The Religion That Started in a Hat

February 25, 2023 · 4:46 pm

Who is the “he” in Daniel 9:27?

Who is the “he” in Daniel 9:27? By Jack Kettler

“And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.” (Daniel 9:27)

Is this passage talking about Christ’s work establishing and ratifying the New Covenant or a future anti-Christ?

Historically, Daniel 9:27 was believed to be a prophecy about the New Covenant. In the present, primarily due to Dispensational theology, what was seen as the fulfillment of the glorious work of Christ, the understanding has not been reversed, making the prophecy into futuristic speculation about an anti-Christ. In this study, a classic commentary and a current source will provide the approach to the text in question to learn if it is about Christ and His establishment of the New Covenant. The futuristic approach to the text is prophetic speculation. If the text is indeed about Christ’s work in the First Century, turning the subject of the text into the work of an anti-Christ seems almost blasphemous.

A bio about the classic commentator:

Matthew Poole was Born in York, England, in 1624 and educated at Emmanuel College in Cambridge. He became minister of St. Michael-le-Quernes, London, in 1648 and devoted himself to the Presbyterian cause.

C. H. Spurgeon said of Poole’s commentary:

“If I must have only one commentary, and had read Matthew Henry as I have, I do not know but what I should choose Poole. He is a very prudent and judicious commentator… not so pithy and witty by far as Matthew Henry, but he is perhaps more accurate, less a commentator, and more an expositor.”

Poole is considered one of the great Puritans, and few names will stand so high as Poole’s in the Biblical scholarship of Great Britain.

Matthew Poole’s Commentary explains the Daniel text as follows:

He: this”

he is not Titus making truce with the Jews, which he did not, though he endeavoured to persuade them that he might spare them. I say then with Graser, Mede, and others, that this he is the Messiah, and the covenant he confirms is the new testament or covenant, called therefore the covenant of the people, Isaiah 42:6 49:8; and the Angel of the covenant, Malachi 3:1; and the Surety of the covenant, Hebrews 7:22; and the ancient rabbins called the Messias xrk a middle man, or middle man between two.

Quest. How did Christ confirm the covenant?

Answ. 1. By testimony,

(1.) Of angels, Luke 2:10 Mt 28;

(2.) John Baptist;

(3.) Of the wise men;

(4.) By the saints then living, Luke 1:2;

(5.) Moses and Elias, Matthew 17:3;

(6.) Pharisees, as Nicodemus, John 3:2;

(7.) The devils that confessed him.

2. By his preaching.

3. By signs and wonders.

4. By his holy life.

5. By his resurrection and ascension.

6. By his death and bloodshed.

Shall confirm the covenant; rybgh he shall corroborate it, as if it began before his coming to fail and be invalid.

With many; noting hereby the paucity of the Jewish church and nation, compared with the great increase and enlargement by believing Gentiles throughout all nations and ages of the world, Isaiah 11:9 49:6 53:11,12 54:2,3 Mr 16:15 Acts 13:46: q.d. With many Jews first and last, and with many more of the nations, yea, with the many whom the rabbins and Pharisees despise as the rabble, the common people, Isaiah 42:3 Matthew 21:31 John 7:48,49 1 Corinthians 1:26,27.

For one week; by a figure, take the greater part of the whole, he shall, though rejected by the chief and bulk of the Jewish nation, yet make the new testament prevail with many in that time, i.e. at the latter end of the seventy weeks.

The sacrifice and the oblation to cease; zebach and mincha, bloody and unbloody, to cease. i.e. all the Jewish rites, and Levitical ceremonious worship, i.e. by the burning of the temple before the city was taken, for they were only to offer sacrifice in the temple, nor had they wherewithal in the siege. Yet is there more in it than this, viz. that the Lord Jesus, by his death, and by the execution of his wrath, and abrogate and put an end to this laborious service, and made it to cease forever.

For the overspreading of abominations, he shall make it desolate; desolate for the wing, for the manifold and great abominations stretching, and our text hath it well overspreading. This abomination was the Roman army with their eagles, and with their superstitious rites in approaching to besiege and subdue any place; and this is executed by Christ upon them, Matthew 22:7, when he is called a King sending forth his armies, and destroying the murderers that destroyed him, and burning their city, and their coming is Christ’s coming, Malachi 3:1,2Jo 21:22 Jam 5:7; therefore it is said here,

he shall make it desolate. Even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate: here all this is made the effect of God’s decree, and therefore irrevocable. This word shomen notes that this people were bewitched, sottishly superstitious, wanderers, banished, the astonishment and scorn of the world; all which did justly and dreadfully befall them, and they verify it to this day.

They that will curiously search further into the seventy weeks and other numbers in Daniel, and have leisure and skill, let them read Graserus, L’Empereur, Wasmuth, Mede, Willet, Wichmannus, Sanctius, Rainoldus, Pererius, Derorlon, Broughton, Liveleius, Helvicns, Calovius, Geierus. &c. Read also Joseph Med. p. 861, &c., and Bail. p. 180, &c. This scripture shows the coming of the Messiah so clearly, his sufferings, and the wrath of God so severely upon the Jews for it, that it thoroughly confutes their unbelief; and fully confirms our faith in Jesus Christ.” (1)

Geneva Study Bible

“And he {a} shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to {b} cease, {c} and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

(a) By the preaching of the Gospel he affirmed his promise, first to the Jews and after, to the Gentiles.

(b) Christ accomplished this by his death and resurrection.

(c) Meaning that Jerusalem and the sanctuary would be utterly destroyed because of their rebellion against God, and their idolatry: or as some read, that the plague will be so great, that they will all be astonished at them.”

Gary DeMar provides insight on how to understand the text:

“The beginning point would be indicated by the commandment to restore Jerusalem (v. 25), an event that was accomplished, a century after Daniel, in the reign of the Persian, Artaxerxes I (465–424 B.C.), under Nehemiah (444 B.C.). But there had been an earlier attempt, in the same reign, to restore the city’s walls, which had been thwarted by the Samaritans (Ezra 4:11–12, 23). This attempt seems to have been made under Ezra (458 B.C.; cf. 9:9), on the basis of the extended powers granted him in Artaxerxes’ decree (7:18, 25, even though nothing explicit is said about restoring Jerusalem). Daniel then went on to predict that from this commandment, to the Messiah, would be ―seven weeks, and three score and two weeks‖ (9:25), or 69 weeks of years, equaling 483 years. From 458 B.C. this brings one to A.D. 26, the very time which many would accept for the descent of the Holy Spirit upon Jesus Christ and the commencement of His incarnate ministry.” (2)

DeMar continues:

“Verses 26 and 27 then describe how, in the midst of the final week (that is, of the last seven-year period, and therefore in the spring of A.D. 30), He would bring to an end the Old Testament economy by His death. There could hardly have been a more miraculously accurate prediction than was this! The 490 years then conclude with the three and a half years that remained, during which period the testament was to be confirmed to Israel (cf. Acts 2:38). It terminated in A.D. 33, which is the probable date for the conversion of Paul. At this point the Jews, by their stoning of Stephen, in effect cut themselves off from the eternal blessings of inheritance under the newer testament (cf. Rev. 12:6, 14); and shortly thereafter, within that generation, the Romans destroyed Jerusalem, A.D. 70.” (3)

Jeffrey S. Krause from his thesis at Liberty University School of Religion of the Bible, A Historical Survey of the Daniel’s “Seventy Weeks” and its Complete Fulfillment within the Generation of Christ:

Daniel 9:24-27 Exegesis:

“Having noted the identity of the ―anointed one, the prince‖ already in verse 25, it is now necessary to demonstrate the identity of the ―prince‖ of verse 26. In Dan. 9:24-27, ―the Prince‖ is said to bring in ―everlasting righteousness‖ and to ―atone for iniquity. Here, the ―anointed one‖ (the Prince) will be ―cut off‖ (v. 26), and the people of the ―Prince‖ will destroy the city and bring an ―end to sacrifices.‖ The ―end to sacrifices‖ follows the ―firm Covenant‖ made with the many for one week. This account, then future, is undoubtedly speaking of the life and ministry of the ―anointed Prince‖ Jesus Christ. First, contextually, there is no warrant to assume that ―the people of the prince to come‖ is the ―Anti-Christ. There is nothing in the text that allows the insertion of an unqualified individual. Rather, the Lord Jesus is referred to as the ―Prince‖ (dygn – hgoumenou) and the ―Messiah‖ or ―anointed one‖ (xyXm – cristou) both individually (v. 26) and in connection with one another (v. 25). As it has been demonstrated, verse 25 connects these two titles ―anointed one, the Prince‖ with verse 26 referencing the individual titles of

―anointed one‖ (crisma) and ―people of the Prince to come‖ (hgoumenw tw ercomenw). These accounts are describing the same individual in the person of the Messiah Himself. Again, in the LXX, verse 25 reads ―cristou hgoumenou‖ with verse 26 rendering the same Messiah the Prince in individual fashion; ―crisma kai krima ouk estin en autw kai thn polin kai to agion diafqerei sun tw hgoumenw tw ercomenw…‖ Meaning, there is exegetically no warrant to alter the identity of the latter prince from that of the first. The ESV rendering of verses 25-26 proclaims;”

Know therefore and understand that from the going out of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time.²⁶ And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing. And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war. Desolations are decreed.¹⁷

“Noting thee afore mentioned text, the first instance of the ―anointed one, a prince‖ as noted, is undoubtedly speaking of the Lord Jesus Christ. However, those in the Dispensational community wish to assert the latter citation of ―the prince‖ as future Anti-Christ. But the question must be asked, what is the contextual warrant for such an insertion? Where does this previously unmentioned, unqualified character come from on a contextual and exegetical basis? Separated by only one verse and 29 words in the ESV, the ―anointed one‖ Jesus Christ is again mentioned in verse 26. Likewise, only one verse and forty-four words later, the ―prince, who was previously recognized as the Messiah in verse 25, is again mentioned. It was the Messiah, the Prince who did in fact establish a ―firm Covenant‖ (v. 27) with the many in Matthew 26:26-28;”

Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.” And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. (Emphasis Added)¹⁸

“Point in fact, even the Greek wording is identical between the LXX and the N.A. 27, with the former reading; ―kai dunamwsei diaqhkhn pollois‖ (And he shall strengthen covenant with the many – Dan. 9:27, LXX) and the latter rendered as ―διαθήκης τὸ περὶ πολλῶν“ (the new covenant, the one for many – Matt. 26:28, N.A. 27).¹⁹ This is a perfect correspondence that points to the verse 26 ―Prince‖ as the Lord Jesus Christ Himself (the one who will make Covenant). Hence, fulfillment is seen within the Biblical witness where the Lord Jesus, via His then pending sacrifice, made Covenant with the many who will believe or rather, the elect of God.”

Next, Daniel 9:26 declares that the ―cristou‖ would be cut off; the very message that the four Gospels relay to the reader. Jesus was point in fact, cut off in the middle of the final week, with the duration of His ministry lasting three and one half years. This cutting off was His crucifixion by the nation that rejected Him, the people of Israel; “Shall I crucify your King?” The chief priests answered, “We have no king but Caesar.”¹⁶ So he delivered him over to them to be crucified.²⁰

“The ―end of sacrifices‖ was symbolized in Matt. 27:51 with the tearing of the Temple curtain; ―And behold, the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. And the earth shook, and the rocks were split. However, it was not until the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, when Herod’s Temple was destroyed, an act that ended the sacrificial system, that this prophecy was fully consummated (within the very generation of Jesus’ prediction); as prophesied by the Lord Jesus in Matt. 23:38-24:34 and in particular, Matt:24:1-2;”

Jesus left the temple and was going away, when his disciples came to point out to him the buildings of the temple. But he answered them, “You see all these, do you not? Truly, I say to you, there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down.”

“This is the very same Temple²¹ that Jesus exited after pronouncing the ―Seven Woes upon Israel and proclaiming;”

Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will flog in your synagogues and persecute from town to town, so that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of innocent Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar.

Truly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation. “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not! See, your house is left to you desolate. For I tell you, you will not see me again, until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’ (Emphases Added) ²²

“Hence, clarity is found in the disciple’s question; “Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the close of the age?” Meaning, when will be the end of the Jewish age or economy.”

²⁰ John 19:15 ESV

²¹ i.e. Herod’s Temple

²² Matt. 23:34-39 ESV. It is evident from the Lord’s usage of the second person plural that these events were to happen to the people to whom He was speaking with; the Jews of that generation and era. It is that current generation that was to suffer the vengeance of the Lord and whose house was to be left desolate. The Lord Jesus capstones this truth by the words; ―…all these things will come upon this generation.

