Category Archives: Uncategorized

What is Repentance? A Biblical Study by Jack Kettler

After a recent study on sin, it seems appropriate to look at the scriptural teaching on repentance. This study is far from an exhaustive study. As a brief study, this will be an overview. Unfortunately, there are many seeker friendly churches that never preach on the topic of repentance. This is unfortunate, because, without repentance, there can be no salvation. There are plenty of texts in Scripture on repentance. It would be prudent to look at several passages.

For example:

“He that covereth his sins shall not prosper: but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy.” (Proverbs 28:13)

“Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance.” (Matthew 3:8)

“From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” (Matthew 4:17)

“Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord.” (Acts 3:19)

“For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death.” (2 Corinthians 7:10)

“Remember therefore how thou hast received and heard, and hold fast, and repent. If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee.” (Revelation 3:3)

“When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.” (Acts 11:18)

We can see from these passages that repentance is necessary for salvation. Without repentance and faith, there is no hope of salvation.

A definition of repentance:

Repentance: “A God-worked change within the sinner whereby he hates his sin and becomes genuinely sorry for it, turns from his sin to Christ, committing himself to walk in obedience to Him.” *

Two impossibilities: Repentance without faith and faith without repentance.

“They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.” (1 John 2:19)

This passage is cited because not every manifestation of what may appear to be grace in a person’s life is necessarily real.

This is why the apostle exhorts the church:

“Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall. There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.” (1 Corinthians 10:12-13)

What are the characteristic of true repentance?

1. Conviction of sin brought about by the illumination of the Holy Spirit.

2. Grieving for sin caused by the softening of the heart through the work of the Holy Spirit.

3. Longing to be freed from and hating sin evidencing the regeneration caused by the work of the Holy Spirit…

4. Putting away and resisting sin by battling the Devil and the flesh with the new nature and power of the Holy Spirit.

A detailed word analysis of the word regeneration:

REPENT, REPENTANCE

A. Verbs.

1. METANOEO, lit., “to perceive afterwards” (meta, “after,” implying “change,” noeo, “to perceive”; nous, “the mind, the seat of moral reflection”), in contrast to pronoeo, “to perceive beforehand,” hence signifies “to change one’s mind or purpose,” always, in the NT, involving a change for the better, an amendment, and always, except in Luke 17:3, 4, of “repentance” from sin. The word is found in the Synoptic Gospels (in Luke, nine times), in Acts five times, in the Apocalypse twelve times, eight in the messages to the churches, 2:5 (twice), 16, 21 (twice), RV, “she willeth not to repent” (2nd part); 3:3, 19 (the only churches in those chapters which contain no exhortation in this respect are those at Smyrna and Philadelphia); elsewhere only in 2 Cor. 12:21. See also the general Note below.

2. METAMELOMAI, , as in No. 1, and melo, “to care for,” is used in the passive voice with middle voice sense, signifying “to regret, to repent oneself,” Matt. 21:29, RV, “repented himself”; v. 32, RV, “ye did (not) repent yourselves” (KJV, “ye repented not”); 27:3, “repented himself”; 2 Cor. 7:8 (twice), RV, “regret” in each case; Heb. 7:21, where alone in the NT it is said (negatively) of God.

B. Adjective.

AMETAMELETOS, “not repented of, unregretted” (, negative, and a verbal adjective of A, No. 2), signifies “without change of purpose”; it is said (a) of God in regard to his “gifts and calling,” Rom. 11:29; (b) of man, 2 Cor. 7:10, RV, “[repentance (metanoia, see C)] … which bringeth no regret” (KJV, “not to be repented of”); the difference between metanoia and metamelomai, illustrated here, is briefly expressed in the contrast between “repentance” and “regret.”

C. Noun.

METANOIA, “afterthought, change of mind, repentance,” corresponds in meaning to A, No. 1, and is used of “repentance” from sin or evil, except in Heb. 12:17, where the word “repentance” seems to mean, not simply a change of Isaac’s mind, but such a change as would reverse the effects of his own previous state of mind. Esau’s birthright-bargain could not be recalled; it involved an irretrievable loss. As regards “repentance” from sin, (a) the requirement by God on man’s part is set forth, e.g., in Matt. 3:8; Luke 3:8; Acts 20:21; 26:20; (b) the mercy of God in giving “repentance” or leading men to it is set forth, e.g., in Acts 5:31; 11:18; Rom. 2:4; 2 Tim. 2:25. The most authentic mss. omit the word in Matt. 9:13 and Mark 2:17, as in the RV. Note: In the OT, “repentance” with reference to sin is not so prominent as that change of mind or purpose, out of pity for those who have been affected by one’s action, or in whom the results of the action have not fulfilled expectations, a “repentance” attributed both to God and to man, e.g., Gen. 6:6; Exod. 32:14 (that this does not imply anything contrary to God’s immutability, but that the aspect of His mind is changed toward an object that has itself changed, see under RECONCILE). In the NT the subject chiefly has reference to “repentance” from sin, and this change of mind involves both a turning from sin and a turning to God. The parable of the Prodigal Son is an outstanding illustration of this. Christ began His ministry with a call to “repentance,” Matt. 4:17, but the call is addressed, not as in the OT to the nation, but to the individual. In the Gospel of John, as distinct from the Synoptic Gospels, referred to above, “repentance” is not mentioned, even in connection with John the Baptist’s preaching; in John’s gospel and 1st epistle the effects are stressed, e.g., in the new birth, and, generally, in the active turning from sin to God by the exercise of faith (John 3:3; 9:38; 1 John 1:9), as in the NT in general. (1)

Different calls to repentance in Scripture:

There are different calls to repentance in Scripture. For example, there are prophets calling Israel and nations to repentance and in contrast, the call of repentance to an individual.

“To hearken to the words of my servants the prophets, whom I sent unto you, both rising up early, and sending them, but ye have not hearkened.” (Jeremiah 26:5) (National call to Israel)

“So, they [the apostles] went out and proclaimed that people should repent.” (Mark 6:12) (Personal call)

“When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.” (Acts 11:18)

This is another aspect to repentance. What exactly is repentance unto life?

The Westminster Shorter Catechism is helpful:

Question 87

Q: What is repentance unto life?

A: Repentance unto life is a saving grace,1 whereby a sinner, out of a true sense of his sin,2 and apprehension of the mercy of God in Christ,3 doth, with grief and hatred of his sin, turn from it unto God,4 with full purpose of, and endeavour after, new obedience.5

Scriptural proofs to the answer of the question:

1. Acts 11:18. When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.

2. Acts 2:37-38. Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

3. Joel 2:13. And rend your heart, and not your garments, and turn unto the Lord your God: for he is gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and repenteth him of the evil.

4. Jeremiah 31:18-19. I have surely heard Ephraim bemoaning himself thus; Thou hast chastised me, and I was chastised, as a bullock unaccustomed to the yoke: turn thou me, and I shall be turned; for thou art the Lord my God. Surely after that I was turned, I repented; and after that I was instructed, I smote upon my thigh: I was ashamed, yea, even confounded, because I did bear the reproach of my youth.

5. 2 Corinthians 7:11. For behold this selfsame thing, that ye sorrowed after a godly sort, what carefulness it wrought in you, yea, what clearing of yourselves, yea, what indignation, yea, what fear, yea, what vehement desire, yea, what zeal, yea, what revenge! In all things ye have approved yourselves to be clear in this matter. And, Psalm 119:59. I thought on my ways, and turned my feet unto thy testimonies.

Back to Acts 11:18:

Some commentary evidence will be helpful on the Acts 11:18 and repentance to life.

From Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary, we learn:

11:1-18 The imperfect state of human nature strongly appears, when godly persons are displeased even to hear that the word of God has been received, because their own system has not been attended to. And we are too apt to despair of doing good to those who yet, when tried, prove very teachable. It is the bane and damage of the church, to shut out those from it, and from the benefit of the means of grace, who are not in everything as we are. Peter stated the whole affair. We should at all times bear with the infirmities of our brethren; and instead of taking offence, or answering with warmth, we should explain our motives, and show the nature of our proceedings. That preaching is certainly right, with which the Holy Ghost is given. While men are very zealous for their own regulations, they should take care that they do not withstand God; and those who love the Lord will glorify him, when made sure that he has given repentance to life to any fellow-sinners. Repentance is God’s gift; not only his free grace accepts it, but his mighty grace works it in us, grace takes away the heart of stone, and gives us a heart of flesh. The sacrifice of God is a broken spirit. (2)

Of particular interest is where Henry says: “Repentance is God’s gift; not only his free grace accepts it, but his mighty grace works it in us, grace takes away the heart of stone, and gives us a heart of flesh.”

Matthew Poole’s Commentary is in agreement with Henry:

They held their peace; they were fully satisfied with the reason St. Peter had given them of his admitting the Gentiles unto baptism, and fellowship with him; wisely inferring from what Peter had said, that what he had done was of God, who was to be acknowledged in it.

Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance: repentance is the gift of God, as well as faith, or any other grace, 2 Timothy 2:25; nor can the greatest guilt affect the heart with true godly sorrow, until God hath quickened it. It is called repentance unto life, because God hath appointed that it should precede our entrance into life. (3)

Of particular interest here also in where Pool says: “God also to the Gentiles granted repentance: repentance is the gift of God, as well as faith, or any other grace…”

What can we conclude from these commentary citations? “For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.” (Romans 11:29)

Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers:

(29) Without repentance. —Not to be revoked or withdrawn, not even to he regretted. (4)

“Or do you despise the riches of His goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance?” (Romans 2:4, NKJV).

Repentance is a gift of God and an act of man. Man is called to repent and exercise faith, and yet the Scriptures teach that both repentance and faith are gifts of God. Repentance being a gracious gift, in no way condones or excuses living or practicing sin.

“And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men everywhere to repent.” (Acts 17:30)

In conclusion:

We are not saved in the state of practicing sin. The call to repentance is genuine and real. We must repent of our sins! Exhortations to remains faithful are real. And yet, we are regenerated by God and we give Him the glory for our salvation which includes repentance after hearing the call of the gospel, the conviction of sin and confession of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Amazing Grace by John Newton

Amazing grace! How sweet the sound
That saved a wretch like me!
I once was lost, but now am found;
Was blind, but now I see.
’Twas grace that taught my heart to fear,
And grace my fears relieved;
How precious did that grace appear
The hour I first believed.
Through many dangers, toils and snares,
I have already come;
’Tis grace hath brought me safe thus far,
And grace will lead me home.
The Lord has promised good to me,
His Word my hope secures;
He will my Shield and Portion be,
As long as life endures.
Yea, when this flesh and heart shall fail,
And mortal life shall cease,
I shall possess, within the veil,
A life of joy and peace.
The earth shall soon dissolve like snow,
The sun forbear to shine;
But God, who called me here below,
Will be forever mine.
When we’ve been there ten thousand years,
Bright shining as the sun,
We’ve no less days to sing God’s praise
Than when we’d first begun.

Surely, this is what the Bible teaches: ’Twas grace that taught my heart to fear.

“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)

Notes:

1. W. E. Vine, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, (Iowa Falls, Iowa, Riverside Book and Bible House), p. 951-953.

2. Matthew Henry, Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary, Acts, (Nashville, Tennessee, Thomas Nelson), p. 1735.

3. Matthew Poole’s Commentary on the Holy Bible, (Peabody, Massachusetts, Hendrickson Publishers, 1985) p. 421.

4. Charles John Ellicott, Bible Commentary for English Readers, Romans, Vol.2, (London, England, Cassell and Company), p. 240.

“But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and forever. Amen.” (2 Peter 3:18)

“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. Available at: http://www.TheReligionThatStartedInAHat.com

For more Study

*repentance * For a great source of theological definitions go to Rebecca Writes at:

Rebecca Writes: http://www.rebecca-writes.com/theological-terms-in-ao/

Repentance or Faith: Which Comes First? By John Murray http://www.chapellibrary.org/files/ebooks/ggog/index_split_045.html

Faith and Repentance Inseparable by C. H. Spurgeon http://archive.spurgeon.org/sermons/0460.php
Faith and Repentance by Dr. Sinclair Ferguson https://www.monergism.com/faith-and-repentance

Confessions of an Islamophobe

By Robert Spencer Bombardier Books

Reviewed by Jack Kettler

Robert Spencer’s bio:

Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch, and the author of eighteen books, including the New York Times bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad. His latest book is Confessions of an Islamophobe.

Mr. Spencer has directed seminars on Islam and jihad for the FBI, the United States Central Command, United States Army Command and General Staff College, the U.S. Army’s Asymmetric Warfare Group, the Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF), the Justice Department’s Anti-Terrorism Advisory Council and the U.S. intelligence community. He has discussed jihad, Islam, and terrorism at a workshop sponsored by the U.S. State Department and the German Foreign Ministry. He is a consultant with the Center for Security Policy and vice president of the American Freedom Defense Initiative.

What others are saying about Robert Spencer:

“One of the West’s most perceptive analysts of Islam.” – Geert Wilders

“Robert Spencer incarnates intellectual courage when, all over the world, governments, intellectuals, churches, universities and media crawl under a hegemonic Universal Caliphate’s New Order. His achievement in the battle for the survival of free speech and dignity of man will remain as a fundamental monument to the love of, and the self-sacrifice for, liberty.” – Bat Ye’or

“Robert Spencer is indefatigable. He is keeping up the good fight long after many have already given up. I do not know what we would do without him. I appreciate all the intelligence and courage it takes to keep going despite the appeasement of the West.” – Ibn Warraq

“A top American analyst of Islam…. A serious scholar…I learn from him.” – Daniel Pipes

“No one has upset the Islamphobia cabal more than Robert Spencer. First, he knows more about Islamic doctrine than they do. Next, he has outed all the tricks they use in their taqiyyah bag to disinform the public. Finally, and most importantly, Robert will not be cowed. Please read this important book and make sure you share it with as many people as possible.” – Ayaan Hirsi Ali

My thoughts on Spencer and this new book:

As a Protestant, I consider Robert Spencer, a member of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church, the Eastern Catholic Antiochian Greek Catholic counterpart of the ancient Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch to be an outstandingly fair scholar. Whatever criticisms of Robert Spencer you find on the Internet, you should read them with skepticism. For example, one web site has this: “a self-proclaimed expert on radical Islam.” After reading his bio and the short list in this review of those who in endorse his books you can conclude this accusation is complete rubbish.

This book follows his recent The Complete Infidel’s Guide to Free Speech (and Its Enemies). Mr. Spencer continues in the same tradition as his last book by distinguishing himself as a champion of religious and civil liberties. While, continuing in the same theme as his last book, this new book is not a rehash or rewrite of his last work. It builds powerfully upon and continues to make the case for academic, religious and civil freedom.

It cannot be stated forcefully enough; this new book is a powerful defense of free speech! In this new work “Confessions…,” Spencer admits in one sense that he is an Islamophobe. He means by this that he is genuinely concerned about Islamic supremacy and its embrace of violence against critics of Islam and what this means for those who cherish Western freedoms. In another sense, Spencer refuses and rightly so, to admit to the made-up charge of Islamophobia. He has never advocated for violence against any person or religious group.

In fact, in reality, Mr. Spencer could be described a promoter of freedom for non-Sharia practicing Muslims, that make up the majority of Muslims living in the West. What about Sharia practicing Muslims? When dealing with Sharia practicing Muslims, you are up against an intolerant political ideology. The KKK for example, had a religious element to it combined with an intolerant political ideology.

A look at Spencer’s bio again:

Mr. Spencer has directed seminars on Islam and jihad for the FBI, the United States Central Command, United States Army Command and General Staff College, the U.S. Army’s Asymmetric Warfare Group, the Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF), the Justice Department’s Anti-Terrorism Advisory Council and the U.S. intelligence community.

Now because of political correctness, Mr. Spencer is considered a pariah in many circles. He has had numerous speaking engagements cancelled. He has been banned from entering the country of England, while at the same time jihadist preachers of hate are let in freely. After speaking in Iceland, he was poisoned and hospitalized after the press whipped people into a frenzy over Spencer’s alleged Islamophobia. Islamophobia is someone who has an irrational hatred and fear of Islam. This charge when made against Mr. Spencer is slanderous.

In a speech in Stuttgart, Germany, Robert Spencer warned the hysterical German national Muslim supporting audience:

“You are fighting for your own enslavement. And it will come. It will come to you. You are fighting for an ideology that denies the freedom of speech, and one day you will wish you had the freedom of speech that you are trying to fight against today. You are fronting for an ideology that denies the freedom of conscience and will kill you if you disagree, which is exactly what you want to do already. You are fighting on behalf of an ideology that denies equality of rights for women and all the women among you will one day be enslaved, if you get what you want. You are fighting for the destruction of all the freedoms that you enjoy…And so, in closing, I have to say: Shame on you.” (231, 232) (This is an abridgement of the speech).

Why is fighting the false charge of Islamophobia important?

By giving in and being silenced, this will advance the cause of Islamic supremacy and lead to the loss of more freedoms we now enjoy. Political Sharia Islamic supremacy is a revolutionary ideology. Its goal is to subvert constitutional freedoms in the Bill of Rights and in particular, the 1st Amendment. Sharia law forbids anyone to speak ill of the prophet of Islam under penalty of death. This is already happening on a large scale, as critics of Islam like Spencer’s lectures are cancelled routinely. Numerus, threats on his life and actual attempts on his life have been made. All for the so-called crime of criticizing elements of Islam. Is it irrational to have fear over a Islamic bombings, or the using of motor vehicles and guns to kill those named as infidels by jihadists?

Rather than celebrate freedom, many Western women leaders are becoming Sharia compliant and donning head scarfs. * This will not satisfy Muslim demands. The Muslims perceive this as weakness and will exploit it with more demands. Wearing crosses will become dangerous and subject to physical attacks. Rapes will increase as punishment for women wearing provocative clothing. Dogs will be banned along with pork. Christmas festivities will be cancelled, so as not to offend Muslims. These things are happening all over Europe today. Leaders in the West are in denial, they hear no evil, they see no evil and they will not speak the truth about Islamic supremacy.

To sum up Spencer’s new book, it can be said that freedom of speech and assembly are being sacrificed on the altar of political correct totalitarianism, all in the name of tolerance.

