The Religion That Started in a Hat

What does it mean when God says He creates evil in Isaiah 45:7?              By Jack Kettler

“I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.” (Isaiah 45:7 KJV)

Isaiah 45:7 Cross-reference Scriptures:

Exodus 9:16; Psalm 135:6; Daniel 4:35; Proverbs 16:4; Romans 9:19-21; Romans 11:22

A passage like Isaiah 45:7 causes some to stumble. How is it to be understood when God says He creates evil? Is evil the same as a calamity? Does this mean he is the author of sin? Commentary entries, lexical entries, and theological expositions will be surveyed in order to answer the starting question.

Consulting the Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary, we learn:
“7. form … create—yatzar, to give “form” to previously existing matter. Bara, to “create” from nothing the chaotic dark material.

light … darkness—literally (Ge 1:1-3), emblematical also, prosperity to Cyrus, calamity to Babylon and the nations to be vanquished [Grotius] … Isaiah refers also to the Oriental belief in two coexistent, eternal principles, ever struggling with each other, light or good, and darkness or evil, Oromasden and Ahrimanen. God, here, in opposition, asserts His sovereignty over both [Vitringa].

create evil—not moral evil (Jas 1:13), but in contrast to “peace” in the parallel clause, war, disaster (compare Ps 65:7; Am 3:6).” (1)

The Jamieson-Fausset-Brown commentators attempt to differentiate evil with moral evil using the following passage, “Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man.” (James 1:13) There is some merit to their argument; however, a non-believer will unlikely be impressed.

From Strong’s Concordance:

bara’: choose

Original word: בָּרָא

Part of Speech: Verb

Transliteration: bara’

Phonetic Spelling: (baw-raw’)

Definition: to shape, create

From Strong’s Lexicon:

And create

וּב֣וֹרֵא (ū·ḇō·w·rê)

Original Word: בָּרָא (bara‘)

Conjunctive waw | Verb – Qal – Participle – masculine singular

Strong’s Hebrew 1254: 1) to create, shape, form 1a) (Qal) to shape, fashion, create (always with God as subject) 1a1) of heaven and earth 1a2) of individual man 1a3) of new conditions and circumstances 1a4) of transformations 1b) (Niphal) to be created 1b1) of heaven and earth 1b2) of birth 1b3) of something new 1b4) of miracles 1c) (Piel) 1c1) to cut down 1c2) to cut out 2) to be fat 2a) (Hiphil) to make yourselves fat

Calamity.

רָ֑ע (rā‘)

Adjective – masculine singular

Strong’s Hebrew 7451: adj 1) bad, evil 1a) bad, disagreeable, malignant 1b) bad, unpleasant, evil (giving pain, unhappiness, misery) 1c) evil, displeasing 1d) bad (of its kind-land, water, etc) 1e) bad (of value) 1f) worse than, worst (comparison) 1g) sad, unhappy 1h) evil (hurtful) 1i) bad, unkind (vicious in disposition) 1j) bad, evil, wicked (ethically) 1j1) in general, of persons, of thoughts 1j2) deeds, actions n m 2) evil, distress, misery, injury, calamity 2a) evil, distress, adversity 2b) evil, injury, wrong 2c) evil (ethical) n f 3) evil, misery, distress, injury 3a) evil, misery, distress 3b) evil, injury, wrong 3c) evil (ethical)

Two examples of how (rā‘) is used from the Englishman’s Concordance:

Genesis 6:5

HEB: לִבּ֔וֹ רַ֥ק רַ֖ע כָּל־ הַיּֽוֹם׃

KJV: [was] only evil continually.

INT: of his heart only evil every continually

Genesis 8:21

HEB: לֵ֧ב הָאָדָ֛ם רַ֖ע מִנְּעֻרָ֑יו וְלֹֽא־

NAS: heart is evil from his youth;

KJV: heart [is] evil from his youth;

INT: heart of man’s is evil his youth not

As the lexical entries have noted, evil, rather than a calamity, is the best translation into English. Some translators may have used the word calamity to tone down its effect on some readers of Scripture. If this is so, it is sad not to use the best word. Being sensitive to people’s emotions should have no place in the translation of Scripture.

Continuing with the dilemma some people may have with God creating evil:

What about the tragedies of earthquakes, tidal waves, and the Black Death in medieval Europe? Does the Jamieson-Fausset-Brown distinction between evil and moral evil work solve this apparent dilemma? In addition, the idea known as free will is brought in to soften the quandary. The free will argument says God limits Himself by giving humanity free will. Evil is the result of humanity’s choices. Many Christians believe these two possibilities are a solution to God’s seeming problem creating evil in Isaiah 45:7.

