Logical Chain Argument makes pertinent comments:
“The logical deduction Paul uses here is called a Sorites…I see examples of other people mentioning this sorites in Romans 8:30, however, they are prone to leave out verse 29, and thus only make this a 4-premise syllogism. This is a mistake, because the first premise comes from verse 29; and thus, the syllogism is in fact 5 premises.
At any rate, the first premise starts with, Those whom God foreloved are those He predestined.” The rest of the verse gives us extra insight as to what this predestination results in for both Jesus and for the ones predestined; however, this is not relevant for the immediate syllogism being made by Paul, because the next verse simply picks up at the category of, “whom He predestined … .” The predicate of premise is the subject of the starting premise in verse 30. Paul does not give the conclusion of this syllogism. However, in my experience of reading Paul he normally does gives the conclusion. I suspect that he does not here simply because he so exactly spells out the rest of this enthymeme sorites that the conclusion it is not needed, for it is obvious.”
Mr. Davis continues and then lays out the sorites argument in the logical form:
“Foreloved would be in decree 2. Predestination would be decree 3. Called would be 8. Justification would be 9. And Glorification would be point 10.
(A) Those whom God foreloved are (B) those whom God predestined.
(B) Those whom God predestined are (C) those whom God called.
(C) Those whom God called are (D) those whom God justified.
(D) Those whom God justified are (E) those whom God glorified.
Therefore, (A) those whom God foreloved are (E) those whom God glorified.” (6)
Commentary on Romans 8:28–30 by the renowned professor of Westminster Theological Seminary, John Murray B. 1898 – D. 1975:
“28 And we know that to them that love God all things work together for good, even to them that are called according to his purpose.
29 For whom he foreknew, he also foreordained to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren:
30 and whom he foreordained, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
This is the third ground of encouragement for the support of the children of God in the sufferings they are called upon to endure in this life. It consists in the consolation and assurance to be derived from the fact that all things work together for their good.
28 The version is probably correct in introducing these verses by the conjunction “and” rather than by “but”. The thought is not apparently adversative but transitional. When the apostle says “we know”, he is again intimating that the truth asserted is not one to be gainsaid. “To them that love God” is placed in the position of emphasis and characterizes those to whom the assurance belongs. They are described in terms of their subjective attitude. In such terms no criterion could be more discriminating, for love to God is both the most elementary and the highest mark of being in the favour of God. “All things” may not be restricted, though undoubtedly the things contemplated are particularly those that fall within the compass of believers’ experience, especially suffering and adversity. Some of the ablest expositors maintain that “work together” does not mean that all things work in concert and cooperation with one another but that all things work in concert with the believer or with God.50 But it is unnecessary and perhaps arbitrary to depart from the more natural sense, namely, that in the benign and all-embracing plan of God the discrete elements all work together for good to them that love God. It is not to be supposed that they have any virtue or efficacy in themselves to work in concert for this end. Though not expressed, the ruling thought is that in the sovereign love and wisdom of God they are all made to converge upon and contribute to that goal. Many of the things comprised are evil in themselves and it is the marvel of God’s wisdom and grace that they, when taken in concert with the whole, are made to work for good. Not one detail works ultimately for evil to the people of God; in the end only good will be their lot. “To them that are called according to purpose” is a further definition of those to whom this assurance belongs. But the difference is significant. The former characterized them in terms of their subjective attitude, the latter in terms of God’s action exclusively. In the latter, therefore, there is an intimation of the reason why all things work for good—the action of God involved in their call is the guarantee that such will be the result.51 The call is the effectual call (cf. 1:7; vs. 30) which ushers into the fellowship of Christ (1Cor. 1:9) and is indissolubly linked with predestination, on the one hand, and glorification, on the other. “According to purpose” refers without question to God’s determinate and eternal purpose (cf. 9:11; Eph. 1:11; 3:11; 2Tim. 1:9). The last cited text is Paul’s own expansion of the thought summed up in the word “purpose”: “who saved us, and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before times eternal”. Determinate efficacy characterizes the call because it is given in accordance with eternal purpose.
29 This verse unfolds in greater detail the elements included in the “purpose” of verse 28, and verses 29, 30 are a “continued confirmation”52 of the truth that all things work for good to those who are the called of God. There is no question but the apostle here introduces us to the eternal counsel of God as it pertains to the people of God and delineates for us its various aspects.
