Is a bishop or overseer the same as an elder in Titus 1:7? by Jack Kettler
“For a bishop must be blameless, as a steward of God, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money,” (Titus 1:7)
The context in Titus 1:7 is fixed in Titus 1:5, “For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set-in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee.” (emphasis mine)
Assertion:
The Greek word ἐπίσκοπον (episkopon) is used seven times in the New Testament and is translated bishop in the other six incidences. However, in light of the contextual passage in Titus 1:5, this means that these very same elders πρεσβυτέρους (presbyterous), are also referred to as bishops in the same letter by Paul. Thus, it can be said that there is no fundamental distinction in Scripture between elders (presbyters) and bishops about their position in the church. Also, some translations use the word overseer rather than bishop. Elders, overseers, and bishops are essentially synonymous.
Proving this:
Consider three translations and the variant renderings for Titus 1:7:
English Standard Version
“For an overseer, as God’s steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain,”
King James Bible
“For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not self-willed, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;”
Aramaic Bible in Plain English
“For an Elder ought to be without faults as a steward of God, and not led by his own mind, neither bad tempered, neither excessive with wine, neither should he be quick to strike with his hand, neither loving filthy riches,”
Which translation is correct? All three translations are permissible.
Titus 1:5-7 is part of the section where the apostle Paul guides Titus, who was in control of the appointment of overseers or elders in the early Christian churches. Titus 1:7 reads: “For a bishop must be blameless, as a steward of God, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money.”
In addition, the Apostle Paul gives Timothy the exact instructions as Titus and uses bishops, oversees and elders interchangeably in 1 Timothy 3:1-2:
1 Timothy 3:1:
King James Version
“This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.”
English Standard Version
“The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task.”
Aramaic Bible in Plain English
“This is a trustworthy saying, that if a man desires Eldership, he desires a good work.”
1 Timothy 3:2:
King James Version
“A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;”
English Standard Version
“Therefore, an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,”
Aramaic Bible in Plain English
“And an Elder ought to be one in whom no fault is found and is the husband of one woman, is of a vigilant mind, sober, orderly, loves strangers and is a teacher;”
The Englishman’s Concordance and the interchangeability of overseers and bishops in the following passages:
“Acts 20:28
GRK: ἅγιον ἔθετο ἐπισκόπους ποιμαίνειν τὴν
NAS: has made you overseers, to shepherd
KJV: you overseers, to feed
INT: Holy did set overseers to shepherd the”
“Philippians 1:1
GRK: Φιλίπποις σὺν ἐπισκόποις καὶ διακόνοις
NAS: including the overseers and deacons:
KJV: with the bishops and
INT: Philippi with [the] overseers and deacons”
“1 Timothy 3:2
GRK: οὖν τὸν ἐπίσκοπον ἀνεπίλημπτον εἶναι
NAS: An overseer, then, must
KJV: A bishop then must
INT: then the overseer blameless to be”
“Titus 1:7
GRK: γὰρ τὸν ἐπίσκοπον ἀνέγκλητον εἶναι
NAS: For the overseer must
KJV: For a bishop must be
INT: indeed the overseer blameless to be”
The Strong’s Concordance says:
“episkopos: a superintendent, an overseer
Original Word: ἐπίσκοπος, ου, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: episkopos
Phonetic Spelling: (ep-is’-kop-os)
Definition: a superintendent, an overseer
Usage: (used as an official title in civil life), overseer, supervisor, ruler, especially used with reference to the supervising function exercised by an elder or presbyter of a church or congregation.”
In light of the above, elders, bishops, and overseers are interchangeable terms. In Titus 1:5 and 1:7, both words describe the same person or office holder. As said before, the Greek word for elder in Titus 1:5 is presbuteros, and the Greek word for overseer or bishop in Titus 1:7 is episkopos. The word “elder” refers to the leader’s character, while “overseer” or “bishop” refers to his oversight duties or responsibilities. The inescapable conclusion is that an overseer or bishop is an elder.
Furthermore, it should be understood that the elders (presbyters or bishops) mentioned in Titus 1:7 are responsible for overseeing the affairs of the local church and ensuring its faithful and orderly functioning. In Reformed theological understanding, the biblical offices of elder and bishop are not separate hierarchical positions but different descriptions for the same leadership role.
Understanding this functional equivalence of overseers, bishops, and elders is rooted in the theology that emphasizes the priesthood of all believers and a more equal approach to leadership within the church. It reflects the belief that there should be a plurality of elders who collectively govern the church, with no one elder exercising authority over the others.
Commentary entries:
Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers on Titus 1:7 says:
“(7) For a bishop must be blameless. — There is no doubt that the “bishop” here must be identified with the presbyter of Titus 1:6. In the Pastoral Epistles written between A.D. 63-67 these terms are clearly applied indifferently to the same person. The title presbyter refers to the gravity and dignity of the office; the title bishop suggests rather the duties which belong to an elder of the church.” (1)
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges agrees with Ellicott:
“7. For a bishop must be blameless] Or, as R.V., the bishop. Both are correct and idiomatic; note on 1 Timothy 3:2. ‘Bishop’ here is admitted to refer to the ‘presbyter’ of Titus 1:5, ‘bishop’ describing the nature of the duties assigned, viz. superintendence and pastoral oversight, while ‘presbyter’ refers rather to station and character; the one is official the other personal. See note on 1 Timothy 3:1, Introduction, pp. 15–19, and Appendix, C. Bp Wordsworth well paraphrases here, ‘For he who has the oversight of others ought to be blameless.’” (2)
In summary:
As noted, Titus 1:5 sets the context to properly understand Titus 1:7. The task of Titus was to ordain elders. Therefore, contextually, bishops and elders are used interchangeably. Other traditions have distorted a bishop into a hierarchical position, thus departing from the early church and biblical understanding of the term.
Henceforth, the terms bishops, overseers, and elders are used interchangeably in Scriptural contexts to describe individuals who hold positions of authority and responsibility within their churches. These leaders provide guidance, support, and spiritual direction to the church.
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, Titus, Vol. 8, (London, England, Cassell and Company), p. 251.
2. Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges, by A. E. Humphreys, Titus, (Cambridge University Press, 1898), e-Sword version.
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 17 books defending the Reformed Faith. Books can be ordered online at Amazon.
Colossians 2:9, A Refutation of Christological Errors by Jack Kettler
“For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.” (Colossians 2:9)
“For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.” (Jude 1:4)
Early Church Christological Heresies:
In the early centuries of Christianity, the Church contended with various theological controversies, particularly concerning the nature of Christ. These controversies led to the formulation of important doctrines to clarify the Church’s understanding of the person of Christ. Some early Christological errors emerged during this period. Here are a few:
1. Docetism:
Heresy: Docetism comes from the Greek word “dokeo,” meaning “to seem” or “to appear.” Docetists believed that Jesus only seemed to have a physical body but did not possess a real, physical nature.
Description: This view denied the true incarnation of Christ and the reality of his human nature, asserting that his earthly existence was merely an illusion.
2. Adoptionism:
Heresy: Adoptionism taught that Jesus was born as a regular human being and was later “adopted” as the Son of God, usually at his baptism.
Description: This perspective denied the pre-existence of Christ and the eternal Sonship, asserting that Jesus became the Son of God at a specific point in his life.
3. Arianism:
Heresy: Arianism, associated with the priest Arius, denied the full divinity of Christ. It argued that Jesus, while exalted and divine, was a created being and not co-eternal with God the Father.
Description: Arianism challenged the doctrine of the Trinity and the equality of the Father and the Son, emphasizing a hierarchical relationship between them.
4. Nestorianism:
Heresy: Nestorianism, associated with Nestorius, proposed a division between Christ’s divine and human natures to the extent that it seemed as if there were two separate persons—Jesus the man and the divine Son.
Description: This view was seen as undermining the unity of Christ’s person and was condemned as a heresy at the Council of Ephesus in 431.
5. Monophysitism:
Heresy: Monophysitism asserted that Christ had only one nature—the divine nature—absorbing or subsuming his human nature.
Description: This view conflicted with the Chalcedonian Definition of 451, which affirmed that Christ has two distinct but inseparable natures, fully human and fully divine, without confusion or change.
These early Christological heresies prompted significant theological debates and the convening of various ecumenical councils to address and clarify the Church’s understanding of Christ’s nature. The resolutions of these councils, such as the Council of Nicaea (325) and the Council of Chalcedon (451), played a crucial role in shaping historical orthodox Christian doctrine.
What are the implications of the Colossians 2:9 passage for the above Christological heresies?
Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers answers this question in the following way:
“(9) In him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. — Here almost every word is emphatic. First, “All the fulness of the Godhead”—not a mere emanation from the Supreme Being. Next, “dwells” and remains for ever—not descending on Him for a time and leaving Him again. Lastly, “bodily,” i.e., as incarnate in His humanity. The whole is an extension and enforcement of Colossians 1:19, “God was pleased that in Him all the fulness should dwell.” The horror of all that was material, as having in it the seed of evil, induced denial either of the reality of our Lord’s body, or of its inseparable connection with the Godhead in Him. Hence the emphasis here; as also we find (somewhat later) in St. John, “The Word was made flesh” (John 1:14); “The spirit which confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh . . . is the spirit of antichrist” (1 John 4:3).”
“On the meaning of “fullness” (plerorna), see Colossians 1:10; Ephesians 1:3; Ephesians 3:19; Ephesians 4:13. Here it is only necessary to add, that, as in the later Gnosticism, so probably in its earlier forms, the word was used for the infinite nature of the Supreme Deity, out of which all the emanations (afterwards called Æons) received in various degrees of imperfection, according to their capacity. Probably for that reason St. Paul uses it so emphatically here. In the same spirit, St. John declares (John 1:16), “Out of His (Christ’s) fulness have all we received.” It is not finite, but infinitely perfect; hence we all can draw from it, yet leave it unimpaired.” (1)
Matthew Poole’s Commentary, in a more comprehensive fashion, answers this question:
“For; the causal particle induceth this as an argument to enforce the caution immediately foregoing, against those who did seek to draw from Christ by philosophy, as well as urging the ceremonial law; else the apostle’s reasoning were not cogent unless against both.”
“In him; it is evident that the Lord Jesus Christ himself, whom he had described and but just now named, is the subject, the person of whom he speaks, and in whom is seated, and unto whom he attributes, what followeth, Colossians 1:19 John 1:4 1 Timothy 4:16. He doth not say, in his doctrine, whatever Socinians cavil, as if they would render the apostle absurd, and not to agree with himself in what he asserts of Christ’s person before (as hath been showed) and after in the context. It is plain this relative him, respects not only Colossians 2:8, but Colossians 2:11, &c. in whom the believing Colossians are said to be complete as their Head, both in the former chapter, and soon after in this. Would it not be absurd to say, Christ’s doctrine is the head of angels? We are crucified in the doctrine of Christ? Buried and quickened together with his doctrine? The hand-writing of ordinances was nailed to the cross of doctrine? Is a doctrine the head of principalities and powers? Can a doctrine be buried in baptism? &c. To silence all the earth, that they should not restrain it to Christ’s doctrine only, what he asserts of his person, Paul, after Christ had been several years in heaven, put it in the present tense, dwelleth, not dwelt, {as 2 Timothy 1:5} in regard of the person eternally the same, Hebrews 13:8; for his argument had not been cogent, to contain Christians in the faith of Christ, and their duty to him, to have alleged, in the doctrine of Christ now in heaven hath dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead bodily (could propriety of speech have allowed it); but from the other respect, because in their very flesh (the body of Christ, now an inhabitant of the heavens) the very Godhead, in the whole fulness thereof, personally, from the moment of his incarnation, doth yet dwell. What will not the faithful perform and work out with their utmost faith, that they may never suffer themselves to be rent from spiritual and mystical union with him, in whom they understand that even they themselves shall be also divinely filled, Colossians 2:10, i.e. in their measure be made partakers of the Divine nature, 2 Peter 1:4.”