“Next, the text of Daniel 9:24 foretells of the ―prince‖ as being the one who is to; ―make reconciliation for iniquity and bring in everlasting righteousness…‖ And again, this is the very thing that happened due to the finished work of Christ Jesus on the cross; by His very act of being ―cut off. Paul tells the reader;

―For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life‖ (Rom. 5:10 ESV). And again;

―All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation‖ (2 Cor. 5:18; c.f. 2 Cor. 5:20, Eph. 2:16, Col. 1:20, 22). Do any orthodox Christians doubt that Christ’s perfect sacrifice, obtained through faith, reconciles all iniquity committed? Justification being a legal decree by God in declaring the sinner ―right‖ or ―righteous, points back to the fulfillment of the Covenant of Works by the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. What Adam did not do, Christ fulfilled and the sinner is saved by the active obedience of Christ Himself.²³ Likewise, it is Christ’s vicarious suffering that enacts the ―passive‖ obedience unto the sinner; an act accomplished on the cross for the elect. In sum, it is Christ’s righteousness that covers the transgressions and iniquities of the elect. The New Testament saints look back to the finished work of Christ in both the active and passive sense. Likewise, Christ’s active and passive obedience are retroactive to the Old Testament saints, who found salvation in the then coming Messiah. Both of these factors ―make reconciliation‖ for all who will believe; an act predicted in (but not limited to) Daniel 9:24.^24”

“Likewise, it is ―Messiah the Prince‖ that brought in ―everlasting righteousness. Isaiah 9:6-7 speaks specifically of the connection to the enthronement of Jesus Christ with the bringing in of everlasting righteousness;”

For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end, on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and forevermore. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will do this.²⁵

²³ ―Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience

the many will be made righteous. ‖ (Rom. 5:18-19 ESV).

²⁴ See Isaiah 53

“Meaning, it is Christ Himself who is the everlasting righteousness; it is not the state or current condition or climate of the world itself. It is His Kingdom that is in view in Daniel 9:24 and it is in this Kingdom where He, the Christ, will be seated on the throne of David. This is the very point that Peter makes in Acts chapter 2:23-36. Jesus is currently seated at the right hand of the Power in Heaven and is currently reigning as King and Lord. The government is currently upon Jesus’ shoulders via His ascension to the Ancient of Days (Daniel 7:13-14, c.f. Matt. 24:30), an event that happened within the final week of Daniel’s four hundred and ninety years! Thus, there is perfect correspondence with both the atoning sacrifice of Christ and His righteousness as the covenant head within His Kingdom. This correspondence transfers to the Daniel 9:24 text in perfect harmony. Thus, again the author’s thesis is confirmed via the Biblical witness. As previously stated, if there is sound Biblical evidence to show the congruent nature of the Seventy Weeks, then this understanding, based on the witness of the Bible itself is to be preferred. All the while noting that the 9:24-27 text shows no sign of a ―gap‖ within the text itself. Point in fact, Daniel parallels his prophecy with that of Jeremiah 25:11-13. The Daniel prophecy is a type of the exile condition that he himself was in and that Jeremiah predicted. But one must ask, was there a ―gap‖ or

―parenthesis‖ within Daniel’s captivity? No there was not! Therefore, with Daniel’s prophecy being a type of Jeremiah’s, then the pattern of Jeremiah 25 would dictate the nature of Daniel’s prophecy itself. If there is no parenthesis in Jeremiah’s prophecy, then there was not to be a parenthesis within Daniel’s and the preteristic nature of the prediction is seen and the current argument is upheld.”

The Abomination of Desolation:

And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing. And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war. Desolations are decreed. And he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week, and for half of the week he shall put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate, until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator. (Daniel 9:26-27 ESV)²⁶

²⁵ Isa. 9:6-7 ESV

“The prophetic announcement by the prophet Daniel as to the nature and end of Geo-political Israel is here predicted in verses 26-27 of chapter 9. Here the prophet foretells of the ―people of the prince and their utter destruction of the city and the Temple itself. As previously noted, there is no contextual or exegetical basis for separating the “prince” of verse 26 with that of verse 25. Noting the relationship between the princes of verses 25 and 26, it is justified to proclaim that this is an obvious reference to the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. The narrative of verse’s 26-27 fit within the character of events foretold by the Lord Jesus Himself during His earthly ministry;”

So when you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. Let the one who is on the housetop not go down to take what is in his house, and let the one who is in the field not turn back to take his cloak. And alas for women who are pregnant and for those who are nursing infants in those days! Pray that your flight may not be in winter or on a Sabbath.²⁷

“In the afore mentioned passage, the Lord Jesus references Daniel 9:26-27. Here it must first be noted that the Lord uses the second person plural ―you‖ in reference to His audience. This is consistent throughout the whole of Matthew 23-24 where the Lord first uses ―you‖ in reference to the audience of the Jews to whom He is condemning. Later in Matthew 24, the Lord uses the second person plural to describe the disciples in direct relation to the corresponding and pending events;”

Jesus left the temple and was going away, when his disciples came to point out to him the buildings of the temple. But he answered them, “You see all these, do you not? Truly, I say to you, there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down. As he sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the close of the age?” And Jesus answered them, See that no one leads you astray. (Emphasis Added)²⁸

²⁶ Dan. 9:26-27 ESV

²⁷ Matt. 24:15-20 ESV

²⁸ Matt. 24:1-4 ESV (4)

In closing:

That Christ fulfilled, Daniel 9:26-27 is nothing short of astonishing in light of the exact details of the prophecy. The Daniel 9 prophecy is the same as prophecies regarding the “Virgin Birth,” and Christ’s Crucifixion.

A fulfilled prophecy that is as exact in its fulfillment demonstrates that the Bible is what it claims to be, the Word of God. No other religious book can claim and back it up with detailed precision as to the fulfillment.

Many Old Testament verses refer to the Messiah or His work, numbering into the hundreds. Moreover, Jesus fulfilled at least 300 prophecies from the Old Testament.

Are there prophecies in the Bible about the anti-Christ or the Devil? There are descriptive texts, but are there prophecies? Why would there be? The Scriptures point believers to Christ, not the anti-Christ. Although, Daniel 9:26-27 is difficult grammatically to understand. Nevertheless, to make this into a prophecy of a coming anti-Christ is fundamentally wrong in the context of the totality of Scripture.

In Matthew 5:17, Jesus said that he came to “fulfill the law and the prophets.” He came to fulfill the Scriptures, all of which testified of Himself. To interpret Daniel 9:27 as the anti-Christ is to reject Matthew 5:17. (Bolding and underlining emphasis mine)

“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)

Notes:

1. Matthew Poole’s Commentary on the Holy Bible, Daniel, Vol. 2, (Peabody, Massachusetts, Hendrickson Publishers, 1985) p. 839.

2. DeMar, Gary, Last Day’s Madness: Obsession of the Modern Church, (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision, 1999) p. 327.

3. DeMar, Gary, Last Day’s Madness: Obsession of the Modern Church, (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision, 1999) p. 327.

4. Jeffrey S. Krause, A Historical Survey of the Daniel’s “Seventy Weeks” and its Complete Fulfillment within the Generation of Christ, Liberty University School of Religion Bible 450-B07

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 books defending the Reformed Faith. Books can be ordered online at: https://www.amazon.com/Books-Jack-Kettler/s?rh=n%3A283155%2Cp_27%3AJack+Kettler

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

February 18, 2023 · 4:50 pm

The Impossibility of the Contrary: Without God You Can’t Prove Anything

The Impossibility of the Contrary: Without God You Can’t Prove Anything

The Impossibility of the Contrary: Without God You Can’t Prove Anything

Book by Greg Bahnsen

Publisher: The American Vision

The Impossibility of the Contrary, Volume Two of the Bahnsen Apologetic Trilogy

Reviewed by Jack Kettler

Biographical Sketch:

“Greg L. Bahnsen was an influential Calvinist Christian philosopher, apologist, and debater. He was an ordained minister in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and a full time Scholar in Residence for the Southern California Center for Christian Studies. Bahnsen graduated from Westminster Theological Seminary where he simultaneously received the Master of Divinity and Master of Theology degrees. He later received his Ph.D. from the University of Southern California. He is the author of Always Ready, Presuppositional Apologetics: Stated and Defended, Van Til’s Apologetic: Readings and Analysis, and innumerable essays and articles.”

What others are saying about Greg Bahnsen’s apologetic work:

Therefore, in light of the fact that Dr. Bahnsen passed almost twenty years ago, some of the younger readers may not understand the intellectual impact that he made. It would be apropos to list a few thoughts that others are saying about Bahnsen’s theological, philosophical, and apologetic work.

“Bahnsen does a masterful job of systematizing the central themes in Van Tils thought and follows them with carefully selected passages from Van Tils books, essays, syllabuses, articles, lectures and so on.” – Anthony B. Bradley Presbyterion

“It is most welcome…to have this massive volume of readings and analysis of [Van Tils] publications by his former student and a first-rate thinker in his own right…. This book will be of great benefit to mature theological students who wish to engage secular and other pagan ideologies in contemporary society.” – E. Earle Ellis Southwestern Journal of Theology

“This is the late Dr. Bahnsen’s testament to today’s defenders of the truth. It is an encyclopedic synthesis of the thought of Cornelius Van Til, who was arguably the most original apologist of the twentieth century. In the grand tradition of the Sentences of the fathers, this study will be a standard for years to come.” – William Edgar

“Greg Bahnsen’s book on Van Til has been eagerly awaited. It is certainly Bahnsen’s best and most important book, and it is an invaluable guide to Van Til’s thought. I disagree with Bahnsen on some matters, but I would never want to be without this resource. It is a virtually encyclopedic exposition of what Van Til said, with many helps to interpretation. You must have this book if you are serious about trying to understand Van Til’s thought.” – John M. Frame

“Greg Bahnsen was a brilliant scholar. But this is an inadequate description of what he had to offer the church. The value of his work was not merely academic (though it was that also); it was intensely practical. His ability to analyze the “logic” of unbelief and demonstrate its foolishness, and set forth the gospel as the only intellectually honest alternative, was unsurpassed. When it came to apologetics, Greg was in a class all of his own.” – Stephen C. Perks, Director, Foundation of Christian Reconstruction

“For those who want to understand Van Til, whether to agree or disagree, at least two things are both essential and too often neglected. The first to read Van Til, the second is to read Greg Bahnsen.” – Dr. Scott Oliphant, Assistant Professor of Apologetics, Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia

“Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen (1948-1995) provided perhaps the clearest, most faithful, and most powerful advancement of Cornelius Van Til’s presuppositional apologetics of anyone. This statement holds true both for Bahnsen’s written scholarly work as well as his practical applications in both formal and informal debates and exchanges. Those knowledgeable of Van Til’s “Copernican Revolution” in Christian apologetic method will understand the enormity of this compliment to Greg Bahnsen. Those not formerly introduced to Van Til or Bahnsen will understand shortly after beginning this volume—for this book presents the most clear, systematic, and rigorous statement and defense of Van Tillian presuppositional apologetics written to date (vii).” – Joel McDurmon, Reviewing Bahnsen’s Presuppositional Apologetics: Stated and Defended

Who was Cornelius Van Til, since his name comes up in so many comments about Bahnsen?

Cornelius Van Til Cornelius Van Til (1895-1987), born in The Netherlands, was a Christian philosopher, Reformed theologian, and presuppositional apologist. Influenced: Greg Bahnsen, John Frame, Francis Schaeffer, R. J. Rushdoony, Richard L. Pratt Jr.

Van Til was influenced by: Herman Bavinck, B. B. Warfield.

A Review:

Chapter lineup:

1. Answering Fools According to Their Folly – 1

2. Prejudicial Conjecture and Philosophical Baggage – 17

3. Inconsistent and Fallacious Arguments – 35

4. Unbelief and Its Consequences – 57

5. The Preconditions of Intelligibility – 74

6. Proof and Persuasion -87

7. The Evolutionary Worldview – 107

8. The Problem of Evil – 127

9. Circular Reasoning – 168

Questions for non-believers of any persuasion:

· Are they being arbitrary?

· Are there inconsistencies in what they are saying?

· What are the consequences of their arguments?

· What are the preconditions of intelligibility?

Dr. Bahnsen provides numerous examples in real-world interactions with non-believers of every stripe and color and how to use these questions, and how to adapt them to different situations.

One of the many highlights of this book is the Transcendental Proof of God’s Existence:

“A transcendental proof argues from the impossibility the contrary, saying, ‘You have an ultimate presupposition. I have an ultimate presupposition. And the problem with yours is that if what you are saying is true, we can’t prove anything. Nothing would be intelligible, nothing would make sense on your presupposition.’” (pp.97-98)

A presupposition can be understood as a starting axion or a grid or glasses of one’s worldview in the reasoning process. Reasoning includes how one interprets evidence within a worldview.

In this work, Dr. Bahnsen interacts with the atheistic philosophers Anthony Flew and Bertrand Russell in this book and destroys their arguments. As an aside, Anthony Flew was probably the top British atheistic philosopher. A number of years after Greg Bahnsen passed, Anthony Flew rejected atheism.

Dr. Bahnsen shows how only the Christian worldview provides the necessary preconditions of intelligibility, such as the laws of logic that are abstract and universal entities, and how the atheistic worldview rejects these and, as a consequence, the possibility of logic, and therefore, any kind of meaningful debate. (p. 98)

The transcendental argument stated by Bahnsen:

“1. God is a necessary precondition for logic and morality (because these are immaterial, yet real universals).”

“2. People depend upon logic and morality, showing that they depend upon the universal, immaterial, and abstract realities, which could not exist in a materialist universe but presupposes (presumes) the existence of an immaterial and absolute God.”