“Whom he foreknew”—few questions have provoked more difference of interpretation than that concerned with the meaning of God’s foreknowledge as referred to here. It is, of course, true that the word is used in the sense of “to know beforehand” (cf. Acts 26:5; 2Pet. 3:17). As applied to God it could, therefore, refer to his eternal prevision, his foresight of all that would come to pass. It has been maintained by many expositors that this sense will have to be adopted here. Since, however, those whom God is said to have foreknown are distinguished from others and identified with those whom God also predestinated to be conformed to the image of his Son, and since the expression “whom he foreknew” does not, on this view of its meaning, intimate any distinction by which the people of God could be differentiated, various ways of supplying this distinguishing element have been proposed. The most common is to suppose that what is in view is God’s foresight of faith.53 God foreknew who would believe; he foreknew them as his by faith. On this interpretation predestination is conceived of as conditioned upon this prevision of faith. Frequently, though not necessarily in all instances, this view of foreknowledge is considered to obviate the doctrine of unconditional election, and so dogmatic interest is often apparent in those who espouse it.
It needs to be emphasized that the rejection of this interpretation is not dictated by a predestinarian interest. Even if it were granted that “foreknew” means the foresight of faith, the biblical doctrine of sovereign election is not thereby eliminated or disproven. For it is certainly true, that God foresees faith; he foresees all that comes to pass. The question would then simply be: whence proceeds this faith which God foresees? And the only biblical answer is that the faith which God foresees is the faith he himself creates (cf. John 3:3–8; 6:44, 45, 65; Eph. 2:8; Phil. 1:29; 2 Pet. 1:2). Hence his eternal foresight of faith is preconditioned by his decree to generate this faith in those whom he foresees as believing, and we are thrown back upon the differentiation which proceeds from God’s own eternal and sovereign election to faith and its consequents. The interest, therefore, is simply one of interpretation as it should be applied to this passage. On exegetical grounds we shall have to reject, the view that “foreknew” refers to the foresight of faith.
It should be observed that the text says, “whom he foreknew”; whom is the object of the verb and there is no qualifying addition. This, of itself, shows that, unless there is some other compelling reason, the expression “whom he foreknew” contains within itself the differentiation which is presupposed. If the apostle had in mind some “qualifying adjunct”54 it would have been simple to supply it. Since he adds none we are forced to inquire if the actual terms he uses can express the differentiation implied. The usage of Scripture provides an affirmative
answer. Although the term “foreknow” is used seldom in the New Testament, it is altogether indefensible to ignore the meaning so frequently given to the word “know” in the usage of Scripture; “foreknow” merely adds the thought of “beforehand” to the word “know”. Many times in Scripture “know” has a pregnant meaning which goes beyond that of mere cognition.55 It is used in a sense practically synonymous with “love”, to set regard upon, to know with peculiar interest, delight, affection, and action (cf. Gen. 18:19; Exod. 2:25; Psalm 1:6; 144:3; Jer. 1:5; Amos 3:2; Hosea 13:5; Matt. 7:23; 1 Cor. 8:3; Gal. 4:9; 2 Tim. 2:19; 1 John 3:1). There is no reason why this import of the word “know” should not be applied to “foreknow” in this passage, as also in 11:2 where it also occurs in the same kind of construction and where the thought of election is patently present (cf. 11:5, 6.)56 When this import is appreciated, then there is no reason for adding any qualifying notion and “whom he foreknew” is seen to contain within itself the differentiating element required. It means “whom he set regard upon” or “whom he knew from eternity with distinguishing affection and delight” and is virtually equivalent to “whom he foreloved”. This interpretation, furthermore, is in agreement with the efficient and determining action which is so conspicuous in every other link of the chain—it is God who predestinates, it is God who calls, it is God who justifies, and it is he who glorifies. Foresight of faith would be out of accord with the determinative action which is predicated of God in these other instances and would constitute a weakening of the total emphasis at the point where we should least expect it. Foresight has too little of the active to do justice to the divine monergism upon which so much of the emphasis falls. It is not the foresight of difference but the foreknowledge that makes difference to exist, not a foresight that recognizes existence but the foreknowledge that determines existence. It is sovereign distinguishing love.
