In this study, the meaning of and encouragement found in Romans 8:28 will be considered.
“And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.” (Romans 8:28)
Breaking down the phrase “we know” from Strong’s Lexicon:
“we know
Οἴδαμεν (Oidamen)
Verb – Perfect Indicative Active – 1st Person Plural
Strong’s Greek 1492: To know, remember, appreciate.”
Strong’s Concordance:
“eidó: be aware, behold, consider, perceive
Original Word: οἶδα
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: eidó
Phonetic Spelling: (i’-do)
Definition: be aware, behold, consider, perceive
Usage: I know, remember, appreciate.”
Note: “We know” is in the perfect active tense means that it is already completed, thus, inspiring confidence. Consider a few other passages from Romans and how the Apostle Paul uses the Greek word Οἴδαμεν:
“Romans 7:14
GRK: οἴδαμεν γὰρ ὅτι
KJV: For we know that the law”
“Romans 7:18
GRK: οἶδα γὰρ ὅτι
KJV: For I know that in”
“Romans 8:22
GRK: οἴδαμεν γὰρ ὅτι
KJV: For we know that the whole” (underlining emphasis mine)
Now consider God’s action in the Romans 8:28 passage, “are called:”
Strong’s Lexicon:
“are
οὖσιν (ousin)
Verb – Present Participle Active – Dative Masculine Plural
Strong’s Greek 1510: I am, exist. The first person singular present indicative; a prolonged form of a primary and defective verb; I exist.”
“called
κλητοῖς (klētois)
Adjective – Dative Masculine Plural
Strong’s Greek 2822: From the same as klesis; invited, i.e. Appointed, or, a saint.”
Together, both οὖσιν (present indicative)and κλητοῖς (appointed, or a saint) indicate present realities.
Is there a condition found in the text? Consider, “called according to his purpose.” It is apparent that the condition is found in God’s purpose and not anything depending on a man’s action. Thus, the condition is found in God’s purpose, which further strengthens the certainty of this promise.
The Strong’s Concordance confirms this:
“prothesis: a setting forth, i.e. fig. proposal, spec. the showbread, sacred (bread)
Original Word: πρόθεσις, εως, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: prothesis
Phonetic Spelling: (proth’-es-is)
Definition: a setting forth, proposal, the showbread, sacred (bread)
Usage: a setting forth, the show-bread; predetermination, purpose.”
The certainty is seen in other passages from Paul using similar grammatical structure:
“Romans 9:11
GRK: κατ’ ἐκλογὴν πρόθεσις τοῦ θεοῦ
NAS: that God’s purpose according
KJV: that the purpose of God
INT: according to election purpose of God”
“Ephesians 1:11
GRK: προορισθέντες κατὰ πρόθεσιν τοῦ τὰ
NAS: according to His purpose who works
KJV: according to the purpose of him who worketh
INT: having been predestined according to [the] purpose of him who the”
“Ephesians 3:11
GRK: κατὰ πρόθεσιν τῶν αἰώνων
NAS: with the eternal purpose which
KJV: the eternal purpose which
INT: according to [the] purpose of the ages”
Parallel Translations:
New International Version
“And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.”
New Living Translation
“And we know that God causes everything to work together for the good of those who love God and are called according to his purpose for them.”
English Standard Version
“And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose.”
New American Standard Bible
“And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.”
Holman Christian Standard Bible
“We know that all things work together for the good of those who love God: those who are called according to His purpose.”
American Standard Version
“And we know that to them that love God all things work together for good, even to them that are called according to his purpose.”
English Revised Version
“And we know that to them that love God all things work together for good, even to them that are called according to his purpose.”
“Young’s Literal Translation
And we have known that to those loving God all things do work together for good, to those who are called according to purpose.”
Helpful Cross References:
Acts 13:48
“And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.”
Romans 8:30
“Moreover, whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.”
Romans 11:29
“For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.”
1 Corinthians 1:9
“God is faithful, by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord.”
1 Corinthians 1:24
“But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.”
Galatians 1:15
“But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me by his grace,”
Interestingly, in the above passages, the verb tenses are present or past tense, meaning the grounds for hope is a present reality.
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges:
“28. And we knew, &c.] Here appears a fresh assurance of safety. We have seen (1) the certainty of the son-ship of the believer; (2) the fact that his sorrows are only the prelude of glory; (3) the Divine assistance afforded him by the Holy Spirit, especially in prayer. Now, before the final appeal, we have an express statement of the truth that the children of God are the objects on His part of an Eternal Purpose, which must issue in their final blessedness, and must thus turn “all things” at last to good for them. This is stated as a confessed certainty, well known in the Church.
all things] In the amplest sense. See Romans 8:38-39 for illustration. No doubt St Paul has especially in view the sufferings of the saints, which would often tempt them to say “these things are against me.” But peace and rest, on earth, are perils also; and even such trials therefore need a similar assurance. —St Chrysostom’s dying words were, “Glory be to God for all things.”
work together] As means in the great Worker’s hand. It is instructive to note this expression in a passage where also the Divine Decrees are in view. The eternal Will takes place not arbitrarily, but through means; and those means are immensely various, and mutually adjusted by supreme Wisdom only.
for good] Chiefly, no doubt, the final Good is meant, the fruition of God in eternal Glory. But all true good by the way is included, as part of the path thither.
that love God] As His children; in whose hearts His love has been “outpoured by the Holy Ghost” (Ch. Romans 5:5). Observe that this note of saintship stands first in this memorable passage; not eternal election, but that conscious love to God in Christ which is its sure fruit, and without which no speculation of mysteries brings the soul near to Him. —It is the True God alone who makes this His unalterable demand; “Thou shalt love me.”
to them who are the called] Identical with “them that love Him.” See on Romans 1:6, for the profound meaning of “the call.” 1 Corinthians 1:24; 1 Corinthians 1:26-27 is a clear illustration, in contrast with Matthew 20:16; Matthew 22:14. In the Gospels the word “call” refers to outward hearing; in the Epistles to inward reception, due to a special and sovereign influence from above. —See too Revelation 17:14.
according to his purpose] Same word as Romans 9:11; Ephesians 1:11; Ephesians 3:11; 2 Timothy 1:9. See especially the last passage and Ephesians 1:11, for the sense in which St Paul uses the word here. It is the intention of “Him who worketh all things after the counsel of His will;” and it is absolute and sovereign, in the sense not of arbitrary caprice, (God forbid,) but in that of its being uncaused by anything external to Himself. The gift of life is “not according to our works, but according to His own purpose.” His “good pleasure” was, “before the world began,” “purposed in Himself.” (2 Timothy 1:9; Ephesians 1:9; Ephesians 1:11.) In the next verses, St Paul explains his meaning further. — (The word “His” is not in the Gr., but is certainly right in translation.)” (1)
In closing:
Romans 8:28 inspired this writer while working 60 hours each week to build a six-figure income in a yearly 400 hundred million dollars per year sales company. When this writer won a top twenty business builders of the year award, Romans 8:28 was announced as this writer’s favorite inspirational passage. However, and more importantly, spiritually, this passage is not necessarily about material success but rather a confidence in God’s promises for the task of those active in missions, in personal spiritual assurance, and in general sustaining one’s life.
To further buttress this closing’s spiritual observation:
Matthew Poole’s Commentary:
“Another argument to comfort us under the cross, from the benefits of it;
We know that all things, &c. It is not matter of guess only and conjecture, but of certainty and assurance. How is this known?
1. By the testimony of God; the Scripture tells us as much, Psalm 128:1,2 Isa 3:10.
2. By our own experience; we are assured of it by the event and effects of all things, both upon ourselves and others.
All things, even sin itself; because from their falls, God’s children arise humbler and more careful. Afflictions are chiefly intended; the worst and crossest providences, those things that are evil in themselves, they work for good to the children of God.
Work together; here is their operation, and their co-operation: First, they work together with God. What the apostle says of himself and others in the ministry, 2 Corinthians 6:1, that may be said of other things, especially of afflictions; they are workers together with God. Some read the words thus, God co-operates all too good. Again, they work together with us; we ourselves must concur, and be active herein; we must labour and endeavour to get good out of every providence. Once more, they work together amongst themselves, or one with another. Take this or that providence singly, or by itself, and you shall not see the good it doth; but take it in its conjunction and connexion with others, and then you may perceive it. One exemplifies it thus: As in matter of physic, if you take such and such simples alone, they may poison rather than cure; but then take them in their composition, as they are made up by the direction of a skillful physician, and so they prove an excellent medicine.
For good; sometimes for temporal good, Genesis 1:20; always for spiritual and eternal good, which is best of all. All occurrences of providence shall serve to bring them nearer to God here, and to heaven hereafter.
According to his purpose: these words are added to show the ground and reason of God’s calling us; which is nothing else but his own purpose and good pleasure; it is not according to our worthiness, but his purpose: see 2 Timothy 1:9.” (2)
“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, H. C. G. Moule, Romans, (Cambridge University Press, 1898), e-Sword version.
2. Matthew Poole’s Commentary on the Holy Bible, Romans, Vol. 3, (Peabody, Massachusetts, Hendrickson Publishers, 1985) p. 506.
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 www. JackKettler .com
What does Isaiah mean by these things in Isaiah 38:16?
What does Isaiah mean by these things in Isaiah 38:16? by Jack Kettler
In this study, the meaning of “these things men shall live” will be considered.
“O Lord, by these thingsmen live, and in all these things is the life of my spirit: so, wilt thou recover me, and make me to live.” (Isaiah 38:16)
The reader will notice that the words things and men are italicized, meaning that the two are not in the Hebrew text.
Consulting the Strong’s Lexicon:
“by [such things]
עֲלֵיהֶ֣ם(‘ă·lê·hem)
Preposition | third person masculine plural
Strong’s Hebrew 5921: prep 1) upon, on the ground of, according to, on account of, on behalf of, concerning, beside, in addition to, together with, beyond, above, over, by, on to, towards, to, against 1a) upon, on the ground of, on the basis of, on account of, because of, therefore, on behalf of, for the sake of, for, with, in spite of, notwithstanding, concerning, in the matter of, as regards 1b) above, beyond, over (of excess) 1c) above, over (of elevation or pre-eminence) 1d) upon, to, over to, unto, in addition to, together with, with (of addition) 1e) over (of suspension or extension) 1f) by, adjoining, next, at, over, around (of contiguity or proximity) 1g) down upon, upon, on, from, up upon, up to, towards, over towards, to, against (with verbs of motion) 1h) to (as a dative) conj 2) because that, because, notwithstanding, although”
The Strong’s Concordance:
“[men]
chayah: live
Original Word: חָיָה
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: chayah
Phonetic Spelling: (khaw-yaw’)
Definition: to live”
While not in the original, things and men are certainly implied in the Hebrew text.
Since these two words are implied, consider how the English Standard Version (ESV) renders the text in Isaiah 38:16:
“O Lord, by these things men live, and in all these is the life of my spirit. Oh, restore me to health and make me live!” (ESV)
How does one understand the context of Isaiah 38:16?
The context is addressed in Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary:
“38:9-22 We have here Hezekiah’s thanksgiving. It is well for us to remember the mercies we receive in sickness. Hezekiah records the condition he was in. He dwells upon this; I shall no more see the Lord. A good man wishes not to live for any other end than that he may serve God, and have communion with him. Our present residence is like that of a shepherd in his hut, a poor, mean, and cold lodging, and with a trust committed to our charge, as the shepherd has. Our days are compared to the weaver’s shuttle, Job 7:6, passing and repassing very swiftly, every throw leaving a thread behind it; and when finished, the piece is cut off, taken out of the loom, and showed to our Master to be judged of. A good man, when his life is cut off, his cares and fatigues are cut off with it, and he rests from his labours. But our times are in God’s hand; he has appointed what shall be the length of the piece. When sick, we are very apt to calculate our time, but are still at uncertainty. It should be more our care how we shall get safe to another world. And the more we taste of the loving-kindness of God, the more will our hearts love him, and live to him. It was in love to our poor perishing souls that Christ delivered them. The pardon does not make the sin not to have been sin, but not to be punished as it deserves. It is pleasant to think of our recoveries from sickness, when we see them flowing from the pardon of sin. Hezekiah’s opportunity to glorify God in this world, he made the business, and pleasure, and end of life. Being recovered, he resolves to abound in praising and serving God. God’s promises are not to do away, but to quicken and encourage the use of means. Life and health are given that we may glorify God and do good.” (1)
From Matthew Henry, one learns about King Hezekiah’s sickness and recovery and his praise to God.
The following commentary entry provides a short synopsis of the passage from Isaiah.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary on Isaiah 38:16:
“16. by these—namely, by God’s benefits, which are implied in the context (Isa 38:15, “He hath Himself done it” “unto me”). All “men live by these” benefits (Ps 104:27-30), “and in all these is the life of my spirit,” that is, I also live by them (De 8:3).
and (wilt) make me to live—The Hebrew is imperative, “make me to live.” In this view, he adds a prayer to the confident hope founded on his comparative convalescence, which he expressed, “Thou wilt recover me” [Maurer].” (2)
In closing:
Answering the starting question, Isaiah, when saying by these things, was referring to God’s gracious benefits. So, like Hezekiah, the believer prays that God is praised for His daily benefits that are the result of divine providential care.
“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, Psalms, (Nashville, Tennessee, Thomas Nelson), p. 1164.
2. Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, Commentary on the Whole Bible, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Zondervan, 1977) p. 556.
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 www. JackKettler .com
In this study, the Greek word Parousia will be considered as to its meaning, along with some related terms and words. A commentary on the New Testament will be consulted to ascertain its meaning, along with a detailed overview from the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia.
