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.
What is the time of Jacob’s trouble? By Jack Kettler
“Alas! for that day isgreat, so that none is like it: it is even the time of Jacob’s trouble; but he shall be saved out of it.” (Jeremiah 30:7)
How does the believer understand this text? Is the time of Jacob’s trouble referring to a past or future fulfillment? Many prophetic speculators place the time of “Jacob’s trouble” into the future. However, what did “Jacob’s trouble” mean to Jeremiah’s contemporaries?
Typical of the futuristic prophetic speculators, one can find the following, “This prophecy of unprecedented difficulty for Jacob’s descendants will be fulfilled just before the second coming of Jesus Christ.” (Life, Hope & Truth website – Church of God, a Worldwide Association, Inc.)
The three following commentary entries will answer how the people of Jeremiah’s day understood what he was saying.
Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary:
“30:1-11 Jeremiah is to write what God had spoken to him. The very words are such as the Holy Ghost teaches. These are the words God ordered to be written; and promises written by his order, are truly his word. He must write a description of the trouble the people were now in, and were likely to be in. A happy end should be put to these calamities. Though the afflictions of the church may last long, they shall not last always. The Jews shall be restored again. They shall obey, or hearken to the Messiah, the Christ, the Son of David, their King. The deliverance of the Jews from Babylon, is pointed out in the prophecy, but the restoration and happy state of Israel and Judah, when converted to Christ their King, are foretold; also, the miseries of the nations before the coming of Christ. All men must honour the Son as they honour the Father, and come into the service and worship of God by him. Our gracious Lord pardons the sins of the believer, and breaks off the yoke of sin and Satan, that he may serve God without fear, in righteousness and true holiness before him all the remainder of his days, as the redeemed subject of Christ our King.” (1)
Clarke’s Commentary:
“Verse Jeremiah 30:7. Alas! for that day is great — When the Medes and Persians with all their forces shall come on the Chaldeans, it will be the day of Jacob’s trouble-trial, dismay, and uncertainty; but he shall be delivered out of it-the Chaldean empire shall fall, but the Jews shall be delivered by Cyrus. Jerusalem shall be destroyed by the Romans, but the Israel of God shall be delivered from its ruin. Not one that had embraced Christianity perished in the sackage of that city.” (2)
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary:
“7. great—marked by great calamities (Joe 2:11, 31; Am 5:18; Zep 1:14).
none like it … but he shall be saved — (Da 12:1). The partial deliverance at Babylon’s downfall prefigures the final, complete deliverance of Israel, literal and spiritual, at the downfall of the mystical Babylon (Re 18:1-19:21).” (3)
After consulting commentary entries, the following can be said:
Though some scholars suggest a future fulfillment of Jeremiah 30:7, from a conservative theological viewpoint, there is a solid argument to be made that the passage points to fulfillment in the past. For example, Jeremiah 30:7 says, “Alas! For that day is so great there is none like it; and it is the time of Jacob’s trouble, but he shall be saved out of it.” Theologians have noted the urgency in the passage, highlighting the current and inescapable nature of the “trouble” facing Jacob. Furthermore, many believe the passage is inherently prophetic in nature, with completion that has already come. Therefore, from a conservative theological standpoint, Jeremiah 30:7 points to fulfillment in the past rather than at some future point in time.
In closing:
A devotional from J. C. Philpot’s Daily Portions:
“Alas! for that day is great, so that none is like it–it is even the time of Jacob’s trouble; but he shall be saved out of it.” Jeremiah 30:7
“This “day of trouble” is when sin is laid as a heavy burden upon a man’s conscience; when guilt presses him down into the dust of death, when his iniquities stare him in the face, and seem more in number than the hairs of his head; when he fears he shall be cast forever into the bottomless pit of hell, and have his portion with the hypocrites.”
“This “day of trouble” is not literally a day, a portion of time meted out by the rising or setting sun, a space of twenty-four hours. The hands of a clock, or the shadow of a dial, cannot regulate spiritual troubles. A day here means a season, be it long or short; be it a day, week, month, or year. And as the season cannot be measured in length, so the trouble cannot be measured in depth.”