“He also foreordained.” One of the main objections urged against the foregoing view of “whom he foreknew” is that it would obliterate the distinction between foreknowledge and predestination.57 There is ostensible progression of thought expressed in “he also foreordained”. But there is no need to suppose that this progression is disturbed if “foreknew” is interpreted in the way propounded. “Foreknew” focuses attention upon the distinguishing love of God whereby the sons of God were elected. But it does not inform us of the destination to which those thus chosen are appointed. It is precisely that information that “he also foreordained” supplies, and it is by no means superfluous. When we consider the high destiny defined, “to be conformed to the image of his Son”, there is exhibited not only the dignity of this ordination but also the greatness of the love from which the appointment flows. God’s love is not passive emotion; it is active volition and it moves determinatively to nothing less than the highest goal conceivable for his adopted children, conformity to the image of the only-begotten Son. To allege that the pregnant force of “foreknew” does not leave room for the distinct enunciation of this high destiny is palpably without warrant or reason.58
“Conformed to the image of his Son” defines the destination to which the elect of God are appointed. The apostle has in view the conformity to Christ that will be realized when they will be glorified with Christ (vs. 17; cf. vss. 18, 19, 21, 23, 30), the final and complete conformity of resurrection glory (cf. 1 Cor. 15:49; 2 Cor. 3:18; Phil. 3:21; 1 John 3:2). It is noteworthy that this should be described as conformity to the image of the Son; it enhances the marvel of the destination. The title “Son” has reference to Christ as the only-begotten (cf.vss. 3, 32) and therefore the unique and eternal Sonship is contemplated. The conformity cannot, of course, have in view conformity to him in that relation or capacity; the conformity embraces the transformation of the body of our humiliation to the likeness of the body of Christ’s glory (Phil. 3:21) and must therefore be conceived of as conformity to the image of the incarnate Son as glorified by his exaltation. Nevertheless, the glorified Christ does not cease to be the eternal Son and it is the eternal Son who is the glorified incarnate Son. Conformity to his image as incarnate and glorified, therefore, is conformity to the image of him who is the eternal and only-begotten Son.
“That he might be the firstborn among many brethren.” This specifies the final aim of the conformity just spoken of. We might well ask: What can be more final than the complete conformity of the sons of God to the image of Christ? It is this question that brings to the forefront the significance of this concluding clause. There is a final end that is more ultimate than the glorification of the people of God; it is that which is concerned with the preeminence of Christ. As Meyer correctly notes: “Paul contemplates Christ as the One, to whom the divine decree referred as to its final aim”.59 The term “firstborn” reflects on the priority and the supremacy of Christ (cf. Col. 1:15, 18; Heb. 1:6;Rev. 1:5).60 It is all the more striking that, when the unique and eternal Sonship is contemplated in the title “Son” and the priority and supremacy of Christ in the designation “firstborn”, the people of God should be classified with Christ as “brethren” (cf. Heb. 2:11, 12). His unique sonship and the fact that he is the firstborn guard Christ’s distinctiveness and preeminence, but it is among many brethren that his preeminence appears. This is another example of the intimacy of the relation existing between Christ and the people of God. The union means also community and this community is here expressed as that of “brethren”. The fraternal relationship is subsumed under the ultimate end of the predestinating decree, and this means that the preeminence of Christ carries with it the eminence that belongs to the children of God. In other words, the unique dignity of the Son in his essential relation to the Father and in his messianic investiture enhances the marvel of the dignity bestowed upon the people of God. The Son is not ashamed to call them brethren (Heb. 2:11).