“Dwelleth imports more than a transient stay for a few minutes, or a little while, even abiding in him constantly and for ever, as dwelling most usually notes, 2 Corinthians 6:16. That which doth thus perpetually abide in his person, as denominated after the human nature, is all the fulness of the Godhead, viz. that rich and incomprehensible abundance of perfections, whereof the supreme and adorable nature is full; so that indeed there is not at all any perfection or excellency in the Divine nature but is found abiding in him. And after no common or ordinary way, but by a hypostatical or personal union of the Godhead with the manhood in Christ; which is not by way of mixture, confusion, conversion, or any other mutation; but bodily, to exclude that inhabitation which is only by extrinsical denomination. It being an adverb, doth denote the manner as well as the subject; wherefore when he speaks of the temple of his body, John 2:21, that doth not fully reach the apostle’s meaning here: but it must be expounded personally, since in the Greek that which signifies with us a body, and so our English word body, is put for a person, Romans 12:1 2 Corinthians 5:10 Revelation 18:13: somebody or nobody, i.e. some person or no person. There is a presence of the Godhead general, by essence and power; particular, in the prophets and apostles working miracles: gracious, in all sanctified ones; glorious, in heaven, in light which no man can approach unto, 1 Timothy 6:16; relative, in the church visible and ordinances, typically under the law, and symbolically in the sacraments: but all these dwellings, or being present in the creature, fall short of that in the text, viz. bodily, connoting the personal habitation of the Deity in, and union of it with, the humanity of Christ, so close, and strait, and intimate, that the Godhead inhabiting and the manhood inhabited make but one and the same person, even as the reasonable soul and body in man make but one man. The way of the presence of the Deity with the humanity of Christ is above all those manners of the presence of God with angels and men. The Godhead dwells in him personally, in them in regard of assistance and energy: Godhead notes the truth of it; Christ was not only partaker of the Divine nature, 2 Peter 1:4, but the very Godhead dwells in him: it is not only the Divinity (as the Socinians, following the Vulgar Latin in this, would have it) but the Deity, the very nature and essence of God. Now it is observable, though in God himself Divinity and Deity be indeed the same, Romans 1:20, and may differ only from the manner of our conception and contemplation; yet here, when the enemies to Christ’s Deity might by their cavilling make more use of the word Divinity, (as when the soul of man is said to be a divine thing), to insinuate as if it here noted only the Divine will exclusive to the other attributes, (which exclusion the term all doth significantly prevent), the apostle puts in Deity or Godhead.”
“Then lest Christ might (as by the Arians) be deemed a secondary God, or (as some since) a made god, inferior to the Father, he saith the fulness of the Godhead, which speaks him perfect God, coequal with the Father: further, connoting a numerical sameness of essence between the Godhead of the Father and the Son, all the fulness of the Godhead dwelleth in him. There is not one fulness of the Father and another of the Son, but one and the same singular Godhead in both, John 10:30. The fulness of the manhood in Adam and Eve were not numerically the same, but the Godhead of the Father and the Son is: yet is not the manhood of Christ co-extended and commensurate with the Godhead (as some Lutherans conceit); but where the manhood is, or Christ as man is, or hath his existence, there the fulness of the Godhead dwells bodily: so that this fulness is extended as the manhood only in which it is, and not as far as the Deity in which this derivative fulness is not as in its seat, though it be all originally from it, but inherently or subjectively in Christ.” (2)
Vincent’s Word Studies does a good job of explaining key Greek words in the text:
Fullness See on Colossians 1:19.
Godhead (θεότητος)
“Only here in the New Testament. See on Romans 1:20, where θειότης divinity or godhood is used. Appropriate there, because God personally would not be known from His revelation in nature, but only His attributes – His majesty and glory. Here Paul is speaking of the essential and personal deity as belonging to Christ. So Bengel: ‘Not the divine attributes, but the divine nature.’”
Bodily (σωματικῶς)
1. “In bodily fashion or bodily-wise. The verse contains two distinct assertions: 1. That the fullness of the Godhead eternally dwells in Christ. The present tense κατοικεῖ dwelleth, is used like ἐστιν is (the image), Colossians 1:15, to denote an eternal and essential characteristic of Christ’s being. The indwelling of the divine fullness in Him is characteristic of Him as Christ, from all ages and to all ages. Hence the fullness of the Godhead dwelt in Him before His incarnation, when He was “in the form of God” (Philippians 2:6). The Word in the beginning, was with God and was God (John 1:1). It dwelt in Him during His incarnation. It was the Word that became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth, and His glory which was beheld was the glory as of the Only begotten of the Father (John 1:14; compare 1 John 1:1-3). The fullness of the Godhead dwells in His glorified humanity in heaven.”
2. “The fullness of the Godhead dwells in Him in a bodily way, clothed the body. This means that it dwells in Him as one having a human body. This could not be true of His preincarnate state, when He was “in the form of God,” for the human body was taken on by Him in the fullness of time, when “He became in the likeness of men” (Philippians 2:7), when the Word became flesh. The fullness of the Godhead dwelt in His person from His birth to His ascension. He carried His human body with Him into heaven, and in His glorified body now and ever dwells the fullness of the Godhead.”
“O, for a sight, a blissful sight
Of our Almighty Father’s throne!
There sits the Savior crowned with light,
Clothed in a body like our own.
“Adoring saints around Him stand,
And thrones and powers before Him fall;
The God shines gracious through the man,
continued… (3)
Colossians 2:9 is frequently cited by proponents of the Trinity to bolster the concept of Jesus being God incarnate. The verse explicitly declares the presence of divinity within Jesus. Its significance lies in the unique use of the term ‘deity,’ not found elsewhere in the Bible, which denotes the fundamental nature or divine essence. This verse asserts that Jesus embodies the entirety of God’s fullness, representing the complete state of divinity. He is not lacking any divine attributes.
The use of Philippians 2:7 proof text used by theological heretics refuted:
Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers on Philippians 2:7:
“(7) But made himself . . .—This verse needs more exact translation. It should be, But emptied (or, stripped) Himself of His glory by having taken on Him the form of a slave and having been made (or, born) in likeness of men. The “glory” is the “glory which He had with the Father before the world was” (John 17:5; comp. Philippians 1:14), clearly corresponding to the Shechinah of the Divine Presence. Of this He stripped Himself in the Incarnation, taking on Him the “form (or, nature) of a servant” of God. He resumed it for a moment in the Transfiguration; He was crowned with it anew at the Ascension.”
“Made in the likeness of man. — This clause, at first sight, seems to weaken the previous clause, for it does not distinctly express our Lord’s true humanity. But we note that the phrase is “the likeness of men,” i.e., of men in general, men as they actually are. Hence the key to the meaning is to be found in such passages as Romans 8:3, God sent His own Son in “the likeness of sinful flesh;” or Hebrews 2:17; Hebrews 4:15, “It behoved Him to be made like unto His brethren,” “in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.” It would have been an infinite humiliation to have assumed humanity, even in unique and visible glory; but our Lord went beyond this, by deigning to seem like other men in all things, one only of the multitude, and that, too, in a station, which confused Him with the commoner types of mankind. The truth of His humanity is expressed in the phrase “form of a servant;” its unique and ideal character is glanced at when it is said to have worn only the “likeness of men.” (4)
Vincent’s Word Studies clarifies the Philippians text correctly and supports Ellicott’s interpretation:
“Made Himself of no reputation (ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν).”
“Lit. Emptied Himself. The general sense is that He divested Himself of that peculiar mode of existence which was proper and peculiar to Him as one with God. He laid aside the form of God. In so doing, He did not divest Himself of His divine nature. The change was a change of state: the form of a servant for the form of God. His personality continued the same. His self-emptying was not self-extinction, nor was the divine Being changed into a mere man. In His humanity He retained the consciousness of deity, and in His incarnate state carried out the mind which animated Him before His incarnation. He was not unable to assert equality with God. He was able not to assert it.”
“Form of a servant (μορφὴν δούλου)”
“The same word for form as in the phrase form of God, and with the same sense. The mode of expression of a slave’s being is indeed apprehensible, and is associated with human shape, but it is not this side of the fact which Paul is developing. It is that Christ assumed that mode of being which answered to, and was the complete and characteristic expression of, the slave’s being. The mode itself is not defined. This is appropriately inserted here as bringing out the contrast with counted not equality with God, etc. What Christ grasped at in His incarnation was not divine sovereignty, but service.”
“Was made in the likeness of men (ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος)”
“Lit., becoming in, etc. Notice the choice of the verb, not was, but became: entered into a new state. Likeness. The word does not imply the reality of our Lord’s humanity, μορφή form implied the reality of His deity. That fact is stated in the form of a servant. Neither is εἰκών image employed, which, for our purposes, implies substantially the same as μορφή. See on Colossians 1:15. As form of a servant exhibits the inmost reality of Christ’s condition as a servant – that He became really and essentially the servant of men (Luke 22:27) – so likeness of men expresses the fact that His mode of manifestation resembled what men are. This leaves room for the assumption of another side of His nature – the divine – in the likeness of which He did not appear. As He appealed to men, He was like themselves, with a real likeness; but this likeness to men did not express His whole self. The totality of His being could not appear to men, for that involved the form of God. Hence the apostle views Him solely as He could appear to men. All that was possible was a real and complete likeness to humanity. What He was essentially and eternally could not enter into His human mode of existence. Humanly He was like men, but regarded with reference to His whole self, He was not identical with man, because there was an element of His personality which did not dwell in them – equality with God. Hence the statement of His human manifestation is necessarily limited by this fact, and is confined to likeness and does not extend to identity. “To affirm likeness is at once to assert similarity and to deny sameness” (5)
The reader will notice how Vincent addresses what is known without using the name as the Kenosis theory when explicating how Christ “emptied” or “made” Himself in the Incarnation.
The Kenosis theory is a false teaching that says that Christ, when emptying himself, gave up some or all of the attributes of Deity, such as omniscience, to exist as a man. The danger in this theory is that the implications are that Christ was not fully God during His time on earth.
Another un-named theory this writer encountered was that Jesus is a lonely savior because after the resurrection, He remains confined in His body, and the only relation He has with believers is indirect via the Holy Spirit. While this is true about Jesus dwelling in the believer’s heart via the Holy Spirit, this theory negates the fullness of divine attributes shared equally by the persons of the Triune Godhead. During His Advent, it is true that “For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.” (Colossians 2:9). To argue that in His glorified body, this fullness is absent is indefensible and heretical.
In conclusion:
Jesus retained all His divine attributes on earth and after His ascension into heaven because Jesus is God in the flesh, fully man and fully God. His divine attributes, such as omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence, were not diminished when He took on human form. Instead, He willingly humbled Himself and submitted to the limitations of humanity while remaining fully divine. After His resurrection and ascension, Jesus continued in His full divine state, possessing all the attributes of God.
Key Scriptures that support the idea that Jesus retained His divine attributes while on earth and after His ascension into heaven. Some of the most important include:
1. John 1:1-2, 14: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.”
2. John 10:30: “I and the Father are one.”
3. Philippians 2:5-11: “In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death—even death on a cross! Therefore, God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”
4. Colossians 2:9: “For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form.”
5. Hebrews 4:15: “For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin.”
These Scriptures show that Jesus, while fully man, was also fully God, maintaining His divine attributes throughout His life and after His ascension into heaven. Anything less is heresy.
