What are the two sticks in Ezekiel 37:15-17? By Jack Kettler
The word of the Lord came again unto me, saying; moreover, thou son of man, take thee one stick, and write upon it, For Judah, and for the children of Israel his companions: then take another stick, and write upon it, For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim and for all the house of Israel his companions: And join them one to another into one stick; and they shall become one in thine hand. (Ezekiel 37:15-17)
What are these two sticks? What is its significance? As will be seen, there is nothing mysterious about Ezekiel’s prophecy. Saying this is because an unnamed religious group that is well known makes an outlandish claim about the two sticks of Ezekiel. The group that promotes this outlandish interpretation that it is not worthy of being interacted with.
Barnes’ Notes on the Bible sets forth the easy to grasp and clear meaning of the Ezekiel text: “A prophecy of the reunion of Israel and Judah, the incorporation of Israel under one Ruler, the kingdom of Messiah upon earth and in heaven.
Ezekiel 37:16
One stick – So in the marginal reference the names of the tribes had been written on rods or sticks.
For Judah … – To the house of David had remained faithful, not only Judah, but also Benjamin, Levi, and part of Simeon, and individual members of various tribes 2 Chronicles 11:12-16. Compare the marginal references.
Joseph … Ephraim – Compare Psalm 78:67; Hosea 5:5 ff “Joseph” is the general name here for the ten tribes, including “Ephraim,” the chief tribe, and his companions. Omit “for” before “all.” “All the house of Israel” is here the ten tribes.”
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary concurs with Barnes and is also helpful: “16. stick—alluding to Nu 17:2, the tribal rod. The union of the two rods was a prophecy in action of the brotherly union which is to reunite the ten tribes and Judah. As their severance under Jeroboam was fraught with the greatest evil to the covenant-people, so the first result of both being joined by the spirit of life to God is that they become joined to one another under the one covenant King, Messiah-David.
Judah, and … children of Israel his companions—that is, Judah and, besides Benjamin and Levi, those who had joined themselves to him of Ephraim, Manasseh, Simeon, Asher, Zebulun, Issachar, as having the temple and lawful priesthood in his borders (2Ch 11:12, 13, 16; 15:9; 30:11, 18). The latter became identified with Judah after the carrying away of the ten tribes, and returned with Judah from Babylon, and so shall be associated with that tribe at the future restoration.
For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim—Ephraim’s posterity took the lead, not only of the other descendants of Joseph (compare Eze 37:19), but of the ten tribes of Israel. For four hundred years, during the period of the judges, with Manasseh and Benjamin, its dependent tribes, it had formerly taken the lead: Shiloh was its religious capital; Shechem, its civil capital. God had transferred the birthright from Reuben (for dishonoring his father’s bed) to Joseph, whose representative, Ephraim, though the younger, was made (Ge 48:19; 1Ch 5:1). From its pre-eminence “Israel” is attached to it as “companions.” The “all” in this case, not in that of Judah, which has only attached as “companions” “the children of Israel” (that is, some of them, namely, those who followed the fortunes of Judah), implies that the bulk of the ten tribes did not return at the restoration from Babylon, but are distinct from Judah, until the coming union with it at the restoration.”
In closing:
There is nothing mysterious about Ezekiel’s prophecy. It is a beautiful picture of the reunification of Israel the Northern Kingdom, and Judah, the Southern Kingdom, during the time of the Babylonian return. The sticks represent Judah, and Israel, and their joining represent the reunification of the nation. It is a faith-building case of fulfilled prophecy during the time of the Old Covenant. God did not forget His people whom He had sent into captivity for their unrepentant sins. When His time was right, He delivered them from their enemies and brought them home. The wall was rebuilt around Jerusalem, the temple was built again, and redemptive history continued to unfold with the Advent of the Messiah.
“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)
“To God, only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ forever. Amen.” (Romans 16:27) and “heirs according to the promise.” (Galatians 3:28-29)
Notes:
1. Albert Barnes, THE AGES DIGITAL LIBRARYCOMMENTARY, Barnes’ Notes on the Bible, Ezekiel, Vol. 8 p. 357-358.
2. Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, Commentary on the Whole Bible, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Zondervan, 1977) p. 720. 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 numerous books which can be ordered www. JackKettler .com Hyperlink not completed because of advertising ad issues
In Volume 2 of this multi-volume series, “What does the Bible say,” the focus will be on difficult and perplexing portions of Scripture such as, who are the “sons of God” in Genesis 6:4,? along with many other important topics such as the spirits in prison mentioned in 1 Peter 3:19, who are they? In addition, the communicable and incommunicable attributes of God will be covered.
Chapter One: Who are the “sons of God” in Genesis 6:4?
Chapter Two: What is Eschatology?
Chapter Three: Omnipotence, a study in God’s Incommunicable Attributes
Chapter Four: Omniscience, a study in God’s Incommunicable Attributes
Chapter Five: Omnipresence, a study in God’s Incommunicable Attributes
Chapter Six: Aseity, a study in God’s Incommunicable Attributes
Chapter Seven: God’s Communicable Attributes
Chapter Eight: What does it mean when God says He creates evil in Isaiah 45:7?
Chapter Nine: Are Christmas trees a violation of Jeremiah 10:3-4?
Chapter Ten: The spirits in prison mentioned in 1 Peter 3:19, who are they?
A teaser, coming in Volume 3:
1. Does Romans 13 on submission contradict other portions of Scripture?
2. Does a Christian owe allegiance to a gang of robbers who call themselves the government?
3. Romans 13 and the Limits of submission to the Church or State
“These were nobler than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.” (Acts 17:11)
At a glance:
1. God’s incommunicable attributes, what are they?
2. God’s Communicable Attributes
3. Who are the spirits in prison that are mentioned in 1 Peter 3:19?
4. Are Christmas trees a violation of Jeremiah 10:3-4?
5. What does it mean when God says He creates evil in Isaiah 45:7?
Other books by the author:
The Religion That Started in a Hat
The Five Points of Scriptural Authority: A Defense of Sola Scriptura
1 Corinthians 15:29 Revisited: A Scriptural based interpretation
Christian Apologetics in the marketplace of ideas
Studies in Soteriology: The Doctrines of Grace Magnified
What are the Urim and Thummim? By Jack Kettler “And in the breastpiece of judgment you shall put the Urim and the Thummim, and they shall be on Aaron’s heart, when he goes in before the LORD. Thus, Aaron shall bear the judgment of the people of Israel on his heart before the LORD regularly.” (Exodus 28:30 ESV)
As this study proceeds, it will become apparent why it follows the previous study on casting lots. As in previous studies, lexical and commentary evidence will be consulted.
From the Strong’s Lexicon:
the Urim
הָאוּרִים֙ (hā·’ū·rîm)
Article | Noun – masculine plural
Strong’s Hebrew 224: Urim = ‘lights’ 1) stones kept in a pouch on the high priest’s breastplate, used in determining God’s decision in certain questions and issues
and Thummim
הַתֻּמִּ֔ים (hat·tum·mîm)
Article | Noun – masculine plural
Strong’s Hebrew 8550: Thummim = ‘perfection’ 1) stones provided for the means of achieving a sacred lot 1a) used with the Urim, the will of God was revealed
Matthew Poole’s Commentary is constructive: “The words Urim and Thummim confessedly signify light, or illuminations and perfections, which may be understood either of two differing things, the one noting the knowledge, the other the perfection, to wit, of virtues and graces, which were required in the high priest, and which were in Christ in an eminent degree, and from him alone communicated to his people; or of one and the same thing, noting perfect light or illumination, by a figure called hendyadis, oft used in Scripture, as Deu 16:18 Matthew 4:16, compared with Job 10:21 John 3:5 Acts 17:25, compared with Genesis 2:7. Which may seem probable,
1. Because the great use of this instrument was to give light and direction in dubious and difficult cases, and not to confer any other perfection upon any person.
2. Because sometimes both these words and things are expressed only by one of them, and that is by Urim, Numbers 27:21 1 Samuel 28:6, which signifies lights. And the name seems to be given from the effect, because hence the Israelites had clear light, and perfect or certain direction in dark and doubtful matters. But the great question is, what this Urim and Thummim was, and in what manner God answered by it; which God having on purpose concealed from us, and not set down the matter or form of it, as he hath done of all the other particulars, it may seem curiosity and presumption for men solicitously to inquire, and positively to determine. Many conceive it was nothing else but the twelve precious stones, wherein the names of the twelve tribes were engraven, and that the answer of God was composed out of those letters which either show more brightly, or thrust themselves further outward, than the rest did; which seems a frivolous and ungrounded conjecture, both because all the letters of the alphabet were not there, and so all answers could not be given by them; and because it was shut up within the duplicature of the breastplate, and therefore could not be seen by the high priest; and there is not a word to signify that he was to take it out thence, and look upon it, but rather the contrary is evident. And that this Urim and Thummim are not the same thing with those twelve stones may be easily proved:
1. Because the stones were set and engraven in the breastplate, Exodus 28:17,21, this was only put into it, which is a word of quite different and more loose and large signification, and therefore probably doth not design the same thing.
2. It is not likely that in such a brief account of the sacred utensils the same command would be repeated again, especially in more dark and general words than it was mentioned before. And how could Moses now put it in, when the workmen had fastened it there before? or why should he be required to put it in the breastplate, when it was fastened to it already, and could not without violence be taken from it?
3. Because the stones were put in by the workmen, Exodus 39:10, the Urim and Thummim by Moses himself, Leviticus 8:8. It is objected, that where the stones are mentioned there is no mention of Urim and Thummim, as Exo 29, and that where the Urim and Thummim are mentioned there is no mention of the stones, as Leviticus 8:8, which shows they were one and the same thing. But that is not necessary, and there is an evident reason of both those omissions; of the former, Exo 39, because he mentions only those things which were made by the workmen, whereas the Urim and Thummim seems to have been made immediately by God, or by Moses with God’s direction; of the latter, Le 8, because the stones are implied in the breastplate as a part of it, and being fastened to it, whereas there he only mentions what was put in by Moses himself. There are other conjectures, as that it; as the name Jehovah, or some visible representations, &c. But such conjectures are as easily denied as affirmed. It is therefore more modest and reasonable to be silent where God is silent, than to indulge ourselves in boundless and groundless fancies. It may suffice us to know that this was a singular piece of Divine workmanship, which the high priest was obliged to wear upon solemn occasions, as one of the conditions upon which God engaged to give him answers; which answers God might give to him either by inward suggestion to his mind, or by a vocal expression to his ear. But which of those ways, or whether by any other way, it is needless now to search, and impossible certainly to discover.
The judgment of the children of Israel. A short speech. As the testimony is oft put for the ark of the testimony, so is the judgment here for the breastplate of judgment, i.e. that breastplate which declared the judgment, or oracle, or mind of God to the Israelites in those cases which they brought to the Lord.
Before the Lord continually, i.e. at all times when he shall appear before the Lord in the holy place.” (1)
Additional information is learned from the Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges:“30. The Urim and Thummim. These are to be put into the pouch of judgement: they are consequently something quite distinct from the jewels in front of it (v. 17), with which they have often been identified; and from the manner in which they are mentioned elsewhere (esp. 1 Samuel 14:41) there can be little doubt that they were two sacred lots, used for the purpose of ascertaining the Divine will on questions of national importance. We do not know their size or the material of which they were made: they are not described, but introduced as something well known. See further p. 313 f.
the judgement of &c.] The Urim and Thummim are so called as the means by which a Divine judgement, or decision, might be obtained on matters of national importance. Cf. Numbers 27:21 (P).
On the Urim and Thummim
In addition to Exodus 28:30, the Urim and Thummim are mentioned in the “”, Leviticus 8:8, and (the Urim alone) in Numbers 27:21 (both P: here Eleazar is to determine for Joshua by their help when Israel is to ‘go out’ and ‘come in’); in the Blessing attributed to Moses, Deuteronomy 33:8 (as a privileged possession of the priestly tribe), in 1 Samuel 28:6 (the Urim alone,—Jehovah answered Saul ‘neither by dreams, nor by Urim, nor by prophets’), in Ezra 2:63 = Nehemiah 7:65 (‘till a priest should rise up with Urim and Thummim,’ implying they were lost in the post-exilic age); and esp. in the original Heb. text of 1 Samuel 14:41, presupposed by the LXX. which throws the greatest light upon the manner in which they were used, ‘And Saul said, O Jehovah, the God of Israel, why hast thou not answered thy servant this day? If the iniquity be in me or in Jonathan my son, give Urim; and if it be in thy people Israel, give Thummim. And Jonathan and Saul were taken by lot, but the people escaped.’ (The Heb. words rendered in RVm. = A.V. ‘Give a perfect (lot)’ are a mutilated fragment of the longer text preserved in LXX., thâmim, ‘perfect,’ differing from ‘Thummim’ only in vocalization.) The priest who cast the lots on this occasion was evidently Ahijah, who just before (vv. 3, 18 RVm.) is mentioned as ‘bearing’ (above, p. 313) an ephod; and a comparison of the other passages in 1 Sam. in which the priest asks for a Divine decision with the help of the ephod, makes it probable that on these occasions also the Urim and Thummim, though not actually mentioned, were in fact employed: see 1 Samuel 14:18 (read as RVm.), 19, 37, Exodus 23:10-12 (see v. 6), Exodus 30:7-8. After David’s time the Urim and Thummim are not mentioned in the history; and though we are naturally not in a position to say that they were never resorted to, yet the increasing importance of the prophets as announcers of the Divine will, and the more spiritual conceptions of God which their teaching brought with it, make it probable that their use fell more and more into abeyance. But the possession of the sacred lots was an ancient and prized prerogative of the priestly caste (Deuteronomy 33:8); the right of using them was doubtless jealously maintained by the chief priest till—through whatever cause—they were lost (Ezra 2:63); and so they naturally found a place in P’s description of the high priest’s official dress, and their original institution was referred back to Moses.
The etymological meaning of ‘Urim and Thummim’ is uncertain. Regarded as two Heb. words, they would naturally signify Lights and Perfections; but as giving the original sense of the expression, this explanation is anything but satisfactory. It is possible that the words are the Hebraized forms of two originally Babylonian technical terms. The LXX. usually express Urim by either δῆλοι (sc. λίθοι), i.e. ‘visible, manifest (stones),’—and so in the Greek text of Sir 33:3 (codd. א A and RV.), Sir 45:10,—or δήλωσις, ‘manifestation, declaration’; and Thummim by ἀλήθεια, ‘truth’ (cf. Sir 45:10): the former rend is a paraphrase of ‘Lights’: the latter—as the translators lived in Egypt—may have been suggested to them by the fact that in Egypt the judge presiding at a trial wore, suspended from his neck, an image of Tme, the Egyptian goddess of truth (Wilk.-B. i. 296, iii. 183 f.; Diod. i. 48, 75). For further particulars on the whole subject, see Kennedy in DB., and Moore in EB., s.v.