“…tolerance of intolerance is cowardice.” – Ayaan Hirsi Ali

* Western women leaders are becoming Sharia compliant and donning head scarfs, while women in Iran are bravely taking theirs off at great personal risk.

In ending this review, those who have given in to political correctness and are willing to surrender Western freedoms brought to you by the Judeo/Christian world view, I will end with Mr. Spencer’s words: “And so, in closing, I have to say: Shame on you.”

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 The Religion That Started in a Hat. Available at: http://www.TheReligionThatStartedInAHat.com

For more study:

Learn more at Robert Spencer’s web site: https://www.jihadwatch.org/

Praying the Lord’s Prayer, is it vain repetition? By Jack Kettler

9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. 10 Thy kingdom come, thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. 11 Give us this day our daily bread. 12 And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. 13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever. Amen. Matthew 6:9–13

One Lord’s Day I posted this prayer at a social media site with no comments and was given a verse from Matthew as a reply. The person posting this passage from Matthew thought that praying the Lord’s Prayer and apparently even posting it was vain repetition.

“But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.” (Matthew 6:7)

For those that wonder, how could someone actually believe such a thing? As a young Christian in the 1970’s “Jesus People” movement, I heard this same question come up numerous times about praying the Lord’s Prayer and vain repetitions.

Let’s consider this dubious injunction against the Lord’s Prayer:

“But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.” (Matthew 6:7)

Introductory comments:

Who is Jesus talking about in this passage? Jesus tells us by warning about heathen prayers in Matthew 6:8. Jesus then gives us a biblical prayer in Matthew 6:9-13. It is the height of exegetical nonsense to say that Jesus contradicts himself two verses later when explicitly saying: “Pray then like this:” in Matthew 6:9. O logic, whence hast thou gone?

A commentary exposition will be helpful at this point.

From Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible:

But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, Saying the same things over and over again,

as the Heathens do, as the worshippers of Baal, from morning till noon, 1 Kings 18:26. This our Lord observes, to dissuade from such practices, because the Gentiles, who were odious to the Jews, used them, and the Jews were guilty of the same; had they not, there would not have been any need of such advice:

for they think they shall be heard for their much speaking; as did the Jews, who, under pretence of “long prayers”, devoured widows’ houses; and with whom it is an axiom, that “everyone, that multiplies prayer is heard” (h); and whoever prolongs his prayer, his prayer does not return empty; and he that is long in prayer, his days are prolonged (i): and, according to their canons, every day a man ought to pray eighteen prayers. Moreover, their prayer books abound in tautologies, and in expressing the same things in different words, and by a multiplicity of them.

(h) T. Hieros. Taaniot, fol. 67. 3.((i) Zohar in Exod. fol. 104. 4. (1)

Gill notes, the heathen and their “vain repetitions, saying the same things over and over again,” and “long prayers.” Is the Lord’s Prayer, a long prayer? It is 70 words. Also, does this prayer say the same things over and over again? Also, what is vain about the Lord’s Prayer?

Get out the Dictionary:

Vain: excessively proud of or concerned about one’s own appearance, qualities, achievements, etc.; conceited.

Repetition: the action of repeating something that has already been said or written.

If the Matthew 6:7 passage is a warning about the Lord’s Prayer, the burden of proof is on the individual making such an accusation to prove it exegetically and through word etymology.

From Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words:

VAIN, IN VAIN, VAINLY

A. Adjectives.

1. KENOS, “empty,” with special reference to quality, is translated “vain” (as an adjective) in Acts 4:25; 1 Cor. 15:10, 14 (twice); Eph. 5:6; Col. 2:8; Jas. 2:20; in the following the neuter, kenon, follows the preposition eis, in,” and denotes “in vain,” 2 Cor. 6:1; Gal. 2:2; Phil. 2:16 (twice); 1 Thess. 3:5. See EMPTY, B, where the applications are enumerated.’ 2. MATAIOS, “void of result,” is used of (a) idolatrous practices, Acts 14:15, RV, “vain things” (KJV, “vanities”); (b) the thoughts of the wise, 1 Cor. 3:20; (c) faith, if Christ is not risen, 1 Cor. 15:17; (d) questionings, strifes, etc., Titus 3:9; (e) religion, with an unbridled tongue, Jas. 1:26; (f) manner of life, 1 Pet. 1:18. For the contrast between No. 1 and No. 2 see EMPTY. Note: For , Titus 1:10, see TALKERS (VAIN).

B. Verbs.

1. MATAIOO, “to make vain, or foolish,” corresponding in meaning to A, No. 2, occurs in Rom. 1:21, “became vain.” 2. KENOO, “to empty,” corresponding to A, No. 1, is translated “should be in vain” in 2 Cor. 9:3, KJV. See EFFECT, EMPTY, VOID.

C. Adverbs.

Indicates that all the NT occurrences of the Greek word under consideration are mentioned under the heading or sub-heading. 1. MATEN, properly the accusative case of mate, “a fault, a folly,” signifies “in vain, to no purpose,” Matt. 15:9; Mark 7:7. 2. DOREAN, the accusative of dorea, “a gift,” is used adverbially, denoting (a) “freely” (see FREE, D); (b) “uselessly,” “in vain,” Gal. 2:21, AV (RV, “for nought”). See CAUSE, A, under “without a cause.” 3. EIKE, denotes (a) “without cause,” “vainly,” Col. 2:18; (b) “to no purpose,” “in vain,” Rom. 13:4; Gal. 3:4 (twice); 4:11. See CAUSE, A, Note (1), under “without a cause” (2)

Another commentary exposition will be helpful.

From Calvin’s Commentary:

7. Use not vain repetitions He reproves another fault in prayer, a multiplicity of words. There are two words used, but in the same sense: for battologia is “a superfluous and affected repetition,” and polulogia is “unmeaning talk.” Christ reproves the folly of those who, with the view of persuading and entreating God, pour out a superfluity of words. This doctrine is not inconsistent with the praises everywhere bestowed in Scripture on earnestness in prayer: for, when prayer is offered with earnest feeling, the tongue does not go before the heart. Besides, the grace of God is not obtained by an unmeaning flow of words; but, on the contrary, a devout heart throws out its affections, like arrows, to pierce heaven. At the same time, this condemns the superstition of those who entertain the belief, that they will secure the favor of God by long murmurings. We find Popery to be so deeply imbued with this error, that it believes the efficacy of prayer to lie chiefly in talkativeness. The greater number of words that a man mutters, the more diligently he is supposed to have prayed. Long and tedious chanting also, as if it were to soothe the ears of God, continually resounds in their cathedrals. (3)

Calvin mentions the heathen and their “long murmurings.” Can the Lord’s Prayer be described as long murmurings?

Additional thoughts and repeated emphasis:

Again, take note that Jesus is warning his disciples against praying like the heathen in Matthew 6:7, 8. Considering the warnings in these two passages, is there anything in the Lord’s Prayer that would be mindless, vain, or repetitious in the prayer? Also, there is no similarity with the Lord’s Prayer and monkish chants.

If praying the Lord’s Prayer, is vain repetition? What about reading the Lord’s Prayer, would that also be vain repetition? What about singing or reading the prayers of David in the Psalms?

For logical emphasis, is Jesus in Matthew 6:7 contradicting himself when he says how to pray in Matthew 6:9-13? Once more, O logic, whence hast thou gone?

For context in a proper understanding of Matthew 6:7, Jesus goes on and says this: “Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.” (Matthew 6:8)

Again, Jesus is waning “Be not ye therefore like unto them…” Like who? The heathen! It is obvious from the context that Jesus is talking about the heathen.

In introducing the Prayer, Jesus says: “AFTER THIS MANNER THEREFORE PRAY YE: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.” (Matthew 6:9) (capitalization emphasis mine)

Jesus instructs his disciples, “After this manner therefore pray ye…” It seems preposterous that Jesus would forbid something, like to not “use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do” and two passages later tell the disciples to pray a vain repetitious prayer like He had just forbidden.

Trying to argue for something like this is an example of etymological and false analogy fallacies. Scripture is the best interpreter of Scripture. The Lord’s prayer is an example how to pray, not an example of a heathen prayer. To say otherwise, is pitting Scripture against Scripture.

Is there another way of looking at this prayer rather than praying it literally?

The Lord’s Prayer, is it a model of how to pray, not the way you should actually pray?

If this is true about the prayer being a model, the burden of proof is on the those advocating this approach. This would need to be proven exegetically since there is nothing in the words of Jesus in Matthew saying the prayer is just a model. That the idea that the prayer is only a model is not explicit in the text. It is possible that it could be deduced, but this would have to be demonstrated.

First, Jesus does not tell His disciples, that this prayer is a model for private prayers. Instead, He introduces the prayer; “After this manner therefore pray.” The conclusion is that we are to pray using the same words that Christ used.

Second, the Lord’s prayer is primarily for corporate use. The prayer starts with “Our Father,” which is corporate, not private like “my father.” In the prayer, the following petitions are corporate: “Give us; forgive us; against us; lead us; deliver us.” These plural corporate expressions are why churches use this prayer in public worship. The regulatory principle* of worship would further stipulate, that the prayer be used repeating the exact words of Christ.

Regarding personnel prayers, it certainly would be helpful to use Lord’s Prayer as a model for prayers. As a model prayer, the various petitions could be expanded upon during private prayers.

Additional information on the Lord’s Prayer:

In the Didache one of the earliest doctrinal treatise in the Early Church, we read:

“And do not pray like the hypocrites, but as the Lord commanded in his gospel, pray in this manner: Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name. Your kingdom come; your will be done, as in heaven, so also on earth. Give us today our bread for the day. And forgive us our debt, as we also forgive our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one, for yours is the power and the glory forever…” (Didache 8:2–3)

The Lord’s Prayer is important in Reformed and Presbyterian worship:

Both the Larger and Shorter Catechisms contain an exposition of the Lord’s Prayer. The Lord’s Prayer is particularly useful, they state, as “the special rule of direction” that Jesus taught his disciples “to direct us in the duty of prayer.” (LC 186; SC 99)

In Conclusion:

We live in an age of inexcusable evangelical ignorance of theology. This is tragic, since theology proper leads to the magnification of God’s glory. We should strive for good precise theology that magnifies the glorious grace of God.

In concluding, Calvin stresses the importance of the Lord’s Prayer:

48. The Lord’s prayer as a binding rule

“We have everything we ought, or are able to seek of God, set forth in this form and, as it were, rule handed down by our best master, Christ, whom the Father has appointed our teacher and to whom alone he would have us harken, and this prayer is in all respects so perfect that any extraneous or alien thing added to it is impious and unworthy to be approved by God. For in this summary he has set forth what is worthy of him, acceptable to him, necessary for us – in effect, what he would willingly grant. For this reason, those who dare go farther and ask anything from God beyond this: first wish to add to God’s wisdom from their own, which cannot happen without insane blasphemy….” (4)

“The whole Word of God is of use to direct us in prayer, but the special rule of direction is that form of prayer which Christ taught His disciples, commonly called The Lord’s Prayer” (The Westminster Shorter Catechism).

“But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and forever. Amen.” (2 Peter 3:18)

“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)

“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:

John Gill, Exposition of the Old and New Testaments, Matthew, 9 Volumes, (Grace Works, Multi-Media Labs, 2011), p. 151.

W. E. Vine, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, (Iowa Falls, Iowa, Riverside Book and Bible House), p. 1193.

John Calvin, Calvin’s Commentaries, Volume XVI, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Baker Book House Reprinted 1979), p. 313.

John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book III, (Philadelphia, PA, Westminster Press), p. 916.

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: http://www.TheReligionThatStartedInAHat.com

For more Study

Many great Expositions of the Lord’s Prayer. Both print and audio at: https://reformedbooksonline.com/topics/topics-by-subject/prayer/expositions-of-the-lords-prayer/

Westminster Statements and the Heidelberg Catechism on the Lords’ Prayer http://chrisbrauns.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Westminster-Confessions-and-Heidelberg-Catechism-on-the-Lords-Prayer1.pdf

Books:

The Lord’s Prayer by Thomas Watson, Publisher, Banner of Truth Trust

The Lord’s Prayer: An Exposition, John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book III, pp. 897-917.

* The Regulative principle of worship in Christian theology teaches that the public worship of God should include those and only those elements that are instituted, commanded, or appointed by command or example in the Bible. In other words, it is the belief that God institutes in Scripture whatever he requires for worship in the Church, and everything else should be avoided.

Railings on your Roof Top, Why? by Jack Kettler

“When you build a new house, you shall make a parapet [railing] for your roof, that you may not bring the guilt of blood upon your house, if anyone should fall from it.” (Deuteronomy 22:8)

Consider the Pulpit Commentary’s exposition of this passage:

Verse 8. – Still less was human life to be exposed to danger through neglect of proper precautions. The houses in Palestine, as in other parts of the East, had flat roofs, and, as these were much frequented by the inhabitants for various purposes (cf. Joshua 2:6; 2 Samuel 11:2; 2 Samuel 18:24; Nehemiah 8:16; Matthew 10:27; Acts 10:9), it was necessary that a battlement or balustrade should surround the roof, in order to prevent persons falling over. Hence the direction here given. (1)

Is this law from ancient Israel still valid? There is a large amount of agreement that the ceremonial part of the Old Covenant Law has passed away. In the Reformed and Presbyterian traditions, the moral part of the law is still binding. Murder, stealing, lying and adultery are still wrong. What about the case laws throughout the Pentateuch? Theologians has wrestled with this.

Consulting Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter XIX of the Law of God, we find:

IV. To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging under any now, further than the general equity thereof may require.

Of course, something has changed between the Old and New Covenants. In Point IV, the Westminster Confession says that the laws of Israel have EXPIRED. The confession then qualifies this with “not obliging under any now, further than the general equity thereof may require.” In modern parlance, it means that there may be reasons to retain some parts of a particular law by way of keeping a principle contained within the law along with a contemporary application.

Some Christians want nothing to do with the Old Testament Law of God. This is unfortunate since historically, the whole of Judeo/Christian law in the Western world is based upon the Ten Commandments and the case laws that are expounded in the Pentateuch. Emphatically, we are not talking about law keeping and salvation. I say this because some Christians when they hear the word law, go into a state of mental rote and start repeating, “we are not under the law, we are under grace.” This is absolutely true in the area of soteriology, but not true if we are dealing civil penalties for murder or theft.

What the confession is getting at when is says, “may require” is, there are binding principles that in some cases are relevant to modern society. Understanding this continuation of biblical principles will open up a whole new way of looking at God’s law that has nothing to do with salvation and law keeping. For example, “you shall not murder” (Exodus 20:13). Who would argue that this law has passed away and has no relevance today? Modern juries still try and determine first-degree or second-degree murder convictions that come right out of the Old Covenant case law.

In addition, prohibitions against lying, adultery, stealing are still valid today. In a similar way, this obscure passage from Deuteronomy 22:8 has incredible applications today. There are discontinuities and continuities between the Old and New Covenants. Some parts continue and other parts do not. Some parts of the law continue but in different form like Passover and Communion.

One particular hermeneutic argues that unless the New Covenant repeats the law, it is not carried over from the Old Covenant. This seems plausible, except for things like bestiality, which is not repeated in the New Covenant. I don’t think anyone would agree that this abominable practice is permissible today. New Covenant Christianity is inseparably linked to the Old Covenant.

Modern applications of Deuteronomy 22:8 where there is an enduring continuity would be:

Having a fence around your swimming pool. Having your yard fenced in if you have potentially vicious dog. Some buildings and apartments, have roof top recreational areas. Of course, you would want some type of barrier or railing for protection. In modern jurisprudence, there is a whole body of liability laws that deal with things like this. Bottom line, it is about protecting your neighbor and limiting your liability.

Many of the case laws are more difficult to find principals that have modern application. A passage from Mark 12:31 is the key to finding continuing principles of application.

“The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.” (Mark 12:31)

Regarding Mark 12:31, we learn from the Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary:

31. And the second is like—”unto it” (Mt 22:39); as demanding the same affection, and only the extension of it, in its proper measure, to the creatures of Him whom we thus love—our brethren in the participation of the same nature, and neighbors, as connected with us by ties that render each dependent upon and necessary to the other.

Thou shall love thy neighbour as thyself—Now, as we are not to love ourselves supremely, this is virtually a command, in the first place, not to love our neighbor with all our heart and soul and mind and strength. And thus, it is a condemnation of the idolatry of the creature. Our supreme and uttermost affection is to be reserved for God. But as sincerely as ourselves we are to love all mankind, and with the same readiness to do and suffer for them as we should reasonably desire them to show to us. The golden rule (Mt 7:12) is here our best interpreter of the nature and extent of these claims.

There is none other commandment greater than these—or, as in Mt 22:40, “On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets” (see on [1485] Mt 5:17). It is as if He had said, “This is all Scripture in a nutshell; the whole law of human duty in a portable, pocket form.” Indeed, it is so simple that a child may understand it, so brief that all may remember it, so comprehensive as to embrace all possible cases. And from its very nature it is unchangeable. It is inconceivable that God should require from his rational creatures anything less, or in substance anything else, under any dispensation, in any world, at any period throughout eternal duration. He cannot but claim this—all this—alike in heaven, in earth, and in hell! And this incomparable summary of the divine law belonged to the Jewish religion! As it shines in its own self-evidencing splendor, so it reveals its own true source. The religion from which the world has received it could be none other than a God-given religion! (2)

Loving your neighbor is the key. Is there a principle in the law that protects your neighbor? The actual law in the Old Covenant Israel may have no relevance today and is expired. Yet, digging a little deeper it may be possible to glean a modern-day application. My wife’s mother was able to go to potato fields in Idaho and glean food that was left behind after the harvest. Her freedom to do this comes from Israel’s law.