“The only wise God deals out various measures of affliction to his people. All do not sink to the same depth, as all do not rise to the same height. All do not drink equally deep of the cup; yet all, each in their measure, pass through this day of trouble, wherein their fleshly religion is pulled to pieces, their self-righteousness marred, their presumptuous hopes crushed, and they brought into the state of the leper, to cry, “Unclean, unclean.” Until a man has passed through this day of trouble, until he has experienced more or less of these exercises of soul, and known guilt and condemnation in his conscience; until he has struggled in this narrow pass, and had his rags of creature righteousness torn away from him, he can know nothing experimentally of the efficacy of Jesus’ atoning blood, nor feel the power of Christ’s resurrection.”
Fulfilled prophecy has long been seen as a sign of strength in one’s faith and a way of conveying the power of God’s plan. It is also more likely to be seen as uplifting and empowering than unfulfilled future speculative prophecy, as fulfilled prophecy proves the reliability of religious teachings. Furthermore, fulfilled prophecy can create a sense of hope and understanding that the world is directed by divinely inspired commands, thereby assuring the believer in trying times.
“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, Concise Commentary, Jerimiah, (Nashville, Tennessee, Thomas Nelson), p. 1250.
2. Clarke, Adam, Commentary on Jeremiah 30,The Adam Clarke Commentary, https: // www .studylight.org/commentaries/eng/acc/jeremiah-30 .html. 1832.
3. Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, Commentary on the Whole Bible, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Zondervan, 1977) p. 632.
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.
Evaluating the Omnipotence Paradox by Jack Kettler
The omnipotence paradox asks if it is possible for an all-powerful God to make something that He cannot do. Scripture makes it clear that while God is indeed all-powerful, He cannot do certain things because they go against His nature. For example, He cannot lie, be tempted by evil, or stop being God. God’s power does not always mean that He can do anything. Some things are impossible or violate His nature as God. Thus, the idea of creating a rock so heavy as to defy His power is impossible and goes against the very definition of God as omnipotent.
The “paradox” of God creating a stone so big that He cannot lift fails to take into account that God’s omnipotence is inextricably linked to His divine nature. God’s power and abilities are unlimited, yet still exist within the confines of His eternal nature. His nature defines His limits or lack thereof. As such, the question of creating a stone too heavy for Him to lift is an impossibility. Moreover, the paradox is a sophomoric word game trick that ignores established definitions in His revealed Word.
One can object to the omnipotence paradox because it confuses the true meaning of “omnipotence.” Unfortunately for the atheist, his understanding of this term differs from the theist’s, thus obscuring the fundamental premise of the paradox. This disparity in understanding undermines the logic of the paradox, thus creating a nonsensical debate.
A brief definition of Omnipotence, Omniscience, and Omnipresence:
Omnipotence means that God is in total control of Himself and His creation. Omniscience means that he is the ultimate criterion of truth and falsity so that his ideas are always true. Finally, omnipresence means that since God’s power and knowledge extend to all parts of his creation, he himself is present everywhere.
Without using established definitions, those promoting the above Omnipotence paradox have failed to prove anything except their own ignorance.
One response given to the above paradox is by Augustine of Hippo:
According to Augustine:
“But assuredly He is rightly called omnipotent, though He can neither die nor fall into error. For He is called omnipotent on account of His doing what He wills, not on account of His suffering what He wills not; for if that should befall Him, He would by no means be omnipotent. Wherefore, He cannot do some things for the very reason that He is omnipotent.” (1)
Augustine’s answer to the Omnipotence paradox is that God is called omnipotent because He can do whatever He wishes. However, the fact that He is omnipotent means He cannot do certain things like die or make mistakes. In other words, His omnipotence does not extend to changing certain core aspects of His character.
The Problem of Evil is a more serious example of an Omnipotent paradox.