31–35 (cf. Exodus 39:22-26). The robe of the ephod. This was a long violet robe woven in one piece, put on by being drawn over the head, with arm-holes (but without sleeves), and with pomegranates worked in colours, and small golden bells, arranged alternately as a border, round the bottom of the skirt” (2)
Additional passages referencing the “Urim” and “Thummim:”
“The governor told them that they were not to partake of the most holy food, until there should be a priest to consult Urim and Thummim.” (Ezra 2:63 ESV)
“Therefore, Saul said, “O LORD God of Israel, why have you not answered your servant this day? If this guilt is in me or in Jonathan my son, O LORD, God of Israel, give Urim. But if this guilt is in your people Israel, give Thummim.” And Jonathan and Saul were taken, but the people escaped.” (1 Samuel 14:41 ESV)
Again, it is profitable to consult the Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges on the 1 Samuel 14:41 passage: “41. Give a [perfect lot] This and not the marginal rendering “Shew the innocent” is the best explanation of an obscure phrase which occurs nowhere else.
The Sept. however has a very different reading, which with some emendation may be rendered, “And Saul said, O Lord God of Israel, why hast thou not answered thy servant to day? If the iniquity be in me or in Jonathan my son, O Lord God of Israel, give Urim: and if it be in thy people Israel, give Thummim.” If this reading is correct, it points to the conclusion that the “judgment of Urim and Thummim” was obtained by a special method of casting lots, which was employed on the present occasion. See further on 1 Samuel 28:6. The Heb. text implies that the ordinary lot only was used.” (3)
From the Dictionary of Bible Themes, we learn more about the perfect lot: “Dictionary of Bible Themes » 7000 God’s people » 7300 Institutions and culture of OT » 7392 lots, casting of
A means of determining the will of God, prior to the giving of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. The casting of lots was also used by pagans for the same purpose. Such use reflects the belief that nothing occurred by chance.
Casting lots to determine the will of God
Proverbs 16:33
In the ministry of the high priest
Exodus 28:30 The “Urim and Thummim” were sacred lots maintained for the purpose of determining God’s will. See also Leviticus 8:7-9; Leviticus 16:6-10; Numbers 27:21; Deuteronomy 33:8; 1 Samuel 28:6; Ezra 2:63; Nehemiah 7:65
To apportion land
Numbers 33:54 See also Numbers 26:54-56; Joshua 14:2; Joshua 18:10
To select individuals
1 Samuel 14:41-42 See also Joshua 7:14-18; Judges 20:9-10; 1 Samuel 10:20-21; Jonah 1:7; Acts 1:15-26
To assign priestly duties
1 Chronicles 24:5 See also 1 Chronicles 26:12-13; Nehemiah 10:34; Luke 1:8-9
To settle disputes
Proverbs 18:18
Casting lots as a means of divination
Ezekiel 21:21-22 See also Esther 3:7; Esther 9:24-27 The word “purim” is the plural of “pur” and means “lots”.
Casting lots as a means of distributing plunder
Joel 3:2-3 See also Nahum 3:10” (4)
In conclusion:
While there is no universal agreement on exactly what the “Urim” and “Thummim” were, the above understanding can be considered the majority view.
“Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.” (John 5:39)
How do the “Urim” and “Thummim” testify of Christ?
Consider the marvelous insight from the Chapter – The Urim And Thummim from Godrules.net: “In Christ Himself we see the antitype of the “Urim.” “In Him was life, and the life was the light of men…. that was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world” (John 1:5,9). Therefore, did He say, “I am the light of the world: he that followeth Me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life” (John 8:12). “God is light” (1 John 1:5), and Christ could say, “He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father” (John 14:9). Yes, He is the reality of which the Urim was the figure: the light of the knowledge of the glory of God shines “in the face of Jesus Christ” (2 Corinthians 4:6).
In Christ, we see the antitype of the “Thummim.” Every “perfection” is found in Him, for He is “altogether lovely” (Song of Solomon 5:16).” (5)
“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)
Notes:
1. Matthew Poole’s Commentary on the Holy Bible, Exodus, Vol. 1, (Peabody, Massachusetts, Hendrickson Publishers, 1985) p. 179.
2. Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges, S. R. DRIVER, D.D., Exodus, (Cambridge University Press, 1898), p. 307.
3. Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges, A. F. KIRKPATRICK, D.D., 1 Samuel, (Cambridge University Press, 1898), p. 137.
4. Managing Editor, Martin Manser, Dictionary of Bible Themes, “the perfect lot” Kindle Edition.
5. Chapter – The Urim And Thummim from Godrules.net: 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 many books on the Christian faith. They can be found at www. JackKettler .com Completed hyperlink cannot be listed because of advertising issues.
The apostles and of casting lots in the book of Acts by Jack Kettler
“And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.” (Acts 1:26 ESV)
What is the casting of lots? Is it the equivalent of voting? Is this a practice that should continue today? If not, why did it cease?
An overview of lots from a theological dictionary will be helpful.
From the Holman Bible Dictionary, an overview of lots: “(lahtss) Objects of unknown shape and material used to determine the divine will. Often in the Ancient Near East people, especially priests, made difficult and significant decisions by casting lots on the ground or drawing them from a receptacle. Several times Scripture mentions the practice. We do not know exactly what the lots looked like. Nor do we know how they were interpreted. We do know that people of the Old and New Testaments believed God (or gods in the case of non-Israelites or non-Christians) influenced the fall or outcome of the lots (Proverbs 16:33). Thus, casting lots was a way of determining God’s will.
One of the best examples of this use of lots is in Acts. Matthias was chosen to be Judas’ successor by lot (Acts 1:26). The apostles’ prayer immediately before shows the belief that God would express His will through this method. In the Old Testament Saul was chosen as Israel’s first king through the use of lots (1 Samuel 10:20-24).
In a similar fashion God communicated knowledge unknown to human beings through lots. Saul called for the casting of lots to determine who sinned during his day-long battle with the Philistines. Specifically, he called for the use of the Urim and Thummim (1 Samuel 14:41-42; See Joshua 7:10-15).
Lots helped God’s people make a fair decision in complicated situations. God commanded that the Promised Land be divided by lot (Numbers 26:52-56). Later, lots established the Temple priests’ order of service (1 Chronicles 24:5-19). This practice continued into Jesus’ day. Zechariah, the father of John the Baptist, was burning incense in the holy place when the angel spoke to him. Zechariah was there because the lot fell to him (Luke 1:9). The awful picture of soldiers casting lots for Jesus’ garments was this kind of “fair play” use of lots (Matthew 27:35). Proverbs teaches that the use of lots is one way to put an end to a dispute when decisions are difficult (Proverbs 18:18).
Lots are memorialized in the Jewish Feast of Purim. Purim, the Akkadian word for lots, celebrates the frustration of Haman’s plan to destroy the Jews in Persia. Haman had used lots to find the best day for the destruction (Esther 3:7).
Finally, the word lot came to refer to one’s portion or circumstance of life. The righteous could confess that God was their lot (Psalm 16:5). The lot of those who violated the people of God was terror and annihilation (Isaiah 17:14). See Oracles; Urim and Thummim.” – Albert Bean (1)
To answer the first question, what is the casting of lots? “Question: What was the practice of casting lots?
Answer: The practice of casting lots is mentioned seventy times in the Old Testament and seven times in the New Testament. In spite of the many references to casting lots in the Old Testament, nothing is known about the actual lots themselves. They could have been sticks of various lengths, flat stones like coins, or some kind of dice; but their exact nature is unknown. The closest modern practice to casting lots is likely flipping a coin.
The practice of casting lots occurs most often in connection with the division of the land under Joshua (Joshua chapters 14-21), a procedure that God instructed the Israelites on several times in the book of Numbers (Numbers 26:55; 33:54; 34:13; 36:2). God allowed the Israelites to cast lots in order to determine His will for a given situation (Joshua 18:6-10; 1 Chronicles 24:5,31). Various offices and functions in the temple were also determined by lot (1 Chronicles 24:5, 31; 25:8-9; 26:13-14). The sailors on Jonah’s ship (Jonah 1:7) also cast lots to determine who had brought God’s wrath upon their ship. The eleven apostles cast lots to determine who would replace Judas (Acts 1:26). Casting lots eventually became a game people played and made wagers on. This is seen in the Roman soldiers casting lots for Jesus’ garments (Matthew 27:35).” *
On the second question, was the casting of lots equivalent to voting?
The Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary says that lots are to be understood as voting: “26. was numbered – “voted in” by general suffrage.
with the eleven apostles—completing the broken Twelve.” (2)
The Jamieson-Fausset-Brown commentators see the action of lots by the Apostles as voting.
However, Barnes’ Notes on the Bible disagrees. Consider: “And they gave forth their lots – Some have supposed that this means they voted. But to this interpretation there are insuperable objections:
1. The word “lots,” κλήρους klērous, is not used to express votes, or suffrage.
2. The expression “the lot fell upon” is not consistent with the notion of voting. It is commonly expressive of casting lots.
3. Casting lots was common among the Jews on important and difficult occasions, and it was natural that the apostles should resort to it in this.” (3)
Barnes is supported in his understanding of the Greek from Thayer’s Greek Lexicon commenting on Strong’s NT 2819 κλῆρος:“κλῆρος, κλήρου, ὁ, from Homer down; the Sept. mostly for גּורָל and נַחֲלָה; a lot; i. e.:
1. an object used in casting or drawing lots, which was either a pebble, or a potsherd, or a bit of wood (hence, κλῆρος is to be derived from κλάω (cf. Ellicott on Colossians 1:12)): Acts 1:26 (see below); βάλλοντες κλῆρον, Matthew 27:35; Mark 15:24; Luke 23:34; John 19:24 (Psalm 21:19 (); Jonah 1:7, etc.); the lots of the several persons concerned, inscribed with their names, were thrown together into a vase, which was then shaken, and he whose lot first fell out upon the ground was the one chosen (Homer, Iliad 3, 316, 325; 7, 175, etc.; Livy 23, 3 (but cf. B. D. American edition, under the word Lot)); hence, ὁ κλῆρος πίπτει ἐπί τινα, Acts 1:26 (Ezekiel 24:6; Jonah 1:7).
2. what is obtained by lot, allotted portion: λαγχάνειν and λαμβάνειν τόν κλῆρον τῆς διακονίας, a prrtion in the ministry common to the apostles, Acts 1:17, 25 R G; ἐστι μοι κλῆρος ἐν τίνι, dative of the thing, Acts 8:21; like κληρονομία (which see) it is used of the part which one will have in eternal salvation, λαμβάνειν … τόν κλῆρον ἐν τοῖς ἡγιασμένοις, among the sanctified, Acts 26:18 (Wis. 5:5); of eternal salvation itself, κλῆρος τῶν ἁγίων, i. e. the eternal salvation which God has assigned to the saints, Colossians 1:12 (where cf. Lightfoot). of persons, οἱ κλῆροι, those whose care and oversight has been assigned to one (allotted charge), used of Christian churches, the administration of which falls to the lot of the presbyters: 1 Peter 5:3, cf. Acts 17:4; (for patristic usage see Sophocles Lexicon, under the word; cf. Lightfoot on Philippians, p. 246f).” (4)
The final question about the continuation of casting lots is answered in the next commentary entry.
From the Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges on Acts 1:26: “26. And they gave forth their lots] Better, And they gave lots for them, in accordance with MSS. The process probably was that each member of the company wrote on a tablet or ticket the name of one of the chosen two; the whole were then placed in some vessel and shaken together, and that tablet which was first drawn out decided the election. The casting of lots, though not now permitted to the Jews (see Shulkhan Aruch Joreh Deah par. 179. 1), was used by a provision of the Mosaic Law (Leviticus 16:8) for the selection of one out of the two goats for the Lord. “The goat upon which the Lord’s lot fell” was offered for a sin offering. The Apostles had not yet received the Spirit which was to “guide them into all truth.” When the Holy Ghost had been given, they, as St Chrysostom notices (In Act. Ap. Hom. III.), used no more casting of lots.” (5)
In closing:
In some churches today, elders and deacons are chosen by casting lots.
In the New Testament, there are qualifications for elders. For example, 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:6–9 these qualifications are listed.
In the New Testament, there are qualifications for deacons. For example, in 1 Timothy 3:8–13, the qualifications for deacons are listed.
How are these qualifications evaluated? The vetting of deacons and elders in terms of the Word of God’s requirements inspires more confidence than the casting of lots. Why? The casting of lots today is problematic in the light of the closed canon of Scripture. If God is still speaking today through the casting of lots, maybe He is still giving other revelations also. If so, say goodbye to the doctrine of a completed Bible. For those, today, using the casting of lots. Is the casting of lots infallible? If not, serious theological questions can be asked, like does God make mistakes.
From the Form of Government of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church is a good example of how this process of evaluation and choosing deacons and elders have developed in New Testament times. Chapter X
Ruling Elders
1. Christ who has instituted government in his church has furnished some men, beside the ministers of the Word, with gifts for government, and with commission to execute the same when called thereto. Such officers, chosen by the people from among their number, are to join with the ministers in the government of the church, and are properly called ruling elders.
2. Those who fill this office should be sound in the faith and of exemplary Christian life, men of wisdom and discretion, worthy of the esteem of the congregation as spiritual fathers.
3. Ruling elders, individually and jointly with the pastor in the session, are to lead the church in the service of Christ. They are to watch diligently over the people committed to their charge to prevent corruption of doctrine or morals. Evils which they cannot correct by private admonition they should bring to the notice of the session. They should visit the people, especially the sick, instruct the ignorant, comfort the mourning, and nourish and guard the children of the covenant. They should pray with and for the people. They should have particular concern for the doctrine and conduct of the minister of the Word and help him in his labors.
Chapter XI
Deacons
1. The Scriptures designate the office of deacon as distinct and perpetual in the church. Deacons are called to show forth the compassion of Christ in a manifold ministry of mercy toward the saints and strangers on behalf of the church. To this end they exercise, in the fellowship of the church, a recognized stewardship of care and of gifts for those in need or distress. This service is distinct from that of rule in the church.
2. Those chosen to this office should be of great faith, exemplary lives, honest repute, brotherly love, warm sympathies, and sound judgment.