“3. Therefore, God exists. If He didn’t, we could not rely upon logic, reason, morality, and other absolute universals (which are required and assumed to live in this universe, let alone to debate), and could not exist in a materialist universe where there are no absolute standards or an absolute Lawgiver.”

Conclusion:

“The transcendental proof for God’s existence is that without Him it is impossible to prove anything. The atheist world view is irrational and cannot consistently provide the preconditions of intelligible experience, science, logic, or morality.” – Greg Bahnsen

The book under review does not require a college degree to understand. There is a helpful glossary of terms for each chapter. For the average layman, this book is well within their grasp.

In closing:

Against All Opposition: Defending the Christian Worldview, Volume One of the Bahnsen Apologetic Trilogy

The Impossibility of the Contrary, Volume Two of the Bahnsen Apologetic Trilogy

Pushing the Antithesis,

Volume Three of the Bahnsen Apologetic Trilogy

If the reader buys all 3 volumes, there is a special price break at https://store.americanvision.org/products/the-impossibility-of-the-contrary

This trilogy of books should be in every church library, and everyone interested in apologetics should have them in a prominent place in their home library.

End of review

If the reader interested in apologetics has not heard the “Great Debate” between Bahnsen and Stein, there is no accuse not listening several times to soak it all in.

“When we go to look at the different world views that atheists and theists have, I suggest we can prove the existence of God from the impossibility of the contrary. The transcendental proof for God’s existence is that without Him it is impossible to prove anything. The atheist world view is irrational and cannot consistently provide the preconditions of intelligible experience, science, logic, or morality. The atheist world view cannot allow for laws of logic, the uniformity of nature, the ability for the mind to understand the world, and moral absolutes. In that sense the atheist world view cannot account for our debate tonight.” – Greg Bahnsen from “The Great Debate”

The Great Debate: Christian philosopher Greg Bahnsen debates atheist Gordon Stein at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDHkheBeTRE

Scroll down for a special section of Greg Bahnsen quotes.

“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)

Bahnsen Quotes:

“Without faith, there is no proper understanding by which a man can judge. As Augustine well said, ‘I believe in order to understand’.” – Greg L. Bahnsen, Presuppositional Apologetics: Stated and Defended

“There is no way to use non-Christian language and logic to arrive at Christian utterances, conclusions, and behavior.” – Greg L. Bahnsen, Presuppositional Apologetics: Stated and Defended

“We must not be satisfied to present Christianity as the most reliable position to hold among the competing options available. Rather, the Christian faith is the only reasonable outlook available to men.” – Greg L. Bahnsen, Presuppositional Apologetics: Stated and Defended

“Christianity is reasonable in virtue of the impossibility of the contrary.” – Greg L. Bahnsen, Presuppositional Apologetics: Stated and Defended

“Paul sets forth the attitude to which the defender of the faith must be committed: “Let God be found true, but every man a liar.” – Greg L. Bahnsen, Presuppositional Apologetics: Stated and Defended

“When an apologist attempts to be autonomous in his reasoned argumentation he indicates that he considers God to be less certain than his own existence and that he places greater credence in his independent reasoning than in God’s Word.” ― Greg L. Bahnsen, Presuppositional Apologetics: Stated and Defended

“By reversing the proper order of things, the non-presuppositional apologist sees submission to God’s Word as secondary, rather than primary, sees demonstration as the basis for faith, sees independent argumentation rather than the Holy Spirit as the source of conviction, and therefore advances the destruction of his own defense of the faith.” – Greg L. Bahnsen, Presuppositional Apologetics: Stated and Defended

“To reject revelational epistemology is to commit yourself to defending the truth of autonomous epistemology.” – Greg L. Bahnsen, Presuppositional Apologetics: Stated and Defended

“Non-presuppositional defenses of the faith tend to be too concessive to the unbeliever’s aim and aim to simply show Christianity as probably true. They do not leave the unbeliever ‘without excuse,’ but suggest implicitly that he has the prerogative and ability to stand in judgement over God’s own Word.” – Greg L. Bahnsen, Presuppositional Apologetics: Stated and Defended

“Since the fall of man was ethical in character (not metaphysical) the unregenerate and regenerate share the facts of the world and the rules of thought, but their interpretation and use of them are far from neutral.” – Greg L. Bahnsen, Presuppositional Apologetics: Stated and Defended

“There are no facts or uses of reason which are available outside of the interpretive system. The argument must pit the unbeliever’s system of thought as a unit against the believer’s system of thought as a unit. Their overall perspectives will have to contend with each other.” – Greg L. Bahnsen, Presuppositional Apologetics: Stated and Defended

“There is no man made in the image of God and living in God’s world, whatever God’s attitude toward him and his own feelings about Christ, who does not know the living and true God, his Creator. All men have the requisite knowledge of God to make them eternally responsible before Him; this was true in the Garden, and it does not cease to be true after the fall. Sin or no sin, special revelation or no special revelation, all men inescapably know their God.” – Greg L. Bahnsen Presuppositional Apologetics: Stated & Defended

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

February 11, 2023 · 5:29 pm

What does the stone in Daniel 2:35 signify?

What does the stone in Daniel 2:35 signify? By Jack Kettler

“Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken to pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer threshingfloors; and the wind carried them away, that no place was found for them: and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth.” (Daniel 2:35)

An understanding of the image in Nebuchadnezzar’s Dream made of gold, silver, brass, iron, and clay represent is important to understand the significance of the stone is warranted.

According to Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary, it is learned:

“This image represented the kingdoms of the earth, that should successively rule the nations, and influence the affairs of the Jewish church. 1. The head of gold signified the Chaldean empire, then in being. 2. The breast and arms of silver signified the empire of the Medes and Persians. 3. The belly and thighs of brass signified the Grecian empire, founded by Alexander. 4. The legs and feet of iron signified the Roman empire. The Roman empire branched into ten kingdoms, as the toes of these feet. Some were weak as clay, others strong as iron.” (1)

Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible provides the most detailed account of the Daniel passage:

“Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken to pieces together, …. The feet, the basis of the image, being broken, the whole body of it fell, and with its own weight was broken to pieces; an emblem this of the utter dissolution of all the monarchies and kingdoms of the earth, signified by these several metals:

and became like the chaff of the summer threshing floors; which is exceeding small and light:

and the wind carried them away, that no place was found for them; for the several metals, and the monarchies signified by them, which were no more: the allusion is to the manner of winnowing corn in the eastern countries upon mountains, when the chaff was carried away by the wind, and seen no more:

and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the earth; Christ’s kingdom, from small beginnings, has increased, and will more and more, until the whole earth is subject to it: this began to have its accomplishment in the first times of the Gospel, especially when the Roman empire, as Pagan, was destroyed by Constantine, and the kingdom of Christ was set up in it; and it received a further accomplishment at the time of the Reformation, when Rome Papal had a deadly blow given it, and the Gospel of Christ was spread in several nations and kingdoms; but it will receive its full accomplishment when both the eastern and western antichrists shall be destroyed, and the kingdoms of this world shall become the Lord’s and his Christ’s, Revelation 11:15.” (2)

The picture of a relatively small stone in Daniel 2:35, growing to become a mountain, is indeed strikingly similar to the parable of the mustard seed:

“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)

Israel was an insignificant people in contrast with the Roman empire. Jesus was born in Bethlehem, an insignificant village.

In conclusion:

The Kingdom of Christ was supernatural in its origin. Insignificant in its humble beginning in the manger in Bethlehem. Nevertheless, His Kingdom is ordained to be universal in its scope of influence and power. And furthermore, the stone in Daniel 2:25 signifies Christ and His Kingdom.

Daniel’s stone and the mustard seed of Matthew are pictured in other places using Old Testament typology:

“And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the LORD’S house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it.” (Isaiah 2:2)

“But in the last days it shall come to pass, that the mountain of the house of the LORD shall be established in the top of the mountains, and it shall be exalted above the hills; and people shall flow unto it.” (Micah 4:1)

Indeed, Christ, the Lord shall reign forever and forever!

“And he shall reign over the house of Jacob forever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.” (Luke 1:33)

“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, Daniel, (Nashville, Tennessee, Thomas Nelson), p. 1338-1339.

2. John Gill, Exposition of the Old and New Testaments, Daniel, (Grace Works, Multi-Media Labs), p. 42-43.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

February 2, 2023 · 4:45 pm

Why is the valley of Achor said to be a door of hope in Hosea 2:15?

Why is the valley of Achor said to be a door of hope in Hosea 2:15? By Jack Kettler

“And I will give her, her vineyards from thence, and the valley of Achor for a door of hope: and she shall sing there, as in the days of her youth, and as in the day when she came up out of the land of Egypt.” (Hosea 2:15)

Introduction:

Hosea prophesied during the latter half of the eighth century B.C. (753–722). The time period was a very difficult time in Israel’s history. The setting is right before the Northern Kingdom went into exile.

Hosea’s addressees were the Northern Kingdom. Israel is mentioned numerous times in the book. The burden of Hosea’s prophecy was to see Israel repent and turn back to God.

The reader learns about Hosea’s family in chapter 1:1-3:5. God ordered Hosea to marry an adulterous wife. It is recorded that his wife Gomer was a “whore” in Hosea 1:3. Hosea’s children were each given a symbolic name representative of the ominous prophetic message. Warnings and promises for Israel are covered in chapters 4:1-14:9.

Hosea describes Israel’s unfaithfulness. God uses this symbolism to say that Israel is like a licentious wife. However, Israel’s unfaithfulness is not enough to deplete God’s redeeming love. Israel remained God’s chosen people.

In Hosea 2:15, the valley of Achor is mentioned and historically means trouble. So how can Hosea now say it is a door of hope?

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges answers this question:

“15. I will give her, her vineyards from thence] So soon as she has left the wilderness (‘from thence’), Jehovah will restore to her the vineyards which he had taken away (Hosea 2:12).”

“the valley of Achor for a door of hope] Whereas the first Israelites had to call their first encampment after crossing the Jordan the valley of Achor or ‘Troubling’ (Joshua 7:26), their descendants shall find the same spot a starting point for a career of success. Another prophet praises the same valley for its fertility (Isaiah 65:10).”

“she shall sing there] Or, ‘thereupon’. Alluding to the songs of Moses and Miriam in Exodus 15:1 (see Hosea 2:21, where, as St Jerome with Jewish writers points out, the same verb is used of Miriam’s ‘answering’ the song of Moses). But antiphonal singing is not suitable here, and much less in Hosea 2:23-23 (where A. V. arbitrarily alters the rendering of the verb). Render, she shall respond there Theod. ἀποκριθήσεται, Aq. ὑπακούσει, which however St Jerome explains, ‘præcinentibus respondebit concinens’. The heart of Israel shall be softened, and she shall be responsive to the divine call, as in ‘the days of her youth’ (comp. Jeremiah 2:2), when she came out of Egypt.” (1)

Isaiah describes the blessings God will bestow upon Israel in the valley of Achor.

“And Sharon shall be a fold of flocks, and the valley of Achor a place for the herds to lie down in, for my people that have sought me.” (Isaiah 65:10)

Matthew Poole’s Commentary agrees and further elaborates:

“And I, reconciled to her, will give her, her vineyards; will both settle her, and abundantly enrich her with blessings, as the phrase implieth.

“From thence; either from the place of their exile and sufferings, or from the time of their hearkening to the Lord speaking to them in their distresses and sorrows; or if it refer to Hosea 2:12, it is a promise to comfort them under that threat which swept away the blessings of vines mid fig trees in their own land, and here is a promise of vineyards to them from the time of their repentance, and from the place where they are captives.”

“The valley of Achor; which was a large, fruitful, and pleasant valley near Jericho, and on the very entrance into the land of Canaan, where after forty years’ travels and sorrows Israel first set foot on a country such as they expected.”

“For a door of hope: as that valley was a door of hope to Israel then, by that Israel saw that he should enjoy the Promised Land; so, would God deal with repenting Israel in the times here pointed at.”

“She shall sing praises to their God for his mercies, and sing forth their own joys too, and answer each other, sing in responses, as the word signifieth.”

“As in the days of her youth: as that age is most jocund, and expresseth it by singing, so shall it be as renewed youth to Israel, full of blessings from God, and full of praises to God.”

“When she came up out of the land of Egypt: this passage explains the former; their youth is a time somewhat like the time of their coming out of Egypt, their mercies now like the mercies of that time, and their joys and songs shall be like too. However, these things were fulfilled to the type, whose repentance and return to God is not very eminent, they are all fully made good to antitype Israel, the church of Christ, in spiritual blessings, chiefly here intended.” (2)

In conclusion:

Barnes’ Notes on the Bible in greater detail explains the Messianic blessings that will be poured out upon the faithful of Israel:

“And I will give her, her vineyards from thence – God’s mercies are not only in word, but indeed. He not only speaks to her heart, but he restores to her what He had taken from her. He promises, not only to reverse His sentence, but that He would make the sorrow itself the source of the joy. He says, I will give her back her vineyards “thence,” i. e., from the wilderness itself; as elsewhere, He says, “The wilderness shall be a fruitful field” Isaiah 32:15. Desolation shall be the means of her restored inheritance and joy in God. Through fire and drought are the new flagons dried and prepared, into which the new wine of the Gospel is poured.”