The Parousia of the Son of Man is described in the following selection from Mark:
“24 But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, 25 And the stars of heaven shall fall, and the powers that are in heaven shall be shaken. 26 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory. 27 And then shall he send his angels, and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven.” (Mark 13:24-27)
Old Testament origins of the idea of Parousia:
“I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.” (Daniel 7:13)
Strong’s Lexicon:
coming
אָתֵ֣ה (’ā·ṯêh)
Verb – Qal – Participle – masculine singular
Strong’s Hebrew 858: 1) to come, arrive 1a) (P’al) to come 1b) (Aphel) to bring 1c) (Hophal) to be brought 2) used in the NT in the phrase ‘maranatha’ -‘Lord come’
The Septuagint:
The word does not appear in the main part of the Septuagint that Protestants accept. It is twice used in the Septuagint in (2 Maccabees 8:12 and 15:21) has the ordinary meaning of arrival.
While not appearing in the Old Testament Canon, the idea of the parousia exists in the Old Testament, as one sees from Daniel.
The Son of Man Is Given Dominion:
“I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed.” (Daniel 7:13-14)
Three examples of New Testament usage of Parousia:
Paul:
“For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.” (1 Thessalonians 4:15)
Strong’s Lexicon:
“coming
παρουσίαν (parousian)
Noun – Accusative Feminine Singular
Strong’s Greek 3952: From the present participle of pareimi; a being near, i.e. Advent; physically, aspect”
Vincent’s Word Studies:
“By the word of the Lord (ἐν λόγῳ κυρίου)
Or in the word. Λόγος of a concrete saying, Romans 9:9; Romans 13:9. We do not say this on our own authority. Comp. 1 Corinthians 7:10, 1 Corinthians 7:12, 1 Corinthians 7:25. No recorded saying of the Lord answers to this reference. It may refer to a saying transmitted orally, or to a direct revelation to Paul. Comp. Galatians 1:12; Galatians 2:2; Ephesians 3:3; 2 Corinthians 12:1, 2 Corinthians 12:9.
Remain (περιλειπόμενοι)
Po. and only in this Epistle. The plural we indicate that Paul himself expected to be alive at the parousia.
Shall not prevent (οὐ μὴ φθάσωμεν)
The A.V. misses the force of the double negative – shall in no wise prevent. Prevent in the older sense of anticipate, be beforehand with. See on Matthew 17:25, and see on 1 Thessalonians 2:16. The living shall not share the blessings of the advent sooner than the dead in Christ.” (1)
Vincent wisely notes that Paul expected to be present at the parousia. Understanding the text this way is natural and lends support for a preterist interpretation of the text. (Underlining and bolding emphasis mine)
James:
“Be ye also patient; stablish your hearts: for the coming (παρουσία) of the Lord draweth nigh.” (James 5:8)
Strong’s Concordance:
“parousia: a presence, a coming
Original Word: παρουσία, ας, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: parousia
Phonetic Spelling: (par-oo-see’-ah)
Definition: a presence, a coming
Usage: (a) presence, (b) a coming, an arrival, advent, especially of the second coming of Christ.”
Peter:
“And saying, where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.” (2 Peter 3:4)
Strong’s Lexicon:
“coming?
παρουσίας (parousias)
Noun – Genitive Feminine Singular
Strong’s Greek 3952: From the present participle of pareimi; a being near, i.e. Advent; physically, aspect.”
In Paul’s use of parousia the emphasis is on “being near.” In James parousia is used with an emphasis on an “advent” or second coming.
A comprehensive look at parousia is found in Thayer’s Greek Lexicon:
“STRONGS NT 3952: παρουσία
παρουσία, παρουσίας, ἡ (παρών, παροῦσα, παρουσον, from πάρειμι which see) in Greek authors from the Tragg., Thucydides, Plato down; not found in the Sept.;
1. presence: 1 Corinthians 16:17; 2 Corinthians 10:10; opposed to ἀπουσίᾳ, Philippians 2:12 (2 Macc. 15:21; (Aristotle, phys. 2, 3, p. 195a, 14; metaphys. 4, 2, p. 1013b, 14; meteor. 4, 5, p. 382a, 33 etc.)).
2. the presence of one coming, hence, the coming, arrival, advent, ((Polybius 3, 41, 1. 8); Judith 10:18; 2 Macc. 8:12; (Hermas, sim. 5, 5, 3 [ET])): 2 Corinthians 7:6; 2 Thessalonians 2:9 (cf. ἀποκαλυφθήσεται; ἡ … πάλιν πρός τινα, of a return, Philippians 1:26. In the N. T. especially of the advent, i. e. the future, visible, return from heaven of Jesus, the Messiah, to raise the dead, hold the last judgment, and set up formally and gloriously the kingdom of God: Matthew 24:3; ἡ παρουσία τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου (27), 37, 39; τοῦ κυρίου, 1 Thessalonians 3:13; 1 Thessalonians 4:15; 1 Thessalonians 5:23; 2 Thessalonians 2:1; James 5:7; 2 Peter 3:4; Χριστοῦ, 2 Peter 1:16; αὐτοῦ, 1 Corinthians 15:23; (1 Thessalonians 2:19); 2 Thessalonians 2:8; 2 Peter 3:4; (1 John 2:28); τῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμέρας, 2 Peter 3:12. It is called in ecclesiastical writings ἡ δευτέρᾳ παρουσία, Ev. Nicod. c. 22 at the end; Justin Martyr, Apology 1, 52 (where see Otto’s note); dialog contra Trypho, chapters 40, 110, 121; and is opposed to ἡ πρώτη παρουσία which took place in the incarnation, birth, and earthly career of Christ, Justin Martyr, dialog contra Trypho, chapters 52, 121, cf. 14, 32, 49, etc.; (cf. Ignatius ad Phil. 9 [ET] (and Lightfoot)); see ἔλευσις.” (2)
The present study on “parousia” is not on the subject of preterist interpretation. The present writer has addressed this issue in previous studies. The reader should note in the following entry the academic struggle with Christ’s assertion that He would come in the generation of Paul, as seen from the Vincent quote. Various theories have been advanced to maintain the Bible integrity of Christ’s claim to be coming soon, and skeptics that say it never happened. There will be a recommended reading list that will be of assistance in answering various questions that have arisen over Christ’s claim of His soon coming.
A thoroughgoing analysis of parousia from the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia:
PAROUSIA
pa-roo’-zhi-a:
I. THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINE
1. Terms
2. Data and Sources
3. Consistency
4. Meaning of the Symbolism
II. THE TEACHING OF JESUS
1. Critical Problems
2. Summary
3. Fall of Jerusalem
4. Time
III. JOHN’S EVALUATION
1. Solution of Problem
2. The Church a Divine Quantity
LITERATURE
I. The Apostolic Doctrine.
1. Terms:
The Second Coming of Christ (a phrase not found in the Bible) is expressed by the apostles in the following special terms:
“(1) “Parousia” (parousia), a word fairly common in Greek, with the meaning “presence” (2 Corinthians 10:10; Philippians 2:12). More especially it may mean “presence after absence,” “arrival” (but not “return,” unless this is given by the context), as in 1 Corinthians 16:17; 2 Corinthians 7:6,7; Philippians 1:26. And still more particularly it is applied to the Coming of Christ in 1 Corinthians 15:23; 1 Thessalonians 2:19; 3:13; 4:15; 5:23; 2 Thessalonians 2:1,8; James 5:7,8; 2 Peter 1:16; 3:4,12; 1 John 2:28–in all 13 times, besides 2 Thessalonians 2:9, where it denotes the coming of Anti-christ. This word for Christ’s Second Coming passed into the early Patristic literature (Diognetus, vii.6, e.g.), but its use in this sense is not invariable. For instance, the word in Ignatius, Philadelphians, ix.2, means the Incarnation. Or the Incarnation is called the first Parousia, as in Justin, Trypho, xiv. But in modern theology it means invariably the Second Coming. Recent archaeological discoveries have explained why the word received such general Christian use in the special sense. In Hellenistic Greek it was used for the arrival of a ruler at a place, as is evidenced by inscriptions in Egypt, Asia Minor, etc. Indeed, in an Epidaurus inscription of the 3rd century BC (Dittenberger, Sylloge”
“(2), Number 803, 34), “Parousia” is applied to a manifestation of Aesculapius. Consequently, the adoption by the Greek-speaking Christians of a word that already contained full regal and even Divine concepts was perfectly natural. (The evidence is well summarized in Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East3, 372-78, German edition, 281-87.) (2) “Epiphany” epiphaneia), “manifestation,” used of the Incarnation in 2 Timothy 1:10, but of the Second Coming in 2 Thessalonians 2:8; 1 Timothy 6:14; 2 Timothy 4:1,8; Titus 2:13. The word was used like Parousia in Hellenistic Greek to denote the ceremonial arrival of rulers; compare Deissmann, as above.”
“(3) “Apocalypse” apokalupsis), “revelation,” denotes the Second Coming in 1 Corinthians 1:7; 2 Thessalonians 1:7; 1 Peter 1:7,13; 4:13.”
“(4) “Day of the Lord, more or less modified, but referring to Christ in 1 Corinthians 1:8; 5:5; 2 Corinthians 1:14; Philippians 1:6,10; 2:16; 1 Thessalonians 5:2; 2 Thessalonians 2:2. The phrase is used of the Father in the strict Old Testament sense in Acts 2:20; 2 Peter 3:12; Revelation 1:6-14, and probably in 2 Peter 3:10. Besides, as in the Old Testament and the intermediate literature, “day of wrath,” “last day,” or simply “day” are used very frequently.”
See DAY OF THE LORD.
“Of the first three of the above terms, only Parousia is found in the Gospels, 4 times, all in Matthew 24:3,17,37,39, and in the last three of these all in the set phrase “so shall be the Parousia of the Son of Man.” As Christ spoke in Aramaic, the use of “Parousia” here is of course due to Matthew’s adoption of the current Greek word.”
2. Data and Sources:
“The last of the 4 terms above brings the apostolic doctrine of the Parousia into connection with the eschatology (Messianic or otherwise) of the Old Testament and of the intermediate writings. But the connection is far closer than that supplied by this single term only, for newly every feature in the apostolic doctrine can be paralleled directly from the Jewish sources. The following summary does not begin to give complete references to even such Jewish material as is extant, but enough is presented to show how closely allied are the eschatologies of Judaism and of early Christianity.”
“The end is not to be expected instantly. There are still signs to come to pass (2 Thessalonians 2:3), and in especial the determined number of martyrs must be filled up (Revelation 6:11; compare 2 Esdras 4:35,36). There is need of patience (James 5:7, etc.; compare 2 Esdras 4:34; Baruch 83:4). But it is at hand (1 Peter 4:7; Revelation 1:3; 22:10; compare 2 Esdras 14:17). “Yet a little while” (Hebrews 10:37), “The night is far spent” (Romans 13:12), “The Lord is at hand” (Philippians 4:5). “We that are alive” expect to see it (1 Thessalonians 4:15; 1 Corinthians 15:51; compare Baruch 76:5); the time is shortened henceforth (1 Corinthians 7:29; compare Baruch 20:1; 2 Esdras 4:26, and the commentaries on 1 Corinthians). Indeed, there is hardly time for repentance even (Revelation 22:11, ironical), certainly there is no time left for self-indulgence (1 Thessalonians 5:3; 1 Peter 4:2; 2 Peter 3:11; Revelation 3:3; compare Baruch 83:5), and watchfulness is urgently demanded (1 Thessalonians 5:6; Revelation 3:3).”
“An outpouring of the Spirit is a sign of the end (Acts 2:17,18; compare Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, Test. Levi 18:11; Sib Or 4:46, always after the consummation in the Jewish sources). But the world is growing steadily worse, for the godly and intense trials are coming (passim), although those especially favored may be spared suffering (Revelation 3:10; compare Baruch 29:2). This is the beginning of Judgment (1 Peter 4:17; compare Enoch 99:10). Iniquity increases and false teachers are multiplied (Jude 1:18; 2 Peter 3:3; 2 Timothy 3:13; compare Enoch 80:7; Baruch 70:5; 2 Esdras 5:9,10). Above all there is to be an outburst of diabolic malevolence in the antichrist (1John 2:18,22; 4:3; 2 John 1:7; 2 Thessalonians 2:8-10; Revelation 19:19; compare Baruch 36:8-10; Sib Or 3:63-70, and see ANTICHRIST), who will gather all nations to his ensign (Revelation 19:19; 2 Thessalonians 2:10 compare 2 Esdras 13:5; Enoch 56). Plagues fall upon men (Rev, passim; compare especially Philo, Execr.), and natural portents occur (Acts 2:19,20; Rev, passim; compare 2 Esdras 5:4,5; Enoch 80:5-8). But the conversion of the Jews (Romans 11:26) is brought about by these plagues (Revelation 11:13; in the Jewish sources, naturally, conversion of Gentiles, as in Sib Or 3:616-623; Enoch 10:21). Then Christ is manifested and Antichrist is slain or captured (2 Thessalonians 2:8; Revelation 19:20; compare 2 Esdras 13:10,11). In Revelation 20:3 the Millennium follows (compare 2 Esdras 7:28; 12; 34; Baruch 40:3, and often in rabbinical literature; the millennium in Slavic Enoch, chapter 33, is of very dubious existence), but other traces of millennial doctrine in the New Testament are of the vaguest (compare the commentaries to 1 Corinthians 15:24, for instance, especially Schmiedel, J. Weiss, and Lietzmann, and see MILLENNIUM). The general resurrection follows (see RESURRECTION for details).”