3. In order to facilitate the performance of the duties of their office the deacons of each particular church shall be constituted a board of deacons. The board shall choose its own officers from its membership.
4. The board shall oversee the ministry of mercy in the church and shall collect and disburse funds for the relief of the needy. Other forms of service for the church may also be committed to the deacons.
5. In the discharge of their duties the deacons shall be under the supervision and authority of the session. Accordingly, the board shall keep a record of its proceedings and of all funds and their distribution, and shall submit its records to the session once every three months, and at other times upon request of the session. If it seems to be for the best interest of the church, the session may require the board of deacons to reconsider any action, or may, if necessary, overrule it.
6. It is desirable that the session and the board of deacons meet together at regular intervals to confer on matters of common responsibility.
7. In a church in which there are no deacons, the duties of the office shall devolve upon the session.
Chapter XXV
Electing, Ordaining, and Installing
Ruling Elders and Deacons
1. Every congregation shall elect ruling elders and deacons, except in extraordinary circumstances. Those elected must be male communicant members in good and regular standing in the church in which they are to exercise their office.
2. Each congregation shall determine, by vote of communicant members in good and regular standing, to choose elders or deacons for either lifetime service or limited terms of service on the session or board of deacons. In a congregation that has determined to choose ruling elders or deacons for limited terms of service a full term shall be three years. When there are three or more ruling elders or three or more deacons the session or board of deacons shall consist of three classes, one of which shall be elected each year. A person may be elected for a full term or partial term. Ruling elders, once ordained, when they are not reelected to a term of service, shall not thereby be divested of the office, but may be commissioned to higher judicatories by the session or the presbytery, and may perform other functions of the office when so appointed by an appropriate judicatory. Similarly deacons, when not elected to a term of service in the congregation, may be commissioned by an appropriate judicatory to perform specific diaconal functions.
3. In order that these sacred offices not be committed to weak or unworthy men, and that the congregations shall have an opportunity to form a better judgment respecting the gifts of those by whom they are to be governed and served, no one shall normally be eligible for election to office until he has been a communicant member in good standing for at least one year, shall have received appropriate training under the direction of or with the approval of the session, and shall have served the church in functions requiring responsible leadership. Men of ability and piety in the congregation shall be encouraged by the session to prepare themselves for the offices of ruling elder or deacon so that their study and opportunities for service may be provided for in a systematic and orderly way.
4. Any member of the congregation who is entitled to vote may propose to the session nominations for these offices. The session shall certify those nominees whom, upon examination, it judges to possess the necessary qualifications for office. At least one Lord’s Day preceding the date appointed for the election the session shall announce to the congregation the names of those it has certified. Election shall be from among those certified.
5. After a person has been elected to the office of ruling elder or deacon the session shall determine a time for his ordination. The person elected shall be put in actual possession of his office only by ordination whereby he is solemnly set apart for the labor to which he has been called.
6. The person elected shall be ordained and installed, in the presence of the congregation, in the following manner:
a. The minister, in the following or similar language, shall state the warrant and nature of the office of ruling elder or deacon, the character to be sustained by the officer, and duties to be fulfilled:
i. In the case of a ruling elder:
The office of ruling elder is based upon the kingship of our Lord Jesus Christ, who provided for his church officers who should rule in his name. Paul and Barnabas “appointed . . . elders in every church”; and Paul commanded that those who “rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and in teaching.” In this passage the Scriptures distinguish between elders who labor particularly in the Word and in doctrine—usually called ministers or pastors—and elders who join with the minister in the government and discipline of the church—generally called ruling elders.
It is the duty and privilege of ruling elders, in the name and by the authority of our ascended king, to rule over particular churches, and, as servants of our great shepherd, to care for his flock. Holy Scripture enjoins them: “Take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit hath made you bishops, to feed the church of God, which he purchased with his own blood.” As a consequence, ruling elders must be zealous in maintaining the purity of the ministration of the Word and sacraments. They must conscientiously exercise discipline and uphold the good order and peace of the church. With love and humility they should promote faithfulness on the part of both elders and deacons in the discharge of their duties. Moreover, they should have particular regard to the doctrine and conduct of the minister of the Word, in order that the church may be edified, and may manifest itself as the pillar and ground of the truth.
If they are to fill worthily so sacred an office, ruling elders must adorn sound doctrine by holy living, setting an example of godliness in all their relations with men. Let them walk with exemplary piety and diligently discharge the obligations of their office; and “when the chief shepherd shall be manifested,” they “shall receive the crown of glory that fadeth not away.”
ii. In the case of a deacon:
The office of deacon is based upon the solicitude and love of Christ for his own people. So tender is our Lord’s interest in their temporal needs that he considers what is done unto one of the least of his brethren as done unto him. For he will say to those who have ministered to his little ones: “I was hungry, and ye gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink; I was a stranger, and ye took me in; naked, and ye clothed me; I was sick, and ye visited me; I was in prison, and ye came unto me.”
In the beginning the apostles themselves ministered to the poor, but subsequently, in order that they might be able to devote themselves wholly to prayer and the ministry of the Word, they committed that responsibility to others, having directed the people to choose men of good report, full of the Holy Spirit and of wisdom. Since the days of the apostles the church has recognized the care of the poor as a distinct ministry of the church committed to deacons.
The duties of deacons consist of encouraging members of the church to provide for those who are in want, seeking to prevent poverty, making discreet and cheerful distribution to the needy, praying with the distressed and reminding them of the consolations of Holy Scripture.
If they are to fill worthily so sacred an office, deacons must adorn sound doctrine by holy living, setting an example of godliness in all their relations with men. Let them walk with exemplary piety and diligently discharge the obligations of their office; and “when the chief shepherd shall be manifested,” they “shall receive the crown of glory that fadeth not away.”
b. He shall then propose to the candidate the following questions:
(1) Do you believe the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God, the only infallible rule of faith and practice?
(2) Do you sincerely receive and adopt the Confession of Faith and Catechisms of this Church, as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures?
(3) Do you approve of the government, discipline, and worship of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church?
(4) Do you promise to seek the purity, the peace, and the unity of the church?
(5) Do you accept the office of ruling elder (or deacon) in this congregation and promise, in reliance on the grace of God, faithfully to perform all the duties thereof?
c. When each of these questions has been answered in the affirmative, the minister shall address to the members of the congregation the following question:
Do you, the members of this church, acknowledge and receive this brother as a ruling elder (or deacon), and do you promise to yield him all that honor, encouragement, and obedience in the Lord, to which his office, according to the Word of God and the constitution of this Church, entitles him?
d. When the members of the church have answered this question in the affirmative, by holding up their right hands, the candidate shall kneel and be ordained by prayer and with the laying on of hands to the office of ruling elder or deacon.
e. The minister shall then declare:
I now declare that ___________________ has been regularly elected, ordained, and installed a ruling elder (or deacon) in this church, agreeably to the Word of God, and according to the constitution of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church; and that he is entitled to all that honor, encouragement, and obedience in the Lord to which his office entitles him.
f. After this the minister shall give to him and to the congregation an exhortation suited to the occasion.
g. When there is an existing session, it is proper that the members of that body, in the face of the congregation, take the newly ordained elder by the hand, saying, in words to this purpose, “We give you the right hand of fellowship, to take part of this office with us.”
7. A ruling elder or deacon who has been installed for a limited term of service may be elected to additional terms of service in the same or another congregation in accordance with the provisions of Section 2 of this chapter. When such a person is elected to further service he shall be publicly installed in the following manner:
a. The minister shall review before the congregation, in the following or similar language, the warrant and nature of the office of ruling elder or deacon, the character to be sustained by the officer, and the duties to be fulfilled:
i. In the case of a ruling elder:
The office of ruling elder is based upon the kingship of our Lord Jesus Christ, who provided for his church officers who should rule in his name. Paul and Barnabas “appointed . . . elders in every church”; and Paul commanded that those who “rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and in teaching.” In this passage the Scriptures distinguish between elders who labor particularly in the Word and in doctrine—usually called ministers or pastors—and elders who join with the minister in the government and discipline of the church—generally called ruling elders.
It is the duty and privilege of ruling elders, in the name and by the authority of our ascended king, to rule over particular churches, and, as servants of our great shepherd, to care for his flock. Holy Scripture enjoins them: “Take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit hath made you bishops, to feed the church of God, which he purchased with his own blood.” As a consequence, ruling elders must be zealous in maintaining the purity of the ministration of the Word and sacraments. They must conscientiously exercise discipline and uphold the good order and peace of the church. With love and humility they should promote faithfulness on the part of both elders and deacons in the discharge of their duties. Moreover, they should have particular regard to the doctrine and conduct of the minister of the Word, in order that the church may be edified, and may manifest itself as the pillar and ground of the truth.
If they are to fill worthily so sacred an office, ruling elders must adorn sound doctrine by holy living, setting an example of godliness in all their relations with men. Let them walk with exemplary piety and diligently discharge the obligations of their office; and “when the chief shepherd shall be manifested,” they “shall receive the crown of glory that fadeth not away.”
ii. In the case of a deacon:
The office of deacon is based upon the solicitude and love of Christ for his own people. So tender is our Lord’s interest in their temporal needs that he considers what is done unto one of the least of his brethren as done unto him. For he will say to those who have ministered to his little ones: “I was hungry, and ye gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink; I was a stranger, and ye took me in; naked, and ye clothed me; I was sick, and ye visited me; I was in prison, and ye came unto me.”
In the beginning the apostles themselves ministered to the poor, but subsequently, in order that they might be able to devote themselves wholly to prayer and the ministry of the Word, they committed that responsibility to others, having directed the people to choose men of good report, full of the Holy Spirit and of wisdom. Since the days of the apostles the church has recognized the care of the poor as a distinct ministry of the church committed to deacons.
The duties of deacons consist of encouraging members of the church to provide for those who are in want, seeking to prevent poverty, making discreet and cheerful distribution to the needy, praying with the distressed and reminding them of the consolations of Holy Scripture.
If they are to fill worthily so sacred an office, deacons must adorn sound doctrine by holy living, setting an example of godliness in all their relations with men. Let them walk with exemplary piety and diligently discharge the obligations of their office; and “when the chief shepherd shall be manifested,” they “shall receive the crown of glory that fadeth not away.”
b. He shall then propose to the officer the following question:
Do you agree to serve as a ruling elder (or deacon) in this congregation, and promise, in reliance on the grace of God, faithfully to perform all the duties thereof?
c. When the question has been answered in the affirmative the minister shall address to the members of the congregation the following question:
Do you, the members of this church, acknowledge and receive this brother as a ruling elder (or deacon), and do you promise to yield him all that honor, encouragement, and obedience in the Lord, to which his office, according to the Word of God and the constitution of this Church, entitles him?
d. When a majority of the members of the church who are present have answered this question in the affirmative, by holding up their right hands, the minister shall then declare:
I now declare that ______________ has been regularly elected and installed a ruling elder (or deacon) in this church, agreeably to the Word of God, and according to the constitution of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church; and that he is entitled to all that honor, encouragement, and obedience in the Lord to which his office entitles him.
e. After this the minister shall give to him and to the congregation an exhortation suited to the occasion.**
“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) “To God, only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ forever. Amen.” (Romans 16:27) and “heirs according to the promise.” (Galatians 3:28-29)
2. Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, Commentary on the Whole Bible, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Zondervan, 1977), p. 1083.
3. Albert Barnes, THE AGES DIGITAL LIBRARYCOMMENTARY, Barnes’ Notes on the Bible, Acts, Vol. 5 p. 1417.
4. J. H. Thayer, The New Thayer’s Greek English Lexicon, (Peabody, Massachusetts, Hendrickson Publishers), p. 349.
5. Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges, J. RAWSON LUMBY, D.D., Acts, Vol. 1, (Cambridge University Press, 1898), p. 14.** The OPC Book of Order https://opc.org/BCO/FG.html Mr. Kettler has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife Marea attend the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr. Kettler is the author of the book defending the Reformed Faith against attacks. Other books by Mr. Kettler can be found at, Jack Kettler .com
Did Jesus divest himself of His divinity in Philippians 2:7? By Jack Kettler
“Though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.” (Philippians 2:6-7 ESV)
What does it mean in Philippians 2:7 when it says Jesus emptied himself? Philippians 2:6 says Jesus “was in the form of God.” Does emptying himself have anything to do with His divinity? Was Jesus on earth a man only or the God/Man?
An aside: When interpreting the Scriptures, a private independent approach is not the correct way to ascertain the meaning of a Biblical text. It is vital to consult learned commentators of the Church. First, a traditional evangelical understanding of the passage will be helpful.
Barnes’ Notes on the Bible provides a clear exposition of the Philippians 2:7 passage: “But made himself of no reputation – This translation by no means conveys the sense of the original According to this it would seem that he consented to be without distinction or honor among people; or that he was willing to be despised or disregarded. The Greek is ἑαυτον ἐκένωσεν heauton ekenōsen. The word κενόω kenoō means literally, to empty, “to make empty, to make vain or void.” It is rendered: “made void” in Romans 4:14; “made of none effect,” 1 Corinthians 1:17; “make void,” 1 Corinthians 9:15; “should be vain,” 2 Corinthians 9:3. The word does not occur elsewhere in the New Testament, except in the passage before us. The essential idea is that of bringing to emptiness, vanity, or nothingness; and, hence, it is applied to a case where one lays aside his rank and dignity, and becomes in respect to that as nothing; that is, he assumes a more humble rank and station. In regard to its meaning here, we may remark:
Barnes in his points (1) – (3) says concerning Christ’s deity from the text is irrefutable:
(1) That it cannot mean that he literally divested himself of his divine nature and perfections, for that was impossible. He could not cease to be omnipotent, and omnipresent, and most holy, and true, and good.
(2) It is conceivable that he might have laid aside, for a time, the symbols or the manifestation of his glory, or that the outward expressions of his majesty in heaven might have been withdrawn. It is conceivable for a divine being to intermit the exercise of his almighty power, since it cannot be supposed that God is always exerting his power to the utmost. And in like manner there might be for a time a laying aside or intermitting of these manifestations or symbols, which were expressive of the divine glory and perfections. Yet,
(3) This supposes no change in the divine nature, or in the essential glory of the divine perfections. When the sun is obscured by a cloud, or in an eclipse, there is no real change of its glory, nor are his beams extinguished, nor is the sun himself in any measure changed. His luster is only for a time obscured. So it might have been in regard to the manifestation of the glory of the Son of God. Of course there is much in regard to this which is obscure, but the language of the apostle undoubtedly implies more than that he took an humble place, or that he demeaned himself in an humble manner. In regard to the actual change respecting his manifestations in heaven, or the withdrawing of the symbols of his glory there, the Scriptures are nearly silent, and conjecture is useless – perhaps improper. The language before us fairly implies that he laid aside that which was expressive of his being divine – that glory which is involved in the phrase “being in the form of God” – and took upon himself another form and manifestation in the condition of a servant.