“And the valley of Achor for a door of hope – (Literally, “troubling”). As, at the first taking possession of the promised land, Israel learned through the transgression and punishment of Achan, to stand in awe of God, and thenceforth, all went well with them, when they had wholly freed themselves from the accursed thing, so to them shall “sorrow be turned into joy, and hope dawn there, where there had been despair.” “Therefore, only had they to endure chastisements, that through them they might attain blessings.” It was through the punishment of those who “troubled” the true “Israel,” the destruction of Jerusalem, that to the Apostles and the rest who believed, the hope of victory over the whole world was opened. “Hope.” The word more fully means, a “patient, enduring longing.” To each returning soul, “the valley of trouble,” or the lowliness of repentance, becometh a door of patient longing, not in itself, but because “God giveth” it to be so; a longing which “reacheth on, awaiteth on,” entering within the veil, and bound first to the Throne of God. But then only, when none of the “accursed thing” Joshua 7:11-15 cleaveth to it, when it has no reserves with God, and retains nothing for itself, which God hath condemned.”

“And she shall sing there, as in the days of her youth – The song is a responsive song, choir answering choir, each stirring up the other to praise, and praise echoing praise, as Israel did after the deliverance at the Red Sea. “Then sang Moses and the children of Israel this song unto the Lord. I will sing unto the Lord, for He hath triumphed gloriously. And Miriam the prophetess the sister of Aaron, took a timbrel, and all the women went out after her. And Miriam answered them, sing ye to the Lord, for He hath triumphed gloriously” Exodus 15:1, Exodus 15:20-21. So the Seraphim sing one to another, holy, holy, holy Isaiah 6:3; so Paul exhorts Christians “to admonish one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in their hearts to the Lord” Colossians 3:16; so the Jewish psalmody passed into the Christian Church, and the blessed in heaven, having on the Cross passed the troublesome sea of this world, “sing the new song of Moses and of the Lamb” Revelation 15:3.”

“She shall sing there – Where? There, where he “allureth” her, where He leadeth her, where He “speaketh to her heart,” where He in worketh in her that hope. There, shall she sing, there, give praise and thanks.”

“As in the days of her youth – Her “youth” is explained, in what follows, to be “the days when she came up out of the land of Egypt,” when she was first born to the knowledge of her God, when the past idolatries had been forgiven and cut off; and she had all the freshness of new life, and had not yet wasted it by rebellion and sin. Then God first called “Israel, My firstborn son. My son, My firstborn” Exodus 4:22. “She came up” into the land which God chose, out of Egypt, since we “go up” to God and to things above; as, on the other hand, the prophet says, “Woe to those who go down to Egypt” Isaiah 31:1, for the aids of this world; and the man who was wounded, the picture of the human race, was “going down from Jerusalem to Jericho” (Luke 10:30; see the note above at Hosea 1:11).” (3)

“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)

Notes:

1. Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges, by, by T. K. Cheyne, Hosea, (Cambridge University Press, 1898), e-Sword version.

2. Matthew Poole’s Commentary on the Holy Bible, Hosea, Vol. 2, (Peabody, Massachusetts, Hendrickson Publishers, 1985) p. 855-856.

3. Albert Barnes, THE AGES DIGITAL LIBRARYCOMMENTARY, Barnes’ Notes on the Bible, Hosea, Vol. 10 p. 52.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

December 24, 2022 · 4:48 pm

Unicorns and KJV-Onlyism an introductory fact sheet

Unicorns and KJV-Onlyism an introductory fact sheet By Jack Kettler

The writer of this fact sheet has written 15 books on theology and uses the KJV. Nevertheless, this writer does not subscribe to KJV-Onlysim. Just because someone prefers the KJV does not make them a KJV-Onlyist.

What is KJV-Onlyism?

King James Onlyism refers to a dogma that demands that all Christians must use the King James Version of the Bible solely. Some adherents go so far as to say that the KJV translators were divinely inspired. For those, it is asked how they know this. Did they pray about it and get an answer like the Mormons?

After interacting with some onlyists, there is confusion about where the authority lies. Is it in the Greek (Textus Receptus) and Hebrew (Masoretic) manuscripts or in the KJV? This writer had one onlyist say the KJV was better than the Textus Receptus end of the debate.

Without using the pejorative “conspiracy theorist.” nevertheless, KJV-Onlyism tends to operate in terms of a sinister plot of wicked people that are evil people changing the Bible. In addition, these same unnamed individuals intentionally mistranslate the Bible in order to insert false teachings into the sacred text.

It is readily admitted that there are many horrendous translations, but it does not follow that because some are bad, and all are bad. To believe this is to believe a non-sequitur.

Questions that arise:

If KJV-Onlyism is true, why did God wait for 1600 hundred years to reveal this translation? In striking similarity with the Mormon claim that God could not find anyone to restore the church for 1800 years.

What about all of the non-English speaking people around the world? One onlyist said they could use the Internet to solve this problem. But, unfortunately, for many, this would not have helped in light of the short time the Internet has existed. Also, what about the Indians living in the jungles of South America with no electricity?

A textual issue:

Is one manuscript text better than many manuscripts? At first, one manuscript a person may think that one is better. However, this is not the case. For Islam and Mormons, the true copy of their ex-biblical revelations, the Koran, and the Book of Mormon are in heaven, conveniently where these alleged texts cannot be analyzed. In Islam, there is only one approved text of the Koran; all other versions were destroyed.

Why multiple manuscript sources are better than one:

“If one has few manuscripts of a work from antiquity, textual variations can be a real problem. But the more manuscripts you have from a wide range of locations and from early on in the text’s transmission, the better off you are. And all scholars agree that of all ancient documents, without doubt the single earliest, best, and most widely attested document is the New Testament.” Comparison of the New Testament to other documents of that age does not even seem fair. While the average work of antiquity has no witnesses until five hundred years after its production, the New Testament boasts numerous witnesses within the first hundred years, and many more within two hundred more years, from a wide geographical area. As noted, we have entire copies of the complete New Testament from as early as the start of the fourth century, and papyri fragments of individual books have been dated to the earliest years of the second century, an unheard-of treasure trove, historically speaking. As these earlier and earlier manuscripts have been found, they have shown that the text popular in the medieval period is not radically altered but is the very same primitive text of the New Testament.[ 183] No evidence exists of major alterations seeking to remove doctrines, insert beliefs, and the like.[ 184] Any fair analysis of the text’s transmission reveals that its scribes sought to the very best of their ability to transmit it accurately.[ 185] – White, James R. What Every Christian Needs to Know About the Qur’an (p. 231). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

Assuming what needs to be proved:

In the more extreme varieties of KJV-Onlyism, one encounters circular reasoning when the topic of other translations comes up. For example, if another translation reads differently than the KJV, the promoters will say the newer translation is in error. The fallacy of this is assuming what they need to prove. This is otherwise known as the fallacy of begging the question, which occurs when an argument’s premises assume the truth of the conclusion instead of supporting or proving it.

Were the KJV translators KJV-Onlyists?

The original KJV translators in 1611 did not hold their translation as inerrant or inspired. For example, the Preface of the original KJV- entitled The Translators to the Reader – explains:

“As Saint Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures.” Documents of the English Reformation, Edited by Gerald Bray p. 434.

Some onlyists think the KJV translators were inspired to do a perfect translation, which would be “God’s preserved word for the English-speaking people.” There is no hint that the KJV translators thought they were the only inspired group of translators. Instead, they saw themselves as imperfect human translators trying to do their best. They said:

“Neither did we think much to consult the Translators or Commentators…neither did we disdain to revise that which we had done, and to bring back to the anvil that which we had hammered.” Excerpted from an article by Dr. Robert Joyner titled “Is the King James Version the Only Divinely Inspired Version?”

The KJV translators certainly were not “King James Onlyists.” For example, they wrote:

“Variety of translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures…” “Using other versions is one of the best ways to study the Bible because different translations reveal the different shades of meaning found in the original texts.” Excerpted from an article by Dr. Robert Joyner titled “Is the King James Version the Only Divinely Inspired Version?”

If there is one error in the translation of the KJV, how can this be explained by the onlyists?

“His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of unicorns: with them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth: and they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Manasseh.” (Deuteronomy 33:17 KJV)

“His glory is like a firstborn bull, And his horns like the horns of the wild ox; Together with them He shall push the peoples To the ends of the earth; They are the ten thousands of Ephraim, And they are the thousands of Manasseh.” (Deuteronomy 33:17 NKJV)

The word unicorn is a poor translation. Unicorns do not exist! What would an onlyist say to this?

Strong’s Concordance gets it correct, and the NKJV uses the better translation of רְאֵם (reem), a wild ox:

“reem: a wild ox

Original word: רְאֵם

Part of Speech: Noun Masculine

Transliteration: reem

Phonetic Spelling: (reh-ame’)

Definition: a wild ox.”

Many more examples like this can be shown. Putting two translations side by side, highlighting a difference, does not prove anything. All this shows that the translation of certain words is different. Exegetical work must be done.

Most people have heard of the Wycliffe Bible translators. It may come as a shock to the onlyists, but today the Wycliffe translators, as a rule, use the Westcott-Hort or United Bible Societies Greek text. In the past, many of the Wycliffe translators favored the Majority Text.

In conclusion:

This writer is not accusing the onlyists of being a cult. However, when interacting with some onlyists, they certainly appear to have cult like traits by not seriously interacting with non-onlyists. Furthermore, in light of the fact that for most of church history, the KJV Bible did not exist, to now maintain a KJV-Onlyist position is preposterous.

It is freely admitted that there are bad translations. Nevertheless, the Bible does not command the use of any specific translation or prohibit the production of other translations. The existence of multiple manuscripts has always been considered an apologetic strength. Consulting a variety of translations in Bible study seems prudent. Trying to box fellow Christians into using one translation that is 400 years old is misguided and exhibits the spirit of sectarianism. Onlyism must be lonely, or as Roy Orbison sang, “only the lonely.”

An attempted response:

Some of the readers may have followed a recent thread where several individuals engaged an individual who is promoting a highly sectarian and divisive theory about the only translation that is supposedly approved by God for believers, namely, KJV-Onlyism. Upon reflection, this individual’s approach can be described as non or subpar scholarship coupled with an unending series of logical fallacies. The most common was the fallacy of begging the question. This occurred repeatedly when the individual’s argument’s premises assumed the truth of the conclusion, instead of proving it.

Other fallacies that occurred in this thread were hasty generalizations, or an appeal to authority, the individual claimed an authority figure’s expertise to support a claim despite this expertise being irrelevant or overstated. Circular arguments were used and is one that uses the same statement as both the premise and the conclusions, in which no new information or justification is introduced. Non-sequiturs were used repeatedly.

Tragically, the individual had no idea how to exegete a word appearing in the Biblical Hebrew or Greek text. For example:

“His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of unicorns: with them, he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth: and they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Manasseh.” (Deuteronomy 33:17 KJV)

The word unicorn is a poor translation.

Strong’s Concordance gets it correct, and the NKJV uses the better translation of רְאֵם (reem), a wild ox:

“reem: a wild ox

Original word: רְאֵם

Part of Speech: Noun Masculine

Transliteration: reem

Phonetic Spelling: (reh-ame’)

Definition: a wild ox.”

The individual said that there are creatures that exist with only one horn. This response did not show exegetically how the Hebrew reem: a wild ox is better-translated unicorn.

And finally, this individual’s arguments did not show how those that use the NKJV or the ESV, or the NASB would put one who believes the gospel into danger of hellfire and thus can be dismissed as a schismatic practice and those advocating it should be avoided.

“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)

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

December 17, 2022 · 5:17 pm

In Lamentations 2:15, what is a lament, and what is signified by wagging the head?

In Lamentations 2:15, what is a lament, and what is signified by wagging the head? By Jack Kettler

“All that pass by clap their hands at thee; they hiss and wag their head at the daughter of Jerusalem, saying, is this the city that men call the perfection of beauty, the joy of the whole earth?” (Lamentations 2:15)

What is a lament? A lament is a fervent emotional expression of grief or sorrow.

Background

In 586 B.C., the King of Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar, destroyed Jerusalem. Jeremiah did not perish in the destruction of Jerusalem under the Babylonian King. Instead, God spared Jeremiah and had him record his sorrow for the utter ruin of Jerusalem.

Modern-day prosperity teachers would no doubt have difficulty with a lament. Nevertheless, a lament is not unique to Jeremiah and other Old Testament prophets.

What would be prophetic about Jeremiah’s lament as a weeping prophet?

“Oh, that my head were waters, and mine eyes a fountain of tears, that I might weep day and night for the slain of the daughter of my people!” (Jeremiah 9:1) (emphasis mine)

Jesus has been described as the weeping Savior because, on many occasions, His sorrow was visible.

“And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it.” (Luke 19:41)

Jesus laments the future destruction of Jerusalem and especially His sufferings in Matthew 23:37-38.

“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.” (Matthew 23:37-38)

“Then saith he unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death: tarry ye here, and watch with me.” (Matthew 26:38)

In the above passages from Matthew, the reader sees Jesus lamenting Jerusalem’s coming destruction by the Romans in 70A.D. and His suffering on the cross.

Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers pictures the enemies of Jerusalem:

“(15) All that pass by. – The triumphant exultation of the enemies of Zion came to add bitterness to her sorrows. They reminded her of what she had been in the past and contrasted it with her present desolation.

The perfection of beauty . . . – Like phrases are used of Zion in Psalm 48:2; Psalm 50:2; of Tyre in Ezekiel 27:3. Now that beauty was turned into squalor and desolation.” (1)

At the start, it was asked what does wagging head convey.

In particular, note Matthew 23:39:

“And they that passed by reviled him, wagging their heads.” (Matthew 23:39)

To “wag” the head is a typical gesture of mockery or derision.

In closing:

In light of God’s love for Israel, His righteous judgment and sorry are seen in Jeremiah’s lament. Jeremiah’s lament stands out as a type of Christ sharing the pains of believers.

“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)

Notes:

1. Charles John Ellicott, Bible Commentary for English Readers, Lamentations, Vol.11, (London, England, Cassell and Company), p. 18.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

December 15, 2022 · 9:45 pm

Why the difficulty in identifying the preacher in Ecclesiastes 1:1?

Why the difficulty in identifying the preacher in Ecclesiastes 1:1? By Jack Kettler

“The words of the Preacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem.” (Ecclesiastes 1:1)

Who is the preacher (Qoheleth) or teacher in Ecclesiastes 1:1? Taking the text in plain sight, it seems unusual not to identify the preacher as David’s son, which would be Solomon.

Strong’s Lexicon:

“of the Teacher,

קֹהֶ֣לֶת (qō·he·leṯ)

Noun – masculine singular

Strong’s Hebrew 6953: 1) collector (of sentences), preacher, public speaker, speaker in an assembly, Qoheleth”

Strong’s Concordance:

“Qoheleth: “a collector (of sentences),” “a preacher,” a son of David

“Original Word: קֹהֶלֶת

Part of Speech: Noun Masculine

Transliteration: Qoheleth

Phonetic Spelling: (ko-heh’-leth)

Definition: “a collector (of sentences)”, “a preacher”, a son of David”

The Strong’s Lexicon and Concordance seemingly do not prohibit that interpretation either.

Nevertheless, there is scholarly hesitation on the identity of the preacher.

For example:

Barnes’ Notes on the Bible says:

“Preacher – literally, Convener. No one English word represents the Hebrew קהלת qôheleth adequately. Though capable, according to Hebrew usage, of being applied to men in office, it is strictly a feminine participle, and describes a person in the act of calling together an assembly of people as if with the intention of addressing them. The word thus understood refers us to the action of Wisdom personified Proverbs 1:20; Proverbs 8:8. In Proverbs and here, Solomon seems to support two characters, speaking sometimes in the third person as Wisdom instructing the assembled people, at other times in the first person. So, our Lord speaks of Himself (compare Luke 11:49 with Matthew 23:34) as Wisdom, and as desiring Luke 13:34 to gather the people together for instruction; It is unfortunate that the word “Preacher” does not bring this personification before English minds, but a different idea.” (1) (Underlining and bolding emphasis mine)

As Barnes notes, the feminine participle is a cause for uncertainty in understanding text.

In addition, the Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges says:

1. “The words of the Preacher] For the title of the Book and the meaning of the word translated “Preacher” (better, Debater, or, perhaps, as the Hebrew noun has no article, Koheleth, as a proper name, carrying with it the meaning of Debater), see Introduction. The description “king in Jerusalem” is in apposition with “the Preacher” not with “David.” It is noticeable that the name of Solomon is not mentioned as it is in the titles of the other two books ascribed to him (Proverbs 1:1; Song of Solomon 1:1).” (2)

As E. H. Plumptre notes the Hebrew noun “Koheleth” has no article, thus adding a little uncertainty to the identity of the “king in Jerusalem.” In addition, as Plumptre notes, the description “king in Jerusalem” is in apposition with “the Preacher” not with “David.”

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia has relevant information on the identity of the king in Jerusalem:

Qoheleth:

“The speaker in Ecclesiastes calls himself Qoheleth (1:1,2,12 and other places), rendered “the Preacher” in the English Versions. The word does not occur elsewhere, although it is from a stem that is in common use. Apparently, it has been coined for a purpose by the author of Ecclesiastes. In form it is a feminine participle, though it denotes a man. This is best explained as a case of the using of an abstract expression for a concrete, as when in English we say “Your Honor,” “Your Majesty.” The other words of the stem are used of people gathering in assemblies, and the current explanation is to the effect that Qoheleth is a person who draws an audience whom he may address. To this there are two objections: First, the participle is intransitive; its natural implication is that of a person who participates in an assembly, not of one who causes the participants to assemble. Second, the assembly distinctively indicated by the words of this stem is the official assembly for the transaction of public business. Worked out on this basis Qoheleth seems to mean citizenship, or concretely, a citizen–a citizen of such respectability that he is entitled to participate in public assemblies. It is in the character of citizen-king that the speaker in Ecclesiastes relates his experiences and presents his ideas.”

“This word for “assembly” and its cognates are in the Greek often translated by ekklesia and its cognates (e.g. De 4:10; 9:10; Jg 20:2; 21:5,8). So, we are not surprised to find Qoheleth rendered by the Greek Ekklesiastes, and this Latinized into Ecclesiastes.”

“King in Jerusalem”:

“The speaker in Eccl speaks not only in the character of Qoheleth, but in that of “the son of David, king in Jerusalem” (1:1). So far as this clause is concerned the king in question might be either Solomon or any other king of the dynasty, or might be a composite or an ideal king. He is represented (1:12 through 2:11) as “king over Israel,” and as distinguished for wisdom, for his luxuries, for his great enterprises in building and in business. These marks fit Solomon better than any other king of the dynasty, unless possibly Uzziah. Possibly it is not absurd to apply to Solomon even the phrase “all that were before me over Jerusalem,” or “in Jerusalem” (1:16; 2:7,9; compare 1Ch 29:25; 1Ki 3:12; 2Ch 1:12). It is safer, however, to use an alternative statement. The speaker in Eccl is either Solomon or some other actual or composite or ideal king of the dynasty of David.” – Willis J. Beecher (3)

In light of the grammatical sentence construction, and as Beecher notes:

“It is safer, however, to use an alternative statement. The speaker in Eccl is either Solomon or some other actual or composite or ideal king of the dynasty of David.”

The Pulpit Commentary reviews the grammatical difficulties not readily apparent to English readers and reaches a satisfactory conclusion:

“Verse 1. – The words of the Preacher, the son of David, King in Jerusalem; Septuagint, “King of Israel in Jerusalem” (comp. ver. 12). The word rendered “Preacher” is Koheleth, a feminine noun formed from a verb kalal, “to call” (see Introduction, § 1), and perhaps better rendered” Convener” or “Debater.” It is found nowhere else but, in this book, where it occurs three times in this chapter (vers. 1, 2, 12), three times in Ecclesiastes 12:8, 9, 10, and once in Ecclesiastes 7:27. In all but one instance (viz. Ecclesiastes 12:8) it is used without the article, as a proper name. Jerome, in his commentary, translates it, ‘Continuator,’ in his version ‘Ecclesiastes.’ It would seem to denote one who gathered around him a congregation in order to instruct them in Divine lore. The feminine form is explained in various ways. Either it is used abstractedly, as the designation of an office, which it seems not to be; or it is formed as some other words which are found with a feminine termination, though denoting the names of men, indicating, as Gesenius notes (§ 107, 3. 100.), a high degree of activity in the possessor of the particular quality signified by the stem; e.g. Alemeth, Azmaveth (1 Chronicles 8:36; 1 Chronicles 9:42), Pochereth (Ezra 2:57), Sophereth (Nehemiah 7:57); or, as is most probable, the writer desired to identify Koheleth with Wisdom, though it must be observed that the personality of the author often appears, as in Ecclesiastes 1:16-18; Ecclesiastes 7:23, etc.; the role of Wisdom being for the nonce forgotten. The word “king” in the title is shown by the accentuation to be in apposition to “Koheleth” not to “David;” and there can be no doubt that the description is intended to denote Solomon, though his name is nowhere actually given, as it is in the two other works ascribed to him (Proverbs 1:1; Song of Solomon 1:1). Other intimations of the assumption of Solomon’s personality are found in Ecclesiastes 1:12, “I Koheleth was king,” etc.; so, in describing his consummate wisdom (Ecclesiastes 1:13, 16; Ecclesiastes 2:15; comp. 1 Kings 3:12; 1 Kings 5:12), and in his being the author of many proverbs (Ecclesiastes 12:9; comp. 1 Kings 4:32) – accomplishments which are not noted in the case of any other of David’s descendants. Also, the picture of luxury and magnificence presented in Ecclesiastes 2. suits no Jewish monarch but Solomon. The origin of the name applied to him may probably be traced to the historical fact mentioned in 1 Kings 8:55, etc., where Solomon gathers all Israel together to the dedication of the temple, and utters the remarkable prayer which contained blessing and teaching and exhortation. As we have shown in the Introduction (§ 2), the assumption of the name is a mere literary device to give weight and importance to the treatise to which it appertains. The term, “King in Jerusalem,” or, as in ver. 12, “King over Israel in Jerusalem,” is unique, and occurs nowhere else in Scripture. David is said to have reigned in Jerusalem, when this seat of government is spoken of in contrast with that at Hebron (2 Samuel 5:5), and the same expression is used of Solomon, Rehoboam, and others (1 Kings 11:42; 1 Kings 14:21; 1 Kings 15:2, 10); and the phrase probably denotes a time when the government had become divided, and Israel had a different capital from Judah. Ecclesiastes 1:1” (4)

In conclusion, the notes of the Geneva Bible bests answer the question of who is the “preacher:”

“The words of the {a} Preacher, the son of David, king of Jerusalem.”

“The Argument – Solomon as a preacher and one that desired to instruct all in the way of salvation, describes the deceivable vanities of this world: that man should not be addicted to anything under the sun, but rather inflamed with the desire of the heavenly life: therefore he confutes their opinions, which set their happiness either in knowledge or in pleasures, or in dignity and riches, wishing that man’s true happiness consists in that he is united with God and will enjoy his presence: so that all other things must be rejected, save in as much as they further us to attain to this heavenly treasure, which is sure and permanent, and cannot be found in any other save in God alone.”

“(a) Solomon is here called a preacher, or one who assembles the people, because he teaches the true knowledge of God, and how men ought to pass their life in this transitory world.”

The Geneva Bible is the English translation of the Bible published in Geneva (New Testament, 1557; Old Testament, 1560). The Geneva Bible was brought to America by the Puritan Pilgrims.

“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, Ecclesiastes, Vol. 6 p. 124.

2. Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges, by E. H. Plumptre, Ecclesiastes, (Cambridge University Press, 1898), e-Sword version.

3. Orr, James, M.A., D.D. General Editor, “Entry for ‘Ecclesiastes,’” International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Eerdmans, reprinted 1986), p. 896.

4. H. D. M. Spence and Joseph S. Exell, The Pulpit Commentary, Ecclesiastes, Vol.9., (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Eerdmans Publishing Company reprint 1978), p. 1.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

December 12, 2022 · 8:21 pm

What does the phrase “who were once enlightened” in Hebrew 6:4 mean?

What does the phrase “who were once enlightened” in Hebrew 6:4 mean? By Jack Kettler

“For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, if they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.” (Hebrews 6:4-6)

Those of the Semi-Pelagian (early church heresy) or Arminianism (of the post-reformation church) persuasion would say the Hebrew passage is talking about someone who is born again or is truly saved and subsequently can lose their salvation. *

Does this doctrine hold up? Is this Biblical? In seeking to answer this question, one must consult the original language to see if “once enlightened” indicates a genuinely regenerated person.

Consulting the Strong’s Concordance, one finds:

“phótizó: to shine, give light

Original Word: φωτίζω

Part of Speech: Verb

Transliteration: phótizó

Phonetic Spelling: (fo-tid’-zo)

Definition: to shine, give light

Usage: (a) I light up, illumine, (b) I bring to light, make evident, reveal.” (underlining and bolding emphasis mine)

The definition to “shine, and give light” does not require that this is talking about someone whom the Holy Spirit had enlightened in a salvific sense. It is entirely possible for a non-believer to see the truth of the gospel without being born again. “The devils also believe and tremble” (James 2:19).

Additionally, can someone taste the Word of God and not be regenerated?

Did the people in the following verse taste the Word of God?

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

What about these people?

“Also, of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.” (Acts 20:30)

Are the individuals in Acts 20:30 the same as those in 1 John 2:19?

See the Gospel of John:

“That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.” (John 1:9)

Who would argue that “lighteth every man that cometh into the world” are regenerated?

From the New Testament Commentary on Hebrews by Simon J. Kistemaker:

6:4–6

In chapters 3 and 4 the author of Hebrews discussed the sin of unbelief that resulted in apostasy. Now in one lengthy sentence (6:4–6) he develops that teaching in greater detail. The emphasis in this sentence falls on the main verb to be brought back to repentance (v. 6), which is introduced negatively by the phrase it is impossible.

4. It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5. who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, 6. if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.