“The Father holds the Judgment in Hebrews 10:30; 12:23; 13:4; James 4:11,12; 1 Peter 1:17; Revelation 14:7; 20:11, and probably in Jude 1:14,15. Christ is Judge in Acts 10:42; 2 Corinthians 5:10; 2 Timothy 4:1. The two concepts are interwoven in Romans 14:9,10. God mediates judgment through Christ in Acts 17:31; Romans 2:16, and probably in Romans 2:2-6; 3:6. In 2 Thessalonians Christ appears as the executor of punishment. For similar uncertainties in the Jewish schemes, compare, for instance, 2 Esdras 7:33 and Enoch 45:3. For the fate of the wicked see ESCHATOLOGY; HELL; Paul, rather curiously, has very little to say about this (Romans 2:3; 1 Corinthians 3:17; 2 Thessalonians 1:8,9). Then all Nature is renewed (Romans 8:21; Enoch 45:4,5) or completely destroyed (1 Corinthians 7:31; Hebrews 12:27; Revelation 21:1; compare Enoch 1:6; 2 Esdras 7:30); by fire in 2 Peter 3:10 (compare Sib Or 4:172-177), so as to leave only the eternal verities (Hebrews 12:27; compare 2 Esdras 7:30(?)), or to be replaced with a new heaven and a new earth (Revelation 21:1; compare Slavic Enoch 33:1-2). And the righteous receive the New Jerusalem (Galatians 4:26; Hebrews 12:22; Revelation 3:12; 21:2,10; compare Baruch 4:2-6; 2 Esdras 7:26).”
3. Consistency:
“It is of course possible, as in the older works on dogmatics, to reconcile the slight divergences of the above details and to fit them all into a single scheme. But the propriety of such an undertaking is more than dubious, for the traditional nature of these details is abundantly clear–a tradition that is not due solely to the fact that the Christian and the Jewish schemes have a common Old Testament basis. That the Jewish writers realized that the eschatological details were merely symbolic is made obvious by the contradictions that every apocalypse contains–the contradictions that are the despair of the beginner in apocalyptics. No writer seems to have thought it worthwhile to reconcile his details, for they were purely figures of dimly comprehended forces. And the Christian symbolism must be interpreted on the same principle. No greater injustice, for instance, could be done Paul’s thought than to suppose he would have been in the least disturbed by John’s interpretation of the Antichrist as many persons and all of them ordinary human beings (1John 2:18,19).”
4. Meaning of the Symbolism:
“The symbolism, then, in which the Parousia is described was simply that held by the apostles in their pre-Christian days. This symbolism, to be sure, has been thoroughly purified from such puerilities as the feast on Leviathan and Behemoth of Baruch 29, or the “thousand children” of Enoch 10:17, a fact all the more remarkable as 2nd-century Christianity has enough of this and to spare (e.g. Irenaeus, v.33). What is more important is that the symbolism of the Parousia is simply in the Jewish sources the symbolism of the coming of the Messiah (or of God in such schemes as have no Messiah). Now it is to be observed that among the apostles the Kingdom of God is almost uniformly regarded as a future quantity (1 Corinthians 6:9,10; 15:50; Galatians 5:21; Ephesians 5:5; 2 Timothy 4:1,18; 2 Peter 1:11; Revelation 11:15; 12:10), with a definitely present idea only in Colossians 1:13. Remembering again that the term “Messiah” means simply “the Bringer of the Kingdom,” the case becomes entirely clear. No apostle, of course, ever thought of Christ as anything but the Messiah. But neither did they think of His Messianic work as completed, or, if the most exact terminology be pressed, of the strict Messianic work as done at all. Even the Atonement belonged to the preliminary acts, viewed perhaps somewhat as Enoch 39:6 views the preexistent Messiah’s residence among the “church expectant.” This could come to pass more readily as the traditions generally were silent as to what the Messiah was to do before He brought the Kingdom, while they all agreed that He was not to be created only at that moment. Into this blank, especially with the aid of Isaiah 53, etc., our Lord’s earthly life and Passion fitted naturally, leaving the fact of His Second Coming to be identified with the coming of the Messiah as originally conceived.”
II. The Teaching of Jesus.
1. Critical Problems:
“It will be found helpful, in studying the bitter controversies that have raged around Christ’s teaching about the future, to remember that the apostolic idea of the word “Messiah” is the only definition that the word has; that, for instance, “Messiah” and “Saviour of the world” are not quite convertible terms, or that a redefinition of the Messiah as a moral teacher or an expounder of the will of God does not rest on “spiritualizing” of the term, but on a destruction of it in favor of “prophet.” Now the three expressions, “Messianic work,” “coming of the Kingdom,” and “Parousia” are only three titles for one and the same thing, while the addition of “Son of Man” to them merely involves their being taken in the most transcendental form possible. In fact, this is the state of affairs found in the Synoptists. Christ predicts the coming of the Kingdom. He claims the title of its king (or Regent under the Father). The realization of this expectation He placed on the other side of the grave, i.e. in a glorified state. And in connection with this evidence we find His use of the title Son of Man. From all this the doctrine of the Parousia follows immediately, even apart from the passages in which the regular apocalyptic symbolism is used. The contention may be made that this symbolism in the Gospels has been drawn out of other sources by the evangelists (the so-called “Little Apocalypse” of Mark 13:7-9,14-20,24-27,30-31 is the usual point of attack), but, even if the contention could be made out (and agreement in this regard is anything but attained), no really vital part of the case would be touched. Of course, it is possible to begin with the a priori assumption that “no sane man could conceive of himself as an apocalyptic being walking the earth incognito,” and to refer to later tradition everything in the Gospels that contradicts this assumption. But then there are difficulties. The various concepts involved are mentioned directly so often that the number of passages to be removed grows alarmingly large. Then the concepts interlock in such a way as to present a remarkably firm resistance to the critical knife; the picture is much too consistent for an artificial product. Thus, there are a number of indirect references (the title on the Cross, the “Palm-Sunday” procession, etc.) that contradict all we know of later growths. And, finally, the most undeterred critic finds himself confronted with a last stubborn difficulty, the unwavering conviction of the earliest church that Christ made the eschatological claims. It is conceivable that the apostles may have misunderstood Christ in other matters, but an error in this central point of all (as the apostles appraised things) is hardly in the realms of critical possibility. On the whole, such an attempt to force a way through the evidence of the documents would seem something surprisingly like the violence done to history by the most perverse of the older dogmatists.”
2. Summary:
“The number of relevant passages involved is so large and the critical problems so intricate that any detailed discussion is prohibited here. Moreover, the symbolism presents nothing novel to the student familiar with the usual schemes. Forces of evil increase in the world, the state of the righteous grows harder, distress and natural portents follow, at the climax Christ appears suddenly with His angels, bringing the Kingdom of God, gathers the elect into the Kingdom, and dismisses the wicked into outer darkness (or fire). The Father is the Judge in Matthew 10:32,33, but the Son in the parallel Luke 12:8,9, and in Matthew 13:41; 16:27; 25:32; probably in Matthew 24:50 parallel Luke 12:46; Mark 8:38 and its parallel Luke 9:26 are uncertain. At all events, the eternal destiny of each man depends on Christ’s attitude, possibly with the Father’s (invariable) ratification considered.”
3. Fall of Jerusalem:
“How far Christ connected the Parousia and the fall of Jerusalem, it is not easy to say. Various sayings of Christ about the future were certainly grouped by the evangelists; compare Matthew 24 with Mark 13 and Luke 17:20-37; or Luke 17:31 with Mark 13:15,16 (noting the inappropriateness of Luke 17:31 in its present context). The critical discussions of Mark 13 are familiar and those of Luke 21 (a still more complex problem) only less so. Remembering what the fall of Jerusalem or its immediate prospect would have meant to the apostles, the tendency to group the statements of Christ will be realized. Consequently, not too much stress should be laid on the connection of this with the Parousia, and in no case can the fall of Jerusalem be considered to exhaust the meaning of the Parousia.”
4. Time:
“The most debated question is that of the time of the Parousia. Here Mark 13:30 parallel Luke 21:32 parallel Matthew 24:34 place it within Christ’s generation, Mark 9:1 parallel Luke 9:27 parallel Matthew 16:28 within the lifetime of some of His hearers, Matthew 10:23 before all the cities of Judea are closed to Christ’s apostles. (Only the first of these contains any reference to the fall of Jerusalem.) Then there is “ye shall see” of Mark 14:62; Luke 13:35 parallel Matthew 23:39. Agreeing with this are the exhortations to watchfulness (Mark 13:33-37; Luke 12:40 parallel Matthew 24:44, etc., with many parables, such as the Ten Virgins). Now Mark 13:32 parallel Matthew 24:36 do not quite contradict this, for knowledge of the generation is quite consistent with ignorance of the day and hour; “It will be within your generation, but nothing more can be told you, so watch!” The real difficulty lies in Mark 13:10 parallel Matthew 24:14, the necessity of all Gentiles hearing the gospel (Luke 21:24 is hardly relevant). To leave the question here, as most conservative scholars do, is unsatisfactory, for Mark 13:10 is of no deep value for apologetic service and this value is far outweighed by the real contradiction with the other passages. The key, probably, lies in Matthew 10:18, from which Mark 13:10 differs only in insisting on all Gentiles, perhaps with the apostles’ thought that “world” and “Roman Empire” were practically coextensive. With this assumption the data yield a uniform result.”
III. John’s Evaluation.
1. Solution of Problem:
“It appears, then, that Christ predicted that shortly after His death an event would occur of so transcendental a nature that it could be expressed only in the terms of the fullest eschatological symbolism. John has a clear interpretation of this. In place of the long Parousia discourses in the Synoptists, we have, in the corresponding part of the Fourth Gospel, John 13-17, dealing not only with the future in general but concretely with Christ’s coming and the Judgment. Christ indeed came to His own (John 14:18), and not He only but the Spirit also (14:16), and even the Father (14:23). When the disciples are so equipped, their presence in the world subjects the world to a continual sifting process of judgment (16:11). The fate of men by this process is to be eternally fixed (3:18), while the disciples newly made are assured that they have already entered into their eternal condition of blessedness (11:25,26; 5:24; 10:28; 17:2,3). Equally directly the presence of Christ is conceived in Revelation 3:20. So in Paul, the glorified Christ has returned to His own to dwell in them (Romans 8:9,10, etc.), uniting them into a body vitally connected with Him (Colossians 1:18), so supernatural that it is the teacher of `angels’ (Ephesians 3:10), a body whose members are already in the Kingdom (Colossians 1:13), who even sit already in heavenly places (Ephesians 2:6). The same thought is found in such synoptic passages (Luke 7:28 parallel Matthew 11:11; Luke 17:21(?); see KINGDOM OF GOD) as represent the Kingdom as present. Already the eschatological promises were realized in a small group of men, even though they still lacked the transforming influence of the Spirit. Compare the continuous coming of Matthew 26:64 (Luke 22:69).”
“It is on these lines of the church as a supernatural quantity (of course not to be confused with any particular denomination) that the immediate realization of the Parousia promises is to be sought. Into human history has been “injected” a supernatural quantity, through which a Divine Head works, whose reaction on men settles their eternal destiny, and within which the life of heaven is begun definitely.”
2. The Church a Divine Quantity:
“The force in this body is felt at the crises of human history, perhaps especially after the catastrophe that destroyed Jerusalem and set Christianity free from the swaddling clothes of the primitive community. This conception of the church as a divine quantity, as, so to speak, a part of heaven extended into earth, is faithful to the essentials of the predictions. Nor is it a rationalization of them, if the idea of the church itself be not rationalized. With this conception all realms of Christian activity take on a transcendental significance, both in life and (especially) death, giving to the individual the confidence that he is building better than he knows, for even the apostles could not realize the full significance of what they were doing. Generally speaking, the details in the symbolism must not be pressed. The purpose of revelation is to minister to life, not to curiosity, and, in teaching of the future, Christ simply taught with the formal language of the schools of the day, with the one change that in the supernatural process He Himself was to be the central figure. Still, the end is not yet. “The hour cometh, in which all that are in the tombs shall hear his voice” (John 5:28; compare John 6:40; 21:23; 1 John 2:28). In Christ human destiny is drawing to a climax that can be expressed only in spiritual terms that transcend our conceptions.”
See, further, ESCHATOLOGY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
LITERATURE.
“This is overwhelming. For the presuppositions, GJV4 (HJP is antiquated); Volz, Judische Eschatologie; Bousset, Religion des Judentums (2). General discussions:”
“Mathews, The Messianic Hope in the New Testament (the best in English); Sanday, The Life of Christ in Recent Research; Holtzmann, Das messianische Bewusstein Jesu (a classic); von Dobschiitz, The Eschatology of the Gospels (popular, but very sound). Eschatological extreme: Schweitzer, The Quest of the Historical Jesus (Von Reimarus zu Wrede), is quite indispensable; Tyrrell, Christianity at the Cross Roads (perverse, but valuable in parts); Loisy, Gospel and the Church (compare his Evangiles synoptiques). Anti-eschatological: Sharman, The Teaching of Jesus about the Future (minute criticism, inadequate premises, some astounding exegesis); Bacon, The Beginnings of Gospel Story (based on Wellhausen). For the older literature see Schweitzer, Sanday, Holtzmann, as above, and compare Fairweather, The Background of the Gospels, and Brown, “Parousia,” in HDB, III. Burton Scott Easton” (3)
Other similar words or phrases used in Scripture:
What is the meaning of Epiphaneia?
The name Epiphany comes from the Greek epiphaneia, meaning “appearance” or “manifestation,” and refers to the manifestation of Jesus Christ to the world.
What is the meaning of Apocalypse?
Apocalypse comes from Greek apokálypsis “uncovering,” a derivative of the verb apokalýptein “to take the cover off,” a compound whose first element is the preposition and prefix apó, apo- “off, away.”