For example, in Leviticus, we see God’ provision for the poor and traveler:

“And when you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap your field right up to its edge, nor shall you gather the gleanings after your harvest. You shall leave them for the poor and for the sojourner: I am the LORD your God.” (Leviticus 23:22)

Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary explains this law for the poor:

23:15-22 The feast of Weeks was held in remembrance of the giving of the law, fifty days after the departure from Egypt; and looked forward to the outpouring of the Holy Ghost, fifty days after Christ our Passover was sacrificed for us. On that day the apostles presented the first-fruits of the Christian church to God. To the institution of the feast of Pentecost, is added a repetition of that law, by which they were required to leave the gleanings of their fields. Those who are truly sensible of the mercy they received from God, will show mercy to the poor without grudging. (3)

The reader can now see that there are modern day applications of principles in Israel’s law that have enormous relevancy today. Modern legislators should look to Israel’s law for wisdom. Do we want man-made laws or based upon God’s law? A Church’s food bank for the poor is surely one of many applications of the Leviticus 23:22 case law.

In Conclusion:

When looking for modern applications, use as the rule of thumb, protecting and loving your neighbor and his goods or property. Thankfully, we are not stumbling in the dark ethically. We have God’s wisdom from the Old Covenant case laws as a place to look for solutions. As mentioned earlier, until recent times, laws in the Western World were based upon applications of Old Covenant case law.

To name a few, first, and second-degree murder, manslaughter, rape self-defense, restitution, bearing false witness, kidnapping, adultery, fornication, laws of inheritance and crimes of passion. The modern-day application of eternal principles from the Old Covenant is one of the many aspects of the Judeo/Christian world view.

Israel’s law was a witness to the nations of God’s goodness:

“Keep them and do them, for that will be your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the peoples, who, when they hear all these statutes, will say, ‘Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.’” (Deuteronomy 4:6)

Man’s law is temporal and constantly shifting downward into increasing depravity. In contrast, God’s law is Holy Eternal and Good. It reflects His standard of holiness! By His law, we can determine right from wrong. It does not change!

“The moral absolutes rest upon God’s character. The moral commands He has given to men are an expression of His character. Men as created in His image are to live by choice on the basis of what God is. The standards of morality are determined by what conforms to His character, while those things which do not conform are immoral.” – Francis A. Schaeffer

There are many reasons why the believer can say, “Oh how I love your law! It is my meditation all the day.” (Psalm 119:97)

Notes:

1. H. D. M. Spence and Joseph S. Exell, The Pulpit Commentary, Deuteronomy, Vol. III, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Eerdmans Publishing Company reprint 1978), p. 355.

2. Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, Commentary on the Whole Bible, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Zondervan, 1977) p. 976.

3. Matthew Henry, Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary, Leviticus, (Nashville, Tennessee, Thomas Nelson), p. 228.

“But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and forever. Amen.” (2 Peter 3:18)

“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)

“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. Available at: http://www.TheReligionThatStartedInAHat.com

For more Study:

See David Guzik’s Study Guide for Deuteronomy 22 – Various Laws to demonstrate kindness and purity provides many examples of what the principles and applications of law at: https://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/archives/guzik_david/studyguide_deu/deu_22.cfm

See Gary North’s Economic Commentaries at: http://www.christianciv.com/North_Economic_Commentary.html

Man’s fall into Sin and how to be made Righteous in Christ by Jack Kettler

“Wherefore, as by one-man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so, death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. For if by one man’s offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) Therefore, as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. Moreover, the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.” (Romans 5:12-21)

In this study we will look at man’s fall into sin and God’s plan of reconciliation. In theological terms, we will be looking at original sin, Christ’s atoning work, the imputation of Christ’s righteousness and the grounds of the believer’s justification.

In the first section, two commentary entries that deal with the fall of man and original sin will be consulted. This study will be concluded by a theological multiple-choice test. Without apology, this study is coming from a historic Protestant understanding. Like the Bereans of old, take out your Bible and see if these things are so.

Section One – Exegetical commentary evidence

Exegetical Commentary Evidence on Original Sin

From Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers:

(12-21) Contrast between the reign of death introduced by the sin of Adam, and the reign of life introduced by the atonement of Christ.

The sequence is, first sin, then death. Now, the death which passed over mankind had its origin in Adam’s sin. Strictly speaking, there could be no individual sin till there was a law to be broken. But in the interval between Adam and Moses, i.e., before the institution of law, death prevailed, over the world. which was a proof that there was sin somewhere. The solution is, that the sin in question was not the individual guilt of individual transgressors, but the single transgression of Adam. Here, then, is the contrast. The single sin of the one man, Adam, brought death upon all mankind; the single act of the one Redeemer cleared away many offences—also for all men. Under the old dispensation law entered in to intensify the evil; but, in like manner, under the new, grace has come in to enhance and multiply the benefit. Thus, the remedial system and the condemnatory system are co-extensive, the one over against the other, and the first entirely cancels the second.

(12) Wherefore. —The train of thought which follows is suggested by the mention which had just been made of atonement, reconciliation. We see here another instance of the Apostle’s fondness for transcendental theology, and for the development of the deeper mysteries of God’s dealings with man. The rapidity with which ideas of this kind throng into his brain is such as to break the even flow and structure of his sentence.

As by one man. —This clause, “As by one-man sin and death entered,” ought to have been answered by “So by one Man grace and life entered.” But a difficulty occurs at the very outset. How can it really be said that sin and death entered by Adam? For sin does not exist without law, and the law did not come in till Moses. And yet we have proof that sin must have been there; for death, its consequence, prevailed all through this period in which law was still wanting. The fact was, the sin which then prevailed, and had such wide and disastrous effects, was Adam’s. So that it is strictly legitimate to compare his fall with the act of redemption. It is strictly true to say that by one-man sin and death entered into the world, as life and grace entered by another. In either case the consequence was that of one man’s act.

For that all have sinned.—. Rather, for that, or because, all sinned—i.e., not by their own individual act, but implicitly in Adam’s transgression. They were summed up, and included in him as the head and representative of the race. (1)

From the Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary:

Ro 5:12-21. Comparison and Contrast between Adam and Christ in Their Relation to the Human Family.

(This profound and most weighty section has occasioned an immense deal of critical and theological discussion, in which every point, and almost every clause, has been contested. We can here but set down what appears to us to be the only tenable view of it as a whole and of its successive clauses, with some slight indication of the grounds of our judgment).

12. Wherefore—that is, Things being so; referring back to the whole preceding argument.

as by one man—Adam.

sin—considered here in its guilt, criminality, penal desert.

entered into the world, and death by sin—as the penalty of sin.

and so, death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned—rather, “all sinned,” that is, in that one man’s first sin. Thus, death reaches every individual of the human family, as the penalty due to himself. (So, in substance, Bengel, Hodge, Philippi). Here we should have expected the apostle to finish his sentence, in some such way as this: “Even so, by one-man righteousness has entered into the world, and life by righteousness.” But, instead of this, we have a digression, extending to five verses, to illustrate the important statement of Ro 5:12; and it is only at Ro 5:18 that the comparison is resumed and finished. (2)

A Summary of Original Sin

*Original sin is the sinfulness of Adam’s descendants, by natural generation. The designation original sin signifies the following:

1. This sinfulness is derived from Adam, the original root of the entire race.

2. It is inherent in Adam’s posterity from the womb; it is not the result of environment or imitation.

3. It is the root of all the actual transgressions each sinner commits. Rome’s idea that though the root has been removed by baptism, the fruit still remains, is both illogical and unscriptural.

4. It consists of original guilt and original pollution. Guilt signifies a liability to punishment. Pollution signifies the absence of original righteousness and the presence of evil. Pollution involves guilt; there is no such thing as guiltless pollution. The Arminian view that pollution alone, not guilt, is transmitted from Adam to his posterity is based on an unscriptural view of man’s sinfulness, and obviously views pollution as a moral disease which is guiltless per se.

*At the link below, see a comparison of views on original sin. The above points, 1-4 come from this research study web site.

The next passage from Corinthians introduces us to the atoning work of Christ. Having a correct view of the atoning work of Christ is of critical importance to guard against semi-pelagianism or outright pelagianism. I’ve heard Mormon talk show host Glen Beck in tears say how he believes in the atonement of Christ. Yet, what he said was so far removed from the teaching of the Bible on the subject, was heartbreakingly in error.

“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.” (2 Corinthians 5:21)

These commentary entries will expound on Christ’s atoning work of salvation.

Exegetical Commentary Evidence regarding the atonement:

From the Pulpit Commentary

Verse 21. – He hath made him to be sin for us; rather, he made; he speaks with definite reference to the cross. The expression is closely analogous to that in Galatians 3:13, where it is said that Christ has been “made a curse for us.” He was, as St. Augustine says, “delictorum susceptor, non commissor.” He knew no sin; nay, he was the very righteousness, holiness itself (Jeremiah 23:6), and yet, for our benefit, God made him to be “sin” for us, in that he “sent him in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin” (Romans 8:3). Many have understood the word “sin” in the sense of sin offering (Leviticus 5:9, LXX.); but that is a precarious application of the word, which is not justified by any other passage in the New Testament. We cannot, as Dean Plumptre says, get beyond the simple statement, which St. Paul is content to leave in its unexplicable mystery, “Christ identified with man’s sin; man identified with Christ’s righteousness.” And thus, in Christ, God becomes Jehovah-Tsidkenu, “the Lord our Righteousness” (Jeremiah 23:6). That we might be made the righteousness of God in him; rather, that we might become. The best comment on the pregnant significance of this verse is Romans 1:16, 17, which is developed and explained in so large a section of that great Epistle (see 3:22-25; 4:5-8; 5:19, etc.). In him in his blood is a means of propitiation by which the righteousness of God becomes the righteousness of man (1 Corinthians 1:30), so that man is justified. The truth which St. Paul thus develops and expresses is stated by St. Peter and St. John in a simpler and less theological form (1 Peter 2:22-24; 1 John 3:5). (3)

From Matthew Poole’s Commentary

For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin: Christ knew no sin, as he was guilty of no sin; Which of you (saith he, John 8:46) convinceth me of sin? 1 Peter 2:22, He did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: but God made him to be sin for us. He was numbered with the transgressors, Isaiah 53:12. Our sins were reckoned to him; so as though personally he was no sinner, yet by imputation he was, and God dealt with him as such; for he was made a sacrifice for our sins, a sin offering; so, answering the type in the law, Leviticus 4:3,25,29 5:6 7:2.

That we might be made the righteousness of God in him; that so his righteousness might be imputed to us, and we might be made righteous with such a righteousness as those souls must have whom God will accept. As Christ was not made sin by any sin inherent in him, so neither are we made righteous by any righteousness inherent in us, but by the righteousness of Christ imputed to us; as he was a sinner by the sins of his people reckoned and imputed unto him. (4)

In section two, we will look at some important definitions. Precise definitions are important. Erroneous and even heretical ideas can be introduced by imprecise theological statements. These following definitions are rooted in historic Protestant theological understanding.

Section Two – Theological Definitions

**Definitions:

original sin

The sinful state and condition in which all human beings are born, which includes both imputed guilt (the guilt of Adam’s sin counted as their own) and inherited corruption (a disposition toward sin).

imputation

A reckoning or crediting of something to a person. Used salvifically, it refers the crediting of the personal guilt or personal righteousness of another, as in the imputation of the sin of Adam to all his descendants, the imputation of the sins of human beings to Christ, or the imputation of the righteousness of Christ to believers.

Christ’s righteousness—his “perfect obedience and full satisfaction” counted (or imputed) to the believer. This includes both his bearing the curse of the law for us in his death on the cross and his obedience to all of God’s precepts in our place. It’s the full package deal, everything needed for God to justly declare a sinner to be righteous.

justification

A judicial act of God in which he pardons sinners and accepts them as righteous on the basis of Christ’s work on their behalf, which includes both his representative obedience to the law and his representative endurance of the penalty for their disobedience.

Confessional Sources

Original Sin from The Westminster Shorter Catechism, Question 18:

Q. 18. Wherein consists the sinfulness of that estate whereinto man fell?

A. The sinfulness of that estate whereinto man fell, consists in the guilt of Adam’s first sin, the want of original righteousness, and the corruption of his whole nature, which is commonly called original sin; together with all actual transgressions which proceed from it.

Imputation from The London Baptist Confession, Chapter 6:

2. Our first parents, by this sin, fell from their original righteousness and communion with God, and we in them whereby death came upon all: all becoming dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body.

3. They being the root, and by God’s appointment, standing in the room and stead of all mankind, the guilt of the sin was imputed, and corrupted nature conveyed, to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation, being now conceived in sin, and by nature children of wrath, the servants of sin, the subjects of death, and all other miseries, spiritual, temporal, and eternal, unless the Lord Jesus set them free.

Justification from The Westminster Confession Chapter 11.1:

“I. Those 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 or anything wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ’s sake alone; nor 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.”

What does Counted Righteousness or Reckoned Righteousness mean?

Theologian J. I. Packer introduces the biblical grounds for this teaching:

The rendering which declares Abraham’s faith to have been ‘reckoned’ or ‘counted as righteousness’ (vv. 3, 5, 9, 22), though found in RSV, NIV, NEB and most modern versions, is no good…. ‘As’ represents the Greek preposition eis, meaning ‘towards’ or ‘with a view to’ in a wide range of contexts, and ‘for righteousness’ (KJV, RV) was a much better way to translate it, although ‘reckon’ and ‘count’ are no doubt improvements on the older word ‘impute’. Paul is not saying here that faith is our righteousness, but that we are justified through believing. Certainly, faith is the occasion and means of our justification, but Christ’s obedience (5:19), His righteousness… (v. 18), His propitiation for our sins (3:25…), is its ground. (5)

Consider Pastor John Piper’s comments on imputational or declared righteousness:

Piper concurs with Packer that eis should be translated “for” or “unto” rather than “as” in Romans 4:3, 5, 9, 22. He also explains that in Paul’s mind, “faith being credited for righteousness” is shorthand for faith being the way an external righteousness is received as credited to us by God – namely, not by working but by trusting him who justifies the ungodly. Paul’s conceptual framework for imputation in verses 4 and 5 would, therefore, not be God’s crediting something we have to be righteousness, but God’s crediting a righteousness we don’t have to be ours by grace through faith. (6)

What is Forensic Declaration of Righteousness?

Thomas R. Schreiner, explains this when commenting on justification, along with the Old Testament background basis for being declared righteous by God:

It is … instructive to note that righteousness in the Old Testament is often forensic in nature. For instance, Deuteronomy 25:1 presupposes that judges will “acquit the innocent and condemn the guilty” (my translation). Clearly, the judges do not make a person righteous or guilty but declare whether the person under trial is innocent or guilty. God himself says that he “will not acquit the wicked” (Exod. 23:7), which means that he will not declare the wicked to be in the right. Similarly, Proverbs 17:13 declares, “He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous are both alike an abomination to the Lord.” …. What is evident here is that judges do not make someone righteous or wicked. They render a forensic declaration based on the reality that is before them. Unrighteous judges “acquit the guilty for a bribe” (Isa. 5:23; cf. 2 Sam. 15:4). God’s righteousness as a judge is explained in Solomon’s prayer as “condemning the guilty by bringing his conduct on his own head and vindicating the righteous by rewarding him according to his righteousness” (1 Kings 8:32). (7)

This survey of important and precise theological statements brings us now to a theological test. This test highlights the separation between historic Protestantism and Roman Catholicism of imputation. Some may say, “what difference does it make today?” Would those who may raise this hypothetical question say the same thing regarding the Islamic view of Christ and His crucifixion and atoning work? I think not.

Highlighting important differences in theological formulations does not necessitate incivility. I still recall spending one evening with an Orthodox priest until midnight discussing theological distinctives. This discussion ended with mutual respect in spite of differences.

Lutheran and Roman theologians have met on and off in Rome for twenty years trying to resolve differences on justification. There is even a document prepared for upcoming release on this topic that in some people’s minds may resolve the differences. With this said, theological debate does not have to involve personal animosity. There can be mutual deference without engaging in mere academic pleasantries.

Section Three – Theological Precision

Are You Romanist or Protestant? By John Robbins

The meaning of justification by faith alone has been largely forgotten in the professing Christian Church. The meaning of justification has been forgotten, and so has the meaning of faith. But mere forgetting is not the whole issue. In addition to our sinful tendency to forget God’s truth (a tendency that the writers of the New Testament were well aware of, for they repeatedly said that they were writing to remind believers), false teachers, wolves in sheep’s clothing, have worked diligently to twist the Scriptural doctrine of justification. The teaching of the Roman State-Church is a prime example of this. The following ten questions are designed to test your knowledge of justification by faith. After you have taken the quiz, perhaps you could ask a teacher in your church to take it as well. You might be surprised to find that many more than you expected are confused on this cardinal doctrine of Christianity. In each of the following 10 choices, mark either (a) or (b), whichever is correct.

1. (a) God gives a sinner right standing with himself by mercifully accounting him innocent or virtuous.

(b) God gives a sinner right standing with himself by actually making him into an innocent and virtuous person.

2. (a) God gives a sinner right standing with himself by placing Christ’s goodness and virtue to his credit.

(b) God gives a sinner right standing with himself by putting Christ’s goodness and virtue into his heart.

3. (a) God accepts the believer because of the righteousness found in Jesus Christ.

(b) God makes the believer acceptable by infusing Christ’s righteousness into his life.

4. (a) If a person is “born again” (regenerate), he will receive right standing with God on the basis of his new birth.

(b) If a person is “born again” he receives right standing with God on the basis of Christ’s work alone.

5. (a) We receive right standing with God by faith alone.

(b) We receive right standing with God by faith which has become active by love.

6. (a) We achieve right standing with God by having Christ live out his life of obedience in us.

(b) We receive right standing with God by accepting the fact that Christ obeyed the law perfectly for us.

7. (a) We achieve right standing with God by following Christ’s example by the help of his enabling grace.

(b) We follow Christ’s example because his death has given us right standing with God.

8. (a) In justification, God pronounces that we are good in his sight.

(b) In justification, God sends his Spirit to make us good.

9. (a) Christ’s intercession at God’s right hand gives us favor in the sight of God.

(b) It is the indwelling Christ that gives us favor in God’s sight.

10. (a) Only by faith in the doing and dying of Christ can we satisfy the claims of the Ten commandments.

(b) By the power of the Holy Spirit living in us, we can satisfy the claims of the Ten Commandments.

***Answers can be found at a web page link listed below.

In conclusion:

We live in an age of inexcusable evangelical ignorance of theology. This is tragic, since theology proper leads to the magnification of God’s glory. Understanding the depths of man’s sin, Christ’s atoning work in the area of imputation and justification leads the believer to praise God for our undeserved salvation. When we talk about the Bible, we are engaging in theology. We should strive for good precise theology that magnifies the glorious grace of God.