In the next paragraph and following two points, Barnes explains the phrase “form of a servant:” And took upon him the form of a servant – The phrase “form of a servant,” should be allowed to explain the phrase “form of God,” in Philippians 2:6. The “form of a servant” is that which indicates the condition of a servant, in contradistinction from one of higher rank. It means to appear as a servant, to perform the offices of a servant, and to be regarded as such. He was made like a servant in the lowly condition, which he assumed. The whole connection and force of the argument here demands this interpretation. Storr and Rosenmuller interpret this as meaning that he became the servant or minister of God, and that in doing it, it was necessary that he should become a man. But the objection to this is obvious. It greatly weakens the force of the apostle’s argument. His object is to state the depth of humiliation to which he descended, and this was best done by saying that he descended to the lowest condition of humanity and appeared in the most humble garb. The idea of being a “servant or minister of God” would not express that, for this is a term, which might be applied to the highest angel in heaven. Though the Lord Jesus was not literally a servant or slave, yet what is here affirmed was true of him in the following respects:
(1) He occupied a most lowly condition in life.
(2) He condescended to perform such acts as are appropriate only to those who are servants. “I am among you as he that serveth;” Luke 22:27; compare John 13:4-15.
And was made in the likeness of men – Margin, habit. The Greek word means likeness, resemblance. The meaning is he was made like unto people by assuming such a body as theirs; see the notes at Romans 8:3.” (1)
Some take issue with Barnes’ commentary and have a different understanding of “emptied himself.” This differing scheme is called the “Kenosis” theory.
What is the Kenosis theory? Dr. Joseph R. Nally explains: “Question
What is Kenosis?
Answer
The name “Kenosis” is derived from the Greek word kenoo, which means, “to empty.” The word kenoo is used in Philippians 2:5-8:
Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied [ekenosen, the aorist of kenoo] himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.
The Kenosis theory promotes that Jesus Christ – God – gave up some of his attributes – omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence [see “What are the Attributes of God?” below] – when he became a man upon the earth. As the theory goes, Jesus voluntarily gave up these attributes so he could fully function as a man and finish the work of redemption.
However, if Jesus Christ gave up being omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, then in effect he was no longer God. Can God cease to exist? Can divinity simply be turned on and off like a light switch? God is immutable (Mal 3:6; Jas 1:17), meaning his nature cannot change. However, Kenosis offers us a changing god. The Kenosis theory destroys the Trinity, as if Jesus emptied himself of his divine attributes he could not longer be a divine subsistence in the Trinitarian life. Jesus Christ holds this world together (Col 1:17). If he turned off his divinity, the universe and everything in it would cease to exist.
Jesus Christ did not give up any attributes when he became a man. We see this fact vividly when Jesus states, “Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels?” (Matt 26:53). Did not Jesus heal the sick, cast our demons, and calm the sea? Weren’t all these displays of his omnipotence? Jesus in his divine nature knows everything (Matt 16:21; Luke 11:17; John 4:29), is everywhere (Matt 18:20; 28:20; cf. Acts 18:10), and has all power (Matt 8:26-27; 28:18; John 11:38-44; Luke 7:14-15; cf. Rev 1:8), etc. Jesus Christ never ceased being fully God when upon earth! “For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily” (Col 2:9).
What Jesus did was to at times “conceal” (Greek, krypsis) some of his attributes. John Calvin says it rather well:
For we know that in Christ the two natures were united into one person in such a manner that each retained its own properties; and more especially the divine nature was in a state of repose, and did not at all exert itself, whenever it was necessary that the human nature should act separately, according to what was peculiar to itself, in discharging the office of mediator. There would be no impropriety, therefore in saying that Christ, who knew all things (John 21:17), was ignorant of something in respect of his perception as a man; for otherwise he could not have been liable to grief and anxiety, and could not have been like us (Hebrews 2:17).
While Jesus Christ was upon this earth, he continued to share fully in the one essence of God Almighty. While Jesus Christ continued to be fully God, he added to himself everything that is essential to humanity and walked the earth as the God-man (100% God and 100% man) in order to meet the most dire need of his people – their atonement (Rom 3:21-26).
So, in the hypostatic union there is a union of the two distinct natures in Christ: divinity humanity. Each nature fully retains its own properties; they are not changed, or blended together. So, while we understand that God fully knows all things (Psa. 139; 1 Kings 8:39; 1 John 3:20) when we come to a passage such as Mark 13:32 (Matt 24:36) we can safely say: (1) in his humanity, Christ was limited in his knowledge as God the Father had not yet revealed this specific information to the human mind of his only begotten Son, (2) however, at one and the same time, in his divinity, Jesus Christ certainly knew the day and the hour of the final judgment. If not, then he was not God!
The Kenosis theory is heretical. If Jesus was not fully divine in his life, death, resurrection, and ascension then all are yet in their sins.
Despite all the heresies in the early church (among them, Adoptionism, Albigenses, Apollinarianism, Arianism, Docetism, Ebionism, Gnosticism, Kenosis, Marcionism, Modalism, Monarchianism, Monophysitism, Nestorianism, Patripassionism, Pelagianism, Semi-Pelagianism, Socinianism, Subordinationism, and Tritheism, etc.) the Word of God still abides (1 Pet 1:23). Amidst all these assaults against God and his church by numerous false religions, the church has grown stronger, not weaker. In many ways, the church should be thankful for the gift of opposition!
References:
Calvin, John. Commentaries on the Harmony of the Gospels, Vol. 3.” (2)
From Dr. Nally’s article, the reader can see the danger of misinterpreting “emptied himself.” The Kenosis theory, at this point, is seen to be on very shaky ground.
From his contemporary Systematic Theology, theologian Wayne Grudem addresses the historical meaning of Philippians 2:7: “Did Jesus Give Up Some of His Divine Attributes While on Earth? (The Kenosis Theory). Paul writes to the Philippians, Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. (Phil. 2:5–7)Beginning with this text, several theologians in Germany (from about 1860–1880) and in England (from about 1890–1910) advocated a view of the incarnation that had not been advocated before in the history of the church. This new view was called the “kenosis theory,” and the overall position it represented was called “kenotic theology.”
The kenosis theory holds that Christ gave up some of his divine attributes while he was on earth as a man. (The word κενόσις is taken from the Greek verb κενόω, G3033, which generally means “to empty,” and is translated “emptied himself “in Phil. 2:7.) According to the theory, Christ “emptied himself “of some of his divine attributes, such as omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence, while he was on earth as a man. This was viewed as a voluntary self-limitation on Christ’s part, which he carried out in order to fulfill his work of redemption.27
But does Philippians 2:7 teach that Christ emptied himself of some of his divine attributes, and does the rest of the New Testament confirm this? The evidence of Scripture points to a negative answer to both questions. We must first realize that no recognized teacher in the first 1,800 years of church history, including those who were native speakers of Greek, thought that “emptied himself “in Philippians 2:7 meant that the Son of God gave up some of his divine attributes. Second, we must recognize that the text does not say that Christ “emptied himself of some powers” or “emptied himself of divine attributes” or anything like that. Third, the text does describe what Jesus did in this “emptying”: he did not do it by giving up any of his attributes but rather by “taking the form of a servant,” that is, by coming to live as a man, and “being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross” (Phil. 2:8). Thus, the context itself interprets this “emptying” as equivalent to “humbling himself “and taking on a lowly status and position. Thus, the NIV, instead of translating the phrase, “He emptied himself,” translates it, “but made himself nothing” (Phil. 2:7 NIV). The emptying includes change of role and status, not essential attributes or nature.
A fourth reason for this interpretation is seen in Paul’s purpose in this context. His purpose has been to persuade the Philippians that they should “do nothing from selfishness or conceit, but in humility count others better than yourselves” (Phil. 2:3), and he continues by telling them, “Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others” (Phil. 2:4). To persuade them to be humble and to put the interests of others first, he then holds up the example of Christ: “Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant …” (Phil. 2:5–7).
Now in holding up Christ as an example, he wants the Philippians to imitate Christ. But certainly he is not asking the Philippian Christians to “give up” or “lay aside” any of their essential attributes or abilities! He is not asking them to “give up” their intelligence or strength or skill and become a diminished version of what they were. Rather, he is asking them to put the interests of others first: “Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others” (Phil. 2:4). And because that is his goal, it fits the context to understand that he is using Christ as the supreme example of one who did just that: he put the interests of others first and was willing to give up some of the privilege and status that was his as God.
Therefore, the best understanding of this passage is that it talks about Jesus giving up the status and privilege that was his in heaven: he “did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped” (or “clung to for his own advantage”), but “emptied himself “or “humbled himself “for our sake, and came to live as a man. Jesus speaks elsewhere of the “glory” he had with the Father “before the world was made” (John 17:5), a glory that he had given up and was going to receive again when he returned to heaven. And Paul could speak of Christ who, “though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor” (2 Cor. 8:9), once again speaking of the privilege and honor that he deserved but temporarily gave up for us.
The fifth and final reason why the “kenosis” view of Philippians 2:7 must be rejected is the larger context of the teaching of the New Testament and the doctrinal teaching of the entire Bible. If it were true that such a momentous event as this happened, that the eternal Son of God ceased for a time to have all the attributes of God—ceased, for a time, to be omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent, for example—then we would expect that such an incredible event would be taught clearly and repeatedly in the New Testament, not found in the very doubtful interpretation of one word in one epistle. But we find the opposite of that: we do not find it stated anywhere else that the Son of God ceased to have some of the attributes of God that he had possessed from eternity. In fact, if the kenosis theory were true (and this is a foundational objection against it), then we could no longer affirm Jesus was fully God while he was here on earth.28 The kenosis theory ultimately denies the full deity of Jesus Christ and makes him something less than fully God. S.M. Smith admits, “All forms of classical orthodoxy either explicitly reject or reject in principle kenotic theology.”29
It is important to realize that the major force persuading people to accept kenotic theory was not that they had discovered a better understanding of Philippians 2:7 or any other passage of the New Testament, but rather the increasing discomfort people were feeling with the formulations of the doctrine of Christ in historic, classical orthodoxy. It just seemed too incredible for modern rational and “scientific” people to believe that Jesus Christ could be truly human and fully, absolutely God at the same time.30 The kenosis theory began to sound more and more like an acceptable way to say that (in some sense) Jesus was God, but a kind of God who had for a time given up some of his Godlike qualities, those that were most difficult for people to accept in the modern world.3” (3)
Grudem’s entry on the Kenosis theory is in agreement with Dr. Nally. Both Grudem and Nally expose the danger of the Kenosis theory since it meddles with the very nature of God.
Reformed theologian Louis Berkhof’s article “Contra Kenosis” is valuable: “The Kenotic Theories. A remarkable attempt was made in the so-called Kenosis doctrine to improve on the theological construction of the doctrine of the Person of Christ. The term Kenosis is derived from Philippians 2:7, which says that Christ “emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant.” The Greek word here translated “emptied” is ekenosen, the aorist of kenoo. A misinterpretation of this passage became the Scriptural basis for the Kenosis doctrine, along with 2 Cor. 8:9. These passages were interpreted as teaching that Christ at the incarnation emptied or divested Himself of His divinity. But there are serious objections to this interpretation: (1) as Dr. Warfield has shown the rendering “emptied Himself” is contrary to the usual meaning of the term “to make oneself of no account” (Christology and Criticism, p. 375); and (2) the implied object of the action expressed is not Christ’s divinity, but His being on an equality with God in power and glory. The Lord of glory made Himself of no account by becoming a servant. However, the Kenoticists base on this passage and on 2 Cor. 8:9 the doctrine that the Logos literally became, that is, was changed into a man by reducing (depotentiating) Himself, either wholly or in part, to the dimensions of a man, and then increased in wisdom and power until at last He again assumed the divine nature.
This theory evidently resulted from a double motive, namely, the desire (1) to maintain the reality and integrity of the manhood of Christ; and (2) to throw into strong relief the exceeding greatness of Christ’s humiliation in that He, being rich, for our sakes became poor. It assumed several forms. According to Thomasius the divine Logos, while retaining His immanent or moral attributes of absolute power or freedom, holiness, truth and love, divested Himself temporarily of His relative attributes of omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience, but after the resurrection resumed these attributes. The theory of Gess, which was more absolute and consistent, and also more popular, is to the effect that the Logos at the incarnation literally ceased from His cosmic functions and His eternal consciousness, and reduced Himself absolutely to the conditions and limits of human nature, so that His consciousness became purely that of a human soul. It comes very close to the view of Apollinaris. Ebrard, a Reformed scholar, assumed a double life of the Logos. On the one hand, the Logos reduced Himself to the dimensions of a man and possessed a purely human consciousness, but on the other hand, He also retained and exercised His divine perfections in the trinitarian life without any interruption. The same ego exists at once in the eternal and in the temporal form, is both infinite and finite. And Martensen postulates in the Logos during the time of His humiliation a double life from two non-communicating centers. As the Son of God, living in the bosom of the Father, He continued His trinitarian and cosmic functions, but as the depotentiated Logos He knew nothing of these functions and knew Himself to be God only in the sense in which such knowledge is possible to the faculties of manhood.
This theory, once very popular in one form or another, and still defended by some, has now lost a great deal of its charm. It is subversive of the doctrine of the Trinity, contrary to that of the immutability of God, and at variance with those passages of Scripture, which ascribe divine attributes to the historical Jesus. In the most absolute and most consistent form, it teaches what La Touche calls “incarnation by divine suicide.” (4)
From His Systematic Theology, Berkhof lists additional objections to the Kenosis theory:
“3. OBJECTIONS TO THE KENOSIS DOCTRINE
a. The theory is based on the pantheistic conception that God and man are not so absolutely different but that the one can be transformed into the other. The Hegelian idea of becoming is applied to God, and the absolute line of demarcation is obliterated.
b. It is altogether subversive of the doctrine of the immutability of God, which is plainly taught in Scripture, Mal. 3:6; Jas. 1:17, and which is also implied in the very idea of God. Absoluteness and mutability are mutually exclusive; and a mutable God is certainly not the God of Scripture.
c. It means a virtual destruction of the Trinity, and therefore takes away our very God. The humanized Son, self-emptied of His divine attributes, could no longer be a divine subsistence in the trinitarian life.
d. It assumes too loose a relation between the divine mode of existence, the divine attributes, and the divine essence, when it speaks of the former as if they might very well be separated from the latter. This is altogether misleading, and involves the very error that is condemned in connection with the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation.
e. It does not solve the problem, which it was intended to solve. It desired to secure the unity of the person and the reality of the Lord’s manhood. But, surely, the personal unity is not secured by assuming a human Logos as coexistent with a human soul. Nor is the reality of the manhood maintained by substituting for the human soul a depotentiated Logos. The Christ of the Kenotics is neither God nor man. In the words of Dr. Warfield His, human nature is “just shrunken deity.”