Throughout the epistle the writer has admonished his readers to accept the Word of God in faith and not to fall into the sin of unbelief that results in eternal judgment (2:1–3; 3:12–14; 4:1, 6, 11; 10:25, 27, 31; 12:16–17, 25, 29). In 6:4–6 he does not address the recipients of his letter, but instead he states a truth that emerges from an earlier reference to the Israelites’ perishing in the desert because of their unbelief. This truth also applies to the Hebrews, even though the author omits the personal reference in 6:4–6.

Before we discuss the details of the passage, we need to look at the major points that divide the text. We ask three questions.

a. Who are the people mentioned in 6:4–6? They are those characterized by four participles that in the original Greek display poetic rhythm: enlightened, tasted, shared, tasted. There is no particular connection among these participles, although some commentators like to see a sequence of baptism, Lord’s Supper, ordination, and perhaps even proclamation in this verse.

Those who have once been enlightened. From the second century to the present, writers have associated the verb enlightened with baptism. Added weight is given to this interpretation by the restrictive word once. And in the broader context of the passage, the term baptisms does appear in 6:2. We can point out many similarities between baptism and enlightenment. For example, the early Christian practice of scheduling baptisms at daybreak utilizes the symbolism of the receding night of sin and the rising sun that illumines the baptismal candidate, who enters a new life.

But the verb enlightened also has other meanings. The author uses the word again in 10:32, where the expression seems to be synonymous with “knowledge of the truth” (Heb. 10:26). Besides the two occurrences in Hebrews, the verb appears nine times in the New Testament and has a broader meaning than a reference to baptism (Luke 11:36; John 1:9; 1 Cor. 4:5; Eph. 1:18; 3:9; 2 Tim. 1:10; Rev. 18:1; 21:23; 22:5).

Who have tasted the heavenly gift. Suppose that someone has attended the worship services of the church, has made profession of faith, has been baptized, and has taken part in the active life of the church; he has tasted the broken bread and taken the cup offered to him at the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. Then this new convert has indeed tasted the heavenly gift.

To limit the interpretation of this phrase (“tasted the heavenly gift”) however, is decidedly narrow. The New Testament itself provides a broader explanation. Jesus identifies himself as the “gift of God” when he talks to the Samaritan woman at the well (John 4:10). Peter designates the Holy Spirit the gift of God (Acts 2:38; 8:20; 10:45; 11:17). And in his epistles, Paul mentions “the gift of grace” and “the gift of righteousness.” He associates these gifts with Jesus Christ (Rom. 5:15, 17; 2 Cor. 9:15; Eph. 3:7; 4:7).

Who have shared in the Holy Spirit. The original Greek indicates the close connection between the preceding clause and this one. In the general context of 6:4, we may see a link between the phrase the laying on of hands (Heb. 6:2) and the sharing in the Holy Spirit, especially if we understand the heavenly gift to be the Holy Spirit.

Sharing in the Holy Spirit implies that this is done in fellowship with other believers. And the Spirit of God manifests himself in various spiritual gifts given to the members of the church (1 Cor. 12:7–11).

Who have tasted the goodness of the word of God. The writer of Hebrews does not specify the extent of the Word, only that the Word is good. When God speaks, man receives a good gift. Once more the writer of Hebrews uses the verb to taste to indicate the enjoyment of receiving this gift. This enjoyment consists in hearing the Scriptures proclaimed and in obtaining spiritual nourishment from that Word.

And the powers of the coming age. The continuation of tasting the Word of God is experiencing the powers of the age to come. First, note that the author uses the plural form powers. That is, they are part of the “signs, wonders and various miracles” that he has mentioned earlier (2:4). These powers belong to the coming age, but already in this age they are evident. The writer does not say what these powers are, although we note that they are directed toward the advancement of the church throughout the world.

The phrase the coming age (with slight variations) occurs only six times in the New Testament: three times in the Gospels (Matt. 12:32; Mark 10:30; Luke 18:30) and three times in the Epistles (Eph. 1:21; 2:7; Heb. 6:5). Because the New Testament writers use this phrase rather infrequently, we ought to exercise prudence in interpreting it. In principle we are able to experience in the present age the powers that belong to the future age. When the coming age dawns, we shall fully realize the supernatural powers we now are allowed to observe.

The author of Hebrews has described a number of experiences some persons have had. In a sense he is deliberatively vague, for he merely lists phenomena but does not clarify who experiences them. He continues, however, and relates what happens to these people.

b. What happens to the people mentioned in 6:4–6? The author adds a participle that many translators preface with the conditional particle if.

If they fall away. I am not sure that the author intends to say that the Hebrews will never be apostate. In the preceding chapters he spoke of apostasy and illustrated this by quoting from Psalm 95. The Israelites who in the desert fell away had put blood on the doorpost in Egypt and eaten the Passover lamb; they had left Egypt, consecrated their first-born males to the Lord, and crossed the Red Sea; they could see the pillar of cloud by day and the pillar of fire by night; they had tasted the waters of Marah and Elim and daily ate the manna God provided; they had heard the voice of God from Mount Sinai when God gave them the Ten Commandments (see Exod. 12–20). Yet these same Israelites hardened their hearts in unbelief, and because of their disobedience they fell away from the living God (Heb. 3:12, 18; 4:6, 11). The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews teaches that apostasy that rises from unbelief results in a hardening of the heart and an inability to repent (3:13; 4:2; 6:6; 10:26; 12:15).

On the other hand, the writer speaks encouraging words to the recipients of his epistle. In the extended context he writes: “Even though we speak like this, dear friends, we are confident of better things in your case—things that accompany salvation” (6:9).

What does the passage (6:4–6) mean for the original readers of Hebrews? Does the author merely sound a warning or does he think that the Israelites’ example would be imitated by the people he addresses in his letter? The constant, repetitive, and heartfelt warnings of the author prove conclusively that apostasy can occur (3:12–13; 4:1, 11; 12:15). Repeatedly he places before the readers the responsibility of guarding the spiritual well-being of each other, “so that no one will fall by following their [the Israelites’] example of disobedience” (4:11).

A distinction must be made at this point. The author speaks about falling away, not about falling into sin. For example, Judas fell away from Jesus and never returned to him; Peter fell into sin but soon afterward saw the resurrected Jesus. The two concepts (apostasy and backsliding) may never be confused. In 6:6, the author refers to apostasy; he has in mind the person who deliberately and completely abandons the Christian faith.

Apostasy does not take place suddenly and unexpectedly. Rather it is part of a gradual process, a decline that leads from unbelief to disobedience to apostasy. And when the falling away from the faith happens, it leads to hardening of the heart and the impossibility of repentance. The author, using the example of the Israelites, has shown the process that results in apostasy (3:18; 4:6, 11).

If the Israelites in the days of Moses deliberately disobeyed the law of God and “received its just punishment” (2:2; and see 10:28), “how much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot” (10:29)?

Where do the recipients of the epistle fit into this process? The author chides them for being slow to learn (5:11), lazy (6:12), and feeble (12:12). Constantly he exhorts them to strengthen their faith (4:2; 10:22–23; 12:2). If their faith continues to weaken, they will fall prey to unbelief that leads to disobedience and apostasy.

It is impossible … to be brought back to repentance. We notice at least two items in this passage that are purposely vague. First, in the preceding verses (5:11–6:3) and the following verses (6:9–12), the writer uses the first and second person plural pronouns we and you, but in verses 6:4–6 the third person plural pronouns those and they occur. Second, the subject of the verb to be brought back is missing. The writer does not reveal the identity of the implied agent. Is he saying that God does not permit (6:3) a second repentance? Or does he mean that a person who has fallen away from the living God cannot be restored to repentance because of the sinner’s hardened heart? Although the writer does not provide the answer, we assume that both questions could receive an affirmative response.

The use of the pronoun we in the broader context of 6:4–6 demonstrates that God never fails the believer who in faith trusts in him. God makes “the unchanging nature of his purpose very clear to the heirs of what was promised” (6:17), and he does so by swearing an oath. And the heirs of the promise are the author and readers of the Epistle to the Hebrews.

Is the Christian church unable to bring a hardened sinner back to the grace of God? Again the writer does not provide an answer in the context of the passage. In another connection, however, he repeats the general sentiment of 6:4–6 and writes: “If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left” (10:26). The author does not say anything about restoring a hardened sinner; what he refers to is the impossibility of removing sin because the person sins deliberately. The word deliberately received all the emphasis in the original Greek because it stands first in the sentence. If a person who is familiar with “the elementary teaching about Christ” sins deliberately, restoration by way of repentance is an impossibility.

c. Why is this so? The writer of the epistle gives two reasons: “to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again” and they are “subjecting him to public disgrace.”

Of course the author obviously is using a metaphor; those who have fallen away do not literally crucify the Son of God and put him to open shame. Note that the writer uses not the personal name Jesus or the official name Christ, but rather the appellation Son of God to express on the one hand the divine exaltation of the Son and on the other hand the utter depravity of the sinner who has turned away from, as well as against, the Son of God.

The one who has fallen away declares that Jesus ought to be eliminated. As the Jews wanted Jesus removed from this earth and thus lifted him up from the ground on a cross, so the apostate denies Jesus a place, banishes him from this earth, and metaphorically crucifies the Son of God again. Thus he treats Jesus with continuous contempt and derision and knowingly commits the sin for which, says the author of the epistle, there is no repentance (6:6) and no sacrifice (10:26). The sinner can expect God’s judgment that will come to him as a “raging fire that will consume the enemies of God” (10:27).

Doctrinal Considerations in 6:4–6

The connection between verses 3 and 4 should not be overlooked. The words God permitting must be seen in relation to the phrase it is impossible. Of course, Jesus said in regard to salvation that “with God all things are possible” (Matt. 19:26; Mark 10:27; Luke 18:27). The context here, however, differs. God changes the heart of sinful man to make him receptive to the gospel. But God does not permit willful sin to go unpunished. Thus it is impossible to bring such a person to repentance.

The Old Testament, at various places, speaks about the consequences of sinning willfully against God. For example, in Numbers 15:30–31, God says, “Anyone who sins defiantly, whether native-born or alien, blasphemes the Lord, and that person must be cut off from his people. Because he has despised the Lord’s word and broken his commands, that person must surely be cut off; his guilt remains on him.”

Acquainted with the teachings of the Old Testament on this subject, the writer of Hebrews compares the man who sinned by rejecting the law of Moses with someone “who has trampled the Son of God under foot” and “has insulted the Spirit of grace” (10:29). He poses a rhetorical question: Will not the person who has offended the Son of God and the Holy Spirit receive more severe punishment than the one who rejected the law of Moses? The answer is: Of course.

God does not permit anyone to despise willfully his Son, his Word, and his Spirit. Deliberately sinning against God in full awareness and knowledge of God’s divine revelation constitutes sin against the Holy Spirit (Matt. 12:32; Mark 3:29; Luke 12:10). This sin God does not forgive.

Theological questions about the genuineness of repentance and faith of people who fall away from Christ remain unanswered. The writer refuses to judge people; instead he warns them not to fall into the same error that the Israelites in the desert committed. He encourages his readers to grow spiritually and continue to obey God’s Word.

We face a mystery when we see God leading the chosen nation of Israel out of Egypt and then destroying the people who were twenty years old and more in the desert (Num. 14:29); when we see Jesus spending a night in prayer before he appointed Judas as one of his disciples (Luke 6:12, 16) and later declaring that Judas was “doomed to destruction” (John 17:12); and when we see Paul accepting Demas as a fellow evangelist who years later deserted Paul because Demas “loved this world” (2 Tim. 4:10).

The writer of Hebrews observes that disobedient Israelites died in the desert because of unbelief. By analogy, the possibility that individuals who have professed the name of Christ will fall away is real (Matt. 7:21–23). Is it possible for true believers to turn away from Christ? Constantly the author exhorts the recipients of his epistle to remain faithful, for God is faithful. God does not break his good promises to his people. “God is not unjust” (6:10). Therefore, says the writer, “imitate those who through faith and patience inherit what has been promised” (6:12).

Greek Words, Phrases, and Constructions in 6:4–6

Verse 4

ἀδύνατον—this adjective in the neuter singular appears four times in Hebrews (6:4, 18; 10:4; 11:6). As the first word in a lengthy sentence, it receives great emphasis. Note that ἀδύνατον is far removed from its complement ἀνακαινίζειν in 6:6.

ἅπαξ—the word occurs fourteen times in the New Testament, eight of which are in Hebrews. Its placement in 6:4 is significant: between the definite article (those) and the participle (have been enlightened). The word is contrasted with πάλιν (6:6).

φωτισθέντας—it is noteworthy that the first five participles, excluding μέλλοντος (6:5) in 6:4–6 are in the aorist tense and that the last two participles (6:6) are in the present tense. φωτισθένταςis used twice in Hebrews (6:4; 10:32).

γευσαμένους—closely connected to the preceding participial phrase with the adjunct τε is the clause “who have tasted the heavenly gift.” The aorist middle participle from the verb γεύομαι (I taste) governs the noun gift in the genitive case. In 6:5 the same participle takes the accusative case of the noun word. To maintain that the use of the genitive is partitive and that of the accusative holistic in these two instances is not without difficulty. For example, the accusative case is also used in John 2:9 for “the water that had been turned into wine.” A holistic interpretation in that verse is impossible. Therefore, I suggest that the variation in Hebrews 6:4, 5 is stylistic.