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, Philippians, Vol. 8, (London, England, Cassell and Company), p. 106.
2. Matthew Poole’s Commentary on the Holy Bible, Colossians, Vol. 3, (Peabody, Massachusetts, Hendrickson Publishers, 1985), p. 716.
3. Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies In The New Testament, (Mclean, Virginia, Macdonald Publishing Company), p. 486-487.
4. Charles John Ellicott, Bible Commentary for English Readers, Philippians, Vol. 8, (London, England, Cassell and Company), p. 74.
5. Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies In The New Testament, (Mclean, Virginia, Macdonald Publishing Company), p. 432-433.
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 17 books defending the Reformed Faith. Books can be ordered online at Amazon.
Does Job 1:1 contradict Romans 3:10-11? By Jack Kettler
“There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil.” (Job 1:1)
“As it is written, there is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.” (Romans 3:10-11)
Do the above two passages contradict each other? If not, how are these passages to be understood?
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges shows how the description of Job as perfect is qualified:
“that man was perfect] The term “perfect” means properly “complete,” without defect. It does not imply that the man was sinless, for Job never puts forward any such pretension, but that he was a righteous man and free from specific sins such as were held to bring down the chastisement of heaven. That he was so is the very foundation of his trial and the first principle of the Book. Job’s “perfection” is affirmed in heaven: “Hast thou considered my servant Job … a perfect and an upright man?” Job 1:8, Job 2:3; it is understood by his wife: Dost thou still hold fast thy perfection? Job 2:9; and it is persistently claimed for himself by Job, not only in moments of excitement when stung by the insinuations of his friends: I am perfect, Job 9:21 (see notes), but also when the heat of the conflict is over and under the most solemn oaths: As God liveth who hath taken away my right, … I will not remove my perfection from me; my righteousness I hold fast, Job 27:2; Job 27:5-6. The word occurs again, Job 31:6, and in another form, Job 12:4: The just, perfect man is laughed to scorn. Even the three friends admit Job’s perfectness in general, although they are under the impression that he must have been guilty of some serious offences to account for his calamities, and they urge it upon Job as a ground of confidence in his ultimate recovery: Is not thy hope the perfectness of thy ways? Job 4:6; and again: “God will not cast away a perfect man,” Job 8:20. One of the objects the writer of the Book had in view was to teach that sufferings may fall on men for reasons unconnected with any sin on their own part; and using the history of Job for this purpose, it was necessary that he should lay emphasis in all parts of the Book upon Job’s perfection. The term “perfect” is used of Noah in the same sense: Noah, a just man, was perfect in his generation; that is, he was righteous and exempt from the sins of his contemporaries, Genesis 6:9.” (1)
Barnes’ Notes on the Bible is in agreement with the Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges:
“And that man was perfect – (תמם tâmam). The Septuagint have greatly expanded this statement, by giving a paraphrase instead of a translation. “He was a man who was true (ἀληθινός alēthinos), blameless (ἄμεμπτος amemptos), just (δίκαιος dikaios), pious (θεοσεβής theosebēs), abstaining from every evil deed.” Jerome renders it, “simplex – simple,” or “sincere.” The Chaldee, שׁלם shālam, “complete, finished, perfect.” The idea seems to be that his piety, or moral character, was “proportionate” and was “complete in all its parts.” He was a man of integrity in all the relations of life – as an Emir, a father, a husband, a worshipper of God. Such is properly the meaning of the word תם tâm as derived from תמם tâmam, “to complete, to make full, perfect” or “entire,” or “to finish.” It denotes that in which there is no part lacking to complete the whole – as in a watch in which no wheel is missing. Thus, he was not merely upright as an Emir, but he was pious toward God; he was not merely kind to his family, but he was just to his neighbors and benevolent to the poor. The word is used to denote integrity as applied to the heart, Genesis 20:5: לבבי בתם betām lebābı̂y, “In the honesty, simplicity, or sincerity of my heart (see the margin) have I done this.” So, 1 Kings 22:34, “One drew a bow לתמוּ letumô in the simplicity (or perfection) of his heart;” that is, without any evil intention; compare 2 Samuel 15:11; Proverbs 10:9. The proper notion, therefore, is that of simplicity. sincerity, absence from guile or evil intention, and completeness of parts in his religion. That he was a man absolutely sinless, or without any propensity to evil, is disproved alike by the spirit of complaining which he often evinces, and by his own confession, Job 9:20:”
“If I justify myself, mine own mouth shall condemn me;”
“If I say I am perfect, it shall prove me perverse.”
“Job 1:1 and Romans 3:10-11 do not directly contradict each other.” (2)
In conclusion:
Job 1:1 says, “There was a man in the land of Uz whose name was Job, and that man was blameless and upright, one who feared God and turned away from evil.” The passage describes Job as blameless and upright, indicating that he lived a righteous life.
Romans 3:10-11 states: “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God.” These verses are part of a larger passage in which the apostle Paul is explaining that all humans, both Jews and Gentiles, are under sin and death and are in need of redemption through Christ.
While these verses may seem contradictory at first glance, they can be reconciled when considering their particular contexts.
Job 1:1 describes Job’s character prior to the events that unfolded in the book of Job. It highlights his righteousness and fear of God, which God Himself recognizes in later verses (Job 1:8, Job 2:3). Moreover, this does not contradict the idea presented in Romans 3:10-11 because Job is a unique case. The overall message of the book of Job is that even though Job was a righteous man, he still was a sinner, although because of God’s gracious work in his life feared God.
Romans 3:10-11 states, “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God.” This passage emphasizes the universal sinfulness and fallen nature of humanity. It does not contradict Job 1:1 because Job is being described in a specific context, acknowledging his righteousness relative to those around him at the time.
So, while Job is recognized as a righteous person, the overarching message of the Bible is that all humans are inherently sinful and fall short of God’s standards (Romans 3:23). This understanding harmonizes Job 1:1 and Romans 3:10-11.
God’s commendation of Job is not entirely unconditional, as evidenced by His subsequent condemnation of him in chapter 38 and Job’s confession of despising himself and repenting in dust and ashes (Job 42:6). Additionally, God only declared Job as “blameless” before other people. In contrast, in Romans 3:19, it is stated that no one, except through Christ’s work, is blameless before God.
“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. Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges, by A. B. Davidson, Job, (Cambridge University Press, 1898), e-Sword version.
2. Albert Barnes, THE AGES DIGITAL LIBRARYCOMMENTARY, Barnes’ Notes on the Bible, Job, Vol. p.170.
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 17 books defending the Reformed Faith. Books can be ordered online at Amazon.
“Is not my word like fire,” declares the Lord, “and like a hammer that breaks a rock in pieces?” – Jeremiah 23:29
Bio:
Gordon Haddon Clark (1902–1985) was a distinguished American philosopher, theologian, and Christian apologist known for his significant contributions to epistemology, philosophy, and systematic theology. Born on August 31, 1902, in Dober, Idaho, Clark spent his early years raised in a Presbyterian home and later, as a young man, attended the University of Pennsylvania, where he earned his Ph.D. in philosophy in 1929.
Throughout his academic career, Clark showed keen interest in the relationship between faith and reason. Raised in the Reformed tradition, which embraced John Calvin’s teachings, the Westminster Confession satisfied his quest for this. His commitment to a Reformed worldview profoundly influenced his approach to philosophy and theology.
Clark was a professor at several institutions, including the University of Pennsylvania, Wheaton College, Butler University, and Covenant College. He was a prolific writer, producing over forty books and numerous philosophy, theology, and apologetics articles. His works often tackled foundational questions about knowledge, ethics, and the Christian faith.
One of Clark’s notable contributions was developing a presuppositional apologetic method, emphasizing the importance of starting with foundational beliefs or axioms when engaging in philosophical or theological discussions. Clark’s approach, rooted in the Reformed tradition, shaped Clark’s defense of the Christian faith and influenced a generation of scholars and apologists.
In “God’s Hammer: The Bible and Its Critics,” Clark defended the authority and inerrancy of the Bible, engaging with critics and presenting a compelling case for the divine inspiration of Scripture. This work exemplified his commitment to logical rigor and clear reasoning.
Throughout his career, Gordon H. Clark engaged with various intellectual challenges facing Christianity, consistently advocating for a robust and reasoned defense of the Christian worldview. His legacy endures through his written works and his impact on Christian philosophy and apologetics, leaving a lasting imprint on the Reformed theological tradition. Gordon H. Clark passed away on April 9, 1985, leaving behind a rich intellectual legacy that continues to shape discussions in philosophy and theology.
A Review:
“God’s Hammer: The Bible and Its Critics” by Gordon H. Clark is a formidable defense of the Bible’s authority and reliability, showcasing Clark’s brilliance in weaving together philosophical rigor and theological depth. In this thought-provoking work, Clark takes on the challenges posed by critics of the Bible, employing a presuppositional apologetic approach that sets the stage for a forceful defense of the Christian faith.
Clark’s commitment to logical reasoning and intellectual rigor is one of the book’s strengths. He tackles objections to the Bible with a keen analytical mind, dissecting arguments and presenting a compelling case for the divine inspiration and inerrancy of the Scriptures. Clark’s background in philosophy is evident throughout the book as he navigates complex issues with clarity and precision, making his arguments accessible to scholars and lay readers.
For example:
“Suppose the word mountain meant metaphor, and dog, and Bible, and the United States. Clearly, if a word meant everything, it would mean nothing. If, now, the law of contradiction is an arbitrary convention, and if our linguistic theorists choose some other convention, I challenge them to write a book in conformity with their principles. As a matter of fact it will not be hard for them to do so. Nothing more is necessary than to write the word metaphor sixty thousand times: Metaphor metaphor metaphor metaphor…. This means the dog ran up the mountain, for the word metaphor means dog, ran, and mountain. Unfortunately, the sentence “metaphor metaphor metaphor” also means, Next Christmas is Thanksgiving, for the word metaphor has these meanings as well.” ― Gordon H. Clark, God’s Hammer: The Bible and Its Critics (pp. 49-50)
Clark’s unwavering commitment to the Reformed tradition adds depth to his defense of the Bible. He articulates a coherent worldview that places God at the center and underscores the foundational importance of presuppositions in any intellectual endeavor. This approach strengthens his defense of the Bible and provides readers with a solid framework for understanding and articulating their own Christian convictions.
Furthermore, “God’s Hammer” is marked by its respectful engagement with opposing views. Clark engages with critics intellectually rigorously and charitable, avoiding unnecessary polemics. This balanced approach enhances the book’s credibility and makes it a valuable resource for those seeking a thoughtful exploration of the Bible’s authenticity.
In addition to its intellectual merits, the book is eminently readable. Clark’s writing is clear and engaging, making complex theological concepts accessible to a broad audience. Whether one is a seasoned theologian or a curious seeker, “God’s Hammer” invites readers into a compelling intellectual journey that increases their understanding of the Bible’s significance.
For example:
“The Bible says that all Scripture, that is, all the words that were written down in the Old Testament (at least), is breathed out by God. Holy men spoke – they spoke words – as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. The Old Testament has many instances of the phrase, “the mouth of the Lord has spoken.” Many other times we read, “The word of God came to.” Deuteronomy 18:18 says, “I… will put my words in his mouth,” and a similar phrase occurs in Jeremiah 1:9. Everywhere the Bible speaks of itself, it teaches verbal inspiration. The words are the words of God. It is nowhere said that the words contain geographical discrepancies and theological errors. No examination of the text itself can produce evidence that the words are not inspired. If we take our belief about the Bible from what the Bible says about itself, we must conclude that the words are the words of God who cannot lie.” – Gordon H. Clark, God’s Hammer: The Bible and It’s Critics (p. 124)
In closing his book, Clark summarizes:
“First, our forefathers were convinced, the Westminster Confession asserts, and the Bible teaches that God has given us a written revelation. This revelation is the truth. As Christ himself said, “Your word is truth.” It is not a myth, it is not an allegory, it is no mere pointer to the truth, it is not an analogy of the truth; but it is literally and absolutely true.”