Regarding this paradox, Gordon H. Clark stated:
“Man is responsible because God calls him to account; man is responsible because the supreme power can punish him for disobedience. God, on the contrary, cannot be responsible for the plain reason that there is no power superior to him; no greater being can hold him accountable; no one can punish him; there is no one to whom God is responsible; there are no laws, which he could disobey.”
“The sinner therefore, and not God, is responsible; the sinner alone is the author of sin. Man has no free will, for salvation is purely of grace; and God is sovereign.” (2)
The above citation was Clark’s proposed solution to the problem of evil. God is, in fact, the ultimate cause of sin rather than the proximate cause. Nonetheless, He is not evil, for He committed no sin. Moreover, He is not responsible for sin, for there is no one to whom He is accountable. God is just, for whatever He does is just. The sinner is responsible for his sin. Therefore, the creature has no right to stand in judgment over his Creator.
Calvin, in his Institutes (III, xxiii, 8 & II, iv. 3), makes a convincing statement regarding this paradoxical dilemma:
“Here they have recourse to the distinction between will and permission. By this they would maintain that the wicked perish because God permits it, not because he so wills. But why shall we say “permission” unless it is because God so wills? Still, it is not in itself likely that man brought destruction upon himself through himself, by God’s mere permission and without any ordaining. As if God did not establish the condition, in which he wills the chief of his creatures to be! I shall not hesitate, then, simply to confess with Augustine that “the will of God is the necessity of things,” and that what he has willed will of necessity come to pass.” (3)
According to systematic theologian Charles Hodge, the best method of dealing with the question of God’s Omnipotence and sin is stated:
“To rest satisfied with the simple statements of the Bible. The Scriptures teach, (1) That the glory of God is the end to which the promotion of holiness, and the production of happiness, and all other ends are subordinate. (2) That, therefore, the self-manifestation of God, the revelation of his infinite perfection, being the highest conceivable, or possible good, is the ultimate end of all his works in creation, providence, and redemption. (3) As sentient creatures are necessary for the manifestation of God’s benevolence, so there could be no manifestation of his mercy without misery, or of his grace and justice, if there were no sin.”
“As the heavens declare the glory of God, so He has devised the plan of redemption, To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places, might be known by the Church the manifold wisdom of God,” (Eph. 3:10). The knowledge of God is eternal life. It is for creatures the highest good. And the promotion of that knowledge, the manifestation of the manifold perfections of the infinite God, is the highest end of all his works. This is declared by the Apostle to be the end contemplated, both in the punishment of sinners and in the salvation of believers. It is an end to which, he says, no man can rationally object.”
“What if God, willing to shew his wrath (or justice), and to make his power known, endured with much long suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: and that He might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had afore prepared unto glory,” (Rom. 9:22, 23). Sin, therefore, according the Scriptures, is permitted, that the justice of God may be known in its punishment, and his grace in its forgiveness. And the universe, without the knowledge of these attributes, would be like the earth without the light of the sun.” (4)
In closing:
WCF CHAPTER 5 Of Providence 5.4:
“4. The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of God so far manifest themselves in his providence, that it extendeth itself even to the first fall, and all other sins of angels and men; and that not by a bare permission, but such as hath joined with it a most wise and powerful bounding, and otherwise ordering, and governing of them, in a manifold dispensation, to his own holy ends; yet so, as the sinfulness thereof proceedeth only from the creature, and not from God, who, being most holy and righteous, neither is nor can be the author or approver of sin.”
God foreknows and foreordains everything, including evil; nevertheless, he is not the author of sin. Everything He does is right simply because He does it, and whom does He give account? Will it be you, O man? If there is a standard above God that He is accountable to, then He is not God. The reader may not like this conclusion on an emotional level, yet it answers the paradox.
Let it be said:
“God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, that thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.” (Romans 3:4)
“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:
Augustine, City of God, Book XII, Ch.5, sec.8, page 434.