“But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and forever. Amen.” (2 Peter 3:18)

“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)

“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. Charles John Ellicott, Bible Commentary for English Readers, Romans, Vol.2, (London, England, Cassell and Company), pp.224-225.

2. Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, Commentary on the Whole Bible, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Zondervan, 1977) p.1150.

3. H. D. M. Spence and Joseph S. Exell, The Pulpit Commentary, 2 Corinthians, Vol.19., (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Eerdmans Publishing Company reprint 1978), p. 123.

4. Matthew Poole, Matthew Poole’s Commentary on the Holy Bible, Vol. 3, (Peabody, Massachusetts, Hendrickson Publishers, 1985), p.616.

5. J. I. Packer, 18 Words: The Most Important Words you will Ever Know, (Scotland, UK, Christian Focus), pp. 2176-2183. Kindle Edition

6. John Piper, Counted Righteous in Christ: Should We Abandon the Imputation of Christ’s Righteousness? (Wheaton, IL, Crossway), p. 62.

7. Thomas R. Schreiner, 40 Questions About Christians and Biblical Law, (Grand Rapids, MI, Kregel Academic & Professional), p.111.

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: http://www.TheReligionThatStartedInAHat.com

For more Study:

B. B. Warfield in Imputation:

In the proper understanding of the conception, it is important to bear in mind that the divine act called “imputation” is in itself precisely the same in each of the three great transactions into which it enters as a constituent part. The grounds on which it proceeds may differ; the things imputed may be different; and the consequent treatment of the person or persons to which the imputation is made may and will differ as the things imputed to them differ. But in each and every case alike imputation itself is simply the act of setting to one’s account; and the act of setting to one’s account is in itself the same act whether the thing set to his account stands on the credit or debit side of the account, and whatever may be the ground in equity on which it is set to his account. That the sin of Adam was so set to the account of his descendants that they have actually shared in the penalty which was threatened to it; and that the sins of His people were so set to the account of our Lord that He bore them in His own body on the tree, and His merits are so set to their account that by His stripes they are healed, the entirety of historical orthodox Christianity unites in affirming. https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/imputation_warfield.html

See the Commentary on Romans Chapter 5:12-21 by Charles Hodge https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/commentaryrom5.html

*Original Sin http://www.reformed.org/definitions/index.html?mainframe=/definitions/original_sin.html

**Definitions from Rebecca Writes at: http://www.rebecca-writes.com/theological-terms-in-ao/

***Answers to test at: http://www.undergroundnotes.com/Robbins.html

Man’s fall into Sin and how to be made Righteous in Christ by Jack Kettler

“Wherefore, as by one-man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so, death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. For if by one man’s offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) Therefore, as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. Moreover, the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.” (Romans 5:12-21)

In this study we will look at man’s fall into sin and God’s plan of reconciliation. In theological terms, we will be looking at original sin, Christ’s atoning work, the imputation of Christ’s righteousness and the grounds of the believer’s justification.

In the first section, two commentary entries that deal with the fall of man and original sin will be consulted. This study will be concluded by a theological multiple-choice test. Without apology, this study is coming from a historic Protestant understanding. Like the Bereans of old, take out your Bible and see if these things are so.

Section One – Exegetical commentary evidence

Exegetical Commentary Evidence on Original Sin

From Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers:

(12-21) Contrast between the reign of death introduced by the sin of Adam, and the reign of life introduced by the atonement of Christ.

The sequence is, first sin, then death. Now, the death which passed over mankind had its origin in Adam’s sin. Strictly speaking, there could be no individual sin till there was a law to be broken. But in the interval between Adam and Moses, i.e., before the institution of law, death prevailed, over the world. which was a proof that there was sin somewhere. The solution is, that the sin in question was not the individual guilt of individual transgressors, but the single transgression of Adam. Here, then, is the contrast. The single sin of the one man, Adam, brought death upon all mankind; the single act of the one Redeemer cleared away many offences—also for all men. Under the old dispensation law entered in to intensify the evil; but, in like manner, under the new, grace has come in to enhance and multiply the benefit. Thus, the remedial system and the condemnatory system are co-extensive, the one over against the other, and the first entirely cancels the second.

(12) Wherefore. —The train of thought which follows is suggested by the mention which had just been made of atonement, reconciliation. We see here another instance of the Apostle’s fondness for transcendental theology, and for the development of the deeper mysteries of God’s dealings with man. The rapidity with which ideas of this kind throng into his brain is such as to break the even flow and structure of his sentence.

As by one man. —This clause, “As by one-man sin and death entered,” ought to have been answered by “So by one Man grace and life entered.” But a difficulty occurs at the very outset. How can it really be said that sin and death entered by Adam? For sin does not exist without law, and the law did not come in till Moses. And yet we have proof that sin must have been there; for death, its consequence, prevailed all through this period in which law was still wanting. The fact was, the sin which then prevailed, and had such wide and disastrous effects, was Adam’s. So that it is strictly legitimate to compare his fall with the act of redemption. It is strictly true to say that by one-man sin and death entered into the world, as life and grace entered by another. In either case the consequence was that of one man’s act.

For that all have sinned.—. Rather, for that, or because, all sinned—i.e., not by their own individual act, but implicitly in Adam’s transgression. They were summed up, and included in him as the head and representative of the race. (1)

From the Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary:

Ro 5:12-21. Comparison and Contrast between Adam and Christ in Their Relation to the Human Family.

(This profound and most weighty section has occasioned an immense deal of critical and theological discussion, in which every point, and almost every clause, has been contested. We can here but set down what appears to us to be the only tenable view of it as a whole and of its successive clauses, with some slight indication of the grounds of our judgment).

12. Wherefore—that is, Things being so; referring back to the whole preceding argument.

as by one man—Adam.

sin—considered here in its guilt, criminality, penal desert.

entered into the world, and death by sin—as the penalty of sin.

and so, death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned—rather, “all sinned,” that is, in that one man’s first sin. Thus, death reaches every individual of the human family, as the penalty due to himself. (So, in substance, Bengel, Hodge, Philippi). Here we should have expected the apostle to finish his sentence, in some such way as this: “Even so, by one-man righteousness has entered into the world, and life by righteousness.” But, instead of this, we have a digression, extending to five verses, to illustrate the important statement of Ro 5:12; and it is only at Ro 5:18 that the comparison is resumed and finished. (2)

A Summary of Original Sin

*Original sin is the sinfulness of Adam’s descendants, by natural generation. The designation original sin signifies the following:

1. This sinfulness is derived from Adam, the original root of the entire race.

2. It is inherent in Adam’s posterity from the womb; it is not the result of environment or imitation.

3. It is the root of all the actual transgressions each sinner commits. Rome’s idea that though the root has been removed by baptism, the fruit still remains, is both illogical and unscriptural.

4. It consists of original guilt and original pollution. Guilt signifies a liability to punishment. Pollution signifies the absence of original righteousness and the presence of evil. Pollution involves guilt; there is no such thing as guiltless pollution. The Arminian view that pollution alone, not guilt, is transmitted from Adam to his posterity is based on an unscriptural view of man’s sinfulness, and obviously views pollution as a moral disease which is guiltless per se.

*At the link below, see a comparison of views on original sin. The above points, 1-4 come from this research study web site.

The next passage from Corinthians introduces us to the atoning work of Christ. Having a correct view of the atoning work of Christ is of critical importance to guard against semi-pelagianism or outright pelagianism. I’ve heard Mormon talk show host Glen Beck in tears say how he believes in the atonement of Christ. Yet, what he said was so far removed from the teaching of the Bible on the subject, was heartbreakingly in error.

“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.” (2 Corinthians 5:21)

These commentary entries will expound on Christ’s atoning work of salvation.

Exegetical Commentary Evidence regarding the atonement:

From the Pulpit Commentary

Verse 21. – He hath made him to be sin for us; rather, he made; he speaks with definite reference to the cross. The expression is closely analogous to that in Galatians 3:13, where it is said that Christ has been “made a curse for us.” He was, as St. Augustine says, “delictorum susceptor, non commissor.” He knew no sin; nay, he was the very righteousness, holiness itself (Jeremiah 23:6), and yet, for our benefit, God made him to be “sin” for us, in that he “sent him in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin” (Romans 8:3). Many have understood the word “sin” in the sense of sin offering (Leviticus 5:9, LXX.); but that is a precarious application of the word, which is not justified by any other passage in the New Testament. We cannot, as Dean Plumptre says, get beyond the simple statement, which St. Paul is content to leave in its unexplicable mystery, “Christ identified with man’s sin; man identified with Christ’s righteousness.” And thus, in Christ, God becomes Jehovah-Tsidkenu, “the Lord our Righteousness” (Jeremiah 23:6). That we might be made the righteousness of God in him; rather, that we might become. The best comment on the pregnant significance of this verse is Romans 1:16, 17, which is developed and explained in so large a section of that great Epistle (see 3:22-25; 4:5-8; 5:19, etc.). In him in his blood is a means of propitiation by which the righteousness of God becomes the righteousness of man (1 Corinthians 1:30), so that man is justified. The truth which St. Paul thus develops and expresses is stated by St. Peter and St. John in a simpler and less theological form (1 Peter 2:22-24; 1 John 3:5). (3)

From Matthew Poole’s Commentary

For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin: Christ knew no sin, as he was guilty of no sin; Which of you (saith he, John 8:46) convinceth me of sin? 1 Peter 2:22, He did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: but God made him to be sin for us. He was numbered with the transgressors, Isaiah 53:12. Our sins were reckoned to him; so as though personally he was no sinner, yet by imputation he was, and God dealt with him as such; for he was made a sacrifice for our sins, a sin offering; so, answering the type in the law, Leviticus 4:3,25,29 5:6 7:2.

That we might be made the righteousness of God in him; that so his righteousness might be imputed to us, and we might be made righteous with such a righteousness as those souls must have whom God will accept. As Christ was not made sin by any sin inherent in him, so neither are we made righteous by any righteousness inherent in us, but by the righteousness of Christ imputed to us; as he was a sinner by the sins of his people reckoned and imputed unto him. (4)

In section two, we will look at some important definitions. Precise definitions are important. Erroneous and even heretical ideas can be introduced by imprecise theological statements. These following definitions are rooted in historic Protestant theological understanding.

Section Two – Theological Definitions

**Definitions:

original sin

The sinful state and condition in which all human beings are born, which includes both imputed guilt (the guilt of Adam’s sin counted as their own) and inherited corruption (a disposition toward sin).

imputation

A reckoning or crediting of something to a person. Used salvifically, it refers the crediting of the personal guilt or personal righteousness of another, as in the imputation of the sin of Adam to all his descendants, the imputation of the sins of human beings to Christ, or the imputation of the righteousness of Christ to believers.

Christ’s righteousness—his “perfect obedience and full satisfaction” counted (or imputed) to the believer. This includes both his bearing the curse of the law for us in his death on the cross and his obedience to all of God’s precepts in our place. It’s the full package deal, everything needed for God to justly declare a sinner to be righteous.

justification

A judicial act of God in which he pardons sinners and accepts them as righteous on the basis of Christ’s work on their behalf, which includes both his representative obedience to the law and his representative endurance of the penalty for their disobedience.

Confessional Sources

Original Sin from The Westminster Shorter Catechism, Question 18:

Q. 18. Wherein consists the sinfulness of that estate whereinto man fell?

A. The sinfulness of that estate whereinto man fell, consists in the guilt of Adam’s first sin, the want of original righteousness, and the corruption of his whole nature, which is commonly called original sin; together with all actual transgressions which proceed from it.

Imputation from The London Baptist Confession, Chapter 6:

2. Our first parents, by this sin, fell from their original righteousness and communion with God, and we in them whereby death came upon all: all becoming dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body.

3. They being the root, and by God’s appointment, standing in the room and stead of all mankind, the guilt of the sin was imputed, and corrupted nature conveyed, to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation, being now conceived in sin, and by nature children of wrath, the servants of sin, the subjects of death, and all other miseries, spiritual, temporal, and eternal, unless the Lord Jesus set them free.

Justification from The Westminster Confession Chapter 11.1:

“I. Those 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 or anything wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ’s sake alone; nor 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.”

What does Counted Righteousness or Reckoned Righteousness mean?

Theologian J. I. Packer introduces the biblical grounds for this teaching:

The rendering which declares Abraham’s faith to have been ‘reckoned’ or ‘counted as righteousness’ (vv. 3, 5, 9, 22), though found in RSV, NIV, NEB and most modern versions, is no good…. ‘As’ represents the Greek preposition eis, meaning ‘towards’ or ‘with a view to’ in a wide range of contexts, and ‘for righteousness’ (KJV, RV) was a much better way to translate it, although ‘reckon’ and ‘count’ are no doubt improvements on the older word ‘impute’. Paul is not saying here that faith is our righteousness, but that we are justified through believing. Certainly, faith is the occasion and means of our justification, but Christ’s obedience (5:19), His righteousness… (v. 18), His propitiation for our sins (3:25…), is its ground. (5)

Consider Pastor John Piper’s comments on imputational or declared righteousness:

Piper concurs with Packer that eis should be translated “for” or “unto” rather than “as” in Romans 4:3, 5, 9, 22. He also explains that in Paul’s mind, “faith being credited for righteousness” is shorthand for faith being the way an external righteousness is received as credited to us by God – namely, not by working but by trusting him who justifies the ungodly. Paul’s conceptual framework for imputation in verses 4 and 5 would, therefore, not be God’s crediting something we have to be righteousness, but God’s crediting a righteousness we don’t have to be ours by grace through faith. (6)

What is Forensic Declaration of Righteousness?

Thomas R. Schreiner, explains this when commenting on justification, along with the Old Testament background basis for being declared righteous by God:

It is … instructive to note that righteousness in the Old Testament is often forensic in nature. For instance, Deuteronomy 25:1 presupposes that judges will “acquit the innocent and condemn the guilty” (my translation). Clearly, the judges do not make a person righteous or guilty but declare whether the person under trial is innocent or guilty. God himself says that he “will not acquit the wicked” (Exod. 23:7), which means that he will not declare the wicked to be in the right. Similarly, Proverbs 17:13 declares, “He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous are both alike an abomination to the Lord.” …. What is evident here is that judges do not make someone righteous or wicked. They render a forensic declaration based on the reality that is before them. Unrighteous judges “acquit the guilty for a bribe” (Isa. 5:23; cf. 2 Sam. 15:4). God’s righteousness as a judge is explained in Solomon’s prayer as “condemning the guilty by bringing his conduct on his own head and vindicating the righteous by rewarding him according to his righteousness” (1 Kings 8:32). (7)

This survey of important and precise theological statements brings us now to a theological test. This test highlights the separation between historic Protestantism and Roman Catholicism of imputation. Some may say, “what difference does it make today?” Would those who may raise this hypothetical question say the same thing regarding the Islamic view of Christ and His crucifixion and atoning work? I think not.

Highlighting important differences in theological formulations does not necessitate incivility. I still recall spending one evening with an Orthodox priest until midnight discussing theological distinctives. This discussion ended with mutual respect in spite of differences.

Lutheran and Roman theologians have met on and off in Rome for twenty years trying to resolve differences on justification. There is even a document prepared for upcoming release on this topic that in some people’s minds may resolve the differences. With this said, theological debate does not have to involve personal animosity. There can be mutual deference without engaging in mere academic pleasantries.

Section Three – Theological Precision

Are You Romanist or Protestant? By John Robbins

The meaning of justification by faith alone has been largely forgotten in the professing Christian Church. The meaning of justification has been forgotten, and so has the meaning of faith. But mere forgetting is not the whole issue. In addition to our sinful tendency to forget God’s truth (a tendency that the writers of the New Testament were well aware of, for they repeatedly said that they were writing to remind believers), false teachers, wolves in sheep’s clothing, have worked diligently to twist the Scriptural doctrine of justification. The teaching of the Roman State-Church is a prime example of this. The following ten questions are designed to test your knowledge of justification by faith. After you have taken the quiz, perhaps you could ask a teacher in your church to take it as well. You might be surprised to find that many more than you expected are confused on this cardinal doctrine of Christianity. In each of the following 10 choices, mark either (a) or (b), whichever is correct.

1. (a) God gives a sinner right standing with himself by mercifully accounting him innocent or virtuous.

(b) God gives a sinner right standing with himself by actually making him into an innocent and virtuous person.

2. (a) God gives a sinner right standing with himself by placing Christ’s goodness and virtue to his credit.

(b) God gives a sinner right standing with himself by putting Christ’s goodness and virtue into his heart.

3. (a) God accepts the believer because of the righteousness found in Jesus Christ.

(b) God makes the believer acceptable by infusing Christ’s righteousness into his life.

4. (a) If a person is “born again” (regenerate), he will receive right standing with God on the basis of his new birth.

(b) If a person is “born again” he receives right standing with God on the basis of Christ’s work alone.

5. (a) We receive right standing with God by faith alone.

(b) We receive right standing with God by faith which has become active by love.

6. (a) We achieve right standing with God by having Christ live out his life of obedience in us.

(b) We receive right standing with God by accepting the fact that Christ obeyed the law perfectly for us.

7. (a) We achieve right standing with God by following Christ’s example by the help of his enabling grace.

(b) We follow Christ’s example because his death has given us right standing with God.

8. (a) In justification, God pronounces that we are good in his sight.

(b) In justification, God sends his Spirit to make us good.

9. (a) Christ’s intercession at God’s right hand gives us favor in the sight of God.

(b) It is the indwelling Christ that gives us favor in God’s sight.

10. (a) Only by faith in the doing and dying of Christ can we satisfy the claims of the Ten commandments.

(b) By the power of the Holy Spirit living in us, we can satisfy the claims of the Ten Commandments.

***Answers can be found at a web page link listed below.

In conclusion:

We live in an age of inexcusable evangelical ignorance of theology. This is tragic, since theology proper leads to the magnification of God’s glory. Understanding the depths of man’s sin, Christ’s atoning work in the area of imputation and justification leads the believer to praise God for our undeserved salvation. When we talk about the Bible, we are engaging in theology. We should strive for good precise theology that magnifies the glorious grace of God.