“Second, our forefathers were convinced and the Reformed Faith asserts that this truth can be known. God has created us in his image with the intellectual and logical powers of understanding. He has addressed to men an intelligible revelation; and he expects us to read it, to grasp its meaning, and to believe it. God is not Totally Other, nor is logic a human invention that distorts God’s statements. If this were so, as the Neo-orthodox say, then it would follow, as the neo-orthodox admit, that falsity would be as useful as truth in producing a passionate emotion. But the Bible expects us to appropriate a definite message.”
“Third, the Reformers believed that God’s revelation can be formulated accurately. They were not enamored of ambiguity; they did not identify piety with a confused mind. They wanted to proclaim the truth with the greatest possible clarity. And so ought we.”
“Dare we allow our Biblical heritage to be lost in a nebulous ecumenicity where belief has been reduced to the shortest possible doctrinal statement, in which peace is preserved by an all-embracing ambiguity? Or should we ponder the fact that when the Reformers preached the complete Biblical message in all its detail and with the greatest possible clarity, God granted the world its greatest spiritual awakening since the day s of the apostles? May we not similarly expect astonishing blessings if we return with enthusiasm to all the doctrines of the Westminster Confession?” – Gordon H. Clark, God’s Hammer: The Bible and It’s Critics (pp. 127-198)
In conclusion, Gordon H. Clark’s “God’s Hammer: The Bible and Its Critics” is a commendable work that combines philosophical acumen, theological depth, and a commitment to reasoned discourse. It is a powerful resource for those seeking a robust defense of the Bible while maintaining respect and intellectual humility. This book is a testament to Clark’s enduring influence on Christian apologetics and philosophy. *
If the reader of this review is a thoughtful apologist, this book is a must-read. Print copies can be obtained from the Trinity Foundation. A PDF copy of this work can be found online.
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 17 books defending the Reformed Faith. Books can be ordered online at Amazon.
*This review was assisted by ChatGPT and perfected with Grammarly
Westminster Confession of 1646: Of the Holy Scripture
CHAPTER I. OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURE
I. Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men unexcusable, (Rom 2:14-15; Rom 1:19-20; Psa 19:1-3; Rom 1:32; Rom 2:1); yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of His will, which is necessary unto salvation, (1Co 1:21; 1Co 2:13-14). Therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal Himself, and to declare that His will unto His Church, (Hbr 1:1); and afterwards, for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the Church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing, (Pro 22:19-21; Luk 1:3-4; Rom 15:4; Mat 4:4, 7, 10; Isa 8:19-20): which maketh the Holy Scripture to be most necessary, (2Ti 3:15; 2Pe 1:19); those former ways of God’s revealing His will unto His people being now ceased, (Hbr 1:1-2).
II. Under the name of Holy Scripture, or the Word of God written, are now contained all the books of the Old and New Testament, which are these:
OF THE OLD TESTAMENT:
Genesis Chronicles II Daniel
Exodus Ezra Hosea
Leviticus Nehemiah Joel
Numbers Esther Amos
Deuteronomy Job Obadiah
Joshua Psalms Jonah
Judges Proverbs Micah
Ruth Ecclesiastes Nahum
Samuel I The Song of Songs Habakkuk
Samuel II Isaiah Zephaniah
Kings I Jeremiah Haggai
Kings II Lamentations Zechariah
Chronicles I Ezekiel Malachi
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT:
Gospels according to: Galatians Philemon
Matthew Ephesians Epistle to the Hebrews
Mark Philippians Epistle to the James
Luke Colossians Epistle of Peter I
John Thessalonians I Epistle of Peter II
Acts of the Apostles Thessalonians II Epistles of John I, II, & III
Epistles to Romans Timothy I Epistle of Jude
Corinthians I Timothy II The Revelation
Corinthians II Titus
All which are given by inspiration of God to be the rule of faith and life, (Luk 16:29, 31; Eph 2:20; Rev 22:18-19; 2Ti 3:16).
III. The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon of the Scripture, and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings, (Luk 24:27; Luke 24:44; Rom 3:2; 2Pe 1:21).
IV. The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God, (2Pe 1:19; 2Pe 1:21; 2Ti 3:16; 1Jo 5:9; 1Th 2:13).
V. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture, (1Ti 3:15). And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts, (1Jo 2:20; 1Jo 2:27; Jhn 16:13-14; 1Co 2:10-12; Isa 59:21).
VI. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit or traditions of men, (2Ti 3:15-17; Gal 1:8-9; 2Th 2:2). Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word, (Jhn 6:45; 1Co 2:9-12): and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed, (1Co 14:26; 1Co 14:40).
VII. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all, (2Pe 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, (Psa 119:105; Psa 119:130).
VIII. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical, (Mat 5:18); so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them, (Isa 8:20; Act 15:15; Jhn 5:39; Jhn 5:46). But, because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them, (Jhn 5:39); therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, (1Co 14:6; 1Co 14:9; 1Co 14:11-12; 1Co 14:24; 1Co 14:27-28); that, the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner, (Col 3:16); and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope, (Rom 15:4).
IX. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly, (2Pe 1:21-22; Act 15:15-16).
X. The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture, (Mat 22:29; Mat 22:31; Eph 2:20; Act 28:25).
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 17 books defending the Reformed Faith. Books can be ordered online at Amazon.
Does Job 37:18 teach that the earth has a metal dome? By Jack Kettler
“Hast thou with him spread out the sky, which is strong, and as a molten looking glass?” (Job 37:18)
While the interpretation of Job 37:18 varies among different religious belief systems, some proponents of the idea of a dome cover over the earth have cited this verse as evidence. However, it is important to note that this interpretation is not widely accepted among contemporary biblical scholars and does not reflect the mainstream understanding of the verse.
Nevertheless, here are a few sources that support the idea of a dome cover over the earth using Job 37:18:
1. “Ancient Near Eastern thinkers typically conceived of the Earth as having a bowl-shape, with a solid, convex top (Job 37:18) that was covered by water (Job 26:10).” (1)
2. “The Firmament: Evidence of Its Existence” by Gerardus D. Bouw – This book argues for a physical dome-like structure called the “firmament” that covers the earth, drawing on various biblical references, including Job 37:18.
3. “The Firmament Vaulted Dome; the Earth’s Missing Layers” by Zamm Zamudio – This book explores the concept of a vaulted dome covering the earth and includes an interpretation of Job 37:18 in support of this view.
4. “The Biblical Cosmos: A Pilgrim’s Guide to the Weird and Wonderful World of the Bible” by Robin A. Parry: In this book, Parry explores ancient cosmologies as presented in the Bible, including the idea of a solid firmament. He references Job 37:18 as one of the texts that could be interpreted in favor of a dome cover.
5. Stanton III, Guy, Flat Earth: Evidence To Consider If You Dare To Words of Action, Kindle Edition Mr. Stanton uses Job 37:18 and other passages to argue for dome covering.
In particular, Guy Stanton III has the following comments on Job 37:18 he sees as relevant in finding support for a dome covering the earth:
– Job 37:18, “can you help God spread out the skies as hard as a cast metal mirror? The firmament is a very hard surface and yet there is evidence that it has cracked.” (2)
Regarding Job 37:18, what do other contemporary commentators have to say?
Job 37:18—Does the Bible err in speaking of a solid dome above the earth?
“Problem: Job speaks of God who “spread out the skies” like “a cast metal mirror” (37:18). Indeed, the Hebrew word for the “firmament” (raqia) which God created (cf. Gen. 1:6) is defined in the Hebrew lexicon as a solid object. But this is in clear conflict with the modern scientific understanding of space as non-solid and largely empty.”
“Solution: It is true that the origin of the Hebrew word raqia meant a solid object. However, meaning is not determined by origin (etymology), but by usage. Originally, the English word “board” referred to a wooden plank. But when we speak of a church board member, the word no longer has that meaning. When used of the atmosphere above the earth, “firmament” clearly does not mean something solid. This is evident for several reasons. First, the related word raqa (beat out, spread out) is correctly rendered “expanse” by many recent translations. Just as metal spreads out when beaten (cf. Ex. 39:3; Isa. 40:19), so the firmament is a thinned out area.”
“Second, the root meaning “spread out” can be used independently of “beat out,” as it is in several passages (cf. Ps. 136:6; Isa. 42:5; 44:24). Isaiah wrote, “So says Jehovah God, He who created the heavens and stretched them out, spreading out the earth and its offspring (Isa. 42:5, mkjv). This same verb is used of extending curtains or tents in which to dwell, which would make no sense if there was no empty space there in which to live. Isaiah, for example, spoke of the Lord “who sits on the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them out like a tent to dwell in …” (Isa. 40:22, mkjv).”
“Third, the Bible speaks of rain falling through the sky (Job 36:27–28). But this makes no sense if the sky is a metal dome. Nowhere does the Bible refer to little holes in a metal dome through which the drops fall. It does speak figuratively of the “windows of heaven” opening for the Flood (Gen. 7:11). But this should probably not be taken any more literally than our idiom, “It is raining cats and dogs.”
“Fourth, the Genesis creation account speaks of birds that “fly above the earth across the face of the firmament” (Gen. 1:20). But this would be impossible if the sky was solid. Thus, it is more appropriate to translate raqia by the word “expanse” (as the nasb and niv do). And in this sense there is no conflict with the concept of space in modern science.”
“Fifth, even taken literally, Job’s statement (37:18) does not affirm that the “skies” are a “metal mirror,” but simply that they are “as [like]” a mirror. In other words, it is a comparison that need not be taken literally, any more than God is really a “strong tower” (cf. Prov. 18:10). Further, the point of comparison in Job is not the solidity of the “skies” and a mirror, but their durability (cf. word “strong” [chazaq]; v. 18). So when all is considered, there is no evidence that the Bible affirms that the firmament of the sky is a metallic dome. And thus there is no conflict with modern science.” (3)
The firmament is often referred to in Genesis 1:6 in support of a domed earth.
Consider the following citation from the Institute of Creation Research regarding the firmament:
“1:6 firmament. The “firmament” is not a great vaulted dome in the sky, as liberals have interpreted it, but is simply the atmospheric expanse established between the waters above and below. The Hebrew word, raqiya, means “expanse” or perhaps better, “stretched-out thinness.” “Since God specifically identified it with “Heaven,” it also can be understood simply as “space.” Thus, on the second day, God separated the primeval deep into two deeps, with a great space between. The waters below the space retained the elemental earth materials which would be utilized on the following day to form the land and its plant cover. The waters above the firmament had apparently been transformed into the vapor state in order to be separated from the heavier materials and elevated above the atmosphere, where it could serve as a thermal blanket for the earth’s future inhabitants.”
“Such a vapor canopy would undoubtedly have provided a highly efficient “greenhouse effect,” assuring a perennial spring-like climate for the entire earth. Water vapor both shields the earth against harmful radiations from space and also retains and spreads incoming solar heat. A vapor canopy would thus provide an ideal environment for abundant animal and plant life and for longevity and comfort in human life. Water vapor is invisible, and thus would be translucent, allowing the stars to be seen through it. This would not be the case with a liquid water or ice canopy.” (4)
In closing:
Job 37:18 can be understood metaphorically in a couple of ways:
First, the phrase “spread out the skies” can be seen as a metaphor for having great power or control. In ancient times, the sky was often associated with vastness, mystery, and the divine. By asking if Job can “spread out the skies like him,” God is essentially questioning Job’s ability to have dominion over the vastness and complexity of the world. It implies that Job does not possess the power and wisdom to control the forces of nature or understand the ways of God.