Gordon H. Clark, Religion, Reason and Revelation, (The Trinity Foundation, Jefferson, Maryland), p.241
Calvin, John, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, The Library of Christian Classics, XX-XXI, (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960) Book III, xxiii, 8 & II, iv. 3 p. 956.
Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, vol. 1, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, William. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1997), p. 435.
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.
Why does Romans 8:24 say believers are saved by hope instead of grace? By Jack Kettler
“For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hopes for?” (Romans 8:24)
How does the believer understand this text? In other passages from Scripture, the Apostle Paul teaches the believer is saved by grace alone in Ephesians 2:8-9.
Why does Romans 8:24 not contradict Ephesians 2:8-9:
Romans 8:24 states, “For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he can see?” Ephesians 2:8-9 says, “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God—not the result of works, so that no one may boast.”
These verses do not contradict each other because Romans 8:24 refers to believer’s hope in spiritual salvation, while Ephesians 2:8-9 refers to grace, which is the means by which believers are saved. In Romans 8:24, Paul says that the believer’s hope for salvation is not based on what he can see but is based on faith in God and His promises. In Ephesians 2:8-9, Paul is saying that faith in God is necessary to receive salvation, and it is a gift God gives as the result of grace rather than works. Both passages talk about salvation but from different perspectives.
Next, two commentary entries will support this.
First, from the Pulpit Commentary:
“Verses 24, 25. – For by (or, in) hope we were saved; not are saved, as in the Authorized Version. The aorist ἐσώθημεν, like ἐλάβετε in ver. 15, points to the time of conversion. The dative ἐλπίδι, which has no preposition before it, seems here, to have a modal rather than medial sense; for faith, not hope, is that whereby we are ever said to be saved. The meaning is that when the state of salvation was entered upon, hope was an essential element in its appropriation. A condition, not of attainment, but of hope, is therefore the normal condition of the regenerate now; and so, after shortly pointing out the very meaning of hope, the apostle enforces his previous conclusion, that they must be content at present to wait with patience. But hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for? But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it. Now comes in a further thought, and a very interesting one. Romans 8:24.” (1) (underlining emphasis mine)
As seen from the original Greek, the important point is, “in hope we were saved; not are saved.”
Next, from the Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges:
“24. For we are saved] Lit., and better, we were saved; at the time of our deliverance from darkness into light.”
“by hope] “Hope” has the article in the Gr.—If our English Version is retained, the meaning will be that our conversion was effected, in one sense, by the discovery of “the hope laid up in heaven” for the justified. But the connexion of salvation with faith is so marked and careful in N. T. doctrine that it seems far more likely that the true version (equally proper in grammar) is, we were saved in hope; i.e. when we believed we accepted a salvation whose realization was future, and could therefore be enjoyed only in the hope we felt in view of it.—“Salvation” here is used (as e.g. 1 Peter 1:5,) for the crown of the saving process; final glory.”
“hope that is seen] i.e. “the hoped-for object, once seen, (as present,) ceases ipso facto to be hoped for.” (2)
The Strong’s Lexicon supports the above two commentators:
“we were saved;”
ἐσώθημεν (esōthēmen)
“Verb – Aorist Indicative Passive – 1st Person Plural”
“Strong’s Greek 4982: To save, heal, preserve, rescue. From a primary sos; to save, i.e. Deliver or protect.”
At the beginning, it was asked why does Romans 8:24 say believers are saved by hope instead of grace?
Romans 8:24 says believers are saved by hope because hope is essential to faith. It is through hope that believers know the promises of God will be fulfilled and through faith that believers accept God’s grace as the means of salvation. In other words, it is through faith in God’s promise to save them through grace that believers are saved. Without hope, believers have nothing to rely upon for their salvation. As seen above, a better translation from Greek that captures the tense better is “we were saved in hope,” a completed action.
Moreover, hope is an essential factor in faith because it provides assurance that, even if believers cannot see the answer to prayers or the fulfillment of wishes in the present, the believer can trust that God will provide in the future. Believers hope in faith that God will be faithful to accomplish His promises, no matter how impossible they may seem. Therefore, believers can confidently rely on God and His promises, knowing He will provide beyond the believer’s expectations.