“But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and forever. Amen.” (2 Peter 3:18)

“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)

“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. Charles John Ellicott, Bible Commentary for English Readers, Romans, Vol.2, (London, England, Cassell and Company), pp.224-225.

2. Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, Commentary on the Whole Bible, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Zondervan, 1977) p.1150.

3. H. D. M. Spence and Joseph S. Exell, The Pulpit Commentary, 2 Corinthians, Vol.19., (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Eerdmans Publishing Company reprint 1978), p. 123.

4. Matthew Poole, Matthew Poole’s Commentary on the Holy Bible, Vol. 3, (Peabody, Massachusetts, Hendrickson Publishers, 1985), p.616.

5. J. I. Packer, 18 Words: The Most Important Words you will Ever Know, (Scotland, UK, Christian Focus), pp. 2176-2183. Kindle Edition

6. John Piper, Counted Righteous in Christ: Should We Abandon the Imputation of Christ’s Righteousness? (Wheaton, IL, Crossway), p. 62.

7. Thomas R. Schreiner, 40 Questions About Christians and Biblical Law, (Grand Rapids, MI, Kregel Academic & Professional), p.111.

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: http://www.TheReligionThatStartedInAHat.com

For more Study:

B. B. Warfield in Imputation:

In the proper understanding of the conception, it is important to bear in mind that the divine act called “imputation” is in itself precisely the same in each of the three great transactions into which it enters as a constituent part. The grounds on which it proceeds may differ; the things imputed may be different; and the consequent treatment of the person or persons to which the imputation is made may and will differ as the things imputed to them differ. But in each and every case alike imputation itself is simply the act of setting to one’s account; and the act of setting to one’s account is in itself the same act whether the thing set to his account stands on the credit or debit side of the account, and whatever may be the ground in equity on which it is set to his account. That the sin of Adam was so set to the account of his descendants that they have actually shared in the penalty which was threatened to it; and that the sins of His people were so set to the account of our Lord that He bore them in His own body on the tree, and His merits are so set to their account that by His stripes they are healed, the entirety of historical orthodox Christianity unites in affirming. https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/imputation_warfield.html

See the Commentary on Romans Chapter 5:12-21 by Charles Hodge https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/commentaryrom5.html

*Original Sin http://www.reformed.org/definitions/index.html?mainframe=/definitions/original_sin.html

**Definitions from Rebecca Writes at: http://www.rebecca-writes.com/theological-terms-in-ao/

***Answers to test at: http://www.undergroundnotes.com/Robbins.html

Christ died for Sinners, not Good People! by Jack Kettler
“I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” (Luke 5:32)
Jesus is not saying there are people who are good and that do not need forgiveness. Jesus is calling out the religious leaders of his day, the Scribes and Pharisees, who viewed themselves as self-righteous, but in reality, were hypocrites.
The topic for this study is under the general heading of the atonement of Christ.
The Westminster Confession Chapter 11.3 is a theological paramount description of this:
“iii. Christ, by his obedience and death, did fully discharge the debt of all those that are thus justified, and did make a proper, real, and full satisfaction to his Father’s justice in their behalf. Yet, inasmuch as he was given by the Father for them; and his obedience and satisfaction accepted in their stead; and both, freely, not for anything in them; their justification is only of free grace; that both the exact justice and rich grace might be glorified in the justification of sinners.”
Christ died for us while we were in a state of unbelief, ungodliness, unrepentant and even the very enemies of Christ. In order to better understand the atoning work of Christ, the next passage from Romans will be our starting point.
“But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” (Romans 5:8)
In order to grasp the significance of this passage in Romans, it will be helpful to see the extent of what the whole of Scriptures declare about mankind being in a state of spiritual death.
To start, the Scriptures declare that man is indeed dead in sin and he has a heart of stone.
“But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” (Genesis 2:17)
The Hebrew word that is used in this passage twice is muwth and the verse uses two different verb tenses, which translate “dying” and “die” and is for doctrinal emphasis. The last part of verse 2:17 can be translated literally as “dying you shall die.” Adam and Eve’s relationship with God was now broken. They died an immediate spiritual death and later physical death, which was passed on to all of their posterity.
“And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” (Genesis 6:5)
God declares that thoughts of man were nothing but evil continually. Adam’s posterity inherited his sin and death, yet it was still all of mankind’s very own sinful thoughts and deeds.
“Behold, he putteth no trust in his saints; yea, the heavens are not clean in his sight. How much more abominable and filthy is man which drinketh iniquity like water?” (Job 15:15, 16)
Man, in his corrupt, and unregenerate state is much filthier than the heavens and is said to lust or crave wickedness just as he would drink water when thirsty.
“The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God. They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.” (Psalms 14:2, 3)
Here we see God speaking through David, describing the degeneracy of man’s nature.
“Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.” (Psalms 51:5)
David is speaking here of inherited sin.
“Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil.” (Ecclesiastes 8:11)
When justice is delayed, man’s sin is un-curbed. He becomes brazen-faced and bold to sin all the more.
“All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned everyone to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.” (Isaiah 53:6)
Every one of us have turned to evil ways. We have all gone astray.
“But we are as an unclean thing, and all our righteousness are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.” (Isaiah 64:6)
Our so-called righteous acts are nothing more than filthy rags or quite literally, a “menstruous rags” and because of our sins, the wind sweeps us away.
“Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? Then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.” (Jeremiah 13:23)
In this passage the prophet speaks clearly of man’s inability to change himself by pointing out two impossible things that parallel man’s condition. If your nature is evil you cannot change.
“The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?” (Jeremiah 17:9)
Man’s heart is desperately wicked or it can be said, incurable, and even man does not comprehend the magnitude of his own deceitfulness and depravity.
“The good man is perished out of the earth: and there is none upright amongmen: they all lie in wait for blood; they hunt every man his brother with a net.That they may do evil with both hands earnestly, the prince asketh, and thejudge asketh for a reward; and the great man, he uttereth his mischievousdesire: so they wrap it up. The best of them is as a brier: the most upright issharper than a thorn hedge: the day of thy watchmen and thy visitationcometh; now shall be their perplexity.” (Micah 7:2-4)
This statement by Micah goes beyond the people of his day and is a general declaration that is in harmony with the apostle Paul when he says; that there is none righteous no not one in Romans 3:10-12.
“And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and menloved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.” (John 3:19)
Men loving darkness is the cause of the condemnation, or it can be said to be the reason why men are going to be punished. Man’s desires sin rather than the holiness of God. Men try and hide in the darkness because their deeds are evil.
“Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.” (John 6:53)
Outside of Christ, there is no life in man.
“As it is written, there is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there in none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.” (Romans 3:10-12)
This is undoubtedly, is the most emphatic portion of Scripture when the apostle Paul declares man’s depravity. All mankind is indicted without exception.
“But we had the sentence of death in ourselves, that we should not trust in ourselves, but in God which raiseth the dead.” (2 Corinthians 1:9)
Here the apostle says; “we had the sentence of death in ourselves.” The word rendered “sentence” means a judicial ruling, outcome, or verdict. It not only means that Paul knew that he was condemned to die, it also has broader implications for the rest of mankind and the just condemnation awaiting them short of participating in the resurrection to life in Christ.
“For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.” (Romans 5:7-9)
These passages paint a bleak picture of fallen mankind. When Romans says we are sinners, it should be clear, the cause of Christ’s death for us was not based upon anything worthy in us.
Now back to Romans 5:8 and a look at some exegetical commentary evidence on this passage.
Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
But God commendeth … – God has exhibited or showed his love in this unusual and remarkable manner.
His love – His kind feeling; his beneficence; his willingness to submit to sacrifice to do good to others.
While we were yet sinners – And of course his enemies. In this, his love surpasses all that has ever been manifested among people.
Christ died for us – In our stead; to save us from death. He took our place; and by dying himself on the cross, saved us from dying eternally in hell. (1)
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
8. But God commendeth—”setteth off,” “displayeth”—in glorious contrast with all that men will do for each other.
his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners—that is, in a state not of positive “goodness,” nor even of negative “righteousness,” but on the contrary, “sinners,” a state which His soul hateth.
Christ died for us—Now comes the overpowering inference, emphatically redoubled. (2)
Matthew Poole’s Commentary
God commendeth his love toward us; i.e. he declareth or confirmeth it by this, as a most certain sign, he makes it most conspicuous or illustrious: see John 3:16 1Jo 4:9,10.
In that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us; i.e. in a state of sin, and under the guilt and power of sin. Believers in some sense are still sinners, 1Jo 1:8, but their sins being pardoned and subdued, they go no longer under that denomination. Sinners in Scripture are said to be those in whom sin dwells and reigns; see John 9:31. Such we were by nature. Yea, we were not only sinners, but enemies to God, which further commendeth the love of Christ in dying for us: there is no greater love amongst men, than when one layeth down his life for his friends; but herein Christ’s love excelled, that he gave his life for his enemies. (3)
Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
But God commendeth his love towards us,…. That is, he hath manifested it, which was before hid in his heart; he has given clear evidence of it, a full proof and demonstration of it; he has so confirmed it by this instance, that there is no room nor reason to doubt of it; he has illustrated and set it off with the greater lustre by this circumstance of it,
in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us. God’s elect were sinners in Adam, in whom they were naturally and federally, as all mankind were; hence polluted and guilty; and so they are in their own persons whilst unregenerate: they are dead in sin, and live in it, commit it, are slaves unto it, and are under the power and dominion of it; and many of them are the chief and vilest of sinners; and such they were considered when Christ died for them: but are not God’s people sinners after conversion? yes; but sin has not the dominion over them; their life is not a course of sinning, as before; and besides, they are openly justified and pardoned, as well as renewed, and sanctified, and live in newness of life; so that their characters now are taken, not from their worse, but better part. And that before conversion is particularly mentioned here, to illustrate the love of God to them, notwithstanding this their character and condition; and to show that the love of God to them was very early; it anteceded their conversion; it was before the death of Christ for them; yea, it was from everlasting: and also to express the freeness of it, and to make it appear, that it did not arise from any loveliness in them; or from any love in them to him; nor from any works of righteousness done by them, but from his own sovereign will and pleasure. (4)
William Hendriksen’s New Testament Commentary
6–8. For while we were still powerless, at the appointed time Christ died for the ungodly. Now a man will scarcely die for a righteous person, though for a good person someone might possibly dare to die. But God demonstrates his own love for us in this, that while we were still sinners Christ died for us.
In this passage Paul states the reason for saying that God poured his love into the hearts of sinners. He tells us that he was justified in making this assertion because “while we were still powerless,” that is, helpless, totally unable to rescue ourselves from the effects of the fall, Christ, motivated by sovereign love and not by any human merit or accomplishment, died for us, the ungodly.
The unique character of this love becomes apparent when we consider the fact that while for a righteous person a man will scarcely die—though, by rare exception, it might after all happen that for such a good person someone would dare to die, God, on the other hand, demonstrates his own love in this remarkable way, namely, that while we were still in our helpless and sinful state Christ died for us.
In connection with this explanation note the following:
a. The “ungodly” people of verse 6 are the “sinners” of verse 8, namely, those sinners for whom Christ died, the “beloved of God, saints” of 1:7.
b. The distinction between “a righteous person” and “a good person” should not be pressed, as if the apostle were saying that for a person who is merely “righteous” it would be almost impossible to find someone who would die, but for a “good” person, or benefactor, it might under exceptional conditions be possible to find a substitute who would be willing to offer his life. This is over-interpretation. We should adhere to the one basic point Paul is making, and not obscure the thought by introducing unwarranted distinctions. Room should be left for stylistic variation.
c. What Paul is saying is that God’s love, as revealed in Jesus Christ, is both unprecedented and unparalleled. No merit from our side could have moved Christ to die for us, for he died for us “while we were still sinners.” Moreover, he died for us “at the appointed time,” that is, at the time appointed by God (cf. Mark 1:15; Gal. 4:4), not by us.
This death was unparalleled with respect to the marvel of the implied condescending and pardoning grace. Christ died for those who were bad, bad, bad! In them there was no goodness that could have attracted this love. In the death of Jesus for sinners God demonstrates “his own” sovereign love. See Isa. 1:18; 53:6; 57:15; Dan. 9:17–19; 1 John 4:10.
d. Note the word “demonstrates,” present tense. Although it is true that for Paul, at the time he wrote this letter, as well as for us today, the death of Christ was an event that had occurred in the past, its lesson remains an ever present and glorious reality.
e. Note “his own love for us.”
f. Though it is true that no less than four times in these three verses Paul uses a preposition (ὑπέρ) which has a very wide range of meaning, stretching all the way from about or concerning (cf. περί) to in the place of (cf. ἀντί), and which frequently means “for,” “in behalf of,” “for the sake of,” “in the interest of,” it would seem that here in Rom. 5:6–8 this little word, though not by itself meaning “in the place of” implies as much. Does not the context (see verses 9, 10) indicate that by means of the shedding of his blood Christ removed from us God’s wrath? See also on Galatians, p. 130; on Philippians, pp. 82, 83; and on 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus, pp. 375, 376. (5)
Closing Comments
Christ died for sinners! Let that sink in? We the redeemed of the Lord, were unrepentant sinners when Christ died for us. Surely, we must have done something to deserve this. No, we have not! In contrast, humanism holds to the concept of performing works to obtain grace. Grace is not “grace” within a system such as this. This is not unmerited favor, it is works. Grace is God’s unmerited favor.
God’s mercy is withholding from us what we justly deserve. And these Scriptures, Genesis 2:17; Genesis 6:5; Job 15:15, 16; Psalms 14:2, 3; Psalms 51:5; Ecclesiastes 8:11; Isaiah 53:6; Isaiah 64:6; Jeremiah 13:23; Jeremiah 17:9; Micah 7:2-4; John 3:19; John 6:53; Romans 3:10-12; 2 Corinthians 1:9 that we considered above make it clear that as sinners we did nothing to cause or deserve Christ dying for us. Christ died for unworthy sinners. Christ’s substitutionary death magnifies the glory of God so that we can agree with the apostle, “to the praise (ἔπαινον epainos) [1868] of his glory, (δόξης doxa) [1391] who first trusted in Christ.” (Ephesians 1:12)
Consider the great Baptist preacher Charles Haddon Spurgeon’s thoughts on the believer’s undeserved salvation:
Join with me in prayer at this moment, I entreat you. Join with me while I put words into your mouths, and speak them on your behalf: “Lord, I am guilty, I deserve thy wrath. Lord, I cannot save myself. Lord, I would have a new heart and a right spirit, but what can I do? Lord, I can do nothing, come and work in me to will and to do thy good pleasure.
Thou alone hast power, I know,
To save a wretch like me;
To whom, or whither should I go
If I should run from thee?
But I now do from my very soul call upon thy name. Trembling, yet believing, I cast myself wholly upon thee, O Lord. I trust the blood and righteousness of thy dear Son…Lord, save me tonight, for Jesus’ sake.” (6)
Agreeing with Spurgeon’s prayer and in closing we can say by the Grace of God:
“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)
“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. Albert Barnes, THE AGES DIGITAL LIBRARYCOMMENTARY, Barnes’ Notes on the Bible, Romans, p.2112.
2. Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, Commentary on the Whole Bible, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Zondervan, 1977) p. 1149.
3. Matthew Poole’s Commentary on the Holy Bible, Romans, (Peabody, Massachusetts, Hendrickson Publishers, 1985) p. 494.
4. John Gill, Exposition of the Old and New Testaments, Romans, 9 Volumes, Romans, (Grace Works, Multi-Media Labs), 2011, pp. 106-107.
5. William Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary, Romans, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Baker Book House, 1984), pp. 172-173.
6. From Iain Murray, The Forgotten Spurgeon (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1973), p. 101.
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: http://www.TheReligionThatStartedInAHat.com
For addition study:
The Atonement by Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield: http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/sdg/warfield/warfield_atonement.html
The Atonement by John Murray: http://www.the-highway.com/atonement_murray.html
The Atonement by John Owen: http://www.the-highway.com/atonement_Owen.html
The Atonement by J. Gresham Machen: http://www.westminsterconfession.org/introduction-to-the-christian-faith/the-atonement.php
Additional Bible Study Resources: http://www.undergroundnotes.com/Resourses.html

The Virgin Birth of Christ, Isaiah 7:14 by Jack Kettler

“Therefore, the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” (Isaiah 7:14)

This study will seek a better understanding of the birth of Christ in order to increase and magnify our praise for God’s glory. There are those who question the virgin birth. They do this by quibbling about the translation of the word virgin. Ultimately this translation dispute comes down to presuppositions that are imposed upon Scripture rather than conclusive lexical evidence.

Those who question the virgin birth, do not believe in the miraculous. A naturalistic presupposition imposed upon Scripture will lead to the rejection of all miracles including the fulfillment of biblical prophecies. This dispute could also be described as a debate between those who hold to biblical inerrancy, a high view of Scripture and those who do not.

It will be helpful to look at cross references, exegetical biblical commentary and lexicon evidence. In regards to cross references, the Bible is the best interpreter of the Bible. Additional passages of Scripture are helpful and provide more understanding of the Isaiah 7:14.

How is the Hebrew word “almah” is used in Isaiah? The Hebrew word “almah” can be translated both “young women” and “virgin.” Significantly, the Jewish translators in the Septuagint used the Greek word parthenos, which characteristically means “virgin.”

Strong’s Number: 3933 Original Word- παρθενος Transliterated Word Parthenos

Definition: a virgin, a woman who has never had sexual intercourse with a man, a marriageable maiden.

This study is an overview of the virgin birth of Christ rather than an exhaustive treatment of the subject. At the end of this study, the reader will be referred to the classic, The Virgin Birth of Christ by J. Gresham Machen for additional study.