γενηθέντας—the aorist passive participle is deponent and is therefore translated in the active voice.

Verse 5

ῥῆμα—the word is described as καλόν (good). Generally the translation goodness of the word is given to indicate that “the gospel and its promises [are] full of consolation.” See the Septuagint reading of Joshua 21:45; 23:15; Zechariah 1:13.

Verse 6

παραπεσόντας—this compound in the aorist active participial form occurs once in the New Testament; it appears in the Septuagint reading of Ezekiel 14:13; 15:8. It is synonymous with the verb ἀποστῆναι (to fall away) in Hebrews 3:12.

ἀνακαινίζειν—not the aorist tense but the present tense is used in this active infinitive to express the progressive idea of the verb. It is introduced by the adjective ἀδύνατον (6:4) and signifies the impossibility of renewing the fallen sinner. The verb occurs in early Christian literature “in connection with regeneration and baptism.”

ἀνασταυροῦντας—this active participle, as well as the one that follows, is in the present tense. The tense of the participles reflects the reason why repentance is impossible. Consequently the translation of the participles expresses cause. The prefix ἀνά signifies “again.”

παραδειγματίζοντας—the word is a compound from the preposition παρά (beside) and δείκνυμι (I show). It can have a favorable connotation in the sense of “to set forth as an example” and a negative connotation of “to subject to public disgrace.” Like the preceding participle, the word appears only once in the New Testament (with the exception of the variant reading in Matthew 1:19). (1)

Consider Louis Berkhof’s Systematic Theology and his observations about the believer’s perseverance:

General consideration regarding the security of the believer.

A. The Doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints in History.

“The doctrine of the perseverance of the saints is to the effect that they whom God has regenerated and effectually called to a state of grace, can neither totally nor finally fall away from that state, but shall certainly persevere therein to the end and be eternally saved. This doctrine was first explicitly taught by Augustine, though he was not as consistent on this point as might have been expected of him as a strict predestinarian. With him the doctrine did not assume the form just stated. He held that the elect could not so fall away as to be finally lost, but at the same time considered it possible that some who were endowed with new life and true faith could fall from grace completely and at last suffer eternal damnation. The Church of Rome with its Semi-Pelagianism, including the doctrine of free will, denied the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints and made their perseverance dependent on the uncertain obedience of man. The Reformers restored this doctrine to its rightful place. The Lutheran Church, however, makes it uncertain again by making it contingent on man’s continued activity of faith, and by assuming that true believers can fall completely from grace. It is only in the Calvinistic Churches that the doctrine is maintained in a form in which it affords absolute assurance. The Canons of Dort, after calling attention to the many weaknesses and failures of the children of God, declare: “But God, who is rich in mercy, according to His unchangeable purpose of election, does not wholly withdraw the Holy Spirit from His own people even in their grievous falls; nor suffers them to proceed so far as to lose the grace of adoption and forfeit the state of justification, or to commit the sin unto death or against the Holy Spirit; nor does He permit them to be totally deserted, and to plunge themselves into everlasting destruction,” (V, Art. 6). The Arminians rejected this view and made the perseverance of believers’ dependent on their will to believe and on their good works. Arminius himself avoided that extreme, but his followers did not hesitate to maintain their synergistic position with all its consequences. The Wesleyan Arminians followed suit as did several of the sects. The Reformed or Calvinistic Churches stand practically alone in giving a negative answer to the question, whether a Christian can completely fall from the state of grace and be finally lost.

B. Statement of the Doctrine of Perseverance.

The doctrine of perseverance requires careful statement, especially in view of the fact that the term “perseverance of the saints” is liable to misunderstanding. It should be noted first of all that the doctrine is not merely to the effect that the elect will certainly be saved in the end, though Augustine has given it that form, but teaches very specifically that they who have once been regenerated and effectually called by God to a state of grace, can never completely fall from that state and thus fail to attain to eternal salvation, though they may sometimes be overcome by evil and fall in sin. It is maintained that the life of regeneration and the habits that develop out of it in the way of sanctification can never entirely disappear. Moreover, we should guard against the possible misunderstanding that this perseverance is regarded as an inherent property of the believer or as a continuous activity of man, by means of which he perseveres in the way of salvation. When Strong speaks of it as “the voluntary continuance, on the part of the Christian, in faith and well-doing,” and as “the human side or aspect of that spiritual process which, as viewed from the divine side, we call sanctification,” — this is certainly liable to create the impression that perseverance depends on man. The Reformed, however, do not consider the perseverance of the saints as being, first of all, a disposition or activity of the believer, though they certainly believe that man cooperates in it just as he does in sanctification. They even stress the fact that the believer would fall away, if he were left to himself. It is, strictly speaking, not man but God who perseveres. Perseverance may be defined as that continuous operation of the Holy Spirit in the believer, by which the work of divine grace that is begun in the heart, is continued and brought to completion. It is because God never forsakes His work that believers continue to stand to the very end.

C. Proof for the Doctrine of Perseverance.

The doctrine of perseverance may be proved by certain statements of Scripture and by inference from other doctrines.

1. Direct Statements of Scripture. There are some important passages of Scripture that come into consideration here. In John 10:27-29 we read: “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me; and I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out my hand. My Father, who hath given them unto me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand.” Paul says in Romans 11:29: “For the gifts and the calling of God are not repented of.” This means that the grace of God revealed in His calling is never withdrawn, as though He repented of it. This is a general statement, though in the connection in which it is found it refers to the calling of Israel. The apostle comforts the believing Philippians with the words: “Being confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it unto the day of Jesus Christ,” (Phil. 1:6). In 2 Thessalonians 3:3 he says: “But the Lord is faithful, who shall establish you, and guard you from the evil one.” In 2 Timothy 1:12 he sounds a note of rejoicing: “For I know Him whom I have believed, and I am persuaded that He is able to guard that which I have committed unto Him against that day.” And in 4:18 of the same Epistle he glories in the fact that the Lord will deliver him from every evil work and will gave him unto His heavenly kingdom.

2. Inferential Proofs. The doctrine of perseverance may also be proved in an inferential way.

a. From the doctrine of election. Election does not merely mean that some will be favored with certain external privileges and may be saved, if they do their duty, but that they who belong to the number of the elect shall finally be saved and can never fall short of perfect salvation. It is an election unto an end, that is, unto salvation. In working it out God endows believers with such influences of the Holy Spirit as to lead them, not only to accept Christ but to persevere unto the end and to be saved unto the uttermost.

b. From the doctrine of the covenant of redemption. In the covenant of redemption God gave His people to His Son as the reward for the latter’s obedience and suffering. This reward was fixed from eternity and was not left contingent on any uncertain faithfulness of man. God does not go back on His promise, and therefore it is impossible that they who are reckoned as being in Christ, and as forming a part of His reward, can be separated from Him (Rom. 8:38-39), and that they who have entered the covenant as a communion of life should fall out.

c. From the efficacy of the merits and intercession of Christ. In His atoning work Christ paid the price to purchase the sinner’s pardon and acceptance. His righteousness constitutes the perfect ground for the justification of the sinner, and it is impossible that one who is justified by the payment of such a perfect and efficacious price should again fall under condemnation. Moreover, Christ makes constant intercession for those who are given Him of the Father, and His intercessory prayer for His people is always efficacious, (John 11:42; Heb. 7:25).

d. From the mystical union with Christ. They who are united to Christ by faith become partakers of His Spirit, and thus become one body with Him, pulsating with the life of the Spirit. They share in the life of Christ, and because He lives they live also. It is impossible that they should again be removed from the body, thus frustrating the divine ideal. The union is permanent, since it originates in a permanent and unchangeable cause, the free and eternal love of God.

e. From the work of the Holy Spirit in the heart. Dabney correctly says: “It is a low and unworthy estimate of the wisdom of the Holy Spirit and of His work in the heart, to suppose that He will begin the work now, and presently desert it; that the vital spark of heavenly birth is an ignis fatuus, burning for a short season, and then expiring in utter darkness; that the spiritual life communicated in the new birth, is a sort of spasmodic or galvanic vitality, giving the outward appearance of life in the dead soul, and then dying,” (Syst. and Polem. Theol., p. 692). According to Scripture the believer is already in this life in possession of salvation and eternal life, (John 3:36; 5:24; 6:54). Can we proceed on the assumption that eternal life will not be everlasting?

f. From the assurance of salvation. It is quite evident from Scripture that believers can in this life attain to the assurance of salvation, (Heb. 3:14; 6:11; 10:22; 2 Pet. 1:10). This would seem to be entirely out of the question, if it were possible for believers to fall from grace at any moment. It can be enjoyed only by those who stand in the firm conviction that God will perfect the work which He has begun.

D. Objections to the Doctrine of Perseverance.

1. It is Inconsistent with Human Freedom. It is said that the doctrine of perseverance is inconsistent with human freedom. But this objection proceeds on the false assumption that real freedom consists in the liberty of indifference, or the power of contrary choice in moral and spiritual matters. This is erroneous, however. True liberty consists exactly in self-determination in the direction of holiness. Man is never more free than when he moves consciously in the direction of God. And the Christian stands in that liberty through the grace of God.

2. It Leads to Indolence and Immorality. It is confidently asserted that the doctrine of perseverance leads to indolence, license, and even immorality. A false security is said to result from it. This is a mistaken notion, however, for, although the Bible tells us that we are kept by the grace of God, it does not encourage the idea that God keeps us without constant watchfulness, diligence, and prayer on our part. It is hard to see how a doctrine which assures the believer of a perseverance in holiness can be an incentive for sin. It would seem that the certainty of success in the active striving for sanctification would be the best possible stimulus to ever greater exertion.

3. It is Contrary to Scripture. The doctrine is frequently declared to be contrary to Scripture. The passages adduced to prove this contention can be reduced to three classes.

a. There are warnings against apostasy which would seem to be quite uncalled for, if the believer could not fall away, (Matt. 24:12; Col. 1:23; Heb. 2:1; 3:14; 6:11; I John 2:6). But these warnings regard the whole matter from the side of man and are seriously meant. They prompt self-examination, and are instrumental in keeping believers in the way of perseverance. They do not prove that any of those addressed will apostatize, but simply that the use of means is necessary to prevent them from committing this sin. Compare Acts 27:22-25 with verse 31 for an illustration of this principle.

b. There are also exhortations, urging believers to continue in the way of sanctification, which would appear to be unnecessary if there is no doubt about it that they will continue to the end. But these are usually found in connection with such warnings as those referred to under (a), and serve exactly the same purpose. They do not prove that any of the believers exhorted will not persevere, but only that God uses moral means for the accomplishment of moral ends.

c. Again, it is said that Scripture records several cases of actual apostasy, (1 Tim. 1:19-20; 2 Tim. 2:17-18; 4:10; 2 Peter 2:1,2; cf. also Heb. 6:4-6). But these instances do not prove the contention that real believers, in possession of true saving faith, can fall from grace, unless it be shown first that the persons indicated in these passages had true faith in Christ, and not a mere temporal faith, which is not rooted in regeneration. The Bible teaches us that there are persons who profess the true faith, and yet are not of the faith, (Rom. 9-6; 1 John 2:19; Rev. 3:1). John says of some of them, “They went out from us,” and adds by way of explanation, “but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us,” (1 John 2:19).

E. The Denial of this Doctrine Makes Salvation Dependent on Man’s Will.

The denial of the doctrine of perseverance virtually makes the salvation of man dependent on the human will rather than on the grace of God. This consideration will, of course, have no effect on those who share the Pelagian conception of salvation as autosoteric—and their numbers are great—but certainly ought to cause those to pause who glory in being saved by grace. The idea is that, after man is brought to a state of grace by the operation of the Holy Spirit alone, or by the joint operation of the Holy Spirit and the will of man, it rests solely with man to continue in faith or to forsake the faith, just as he sees fit. This renders the cause of man very precarious and makes it impossible for him to attain to the blessed assurance of faith. Consequently, it is of the utmost importance to maintain the doctrine of perseverance. In the words of Hovey, “It may be a source of great comfort and power, —an incentive to gratitude, a motive to self-sacrifice, and a pillar of fire in the hour of danger.”

Questions for Further Study: What is the real question concerning perseverance: is it whether the elect, or whether the regenerate persevere? Do Augustine and the Lutherans also teach that the elect may finally be lost? How does the analogy of the natural life favor the doctrine of perseverance? Do not such passages as Hebrews 6:4.6; 10:29; 2 Peter 2:1 prove the possibility of falling away? How about John 15:1-6? Is the grace of perseverance something innate, necessarily given with the new nature, or is it the fruit of a special, gracious, and preserving activity of God? Does the doctrine imply that one may be living in habitual and intentional sin, and yet be in a justified state? Does it preclude the idea of lapses into sin?” (2)

From the Westminster Confession of Faith on Perseverance:

Section 1.) They, whom God hath accepted in His Beloved, effectually called and sanctified by His Spirit, can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace; but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved. (1)

(1) Php 1:6; 2Pe 1:10; Jn 10:28,29; 1Jn 3:9; 1Pe 1:5,9.