In closing:
From J. C. Philpot’s Daily Portions May 17:
We are saved by hope.” Romans 8:24
“What is the meaning of being saved by hope? It does not mean saved ‘actually,’ but ‘instrumentally’; not saved as regards our eternal security, but as regards our ‘experience of salvation.’ By hope we are instrumentally saved from despair, saved from turning our backs upon Christ and the gospel, saved from looking to any other Savior, or any other salvation; and especially saved from making this world and this life our happiness and home, as waiting patiently for what we see not, even the redemption of our body.
Now it is by hope that we hang upon and cleave to the Lord Jesus, and thus by this grace we abide in him. It is therefore spoken of as an anchor of the soul both sure and steadfast, and which enters into that which is within the veil. What holds the ship firm in the storm, and prevents it falling upon the rocks? The anchor! The ship abides firm as long as the anchor holds. So, by hope the soul abides in Christ. He is within the veil; we are outside, and, it may be, tossed up and down on a sea of doubt and fear, distress and anxiety, and yet there is a bond of union between him and us firmer than the Atlantic Cable.
NOTE: “Atlantic Cable”: A transatlantic telecommunications cable is a submarine communications cable connecting one side of the Atlantic Ocean to the other. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, each cable was a single wire.”
“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:
H. D. M. Spence and Joseph S. Exell, The Pulpit Commentary, Romans, Vol. 18., (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Eerdmans Publishing Company reprint 1978), p. 211.
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges, by H. C. G. Moule, Romans, (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
Who is the man mentioned in Isaiah 32:2? By Jack Kettler
“And a man shall be as a hiding place from the wind, and a covert from the tempest; as rivers of water in a dry place, as the shadow of a great rock in a weary land.” (Isaiah 32:2)
Who is this man the prophet references? Why do some translations not even mention this man?
For example:
Many translations render the passage this way, “Each one will be like a shelter…”
The reason some translations do not mention the man in Isaiah 32:2 is that the text of the original Hebrew is somewhat ambiguous. As s result, the phrase used to refer to this man can be interpreted in multiple ways. Some translations consider the phrase to be a metaphor, referring to a potential leader, while others interpret it as a literal reference to a specific man.
From Strong’s Lexicon:
“Each
אִ֥ישׁ (’îš)
Noun – masculine singular”
“Strong’s Hebrew 376: 1) man 1a) man, male (in contrast to woman, female) 1b) husband 1c) human being, person (in contrast to God) 1d) servant 1e) mankind 1f) champion 1g) great man 2) whosoever 3) each (adjective)”
Why is there ambiguity about whom the man is mentioned in Isaiah 32:2? Isaiah 32:1 says, “Behold, a king shall reign in righteousness, and princes shall rule in judgment.” Commentators see that it is King Hezekiah in this passage. Therefore, it would seem natural to see that the man in verse 32 is also King Hezekiah.
Barnes’ Notes on the Bible sees verses 1 and 2 as speaking of the same person, namely, Hezekiah:
“And a man – That is, evidently, the man referred to in the previous verse, to wit, Hezekiah.”
“Shall be as an hiding-place from the wind – A place where one may take refuge from a violent wind and tempest (see the note at Isaiah 25:4).” (1)
Barnes is on solid ground contextually to see both passages referring to Hezekiah.
In contrast, the Pulpit Commentary says:
“Verse 2. – A man shall be as an hiding-place from the wind, etc. Modern critics mostly render, “each man” – i.e. the king, and each of his princes. But it is, to say the least, allowable – with Vitringa and Kay – to regard the word as referring to the king only (comp. Zechariah 6:12, where ish, a man, is used in the same vague way of One who is clearly the Messiah). There was never but one man who could be to other men all that is predicated in this verse of the “man” mentioned (comp. Isaiah 25:4, where nearly the same epithets are predicated of God). A covert; i.e. a protection against Divine wrath. Such is Messiah in his mediatorial character. Rivers of water; i.e. refreshing and invigorating (comp. Isaiah 55:1; John 4:14; John 7:37). The shadow of a great rook. At once refreshing and protecting (see Isaiah 25:4). Isaiah 32:2.” (2)
MacLaren’s Expositions concur with the Pulpit Commentary:
Isaiah – THE HIDING – PLACE – Isaiah 32:2.