Secondly, the phrase “hard as a cast metal mirror” can be seen as a metaphor for something that is impenetrable or beyond comprehension. Just as a mirror cannot be easily manipulated or altered, the same can be said about the workings of the cosmos or God’s plans. The verse highlights the incomprehensibility of God’s ways and emphasizes the limitations of human understanding. Job is being reminded that he cannot comprehend or control the vastness and complexity of the world, just as he cannot spread out the skies or shape its nature.
In both interpretations, the metaphorical interpretation of Job 37:18 refers to the concept of human limitations and insignificance in comparison to the power and wisdom of God.
“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. David J.A. Clines, Job 21-37 in Word Biblical Commentary, (Nashville, TN: Nelson, 2006), p. 559.
2. Stanton III, Guy, Flat Earth: Evidence To Consider If You Dare To (p. 83), Words of Action. Kindle Edition.
3. Norman L. Geisler (Author), Thomas Howe (Author), When Critics Ask: A Popular Handbook on Bible Difficulties, Kindle location 3465.
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 17 books defending the Reformed Faith. Books can be ordered online at Amazon.
Is Deuteronomy 18:18 about Jesus or Mohammed? By Jack Kettler
“I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.” (Deuteronomy 18:18)
Many readers of this blog may be shocked that a question like this about a Bible verse allegedly refers to the founder of the Muslim religion. With over 1 billion Muslims in the world, sooner or later, the student of Scripture may encounter this Twenty-first-Century popular Muslim belief.
Does the above passage support the Muslim claim that Jesus is not the predicted prophet of Deuteronomy 18:18, but instead, this passage is a prophecy about Mohammed?
Matthew Henry’s Commentary provides a time-honored interpretation of Deuteronomy 18:18:
“18:15-22 It is here promised concerning Christ, that there should come a Prophet, great above all the prophets; by whom God would make known himself and his will to the children of men, more fully and clearly than he had ever done before. He is the Light of the world, Joh 8:12. He is the World by whom God speaks to us, Joh 1:1; Heb 1:2. In his birth he should be one of their nation. In his resurrection he should be raised up at Jerusalem, and from thence his doctrine should go forth to all the world. Thus God, having raised up his Son Christ Jesus, sent him to bless us. He should be like unto Moses, only above him. This prophet is come, even JESUS; and is He that should come, and we are to look for no other. The view of God which he gives, will not terrify or overwhelm, but encourages us. He speaks with fatherly affection and Divine authority united. Whoever refuses to listen to Jesus Christ, shall find it is at his peril; the same that is the Prophet is to be his Judge, Joh 12:48. Woe then to those who refuse to hearken to His voice, to accept His salvation, or yield obedience to His sway! But happy they who trust in Him, and obey Him. He will lead them in the paths of safety and peace, until He brings them to the land of perfect light, purity, and happiness. Here is a caution against false prophets. It highly concerns us to have a right touchstone wherewith to try the word we hear, that we may know what that word is which the Lord has not spoken. Whatever is against the plain sense of the written word, or which gives countenance or encouragement to sin, we may be sure is not that which the Lord has spoken.” (1)
Furthermore, Deuteronomy 18:18 could not refer to Mohammed since the prophet to come was like Moses, who did “all the signs and wonders which the Lord sent” (See Deuteronomy 34:11). The Christian response to a Muslim would be to ask when did and how did Mohammed perform these signs and wonders?
Christian apologist James White is well-read in Islamic theology; therefore, his interaction with the passages from Deuteronomy that are appealed to by today’s Muslims will be of great value:
“The text most often put forward by Islamic polemicists in support of the above Qur’anic texts is Deuteronomy 18: 15–19: The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your countrymen, you shall listen to him. This is according to all that you asked of the LORD your God in Horeb on the day of the assembly, saying,” “Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God, let me not see this great fire anymore, or I will die.” The LORD said to me, “They have spoken well. I will raise up a prophet from among their countrymen like you, and I will put My words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him. It shall come about that whoever will not listen to My words which he shall speak in My name, I Myself will require it of him.” (2)
White goes on with more relevant material:
“Though the citation of this text goes back to some of the earliest streams of Islamic thought, its prevalence among Muslims today is due primarily to one man: Ahmed Deedat. Millions of Muslims have seen this South African’s extended presentation of the text, and while he was not a scholar of any serious training, he was a master speaker and showman. Now millions around the world are convinced that these words from the Law of Moses could not possibly find fulfillment in Jesus but instead must refer to Muhammad….”
“The New Testament likewise sees this text’s fulfillment in the person of Jesus, not Muhammad. In the very earliest days of the Christian faith, years before the conversion of the apostle Paul, Peter said, Moses said, “THE LORD GOD WILL RAISE UP FOR YOU A PROPHET LIKE ME FROM YOUR BRETHREN; TO HIM YOU SHALL GIVE HEED to everything He says to you. And it will be that every soul that does not heed that prophet shall be utterly destroyed from among the people.” And likewise, all the prophets who have spoken, from Samuel and his successors onward, also announced these days. (Acts 3:22– 24) Peter not only applied Deuteronomy 18 directly to the Messiah, Jesus, he also insisted that all the prophets had announced the days that brought fulfillment in Jesus. This is the most primitive Christian affirmation, and it long precedes the advent of Muhammad. Note that the prophecy of Deuteronomy 18 finds perfect fulfillment in Jesus, not when we try to find parallels between Jesus and Moses in every aspect of their lives, but in the specific aspect the prophecy indicates: “I [The LORD] will put My words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him.” This is exactly what Jesus did, though in a far greater and more intensive way than Moses ever did.” (3)
James R. White’s bio.
James R White is an evangelist, apologist, author, and Christian church member. He is the founding director of Alpha and Omega Ministries in Phoenix, Arizona, an international Christian apologetics organization, and the host of the weekly Podcast, ‘The Dividing Line’.
White is a prominent figure in the Evangelical and Reformed circles of Protestantism. He holds a Bachelor’s in Theology and a Master’s of Divinity from Grand Rapids Baptist Seminary. He received a Th.D. in Historical Theology from Northwestern University.
His ministry focus is on defending the historic Christian beliefs against cults and other non-Christian religions. He has debated leading Christian apologists in the United States and the United Kingdom and has written several books defending traditional Christian beliefs.
White has authored or co-authored more than twenty books and written many articles in defense of a Biblical worldview and against errors within the Christian church. He has taught in numerous colleges and seminaries on topics including apologetics, textual criticism, biblical languages, the theology of Roman Catholicism and Calvinism, Christian ethics, and Greek philosophy. https://www.aomin.org/aoblog/
In closing:
Deuteronomy 18:18 and 34:11 passages cannot be talking about Mohammed for the following reasons:
1. Deuteronomy 18:18 states, “I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers. I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him.” This passage could not be referring to Mohammed because it predates the birth of Mohammed by more than 1700 years. Furthermore, Mohammed had no connection to the Israelites described in this passage, and he did not speak the words of God as Jesus did.
2. Deuteronomy 34:11 states, “Since then, no prophet has risen in Israel like Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face.” Verse 34 does not refer to Mohammed. The Bible is sacred to Christians and does not reference Mohammed, meaning that Deuteronomy 34:11 cannot be referring to him, especially in light of John 5:39, which says, “Search the Scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.”
3. Muslims that read Mohammed into these texts are committing a historical anachronism. An anachronism is a literary fallacy that places someone or something associated with a particular historical time in the wrong time period.
For more research:
Does the Bible Predict the Coming of Muhammad? Learn more at
“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 Henry Commentary on the Whole Bible, (Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., Fourth printing 1985) p. 259.
2. White, James R. What Every Christian Needs to Know About the Qur’an (pp. 181-182). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
3. White, James R. What Every Christian Needs to Know About the Qur’an (p. 184). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
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 17 books defending the Reformed Faith. Books can be ordered online at Amazon.
Who are the gods mentioned in Psalm 82:1? By Jack Kettler
“A Psalm of Asaph. God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.” (Psalm 82:1)
Who are these gods? Are these gods the same as those mentioned in Psalm 82:6? Does this passage support the divine council theory promoted by Michael Heiser?
Note: This study is not a professional critique of Heiser’s “The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible.” The present study is a study of the classical interpretation of “gods” in Psalm 82, and its interaction with Heiser is limited.
The first question is answered by Keil and Delitzsch’s Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament:
“God comes forward and makes Himself heard first of all as censuring and admonishing. The “congregation of God” is, as in Numbers 27:17; Numbers 31:16; Joshua 22:16., “the congregation of (the sons of) Israel,” which God has purchased from among the nations (Psalm 74:2), and upon which as its Lawgiver He has set His divine impress. The psalmist and seer sees Elohim standing in this congregation of God. The part. Niph. (as in Isaiah 3:13) denotes not so much the suddenness and unpreparedness, as, rather, the statue-like immobility and terrifying designfulness of His appearance. Within the range of the congregation of God this holds good of the elohim. The right over life and death, with which the administration of justice cannot dispense, is a prerogative of God. From the time of Genesis 9:6, however, He has transferred the execution of this prerogative to mankind, and instituted in mankind an office wielding the sword of justice, which also exists in His theocratic congregation, but here has His positive law as the basis of its continuance and as the rule of its action. Everywhere among men, but here pre-eminently, those in authority are God’s delegates and the bearers of His image, and therefore as His representatives are also themselves called elohim, “gods” (which the lxx in Exodus 21:6 renders τὸ κριτήριον τοῦ Θεοῦ, and the Targums here, as in Exodus 22:7-8, Exodus 22:27 uniformly, דּיּניּא). The God who has conferred this exercise of power upon these subordinate elohim, without their resigning it of themselves, now sits in judgment in their midst. ישׁפּט of that which takes place before the mind’s eye of the psalmist. How long, He asks, will ye judge unjustly? שׁפט עול is equivalent to עשׂה עול בּמּשׁפּט, Leviticus 19:15, Leviticus 19:35 (the opposite is שׁפט מישׁרים, Psalm 58:2). How long will ye accept the countenance of the wicked, i.e., incline to accept, regard, favour the person of the wicked? The music, which here becomes forte, gives intensity to the terrible sternness (das Niederdonnernde) of the divine question, which seeks to bring the “gods” of the earth to their right mind. Then follow admonitions to do that which they have hitherto left undone. They are to cause the benefit of the administration of justice to tend to the advantage of the defenceless, of the destitute, and of the helpless, upon whom God the Lawgiver especially keeps His eye. The word רשׁ (ראשׁ), of which there is no evidence until within the time of David and Solomon, is synonymous with אביון. דל with ויתום is pointed דל, and with ואביון, on account of the closer notional union, דל (as in Psalm 72:13). They are words which are frequently repeated in the prophets, foremost in Isaiah (Isaiah 1:17), with which is enjoined upon those invested with the dignity of the law, and with jurisdiction, justice towards those who cannot and will not themselves obtain their rights by violence.” (1) (Underlining emphasis mine)
A contrary interpretation:
The Plural Elohim of Psalm 82: Gods or Men? Michael Heiser’s post on the Divine Council of God and lesser or sub-gods is an example of a Hebrew scholar that understands the text differently. In Psalm 82, Heiser sees the term gods not as humans but as demigods or sub-gods participating in a divine heavenly council.