In closing:
What Is the Meaning of Parousia?
“The Coming of the Lord Is “the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ” a reference to the Second Coming, that is, an event that is still in our future, or is it a coming in judgment upon first-century Jerusalem that would be the event to bring the “”last days” to a close (2 Thess. 2: l)?7 The word translated “coming” in verse 1 is the Greek word parousia, best translated as “presence” in other contexts (2 Cor. 10:10; Phil. 2:12). “The term itself does not mean ‘return’ or ‘second’ coming; it simply means ‘arrival’ or ‘presence.’ Applying it to Christ’s coming from heaven in a sense changes what the word connotes.” (4)
The word can refer to the second coming of the Lord but essentially means “arrival” or “presence.” If the study of preterist interpretation is undertaken, the student of Scripture will see the value of this distinction of “presence.”
Recommended Reading, Christian Eschatology:
Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.
Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation
Institute for Christian Economics, Tyler, TX
Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.
He Shall Have Dominion
Institute for Christian Economics, Tyler, TX
Charles E. Hill
Regnum Caelorum: Patterns of Future Hope in Early Christianity
Clarendon Press, Clarendon Press, Oxford
Oswald T. Allis
Prophecy And The Church
Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing Company, Phillipsburg, New Jersey
Gary DeMar
Last Days Madness
American Vision, Powder Springs, Georgia
Keith A. Mathison
Postmillennialism An eschatology of Hope
Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, Phillipsburg, New Jersey
R. C. Sproul
The Last Days According To Jesus
Baker Books, Grand Rapids, MI
Greg L. Bahnsen
Victory In Jesus: The Bright Hope of Postmillennialism
Covenant Media Press, Tyler, TX
“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. Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies In The New Testament, (Mclean, Virginia, Macdonald Publishing Company), p. 40-41.
2. J. H. Thayer, The New Thayer’s Greek English Lexicon, (Peabody, Massachusetts, Hendrickson Publishers), p. 490-491. Orr, James, M.A., D.D. General Editor, “Entry for ‘PAROUSIA,’” International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Eerdmans, reprinted 1986), pp. 2249-2250.
3. Ben Witherington II l, Jesus, Paul and the End of the World: A Comparative Study in New Testament Eschatology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1992), p. 152.
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 www. JackKettler .com
In this study, the word abomination will be considered as to its meaning, along with its Old and New Testaments usage and the Hebrew and Greek word origins. A commentary on the Old Testament and a New Testament commentary will be consulted. A concise overview of the word abomination will come from the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. Finally, the study will conclude with a definition from two sources, one contemporary, and the other classic.
“The thoughts of the wicked are an abomination (תּוֹעֲבַ֣ת) to the LORD, But the words of the pure are pleasant.” (Proverbs 15:26)
Strong’s Lexicon:
“detests
תּוֹעֲבַ֣ת (tō·w·‘ă·ḇaṯ)
Noun – feminine singular construct
Strong’s Hebrew 8441: 1) a disgusting thing, abomination, abominable 1a) in ritual sense (of unclean food, idols, mixed marriages) 1b) in ethical sense (of wickedness etc.)”
From the Pulpit Commentary on Proverbs 15:26:
“Verse 26. – The thoughts of the wicked (or, evil devices) are an abomination to the Lord. Although the Decalogue, by forbidding coveting, showed that God’s Law touched the thought of the heart as well as the outward action, the idea here refers to wicked plans or designs, rather than emphatically to the secret movements of the mind. These have been noticed in ver. 11. But the words of the pure are pleasant words; literally, pure are words of pleasantness; i.e. words of soothing, comforting tone are, not an abomination to the Lord, as are the devices of the wicked, but they are pure in a ceremonial sense, as it were, a pure and acceptable offering. Revised Version, pleasant words are pure. Vulgate, “Speech pure and pleasant is approved by him” – which is a paraphrase of the clause. Septuagint, “The words of the pure are honoured (σεμναί).” Proverbs 15:26” (1)
“And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination (βδέλυγμα) in the sight of God.” (Luke 16:15)
Strong’s Lexicon:
“[is] detestable
βδέλυγμα (bdelygma)
Noun – Nominative Neuter Singular
Strong’s Greek 946: An abominable thing, an accursed thing. From bdelusso; a detestation, i.e. idolatry.”
From Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers on Luke 16:15:
“(15) Ye are they which justify yourselves before men. — The character described is portrayed afterwards more fully in the parable of Luke 18:9-14. The word there used, “this man went down to his house justified rather than the other,” is obviously a reference to what is reported here. They forgot, in their self-righteousness and self-vindication, that they stood before God as the Searcher of all hearts.
That which is highly esteemed among men . . .—Literally, that which is high, or lifted up, among men. The word is at once wider and more vivid than the English.
Abomination . . .—The word is the same as in “the abomination of desolation” (Matthew 24:15), that which causes physically nausea and loathing. The word seems chosen as the expression of a divine scorn and indignation, which answered, in part, to their “derision,” and was its natural result. (Comp. the bold language of Psalm 2:4, Proverbs 1:26, Revelation 3:16.)” (2)
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, a summary of abomination:
ABOMINATION
“a-bom-i-na’-shun (piggul, to`ebhah, sheqets (shiqquts)): Three distinct Hebrew words are rendered in the English Bible by “abomination,” or “abominable thing,” referring (except in Genesis 43:32; Genesis 46:34) to things or practices abhorrent to Yahweh, and opposed to the ritual or moral requirements of His religion. It would be well if these words could be distinguished in translation, as they denote different degrees of abhorrence or loathsomeness.”
“The word most used for this idea by the Hebrews and indicating the highest degree of abomination is to`ebhah, meaning primarily that which offends the religious sense of a people. When it is said, for example, “The Egyptians might not eat bread with the Hebrews; for that is an abomination unto the Egyptians,” this is the word used; the significance being that the Hebrews were repugnant to the Egyptians as foreigners, as of an inferior caste, and especially as shepherds (Genesis 46:34). The feeling of the Egyptians for the Greeks was likewise one of repugnance. Herodotus (ii.41) says the Egyptians would not kiss a Greek on the mouth, or use his dish, or taste meat cut with the knife of a Greek.”
“Among the objects described in the Old Testament as “abominations” in this sense are heathen gods, such as Ashtoreth (Astarte), Chemosh, Milcom, the “abominations” of the Zidonians (Phoenicians), Moabites, and Ammonites, respectively (2 Kings 23:13), and everything connected with the worship of such gods. When Pharaoh, remonstrating against the departure of the children of Israel, exhorted them to offer sacrifices to their God in Egypt, Moses said: “Shall we sacrifice the abomination of the Egyptians (i.e. the animals worshipped by them which were taboo, to`ebhah, to the Israelites) before their eyes, and will they not stone us?” (Exodus 8:26).”
“It is to be noted that, not only the heathen idol itself, but anything offered to or associated with the idol, all the paraphernalia of the forbidden cult, was called an “abomination,” for it “is an abomination to Yahweh thy God” (Deuteronomy 7:25, 26). The Deuteronomic writer here adds, in terms quite significant of the point of view and the spirit of the whole law: `Neither shalt thou bring an abomination into thy house and thus become a thing set apart (cherem = tabooed) like unto it; thou shalt utterly detest it and utterly abhor it, for it is a thing set apart’ (tabooed). To`ebhah is even used as synonymous with “idol” or heathen deity, as in Isaiah 44:19 Deuteronomy 32:16 2 Kings 23:13; and especially Exodus 8:22.”
“Everything akin to magic or divination is likewise an abomination to`ebhah; as are sexual transgressions (Deuteronomy 22:5; Deuteronomy 23:18; Deuteronomy 24:4), especially incest and other unnatural offenses: “For all these abominations have the men of the land done, that were before you” (Leviticus 18:27; compare Ezekiel 8:15). It is to be noted, however, that the word takes on in the later usage a higher ethical and spiritual meaning: as where “divers measures, a great and a small,” are forbidden (Deuteronomy 25:14-16); and in Proverbs where “lying lips” (Proverbs 12:22), “the proud in heart” (Proverbs 16:5), “the way of the wicked” (Proverbs 15:9), “evil devices” (Proverbs 15:26), and “he that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the righteous” (Proverbs 17:15), are said to be an abomination in God’s sight. At last prophet and sage are found to unite in declaring that any sacrifice, however free from physical blemish, if offered without purity of motive, is an abomination: `Bring no more an oblation of falsehood-an incense of abomination it is to me’ (Isaiah 1:13; compare Jeremiah 7:10). “The sacrifice of the wicked” and the prayer of him “that turneth away his ear from hearing the law,” are equally an abomination (see Proverbs 15:8; Proverbs 21:27; Proverbs 28:9).”
“Another word rendered “abomination” in the King James Version is sheqets or shiqquts. It expresses generally a somewhat less degree of horror or religious aversion than [to`ebhah], but sometimes seems to stand about on a level with it in meaning. In Deuteronomy 14:3, for example, we have the command, “Thou shalt not eat any abominable thing,” as introductory to the laws prohibiting the use of the unclean animals (see CLEAN; UNCLEANNESS), and the word there used is [to`ebhah]. But in Leviticus 11:10-13, 20, 23, 41, 42, Isaiah 66:17; and in Ezekiel 8:10 sheqets is the word used and likewise applied to the prohibited animals; as also in Leviticus 11:43 sheqets is used when it is commanded, “Ye shall not make yourselves abominable.” Then sheqets is often used parallel to or together with to`ebhah of that which should be held as detestable, as for instance, of idols and idolatrous practices (see especially Deuteronomy 29:17 Hosea 9:10 Jeremiah 4:1; Jeremiah 13:27; Jeremiah 16:18 Ezekiel 11:18-21; Ezekiel 20:7, 8). It is used exactly as [to`ebhah] is used as applied to Milcom, the god of the Ammonites, which is spoken of as the detestable thing sheqets of the Ammonites (1 Kings 11:5). Still even in such cases to`ebhah seems to be the stronger word and to express that which is in the highest degree abhorrent.”
“The other word used to express a somewhat kindred idea of abhorrence and translated “abomination” in the King James Version is piggul; but it is used in the Hebrew Bible only of sacrificial flesh that has become stale, putrid, tainted (see Leviticus 7:18; Leviticus 19:7 Ezekiel 4:14 Isaiah 65:4). Driver maintains that it occurs only as a “technical term for such state sacrificial flesh as has not been eaten within the prescribed time,” and, accordingly, he would everywhere render it specifically “refuse meat.” Compare lechem megho’al, “the loaths ome bread” (from ga’al, “to loathe”) Malachi 1:7. A chief interest in the subject for Christians grows out of the use of the term in the expression “abomination of desolation” (Matthew 24:15 and Mark 13:14), which see.”
See also ABHOR.
LITERATURE
“Commentators at the place Rabbinical literature in point. Driver; Weiss; Gratz, Gesch. der Juden, IV, note 15. George B. Eager” (3)
In conclusion:
How is abomination defined?
“It is mainly used to denote idolatry; and in many other cases it refers to inherently evil things such as illicit sex, lying, murder, deceit, etc.; and for unclean foods.” – Abomination (Bible) – Wikipedia
KJV Dictionary Definition: abominable:
“ABOM’INABLE, a. See Abominate.
1. Very hateful; detestable; lothesome.
2. This word is applicable to whatever is odious to the mind or offensive to the senses.
3. Unclean. Levit. vli.
Abominableness”
“ABOM’INABLENESS, n. The quality or state of being very odious; hatefulness.
Abominably”
“ABOM’INABLY, adv.
1. Very odiously; detestably; sinfully. 1Kings xxi.
2. In vulgar language, extremely, excessively.
Abominate”
“ABOM’INATE, v.t. L. abomino, supposed to be formed by ab and omen; to deprecate as ominous; may the Gods avert the evil.
To hate extremely; to abhor; to detest
Abominated”
“ABOM’INATED, pp. Hated utterly, detested; abhorred.
Abominating”
“ABOM’INATING, ppr. Abhorring; hating extremely.
Abomination”
“ABOMINA’TION, n.
1. Extreme hatred; detestation.
2. The object of detestation, a common signification in scripture.
The way of the wicked is an abomination to the Lord. Prov. xv.
3. Hence, defilement, pollution, in a physical sense, or evil doctrines and practices, which are moral defilements, idols and idolatry, are called abominations. The Jews were an abomination to the Egyptians; and the sacred animals of the Egyptians were an abomination to the Jews. The Roman army is called the abomination of desolation. Mat. 24:13. In short, whatever is an object of extreme hatred, is called an abomination.” (4)
“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)
Notes:
1. H. D. M. Spence and Joseph S. Exell, The Pulpit Commentary, Proverbs, Vol. 9., (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Eerdmans Publishing Company reprint 1978), p. 295.
2. Charles John Ellicott, Bible Commentary for English Readers, Luke, Vol.6, (London, England, Cassell and Company), p. 322.
3. Orr, James, M.A., D.D. General Editor, “Entry for ‘ABOMINATIO,’” International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Eerdmans, reprinted 1986), pp. 15-16.
4. Definitions from Webster’s American Dictionary of the English Language, 1828.
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 www. JackKettler .com
A primer regarding a doctrinal debate among Reformation Churches by Jack Kettler
“Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.” (Colossians 3:16)
Mounce Reverse-Interlinear New Testament:
“16 Let the ho word logos of ho Christ Christos dwell enoikeō in en you hymeis richly plousiōs as you teach didaskō and kai admonish noutheteō one heautou another with en all pas wisdom sophia by means of psalms psalmos, hymns hymnos, and spiritual pneumatikos songs ōdē, singing adō with en · ho gratitude charis in en · ho your hymeis heart kardia to ho God theos.”