30 The two preceding verses deal with the eternal and pre-temporal counsel of God; the “purpose” of verse 28 is explicated in verse 29in terms of foreknowledge and predestination, the latter defining the ultimate goal of the counsel of salvation. Verse 30 introduces us to the realm of the temporal and indicates the actions by which the eternal counsel is brought to actual fruition in the children of God. Three actions are mentioned, calling, justification, and glorification. There is an unbreakable bond between these three actions themselves, on the one hand, and the two elements of the eternal counsel, on the other. All five elements are co-extensive. The sustained use of “also” and the repetition of the terms “foreordained”, “called”, “justified” in the three relative clauses in verse 30 signalize the denotative equation. Thus it is made abundantly evident that there cannot be one element without the others and that the three elements which are temporal flow by way of consequence from the eternal counsel, particularly from predestination because it stands in the closest logical relation to calling as the first in the sequence of temporal events.61
It is to be observed that calling, justification, and glorification are set forth as acts of God—“he called”, “he justified”, “he glorified”. The same divine monergism appears as in “he foreknew” and “he foreordained”. It is contrary to this emphasis to define any of these elements of the application of redemption in any other terms than those of divine action. It is true that all three affect us men, they draw our persons within their scope, and are of the deepest practical moment to us in the actual experience of salvation. But God alone is active in those events which are here mentioned and no activity on the part of men supplies any ingredient of their definition or contributes to their efficacy.62 For reasons which are rather obvious but which need not be developed we should infer that the sequence which the apostle follows represents the order in the application of redemption. The apostle enumerates only three elements. These, however, as the pivotal events in our actual salvation, serve the apostle’s purpose in delineating the divine plan of salvation from its fount in the love of God to its consummation in the glorification of the sons of God. Glorification, unlike calling and justification, belongs to the future. It would not be feasible in this context (cf. 5:2; vss. 17, 18, 21, 24, 25, 29) to regard it as other than the completion of the process of salvation and, though “glorified” is in the past tense, this is proleptic, intimating the certainty of its accomplishment.63
In extending encouragement and support to the people of God in their sufferings and adversities, groanings and infirmities, the apostle has reached this triumphant conclusion. He has shown how the present pilgrimage of the people of God falls into its place in that determinate and undefeatable plan of God that is bounded by two foci, the sovereign love of God in his eternal counsel and glorification with Christ in the age to come. It is when they apprehend by faith this panorama that stretches from the love of God before times eternal to the grand finale of the redemptive process that the sufferings of this present time are viewed in their true perspective and are seen, sub specie aeternitatis, to be but the circumstances of pilgrimage to, and preconditions of, a glory to be revealed so great in its weight that the tribulations are not worthy of comparison.” * (7)
*Professor Murray’s footnotes are found at Monergism.com
Conclusions:
He did predestinate:
There are those who argue otherwise, nevertheless, without doing violence to the Romans 8:30 text of this passage, by denying that it represents the salvation of individuals. To predestine means to determine a destination beforehand.
He also justified:
God justifies the sinner, by declaring him righteous the instant the sinner trusts in Christ. Justification happens even though the individual is still a sinner (simul et peccator, just and at the same time, sinner). This declaration happens because of the finished work of Christ.
He also called:
This calling is inward, and it is effective. It is certain.
He also glorified:
When considering the already not yet motif, our glorification has already happened. As seen, it is so certain that God speaks of it in the past tense.
Scriptural conclusions:
“Salvation belongeth unto the Lord.” (Psalm 3:8)
“Blessed is the man whom thou choosest, and causest to approach unto thee, that he may dwell in thy courts: we shall be satisfied with the goodness of thy house, even of thy holy temple.” (Psalm 65:4)
“And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. And this is the will of him that sent me, that everyone which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.” (John 6:39, 40)
“And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus.” (Ephesians 2:6)
“I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.” (Romans 9:15, 16)
“A man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ.” (Galatians 2:16)
Notes:
1. Matthew George Easton, Easton’s Bible Dictionary, (online source, no page numbering).
2. Walter A. Elwell, Editor, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Baker Book House), p. 80.
3. Matthew George Easton, Easton’s Bible Dictionary, (online source, no page numbering)
4. Orr, James, M.A., D.D. General Editor, “Entry for ‘GLORIFY,’” International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Eerdmans, reprinted 1986), p. 1235.
5. William Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary, Romans, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Baker Book House, 1984), p. 281-282.
7. John Murray, The New International Commentary On The New Testament, The Epistle To The Romans, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, reprinted 1982) pp. 314-322.
Mr. Kettler has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife Marea attend the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr. Kettler is the author of the book defending the Reformed Faith against attacks. Available at: THERELIGIONTHATSTARTEDINAHAT.COM
The Religion That Started in a Hat 