“Michael S. Heiser was an American Old Testament scholar and Christian author with training in ancient history, Semitic languages, and the Hebrew Bible from the University of Pennsylvania and the University of Wisconsin–Madison. Wikipedia”
While this view is plausible, as will be seen does not hold up after considering the Words of Christ commenting on Psalm 82:6, as will be seen in John’s gospel.
Regarding Psalm 82:1, as seen from Keil and Delitzsch above, there is no reason to think these gods are anything other than human judges in Israel of God’s people.
What about the following passage from Psalm 82:1? Does this passage support the divine council theory?
“I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most-High.” (Psalm 82:6)
Are these the same “gods” mentioned in Psalm 82:1? The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges explains:
“1. A vision of God as the Judge of judges.”
“God Originally no doubt Jehovah, for which the Elohistic editor has substituted Elôhîm. Standeth Or, taketh his stand: solemnly takes His place as president. Cp. Isaiah 3:13 a; Amos 7:7; Amos 9:1.”
“in the congregation of the mighty] I.e., as P.B.V., of princes. But we must rather render, in the assembly of God (El), i.e., not the congregation of Israel, though this is called the congregation of Jehovah (Numbers 27:17; cp. Psalm 74:2), but an assembly summoned and presided over by God in His capacity of Almighty Ruler.”
“he judgeth &c.] In the midst of gods (Elôhîm) will he judge. According to the view adopted above, the judges and authorities of Israel are meant by gods. It might indeed be supposed that the poet intended to represent God as holding His court surrounded by angels, like an earthly king in the midst of his courtiers (cp. 1 Kings 22:19; Job 1:2); and so probably the Syriac translator understood the verse: “God standeth in the assembly of the angels, and in the midst of the angels will He judge.” But Elôhîm can hardly have a different meaning from that which it has in Psalm 82:6, where it clearly refers to the judges who are put on their trial; and the address in Psalm 82:2 would be unintelligible if the persons addressed had not already been mentioned.” (2)
If the divine council theory is to hold up, the Scriptures must consistently view the Hebrew word “gods” as demigods rather than humans.
What did Jesus believe since he quoted Psalm 82:6? The Words of Christ settle the debate in John’s gospel.
“Jesus answered them, is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?” (John 10:34)
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
“34-36. Is it not written in your law—in Ps 82:6, respecting judges or magistrates.”
“Ye are gods—being the official representatives and commissioned agents of God.” (3)
While the divine council theory is a possible translation, Jesus in John’s gospel quotes Psalm 82 and provides the New Testament commentary that overrides the divine council theory, particularly in John 10:34, as seen above.
As stated, the divine council theory is a belief within some religions that a group of deities meets regularly to discuss and debate various issues. Moreover, the idea of a divine council is problematic because of the following passages:
“Who hath directed the Spirit of the LORD, or being his counseller hath taught him?” (Isaiah 40:13)
“For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counseller?” (Romans 11:34)
Commenting on Romans 11:34, Barnes’ Notes on the Bible says:
“For who hath known? … – This verse is a quotation, with a slight change, from Isaiah 40:13, “Who hath directed the Spirit of the Lord, or being his counselor hath taught him?” It is designed to express the infinite wisdom and knowledge of God, by affirming that no being could teach him, or counsel him. Earthly monarchs have counsellors of state, whom they may consult in times of perplexity or danger. But God has no such council. He sits alone; nor does he call in any or all of his creatures to advise him. All created beings are not qualified to contribute anything to enlighten or to direct him. It is also designed to silence all opposition to his plans, and to hush all murmurings. The apostle had proved that this was the plan of God. However mysterious and inscrutable it might appear to the Jew or the Gentile, yet it was his duty to submit to God, and to confide in his wisdom, though he was not able to trace the reason of his doings.” (4)
In addition, Vincent’s Word Studies says:
“From Isaiah 40:13. Heb., Who hath measured the Spirit? Though measured may be rendered tried, proved, regulated. Compare the same citation in 1 Corinthians 2:16. This is the only passage in the Septuagint where ruach spirit is translated by νοῦς mind. Known (ἔγνω) may refer to God’s γνῶσις knowledge and ways in Romans 11:33; counselor to His wisdom and judgments. No one has counseled with Him in forming His decisions.” (5)
Another significant reason to understand the understanding of the Hebrew word for “gods” being human representatives is that the following texts absolve God of contradiction:
“Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.” (Isaiah 43:10)
“For thus saith the Lord that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the Lord; and there is none else.” (Isaiah 45:18)
If the above two passages from Isaiah are true, the divine council theory cannot be true since this would make Isaiah guilty of equivocation.
Have other theologians in church history agreed with Heiser’s Council of gods theory?
Some theologians in church history have suggested the existence of multiple divine beings, including Polytheism (the belief in multiple deities), Dualism (the belief in two competing divine forces), and Christian Henotheism (the belief in one supreme deity with lesser gods subordinate to him). A prominent example is the late third-century theologian Origen of Alexandria, who stated in his Commentary on John that the term “gods” in certain passages of Scripture should be taken literally. He argued that “it is better to accept that there is a Christ the Lord of Hosts, a God of Sabaoth, and also another god in relation to whom he is called Lord,” referring to the distinctions between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Origen is not the same as Heiser’s Council of gods theory since he did not further distinguish between Elohim as a plural form of God and YHWH as a singular form. However, other early Christian theologians, including Aphrahat, Eusebius, and Ambrose, have expressed similar ideas. However, these assertions have never become mainstream Christian doctrine and are still the subject of some debate within certain Christian circles. *
In closing, the correct methodology:
The New Testament revelation completes the Old Testament revelation and is an inspired commentary on the Old Testament Scriptures. The Old Testament is incomplete without the New, and the New Testament stands upon the foundation of the Old and presupposes knowledge of the Old.
In short, since Heiser’s council of gods is distinctively new in Church history, the burden of proof rests with those who follow Heiser requires the daunting task of showing that two millennia of Church theologians have been mistaken in their exegesis of critical texts. The present writer a convert from Mormonism and is especially sensitive to theological innovators that have allegedly stumbled on interpretations of Scriptures that have been missing for two thousand years.
Being a new theory does not necessarily make it wrong. It does carry a special burden of proving that the Church’s best theologians have been wrong. Furthermore, the magnitude of a textual discovery that invalidates all previous theological interpretations seems to this writer extremely dubious. Moreover, Heiser seems to have turned the Old Testament into an elaborate cosmic game of thrones.
Christ’s authority in the New Testament is the interpretive grid to understand the Old Testament.
Furthermore, as seen above, the divine council theory fails under the weight of the divine commentary of the New Testament as the interpretive grid to understand the Old Testament, which is a hermeneutical issue of enormous importance. Not being an expert on Heiser’s methodology, in this writer’s opinion, he seems to have things reversed, using obscure texts in the Old Testament to interpret the New Testament.
“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. Keil-Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament Psalms, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Reprinted 1985), p.402-403.
2. Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges, by y A. F. Kirkpatrick (editor), Psalms, (Cambridge University Press, 1898), e-Sword version.
3. Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, Commentary on the Whole Bible, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Zondervan, 1977) p. 437.
4. Albert Barnes, THE AGES DIGITAL LIBRARYCOMMENTARY, Barnes’ Notes on the Bible, Romans, p. 2292.
5. Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in The New Testament, (Mclean, Virginia, Macdonald Publishing Company), p. 132.
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 15 books defending the Reformed Faith. Books can be ordered online at Amazon.
*This paragraph is written with the assistance of ChatGPT
For more research:
The divine council theory of Dr. Michael S. Heiser is a complex and often controversial interpretation of the Biblical text. Dr. Heiser’s view of the divine council attempts to explain the concept of God as an assembly of divine beings ruling over various supernatural and earthly realms. Heiser argues that these divine beings are tasked with carrying out God’s will. Drawing from ancient Near Eastern texts, Heiser claims that the divine council belief can also be found in the Old Testament and that the New Testament authors borrowed from this understanding.
However, the theory has been subject to several criticisms:
One of the major problems is the lack of concrete evidence to support Heiser’s assertions. Heiser relies heavily on the writings of liberal critical scholars and ancient texts but does not make an effort to provide concrete examples of the evidence in the Bible itself, which makes it difficult for the uninitiated to evaluate the claims of Heiser without obtaining a greater grasp of the interpretations proposed by other conservative scholars.
An Alternative to Heiser’s Divine Council Theology
Dr. Jordan B Cooper
“Recently, The Bible Project started a series on spiritual beings. The third video in the series spoke of The Divine Council, a hypothesis that has been propagated, most notably, by Dr. Michael Heiser. In fact, Heiser was credited as a Script Consultant at the end of the video. It is my position that this theological perspective is not only incorrect, but also an affront to the splendor and glory of God.” – Jeremy Howard
In the book of Romans, Paul declares the following concerning man’s condition: “As it is written, there is none righteous, no, not one…that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God” (Romans 3:10, 19). Paul explains that this is a fallen man’s condition. Paul says: “For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord” (Romans 6:23). The sinner had earned the wages of death. God, in His mercy, gives sinners the gift of eternal life. The only thing that a sinner has earned and deserves is death. Eternal life came as a gift. One thing is certain: there was and is absolutely nothing in the sinner that caused God to give the sinner this gift. Jesus Christ gets all the glory and praise.
The believer should now attempt to do as the writer of Hebrews sets forth: “Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith” (Hebrews 12:2). The believer looks to Jesus by giving him the glory. God gives sinners the gift of faith. Believers are saved by grace, and even faith is a gift. Ephesians 2:8 says: “and that not of yourselves.” What is not of yourselves? Faith! Did the sinner choose Christ and exercise faith? Yes, but why? Who gets the glory? Christ? Or the sinner? Why did the sinner choose to believe? Ephesians 1:4, and verse 5 supplies the answer.
“According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will.” Was this salvation in the sinner’s hands to choose or reject? If this were the case, then the sinners could glory in themselves. How can that be so? Because the sinner would have done something others had not done. The following verse tells us that predestination is: “according to the good pleasure of his will.” “So, then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy” (Romans 9:16).
More than any other teaching of Scripture, the doctrine of election takes salvation out of man’s hands and places it in God’s control. Men do not like God’s control. The cause of God’s choosing is found in Him. If one insists that one’s actions are part of God’s choice, human merit is brought into the picture. Salvation then becomes synergistic rather than monergistic. Biblical salvation is monergistic. Christ alone, by His complete and finished work, saved the sinner. Within a synergistic scheme, salvation becomes a cooperative effort. An individual’s work takes away from the work of Christ. How? The sinner contributed. The sinner played a part in salvation. If the sinner was not willing, then God could not save them. A synergistic scheme of salvation steals Christ’s glory and limits God’s power. God can only do what the sinner allows Him to do within this type of system. Again, the believer must confess by the grace of God that: “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).
Logical Argument:
Premise 1: The apostle Paul teaches in l Corinthians 15:1-4, Romans 3:10, and Romans 6:23 that all humanity is fallen and deserving of death due to sin.
Premise 2: The gift of eternal life is given to sinners by God’s mercy, and it is not something they have earned or deserve.
Conclusion: Therefore, salvation and eternal life are solely dependent on God’s grace and not on the actions or merit of the sinner.
The believer’s testimony must be, “To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ forever.
Amen”. Romans 16:27. heirs according to the promise” (Galatians 3:28-29). Amen!
“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)
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 17 books defending the Reformed Faith. Books can be ordered online at Amazon.
J. Gresham Machen (1881–1937) was a prominent American theologian, New Testament scholar, and Presbyterian minister who played a crucial role in defending conservative Christianity during the early 20th century. Born on July 28, 1881, in Baltimore, Maryland, Machen demonstrated intellectual prowess from a young age.