Does Colossians 3:16 support the use of uninspired hymns? As will be seen, the Bible contains examples of triadic expressions or synonymous usages that will help answer this question. For instance, in Exodus 34:7, one reads about iniquity, transgression, and sin. These three terms are synonymous or fundamentally the same. Said another way, a word has the same or practically the same meaning as another word in the identical language. A triadic repetition of language can be used for emphasis.
The promoters of uninspired hymns only see Psalmos and not Humnos and Odee referringto the Psalms in Paul’s use of the terms. In this view, hymns and songs can be understood as being of human composition. Does this hold up?
Consider the following citation where these three terms are used in the book of Psalms.
Michael Bushell gives more specifics on the use of the three terms throughout Scripture:
“Psalmos…occurs some 87 times in the Septuagint, some 78 of which are in the Psalms themselves, and 67 times in the psalm titles. It also forms the title to the Greek version of the psalter…. Humnos…occurs some 17 times in the Septuagint, 13 of which are in the Psalms, six times in the titles. In 2 Samuel, 1 & 2 Chronicles, and Nehemiah there are some 16 examples in which the Psalms are called ‘hymns’ (humnoi) or ‘songs’ (odai) and the singing of them is called ‘hymning’ (humneo, humnodeo, humnesis) …. Odee…occurs some 80 times in the Septuagint, 45 of which are in the Psalms, 36 in the Psalm titles… In twelve Psalm titles we find both ‘psalm’ and ‘song’; and, in two others we find ‘psalm’ and ‘hymn.’ Psalm seventy-six is designated ‘psalm, hymn and song.’ And at the end of the first seventy two psalms we read ‘the hymns of David the son of Jesse are ended’ (Ps. 72:20).” (1)
Comments:
The texts where the terms “Psalms, hymns, and spiritual-songs” from Ephesians and Colossians appear are not a problem for the Psalm-Singing churches. The words “Psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs” are used interchangeably in the Psalms, referring to the Psalms themselves. Someone may ask, why Paul didn’t use one word instead of three. That is because, in the Psalms themselves, these three words appear numerous times interchangeable. Moreover, the triadic threefold repetition is for emphasis. As an aside, and noteworthy is how Paul’s triadic language in Ephesians and Colossians parallels the New Testament formulation of the Trinity, God as Father, the Son, and the Spirit.
Objections:
It has been said that one is not singing the Psalms unless one is singing them in the original Hebrew. Really? An argument about singing in Hebrew sounds similar to the Muslims saying that one is not reading the Koran unless it is read in Arabic. Furthermore, this assertion does not address the above argument from Bushell.
Consistency?
Is the pastor reading the Word of God unless it is done in the original language? If not, how can it be justified not to read the Scriptures in Hebrew and Greek? An argument like this fails for lack of consistency.
Does exclusive psalmody create divisions in Christ’s Church? Does the practice of pedo-baptism? Does the observance of the regulative principle of worship? Does the preaching of the Doctrines of Grace create divisions? The first question in this series of questions is not a refutation of exclusive Psalm-singing.
Are the Psalm-Singing churches in sin by using only the Psalms? This writer is still waiting for a reply to this question. Are Psalm singing churches missing out? Missing out on what is a retort. Is there something superior to the Psalms? What would that be? What songbook did Jesus use? The answer is the Psalms. Should believers follow the example of our Lord? If not, why not? Nothing in the New Testament sets aside the Psalms as a songbook for Christ’s Church.
What about singing other portions of the Scriptures? While it would not be wrong per se, there is no command in Scripture to do so, like in Ephesians 5:19; and Colossians 3:16. The question about singing other portions of Scripture does not invalidate following Christ’s example of singing the Psalms.
The preeminence of the King in Israel’s worship of God was an important practice. Not only did David direct the people singing songs in worship, but this pattern also applies to David’s Greater Son, who is the Lord. Jesus is our King and is seated at the right hand of the Father. The apostle Paul makes the statement that during worship, believers are seated with Christ in heaven, specifically; “and made us sit together in heavenly places” Ephesians 2:6. Jesus, our King, is enthroned at the Father’s right hand, and we, through our union with Him, are led in heavenly worship by the King Jesus; “Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee” Hebrews 2:12.
Jesus is our Kingly choirmaster in the heavenly and leads us in singing praises to the Father. The Psalms are profitable for doctrine, but they also testify of Christ. As said, they are, in fact, the songbook Jesus used to worship the Father. The Psalms were composed for Jesus as our perfect King and song leader.
The issue is Biblical sufficiency:
Reformed Churches are committed to the doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture. The Psalms are Scripture. Therefore, the Psalms are sufficient. A conclusion can be drawn, and since the Psalms are Scripture and sufficient, the Psalm singing churches are not missing out. Moreover, there is no command to sing uninspired songs in worship. Would it be permissible to preach from uninspired sources? Consistency is helpful.
Without a doubt, there have been some extraordinary human songs composed. Human-composed songs can be used outside of worship, for example, Christmas caroling. Christmas caroling would be similar to street preaching. When it comes to human-composed hymns, one must always evaluate if the human composition is faithful to Scripture. Many modern human compositions are used in worship; all that seemingly matters is if it flows with the instrumentation and the lines can be repeated several times for emotional emphasis. Some of the modern compositions are so nebulous that non-Christian religions could use them.
The reader is urged to study the topic of this debate by using Michael Bushell’s monumental work titled the Songs of Zion.
Bushell asks, what music does God want His people to sing in worship?
He asks:
“The question provokes strong emotions, but the answer must be solely based on Scripture. We live in a culture where personal preference dominates, where men recoil from the full display of God’s mercy and justice, and where the winds of fancy blow about a church ignorant of her history. This book calls the reader to prostrate himself before a thrice holy God, to echo His tender and fearsome Words in song, and to return to the historical worship practice of the Christian church.”
The publisher writes:
“The most comprehensive contemporary work on exclusive psalmody now interacts with more recent scholarship, answering those who critique singing only psalms in worship. Like previous editions, it examines the sufficiency and propriety of the Psalter, the testimony of Scripture, the regulative principle, and the testimony of history. In the fourth edition there is a new Bibliography and new subject and author indices.”
Reformed Congregations in the Netherlands (Gereformeerde Gemeenten in Nederland)
Reformed Congregations in the Netherlands (unconnected) (Gereformeerde Gemeenten in Nederland (buiten verband))
Reformed Congregations in North America
Restored Reformed Church (Hersteld Hervormde Kerk) From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Reformation leader John Calvin on Psalm singing:
“Now what Saint Augustine says is true, that no one is able to sing things worthy of God unless he has received them from Him. Wherefore, when we have looked thoroughly everywhere and searched high and low, we shall find no better songs nor more appropriate to the purpose than the Psalms of David which the Holy Spirit made and spoke through him. And furthermore, when we sing them, we are certain that God puts the words in our mouths, as if He Himself were singing in us to exalt His glory.” – John Calvin, Epistle to the Reader, Genevan Psalter (1542)
A noteworthy observation:
“Wherever the Psalter is abandoned, an incomparable treasure vanishes from the Christian Church. With its recovery will come unsuspected power.” – Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Although not dealing with the subject matter of the above primer, Bonhoeffer’s Psalms: The Prayer Book of the Bible is a must-read.
Bonhoeffer’s publisher writes:
“Jesus died with a psalm on his lips. For millennia, humans have been shaped by the Psalms. And before the Nazis banned him from publishing, German theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer published this book on the Psalms.”
“What comfort is found in the Psalter? What praise, and what challenge? What threat? In the pages of Psalms: The Prayer Book of the Bible, discover the richness this book of Scripture held for Bonhoeffer, and learn to pray psalms along with Christ.”
“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. Michael Bushell, Songs of Zion, (Norfolk Press, Norfolk Virginia), pp. 217-218.
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 www. JackKettler .com
What does the Apostle Paul mean by dogs in Philippians 3:2? by Jack Kettler
“Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision. For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh. Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more.” (Philippians 3:2-4)
The Jews frequently called the Gentiles dogs, primarily due to their ceremonial uncleanness. Does Paul affirm or repudiate this classification?
Who are “the dogs” and “the concision” mentioned in the Philippians passage?
Two commentary entries will be consulted to answer these two questions.
First, Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers:
“(2) Beware of (the) dogs. — In Revelation 22:15 “the dogs” excluded from the heavenly Jerusalem seem to be those who are impure. In that sense the Jews applied the word to the heathen, as our Lord, for a moment appearing to follow the Jewish usage, does to the Syro-Phœnician woman in Matthew 15:26. But here the context appropriates the word to the Judaising party, who claimed special purity, ceremonial and moral, and who probably were not characterised by peculiar impurity—such as, indeed, below (Philippians 3:17-21) would seem rather to attach to the Antinomian party, probably the extreme on the other side. Chrysostom’s hint that the Apostle means to retort the name upon them, as now by their own wilful apostasy occupying the place outside the spiritual Israel which once belonged to the despised Gentiles, is probably right. Yet perhaps there may be some allusion to the dogs, not as unclean, but as, especially in their half-wild state in the East, snarling and savage, driving off as interlopers all who approach what they consider their ground. Nothing could better describe the narrow Judaising spirit.”
“Of evil workers. — Comp. 2Corinthians 11:13, describing the Judaisers as “deceitful workers.” Here the idea is of their energy in work, but work for evil.”
“The concision. — By an ironical play upon words St. Paul declares his refusal to call the circumcision, on which the Judaisers prided themselves, by that time-honoured name; for “we,” he says, “are the true circumcision,” the true Israel of the new covenant. In Ephesians 2:11 (where see Note) he had denoted it as the “so-called circumcision in the flesh made by hands.” Here he speaks more strongly, and calls it a “concision,” a mere outward mutilation, no longer, as it had been, a “seal” of the covenant (Romans 4:11). There is a still more startling attack on the advocates of circumcision in Galatians 5:12 (where see Note).” (1)
Second, the Pulpit Commentary:
“Verse 2. – Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision. The connection is, as given in ver. 3, Rejoice in the Lord, not in the flesh; have confidence in him, not in the ceremonies of the Jewish Law. Compare the same contrast in Galatians 6:13, 14. There is certainly something abrupt in the sudden introduction of this polemic against Judaizing, especially in writing to Philippi, where there were not many Jews. But there may have been circumstances, unknown to us, which made the warning necessary; or, as some think, the apostle may have written this under excitement caused by the violent opposition of the Jewish faction at Rome. Beware; literally, mark, observe them, to be on your guard against them. The dogs. The article must be retained in the translation. The Jews called the Gentiles “dogs” (comp. Matthew 15:26, 27; Revelation 22:15), i.e. unclean, mainly because of their disregard of the distinction between clean and unclean food. St. Paul retorts the epithet: they are the dogs, who have confidence in the flesh, not in spiritual religion. Evil workers; so, 2 Corinthians 11:13, where he calls them “deceitful workers.” The Judaizers were active enough, like the Pharisees who “compassed sea and land to make one proselyte;” but their activity sprang from bad motives – they were evil workers, though their work was sometimes overruled for good (comp. Philippians 1:15-18). The concision (κατατομή, cutting, mutilation); a contemptuous word for “circumcision” (περιτομή). Compare the Jewish contemptuous use of Isbosheth, man of shame, for Eshbaal, man of Baal, etc. Their circumcision is no better than a mutilation. Observe the paronomasia, the combination of like-sounding words, which is common in St. Paul’s Epistles. Winer gives many examples in sect. lxviii. Philippians 3:2” (2)
Vincent’s Word Studies also provides some salient insights:
“Beware (βλέπετε)
Lit., look to. Compare Mark 4:24; Mark 8:15; Luke 21:8.”
Dogs
“Rev., correctly, the dogs, referring to a well-known party – the Judaizers. These were nominally Christians who accepted Jesus as the Messiah, but as the Savior of Israel only. They insisted that Christ’s kingdom could be entered only through the gate of Judaism. Only circumcised converts were fully accepted by God. They appeared quite early in the history of the Church, and are those referred to in Acts 15:1. Paul was the object of their special hatred and abuse. They challenged his birth, his authority, and his motives. “‘Paul must be destroyed,’ was as truly their watchword as the cry for the destruction of Carthage had been of old to the Roman senator” (Stanley, “Sermons and Lectures on the Apostolic Age”). These are referred to in Philippians 1:16; and the whole passage in the present chapter, from Philippians 3:3 to Philippians 3:11, is worthy of study, being full of incidental hints lurking in single words, and not always apparent in our versions; hints which, while they illustrate the main point of the discussion, are also aimed at the assertions of the Judaizers. Dogs was a term of reproach among both Greeks and Jews. Homer uses it of both women and men, implying shamelessness in the one, and recklessness in the other. Thus Helen: “Brother-in-law of me, a mischief devising dog” (“Iliad,” vi., 344). Teucer of Hector: “I cannot hit this raging dog” (“Iliad,” viii., 298). Dr. Thomson says of the dogs in oriental towns: “They lie about the streets in such numbers as to render it difficult and often dangerous to pick one’s way over and amongst them – a lean, hungry, and sinister brood. They have no owners, but upon some principle known only to themselves, they combine into gangs, each of which assumes jurisdiction over a particular street; and they attack with the utmost ferocity all canine intruders into their territory. In those contests, and especially during the night, they keep up an incessant barking and howling, such as is rarely heard in any European city. The imprecations of David upon his enemies derive their significance, therefore, from this reference to one of the most odious of oriental annoyances” (“Land and Book,” Central palestine and Phoenicia, 593). See Psalm 59:6; Psalm 22:16. Being unclean animals, dogs were used to denote what was unholy or profane. So, Matthew 7:6; Revelation 22:15. The Israelites are forbidden in Deuteronomy to bring the price of a dog into the house of God for any vow: Deuteronomy 23:18. The Gentiles of the Christian era were denominated “dogs” by the Jews, see Matthew 15:26. Paul here retorts upon them their own epithet.”