“And I, for my part, have no hesitation in saying that the only reference of these words which gives full value to their wealth of blessing, is to regard them as a prophecy of the man-Christ Jesus; hiding in whom we are safe, ‘coming’ to whom we ‘never thirst,’ guarded and blest by whom no weariness can befall us, and dwelling in whom this weary world shall be full of refreshment and peace!” (3)
The choice between Hezekiah and Christ is not contradictory in Isaiah 32:2. Granting that Isaiah 32:2 is referencing Hezekiah, can the text still point forward in history to Christ, thus, making Hezekiah be a type of Christ?
Yes, Isaiah 32:2 can still point forward in history to Christ while referencing Hezekiah. The passage speaks of a man who will lead with justice and righteousness, just as Jesus did. Some can see Hezekiah’s humble and faithful leadership as a type of the way that Christ leads us.
In closing:
From J. C. Philpot’s Daily Portions May 16:
“And a MAN shall be as a hiding place from the wind, and a covert from the tempest.” (Isaiah 32:2)
“Who is this man? Need I ask the question? Is there not a response in every God-fearing breast? It is the man Christ Jesus–the man who is God’s fellow. How blessed it is to have a scriptural and spiritual view of the humanity of the Lord Jesus Christ, to see him not merely as God, truly essential God, one in essence, glory, and power with the Father and the blessed Spirit, but also man, made in all things like unto us, sin only excepted.”
“And what a suitability there is in the humanity of the Lord Jesus, when we view it in union with this glorious Deity! As man he suffered, as man he bled, as man he died, as man he stands a Mediator for his fellow men between God and man; as man, he has an affectionate, compassionate, sympathizing heart for human distress; as man, he obeyed the law in every particular; as man, he bore all the sufferings of humanity, and thus became the Brother born for adversity, flesh of our flesh, and bone of our bone; yet perfectly pure, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and now exalted higher than the heavens.”
“But what beauty, grace, glory, and suitability do we see in the man Christ Jesus, until he is revealed to the soul by the blessed Spirit? None! It is the Spirit who takes the humanity of Christ Jesus and shows it to the eye of faith. And this humanity he shows not as mere humanity, but as in union with, though distinct from, his eternal Deity. O this blessed man! — this man of sorrows; this suffering, agonizing, crucified man. View him on the cross, bleeding for your sins; and then lift up your eyes and see him as the same man at the right hand of God. This was Stephen’s dying sight just before he passed into his presence–Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God (Acts 7:56).”
“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. Albert Barnes, THE AGES DIGITAL LIBRARYCOMMENTARY, Barnes’ Notes on the Bible, Isaiah, Vol. 7 p. 766.
2. H. D. M. Spence and Joseph S. Exell, The Pulpit Commentary, Isaiah, Vol. 10., (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Eerdmans Publishing Company reprint 1978), p. 522.
3. MacLaren’s Expositions of Holy Scripture, Isaiah, Study Light .org
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.
Studies in the Sovereignty Of GodVolume 1 Number 1
Studies in the Sovereignty of God Volume 1 Number 1
In this study, numerous Scriptures will be looked at that prove that God is sovereign.
The Sovereignty of God teaches that all things are under His absolute rule and control. Without fear of contradiction, it can be said, God works all things according to the counsel of His own will. His plans and purpose are never frustrated. The Sovereignty of God may be defined as the exercising of His absolute control and the outworking of both His revealed and hidden will. God’s sovereignty means that He is the ultimate Ruler who governs all the affairs of the universe both great and small.