Machen graduated from Johns Hopkins University in 1901 and later earned his Bachelor of Divinity from Princeton Theological Seminary in 1905. He continued his studies in Europe, receiving a Doctor of Philosophy degree from the University of Marburg in Germany. Machen’s theological education and exposure to European liberalism profoundly influenced his commitment to orthodox Christian doctrine.
In 1906, Machen joined the faculty of Princeton Theological Seminary as an instructor in New Testament studies. Throughout his tenure, he staunchly defended the inerrancy of the Bible and the fundamentals of the Christian faith, resisting the encroachment of modernist and liberal theology at Princeton.
1929, Machen took a pivotal step by co-founding Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia. This institution aimed to provide a robust theological education grounded in biblical orthodoxy. Machen’s commitment to sound doctrine and biblical authority also led him to be a key figure in forming the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) in 1936, following his departure from the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A.
Machen’s most significant work, “Christianity and Liberalism,” published in 1923, remains a classic defense of the essential tenets of Christianity against the challenges posed by liberal theology. His writings, lectures, and sermons continue to influence scholars and pastors, emphasizing the importance of maintaining the historic Christian faith.
Tragically, J. Gresham Machen’s life was cut short when he passed away on January 1, 1937, at the age of 55. Despite his relatively brief time on earth, his legacy endures through the institutions he helped establish and the theological convictions he defended, marking him as a stalwart defender of biblical Christianity in the face of theological compromise.
A Review:
“Christianity and Liberalism” by J. Gresham Machen is a seminal work that stands as a formidable critique of theological liberalism and a robust defense of traditional, orthodox Christianity. Machen’s book, published in 1923, emerged amid the Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy, a time when the Christian Church in America was grappling with significant theological shifts.
Machen’s central thesis is clear and unyielding: Christianity and theological liberalism are not simply different expressions of the same faith but represent distinct religions with fundamentally incompatible beliefs. With eloquence and conviction, Machen argues that the essence of Christianity is grounded in the historic Christian faith, as revealed in the authoritative Scriptures. He identifies essential doctrines, such as the inspiration of the Bible, the deity of Christ, and the atonement, as non-negotiable tenets that distinguish genuine Christianity from its liberal counterpart.
For example, Machen explains it like this:
“It never occurred to Paul that a gospel might be true for one man and not for another; the blight of pragmatism had never fallen upon his soul. Paul was convinced of the objective truth of the gospel message, and devotion to that truth was the great passion of his life. Christianity for Paul was not only a life, but also a doctrine, and logically the doctrine came first.” (p. 28.)
One of the strengths of Machen’s argument lies in his ability to dissect the theological underpinnings of liberalism, exposing what he sees as a departure from essential Christian truths. He contends that theological liberalism, in its attempt to adapt to modern intellectual trends, has compromised the very heart of the Christian message. Machen’s critique is not merely a polemic against liberalism but a passionate defense of the historic Christian faith that has endured through centuries.
Another example of Machen’s analysis:
“At any rate, an attack upon Calvin or Turrettin or the Westminster divines does not seem to the modern churchgoer to be a very dangerous thing. In point of fact, however, the attack upon doctrine is not nearly so innocent a matter as our simple churchgoer supposes; for the things objected to in the theology of the Church are also at the very heart of the New Testament. Ultimately the attack is not against the seventeenth century, but against the Bible and against Jesus Himself.” (pp. 45-46.)
Machen’s writing is characterized by intellectual rigor and a deep commitment to the authority of Scripture. His engagement with the theological landscape of his time reveals a scholar unafraid to confront challenges to the faith while upholding the timeless truths of Christianity. The book serves as a historical artifact from a crucial period in American Christian thought and a timeless resource for those navigating the ongoing tension between orthodoxy and cultural adaptation.
Machen argues that theological liberalism represents a different religion from historic Christianity. He argues that theological liberalism, in its effort to conform to modern intellectual trends, has undermined the fundamental tenets of the Christian faith. Machen asserts that true Christianity is grounded in the historic Christian faith as expressed in the Bible and that any departure from these foundational beliefs results in a fundamentally different religion.
Machen explains the difference:
“It is no wonder, then, that liberalism is different from Christianity, for the foundation is different. Christianity is founded upon the Bible. It bases upon the Bible both its thinking and its life. Liberalism, on the other hand, is founded upon the shifting emotions of sinful men.” (p. 79.)
The book remains influential in discussions about the nature of Christianity and the challenges posed by theological liberalism. Machen’s work reflects a commitment to orthodox Christian theology and a concern for maintaining the integrity of the Christian faith in the face of various theological trends in his time.
One of Machen’s most significant insights is:
“The liberals constantly resort to a double use of language.” (p. 111.)
The double use of language by liberals was a trick they used to hide their real beliefs. The surface meaning words made it seem like they were historically orthodox. However, as Machen discovered, if one was able to break through the language barrier or the surface meaning of words, the liberal was exposed.
In conclusion, “Christianity and Liberalism” remains a significant and influential work, contributing to ongoing discussions about the nature of authentic Christianity and the challenges posed by theological liberalism. Machen’s unwavering defense of core Christian doctrines and his insistence on the distinctiveness of the Christian faith continue to resonate with readers interested in the intersection of theology, culture, and the enduring truths of the Christian tradition. The battle against theological liberalism never stops. Therefore, if the reader does not have a copy, order it today. 2023 marked the 100 year Anniversary of Machen’s book.
Notes:
J. Gresham Machen, Christianity and Liberalism, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Eerdmans, 1923), pp. 28, 45-46, 79, 111.
* This review was assisted by CHATGPT and perfected by Grammarly.
H. L. Mencken (The Sage of Baltimore) on J. Gresham Machen PART ONE
Henry Louis Mencken was an American journalist, essayist, satirist, cultural critic, and scholar of American English. He commented widely on the social scene, literature, music, prominent politicians, and contemporary movements. Wikipedia
Published in 1931:
Thinking of the theological doctrine called Fundamentalism, one is apt to think at once of the Rev. Aimee Semple McPherson, the Rev. Dr. Billy Sunday and the late Dr. John Roach Straton. It is almost as if, in thinking of physic, one thought of Lydia Pinkham or Dr. Munyon. Such clowns, of course, are high in human interest, and their sincerity need not be impugned, but one must remember always that they do not represent fairly the body of ideas they presume to voice, and that those ideas have much better spokesmen. I point, for example, to the Rev. J. Gresham Machen, D.D. Litt.D., formerly of Princeton and now professor of the New Testament in Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia. Dr. Machen is surely no mere soap-boxer of God, alarming bucolic sinners for a percentage of the plate. On the contrary, he is a man of great learning and dignity—a former student at European universities, the author of various valuable books, including a Greek grammar, and a member of several societies of savants. Moreover, he is a Democrat and a wet [against Prohibition], and may be presumed to have voted for Al [Smith] in 1928. Nevertheless, this Dr. Machen believes completely in the inspired integrity of Holy Writ, and when it was questioned at Princeton he withdrew indignantly from those hallowed shades, leaving Dr. Paul Elmer More to hold the bag.
I confess frankly, as a life-long fan of theology, that I can find no defect in his defense of his position. Is Christianity actually a revealed religion? If not, then it is nothing; if so, then we must accept the Bible as an inspired statement of its principles. But how can we think of the Bible as inspired and at the same time as fallible? How can we imagine it as part divine and awful truth and part mere literary confectionery? And how, if we manage so to imagine it, are we to distinguish between the truth and the confectionery? Dr. Machen answers these questions very simply and very convincingly. If Christianity is really true, as he believes, then the Bible is true, and if the Bible is true, then it is true from cover to cover. So answering, he takes his stand upon it, and defies the hosts of Beelzebub to shake him. As I have hinted, I think that, given his faith, his position is completely impregnable. There is absolutely no flaw in the arguments with which he supports it. If he is wrong, then the science of logic is a hollow vanity, signifying nothing.
His moral advantage over his Modernist adversaries, like his logical advantage, is immense and obvious. He faces the onslaught of the Higher Criticism without flinching, and he yields nothing of his faith to expediency or decorum. Does his searching of Holy Writ compel him to believe that Jesus was descended from David through Joseph, as Matthew says, and yet begotten by the Holy Ghost, as Matthew also says, then he believes it calmly and goes on. Does he encounter witches in Exodus, and more of them in Deuteronomy, and yet more in Chronicles, then he is unperturbed. Is he confronted, in Revelation, with angels, dragons, serpents and beasts with seven heads and ten horns, then he contemplates them as calmly as an atheist looks at a chimpanzee in a zoo. For he has risen superior to all such trivial details, the bane of less devout and honest men. The greater marvel swallows all the lesser ones. If it be a fact, as he holds, that Yahweh has revealed the truth to His lieges on this earth, then he is quite as willing to accept and cherish that truth when it is odd and surprising as when it is transparent and indubitable. Believing, as he does, in an omnipotent and omniscient God, maker of heaven and earth, he admits freely that God probably knows more than he himself knows, both of the credible and the incredible, though he is a member of both Phi Beta Kappa and the American Philological Association.
It must be plain that the Modernists are in a much weaker position. The instant they admit that only part of the Bible may be rejected, if it be only the most trifling fly-speck of the Pauline Epistles, they admit that any other part may be rejected. Thus the divine authority of the whole disappears, and there is no more evidence that Christianity is a revealed religion than there is that Mohammedanism is. It is idle for such iconoclasts to say that one man—usually the speaker—is better able to judge in such matters than other men, for they have to admit in the same breath that no man’s judgment, however learned he may be, is infallible, and that no man’s judgment, however mean he may be, is negligible. They thus reduce theology to the humble level of a debate over probabilities. Such a debate it has become, in fact, in the hands of the more advanced Modernists. No two of them agree in all details, nor can they conceivably agree so long as one man, by God’s inscrutable will, differs from all other men. The Catholics get rid of the difficulty by setting up an infallible Pope, and consenting formally to accept his verdicts, but the Protestants simply chase their own tails. By depriving revelation of all force and authority, they rob their so-called religion of every dignity. It becomes, in their hands, a mere romantic imposture, unsatisfying to the pious and unconvincing to the judicious.
I have noted that Dr. Machen is a wet. This is somewhat remarkable in a Presbyterian, but certainly it is not illogical in a Fundamentalist. He is a wet, I take it, simply because the Yahweh of the Old Testament and the Jesus of the New are both wet—because the whole Bible, in fact, is wet. He not only refuses to expunge from the text anything that is plainly there; he also refuses to insert anything that is not there. What I marvel at is that such sincere and unyielding Christians as he is do not start legal proceeding against the usurpers who now disgrace the name. By what right does a Methodist bishop, in the face of John 2:1-11, Matthew 11:19 and Timothy 5:23, hold himself out as a follower of Jesus, and even as an oracle on Jesus’ ideas and desire? Surely there is libel here, and if I were the believer that Dr. Machen is I think I’d say that there is also blasphemy. I suggest formally that he and his orthodox friends get together, and petition some competent court to restrain the nearest Methodist congregation from calling itself Christian. I offer myself a witness for the plaintiffs, and promise to come well heeled with evidence. At worst, such a suit would expose the fraudulence of the Methodist claim and redound greatly to the glory and prosperity of the true faith; at best, some judge more intelligent and less scary than the general might actually grant the injunction.