Cross References:

“Behold! The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call Him Immanuel which means, ‘God with us.’” (Matthew 1:23)

“To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary.” (Luke 1:27)

“Behold, you will conceive and give birth to a son, and you shall give Him the name Jesus.” (Luke 1:31)

“And Mary said to the angel, “How will this be, since I am a virgin?” (Luke 1:34)

“And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy—the Son of God.” (Luke 1:35)

“Then it will sweep on into Judah, it will overflow and pass through, It will reach even to the neck; And the spread of its wings will fill the breadth of your land, O Immanuel.” (Isaiah 8:8)

“Devise a plan, but it will be thwarted; State a proposal, but it will not stand, For God is with us.” (Isaiah 8:10)

“For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.” (Isaiah 9:6)

“This shall be the sign to you from the LORD, that the LORD will do this thing that He has spoken.” (Isaiah 38:7)

“In His days Judah will be saved, And Israel will dwell securely; And this is His name by which He will be called, ‘The LORD our righteousness.” (Jeremiah 23:6)

When Mary said to the angel, “How will this be, since I am a virgin?” in Luke 1:34 provides conclusive divine commentary on Christ’s birth and her virginity.

Lexicon:

a virgin הָעַלְמָ֗ה ha·’al·mah 5959 a young woman, a virgin fem. of elem

Exegetical Commentary Evidence:

In this section, there will be some rather lengthy quotes. The diligent reader will surely be blessed to work through the material in this section.

Matthew Poole’s Commentary:

Therefore; because you despise me, and the sign which I now offer to you, God of his own free grace will send you a more honourable messenger, and give you a nobler sign, to try whether that will cure you of your infidelity. Or, nevertheless, as this particle seems to be understood, Isaiah 30:18 Jeremiah 16:14 30:16. Although you deserve no sign nor favour, yet, for the comfort of those few believers which are among you, and to leave you without excuse, I shall mind you or another and a greater sign, which God hath promised, and will in his due time perform; which also is a pledge of the certain accomplishment of all God’s promises. Or, surely, as this particle is sometimes used, as Genesis 4:15 Jeremiah 2:33 5:2 Zechariah 11:7.

A sign, to wit, of your deliverance.

Question: How was this birth of a virgin, which was not to come till many ages after, a sign of their deliverance from the present danger?

Answer:

1. Because this was a clear demonstration of God’s infinite power, and goodness, and faithfulness, and consequently of the certain truth of all God’s promises from time to time, which can never fill so long as those attributes of God stand; and men’s faith is either strong or weak, as they believe them or doubt of them; of which see Psalm 77:8 78:19,20 Ro 4:20,21. And so this was a proper remedy for Ahaz’s disease, which was a secret suspicion that God either could not or would not deliver them.

2. Because that promise, I say not only the actual giving, which was long after, but even the promise, of the Messiah, which had been made long since, and oft renewed, and was universally believed by all the people, was the foundation of all God’s mercies and promises unto them, 2 Corinthians 1:20, and a pledge of the accomplishment of them.

3. Because this promised birth did suppose and require the preservation of that city, and nation, and tribe, in and of which the Messiah was to be born; and therefore there was no cause to fear that utter ruin which their enemies now threatened to bring upon them.

4. This is one, but not the only sign here given, as we shall see at Isaiah 7:16.

Behold; you who will not believe that God alone is able to deliver you from the united force of Syria and Israel, take notice, for your full satisfaction, that God is not only able to do this work, but to do far greater and harder things, which he hath promised, and therefore both can and will accomplish

A virgin; strictly and properly so called. The Jews, that they may obscure this plain text, and weaken this proof of the truth of Christian religion, pretend that this Hebrew word signifies a young woman, and not a virgin. But this corrupt translation is easily confuted,

1. Because this word constantly signifies a virgin in all other places of Scripture where it is used, which are Genesis 24:43, compared with Isaiah 7:16 Exodus 2:8 Psalm 68:25 Song of Solomon 1:3 6:8; to which may be added Proverbs 30:19, The way of a man with a maid, or a virgin: for though it be supposed that he did design and desire to corrupt her, and afterwards did so; yet she may well be called a virgin, partly because he found her a virgin, and partly because she seemed and pretended to others to be such, which made her more careful to use all possible arts to preserve her reputation, and so made the discovery of her impure conversation with the man more difficult, whereas the filthy practices of common harlots are easily and vulgarly known.

2. From the scope of this place, which is to confirm their faith by a strange and prodigious sign, which surely could not be not a young woman should conceive a child, but that a virgin should conceive, &c.

Bear a Son; or rather, bring forth, as it is rendered, Matthew 1:23, and as this Hebrew word is used, Genesis 16:11 17:19 Judges 13:5.

And shall call; the virgin, last mentioned, shall call; which is added as a further evidence of her virginity, and that this Son had no human father, because the right of naming the child (which, being a sign of dominion, is primarily in the husband, and in the wife only by his consent or permission, as is evident from Genesis 5:29 35:18 Luke 1:60,63, and many other places of Scripture) is wholly appropriated to her.

Immanuel; which signifies, God with us; God dwelling among us, in our nature, John 1:14, God and man meeting in one person, and being a Mediator between God and men. For the design of these words is not so much to relate the name by which Christ should commonly be called, as to describe his nature and office; as we read that his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, &c., Isaiah 9:6, and that this is said to be his (the Messiah’s) name whereby he shall be called, The Lord our Righteousness, Jeremiah 23:6, although he be never called by these names in any other place of the Old or New Testament; but the meaning of these places is, He shall be wonderful, and our Counsellor, &c., and our Righteousness; for to be called is oft put for to be, as Isaiah 1:26 4:3, &c. (1)

Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible:

Therefore, the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Whether they would ask one or not; a sign both in heaven and earth, namely, the promised Messiah; who being the Lord from heaven, would take flesh of a virgin on earth; and who as man, being buried in the heart of the earth, would be raised from thence, and ascend up into heaven; and whose birth, though it was to be many years after, was a sign of present deliverance to Judah from the confederacy of the two kings of Syria and Israel; and of future safety, since it was not possible that this kingdom should cease to be one until the Messiah was come, who was to spring from Judah, and be of the house of David; wherefore by how much the longer off was his birth, by so much the longer was their safety.

Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son; this is not to be understood of Hezekiah, the son of Ahaz, by his wife, as some Jewish writers interpret it; which interpretation Jarchi refutes, by observing that Hezekiah was nine years old when his father began to reign, and this being, as he says, the fourth year of his reign, he must be at this time thirteen years of age; in like manner, Aben Ezra and Kimchi object to it; and besides, his mother could not be called a “virgin”: and for the same reason it cannot be understood of any other son of his either by his wife, as Kimchi thinks, or by some young woman; moreover, no other son of his was ever lord of Judea, as this Immanuel is represented to be, in Isaiah 8:8 nor can it be interpreted of Isaiah’s wife and son, as Aben Ezra and Jarchi think; since the prophet could never call her a “virgin”, who had bore him children, one of which was now with him; nor indeed a “young woman”, but rather “the prophetess”, as in Isaiah 8:3 nor was any son of his king of Judah, as this appears to be, in the place before cited: but the Messiah is here meant, who was to be born of a pure virgin; as the word here used signifies in all places where it is mentioned, as Genesis 24:43 and even in Proverbs 30:19 which is the instance the Jews give of the word being used of a woman corrupted; since it does not appear that the maid and the adulterous woman are one and the same person; and if they were, she might, though vitiated, be called a maid or virgin, from her own profession of herself, or as she appeared to others who knew her not, or as she was antecedent to her defilement; which is no unusual thing in Scripture, see Deuteronomy 22:28 to which may be added, that not only the Evangelist Matthew renders the word by “a virgin”; but the Septuagint interpreters, who were Jews, so rendered the word hundreds of years before him; and best agrees with the Hebrew word, which comes from the root which signifies to “hide” or “cover”; virgins being covered and unknown to men; and in the eastern country were usually kept recluse, and were shut up from the public company and conversation of men: and now this was the sign that was to be given, and a miraculous one it was, that the Messiah should be born of a pure and incorrupt virgin; and therefore a “behold” is prefixed to it, as a note of admiration; and what else could be this sign or wonder? not surely that a young married woman, either Ahaz’s or Isaiah’s wife, should be with child, which is nothing surprising, and of which there are repeated instances every day; nor was it that the young woman was unfit for conception at the time of the prophecy, which was the fancy of some, as Jarchi reports, since no such intimation is given either in the text or context; nor did it lie in this, that it was a male child, and not a female, which was predicted, as R. Saadiah Gaon, in Aben Ezra, would have it; for the sign or wonder does not lie in the truth of the prophet’s prediction, but in the greatness of the thing predicted; besides, the verification of this would not have given the prophet much credit, nor Ahaz and the house of David much comfort, since this might have been ascribed rather to a happy conjecture than to a spirit of prophecy; much less can the wonder be, that this child should eat butter and honey, as soon as it was born, as Aben Ezra and Kimchi suggest; since nothing is more natural to, and common with young children, than to take down any kind of liquids which are sweet and pleasant.

And shall call his name Immanuel; which is, by interpretation, “God with us”, Matthew 1:23 whence it appears that the Messiah is truly God, as well as truly man: the name is expressive of the union of the two natures, human and divine, in him; of his office as Mediator, who, being both God and man, is a middle person between both; of his converse with men on earth, and of his spiritual presence with his people. See John 1:14. (2)

Calvin’s Commentary:

14. Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Ahaz had already refused the sign which the Lord offered to him, when the Prophet remonstrated against his rebellion and ingratitude; yet the Prophet declares that this will not prevent God from giving the sign which he had promised and appointed for the Jews. But what sign?

Behold, a virgin shall conceive. This passage is obscure; but the blame lies partly on the Jews, who, by much cavilling, have labored, as far as lay in their power, to pervert the true exposition. They are hard pressed by this passage; for it contains an illustrious prediction concerning the Messiah, who is here called Immanuel; and therefore they have labored, by all possible means, to torture the Prophet’s meaning to another sense. Some allege that the person here mentioned is Hezekiah; and others, that it is the son of Isaiah.

Those who apply this passage to Hezekiah are excessively impudent; for he must have been a full-grown man when Jerusalem was besieged. Thus they show that they are grossly ignorant of history. But it is a just reward of their malice, that God hath blinded them in such a manner as to be deprived of all judgment. This happens in the present day to the papists, who often expose themselves to ridicule by their mad eagerness to pervert the Scriptures.

As to those who think that it was Isaiah’s son, it is an utterly frivolous conjecture; for we do not read that a deliverer would be raised up from the seed of Isaiah, who should be called Immanuel; for this title is far too illustrious to admit of being applied to any man.

Others think, or, at least, (being unwilling to contend with the Jews more than was necessary,) admit that the Prophet spoke of some child who was born at that time, by whom, as by an obscure picture, Christ was foreshadowed. But they produce no strong arguments, and do not show who that child was, or bring forward any proofs. Now, it is certain, as we have already said, that this name Immanuel could not be literally applied to a mere man; and, therefore, there can be no doubt that the Prophet referred to Christ.

But all writers, both Greek and Latin, are too much at their ease in handling this passage; for, as if there were no difficulty in it, they merely assert that Christ is here promised from the Virgin Mary. Now, there is no small difficulty in the objection which the Jews bring against us, that Christ is here mentioned without any sufficient reason; for thus they argue, and demand that the scope of the passage be examined: “Jerusalem was besieged. The Prophet was about to give them a sign of deliverance. Why should he promise the Messiah, who was to be born five hundred years afterwards?” By this argument they think that they have gained the victory, because the promise concerning Christ had nothing to do with assuring Ahaz of the deliverance of Jerusalem. And then they boast as if they had gained the day, chiefly because scarcely any one replies to them. That is the reason why I said that commentators have been too much at their ease in this matter; for it is of no small importance to show why the Redeemer is here mentioned.

Now, the matter stands thus. King Ahaz having rejected the sign which God had offered to him, the Prophet reminds him of the foundation of the covenant, which even the ungodly did not venture openly to reject. The Messiah must be born; and this was expected by all, because the salvation of the whole nation depended on it. The Prophet, therefore, after having expressed his indignation against the king, again argues in this manner: “By rejecting the promise, thou wouldest endeavor to overturn the decree of God; but it shall remain inviolable, and thy treachery and ingratitude will not hinder God from being, continually the Deliverer of his people; for he will at length raise up his Messiah.”

To make these things more plain, we must attend to the custom of the Prophets, who, in establishing special promises, lay down this as the foundation, that God will send a Redeemer. On this general foundation God everywhere builds all the special promises which he makes to his people; and certainly every one who expects aid and assistance from him must be convinced of his fatherly love. And how could he be reconciled to us but through Christ, in whom he has freely adopted the elect, and continues to pardon them to the end? Hence comes that saying of Paul, that all the promises of God in Christ are Yea and Amen. (2 Corinthians 1:20.)

Whenever, therefore, God assisted his ancient people, he at the same time reconciled them to himself through Christ; and accordingly, whenever famine, pestilence, and war are mentioned, in order to hold out a hope of deliverance, he places the Messiah before their eyes. This being exceedingly clear, the Jews have no right to make a noise, as if the Prophet made an unseasonable transition to a very remote subject. For on what did the deliverance of Jerusalem depend, but on the manifestation of Christ? This was, indeed, the only foundation on which the salvation of the Church always rested.

Most appropriately, therefore, did Isaiah say, “True, thou dost not believe the promises of God, but yet God will fulfill them; for he will at length send his Christ, for whose sake he determines to preserve this city. Though thou art unworthy, yet God will have regard to his own honor.” King Ahaz is therefore deprived of that sign which he formerly rejected, and loses the benefit of which he proved himself to be unworthy; but still God’s inviolable promise is still held out to him. This is plainly enough intimated by the particle lkn, (lachen,) therefore; that is, because thou disdainest that particular sign which God offered to thee, hv’, (hu,) He, that is, God himself, who was so gracious as to offer it freely to thee, he whom thou weariest will not fail to hold out a sign. When I say that the coming of Christ is promised to Ahaz, I do not mean that God includes him among the chosen people, to whom he had appointed his Son to be the Author of salvation; but because the discourse is directed to the whole body of the people.

Will give you a sign. The word lkm, (lachem,) to you, is interpreted by some as meaning to your children; but this is forced. So far as relates to the persons addressed, the Prophet leaves the wicked king and looks to the nation, so far as it had been adopted by God. He will therefore give, not to thee a wicked king, and to those who are like thee, but to you whom he has adopted; for the covenant which he made with Abraham continues to be firm and inviolable. And the Lord always has some remnant to whom the advantage of the covenant belongs; though the rulers and governors of his people may be hypocrites.

Behold, a virgin shall conceive. The word Behold is used emphatically, to denote the greatness of the event; for this is the manner in which the Spirit usually speaks of great and remarkable events, in order to elevate the minds of men. The Prophet, therefore, enjoins his hearers to be attentive, and to consider this extraordinary work of God; as if he had said, “Be not slothful, but consider this singular grace of God, which ought of itself to have drawn your attention, but is concealed from you on account of your stupidity.”

Although the word lmh, (gnalmah,) a virgin, is derived from lm, (gnalam,) which signifies to hide, because the shame and modesty of virgins does not allow them to appear in public; yet as the Jews dispute much about that word, and assert that it does not signify virgin, because Solomon used it to denote a young woman who was betrothed, it is unnecessary to contend about the word. Though we should admit what they say, that lmh (gnalmah) sometimes denotes a young woman, and that the name refers, as they would have it, to the age, (yet it is frequently used in Scripture when the subject relates to a virgin,) the nature of the case sufficiently refutes all their slanders. For what wonderful thing did the Prophet say, if he spoke of a young woman who conceived through intercourse with a man? It would certainly have been absurd to hold out this as a sign or a miracle. Let us suppose that it denotes a young woman who should become pregnant in the ordinary course of nature; [109] everybody sees that it would have been silly and contemptible for the Prophet, after having said that he was about to speak of something strange and uncommon, to add, A young woman shall conceive. It is, therefore, plain enough that he speaks of a virgin who should conceive, not by the ordinary course of nature, but by the gracious influence of the Holy Spirit. And this is the mystery which Paul extols in lofty terms, that

God was manifested in the flesh. (1 Timothy 3:16.)

And shall call. The Hebrew verb is in the feminine gender, She shall call; for as to those who read it in the masculine gender, I know not on what they found their opinion. The copies which we use certainly do not differ. If you apply it to the mother, it certainly expresses something different from the ordinary custom. We know that to the father is always assigned the right of giving a name to a child; for it is a sign of the power and authority of fathers over children; and the same authority does not belong to women. But here it is conveyed to the mother; and therefore it follows that he is conceived by the mother in such a manner as not to have a father on earth; otherwise the Prophet would pervert the ordinary custom of Scripture, which ascribes this office to men only. Yet it ought to be observed that the name was not given to Christ at the suggestion of his mother, and in such a case it would have had no weight; but the Prophet means that, in publishing the name, the virgin will occupy the place of a herald, because there will be no earthly father to perform that office.

Immanuel. This name was unquestionably bestowed on Christ on account of the actual fact; for the only-begotten Son of God clothed himself with our flesh, and united himself to us by partaking of our nature. He is, therefore, called God with us, or united to us; which cannot apply to a man who is not God. The Jews in their sophistry tell us that this name was given to Hezekiah; because by the hand of Hezekiah God delivered his people; and they add, “He who is the servant of God represents his person.” But neither Moses nor Joshua, who were deliverers of the nation, were so denominated; and therefore this Immanuel is preferred to Moses and Joshua, and all the others; for by this name he excels all that ever were before, and all that shall come after him; and it is a title expressive of some extraordinary excellence and authority which he possesses above others. It is therefore evident that it denotes not only the power of God, such as he usually displays by his servant, but a union of person, by which Christ became God-man. Hence it is also evident that Isaiah here relates no common event, but points out that unparalleled mystery which the Jews labor in vain to conceal. (3)

My Comments, in Summary:

The doctrine of the virgin birth is of paramount importance. Mary asks the angel Gabriel; “How shall this be?” in Luke 1:34. Gabriel tells Mary, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you” (Luke 1:35). Gabriel also reassures Joseph regarding his apprehension about espousing Mary with these expressions: “what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 1:20). Matthew states that; “the virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son” (Matthew 1:18). Consider the apostolic commentary, the virgin birth is taught by the apostle Paul: “God sent His Son, born of a virgin.” (Galatians 4:4)

If you want to have debate on the virgin birth of Christ, first demonstrate that you have read Machen’s book and then we can discuss the topic.

“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)

Notes:

1. Matthew Poole’s Commentary on the Holy Bible, Isaiah, Vol. 2., (Peabody, Massachusetts, Hendrickson Publishers, 1985) p. 310-311.