The subject of God’s Sovereignty is a doctrine that should humble all men. No doctrine of Scripture exalts or glorifies the LORD as does the teaching of His Sovereignty.
Under various headings, it will be seen that Scriptures establish God’s Sovereignty. His Sovereignty extends to every conceivable area of life and governance of the universe. The format of this study, first a Scripture will be listed followed by a commentary entry both contemporary and classical.
The Sovereign Will of God:
The Divine Sovereign Will of God over His creation. One can see in the following passages God’s sovereignty in the preservation of His creation.
“Whatsoever the Lord pleased, that did he in heaven, and in earth; in the seas, and all deep places.” (Psalms 135:6)
“6) Whatsoever the LORD pleased, that did he in heaven, and in earth, in the seas, and all deep places. His will is carried out throughout all space. The king’s warrant runs in every portion of the universe. The heathen divided the great domain; but Jupiter does not rule in heaven, nor Neptune on the sea, nor Pluto in the lower regions; Jehovah rules over all. His decree is not defeated, his purpose is not frustrated: in no one point is his good pleasure set aside. The word “whatsoever” is of the widest range and includes all things, and the four words of place which are mentioned comprehend all space; therefore the declaration of the text knows neither limit nor exception. Jehovah works his will: he pleases to do, and he performs the deed. None can stay his hand. How different this from the gods whom the heathen fabled to be subject to all the disappointments, failures, and passions of men! How contrary even to those so called Christian conceptions of God which subordinate him to the will of man, and make his eternal purposes the football of human caprice. Our theology teaches us no such degrading notions of the Eternal as that he can be baffled by man. “His purpose shall stand, and he will do all his pleasure.” No region is too high, no abyss too deep, no land too distant, no sea too wide for his omnipotence: his divine pleasure travels post over all the realm of nature, and his behests are obeyed.” (1) Charles Haddon Spurgeon, The Treasury of David Volume 2, (Nashville, Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1984), p. 193.
“O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the LORD. Behold, as the clay is in the potter’s hand, so are ye in my hand, O house of Israel.” (Jeremiah. 18:6)
“6) Refuting the Jews’ reliance on their external privileges as God’s elect people, as if God could never cast them off. But if the potter, a mere creature, has power to throw away a marred vessel and raise up other clay from the ground, a fortiori God, the Creator, can cast away the people who prove unfaithful to His election and can raise others in their stead (compare Isa 45:9; 64:8; Ro 9:20, 21). It is curious that the potter’s field should have been the purchase made with the price of Judas’ treachery (Mt 27:9, 10: a potter’s vessel dashed to pieces, compare Ps 2:8, 9; Re 2:27), because of its failing to answer the maker’s design, being the very image to depict God’s sovereign power to give reprobates to destruction, not by caprice, but in the exercise of His righteous judgment. Matthew quotes Zechariah’s words (Zec 11:12, 13) as Jeremiah’s because the latter (Jer 18:1-19:15) was the source from which the former derived his summary in Zec 11:12, 13 [Hengstenberg].” (2) Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, Commentary on the Whole Bible, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Zondervan, 1977) p. 618.
“John answered and said, A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven.” (John 3:27)
“Well, saith John, I see a man can receive (that is, perceive) nothing, except it be given him from heaven. The labour of ministers if all lost labour, unless the grace of God make it effectual. Men do not understand that which is made most plain, nor believe that which is made most evident, unless it be given them from heaven to understand and believe it.” (3) Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Whole Bible, (Hendrickson Publishers, Inc, Fourth printing 1985) p. 1932.
“Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honor and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.” (Revelation 4:11)
“All the praises, homages, and acknowledgments of all the creatures is thy due; as thou art he who gavest the first being to all creatures, and therefore gavest it them, that they might praise, honour, serve and obey thee.” (4) Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Whole Bible, (Hendrickson Publishers, Inc, Fourth printing 1985), p. 1932.
The Religion That Started in a Hat 