H. L. MENCKEN’S OBITUARY OF MACHEN PART TWO
“Dr. Fundamentalis” (1)
The Rev. J. Gresham Machen, D. D., who died out in North Dakota on New Year’s Day, got, on the whole, a bad press while he lived, and even his obituaries did much less than justice to him. To newspaper reporters, as to other antinomians, a combat between Christians over a matter of dogma is essentially a comic affair, and in consequence Dr. Machen’s heroic struggles to save Calvinism in the Republic were usually depicted in ribald, or, at all events, in somewhat skeptical terms. The generality of readers, I suppose, gathered thereby the notion that he was simply another Fundamentalist on the order of William Jennings Bryan and the simian faithful of Appalachia. But he was actually a man of great learning, and, what is more, of sharp intelligence.
What caused him to quit the Princeton Theological Seminary and found a seminary of his own was his complete inability, as a theologian, to square the disingenuous evasions of Modernism with the fundamentals of Christian doctrine. He saw clearly that the only effects that could follow diluting and polluting Christianity in the Modernist manner would be its complete abandonment and ruin. Either it was true or it was not true. If, as he believed, it was true, then there could be no compromise with persons who sought to whittle away its essential postulates, however respectable their motives.
Thus he fell out with the reformers who have been trying, in late years, to convert the Presbyterian Church into a kind of literary and social club, devoted vaguely to good works. Most of the other Protestant churches have gone the same way, but Dr. Machen’s attention, as a Presbyterian, was naturally concentrated upon his own connection. His one and only purpose was to hold it [the Church] resolutely to what he conceived to be the true faith. When that enterprise met with opposition he fought vigorously, and though he lost in the end and was forced out of Princeton it must be manifest that he marched off to Philadelphia with all the honors of war.
II
My interest in Dr. Machen while he lived, though it was large, was not personal, for I never had the honor of meeting him. Moreover, the doctrine that he preached seemed to me, and still seems to me, to be excessively dubious. I stand much more chance of being converted to spiritualism, to Christian Science or even to the New Deal than to Calvinism, which occupies a place, in my cabinet of private horrors, but little removed from that of cannibalism. But Dr. Machen had the same clear right to believe in it that I have to disbelieve in it, and though I could not yield to his reasoning I could at least admire, and did greatly admire, his remarkable clarity and cogency as an apologist, allowing him his primary assumptions.
These assumptions were also made, at least in theory, by his opponents, and thereby he had them by the ear. Claiming to be Christians as he was, and of the Calvinish persuasion, they endeavored fatuously to get rid of all the inescapable implications of their position. On the one hand they sought to retain membership in the fellowship of the faithful, but on the other hand they presumed to repeal and reenact with amendments the body of doctrine on which that fellowship rested. In particular, they essayed to overhaul the scriptural authority which lay at the bottom of the whole matter, retaining what coincided with their private notions and rejecting whatever upset them.
Upon this contumacy Dr. Machen fell with loud shouts of alarm. He denied absolutely that anyone had a right to revise and sophisticate Holy Writ. Either it was the Word of God or it was not the Word of God, and if it was, then it was equally authoritative in all its details, and had to be accepted or rejected as a whole. Anyone was free to reject it, but no one was free to mutilate it or to read things into it that were not there. Thus the issue with the Modernists was clearly joined, and Dr. Machen argued them quite out of court, and sent them scurrying back to their literary and sociological Kaffeeklatsche. His operations, to be sure, did not prove that Holy Writ was infallible either as history or as theology, but they at least disposed of those who proposed to read it as they might read a newspaper, believing what they chose and rejecting what they chose.
III
In his own position there was never the least shadow of inconsistency. When the Prohibition imbecility fell upon the country, and a multitude of theological quacks, including not a few eminent Presbyterians, sought to read support for it into the New Testament, he attacked them with great vigor, and routed them easily. He not only proved that there was nothing in the teachings of Jesus to support so monstrous a folly; he proved abundantly that the known teachings of Jesus were unalterably against it. And having set forth that proof, he refused, as a convinced and honest Christian, to have anything to do with the dry jehad.
This rebellion against a craze that now seems so incredible and so far away was not the chief cause of his break with his ecclesiastical superiors, but it was probably responsible for a large part of their extraordinary dudgeon against him. The Presbyterian Church, like the other evangelical churches, was taken for a dizzy ride by Prohibition. Led into the heresy by fanatics of low mental visibility, it presently found itself cheek by jowl with all sorts of criminals, and fast losing the respect of sensible people. Its bigwigs thus became extremely jumpy on the subject, and resented bitterly every exposure of their lamentable folly.
The fantastic William Jennings Bryan, in his day the country’s most distinguished Presbyterian layman, was against Dr. Machen on the issue of Prohibition but with him on the issue of Modernism. But Bryan’s support, of course, was of little value or consolation to so intelligent a man. Bryan was a Fundamentalist of the Tennessee or barnyard school. His theological ideas were those of a somewhat backward child of 8, and his defense of Holy Writ at Dayton during the Scopes trial was so ignorant and stupid that it must have given Dr. Machen a great deal of pain. Dr. Machen himself was to Bryan as the Matterhorn is to a wart. His Biblical studies had been wide and deep, and he was familiar with the almost interminable literature of the subject. Moreover, he was an adept theologian, and had a wealth of professional knowledge to support his ideas. Bryan could only bawl.
IV
It is my belief, as a friendly neutral in all such high and ghostly matters, that the body of doctrine known as Modernism is completely incompatible, not only with anything rationally describable as Christianity, but also with anything deserving to pass as religion in general. Religion, if it is to retain any genuine significance, can never be reduced to a series of sweet attitudes, possible to anyone not actually in jail for felony. It is, on the contrary, a corpus of powerful and profound convictions, many of them not open to logical analysis. Its inherent improbabilities are not sources of weakness to it, but of strength. It is potent in a man in proportion as he is willing to reject all overt evidences, and accept its fundamental postulates, however unprovable they may be by secular means, as massive and incontrovertible facts.
These postulates, at least in the Western world, have been challenged in recent years on many grounds, and in consequence there has been a considerable decline in religious belief. There was a time, two or three centuries ago, when the overwhelming majority of educated men were believers, but that is apparently true no longer. Indeed, it is my impression that at least two-thirds of them are now frank skeptics. But it is one thing to reject religion altogether, and quite another thing to try to save it by pumping out of it all its essential substance, leaving it in the equivocal position of a sort of pseudo-science, comparable to graphology, “education,” or osteopathy.
That, it seems to me, is what the Modernists have done, no doubt with the best intentions in the world. They have tried to get rid of all the logical difficulties of religion, and yet preserve a generally pious cast of mind. It is a vain enterprise. What they have left, once they have achieved their imprudent scavenging, is hardly more than a row of hollow platitudes, as empty as [of] psychological force and effect as so many nursery rhymes. They may be good people and they may even be contented and happy, but they are no more religious than Dr. Einstein. Religion is something else again–in Henrik Ibsen’s phrase, something far more deep-down-diving and mudupbringing, Dr. Machen tried to impress that obvious fact upon his fellow adherents of the Geneva Mohammed. He failed–but he was undoubtedly right.
Baltimore Evening Sun (January 18, 1937), 2nd Section, p. 15.
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 17 books defending the Reformed Faith. Books can be ordered online at Amazon.
How many will be saved, few or many? By Jack Kettler
It is readily admitted that this is somewhat of an impossible question. Nevertheless, believers should be prepared for the times in God’s providence when one meets a non-believing skeptic.
“Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in there at: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.” (Matthew 7:13-14)
Matthew Poole’s Commentary on this text is fairly typical and orthodox:
“Ver. 13,14. Our Saviour having in this sermon delivered many hard sayings to flesh and blood, here obviates a twofold temptation they might have to neglect of them:
1. From their difficulty.
2. From the paucity of them who live according to these rules.”
“He here compares heaven to a house, a stately house, into which a”
“strait gate leadeth to a city, the way to which is a narrow way. There is nothing more ordinary in holy writ, than to call a common course of men’s actions a way. It is also compared to a gate. The sum of what our Saviour here saith is this: There are but two ultimate ends of all men, eternal destruction and eternal life. The course that leadeth to destruction is like a broad way that is obvious to all, and many walk in that. That course of life and actions which will bring a man to heaven is strait, unpleasing to flesh and blood, not at all gratifying men’s sensitive appetites, and narrow, (the Greek is, afflicted), a way wherein men will meet with many crosses and temptations; and there are but a few will find it. You must not therefore wonder if my precepts be hard to your carnal apprehensions, nor be scandalized though you see but few going in the right road to the kingdom of heaven.” (1)
“For many are called, but few are chosen.” (Matthew 22:14)
“Then said one unto him, Lord, are there few that be saved? And he said unto them, strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able.” (Luke 13:23-24)
The above passages indicate that the number saved will be “few.”
What about the passages that argue otherwise? For example:
“Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, the kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field: Which indeed is the least of all seeds: but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof.” (Matthew 13:31–32)
“After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands.” (Revelation 7:9)
Consulting Matthew Poole’s Commentary again:
“If we inquire who these were, we are told, Revelation 7:14, by the best Interpreter: These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, & c. So that they do not seem to be the one hundred and forty-four thousand mentioned for preservation in and from the evil, Revelation 7:4, but such as had escaped, or were not in or going into tribulation, but come out. The number of the former was determined; it is said of these, it could not be numbered. These were glorified ones, not militant; they”
“stood before the throne, and the Lamb, clothed with white robes; clothed in the habits of such as amongst the Romans had fought, and conquered, and triumphed; and to this end they are said to have carried palms, the ensigns of victory, in their hands.” (2)
In the above two passages, the number of those who obtain salvation is many or so large that they cannot be numbered.
How can one explain the apparent contradiction between Matthew 7:14, which says “few,” and Revelation 7:9, which says “a great multitude, which no man could number,” to a skeptic?
Not a contradiction at all,contrasting the two gates:
One way to explain this apparent contradiction to a skeptic is to point out that the use of the word “few” in Matthew 7:14 is likely referring to the number of people entering God’s kingdom who are on the narrow path. In contrast, Revelation 7:9 is likely referring more broadly to all those who will be found in the kingdom of God one day, including those who will be saved through accepting Jesus’ sacrifice and those who will be saved through good works. The Bible says in Matthew 25:41 that many people will be cast out into the abyss of darkness and judged accordingly. A skeptic could better understand the difference between the “few” and the “great multitude” in both passages by emphasizing the contrast between these two groups.
Said another way:
The apparent contradiction between Matthew 7:14 and Revelation 7:9 resolves around the fact that these two passages refer to two different groups of people. Matthew 7:14 speaks of the “few” that will find the narrow gate to Heaven, while Revelation refers to a great multitude, which no man could number, of people who will enter the gates of Heaven. In other words, while the number of those that will enter Heaven through the narrow gate is small compared to all of humanity, a great number will enter through the gates of Heaven once they have been saved.
Therefore, the gate to heaven is narrow. However, when human history is complete, and everyone has come through heaven’s gate, this side of heaven in totality, the number of saints from Adam to the 2nd Coming will be innumerable.
In conclusion:
No need to doubt. The believer can be certain that all of God’s elect will be saved since He is all-powerful and actively works for the best of those who love Him.
Romans 8:28-30 approves this:
“And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover, whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.”
Therefore, the sanctified believer will be included in that innumerable multitude pictured in Revelation 7:9.
“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:
Matthew Poole’s Commentary on the Holy Bible, Matthew, Vol. 3, (Peabody, Massachusetts, Hendrickson Publishers, 1985) p. 31.
Matthew Poole’s Commentary on the Holy Bible, Revelation, Vol. 3, (Peabody, Massachusetts, Hendrickson Publishers, 1985) p. 968.
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 17 books defending the Reformed Faith. Books can be ordered online at Amazon.
The Religion That Started in a Hat 