2. John Gill, Exposition of the Old and New Testaments, Isaiah, 9 Volumes, Isaiah, (Grace Works, Multi-Media Labs), 2011, pp. 113-115.

3. John Calvin, Calvin’s Commentaries, Isaiah, Vol. 7., (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Baker Book House Reprinted 1979), p. 244-249.

“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)

“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. Available at: http://www.TheReligionThatStartedInAHat.com

For more study:

J. Gresham Machen’s The Virgin Birth of Christ is considered one of the best books ever written on the subject of the virgin birth.

Praise for Machen’s The Virgin Birth of Christ:

“Professor Machen’s work is elaborate, learned and full. The writer possesses an acute mind and a competent knowledge of modern critical literature.” The Times

“The Author has thought all around his subject and has left no phase unconsidered. His earlier published studies show that he has been thinking about it for a quarter of a century. I am not aware of any important literature on either side of the subject that he has overlooked.” The Christian Century (USA)

“It is no doubt the most extensive book on the subject that has hitherto appeared, an impressive volume. But it is … also so earnest, so circumspect, so intelligent in its discussions, that it must be recognized unqualifiedly as an important achievement.” Theologische Studien und Kritiken

“Dr. Machen’s learning is so great and his reading exceedingly wide, so that his book will long be a repertory of information as to all angles of its subject.” The Churchman (USA)

“Professor Machen has written a book on the Virgin Birth which is certain to gain the attention of all, friends or foes, who have an interest in this perplexing subject. His work is genuinely learned; it displays a thorough mastery of relevant literature, even when rather out of the way, and is surrounded by a wider zone of scholarship than discussion of this special subject might seem to require, but one which testifies the more to the writer’s extreme carefulness.” Professor H.R. Mackintosh, in British Weekly

I recommend getting a hardcopy reprint of this book. However, you can get the complete book in PDF form at the link below.

The Virgin Birth of Christ by J. Gresham Machen

Click to access virginbirth_p.pdf

Machen’ Bio:

Dr. Machen’s reputation as not only one of the world’s foremost New Testament scholars but as one of the ablest defenders of historic Christianity. His former books, ‘The Origin of Paul’s Religion’ (1921), ‘Christianity and Liberalism’ (1923) and ‘What is Faith?’ (1925), have so whetted the appetites of their thousands of readers that the announcement of a new book by Dr. Machen fills them with eager expectancy—whatever may be their theological position. It will be recalled that Mr. Walter Lippmann, whose theological position is about as far removed as possible from that of Dr. Machen’s, in his widely read book, ‘A Preface to Morals’, not only speaks of Dr. Machen as ‘both a scholar and a gentleman’ but says of his book, ‘Christianity and Liberalism’: ‘It is an admirable book. For its acumen, for its saliency, and for its wit, this cool and stringent defense of orthodox Protestantism is, I think, the best popular argument produced by either side in the current controversy. We shall do well to listen to Dr. Machen.’ Dr. Machen’s latest book, it is true, like ‘The Origin of Paul’s Religion’, moves throughout in the field of exact scholarship. It would be difficult to point to a book anywhere that is more thorough-going in its recital and examination of all that bears upon the subject with which it deals. But while this is the case, Dr. Machen writes so simply and lucidly that men and women of intelligence everywhere, whatever their standing as technical scholars, will be able to read it with understanding and profit. Certainly, no minister or Bible teacher of adults can afford to ignore this book. To the reviewer at least it is a source of much satisfaction to know that what is confessedly the most exhaustive and most scholarly book on the problem of the Virgin Birth of Christ ever published, at least in English, has been written by a man who after having acquainted himself with everything of importance that has been written on the subject since the first century, no matter in what language, holds to the historic belief of the Christian Church that its founder was born without human father, being conceived by the Holy Ghost and born of the Virgin Mary.” -Samuel Craig

James 1:5, Wisdom and Knowledge, is there a difference? By Jack Kettler

“If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.” (James 1:5)

James is talking about wisdom, not knowledge. Is there a difference? This study will seek to answer that question. The word knowledge does not even appear in this text. From the Greek, wisdom, σοφίας sophias [4678 Strong’s] is the root of the English terms, “sophistication “and “philosophy” – literally (respectively), “the art of using wisdom,” “affection for wisdom.”

As in a previous study, I mentioned talking with some nice young people from a Utah based religion. In one discussion, these young people told me their church’s leader was a living prophet just like the prophet Isaiah in the Old Testament. I asked them why they believed that. I was told that they prayed about it and got a confirmation of a burning in the bosom that it was true. This struck me as a very subjective evaluation. I’ve heard of others who did not get an affirmative answer to this prayer. Who is correct? Is the methodology used by these young people, seeking this answer, flawed? Should we pray about the truthfulness of Mohammad’s religion, Hinduism, and any number of other religions?

In the case of the young people, they are putting forth an affirmative answer or testimony to this question. When asking about the legitimacy of this methodology, these young people referred me to James 1:5. This was the proof text for their claim that asking God for wisdom is the same as asking God for an answer to prayer. Without saying it, these young people seem to believe that wisdom was synonymous with knowledge in this passage of Scripture. It also may have been a case of word definition confusion. In any case, more familiarity with Scripture on their part would be prudent along with proper word definitions.

A short aside that is necessary to our study, regarding the methodology of seeking wisdom:

The burning in the bosom is clearly some type of experience. How do you authenticate experiences?

There are many that claim to have had spiritual experiences. It is seen under scrutiny that experiences have actually affected how certain individuals interpret Scripture. Scriptures are often reinterpreted in light of the experience. This approach is fraught with dangerous pitfalls. 2 Corinthians 11:13-15 warns us of false workers who transform themselves into ministers of Christ. In Matthew 7:22, 23 we find that there are those who have even worked miracles, but in the end Christ says, “I never knew you”. Even miracle workers may be enemies of Christ. We are to be on guard against false doctrine. All organizations, whether secular or religious, offer testimonials.

How are experiential testimonials evaluated? Are there false testimonies? Many people do not grasp the potential for self-deception. Not only may we deceive ourselves, the apostle John tells us: “Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God…” I John 4:1. False spirits may deceive us. Numerous people pray about all kinds of things and get all kinds of varying answers. Many alleged prayers are contradicted by other people’s answers to their prayers. I am not downplaying prayer, but in certain contexts God expects us to use other means to determine answers to questions. With the case of contradictory prayers, you are in the realm of he said, she said. Scripture must always interpret experiences, not the other way around.

These young people insisted that prayer was a legitimate way to determine if someone was a prophet. As in the case with other passages referenced by these young people, looking at the passage in James, I could see nothing that suggested praying to determine if someone was or is a prophet. The text clearly was about asking God for wisdom. To determine what James is saying, it is always important to look at similar passages. To determine if someone is a prophet, you are asking for an answer, which is knowledge. James is talking about wisdom. Again, is there a difference? This study will answer that question. If you have the wisdom that the scripture is speaking of, you will have a biblical methodology to determine the question if someone is a true or false prophet. We will see what that methodology is in this study.

Cross References:

“So give Your servant an understanding heart to judge Your people to discern between good and evil. For who is able to judge this great people of Yours?” (1 Kings 3:9)

“For the LORD gives wisdom; From His mouth come knowledge and understanding.” (Proverbs 2:6)

“In all your ways acknowledge Him, And He will make your paths straight.” (Proverbs 3:6)

“The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.” (Proverbs 9:10)

“It is He who changes the times and the epochs; He removes kings and establishes kings; He gives wisdom to wise men And knowledge to men of understanding.” (Daniel 2:21)

“But the wisdom from above is first of all pure, then peaceable, gentle, accommodating, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial, and sincere.” (James 3:17)

The above list is not exhaustive, but what emerges is that there is a distinction between wisdom and knowledge. This is seen by way of contrast.

Many have heard that “knowledge without wisdom is folly.” Consider the following:

“Men can acquire knowledge, but not wisdom. Some of the greatest fools ever known were learned men.” – Spanish Proverb

“Knowledge without wisdom is a load of books on the back of an ass.” – Japanese Proverb

“Knowledge without wisdom is like water in the sand.” – Guinean proverb

“Wisdom is the daughter of experience.” – Leonardo Da Vinci

“Knowledge comes, but wisdom lingers.” – Alfred Lord Tennyson

“Wisdom is the right use of knowledge. To know is not to be wise. Many men know a great deal, and are all the greater fools for it. There is no fool so great a fool as a knowing fool. But to know how to use knowledge is to have wisdom.” C. H. Spurgeon

“A man may store his mind with facts, Till knowledge from it overflows, But lacking wisdom from Above, He’s still a “fool” till Christ he knows.” – Bosch

“Surely the essence of wisdom is that before we begin to act at all, or attempt to please God, we should discover what it is that God has to say about the matter.” – D. Martyn Lloyd Jones

It is rather apparent from the above quotations, there is a distinction between wisdom and knowledge.

Commentary Evidence:

Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers

(5) If any of you lack wisdom. —The Apostle passes on to the thought of heavenly wisdom; not the knowledge of the deep things of God, but that which is able to make us wise unto our latter end (Proverbs 19:20). Few may be able, save in self-conceit, to say with Isaiah (Isaiah 50:4), “The Lord God hath given me the tongue of the learned;” and, on the other hand, the wisest and most gifted of men may truly be wanting in the wisdom descending from above.

Let him ask of God. —But whoever, learned or unlearned, feels in his heart the need of the knowledge of God, since to know Him “is eternal life” (John 17:3), “let him ask” for it in all purity of intention, simply, i.e., for His honour and service, “and it shall be given him.”

That giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not. — “Liberally” had better, perhaps, be changed to simply—i.e., God gives fully and directly, and reproacheth (or, “upbraideth”) not the utterance of such a prayer, in no way detracting from the graciousness of His gifts. How wide the difference from any generosity of man I “Yea,” wrote Dante, in exile at Verona,

“. . . thou shalt learn how salt his food, who fares

Upon another’s bread. —how steep his path,

Who treadeth up and down another’s stairs.”

“The fool,” said the wise son of Sirach, “giveth little, and upbraideth much . . ., and is hated of God and man” (Ecclesiasticus 20:15). (1)

MacLaren’s Expositions

“What, then, does James mean by ‘wisdom’? He means the sum of practical religion. With him, as with the psalmist, sin and folly are two names for the same thing, and so are religion and wisdom. He, and only he, has wisdom who knows God with a living heart-knowledge which gives a just insight into the facts of life and the bounds of right and wrong, and which regulates conduct and shapes the whole man with power far beyond that of knowledge however wide and deep, illuminating intellect however powerful. ‘Knowledge’ is poor and superficial in comparison with this wisdom, which may roughly be said to be equivalent to practical religion.” (2)

Simon J. Kistemaker, New Testament Commentary, James

2. Asking for Wisdom

1:5–8

Characteristically, James introduces a topic rather briefly and then returns to it later. In this particular section, he speaks about the need for wisdom; in chapter 3 he delineates two kinds of wisdom—one from heaven and the other from earth.

5. If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him.

James demonstrates the art of writing by linking key words and phrases. In verse 3 he stresses the word perseverance; he puts it last in the sentence to give it emphasis. In verse 4, “perseverance” is the first expression he uses. The last phrase in verse 4 is “not lacking anything”; the first clause of the next phrase repeats this verb, “If any of you lacks wisdom.” The writer knows how to communicate effectively in simple, direct prose.

Note these points:

a. Need

The clause if any of you lacks wisdom is the first part of a factual statement in a conditional sentence. The author is saying to the reader: “I know you will not admit it, but you need wisdom.” James tackles a delicate problem, for no person wants to hear that he is stupid, that he makes mistakes, and that he needs help. By nature man is independent. He wants to solve his own problems and make his own decisions. Eighteenth-century German theologian John Albert Bengel put it rather succinctly: “Patience is more in the power of a good man than wisdom; the former is to be exercised, the latter is to be asked for.” Man has to overcome pride to admit that he needs wisdom. But wisdom is not something he possesses. Wisdom belongs to God, for it is his divine virtue. Anyone who admits the need for wisdom must go to God and ask him. James appeals to the individual reader and hearer. He writes, “If any of you lacks wisdom” (italics added). This approach is tactful, for he could have said, “Everyone lacks wisdom.” But by saying “any of you,” James gives the reader a chance to examine himself, to come to the conclusion that he needs wisdom, and to follow James’s advice to ask God.

b. Request

The believer must ask God for wisdom. James implies that God is the source of wisdom. It belongs to him.

What is wisdom? Both the Old and the New Testaments seek to explain this term. Solomon expresses it in typical Hebraic parallelism. Says he, “For the Lord gives wisdom, and from his mouth come knowledge and understanding” (Prov. 2:6). Solomon equates wisdom with knowledge and understanding.

Also, the New Testament states that the Christian receives wisdom and that knowledge comes from God (see, for instance, 1Cor. 1:30). True, we make a distinction between wisdom and knowledge when we say that knowledge devoid of wisdom is of little value. Observes Donald Guthrie, “If wisdom is the right use of knowledge, perfect wisdom presupposes perfect knowledge.” To become mature and complete, the believer must go to God for wisdom. God is willing to impart wisdom to anyone who asks humbly. God’s storehouse of wisdom is infinite, and he will give this gift “generously to all without finding fault.”

c. Gift

God is not partial. He gives to everyone, no matter who he is, because God wants to give. Giving is a characteristic of God. He keeps on giving. Every time someone comes to him with a request, he opens his treasury and freely distributes wisdom. Just as the sun continues to give light, so God keeps on giving wisdom. We cannot imagine a sun that fails to give light; much less can we think of God failing to give wisdom. God’s gift is free, without interest, and without the request to pay it back. It is gratis.

Moreover, God gives “without finding fault.” When we ask God for wisdom, we need not be afraid that he will express displeasure or will utter reproach. When we come to him in childlike faith, he will never send us away empty. We have the assurance that when we ask for wisdom, it “will be given” to us. God never fails the one who asks in faith. (3)

So far, consulting cross reverence passages, exegetical commentary evidence and the proverbs of men it is indisputable there is a difference between wisdom and knowledge. The two should not be confused.

At this point we will look in more detail how wisdom and knowledge are defined in the modern vernacular:

Definitions:

Wisdom: Wisdom is the ability to discern and judge which aspects of knowledge are true. Wisdom also refers to the accumulated knowledge. Those with wisdom have the ability to discern or judge what is true.

Knowledge: Knowledge is a noun that refers to the information. Knowledge is the accumulation of facts and because of this, knowledge deals with facts. It can be said, knowledge is information gained through experience.

Consider the New Testament definitions from a respected and popular dictionary:

Wisdom

New Testament

Noun: σοφία (sophia), GK 5053 (S 4678), 51x. sophia is a word meaning “wisdom.” It denotes the capacity to not only understand something (Acts 7:22) but also to act accordingly (Col. 1:9; 4,5). It is the latter that separates wisdom from knowledge.

Knowledge

New Testament

Noun: γνῶσις (gnōsis), GK 1194 (S 1108), 29x. gnōsis means “knowledge,” and it has a rich meaning in the NT. All but six of its occurrences are in the letters of Paul (though see also ginōskō, “to know,” for more on the biblical message about this word group). (4)

We can agree with:

“Knowledge is not the same as wisdom. You can know all the facts and still not be able to act wisely. But without knowledge, it is harder to be wise –– even if what wisdom tells us is that knowledge is very often provisional and that we cannot wait to have certainty about every fact before we act.” – Dan Smith, The State of the World Atlas

Humility of Wisdom:

“I have heard of a young man who went to college; and, when he had been there one year, his parent said to him, “What do you know? Do you know more than when you went?” “Oh, yes!” said he; “I do.” Then he went the second year, and was asked the same question. “Do you know more than when you went?” “Oh, no!” said he; “I know a great deal less.” “Well,” said the father, “you are getting on.” Then he went the third year, and was asked the same question, “What do you know now?” “Oh!” said he, “I don’t think I know anything.” “That is right,” said the father; “you have now learned to profit, since you say you know nothing.” He who is convinced that he knows nothing of himself, as he ought to know, gives up steering his ship, and lets God put His hand on the rudder. He lays aside his own wisdom, and cries, “O God! my little wisdom is cast at Thy feet: my little judgment is given to Thee.” (5)

Application:

If you have wisdom, you would never pray to God to see if a man was a prophet. Determining if a man is a prophet is a case of seeking knowledge. Knowledge in a case like this would unjustifiably proceed wisdom.

As seen, James 1:5 is talking about wisdom and not knowledge. How would someone biblically determine if a man is a prophet?

Consider Deuteronomy 18:20-22:

“But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die. And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the Lord hath not spoken? When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.” (Deuteronomy 18:20-22)

The question from Deuteronomy is: “How shall we know the word which the Lord hath not spoken?” God does not say anything about praying for an answer. God does say; “When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken…”

The answer is simple, examine the prophetic claims by checking the prophetic predictions of the individual making the claims. Did the prophetic claims prove to be true base on fulfilled prophesies? If not, you have the answer. You do not prayer about something when there are clear instructions in God’s Word on how to find the answer.

To illustrate this point further, I’ve asked a number of these young people from the Utah based religion is they would pray with me about robbing a bank so we could give the money away to poor people. I’ve also asked, if they would pray about committing adultery. In both cases, the young people said almost embarrassingly said no because both actions were wrong based upon God’s commandments in the Bible. The point is, you do not pray about things that are clearly defined in God’s Word. We have in the Ten Commandments that say; not to steal and not to commit adultery. God expects us to know His Word and then be obedient.

The Wisdom of Solomon:

“Give therefore thy servant an understanding heart to judge thy people, that I may discern between good and bad: for who is able to judge this thy so great a people? And the speech pleased the Lord, that Solomon had asked this thing. And God said unto him, Because thou hast asked this thing, and hast not asked for thyself long life; neither hast asked riches for thyself, nor hast asked the life of thine enemies; but hast asked for thyself understanding to discern judgment; Behold, I have done according to thy words: lo, I have given thee a wise and an understanding heart; so that there was none like thee before thee, neither after thee shall any arise like unto thee.” (1 Kings 3:9-12)

In conclusion:

We should handle the Word of God with great care, by not distorting or twisting it or by reading things into it. We should not substitute God’s methodology with man’s. The young people representing the Utah based religion’s citing of James 1:5 as a proof text for seeking wisdom as an equivalent to praying about determining if someone is a prophet has no merit. Why” Because it is coming to God’s Holy Word with a preconceived idea, and then trying to find a passage in the Bible to support the idea and excluding others. This is called “stacking the deck.” In this fallacy, the person “stacks the deck” in their favor by ignoring examples that disprove the point and listing only those examples that support their case. This flawed approach frequently involves outright ignorance of a biblical text in question.