The Kenotic theory enjoyed great popularity in Germany for a while, but has now practically died out there. When it began to disappear in Germany, it found supporters in England in such scholars as D. W. Forrest, W. L. Walker, P. T. Forsyth, Ch. Gore, R. L. Ottley, and H. R. Mackintosh. It finds very little support at the present time.” (5)
In closing:
The Kenosis theory is dangerous for the following two reasons. 1. It would mean that Jesus was not God during the time of His Kenosis. 2. If Jesus were not fully God, then His atoning work would not be sufficient to expiate sins.
As to what emptying means, Barns’ in his quotation above makes clear: “The essential idea is that of bringing to emptiness, vanity, or nothingness; and, hence, it is applied to a case where one lays aside his rank and dignity, and becomes in respect to that as nothing; that is, he assumes a more humble rank and station.” (6)
“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)
“To God, only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ forever. Amen.” (Romans 16:27) and “heirs according to the promise.” (Galatians 3:28-29)
Notes:
1. Albert Barnes, THE AGES DIGITAL LIBRARYCOMMENTARY, Barnes’ Notes on the Bible, Philippians, Vol. 2 p. 3543-3545.
2. Dr. Joseph R. Nally, Jr., D.D., M.Div. is the Theological Editor at Third Millennium Ministries (Thirdmill). Article id – 46668
3. Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Zondervan Publishing, 1994), p. 549-552.
4. Louis Berkhof, The History of Christian Doctrines, (Grand Rapids, MI: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1949), p. 124–26.
5. Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans publishing Co., 1938), p. 328–29.
6. Albert Barnes, THE AGES DIGITAL LIBRARYCOMMENTARY, Barnes’ Notes on the Bible, Philippians, Vol. 2 p. 3543. Mr. Kettler has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife Marea attend the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr. Kettler is the author of the book defending the Reformed Faith. His books can be ordered at www. JackKettler .com. Connected hyper link cannot be provided do to advertising issues.
Is it easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God? By Jack Kettler
“For it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.” (Luke 18:25 ESV)
From this passage, it would seem impossible for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God. Is this so? Being poor cannot put one in a superior spiritual position without doing violence to numerous texts on salvation, which teach salvation is by grace through faith. This study will attempt to find an answer to this question of Luke’s phraseology, which seemingly makes it impossible to be saved for a rich man.
The disciple’s reaction is a typical even today, of amazement, leading to questioning.
“When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished, saying, “Who then can be saved?” (Matthew 19:25 ESV)
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges on Luke 18:25 interacts with some different attempts to soften the severity of Luke’s wording:
“25. for a camel to go through a needles eye] To soften the apparent harshness of this expression, some have conjectured Kamilon, ‘a rope;’ and some have explained ‘the needle’s eye’ of the small side gate for passengers (at the side of the large city gates), through which a camel might press its way, if it were first unladen. But (i) the conjecture Kamilon is wholly without authority, (ii) The name of ‘the needle’s eye’ applied to small gates is probably a modern one which has actually originated from an attempt to soften this verse:—at any rate there is no ancient trace of it. (iii) The Rabbinic parallels are decisive to prove that a camel is meant because the Babylonian Jews using the same proverb substitute ‘an elephant’ for ‘a camel.’ (iv) It is the object of the proverb to express human impossibility. In the human sphere—apart from the special grace of God—it would be certain that those who have riches would be led to trust in them, and so would fail to enter into the kingdom of God, which requires absolute humility, ungrudging liberality, and constant self-denial.” (1)
In light of the Cambridge commentator, it is reasonable to conclude that Luke’s phraseology is a teaching device. If so, Jesus may have been using hyperbole to shock His disciples, thus getting their attention.
Using this principle of hyperbole, Luke 18:25 would be similar to:
“If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.” (Matthew 5:29-30 ESV)
From Barnes’ Notes on the Bible, there is evidence that the phraseology, as seen from the parallel passage inMatthew 19:24, was a teaching device: “It is easier for a camel … – This was a proverb in common use among the Jews, and is still common among the Arabians.
To denote that a thing was impossible or exceedingly difficult, they said that a camel or an elephant might as soon walk through a needle’s eye. In the use of such proverbs, it is not necessary to understand them literally. They merely denote the extreme difficulty of the case.
A camel – A beast of burden much used in Eastern countries. It is about the size of the largest ox, with one or two bunches on his back, with long neck and legs, no horns, and with feet adapted to the hot and dry sand. They are capable of carrying heavy burdens, will travel sometimes faster than the fleetest horse, and are provided with a stomach which they fill with water, by means of which I they can live four or five days without drink. They are very mild and tame, and kneel down to receive and unload their burden. They are chiefly used in deserts and hot climates, where other beasts of burden are with difficulty kept alive.
A rich man – This rather means one who loves his riches and makes an idol of them, or one who supremely desires to be rich. Mark says Mark 10:24 “How hard is it for them that trust in riches.” While a man has this feeling – relying on his wealth alone – it is literally impossible that he should be a Christian; for religion is a love of God rather than the world – the love of Jesus and his cause more than gold. Still a man may have much property, and not have this feeling. He may have great wealth, and love God more; as a poor man may have little, and love that little more than God. The difficulties in the way of the salvation of a rich man are:
1. that riches engross the affections.
2. that people consider wealth as the chief good, and when this is obtained they think they have gained all.
3. that they are proud of their wealth, and unwilling to be numbered with the poor and despised followers of Jesus.
4. that riches engross the time, and fill the mind with cares and anxieties, and leave little for God.
5. that they often produce luxury, dissipation, and vice. that it is difficult to obtain wealth without sin, without avarice, without covetousness, fraud, and oppression, 1 Timothy 6:9-10, 1 Timothy 6:17; James 5:1-5; Luke 12:16-21; Luke 16:19-31.
Still, Jesus says Matthew 19:26, all these may be overcome. God can give grace to do it. Though to people it may appear impossible, yet it is easy for God.” (2)
From the contemporary New Testament Commentary by William Hendriksen, on Luke: “25. Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.
It is, of course, entirely impossible for a camel, hump and all, to pass through the eye of a needle. Think of it: a camel, Palestine’s largest animal, passing through the very tiny opening of a needle! Ridiculous! It cannot be done.
The reason Jesus expressed himself in such a dramatic fashion was that he wanted the disciples to take notice. He wanted the truth of human total inability to sink in.
To explain what Jesus means it is useless and unwarranted to try to change “camel” into “cable”—see Matt. 23:24, where a real camel must have been meant—or to define the “needle’s eye” as the narrow gate in a city wall, a gate, so the reasoning goes, through which a camel can pass only on its knees and after its burden has been removed. Such “explanations” (?), aside from being objectionable from a linguistic point of view, strive to make possible what Jesus specifically declared to be impossible. The Lord means that for a rich man in his own power to try to work or worm his way into the kingdom of God is impossible. So powerful is the hold which wealth has on the heart of the natural man! He is held fast by its bewitching charm, and is thereby prevented from obtaining the attitude of heart and mind necessary for entrance into God’s kingdom. See Luke 16:13; cf. 1 Tim. 6:10. It should be noted that Jesus purposely speaks in absolute terms. A moment ago, we used the phrase in his own power. Though in view of verse 27 this qualification does not need to be retracted, yet it should be pointed out that here in verse 25 Jesus does not thus qualify his assertion. He speaks in absolute terms in order all the more to impress upon the minds of the disciples that salvation, from start to finish, is not a human “achievement.” The fact that “man’s extremity is God’s opportunity” is reserved for later (see verse 27).” (3)
In closing:
“You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel!” (Matthew 23:24 ESV)
We should all be on guard not to be blind to Our Lord’s teaching.
“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)
“To God, only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ forever. Amen.” (Romans 16:27) and “heirs according to the promise.” (Galatians 3:28-29)
Notes:
1. Canon Farrar, Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges, Luke, (Cambridge, England, Cambridge University Press, 1891), p. 288.
2. Albert Barnes, THE AGES DIGITAL LIBRARYCOMMENTARY, Barnes’ Notes on the Bible, Matthew, Vol. 1 p. 319.
3. William Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary, Luke, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Baker Book House, 1984), pp. 835-836. 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 at www. Jack Kettler .com Hyperlink cannot be connect by the author for advertising issues where study will be posted.
In this multi volume series, “What does the Bible say,” the focus will be on difficult and perplexing portions of Scripture such as, Jephthah’s vow, did he sacrifice his Daughter? In addition, essential doctrines of the Bible will be covered to provide the believer Scriptural reasons for believing teachings such as, Heaven, Hell, Sin and what is the gospel, along many other important topics.
A teaser, coming in Volume 2:
Who are the “sons of God” in Genesis 6:4?
The spirits in prison mentioned in 1 Peter 3:19, who are they?
In this book at a glance:
Chapter One: What is Heaven?
Chapter Two: Will animals be in heaven?
Chapter Three: Not to Seethe a Kid in his mother’s milk, a study in Compassion
What is the sin that leads to death in 1 John 5:16? By Jack Kettler
“If any man see 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.” (1 John 5:16-17)
This a challenging text, which has led to much speculation as to the meaning. Does this text refer to a Christian?
While lengthy, Barnes’ Notes on the Bible interacts with the differing points of view on this text from 1 John, and because of this the Barnes’ Notes entry is beneficial: “If a man see his brother sin a sin … – From the general assurance that God hears prayer, the apostle turns to a particular case in which it may be benevolently and effectually employed, in rescuing a brother from death. There has been great diversity of opinion in regard to the meaning of this passage, and the views of expositors of the New Testament are by no means settled as to its true sense. It does not comport with the design of these notes to examine the opinions, which have been held in detail. A bare reference, however, to some of them will show the difficulty of determining with certainty what the passage means, and the impropriety of any very great confidence in one’s own judgment in the case.
Among these opinions are the following. Some have supposed that the sin against the Holy Spirit is intended; some that the phrase denotes any great and enormous sin, as murder, idolatry, adultery; some that it denotes some sin that was punishable by death by the laws of Moses; some that it denotes a sin that subjected the offender to excommunication from the synagogue or the church; some that it refers to sins, which brought fatal disease upon the offender, as in the case of those who abused the Lord’s Supper at Corinth, (see the notes at 1 Corinthians 11:30); some that it refers to crimes committed against the laws, for which the offender was sentenced to death, meaning that when the charge alleged was false, and the condemnation unjust, they ought to pray for the one who was condemned to death, and that he would be spared; but that when the offence was one which had been really committed, and the offender deserved to die, they ought not to pray for him, or, in other words, that by “the sin unto death,” offences against the civil law are referred to, which the magistrate had no power to pardon, and the punishment of which he could not commute; and by the “sin not unto death,” offences are referred to which might be pardoned, and when the punishment might be commuted; some that it refers to sins “before” and “after” baptism, the former of which might be pardoned, but the latter of which might not be; and some, and perhaps this is the common opinion among the Roman Catholics, that it refers to sins that might or might not be pardoned after death, thus referring to the doctrine of purgatory.
These various opinions may be seen stated more at length in Rosenmuller, Lucke, Pool (Synopsis,) and Clarke, “in loc.” To go into an examination of all these opinions would require a volume by itself, and all that can be done here is to furnish what seems to me to be the fair exposition of the passage. The word “brother” may refer either to a member of the church, whether of the particular church to which one was attached or to another, or it may be used in the larger sense which is common as denoting a fellow-man, a member of the great family of mankind. There is nothing in the word, which necessarily limits it to one in the church; there is nothing in the connection, or in the reason assigned, why what is said should be limited to such a one. The “duty” here enjoined would be the same whether the person referred to was in the church or not; for it is our duty to pray for those who sin, and to seek the salvation of those whom we see to be going astray, and to be in danger of ruin, wherever they are, or whoever they may be. At the same time, the correct interpretation of the passage does not depend on determining whether the word “brother” refers to one who is a professed Christian or not.
A sin which is not unto death – The great question in the interpretation of the whole passage is, what is meant by the “sin unto death.” The Greek (ἁμαρτία πρὸς θάνατον hamartia prosthanaton) would mean properly a sin which “tends” to death; which would “terminate” in death; of which death was the penalty, or would be the result, unless it were arrested; a sin which, if it had its own course, would terminate thus, as we should speak of a disease “unto death.” Compare the notes at John 11:4. The word “death” is used in three significations in the New Testament, and as employed here might, so far as the word is concerned, be applied in any one of those senses.
It is used to denote:
(a) literally, the death of the body;
(b) spiritual death, or death “in trespasses and sin,” Ephesians 2:1;
(c) the “second death,” death in the world of woe and despair.
If the sin here mentioned refers to “temporal” death, it means such a sin that temporal death must inevitably follow, either by the disease which it has produced, or by a judicial sentence where there was no hope of pardon or of a commutation of the punishment; if it refers to death in the future world, the second death, then it means such a sin as is unpardonable. That this last is the reference here seems to me to be probable, if not clear, from the following considerations:
(1) There is such a sin referred to in the New Testament, a sin for which there is forgiveness “neither in this life nor the life to come.” See the notes at Matthew 12:31-32. Compare Mark 3:29. If there is such a sin, there is no impropriety in supposing that John would refer to it here.
(2) this is the “obvious” interpretation. It is that which would occur to the mass of the readers of the New Testament, and which it is presumed they do adopt; and this, in general, is one of the best means of ascertaining the sense of a passage in the Bible.
(3) the other significations attached to the word “death,” would be quite inappropriate here.
(a) It cannot mean “unto spiritual death,” that is, to a continuance in sin, for how could that be known? And if such a case occurred, why would it be improper to pray for it? Besides, the phrase “a sin unto spiritual death,” or “unto continuance in sin,” is one that is unmeaning.