Evil workers
Compare deceitful workers, 2 Corinthians 11:13.
Concision (κατατομήν)
“Only here in the New Testament. The kindred verb occurs in the Septuagint only, of mutilations forbidden by the Mosaic law. See Leviticus 21:5. The noun here is a play upon περιτομή circumcision. It means mutilation. Paul bitterly characterizes those who were not of the true circumcision (Romans 2:28, Romans 2:29; Colossians 2:11; Ephesians 2:11) as merely mutilated. Compare Galatians 5:12, where he uses ἀποκόπτειν to cut off, of those who would impose circumcision upon the Christian converts: “I would they would cut themselves off who trouble you;” that is, not merely circumcise, but mutilate themselves like the priests of Cybele.” (3)
As seen from the above citations, Paul uses a play upon words by calling the Judaizers “dogs” and also calls them those who mutilate the flesh or the “concision.”
In closing:
The Amplified Bible captures Paul’s nuances of language accurately:
“Look out for the [a]dogs [the Judaizers, the legalists], look out for the troublemakers, look out for the [b]false circumcision [those who claim circumcision is necessary for salvation]; for we [who are born-again have been reborn from above—spiritually transformed, renewed, set apart for His purpose and] are the true circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and glory and take pride and exult in Christ Jesus and place no confidence [in what we have or who we are] in the flesh— though I myself might have [some grounds for] confidence in the flesh [if I were pursuing salvation by works]. If anyone else thinks that he has reason to be confident in the flesh [that is, in his own efforts to achieve salvation], I have far more.” (Philippians 3:2-4)
Footnotes
“Philippians 3:2 Jews often used “dogs” as a derogatory term to refer to Gentiles, so Paul’s reference to his Jewish opponents in this verse is ironic. Most dogs were untamed scavengers and considered disgusting because they ate anything.”
“Philippians 3:2 Because circumcision was not necessary for salvation, the circumcision demanded by the Judaizers was nothing more than mutilation.”
“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)
Notes:
1. Charles John Ellicott, Bible Commentary for English Readers, Philippians, Vol.8, (London, England, Cassell and Company), p. 80.
2. H. D. M. Spence and Joseph S. Exell, The Pulpit Commentary, Philippians, Vol. 20., (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Eerdmans Publishing Company reprint 1978), p. 111.
3. Marvin R. Vincent, “Word Studies In The New Testament,” (Mclean, Virginia, Macdonald Publishing Company), p. 442-443.
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 www. JackKettler .com
What are the stones mentioned in Isaiah 54:11? by Jack Kettler
“O thou afflicted, tossed with tempest, and not comforted, behold, I will lay thy stones with fair colours, and lay thy foundations with sapphires.” (Isaiah 54:11 KJV)
What are the “stones” mentioned in this passage?
Does the symbolism in this passage look forward to Heavenly New Jerusalem?
Nine parallel translations
New International Version
“Afflicted city, lashed by storms and not comforted, I will rebuild you with stones of turquoise, your foundations with lapis lazuli. (Underlining emphasis mine)
English Standard Version
“O afflicted one, storm-tossed and not comforted, behold, I will set your stones in antimony, and lay your foundations with sapphires.
New King James Version
“O you afflicted one, tossed with tempest, and not comforted, Behold, I will lay your stones with colorful gems, and lay your foundations with sapphires.
New American Standard Bible
“Afflicted one, storm-tossed, and not comforted, Behold, I will set your stones in antimony, And I will lay your foundations with sapphires.
NASB 1995
“O afflicted one, storm-tossed, and not comforted, Behold, I will set your stones in antimony, and your foundations I will lay in sapphires.
NASB 1977
“O afflicted one, storm-tossed, and not comforted, Behold, I will set your stones in antimony, And your foundations I will lay in sapphires.
Amplified Bible
“O you afflicted [city], storm-tossed, and not comforted, listen carefully, I will set your [precious] stones in mortar, and lay your foundations with sapphires.
Christian Standard Bible
“Poor Jerusalem, storm-tossed, and not comforted, I will set your stones in black mortar, and lay your foundations in lapis lazuli.
American Standard Version
O thou afflicted, tossed with tempest, and not comforted, behold, I will set thy stones in fair colors, and lay thy foundations with sapphires.
In five of the nine parallel passages, the word antimony is use. What is antimony? First, the Strong’s Lexicon will be consulted to gain an understanding of the Hebrew word for stones.
Strong’s Lexicon:
“your stones
אֲבָנַ֔יִךְ (’ă·ḇā·na·yiḵ)
Noun – feminine plural construct | second person feminine singular
Strong’s Hebrew 68: 1) stone (large or small) 1a) common stone (in natural state) 1b) stone, as material 1b1) of tablets 1b2) marble, hewn stones 1c) precious stones, stones of fire 1d) stones containing metal (ore), tool for work or weapon 1e) weight 1f) plummet (stones of destruction) also made of metal 1g) stone like objects, eg hailstones, stony heart, ice 1h) sacred object, as memorial Samuel set up to mark where God helped Israel to defeat the Philistines 1i) (simile) 1i1) sinking in water, motionlessness 1i2) strength, firmness, solidity 1i3) commonness 1j) (metaph) 1j1) petrified with terror 1j2) perverse, hard heart”
From the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia on the word Stones:
“STONE, STONES
ston, stonz:
1. Hebrew and Greek Words:
(1) Chiefly ‘ebhen, and lithos; but also, occurring rarely, ‘eshekh (Leviticus 21:20); tsur (Job 22:24), usually “rock”; tseror (2 Samuel 17:13); petros (John 1:42); psephos (Revelation 2:17). For cela`, usually “cliff,” “crag,” “rock,” the King James Version, in Psalms 137:9; 141:6, has “stone,” but the Revised Version (British and American) “rock.” For the King James Version “stones,” cheres (Job 41:30), the Revised Version (British and American) has “potsherds.”
See SELA.
2. Literal Usage:
The word is used of great stones (Genesis 29:2); of small stones (1 Samuel 17:40); of stones set up as memorials (1 Samuel 7:12, “Eben-ezer,” “stone of help”); of precious stones (Exodus 35:9, etc.); of hailstones (Joshua 10:11).
3. Figurative Usage:
Of hardness:
“I will take the stony heart out of their flesh” (Ezekiel 11:19); of one smitten: “(Nabal’s) heart died within him, and became as a stone” (1 Samuel 25:37); of weight: “A stone is heavy, and the sand weighty” (Proverbs 27:3); of dumbness: “Woe unto him that saith to the wood, Awake; to the dumb stone, Arise!” (Habakkuk 2:19); of Jerusalem: “I will make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all the peoples” (Zechariah 12:3); of the corner-stone as a figure of high position:
(2) Used also anatomically of the testicles (Leviticus 21:20; Deuteronomy 23:1; Job 40:17, pachadh, the Revised Version (British and American) “thighs”).” Alfred Ely Day (1)
Under point number 3, the figurative usage of stones best applies to the Isaiah 54:11.
Now for an understanding of antimony.
Holman Bible Dictionary for Antimony:
“(uhn’ tih moh nih) A silvery-white, brittle, metalic chemical element of crystalline structure, found only in combination. It is used in alloys with other metals to harden them and increase their resistance to chemical actions. Compounds of antimony are used in medicines, pigments, matches, and fireproofing. In the NRSV and the NAS antimony is used as a translation of the Hebrew terms abne-puk to describe the materials used to build the Temple (1 Chronicles 29:2; see Isaiah 54:11; NIV has turquoise; REB and TEV stones for mosaic work; KJV, glistering stones and stones with fair colors, respectively). It is likely that abne-puk refers to some sort of cement or mortar used in the creation of mosaics, which it is suggested, would make precious stones appear larger and more colorful. In two other passages (2 Kings 9:30; Jeremiah 4:30), puk is consistently translated as eye paint. One of Job’s daughters was named Keren-hapuk—that is, “horn of eye paint” (Job 42:14).” (2)
It can be gleaned from the Isaiah passage that antimony is a special type of black mortar that has a striking appearance. This is because the antinomy or mortar secured the stones in place.
Is there a spiritual or figurative sense of how to understand the significance of the stones?
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges captures several points of the Isaiah passage well:
“11, 12. The outward splendour of the new Jerusalem described in highly figurative language; comp. Tob 13:16-17; Revelation 21:18-21.
I will lay thy stones with fair colours] lit. in antimony (R.V. marg.). Antimony (pûkh) was used by Oriental females as an eye-powder to blacken the edges of the eyelids and enhance the lustre of the eyes (2 Kings 9:30; Jeremiah 4:30; comp. the name of Job’s third daughter, Keren-hap-pukh, ‘horn of eye-powder,’ Job 42:14. see further Lane, Manners and Customs, &c. ed. 1890, pp. 29 ff.). In the figure the antimony would represent the costly mortar used to set off the brilliancy of the still more costly stones. The ἄνθρακα of the LXX. seems to stand for נפך (instead of פוך), a kind of precious stone; see Exodus 28:18 &c. In 1 Chronicles 29:2, where we read of “stones of pûkh” (R.V. “stones for inlaid work”) prepared for the Temple, the idea must be different; but whether that passage has any connexion with the present image is doubtful.
I will lay thy foundations (lit. “I will be found thee”) with sapphires] Exodus 24:10; Ezekiel 1:26.” (3)
In closing:
The following entry will look at the spiritual meaning of the stones and what they foreshadowed.
“Behold, I will lay your stones with fair colors.” Isaiah 54:11
By these “stones,” which the Lord has promised to “lay with fair colors,” I think we may understand the blessed truths of the gospel which are laid into the soul by the hand of God. The fair colors are deeply ingrained and embedded in the very substance of the stone, not artificially laid on. They are like beautiful marbles, in which every bright hue and vein penetrate into the deepest substance of the material. Such are the truths of God, beautiful throughout, penetrated with grace and glory into their inmost depths.
But these colors are hidden from view until brought out and laid into the soul by the hand of God. However fair or beautiful any word of God be in itself, it only experimentally becomes so as inlaid by his own divine hand into the soul. This brings out the fair colors. How often we read the word of God without seeing the least beauty in it! But let the very same portion come home with sweetness and power to the soul, then beauty, inexpressible beauty, is seen in it immediately; it becomes “a stone of fair colors.” Salvation full and free, the pardoning love of God, the precious blood of the Lamb, justification by Christ’s imputed righteousness, “wine and milk without money and without price,” super-abounding grace, eternal mercy, everlasting life–these are some of the precious stones with fair colors which God the Spirit with his own hand lays into the conscience.”
“July 12
“I will lay your foundations with sapphires.” Isaiah 54:11
Before we can stand firmly in the things of God we must have a good foundation, something solid for our faith, our hope, our love, our all, to rest upon. This God promises to lay for his afflicted Zion–“I will lay your foundations with sapphires.” “A gift,” we read, “is a precious stone in the eyes of him that has it.” Every testimony, then, that God gives to the soul, every promise brought into the heart, every manifestation of mercy, every visit of love, or application of truth, we may call, in a spiritual sense, a sapphire; for it is indeed a precious stone, radiant with heaven’s own hue. When God thus lays his sapphires in the soul, they afford a solid foundation for faith. And as they are laid by the hand of God himself, they must be firm; as they are sapphires, they must be indestructible.
These sapphires, it is true, may every one of them be buried in the dust of carnality and worldly-mindedness; the filth and sewage, the mud and slush, of our fallen nature may roll over them flood after flood. But are they injured thereby? is their nature changed, their value impaired, their hue tarnished, their luster faded and gone? They may be hidden from view, their setting be obscured, and their faces for a while be dimmed, but one ray from the Sun of righteousness will bring them again to light; one touch of the Polisher’s hand will restore all their beauty. Grace has no more communion with sin than a diamond with an ash-heap.” (4)
The Puritan John Gill’s entry is similar to Philpot’s. Gill predated Philpot by approximately 100 years.
Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible:
“O thou afflicted, tossed with tempests, and not comforted, … Or, “O thou poor” (s) church; for the first Christian churches chiefly consisted of poor persons, not many mighty and noble being called; and which were greatly “afflicted” with false teachers, who broached errors and heresies, and made schisms among them; and “tossed with tempests” like a ship at sea; or “stormed” (t) with the rage and fury of violent persecutors, such as the Roman emperors were; and not “comforted”, having none to administer any external comfort or relief to them; none of the kings or princes of the earth, or any civil magistrate to protect and defend them; what comfort they had was internal and spiritual; what they had from Christ and his Spirit, and by the word and ordinances; or rather this may describe the state of the church under Papal tyranny and persecution, which brings it nearer to the times of peace and prosperity after promised:
behold, I will lay thy stones with fair colours; or, “with paint” (u); such as women used to paint their faces or eyes with, 2 Kings 9:30. The Targum is,
“behold, I will lay with paint the stones of thy pavement;”’
and the words seem plainly to design the stones of a pavement, and perhaps by an hypallage or transposition may be rendered,
I will lay thy pavement with glistering stones; so the word is translated 1 Chronicles 29:2 or, “with stones of paint” (w); which are of the colour of the “stibium”, or paint before mentioned, and which was of a black colour; and Aben Ezra says the word here signifies a precious stone of a black colour; perhaps black marble is meant, a stone fit for pavements; but, be these stones what they will, they design in the spiritual sense the materials of a Gospel church, those “lively stones” which
are built up a spiritual house, and which are beautified with the gifts and graces of the Spirit of God; and may also denote that the lowest and meanest of the Lord’s people, pointed out by stones of the pavement, should be thus adorned:
and lay thy foundations with sapphires; a precious stone of a white colour, according to R. Saadiah Gaon; but, according to Aben Ezra, of a red colour; though the sapphire is usually said to be of a sky colour, shining with specks of gold. The Targum renders it, “with precious stones”; and so the foundation of the wall of the New Jerusalem is said to be garnished with all manner of precious stones, Revelation 21:19, this may respect Christ, the sure foundation God has laid in Zion, the foundation of the apostles and prophets; the one and only foundation of the church of Christ, and all true believers, who is more precious than sapphires, or all the most precious stones; he always has been the foundation of his church in all ages; but the meaning is, that he shall now appear most clearly and manifestly to be the foundation, and to be a firm, rich, and glorious one; see Exodus 24:10.” (5)
Both Philpot and Gill understand that the afflicted people mentioned in the passage are given hope by Isaiah as he projects forward to the church age with its millennial blessing typified by the imagery of the heavenly New Jerusalem. The stones foreshadow the Lord Jesus Christ, who is “The stone which the builders rejected, is become the head of the corner.” (Psalms 118:22).