————————————

Section 2.) This perseverance of the saints depends not upon their own free will, but upon the immutability of the decree of election, flowing from the free and unchangeable love of God the Father;(1) upon the efficacy of the merit and intercession of Jesus Christ;(2) the abiding of the Spirit, and of the seed of God within them;(3) and the nature of the covenant of grace:(4) from all which ariseth also the certainty and infallibility thereof.(5)

(1) 2Ti 2:18,19; Jer 31:3. (2) Heb 10:10,14; Heb 13:20,21; Heb 9:12-15; Ro 8:33-39; Jn 17:11,24; Lk 22:32; Heb 7:25. (3) Jn 14:16,17; 1Jn 2:27; 1Jn 3:9. (4) Jer 32:40. (5) Jn 10:28; 2Th 3:3; 1Jn 2:19.

————————————

Section 3.) Nevertheless, they may, through the temptations of Satan and of the world, the prevalency of corruption remaining in them, and the neglect of the means of their preservation, fall into grievous sins;(1) and, for a time, continue therein:(2) whereby they incur God’s displeasure,(3) and grieve His Holy Spirit,(4) come to be deprived of some measure of their graces and comforts;(5) have their hearts hardened,(6) and their consciences wounded;(7) hurt and scandalize others,(8) and bring temporal judgments upon themselves.(9)

(1) Mt 26:70,72,74. (2) Ps 51:(title), 14. (3) Isa 64:5,7,9; 2Sa 11:27. (4) Eph 4:30. (5) Ps 51:8,10.12; Rev 2:4; SS 5:2,3,4,6. (6) Isa 63:17; Mk 6:52; Mk 16:14. (7) Ps 32:3,4; Ps 51:8. (8) 2Sa 12:14. (9) Ps 89:31,32; 1Co 11:32.

In closing:

God is able to keep us from falling and more than able to present believers before the presence of His glory. Our eternal salvation rests upon God’s power, not ours! If anyone still maintains that God will respect our so-called free will and allow us to depart from Christ. Hopefully, the following thoughts in the next paragraph will be of value.

When a person chooses Christ, one must ask, why did the person do this? Was it his decision, his own, apart from God’s action? Alternatively, does man act or choose Christ because God changed his heart with the power of the Holy Spirit? The Scripture declares that unbelievers are dead (not just sick) and have hearts of stone.

Christ, through the work of the Holy Spirit, changes our heart of stone to a heart of flesh. As said, unbelievers are dead spiritually, and Christ quickens or makes us alive. We have risen from the dead when Christ regenerates us. Regeneration happens before we can exercise faith.

Therefore, Christ gets the credit for our decision to believe in Him. Unbelievers do not choose Christ because they, in their fallen state, hate him and are spiritually dead. Furthermore, it should be noted that fallen man’s nature is corrupt and fallen man freely chooses to reject Christ in harmony with his fallen nature. So, when fallen man is regenerated and exercises faith in the Lord Jesus Christ’s atoning work at Calvary, what credit does God get for this decision? “All” is the only possible correct answer.

Remember, we were the servants or slaves of sin. We yielded ourselves to sin because this was the inclination of our fallen nature. We are now the servants of righteousness and no longer the slaves of sin. Our sinful natures have been changed. As the apostle Peter tells us that “ye might be partakers of the divine nature…” (2 Peter 1:4). The believer now has a new nature. We still make choices or decisions. However, since we have a new nature, our desires have been changed through the inward work of the Holy Spirit. Believers are now slaves of righteousness (not perfectly) by His grace.

In conclusion, both the non-believer and the believer make choices, but they are determined by either a corrupt nature or a changed, redeemed nature. The will can be said to be free if it is understood that this freedom is always in accord with the desires of man’s nature. It can be said that the will is bound yet free. The believer is now a new creation in Christ. We follow Christ because we love Him and want to please Him. The Holy Spirit lives in the believer and guides us and convicts us to do what is right according to the Scriptures.

One of the characteristics of a fallen man is to hide his sin, like Adam in the garden in Genesis 3:7. The Pharisees were prime examples of very outwardly religious men. What did Christ say about them? However, when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them:

“O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?” (Matthew 3:7)

People can act religiously outwardly for nefarious motives and be dead in their sins.

“Not everyone that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father, which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? And in thy name have cast out devils? And in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity” (Matthew 7:21, 22-23).

Here we have individuals mentioned who did things in Christ’s name, and yet Jesus says, “I never knew you.” Outward religious works may be done in order to hide one’s rebellion against God in an attempt to remain respectable in the community. If one has a Protestant view of Justification and the Imputation of Christ’s righteousness, the semi-Pelagian or Arminian view cannot be maintained.

In fact, the semi-Pelagian or Arminian view of Hebrews 6:4-6 does violence to the text; it embraces false doctrine in regards to Justification and Imputation.

The Westminster Confession on Justification WC Chapter 11:3:

“iii. Christ, by his obedience and death, did fully discharge the debt of all those that are thus justified, and did make a proper, real, and full satisfaction to his Father’s justice in their behalf. Yet, inasmuch as he was given by the Father for them; and his obedience and satisfaction accepted in their stead; and both, freely, not for anything in them; their justification is only of free grace; that both the exact justice and rich grace might be glorified in the justification of sinners.”

“Imputed righteousness is the Protestant Christian doctrine that a sinner is declared righteous by God purely by God’s grace through faith in Christ, and thus all depends on Christ’s merit and worthiness, rather than on one’s own merit and worthiness.” – Wikipedia

Therefore, the interpretation of Hebrews 6:4-6 in this study by postulating the case of false believers does not do violence to the text, and the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints stands unrefuted.

· See https://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/03d/1819-1893,_Schaff._Philip,_2_Vol_05_Anti-Pelagian_Writings,_EN.pdf

“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. Simon J. Kistemaker, New Testament Commentary, Hebrews, (Grand Rapids, MI, Baker), pp. 157-164.

2. Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, (Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans), pp. 545-547.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

December 11, 2022 · 12:40 am

An exercise in Biblical analysis and logical deduction:

What say you to Owen?

Private revelations, are they valid?

The Puritan John Owen said:

“If private revelations agree with Scripture, they are needless, and if they disagree, they are false.”

Cited in J. I. Packer, A Quest for Godliness in the chapter on Puritans and the Bible, (Wheaton, Illinois, Crossway Publishing), p. 86.

In more detail Owen explains:

“Since the finishing of the canon of the Scripture, the church is not under that conduct as to stand in need of such new extraordinary revelations. It doth, indeed, live upon the internal gracious operations of the Spirit, enabling us to understand, believe, and obey the perfect, complete revelation of the will of God already made; but new revelations it hath neither need nor use of;—and to suppose them, or a necessity of them, not only overthrows the perfection of the Scripture, but also leaveth us uncertain whether we know all that is to be believed in order unto salvation, or our whole duty, or when we may do so; for it would be our duty to live all our days in expectation of new revelations, wherewith neither peace, assurance, nor consolation is consistent.”

John Owen, The Works of John Owen, ed. William H. Goold, Vol. 4, (Edinburgh, T&T Clark), p. 62.

The extent of the atonement and its implications. An exercise in Biblical analysis and logical deduction:

The Westminster Confession on Justification without which, it is impossible to have a correct understanding of Christ’s atonement. Justification and atonement are inseparable. WC Chapter 11:3:

Who was John Owen?

“John Owen was an English Nonconformist church leader, theologian, and academic administrator at the University of Oxford. He was briefly a member of parliament for the University’s constituency, sitting in the First Protectorate Parliament of 1654 to 1655. Wikipedia”

Can you or how would you answer a question from the Puritan John Owen?

The Father imposed His wrath due unto, and the Son underwent punishment for, either:

All the sins of all men.
All the sins of some men, or
Some of the sins of all men.

In which case it may be said:

That if the last be true, all men have some sins to answer for, and so, none are saved.
That if the second be true, then Christ, in their stead suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the whole world, and this is the truth.
But if the first be the case, why are not all men free from the punishment due unto their sins?

You answer, “Because of unbelief.”

I ask, is this unbelief a sin, or is it not?
If it be, then Christ suffered the punishment due unto it, or He did not.
If He did, why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which He died?
If He did not, He did not die for all their sins! (1)

John Owen, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, (Edinburgh, Banner of Truth), pp. 173, 174.

“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)

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

December 10, 2022 · 8:08 pm

Who is the Shulamite mentioned in the Song of Solomon 6:13?

Who is the Shulamite mentioned in the Song of Solomon 6:13? By Jack Kettler

“Return, return, O Shulamite; return, return, that we may look upon thee. What will ye see in the Shulamite? As it were the company of two armies.” (Song of Solomon 6:13)

In addition, what does “As it were the company of two armies” Mean?

To start, how is the reader to approach the Song of Solomon? There are four approaches to the book. Two of the most popular will be briefly considered.

The Jews used the metaphorical method as a symbolic picture of the affection of God for Israel. The metaphorical approach is used by Christians but picturing Christ and the Church.

Another approach is literal and says the “Song” is a romantic poem to exalt human love and marriage.

With this introduction, consulting some commentary sources will be prudent.

From the Benson Commentary on the first part of the passage:

“Song of Solomon 6:13. Return — Christ recalls his spouse, who, as when Christ was gone, she pursued after him, so now, when Christ was coming to her, she was ready to wander from him. Return — This word is repeated four times, to signify both Christ’s passionate love to her, and her backwardness. O Shulamite — This title signifies the wife of Solomon, thus called after her husband’s name; see Isaiah 4:1; and as Christ is called by the name of Solomon, (Song of Solomon 3:7,) so the church is fitly described by the title of Solomon’s wife. That we may look upon thee — That I and my companions may contemplate thy beauty. What will you see — But what do you, my friends, expect to discover in her? Christ proposes the question, that they might take special notice of this as a very remarkable thing in her.” (1)

In the Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges, on the second part of the passage regarding the “two armies,” Andrew Harper, the commentator, says:

“13.As it were the company of two armies] The R.V. gives as upon the dance of Mahanaim? and probably this is the right translation. As she endeavours to escape, the Shulammite asks, would they stare at her as at a public spectacle. Some have thought that there is a reference here to the angel hosts from which Jacob is said to have named the place (Genesis 32:2). But there is no hint that there was anything resembling a dance in their movements. The probability, therefore, is that after Jacob’s vision Mahanaim became a holy place, if it was not one before, and that God was there praised in the dance (cp. Jdg 21:21), and that these dances had become famous either for their gracefulness or for their splendour. That Mahanaim was a place of importance, whether for political or for religious reasons or for both, is clear from the fact that Ishbosheth, Saul’s son, set up his kingdom there, and that David fled thither when he was driven away from Jerusalem by Absalom. It was also a Levitical city. It lay to the N. of the Jabbok not far from the valley of the Jordan, on the heights above that valley. Its exact site is unknown, as it can hardly have been

el- Michne as Robinson supposes, for that is too far both from the Jabbok and from the Jordan. That places were famed for dances is shewn by the name Abel-Mecholah = ‘Dance meadow.’ The R.V. has in the margin, “a dance of two companies.” This might be supposed to be a dance specially worth seeing. Such a dance is described by Wetzstein, who says that in the Gof, or as Palgrave writes it, the Djowf, a region of N. Arabia, there is a variety of the dance called Sahqa, which is danced by two companies of men standing opposite each other, as in our country dances. But these Bedouin and Arab customs have no known connexion with the people west of the Jordan. Budde would change the dual into the plural and would read machanim and translate “as upon a camp dance,” i.e. ‘a sword dance,’ which forms part of the marriage customs Wetzstein describes. But a camp dance would be a very odd name for the sword dance, and though it is true that the place-name Mahanaim does not occur with the article, the article here may quite well define the dance, not Mahanaim.” (2)

In closing:

To answer the starting question, the Shulamite can be understood to be the wife of Solomon, and spiritually is a type of Christ’s Church. So, therefore, Solomon would be a type of Christ.

Answering the second question, Andrew Harper, the commentator, says:

“As it were the company of two armies,” “the R.V. gives as upon the dance of Mahanaim? And probably this is the right translation.”

Many additional commentators agree with this.

Speaking metamorphically, the Shulamite girl is taken as a form or type of the Church, and the phrases stated by her lover (Solomon) are understood to be Christ speaking to His bride.

“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. Benson, Joseph, “Commentary on Song of Solomon,” Benson’s Commentary, https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/rbc/song-of-solomon-1.html. 1857.

2. The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges: Song of Solomon, by Andrew Harper, Publisher: Cambridge University Press, 1902.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

The Religion That Started in a Hat

Who is the “he” in Daniel 9:27?

The Impossibility of the Contrary: Without God You Can’t Prove Anything

What does the stone in Daniel 2:35 signify?

Why is the valley of Achor said to be a door of hope in Hosea 2:15?

Unicorns and KJV-Onlyism an introductory fact sheet

In Lamentations 2:15, what is a lament, and what is signified by wagging the head?

Why the difficulty in identifying the preacher in Ecclesiastes 1:1?

What does the phrase “who were once enlightened” in Hebrew 6:4 mean?

An exercise in Biblical analysis and logical deduction:

Who is the Shulamite mentioned in the Song of Solomon 6:13?

Search

Recent Entries

Links

Blogroll