God would never give a personal testimony to a person that contradicted Scripture? More importantly, Scriptures clearly delineate the difference between wisdom and knowledge. The proof text (James 1:5) used by the young people from the Utah based religion does not prove their point and their understanding of the passage is in error.

“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)

Notes:

1. Charles John Ellicott, Bible Commentary for English Readers, James, Vol.3, (London, England, Cassell and Company), p.356.

2. Alexander Maclaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture, Volume 16, James, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Baker Publishing Group), p. 489.

3. Simon J. Kestemaker, New Testament Commentary, James, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Baker Book House, 1986), pp. 36-38.

4. William D. Mounce’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Zondervan Electronic Bible study app from Olive Tree), no page entry.

5. C. H. Spurgeon, Humility of Wisdom, The Teachers’ treasury and storehouse of material for working Sunday-school teachers, Volume 1, (England, Oxford University, 1876), p. 153.

“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)

“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. Available at: http://www.TheReligionThatStartedInAHat.com

For more Study:

The Holy Wisdom of God by Gordon H. Clark

http://gordonhclark.reformed.info/sermon-the-holy-wisdom-of-god-by-gordon-h-clark/

Knowledge by Gordon H. Clark

http://gordonhclark.reformed.info/knowledge-by-gordon-h-clark/

Platonism and Jeremiah 1:5 by Jack Kettler

In another study, I mentioned some nice young people from a Utah based religion. These same young people told me that they had lived in a prior or preexistent spirit life. Having explained to them I believe that the Word of God in the Old and New Testaments is complete and the authority for all of my life and beliefs. And if they wanted me to give up my beliefs and adopt theirs they will have to convince me from the Bible. On the topic of pre-existence, they referred me to the following passage from Jeremiah.

“Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.” (Jeremiah 1:5)

As in previous proof texts offered by these young people, I could see nothing in this verse about a pre-existent life. The verse is dealing with God’s foreknowledge, sanctification and Jeremiah’s prophetic calling. When doing a general search on the topic of pre-existence, you find Plato. Are these young people promoting a form of Platonism? This is fair question, since beliefs arise from somewhere.

On Platonism, from the New Dictionary of Theology, we find this:

“Platonism inspired the belief that souls enjoyed some higher existence prior to their entry into individual human bodies. This view often coexisted with notions of a pre-cosmic fall and the transmigration of the souls. Among Gnostics and others, it presented the soul as an emanation from the divine substance itself. Although championed by Origen, it was widely condemned in the 5th and 6th centuries.” (1)

In Plato’s Meno, Socrates reasons that our knowledge is not something learned, but recollected. For example, Plato uses a slave named Meno that has never learned the principles of mathematics to make his point about recollection. The geometric principles were revealed to the slave. Plato in the Socratic dialog, asked some probing questions to Meno. In conclusion of the matter, Socrates concludes that slave’s knowledge must be a priori or in-built into his soul and remembered throughout life. Thus, Plato is arguing for some type of pre-existence.

For the reader’s interest, Plato’s Socratic dialog with Meno is as follows:

Soc. And this spontaneous recovery of knowledge in him is recollection?

Men. True.

Soc. And this knowledge which he now has must he not either have acquired or always possessed?

Men. Yes.

Soc. But if he always possessed this knowledge he would always have known; or if he has acquired the knowledge he could not have acquired it in this life, unless he has been taught geometry; for he may be made to do the same with all geometry and every other branch of knowledge. Now, has any one ever taught him all this? You must know about him, if, as you say, he was born and bred in your house.

Men. And I am certain that no one ever did teach him.

Soc. And yet he has the knowledge?

Men. The fact, Socrates, is undeniable.

Soc. But if he did not acquire the knowledge in this life, then he must have had and learned it at some other time?

Men. Clearly he must.

Soc. Which must have been the time when he was not a man?

Men. Yes.

Soc. And if there have been always true thoughts in him, both at the time when he was and was not a man, which only need to be awakened into knowledge by putting questions to him, his soul must have always possessed this knowledge, for he always either was or was not a man?

Men. Obviously.

Soc. And if the truth of all things always existed in the soul, then the soul is immortal. Wherefore be of good cheer, and try to recollect what you do not know, or rather what you do not remember. (2)

The idea that the soul is immortal and already knows things is one of Plato’s significant philosophical ideas. This was Plato’s solution to the problem of how we can find out about something we do not know. Thus, Socrates can advise Meno to; “recollect what you do not know, or rather what you do not remember.” According to Socrates, this will work because: “the truth of all things has always existed in the soul, then the soul is immortal.” This would imply preexistence. At this point we can reason that the young people for the Utah religion have a belief similar to Platonism.

Theological Definitions:

* Foreknowledge: The knowledge which God has because he knows his own plan for the world: his knowledge of what actually exists, what has existed, and what will exist; also called the knowledge of vision.

* Sanctification: An ongoing inner transformation in which the Holy Spirit works to make the believer more and more like Christ in every way, including desires, thoughts and actions; most frequently simply called sanctification. Note: In Jeremiah’s case his sanctification was being set apart and pre-pared for his prophetic calling.

Back to Jeremiah:

As mentioned earlier, this verse in Jeremiah 1:5 is dealing with God’s foreknowledge, sanctification and Jeremiah’s prophetic calling. What do commentators think?

From the reliable Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers, we learn:

(5) I knew thee. —With the force which the word often has in Hebrew, as implying. not foreknowledge only, but choice and approval (Psalm 1:6; Psalm 37:18, Amos 3:2).

I sanctified thee. —i.e., consecrated thee, set thee apart as hallowed for this special use.

Ordained. —Better, I have appointed, without the conjunction, this verb referring to the manifestation in time of the eternal purpose.

Unto the nations. —i.e., to the outlying Gentile nations. This was the distinguishing characteristic of Jeremiah’s work. Other prophets were sent to Israel and Judah, with occasional parentheses of prophecies that affected the Gentiles. The horizon of Jeremiah was to extend more widely. In part his work was to make them drink of the cup of the Lord’s fury (Jeremiah 25:15-17); but in part also he was a witness to them of a brighter future (Jeremiah 48:47; Jeremiah 49:39). It is as though he had drunk in the Spirit of Isaiah, and thought of the true prophet as one who was to be a light of the Gentiles (Isaiah 49:6).

In this way, seemingly abrupt, yet probably following on a long process of divine education, was the youthful Jeremiah taught that he was to act a part specially appointed for him in the drama of his nation’s history. He could not see a chance in the guidance that had led him thus far. The call that now came to him so clearly was not the echo of his own thoughts. All his life from infancy had been as that of one consecrated to a special work. Could he stop there? Must he not, like St. Paul, think of the divine purpose as prior to the very germ of his existence? (Galatians 1:15.) (3)

Going to the Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary:

5. knew—approved of thee as My chosen instrument (Ex 33:12, 17; compare Isa 49:1, 5; Ro 8:29).

sanctified—rather, “separated.” The primary meaning is, “to set apart” from a common to a special use; hence arose the secondary sense, “to sanctify,” ceremonially and morally. It is not here meant that Jehovah cleansed Jeremiah from original sin or regenerated him by His Spirit; but separated him to his peculiar prophetical office, including in its range, not merely the Hebrews, but also the nations hostile to them (Jer 25:12-38; 27:1-21; 46:1-51:64), [Henderson]. Not the effect, but the predestination in Jehovah’s secret counsel, is meant by the sanctification here (compare Lu 1:15, 41; Ac 15:18; Ga 1:15; Eph 1:11). (4)

Concluding with Matthew Poole’s Commentary:

Before I formed thee in the belly, i.e. womb, Isaiah 46:3. Having spoken before of the time of his call, Jeremiah 1:4, he now speaks of the manner of it.

I knew thee, i.e. approved and appointed thee, as a fit minister for this work. Words of knowledge among the Hebrews note affection, as hath been formerly noted.

I sanctified thee, viz. not with saving grace, though that need not to be excluded; but accordingly I prepared and ordained thee for this public service; and thus with Paul, Galatians 1:15, where both are expressed. See the like use of the word Isaiah 13:3. He speaks thus to Jeremiah, not to the other prophets, because he stood in need of greater and more direct encouragement than they, both in respect of the tenderness of his years, and also of those insuperable difficulties which in those most degenerate and corrupt times he must unavoidably encounter with, which might cause him to decline the work, Jeremiah 1:6.

Unto the nations; either with reference to place, to other nations besides the Jews, as appears, Jeremiah 43 Jer 46 Jer 47, &c, taking the Jews in among them, as Jeremiah 25:17,18, and so

unto may be taken for against, as it is often expressed in those places and elsewhere; or with reference to time, to people of all times, who may be instructed by this book, or whose words are made use of, both by several prophets of the Old Testament, as Daniel, Ezekiel, Nehemiah, &c., and by our Saviour in the New; by Matthew 2:17,18; by Paul, 2 Corinthians 6:18; and by St. John, Revelation 2:23. (5)

Thoughts and Comments:

Are these recognized commentators who were competent to read the text of Scriptures in the original languages missing or overlooking something in the Jeremiah text? The task of the commentator and all readers of Scripture is to ascertain what the particular passage of Scripture is saying. This is known as exegesis, bringing out of the text, what is there. We should use the same tools of rational thought by God’s grace when examining Scripture as we would Plato. We must guard against reading into Scripture ideas or notions that are not there. This is an error called eisegesis, or reading into the text. It is a common mistake among people today to read into ancient texts, Twenty-First Century ideas. This is called an anachronism. It is a fallacy.

Over the years, I have met a number of these young people from the Utah religion. Not one of them when asked, said they could read Greek or Hebrew. Then the question has to be asked, where are they getting this unusual interpretation of the Jeremiah passage from? From what I can ascertain, they are getting this interpretation from their leaders who according them, are divinely inspired. Thus far, I have never been able to verify that any of these leaders are competent to work professionally in the ancient original languages of Scripture either.

In trying to interact with these aforenoted young people, it becomes problematic, since biblical scholarship is rejected, not on biblical scholarship grounds, but because the leaders in Utah have been given a divinely inspired interpretation that is supposedly superior. In discussing the Jeremiah text in under consideration, you reach an impasse, namely, that Scripture is not what is says according to the young people from the Utah religion.

What criteria do you use to verify if what the leaders have said it true? At this point the astute reader will understand we have left the authority of what Scripture has said, and are now in the realm of what a man has said. In asking what process do you use to verify the word of leaders, it seemingly all comes down to trust and feelings. There is really no objective way to verify if what the Utah leaders have said is true. I’ve been told that praying about this, is how one can know. This is arbitrary and subjective. In another study, we will examine if this praying approach is a God directed method to determine truth. Even if you thought that you received an answer to prayer, how could you prove it what God and not your own subjective feelings or mental confusion?

Back to Plato:

Pre-existence of souls and men. Plato taught this belief. In the work called Phaedrus we read:

“This soul shall at her first birth pass, not into any other animal, but only into a man….” (6)

It must be asked, is the Utah based religion dependent upon Plato for their idea of preexistence? If not, where did this idea come from? As seen in the Jeremiah text, there is nothing that would support such a notion. The young people from the Utah religion could not show me textually, they could only repeat things they were told. This is parroting things told them by their leaders. Where did the leaders from Utah get this notion? Ideas come from somewhere. Their short answer, is from God. Yet again, how does one know this? How do you overcome feelings that may be mistaken or possible mental confusion to know for sure?

Rather than answer the question of the possibility of Platonic influence, I’ve been told by professors at a college in Utah, the real problem is that Christianity has been influence by Platonism. I believe this is a dodge on the part of the professors, but is this so? As an aside, I will take some time to head of needless questions.

What about historic Christianity, has it been influenced by Platonism?

Philosophy professor Gordon Clark’s Thales To Dewey is helpful concerning Christianity and alleged pagan influence.

Clark makes the following summary on paganism and Christianity:

“For such reasons as these it may be concluded that paganism and Christianity are radically distinct. Any points of similarity are superficial and trivial. To speak of them as alike is no better than identifying Epicureanism and Platonism on the ground that both were founded by men. This conclusion is not weakened by two cautions that should be observed. First, since the New Testament was written in Greek, it uses words found in pagan writings. John even used the term Logos. But the point in question is not the use of words but the occurrence of ideas. Logos in John and hypostasis in Hebrews are not evidences of pagan ideas. Nor should one find Aristotle in the Nicene Creed because it says God is a substance or reality. One cannot forbid Christian writers to use common words on pain of becoming pagans. The second caution is that while Christianity and the Greek philosophies, as systems, have no element in common, the Christians, as people, often held pagan ideas. They had been converted from paganism and could not divest themselves of familiar modes of thought all at once. Therefore, when they came to expound and defend Christianity, they inconsistently made use of Platonism or Stoicism. By a long and arduous struggle these inconsistent elements were gradually removed from a few fundamental areas, and thus a purely Christian Nicene Creed came into being. But on other topics, and especially in cases of individual authorship, the struggle was not so successful. Then, too, as time went on, the attempts to escape pagan ideas and to preserve the purity of New Testament thought grew weaker, and one might say, almost ceased.” (7)

Back to the Scriptures:

“It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man.” (Psalm 118:8)

“Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD.” (Jeremiah 17:5)

“He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool: but whoso walketh wisely, he shall be delivered.” (Proverbs 28:26)

Now someone may ask, am I not trusting in man by thinking I understand these above texts against trusting man and accepting the above listed commentator’s analysis of the Jeremiah passage? It is possible, but not necessarily. Am I not trusting in my feelings and my heart? It is possible but not necessarily. My answer to the possibility, I maintain, Christians have a coherent theory of knowledge. God is soverign, meaning He is able to preserve His Word from corruption. Because of God’s soverignty, we have confidence that we have the pure Word of God. God has spoken.to us in the Scriptures with human language utilizing logically structured sentences in which He tells us the difference between right and wrong. God speaks in human language that we can understand. There are some difficult passages in Scripture to be sure, but for the most part, Scripture is understandable. We believe this because of the perspicuity or clarity of Scripture

The Westminster Confession of Faith on perspicuity (1.7)

“All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all (2 Pet. 3:16); yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them” (Ps. 119:105, 130).

And furthermore, the meaning of scriptural words is the same for God and man. If you reject that God speaks to us in the Scriptures with human language utilizing logically structured sentences in which He tells us about Himself, where words have the same meaning for God and man, you are in an epistemological swamp of futility. If you reject a biblical epistemology, you are left with a trust in man-based epistemology. This is wholly unsatisfactory and indefensible!

If you take a man’s word over God’s Word you are in epistemological quicksand. This still holds true even if the man says he is speaking for God. It seems that the aforementioned young people’s leaders have a different epistemology, namely, that the words of God in Scripture do not mean the same for us as God. This may be denied, by asserting the language between God and man is same, the real problem is that the Bible by in large cannot be trusted because of alleged mistranslations. If biblical mistranslations are the case, then it is incumbent of those making this claim to get specific and point out where and how the passages of Scripture have been mistranslated. Mere assertions do not prove anything.

How does Christianity protect itself against the error of Greek philosophy infiltrating its doctrine?

In his book The Reformed Pastor and Modern Thought, Dr. Van Till says the following concerning Greek philosophy:

“The ultimate concern of the Reformers was to bring the fullness of grace in its purity to men. They therefore sought to set it free from the encrustations of Greek metaphysics which are the metaphysics of fallen man.” (8)

Van Til’s use of the word encrustation shows how pervasive he believed Greek philosophy to be. The philosophical positions advanced by the Greeks influenced to such a large extent the areas of epistemology, ontology, ethics, and teleology that the Greek argumentation is a sufficient cause for positions that have been adopted by western religions and philosophy.

Van Til’s solution and answer, is bringing “the fullness of grace in its purity to men” sets Christianity apart from all philosophies and man-made theologies. All of men’s attempts at spiritual advancement are inseparable man’s self-effort or works and are thusly doomed. Grace, biblically understood, sets Christianity apart from all man-made religions and philosophy.

For more research, see link below for Ronald Nash’s Was Christianity Influenced by Pagan Religions?

Only Christianity has been able to break free from Greek apostate thinking. This is true insofar as the Christian follows the Reformers in placing the fullness and purity of grace and the self-attesting Christ, speaking authoritatively in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as paramount in all thought.

The apostle Paul describes it this way:

“Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ.” (2 Corinthians 10:5)

“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)

“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. Editors, Sinclair B. Ferguson, David F. Wright, J.I. Packer, New Dictionary of Theology, (Downers Grove, Illinois, Inter-Varsity Press), p. 653.

2. Plato, Meno, Great Books of the Western World, (Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1952), pp. 182-183.

3. Charles John Ellicott, Bible Commentary for English Readers, Jeremiah, Vol.4, (London, England, Cassell and Company), p.10.

4. Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, Commentary on the Whole Bible, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Zondervan, 1977) p.596.

5. Matthew Poole’s Commentary on the Holy Bible, Vol. 3, (Peabody, Massachusetts, Hendrickson Publishers, 1985) p.491.

6. Plato, Phaedrus, The Works of Plato, Trans. by Benjamin Jowett, (New York: Random House, 1956), p. 289.

7. Clark, Gordon H. Thales To Dewey. Jefferson: Trinity, reprinted [1989]. First printing Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1957), p. 195.

8. Cornelius Van Til, The Reformed Pastor and Modern Thought, (Phillipsburg, New Jersey, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company), p. 171.

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: http://www.TheReligionThatStartedInAHat.com

For a great source of theological definitions go to Rebecca Writes at:

Rebecca Writes: http://www.rebecca-writes.com/theological-terms-in-ao/

See Ronald Nash’s Was Christianity Influenced by Pagan Religions?

http://www.undergroundnotes.com/Nash.html