“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. Orr, James, M.A., D.D. General Editor, (“Entry for ‘STONE, STONES’”, International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, 1915).
2. Butler, Trent C. Editor, Entry for ‘Antimony’, Holman Bible Dictionary.
3. Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges, John Skinner, Isaiah, vol. 1, 2 Volume 20 of (Cambridge University Press, 1898), e-Sword version.
4. Philpot’s Daily Portions: Daily Readings for Christians.
5. John Gill, Exposition of the Old and New Testaments, Isaiah, (Grace Works, Multi-Media Labs), p. 865.
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 www. JackKettler .com
What is Levirate marriage in Scripture? by Jack Kettler
The following Scripture citations give a glimpse of levirate marriage.
“And Judah said unto Onan, go in unto thy brother’s wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother.” (Genesis 38:8)
“Saying, Master, Moses said, if a man dies having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.” (Matthew 22:24)
“If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband’s brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of a husband’s brother unto her.” (Deuteronomy 25:5)
How exactly is levirate marriage defined?
“Levirate, custom or law decreeing that a widow should, or in rare cases must, marry her dead husband’s brother. The term comes from the Latin levir, meaning “husband’s brother.” The “brother” may be a biological sibling of the deceased or a person who is socially classified as such.” – The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica.
The most well-known example of levirate marriage in Scripture is that of Ruth and Boaz. Ruth’s original husband died without a child, see (Ruth 1:1-5). As a result, God sovereignly directs Ruth to meet a wealthy landowner named Boaz. Boaz was a relative of Ruth’s late husband, see (Ruth 2:20). Ruth asked Boaz to be her kinsman-redeemer, which he did, thus fulfilling the levirate custom.
More importantly, Ruth bore a son named Obed, who fathered Jesse, the father of David and a forefather of Jesus (see Matthew 1:5-6). Moreover, God showed His favor in this Old Testament practice by including Boaz and Ruth in the lineage of Christ.
Levirate marriage is not practiced today in modern Judaism or Christianity. However, the practice was connected to the time when Israel was in the promised land, and genealogies were important, especially in regard to how Israelites passed on their land inheritance to their children. Establishing one’s lineage was a type of land deed. Whether the levirate marriage was commanded by God or a custom is unclear. According to Deuteronomy 25:5, the levirate marriage practice seemed to be part of the civil law and, therefore, expired in the New Covenant.
“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)
Mr. Kettler has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife Marea attend the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr. Kettler is the author of books defending the Reformed Faith. Books can be ordered online at www. JackKettler .com
What is the sin that is unto death? by Jack Kettler
“If any man sees his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.” (1 John 5:16)
1. What is a sin unto death?
2. Can this sin be identified by one who is committing it or observing it?
3. Can a Christian commit this sin?
The passage from 1 John has been one of the more difficult texts to interpret.
Some distinctions:
First, the Apostle addresses a sin that is not unto death and can be committed by a brother, 5:16a.
Second, 1 John 5:16a involves prayer. 1 John 5:16b seemingly does not include prayer.
The following observation may help to answer the second question:
1 John 5:16a is regarding a brother. However, 1 John 5:16b seemingly does not have a brother in view.
Many expositors and commentators have noted these distinctions.
One possible interpretation:
Is 1 John 5:16 the same as blaspheming against the Spirit seen in Matthew 12:31?
In Matthew 12:31, blasphemy against the Spirit is mentioned. Is this blasphemy a sin unto death? Is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit accusing Jesus Christ of being demon-possessed instead of filled with the Spirit? Blasphemy of this nature seems probable. The standard interpretation is that the unpardonable sin today is remaining in the state of unbelief.
If this is correct, then 1 John 5:16, b could not be talking about blasphemy against the Holy Spirit since the restriction about not praying for this sin would be inconsistent with other Scriptures about praying for the lost.
One possible interpretation of 1 John 5:16 is what happened to Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5:1–10. However, after consulting the Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges, as will be seen, it seems to rule this out under point number two.
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges:
“There is a sin unto death Or, there is sin unto death; we have no τις or μία in the Greek, a fact which is against the supposition that any act of sin is intended. In that case would not S. John have named it, that the faithful might avoid it, and also know when it had been committed? The following explanations of ‘sin unto death’ may be safely rejected. 1. Sin punished by the law with death. 2. Sin punished by Divine visitation with death or sickness. 3. Sin punished by the Church with excommunication. As a help to a right explanation we may get rid of the idea which some commentators assume, that ‘sin unto death’ is a sin which can be recognised by those among whom the one who commits it lives. S. John’s very guarded language points the other way. He implies that some sins may be known to be ‘not unto death’: he neither says nor implies that all ‘sin unto death’ can be known as such. As a further help we may remember that no sin, if repented of, can be too great for God’s mercy. Hence S. John does not speak even of this sin as ‘fatal’ or ‘mortal’, but as ‘unto death’ (πρὸς θάνατον). Death is its natural, but not its absolutely inevitable consequence. It is possible to close the heart against the influences of God’s Spirit so obstinately and persistently that repentance becomes a moral impossibility. Just as the body may starve itself to such an extent as to make the digestion, or even the reception, of food impossible; so, the soul may go on refusing offers of grace until the very power to receive grace perishes. Such a condition is necessarily sin, and ‘sin unto death’. No passing over out of death into life (1 John 3:14) is any longer (without a miracle of grace) possible. ‘Sin unto death’, therefore, is not any act of sin, however heinous, but a state or habit of sin wilfully chosen and persisted in: it is constant and consummate opposition to God. In the phraseology of this Epistle we might say that it is the deliberate preference of darkness to light, of falsehood to truth, of sin to righteousness, of the world to the Father, of spiritual death to eternal life.” (1) (Underlining and bolding emphasis mine)
The Cambridge commentators rightly note that if John could identify the sin, he would be able to warn believers of this sin. However, since John does not identify the sin unto death, the following possibilities are ruled out, “1. Sin punished by the law with death. 2. Sin punished by Divine visitation with death or sickness. 3. Sin punished by the Church with excommunication.”
Calvin on 1 John 5:16:
“But among the faithful, this ought to be an indubitable truth, that whatever is contrary to God’s law is sin, and in its nature mortal; for where there is a transgression of the law, there is sin and death.
What, then, is the meaning of the Apostle? He denies that sins are mortal, which, though worthy of death, are yet not thus punished by God. He therefore does not estimate sins in themselves, but forms a judgment of them according to the paternal kindness of God, which pardons the guilt, where yet the fault is. In short, God does not give over to death those whom he has restored to life, though it depends not on them that they are not alienated from life.
There is a sin unto death I have already said that the sin to which there is no hope of pardon left, is thus called. But it may be asked, what this is; for it must be very atrocious, when God thus so severely punishes it. It may be gathered from the context, that it is not, as they say, a partial fall, or a transgression of a single commandment, but apostasy, by which men wholly alienate themselves from God. For the Apostle afterwards adds, that the children of God do not sin, that is, that they do not forsake God, and wholly surrender themselves to Satan, to be his slaves. Such a defection, it is no wonder that it is mortal; for God never thus deprives his own people of the grace of the Spirit; but they ever retain some spark of true religion. They must then be reprobate and given up to destruction, who thus fall away so as to have no fear of God.
Were any one to ask, whether the door of salvation is closed against their repentance; the answer is obvious, that as they are given up to a reprobate mind, and are destitute of the Holy Spirit, they cannot do anything else, than with obstinate minds, become worse and worse, and add sins to sins.
But it may be asked again, by what evidences can we know that a man’s fall is fatal; for except the knowledge of this was certain, in vain would the Apostle have made this exception, that they were not to pray for a sin of this kind. It is then right to determine sometimes, whether the fallen is without hope, or whether there is still a place for a remedy. This, indeed, is what I allow, and what is evident beyond dispute from this passage; but as this very seldom happens, and as God sets before us the infinite riches of his grace, and bids us to be merciful according to his own example, we ought not rashly to conclude that any one has brought on himself the judgment of eternal death; on the contrary, love should dispose us to hope well. But if the impiety of some appear to us not otherwise than hopeless, as though the Lord pointed it out by the finger, we ought not to contend with the just judgment of God, or seek to be more merciful than he is.” (2)
As Calvin notes, “They must then be reprobate and given up to destruction, who thus fall away so as to have no fear of God.” In this respect, Calvin equates the “sin unto death” with the sin of final apostasy.
From Spurgeon’s Expositions of the Bible on the 1 John passage:
“1 John 5:16-18. If any man sees his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it. All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death. We know that whatsoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.
He who has committed the sin which is unto death have no desire for forgiveness, he will never repent, he will never seek faith in Christ but he will continue hardened and unbelieving; he will henceforth never be the subject of holy influences, for he has crossed over into that dark region of despair where hope and mercy never come. Perhaps some of you think that you have committed that unpardonable sin, and are at this moment grieving over it. If so, it is clear that you cannot have committed that sin, or else you could not grieve over it. If you have any fear concerning it, you have not committed that sin which is unto death, for even fear is a sign of life. Whoever repents of sin and trusts in Jesus Christ is freely and fully forgiven, therefore it is clear that he has not committed a sin which will not be forgiven. There is much in this passage to make us prayerful and watchful, but there is nothing here to make a single troubled heart feel anything like despair. He that is born again, born from above, can never commit this unpardonable sin. He is kept from it; “that wicked one” cannot even touch him, for he is preserved by sovereign grace against this dreadful damage to his soul. You need not be curious to enquire what this unpardonable sin is. I will give you an old illustration of mine concerning it. You may sometimes have seen a notice put up on certain estates in the country, “Man-traps and spring guns set here,” but, if so, did you ever go round to the front door of the mansion, and say, “If you please will you tell me where the man-traps are, and whereabouts the spring guns are set?” If you had asked that question, the answer would have been, “It is the very purpose of this warning not to tell you where they are, for you have no business to trespass there at all.” So, “all unrighteousness is sin,” and you are warned to keep clear of it.” There is a sin unto death,” but you are not told what that sin is on purpose that you may, by the grace of God, keep clear of sin altogether.” (3)
As noted by Spurgeon, this “sin unto death” cannot be committed by a true Christian.
In closing:
In this final contribution, a look at the grammar and possibilities of a different translation of the text is explored to find a solution to understanding what John had in mind.
SHOULD WE PRAY FOR STRAYING BRETHREN? JOHN’S CONFIDENCE IN 1 JOHN 5:16–17 by Randal K. J. Tan*
V. Conclusion p. 608
Arguments from grammatical usage and from the flow of John’s argument
in 1 John point towards an alternative interpretation of 1 John 5:16–17:
(a) because the main verb levgw, “I speak,” comes between the prepositional
phrase “not concerning that” and the ªna-clause, NT usage heavily favors
taking the prepositional phrase with “I speak”; (b) John’s normal usage of
o§ti and ªna-clauses favors taking the ªna-clause here as a purpose clause,
“in order that he might supplicate”; and (c) the immediate context of 1 John
5:13–17 and the principle of maximal redundancy favor this reading.
The resulting translation is: “If anyone should see his brother practicing
a sin that does not lead to eternal death, he shall supplicate God and he shall
give him eternal life for those who are sinning not unto eternal death. There
is sin that leads to eternal death. I am not speaking concerning that sin that
leads to eternal death in order that he might supplicate God for the brother
whom he sees sinning. 40 For while all unrighteousness is sin, there is sin that
does not lead to eternal death.”
John’s purpose is to assure Christians of the efficacy of their prayers for
fellow members of the Christian community who fall into sin: our intercessory
prayers will certainly restore them to fellowship with God (tantamount
to having eternal/resurrection life in John’s writings, since God is the only
source of life), with one exception. While John acknowledges that there is
this exception, a category of sin that leads to eternal death, he does not wish
to focus on it because his purpose is to call believers to intercessory prayer.
Intercession thus appears to be one of the ways in which Christians are
to bear one another’s burdens (cf. Gal 6:1–2). Ultimately, each individual
40 John’s interchange of ejrwtaÅn with a√te∂n in John 16:23 and 26 shows that no difference in
meaning should be posited between these two verbs. John 16:26 also points the way to the words
that I supplied above: one supplicates God for people. John 17:9 shows how the one to whom one
supplicates can be omitted after the referent is established in context. Cf. notes 18 and 35. The
attempt to distinguish ejrwtaÅn from a√te∂n as indicating a more intimate relationship between the
one praying and the one addressed (see e.g. Westcott, The Epistles of John 192; G. Stahlin, “a√tevw,
ktl.” TDNT 1.193; and H. Greeven, “eußcomai, ktl.” TDNT 2.806) seems ill-founded
John’s confidence in 1 John 5:16–17 p. 609
must bear his or her own burden (individual responsibility; Gal 6:5). Each
must confess sin, repent, and believe the gospel for himself or herself (cf.