(b) It cannot be shown to refer to a disease that should be unto death, miraculously inflicted on account of sin, because, if such cases occurred, they were very rare, and even if a disease came upon a man miraculously in consequence of sin, it could not be certainly known whether it was, or was not, unto death. All who were visited in this way did not certainly die. Compare 1 Corinthians 5:4-5, with 2 Corinthians 2:6-7. See also 1 Corinthians 11:30.
(c) It cannot be shown that it refers to the case of those who were condenmed by the civil magistrate to death, and for whom there was no hope of reprieve or pardon, for it is not certain that there were such cases; and if there were, and the person condemned were innocent, there was every reason to pray that God would interpose and save them, even when there was no hope from man; and if they were guilty, and deserved to die, there was no reason why they should not pray that the sin might be forgiven, and that they might be prepared to die, unless it were a case where the sin was unpardonable. It seems probable, therefore, to me that the reference here is to the sin against the Holy Spirit, and that John means here to illustrate the duty and the power of prayer, by showing that for any sin short of that, however aggravated, it was their duty to pray that a brother might be forgiven. Though it might not be easy to determine what was the unpardonable sin, and John does not say that those to whom he wrote could determine that with certainty, yet there were many sins which were manifestly not of that aggravated character, and for those sins it was proper to pray.
There was clearly but one sin that was unpardonable – “there is a sin unto death;” there might be many which were not of this description, and in relation to them there was ample scope for the exercise of the prayer of faith. The same thing is true now. It is not easy to define the unpardonable sin, and it is impossible for us to determine in any case with absolute certainty that a man has committed it. But there are multitudes of sins which people commit, which upon no proper interpretation of the passages respecting the sin which “hath never forgiveness,” can come under the description of that sin, and for which it is proper, therefore, to pray that they may be pardoned. We know of cases enough where sin “may” be forgiven; and, without allowing the mind to be disturbed about the question respecting the unpardonable sin, it is our duty to bear such cases on our hearts before God, and to plead with him that our erring brethren may be saved.
He shall ask. That is, he shall pray that the offender may be brought to true repentance, and
may be saved. And he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. That is, God shall give life, and he shall be saved from the eternal death to which he was exposed. This, it is said, would be given to “him” who offers the prayer; that is, his prayer would be the means of saving the offending brother.
What a motive is this to prayer! How faithful and constant should we be in pleading for our
fellow-sinners, that we may be instrumental in saving their souls! What joy will await those in heaven who shall see there many who were rescued from ruin in answer to their prayers! Comp. See Barnes “Jas 5:15,” See Barnes “Jas 5:19.”
There is a sin unto death. A sin, which is of such a character that it, throws the offender beyond the reach of mercy, and which is not to be pardoned. See Mark 3:28, 29. The apostle does not here say what that sin is; nor how they might know what it is; nor even that in any case they could determine that it had been committed. He merely says that there is such a sin, and that he, does not design that his remark about the efficacy of prayer should be understood as extending to that.
I do not say that he shall pray for it. “I do not intend that my remark shall be extended to all sin, or mean to affirm that all possible forms of guilt are the proper subjects of prayer, for I am aware that there is one sin which is an exception, and my remark is not to be applied to that.” He does not say that this sin was of common occurrence: or that they could know when it had been committed; or even that a case could ever occur in which they could determine that; he merely says that in respect to that sin he did not say that prayer should be offered. It is indeed implied in a most delicate way that it would not be proper to pray for the forgiveness of such a sin, but he does not say that a case would ever happen in which they would know certainly that the sin had been committed. There were instances in the times of the prophets in which the sin of the people became so universal and so aggravated, that they were forbidden to pray for them. Isa 14:11, “Then said
the Lord unto me, Pray not for this people for their good;” Isa 15:1, “Then said the Lord unto me, though Moses and Samuel stood before me, yet my mind could not be toward this people; cast them out of my sight, and let them go forth.” Comp. See Barnes “Isa 1:15.”
But these were cases in which the prophets were directly instructed by God not to pray for a people. We have no such instruction; and it may be said now with truth, that as we can never be certain respecting any one that he has committed the unpardonable sin, there is no one for whom we may not with propriety pray. There may be those who are so far gone in sin that there may seem to be little, or almost no ground of hope. They may have cast off all the restraints of religion, of morality, of decency; they may disregard all the counsels of parents and friends; they may be sceptical, sensual, profane; they may be the companions of infidels and of mockers; they may have forsaken the sanctuary, and learned to despise the sabbath; they may have been professors of religion, and now may have renounced the faith of the gospel altogether, but still, while there is life it is our duty to pray for them, “if peradventure God will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth,” 2 Tim 2:26. “All things are possible with God;” and he has reclaimed offenders more hardened, probably, than any that we have known, and has demonstrated that there is no form of depravity, which he has not the power to subdue.
Let us remember the cases of Manasseh, of Saul of Tarsus, of Augustine, of Bunyan, of Newton, of tens of thousands who have been reclaimed from the vilest forms of iniquity, and then let us never despair of the conversion of any, in answer to prayer, who may have gone astray, as long as they are in this world of probation and of hope. Let no parent despair who has an abandoned son; let no wife cease to pray who has a dissipated husband. How many a prodigal son has come back to fill with happiness an aged parent’s heart! How many a dissipated husband has been reformed to give joy again to the wife of his youth, and to make a paradise again of his miserable home!” (1)
A contemporary evaluation of this text will be helpful from Simon J. Kistemaker: “16. If anyone sees his brother commit a sin that does not lead to death, he should pray and God will give him life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that he should pray about that.
17. All wrongdoing is sin, and there is sin that does not lead to death.
We should never limit our prayers to personal needs. Rather, as brothers and sisters in the Lord, we need to exercise our corporate responsibility to pray for each other. Especially when we notice a brother (or sister) committing a sin, we should pray to God for remission.
16. If anyone sees his brother commit a sin that does not lead to death, he should pray and God will give him life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that he should pray about that. 17. All wrongdoing is a sin, and there is sin that does not lead to death.
John recapitulates his teaching on sin. He has conveyed this teaching in every chapter of his epistle (1:7–9; 2:1–2, 12; 3:4–6, 8–9; 4:10). Now he speaks of sin and death, of prayer and life, and of wrongdoing and remission.
a. Sin
“If anyone sees his brother commit a sin that does not lead to death.” When John writes “brother” in his epistle, he means a fellow believer. Whenever a member of the Christian community notices that a brother is falling into sin, he should pray to God on his behalf (compare James 5:20).
John distinguishes between “a sin that does not lead to death” and “a sin that leads to death.” In this passage, he mentions the first kind three times and the second only once. He clearly implies that praying for the sinner who commits “a sin that does not lead to death” is the intent of his writing.
What is the meaning of the word death? In addition to 5:16, where it occurs three times, the word appears twice in 3:14: “We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love our brothers. Anyone who does not love remains in death.” John is not thinking of physical death. Rather, he is referring to spiritual death. He contrasts death with eternal life (3:15) to set apart the believer, who possesses this life, from the person who denies that Jesus is the Son of God (2:22–23) and who hates the believer (3:13).
Who, then, commits the sin that leads to death? The person who rejects Jesus as the Christ and who does not love the believer commits this sin. He does not share in the fellowship of the Father and the Son (1:3), and is excluded from eternal life (4:12). He left the Christian community because he did not really belong to it (2:19). He had been a pretender.
b. Prayer
Although a believer commits sin (2:1), he does not practice the sin that leads to death. If a brother sins, John counsels, the community ought to ask God to “give him life.” That is, God will forgive his sin and restore him to fellowship. John knows that in the Christian community many believers fall into sin. He uses the plural and writes, “I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death.”
Should the Christian community pray for the person who commits “a sin that leads to death”? John does not call this person a “brother.” Writes John, “I am not saying that [the believer] should pray about that.” In these words, we hear the echo of Jesus’ voice when he prayed for his followers, “I pray for them. I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours” (John 17:9). The false teachers whom John opposes in his epistle “have gone out into the world” (4:1), because “they are from the world” (v. 5). These teachers have directed their false doctrines against the believers, have been disruptive in the Christian community, and have demonstrated their hatred against the church (compare 2 John 7). Therefore, John adds his personal advice not to pray for them. Note that 5:16 is the only passage in this epistle that has the personal pronoun I.
c. Comfort
“All wrongdoing is sin, and there is sin that does not lead to death.” John calls attention to the seriousness of sin. “Sin is lawlessness” (3:4) and is always an affront to God. In fact, in the sight of God, sin is a transgression of his law and the person who “stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking” the whole law (James 2:10).
But not every sin leads to death. When a believer transgresses God’s law, he does not deny the sonship of Christ and hate the church. Moreover, God stands ready to forgive his sin. John teaches that “if we confess our sins, [God] is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness” (1:9). God forgives sin when the sinner confesses and fellow Christians pray for him, for “God will give him life.”
Doctrinal Considerations in 5:16–17
The Old Testament makes a distinction between unintentional and intentional sin. When a person sins unintentionally, he is forgiven when the priest makes atonement for him. However, the person who sins intentionally blasphemes the Lord, despises his Word, and breaks his commands. “That person must surely be cut off,” says God (Num. 15:31; also see vv. 22–31).
Even though John distinguishes between two types of sin in verses 16 and 17, allusions to similar teachings in the Old Testament are entirely absent. We should listen to what John has to say and interpret his message in the historical and theological context of his day.
The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews, by contrast, exhorts his readers not to turn away from the living God and uses examples and precepts from the Old Testament to strengthen his admonition. Says he, “Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?” (Heb. 10:28–29; also consult 6:4–6).
Greek Words, Phrases, and Constructions in 5:16
ἐάν—this is a conditional sentence of the future more vivid type: the aorist subjunctive ἴδῃ (from ὁράω, I see) in the protasis and the future indicative αἰτήσει (he will ask) in the apodosis. The aorist signifies single occurrence.
ἁμαρτάνοντα—the present active participle denotes continued action. It is followed by the noun ἁμαρτίαν (sin) as the cognate accusative that repeats the content of the verb.
μή—the negative particle with an implied participle expresses condition or prohibition. The negative particle in verse 17 is οὐ (not).
δώσει—although grammatical syntax requires that the subject of this verb be the same as that of αἰτήσει, the meaning of the verbs demands that the one who prays is the believer and the one who gives life is God.
ἐρωτήσῃ—the aorist subjunctive from ἐρωτάω (I ask, request) is in a clause that indicates indirect command. In this verse, the verb ἐρωτάω is the same as the verb αἰτέω.” (2)
Additional Scriptures:
“But the person who does anything defiantly, whether he is native or an alien, that one is blaspheming the LORD; and that person shall be cut off from among his people.” (Numbers 15:30 NASB)
“While it is said, today if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts, as in the provocation.” (Hebrews 3:15)
“For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins.” (Hebrews 10:26 ESV)
In closing:
After reviewing Barnes and Kistemaker’s comments, it is reasonable to conclude that John is speaking of the sin of unbelief at the time of death and is not speaking of a Christian.
There is no second chance:
“Therefore, just as the Holy Spirit says, ‘TODAY IF YOU HEAR HIS VOICE, DO NOT HARDEN YOUR HEARTS AS WHEN THEY PROVOKED ME, AS IN THE DAY OF TRIAL IN THE WILDERNESS,’” (Hebrews 3:7-8 NASB)
“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)
“To God, only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ forever. Amen.” (Romans 16:27) and “heirs according to the promise.” (Galatians 3:28-29)
Notes:
1. Albert Barnes, THE AGES DIGITAL LIBRARYCOMMENTARY, Barnes’ Notes on the Bible, 1 John, Vol 3. p. 4888-4892.
2. Simon J. Kistemaker, New Testament Commentary, James and 1-111 John, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Baker Book House, 1986), pp. 362-365. Mr. Kettler has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife Marea attend the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr. Kettler is the author of the several books defending the Reformed Faith. One is titled: The Religion That Started in a Hat. Other titles can be found at Jack Kettler.com
“A public-school system, if it means the providing of free education for those who desire it, is a noteworthy and beneficent achievement of modern times; but when once it becomes monopolistic it is the most perfect instrument for tyranny which has yet been devised. Freedom of thought in the Middle Ages was combated by the Inquisition, but the modern method is far more effective.’ (1923) – John Gresham Machen
“Unless we put Medical Freedom into the Constitution, the time will come when medicine will organize into an undercover dictatorship….to restrict the art of healing to one class of men and deny equal privilege to others, will be to constitute the Bastille of Medical Science. All such laws are un-American and despotic and have no place in a Republic…The Constitution of this Republic should make special privilege for Medical Freedom as well as Religious Freedom.” – One of the signers of the Declaration of Independence was Dr. Benjamin Rush, a doctor, educator, and politician.
“If Christianity goes, the whole of our culture goes. Then you must start painfully again, and you cannot put on a new culture ready-made. You must wait for the grass to grow to feed the sheep to give the wool out of which your new coat will be made. You must pass through many centuries of barbarism. We should not live to see the new culture, nor would our great-great-great-grandchildren: and if we did, not one of us would be happy in it.” – T. S. Eliot
“In keeping silent about evil, in burying it so deep within us that no sign of it appears on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousand-fold in the future. When we neither punish nor reproach evildoers, we are not simply protecting their trivial old age, we are thereby ripping the foundations of justice from beneath new generations.” – Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago: 1918-1956
“If we as Christians do not speak out as authoritarian governments grow from within or come from outside, eventually we or our children will be the enemy of society and the state. No truly authoritarian government can tolerate those who have real absolute by which to judge its arbitrary absolutes and who speak out and act upon that absolute.” – Francis A. Schaeffer
“If there is no final place for civil disobedience, then the government has been made autonomous, and as such, it has been put in the place of the living God.” – Francis A. Schaeffer
That is why:
“Resistance to tyranny is obedience to God.” – John Knox
“The existence of the Bible, as a book for the people, is the greatest benefit which the human race has ever experienced. Every attempt to belittle it is a crime against humanity.” – Immanuel Kant
“The Bible is the only force known to history that has freed entire nations from corruption while simultaneously giving them political freedom.” – Vishal Mangalwadi
“It is impossible to enslave, mentally or socially, a Bible-reading people. The principles of the Bible are the groundwork of human freedom.” – Horace Greeley
“The Bible is worth all other books which have ever been printed.” – Patrick Henry
Now for a classic article on the dangers of pietism:
Francis A. Schaeffer “The abolition of truth and Morality
The basic problem of the Christians in this country in the last eighty years or so, in regard to society and in regard to government, is that they have seen things in bits and pieces instead of totals.
They have very gradually become disturbed over permissiveness, pornography, the public schools, the breakdown of the family, and finally abortion. But they have not seen this as a totality — each thing being a part, a symptom, of a much larger problem. They have failed to see that all of this has come about due to a shift in world view — that is, through a fundamental change in the overall way people think and view the world and life as a whole. This shift has been away from a world view that was at least vaguely Christian in people’s memory (even if they were not individually Christian) toward something completely different — toward a world view based upon the idea that the final reality is impersonal matter or energy shaped into its present form by impersonal chance. They have not seen that this world view has taken the place of the one that had previously dominated Northern European culture, including the United States, which was at least Christian in memory, even if the individuals were not individually Christian.
These two world views stand as totals in complete antithesis to each other in content and also in their natural results —including sociological and governmental results, and specifically including law.
It is not that these two world views are different only in how they understand the nature of reality and existence. They also inevitably produce totally different results. The operative word here is inevitably. It is not just that they happen to bring forth different results, but it is absolutely inevitable that they will bring forth different results.
Why have the Christians been so slow to understand this? There are various reasons but the central one is a defective view of Christianity. This has its roots in the Pietist movement under the leadership of P. J. Spener in the seventeenth century. Pietism began as a healthy protest against formalism and a too abstract Christianity. But it had a deficient, “platonic” spirituality. It was platonic in the sense that Pietism made a sharp division between the “spiritual” and the “material” world — giving little, or no, importance to the “material” world. The totality of human existence was not afforded a proper place. In particular it neglected the intellectual dimension of Christianity.
Christianity and spirituality were shut up to a small, isolated part of life. The totality of reality was ignored by the pietistic thinking. Let me quickly say that in one sense Christians should be pietists in that Christianity is not just a set of doctrines, even the right doctrines. Every doctrine is in some way to have an effect upon our lives. But the poor side of Pietism and its resulting platonic outlook has really been a tragedy not only in many people’s individual lives, but in our total culture.
True spirituality covers all of reality. There are things the Bible tells us as absolutes which are sinful — which do not conform to the character of God. But aside from these the Lordship of Christ covers all of life and all of life equally. It is not only that true spirituality covers all of life, but it covers all parts of the spectrum of life equally. In this sense there is nothing concerning reality that is not spiritual.
Related to this, it seems to me, is the fact that many Christians do not mean what I mean when I say Christianity is true, or Truth. They are Christians and they believe in, let us say, the truth of creation, the truth of the virgin birth, the truth of Christ’s miracles, Christ’s substitutionary death, and His coming again. But they stop there with these and other individual truths.
When I say Christianity is true I mean it is true to total reality—the total of what is, beginning with the central reality, the objective existence of the personal-infinite God. Christianity is not just a series of truths but Truth — Truth about all of reality. And the holding to that Truth intellectually — and then in some poor way living upon that Truth, the Truth of what is — brings forth not only certain personal results, but also governmental and legal results.
Now let’s go over to the other side — to those who hold the materialistic final reality concept. They saw the complete and total difference between the two positions more quickly than Christians. There were the Huxleys, George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950), and many others who understood a long time ago that there are two total concepts of reality and that it was one total reality against the other and not just a set of isolated and separated differences. The Humanist Manifesto1, published in 1933, showed with crystal clarity their comprehension of the totality of what is involved. It was to our shame that Julian (1887-1975) and Aldous Huxley (1894-1963), and the others like them, understood much earlier than Christians that these two world views are two total concepts of reality standing in antithesis to each other. We should be utterly ashamed that this is the fact.
They understood not only that there were two totally different concepts but that they would bring forth two totally different conclusions, both for individuals and for society. What we must understand is that the two world views really do bring forth with inevitable certainty not only personal differences, but also total differences in regard to society, government, and law.
There is no way to mix these two total world views. They are separate entities that cannot be synthesized. Yet we must say that liberal theology, the very essence of it from its beginning, is an attempt to mix the two. Liberal theology tried to bring forth a mixture soon after the Enlightenment and has tried to synthesize these two views right up to our own day. But in each case when the chips are down these liberal theologians have always come down, as naturally as a ship coming into home port, on the side of the nonreligious humanist. They do this with certainty because what their liberal theology really is is humanism expressed in theological terms instead of philosophic or other terms.
An example of this coming down naturally on the side of the nonreligious humanists is the article by Charles Hartshorne in the January 21, 1981, issue of The Christian Century, pages 42-45. Its title is, “Concerning Abortion, an Attempt at a Rational View.” He begins by equating the fact that the human fetus is alive with the fact that mosquitoes and bacteria are also alive. That is, he begins by assuming that human life is not unique. He then continues by saying that even after the baby is born it is not fully human until its social relations develop (though he says the infant does have some primitive social relations an unborn fetus does not have). His conclusion is, “Nevertheless, I have little sympathy with the idea that infanticide is just another form of murder. Persons who are already functionally persons in the full sense have more important rights even than infants.” He then, logically, takes the next step: “Does this distinction apply to the killing of a hopelessly senile person or one in a permanent coma? For me it does.” No atheistic humanist could say it with greater clarity. It is significant at this point to note that many of the denominations controlled by liberal theology have come out, publicly and strongly, in favor of abortion.
Dr. Martin E. Marty is one of the respected, theologically liberal spokesmen. He is an associate editor of The Christian Century and Fairfax M. Cone distinguished service professor at the University of Chicago divinity school. He is often quoted in the secular press as the spokesman for “mainstream” Christianity. In a Christian Century article in the January 7-14, 1981, issue (pages 13-17 with an addition on page 31), he has an article entitled: “Dear Republicans: A Letter on Humanisms.” In it he brilliantly confuses the terms “being human,” humanism, the humanities and being “in love with humanity.” Why does he do this? As a historian he knows the distinctions of those words, but when one is done with these pages the poor reader who knows no better is left with the eradication of the total distinction between the Christian position and the humanist one. I admire the cleverness of the article, but I regret that in it Dr. Marty has come down on the nonreligious humanist side, by confusing the issues so totally.
It would be well at this point to stress that we should not confuse the very different things which Dr. Marty did confuse. Humanitarianism is being kind and helpful to people, treating people humanly. The humanities are the studies of literature, art, music, etc. — those things which are the products of human creativity. Humanism is the placing of Man at the center of all things and making him the measure of all things.
Thus, Christians should be the most humanitarian of all people. And Christians certainly should be interested in the humanities as the product of human creativity, made possible because people are uniquely made in the image of the great Creator. In this sense of being interested in the humanities it would be proper to speak of a Christian humanist. This is especially so in the past usage of that term. This would then mean that such a Christian is interested (as we all should be) in the product of people’s creativity. In this sense, for example, Calvin could be called a Christian humanist because he knew the works of the Roman writer Seneca so very well.2 John Milton and many other Christian poets could also be so called because of their knowledge not only of their own day but also of antiquity.
But in contrast to being humanitarian and being interested in the humanities Christians should be inalterably opposed to the false and destructive humanism, which is false to the Bible and equally false to what Man is.
Along with this we must keep distinct the “humanist world view” of which we have been speaking and such a thing as the “Humanist Society,” which produced the Humanist Manifestos I and II (1933 and 1973). The Humanist Society is made up of a relatively small group of people (some of whom, however, have been influential — John Dewey, Sir Julian Huxley, Jacques Monod, B. F. Skinner, etc.). By way of contrast, the humanist world view includes many thousands of adherents and today controls the consensus in society, much of the media, much of what is taught in our schools, and much of the arbitrary law being produced by the various departments of government.
The term humanism used in this wider, more prevalent way means Man beginning from himself, with no knowledge except what he himself can discover and no standards outside of himself. In this view Man is the measure of all things, as the Enlightenment expressed it.
Nowhere have the divergent results of the two total concepts of reality, the Judeo-Christian and the humanist world view, been more open to observation than in government and law.
We of Northern Europe (and we must remember that the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and so on are extensions of Northern Europe) take our form-freedom balance in government for granted as though it were natural. There is form in acknowledging the obligations in society, and there is freedom in acknowledging the rights of the individual. We have form, we have freedom; there is freedom, there is form. There is a balance here which we have come to take as natural in the world. It is not natural in the world. We are utterly foolish if we look at the long span of history and read the daily newspapers giving today’s history and do not understand that the form-freedom balance in government which we have had in Northern Europe since the Reformation and in the countries extended from it is unique in the world, past and present.
That is not to say that no one wrestled with these questions before the Reformation nor that no one produced anything worthwhile. One can think, for example, of the Conciliar Movement in the late medieval church and the early medieval parliaments.3 Especially one must consider the ancient English Common Law. And in relation to that Common Law (and all English Law) there is Henry De Bracton. I will mention more about him in a moment.
Those who hold the material-energy, chance concept of reality, whether they are Marxist or non-Marxist, not only do not know the truth of the final reality, God, they do not know who Man is. Their concept of Man is what Man is not, just as their concept of the final reality is what final reality is not. Since their concept of Man is mistaken, their concept of society and of law is mistaken, and they have no sufficient base for either society or law.
They have reduced Man to even less than his natural finiteness by seeing him only as a complex arrangement of molecules, made complex by blind chance. Instead of seeing him as something great who is significant even in his sinning, they see Man in his essence only as an intrinsically competitive animal, that has no other basic operating principle than natural selection brought about by the strongest, the fittest, ending on top. And they see Man as acting in this way both individually and collectively as society.
Even on the basis of Man’s finiteness having people swear in court in the name of humanity, as some have advocated, saying something like, “We pledge our honor before all mankind”4 would be insufficient enough. But reduced to the materialistic view of Man, it is even less. Although many nice words may be used, in reality law constituted on this basis can only mean brute force.
In this setting Jeremy Bentham’s (1748-1842) Utilitarianism can be and must be all that law means. And this must inevitably lead to the conclusion of Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. (1841-1935): “The life of the law has not been logic: it has been experience.”5 That is, there is no basis for law except Man’s limited, finite experience. And especially with the Darwinian, survival-of-the-fittest concept of Man (which Holmes held) that must, and will, lead to Holmes’ final conclusion: law is “the majority vote of that nation that could lick all others.”6
The problem always was, and is, what is an adequate base for law? What is adequate so that the human aspiration for freedom can exist without anarchy, and yet provides a form that will not become arbitrary tyranny?
In contrast to the materialistic concept, Man in reality is made in the image of God and has real humanness. This humanness has produced varying degrees of success in government, bringing forth governments that were more than only the dominance of brute force.
And those in the stream of the Judeo-Christian world view have had something more. The influence of the Judeo-Christian world view can be perhaps most readily observed in Henry De Bracton’s influence on British Law. An English judge living in the thirteenth century, he wrote De Legi bus et Consuetudinibus (c. 1250).
Bracton, in the stream of the Judeo-Christian world view, said:
And that he [the King] ought to be under the law appears clearly in the analogy of Jesus Christ, whose vice-regent on earth he is, for though many ways were open to Him for his ineffable redemption of the human race, the true mercy of God chose this most powerful way to destroy the devil’s work, he would not use the power of force but the reason of justice. 7,8
In other words, God in His sheer power could have crushed Satan in his revolt by the use of that sufficient power. But because of God’s character, justice came before the use of power alone. Therefore, Christ died that justice, rooted in what God is, would be the solution. Bracton codified this: Christ’s example, because of who He is, is our standard, our rule, our measure. Therefore power is not first, but justice is first in society and law. The prince may have the power to control and to rule, but he does not have the right to do so without justice. This was the basis of English Common Law. The Magna Charta (1215) was written within thirty-five years (or less) of Bracton’s De Legibus and in the midst of the same universal thinking in England at that time.
The Reformation (300 years after Bracton) refined and clarified this further. It got rid of the encrustations that had been added to the Judeo-Christian world view and clarified the point of authority—with authority resting in the Scripture rather than church and Scripture, or state and Scripture. This not only had meaning in regard to doctrine but clarified the base for law.
That base was God’s written Law, back through the New Testament to Moses’ written Law; and the content and authority of that written Law is rooted back to Him who is the final reality. Thus, neither church nor state were equal to, let alone above, that Law. The base for law is not divided, and no one has the right, to place anything, including king, state or church, above the content of God’s Law.
What the Reformation did was to return most clearly and consistently to the origins, to the final reality, God; but equally to the reality of Man — not only Man’s personal needs (such as salvation), but also Man’s social needs.
What we have had for four hundred years, produced from this clarity, is unique in contrast to the situation that has existed in the world in forms of government. Some of you have been taught that the Greek city states had our concepts in government. It simply is not true.9 All one has to do is read Plato’s Republic to have this come across with tremendous force.
When the men of our State Department, especially after World War II, went all over the world trying to implant our form-freedom balance in government downward on cultures whose philosophy and religion would never have produced it, it has, in almost every case, ended in some form of totalitarianism or authoritarianism.
The humanists push for “freedom,” but having no Christian consensus to contain it, that “freedom” leads to chaos or to slavery under the state (or under an elite). Humanism, with its lack of any final base for values or law, always leads to chaos. It then naturally leads to some form of authoritarianism to control the chaos. Having produced the sickness, humanism gives more of the same kind of medicine for a cure. With its mistaken concept of final reality, it has no intrinsic reason to be interested in the individual, the human being. Its natural interest is the two collectives: the state and society.
Notes
Humanist Manifestos I and II (New York: Prometheus Books, 1973).
This must not be confused with the humanistic elements which were developing slightly earlier in the Renaissance. Francis A. Schaeffer, How Should We Then Live? (Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revel! Co., 1976), pp. 58-78.
See How Should We Then Live?, pp. 40 and 109.
See Will and Ariel Durant’s book, The Lessons of History (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1968), pp. 84-86.
American Law Review, XIV, (1880), p. 233.
Harvard Law Review, XL, (1918).
Henry De Bracton, Translation of De Legi bus et Consuetudinibus (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard-Belknap, 1968).
See James L Fisk, The Law and Its Timeless Standard (Washington: Lex Rex Institute).
See Will and Ariel Durant’s The Lessons of History, pp. 70-75.
Author
Dr. Francis A. Schaeffer is widely recognized as one of the most influential Christian thinkers of the day. He is the author of twenty-two books which have been translated into twenty-five foreign languages, with more than three million copies in print.
Dr. Schaeffer has lectured frequently at leading universities in the U.S. and abroad. With his wife, Edith, the Schaeffers founded L’Abri Fellowship, an international study center and community in Switzerland with branches in England, The Netherlands, Sweden, and the U.S.