1 John 1:5–2:2). 41 Yet Christians who acknowledge John’s authority would
do well to heed his call to intercession. We can be confident that it is God’s
will that we intercede for a brother or sister who falls into sin and that our
intercessions will avail. If our intercessions do not ultimately avail, we will
know after the fact that this person has committed sin that leads to eternal
death (1 John 5:16b) and that he or she was never really part of the true
Christian community (1 John 2:19).
Ultimately, only God knows every heart, and we should leave all matters
in his hands. At the same time, we should not allow uncertainty over
whether a member of the visible Christian community has sinned or strayed
in a way that casts doubt on the genuineness of his or her faith keep us
from making fervent and persevering intercession for that person. Just as
we should humbly seek to instruct and correct, we should intercede with God
on behalf of straying brethren, “if perhaps God might grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth” (2 Tim 2:25). 42
41 One should not vainly hope that one’s conversion or restoration from straying would come
through others’ intercession apart from humbling oneself in personal confession of sin, repentance,
and renewed faith.
42 1 John 5:16–17 represents just one aspect of how the Christian community should deal with
straying members of the community. Other equally important aspects are brought out by pas-
sages like Matt 18:15–22; Luke 17:3–4; 1 Cor 5:1–6:11; 2 Cor 2:6–11; Gal 6:1–2; 2 Thess 3:14–15;
1 Tim 1:20; and James 5:15, 19–20. A balanced application of biblical teaching would neither
neglect intercession nor privilege it to the expense of the other aspects. Furthermore, anyone who
is in sin or contemplating sin should not reason perversely that since intercession, repentance,
and forgiveness are readily available, one might as well sin with impunity and seek restoration
later. For a helpful treatment of perseverance and assurance, see Thomas R. Schreiner and Ardel
B. Caneday, The Race Set Before Us: A Biblical Theology of Perseverance & Assurance (Downers
Grove/Leicester: InterVarsity, 2001) (4)
To answer the starting questions:
What is a sin unto death?
This question cannot be answered with certainty. From the commentary evidence surveyed above, the sin unto death would be final apostasy.
Can this sin be identified by one who is committing it or observing it?
Like the first question, this question likewise cannot be answered with certainty.
Can a Christian commit this sin?
If the sin unto death is final apostasy, then no, a Christian cannot commit it.
Concluding comment:
In light of the fourth entry by Randal K. J. Tan, the highlighted text seems to clarify the mystery of the “sin unto death.” Therefore, it was not John’s purpose at all to identify this sin; the text is an encouragement for intercessory prayers to fellow believers.
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 www. JackKettler .com
Examples of conspiracies in the Bible by Jack Kettler
Has the reader ever heard the pejorative “That’s a conspiracy theory”?
This Scriptural study will consider the above example of a pejorative. Additionally, the use of a pejorative will be looked at in regards to its origin and if the one using it is dodging a question or committing the equivalent of the abusive ad hominem fallacy.
Another focus of the study will be to consider Scripture and what it has to say about conspiracies. Unfortunately, the above pejorative has become so common in society that the phrase has almost become a mantra.
Are there conspiracies? Have politicians ever conspired to start wars? Have politicians conspired to have illegal monetary advantages? Have criminals ever conspired to commit all manner of crimes? In a sinful, fallen world, the depravity of man presupposes there will be conspiracies for evil. Nevertheless, prisons around the world are filled with conspirators.
For starters, what is a pejorative?
Pejorative – Wikipedia
“A pejorative or slur is a word or grammatical form expressing a negative or a disrespectful connotation, a low opinion, or a lack of respect toward someone …”
What does the Bible say?
Virtually all of the texts cited in this study will involve conspiracies that are primarily political. Were conspiracies confined to Biblical times only? If argued that this is so would be preposterous.
In this survey of Scriptures, the reader will see a number of texts where the word conspiracy or the equivalent is used.
Synonyms for conspiracy:
cabal, crew, gang, Mafia, mob, ring, syndicate
Words related to conspiracy:
collusion, cover-up, frame-up, setup, plot, plotteth, scheme, devising, planning, to do mischief, treason, unlawful alliance
Texts that use the word conspiracy:
“And Absalom sent for Ahithophel the Gilonite, David’s counseller, from his city, even from Giloh, while he offered sacrifices. And the conspiracy (הַקֶּ֙שֶׁר֙ (haq·qe·šer) was strong; for the people increased continually with Absalom.” (2 Samuel 15:12) (All Scripture citations are in the KJV unless otherwise noted) (Underlining are mine)
The above entry from the Strong’s Lexicon is typical of the Hebrew in the following passages.
“Now after the time that Amaziah did turn away from following the LORD they made a conspiracy against him in Jerusalem; and he fled to Lachish: but they sent to Lachish after him, and slew him there.” (2 Chronicles 25:27)
“And his servants arose, and made a conspiracy, and slew Joash in the house of Millo, which goeth down to Silla.” (2 Kings 12:20)
“Now they made a conspiracy against him in Jerusalem: and he fled to Lachish; but they sent after him to Lachish, and slew him there.” (2 Kings 14:19)
“And the rest of the acts of Shallum, and his conspiracy which he made, behold, they are written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel.” (2 Kings 15:15)
“And Hoshea the son of Elah made a conspiracy against Pekah the son of Remaliah, and smote him, and slew him, and reigned in his stead, in the twentieth year of Jotham the son of Uzziah.” (2 Kings 15:30)
“And the king of Assyria found conspiracy in Hoshea: for he had sent messengers to So king of Egypt, and brought no present to the king of Assyria, as he had done year by year: therefore, the king of Assyria shut him up, and bound him in prison.” (2 Kings 17:4)
“And the Lord said unto me, A conspiracy is found among the men of Judah, and among the inhabitants of Jerusalem.” (Jeremiah 11:9)
“There is a conspiracy of her prophets in the midst thereof, like a roaring lion ravening the prey; they have devoured souls; they have taken the treasure and precious things; they have made her many widows in the midst thereof.” (Ezekiel 22:25)
“And they were more than forty which had made this conspiracy.” (Acts 23:13)
From Strong’s Lexicon:
“plot.
συνωμοσίαν (synōmosian)
Noun – Accusative Feminine Singular
Strong’s Greek 4945: A conspiracy, plot. From a compound of sun and omnuo; a swearing together, i.e., a plot.”
Texts that use the equivalent of conspiracy:
“Sanballat and Geshem sent a message to me, saying, “Come, let’s meet together at Chephirim in the plain of Ono.” But they were plotting חֹֽשְׁבִ֔ים (ḥō·šə·ḇîm) to harm me.” (Nehemiah 6:2 NASB)
From Strong’s Lexicon:
“were planning
חֹֽשְׁבִ֔ים (ḥō·šə·ḇîm)
Verb – Qal – Participle – masculine plural
Strong’s Hebrew 2803: 1 to think, plan, esteem, calculate, invent, make a judgment, imagine, count 1a) (Qal) 1a1) to think, account 1a2) to plan, devise, mean 1a3) to charge, impute, reckon 1a4) to esteem, value, regard 1a5) to invent 1b) (Niphal) 1b1) to be accounted, be thought, be esteemed 1b2) to be computed, be reckoned 1b3) to be imputed 1c) (Piel) 1c1) to think upon, consider, be mindful of 1c2) to think to do, devise, plan 1c3) to count, reckon 1d) (Hithpael) to be considered”
“The wicked plotteth זֹמֵ֣ם (zō·mêm) against the just, and gnasheth upon him with his teeth.” (Psalm 37:12)
Strong’s Hebrew 2161: 1 to have a thought, devise, plan, consider, purpose 1a) (Qal) 1a1) to consider, fix thought upon 1a2) to purpose, devise 1a3) to plot (of evil intent)”
The two Hebrew words in the above two passages are rendered by the translators as
“Hide me from the secret plots of the wicked, from the throng of evildoers.” (Psalms 64:2)
Comments and questions:
In light of the Scriptures seen above, it is irrefutable that the concept of a conspiracy can be dismissed. Moreover, to deny conspiracies is to deny the Biblical record itself.
What to do when someone wants to advance or expose by way of presenting information about a possible plot to advance illegal activity?
This writer realizes that no one is required to research and respond to every nefarious scheme. However, simply using a pejorative in response to serious research is unsatisfactory. Not everyone is obliged to respond to everything put forward by a theory. Moreover, it is admitted that some individuals that have a new theory every day.
Who is obligated to consider and test theories?
However, media reporters are required to do research instead of dismissing things out of hand. For many uncovering illegal schemes is a professional duty. It is also a duty of citizenship.
For those in the media, in particular, it is incumbent to at least look at the merits of theory or argument. Many laws are designed to inhibit illegal activity.
On the other hand, no one is obliged to deal with outright absurdities like “The moon is made out of green cheese.” An assertion like this is not a conspiracy as a more likely possible mental problem.
Has the reader ever heard of the term cover-up? A cover-up is a conspiracy.
Depending on the reader’s age, they may remember the “Watergate” cover-up. What if the reporters for the Washington Post started receiving leaks about the cover-up, and what if they responded by saying, “That a conspiracy theory?”
What is good for the goose is good for the gander, meaning that one person or situation should be treated the same way that another person or situation is treated:
So, if the documentaries Rigged 2020 and 2000 Mules which tell the story uncovered by the non-partisan True the Vote.org, are going to be dismissed by simply saying “that is a conspiracy theory,” then saying that an old guy named Joe with dementia who did not campaign got 81 million votes is a “conspiracy theory” also.
One of the most outlandish “Conspiracy Theories” to be promoted in recent times is by the Uni-party political establishment, namely, that Joe Biden, who is in dramatic mental decline and spent most of his time in his basement during the campaign. On limited occasions when he made a few appearances, the crowds were extremely small. As the Biden conspiracy theory goes, this feeble candidate with no visible support got 81 million votes. This is the real conspiracy theory.
Criteria that demands evidence be evaluated:
· A majority of the American people want answers
· A credible whistleblower comes forward
· Investigators bring evidence forth
Joe Biden said his team created:
“The most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics.” – Joe Biden
October 25, 2020, as reported in the “Free Beacon.”
Do those who dismiss millions of Americans’ concerns about a stolen election simply by saying it is a “Conspiracy theory” know who Catherine Engelbrecht and Gregg Phillips are? Furthermore, can they also identify the non-profit Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL) and its relevance to the discussion? If not, why not? Are those dismissing the concerns of millions of Americans who cannot answer the above two questions simply parroting something they heard?
Was the state of Texas’ lawsuit against Arizona, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin, for diluting and invalidating their votes “conspiracy theorists”? Is Ken Paxton, the Texas Attorney General who brought the lawsuit, a “conspiracy theorist”? What about the AGs from the twenty states that signed on with the Texas lawsuit?
A sizeable majority of Americans do not believe in the 2020 election results. Therefore, dismissing the concerns of millions of Americans is offensive and a “conspiracy” itself.
The origins of the term conspiracy theory:
“The Term “Conspiracy Theory” — an Invention of the CIA
from the Rev. Douglas Wilson, member of the Core Group of Project Unspeakable
Having read JFK and the Unspeakable several years ago, I’ve been thinking about assassinations for quite a while and I’ve seen how “conspiracy theory” is used to shut off debate, to signal that we’re entering “the unspeakable” zone. So, I began to wonder if the use of the term Conspiracy Theory might be a conspiracy itself.
So, I went exploring, and surprise surprise, there is a 1967 CIA memo that puts forward a great many of the commonly heard rebuttals to the Warren Commission Report. The CIA owned over 250 media outlets in the 1960s, spent close to a billion dollars (in today’s dollars) spreading information, and had people doing its bidding in every major city in the world, so it is not surprising that they were able to disseminate this idea.
And the issue is contemporary, too, not just historical. Cass Sunstein is a powerful Obama Administration insider whose new book, Conspiracy Theories and Other Dangerous Ideas, is a sophisticated apology for the established order.
The last of this series of articles is the CIA 1967 memo itself.
CIA Document 1035-960: Foundation of a Weaponized Term”
The CIA document referenced came about as a result of the outcry of millions of Americans not trusting the “Warren Commission’s” findings on the assassination of John F. Kennedy.
The CIA using its media influence, coined the phrase “That’s a conspiracy” to dismiss the questions of concerned citizens. How convenient. Unfortunately, just hearing this charge throws individuals into a panic, thinking that they will be seen as someone wearing a tin foil hat. Again, how convenient.
In closing:
The goal of this study is to remind Christians that the Biblical record makes it clear there are conspiracies. Moreover, Christians should not become intellectually lazy by using pejoratives to refute credible information fallaciously. The AGs from twenty-one states are not conspiracy theorists.
How the fed gov itself fuels the fears of government cover-ups:
Why did the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) initially seal Pfizer testing data on their vaccine for the covid virus for 75 years? An outcry from the public changed this. Social medial sites initially dismissed this as a “conspiracy theory” and locked individuals out of their accounts for asking questions.
Is this censorship of free speech on the internet the result of the initial CIA scheme to slander individuals asking politically incorrect questions? It has become common knowledge that in many cases, the government at all levels, when charged with wrongdoing, is to lie.
“If one gives an answer before he hears, it is his folly and shame.” (Proverbs 18:13 ESV)
“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)
Mr. Kettler has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife Marea attend the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr. Kettler is the author of books defending the Reformed Faith. Books can be ordered online at www. JackKettler .com
The Religion That Started in a Hat 