Among Dr. Schaeffer’s most influential books are The God Who Is There, Escape From Reason, He Is There and He Is Not Silent, and The Mark of the Christian. His two most recent books — How Should We Then Live? and Whatever Happened to the Human Race? (written with Dr. C. Everett Koop) — have also been produced as major film series. Whether in books, films or the work of L’Abri, Dr. Schaeffer has proclaimed a common theme — the uncompromising Truth of historic, biblical Christianity and its relevance for all of life.
Are Christians forbidden to take an oath or vow? By Jack Kettler
“Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God’s throne: Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your communication be, yea, yea; nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than this cometh of evil.” (Matthew 5:33-37 KJV)
“But I say to you, do not take an oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God.” (Matthew 5:34 ESV)
It certainly appears from the above Scriptures that taking an oath or vow is forbidden. Are there other Scriptures that modify or clarify this seeming injunction against oaths? If and oath and vow are forbidden, this would present a problem for marriage and church membership vows. It would also be problematic in legal proceedings; the witness must swear an oath of truthfulness on a Bible. As in many studies, lexical and commentary entries will be consulted along with additional Scriptures.
Strong’s Lexicon:
“To swear
ὀμόσαι (omosai)
Verb – Aorist Infinitive Active
Strong’s Greek 3660: A prolonged form of a primary, but obsolete omo, for which another prolonged form omoo is used in certain tenses; to swear, i.e. Take oath.”
Of particular interest is verse 34, where Jesus says, “But I say unto you, Swear not at all…” Seemingly, this is a ban upon oaths and vows. As previously asked, are marriage vows, church membership vows, U.S. citizenship oath now forbidden?
Biblically speaking:
Oath: An oath is a solemn promise made to another party in which God is called upon to act as a witness and judge. See Exodus 20:7; Deuteronomy 10:20; Jeremiah 4:2; Chronicles 6:22-23
Vow: A vow must not be made to any creature but to God alone. Vows should be made and performed with the most conscientious care and faithfulness. See 1 Corinthians 7:2; Matthew 19:11
The apostle Paul made a vow:
“After this, Paul stayed many days longer and then took leave of the brothers and set sail for Syria, and with him Priscilla and Aquila. At Cenchreae he had cut his hair, for he was under a vow.” (Acts 18:18 ESV)
Back to the seeming prohibition of oaths in Matthew 5:34. If this passage does prohibit oaths, it would be in contradiction to: “And Moses spake unto the heads of the tribes concerning the children of Israel, saying, this is the thing which the Lord hath commanded. If a man vow a vow unto the Lord, or swear an oath to bind his soul with a bond; he shall not break his word, he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth.” (Numbers 30:1–2)
At this point, commentary citations will be helpful:
Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers is helpful in understanding the seeming conflict in Scripture: “(34) Swear not at all.—Not a few interpreters, and even whole Christian communities, as e.g. the Society of Friends, see in these words, and in James 5:12, a formal prohibition of all oaths, either promissory or evidential, and look on the general practice of Christians, and the formal teaching of the Church of England in her Articles (Art. xxxix.), as simply an acquiescence in evil. The first impression made by the words is indeed so strongly in their favour that the scruples of such men ought to be dealt with (as English legislation has at last dealt with them) with great tenderness. Their conclusion is, however, it is believed, mistaken: (1) Because, were it true, then in this instance our Lord would be directly repealing part of the moral law given by Moses, instead of completing and expanding it, as in the case of the Sixth and Seventh Commandments. He would be destroying, not fulfilling. (2) Because our Lord himself answered, when He had before been silent, to a solemn formal adjuration (Matthew 26:63-64), and St. Paul repeatedly uses such forms of attestation (Romans 1:9; 1Corinthians 15:31; 2Corinthians 1:23; Galatians 1:20; Philippians 1:8). (3) Because the context shows that the sin, which our Lord condemned, was the light use of oaths in common speech, and with no real thought as to their meaning. Such oaths practically involved irreverence, and were therefore inconsistent with the fear of God. The real purpose of an oath is to intensify that fear by bringing the thought of God’s presence home to men at the very time they take them, and they are therefore rightly used when they attain that end. Practically, it must be admitted that the needless multiplication of oaths, both evidential and promissory, on trivial occasions, has tended, and still tends, to weaken awe and impair men’s reverence for truth, and we may rejoice when their number is diminished. In an ideal Christian society, no oaths would be needed, for every word would be spoken as by those who knew that the Eternal Judge was hearing them.
(34-35) Neither by heaven; . . . nor by the earth; . . . neither by Jerusalem.—Other formulæ of oaths meet us in Matthew 23:16-22; James 5:12. It is not easy at first to understand the thought that underlies such modes of speech. When men swear by God, or the name of Jehovah, there is an implied appeal to the Supreme Ruler. We invoke Him (as in the English form, “So help me God”) to assist and bless us according to the measure of our truthfulness, or to punish us if we speak falsely. But to swear by a thing that has no power or life seems almost unintelligible, unless the thing invoked be regarded as endowed in idea with a mysterious holiness and a power to bless and curse. Once in use, it was natural that men under a system like that of Israel, or, we may add, of Christendom, should employ them as convenient symbols intensifying affirmation, and yet not involving the speaker in the guilt of perjury or in the profane utterance of the divine name. Our Lord deals with all such formula in the same way. If they have any force at all, it is because they imply a reference to the Eternal. Heaven is His throne, and earth is His footstool (the words are a citation from Isaiah 66:1), and Jerusalem is the city of the great King. To use them lightly is, therefore, to profane the holy name, which they imply. Men do not guard themselves either against irreverence or perjury by such expedients.” (1)
Another commentary selection will be helpful:
Matthew Henry’s Complete Commentary: “5:33-37 There is no reason to consider that solemn oaths in a court of justice, or on other proper occasions, are wrong, provided they are taken with due reverence. But all oaths taken without necessity, or in common conversation, must be sinful, as well as all those expressions which are appeals to God, though persons think thereby to evade the guilt of swearing. The worse men are, the less they are bound by oaths; the better they are, the less there is need for them. Our Lord does not enjoin the precise terms wherein we are to affirm or deny, but such a constant regard to truth as would render oaths unnecessary.” (2) Oaths in the Biblefrom encyclopedia .com:
“The custom of swearing, or taking oaths, that is, of putting a curse on oneself if what is asserted is not true or if a promise is not kept, has always been widespread among all people who believe either in the magical power of such self-maledictions or in the avenging justice of a deity who punishes those who swear falsely. This article is concerned with the taking of oaths as mentioned in the Bible.
In the Old Testament. Anthropomorphically, God Himself is often presented in the Old Testament as taking oaths, especially in regard to His covenant [see covenant (in the bible)]. Thus, “he promised on oath to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob” (Gn 50.24) to make their descendants a great nation and to give them a special land (Gn 22.16–18; 26.3–4; 35.12). He renewed this sworn promise to Moses (Dt 1.8). Later, “the Lord swore to David a firm promise” [Ps 131 (132).11] of an everlasting posterity and rule [Ps 88 (89).4–5, 36–37] and an eternal priesthood [Ps 109(110).4]. It is these promises that are reaffirmed by the prophets (Jer 33.21–22; Mi 7.20). Besides these oaths that promise great blessings, there are the oaths that threaten with punishment the Israelites who revolted in the desert (Nm 14.28–35).
Whether men swore by God explicitly (Gn 21.23; Jos 2.12) or implicitly (Gn 42.15; 1 Sm 1.26), an oath was a serious matter (Ex 20.7), for the oath always involved a conditional or contingent curse. Moreover, the oath was ever regarded as a sign of loyalty to God (Dt 6.13; Is 48.1), and therefore a false oath was basically a profanation of God’s name (Lv 19.12; Ex 20.7). Oaths were employed both in judicial matters and in a variety of everyday affairs. Thus oaths were taken to certify the truth of an utterance and to pledge fidelity to one’s word (1 Sm 14.44; 20.13; 25.22; 2 Sm 3.9; Gn 25.33; 47.31); to ascertain the guilt of a person suspected of a crime, e.g., in the trial by ordeal (Nm 5.16–28); and to ratify an alliance (Gn 21.24, 26, 31) or a friendship (1 Sm 20.16–17).
In the New Testament. It is only in the New Testament that the oaths made by God in the Old Testament attain their perfect fulfillment: by sending the Messiah God has been faithful to “the oath that he swore to Abraham our father” (Lk 1.73), His promise to David has been fulfilled by Christ’s Resurrection (Acts 2.29–35), and it is God’s solemn oath that ratifies Christ’s eternal priesthood and guarantees the reality and efficacy of the New Covenant (Heb 7.21, 25).
Respect for oaths seems to have been carefully preserved by the ancient Israelites, but by the time of Christ’s coming the Pharisees had distorted this traditional respect through their casuistry. Christ energetically attacked these legalistic abuses, demanding absolute sincerity of his disciples (Mk 23.16–22). He proclaimed a new ideal: “But I say to you not to swear at all” (Mt5.34). St. James restates this teaching: “Let your yes be yes, your no, no” (Jas 5.12). Yet Christ did not absolutely abolish or condemn the use of the oath; His demand set the Christian ideal, but did not rule out the possibility of an oath on certain occasions. Thus, e.g., St. Paul often employed oath formulas in order to testify to the truth of his assertions (Rom 1.9; 9.1; 2 Cor 1.23; 11.31; Gal 1.20).
Bibliography: Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Bible, tr. and adap. by l. hartman (New York 1963) 1656–58. j. pedersen, Der Eid bei den Semiten (Leipzig 1914). s. h. blank, “The Curse, Blasphemy, the Spell, and the Oath,” Hebrew Union College Annual 23.1 (Cincinnati 1950–51) 73–95. f. horst, “Der Eid im AT,” Evangelische Theologie 17 (1957) 366–384. encyclopedia.com” (3)
Jesus rebukes the Pharisees for their abuse of oaths:
“Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor! Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold? And, Whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever sweareth by the gift that is upon it, he is guilty. Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift? Whoso therefore shall swear by the altar, sweareth by it, and by all things thereon. And whoso shall swear by the temple, sweareth by it, and by him that dwelleth therein. And he that shall swear by heaven, sweareth by the throne of God, and by him that sitteth thereon.” (Matthew 23:16-22)
In particular, the Pharisees used oaths to escape their duty to God:
“Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.” (Matthew 23:23)
Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter XXII. Of Lawful Oaths and Vows: “I. A Lawful oath is a part of religious worship, (Deu 10:20); wherein, upon just occasion, the person swearing solemnly calleth God to witness, what he asserteth, or promiseth, and to judge him according to the truth or falsehood of what he sweareth, (Exd 20:7; Lev 19:12; 2Co 1:23; 2Ch 6:22-23).
II. The name of God only is that by which men ought to swear, and therein it is to be used with all holy fear and reverence, (Deu 6:13). Therefore, to swear vainly, or rashly, by that glorious and dreadful Name; or, to swear at all by any other thing, is sinful, and to be abhorred, (Exd 20:7; Jer 5:7; Mat 5:34-37; Jam 5:12). Yet, as in matters of weight and moment, an oath is warranted by the Word of God, under the new testament as well as under the old, (Hbr 6:16; 2Co 1:23; Isa 65:16); so a lawful oath, being imposed by lawful authority, in such matters, ought to be taken, (1Ki 8:31; Neh 13:25; Ezr 10:5).
III. Whosoever taketh an oath ought duly to consider the weightiness of so solemn an act, and therein to avouch nothing but what he is fully persuaded is the truth, (Exd 20:7; Jer 4:2): neither may any man bind himself by oath to anything but what is good and just, and what he believeth so to be, and what he is able and resolved to perform, (Gen 24:2-3, 5-6, 8-9). Yet it is a sin to refuse an oath touching anything that is good and just, being imposed by lawful authority, (Num 5:19, 21; Neh 5:12; Exd 22:7-11).
IV. An oath is to be taken in the plain and common sense of the words, without equivocation, or mental reservation, (Jer 4:2; Psa 24:4). It cannot oblige to sin; but in anything not sinful, being taken, it binds to performance, although to a man’s own hurt, (1Sa 25:22, 32-34; Psa 15:4). Nor is it to be violated, although made to heretics, or infidels, (Eze 17:16, 18-19; Jos 9:18-19; 2Sa 21:1).
V. A vow is of the like nature with a promissory oath, and ought to be made with the like religious care, and to be performed with the like faithfulness, (Isa 19:21; Ecc 5:4-6; Psa 61:8; Psa 66:13-14).
VI. It is not to be made to any creature, but to God alone, (Psa 76:11; Jer 44:25-26): and, that it may be accepted, it is to be made voluntarily, out of faith, and conscience of duty, in way of thankfulness for mercy received, or for the obtaining of what we want, whereby we more strictly bind ourselves to necessary duties; or, to other things, so far and so long as they may fitly conduce thereunto, (Deu 23:21-23; Psa 50:14; Gen 28:20-21, 22; 1Sa 1:11; Psa 66:13-14; Psa 132:2-5).
VII. No man may vow to do anything forbidden in the Word of God, or what would hinder any duty therein commanded, or which is not in his own power, and for the performance whereof he hath no promise of ability from God, (Act 23:12, 14; Mar 6:26; Num 30:5, 8, 12-13). In which respects, popish monastical vows of perpetual single life, professed poverty, and regular obedience, are so far from being degrees of higher perfection, that they are superstitious and sinful snares, in which no Christian may entangle himself, (Mat 19:11-12; 1Co 7:2, 9; Eph 4:28; 1Pe 4:2; 1Co 7:23).”
In closing:
In modern times, abuse of an oath may take the form of “I swear on my mother’s grave.” This reduces an oath to something frivolous and brings God into the oath as a witness.
Oaths and vows are not categorically forbidden in Scripture. In Matthew 5:33-37, the believer is warned not to make a rash oath or the misuse of oaths and vows.
Therefore, oaths and vows taken with carefulness and truthfulness are not forbidden in New Testament times.
“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)
“To God, only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ forever. Amen.” (Romans 16:27) and “heirs according to the promise.” (Galatians 3:28-29)
Notes:
1. Charles John Ellicott, Bible Commentary for English Readers, Matthew, Vol.15, (London, England, Cassell and Company), p. 165.
2. Matthew Henry, Complete Commentary, Matthew, (Peabody, Massachusetts, Hendrickson Publishers,), p. 633-634.
3. Oaths in the Bible from encyclopedia. com Mr. Kettler has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife Marea attend the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr. Kettler is the author of the book defending the Reformed Faith against attacks, titled: The Religion That Started in a Hat. Available at: https://www.amazon.com/Books-Jack-Kettler/s?rh=n%3A283155%2Cp_27%3AJack+Kettler
The Religion That Started in a Hat 