However, do these two possibilities work? Men making bad choices do not cause earthquakes and tidal waves. A non-believer could still believe that the senseless loss of life is evil because God allowed it. The free will argument does not work in light of God’s creative decrees and foreknowledge. God had foreknowledge that man would sin and could have chosen not to create. As will be seen, there is a much better solution to the seeming dilemma of Isaiah 45:7.       

Philosopher and theologian Gordon H. Clark has some extended comments on Isaiah 45:7 are helpful, and the reader should read the three entries carefully:
“Surely, Isa. 45:7 is the most frequently misunderstood verse in all the Old Testament, paralleled only by Rom. 9:11-13 in the New. The KJ reads, “I make peace and create evil.” The RSV says, “I make weal and create woe,” Incidentally it is strange that those who dislike the

KJ because of some archaic wording here use the word weal, unfamiliar as it is in contemporary speech. In the NAS the verse is, “Causing well-being and creating calamity,” This could mean that God causes inflation and depressions in the business cycle. Well, he does; but this is not what the verse means. Instead of well-being, peace is the better term because the context concerns peace with God. There is no reference to economics: the skies do not pour down gold and silver, but righteousness. The earth does not produce crops, but salvation. Though Cyrus was to be a political ruler, the theme is not national independence. Verses 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, ff., show clearly that the peace envisioned is peace with God.

Now, if the peace of the passage is righteousness and favor with God, the “evil” cannot be mere calamity, such as drought and hurricanes, but it must be the enmity between God and man. The locus of the chapter is sin and salvation, not pestilence and poverty.

Such also is the meaning of the word pretty much throughout the Old Testament. The Hebrew word is Ra. It occurs more than a hundred times in the Old Testament. In addition to the translation evil, various verses use adversity, affliction, harm, sorrow, and trouble. What kind of harm or trouble there is must be determined by the context. Since it would be difficult to separate all these kinds into sharply distinct varieties, it is better to canvass the material from Genesis to Malachi, rather than to attempt a logical division. One advantage of this basically chronological procedure is that the account cannot be charged with any premature bias in the exposition. Of course, someone might charge bias because not all the numerous instances are listed; but few people want to be so deluged with information.

The first occurrences of the term ra in the Old Testament are Gen. 2:9, 17. Both verses speak of “the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.” This does not mean that the tree was not good to eat, as if it were chemically poisonous. Eve clearly saw that the fruit was “good for food” (3:6). The remainder of the account shows that the evil consisted in an act of rebellion against God. The evil was sin. Genesis 3:25 as well as 3:6 supports this point.

Genesis 6:5 says that “God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” In this verse the word wickedness, and the word evil, are both ra. How could anyone dare to reduce this to an ambiguous “calamity”? The same remark applies equally to Gen. 8:21. The word means sin.

Not all the cases of ra mean sin. Genesis 19:19 seems to refer to an attack by a wild beast, a fatal fall from a precipice, or possibly death by thirst. One must determine the meaning of doubtful cases by the context and as a background by the more common usage.

In Gen. 37:2, Joseph brought to his father “their evil report.” Just what this evil was is not clear. There is no mention of any calamity that had befallen the brothers. What follows speaks of jealousy, not physical injuries. It is just possible that Joseph brought to his father news of some matters of which his father’s wives had complained about.

Genesis 37:20 mentions an evil beast; and this is repeated in 37:33.

By the time of Gen. 44:4 Joseph had become secretary of agriculture, if not prime minister, of Egypt. According to his plan he accuses his brethren of having “rewarded evil for good.” This is an accusation of theft. The evil was a sin. The evil in Gen. 44:34 is death or at least great depression. In 47:9 Jacob addresses Pharaoh: “few and evil have the days of the years of my life been.” Jacob was of course no young man. Instead of his days having been few, he was 130 years old. I take it therefore that the term evil, like the rest, is part of the etiquette required of a subject who has to address a high ruler.

Shortly after, in Gen. 48:l6, Jacob is on his death bed, giving his blessings to Joseph’s two sons. He says, “The Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads.” In his lifetime Jacob had faced some physical dangers, but here he speaks of redemption. Now, one does not usually speak of being redeemed from having been defrauded in one’s first marriage; and although he was ‘saved’ from starvation, we do not say he was redeemed from starvation. Jacob, rather, is talking about the “God before whom my fathers, Abraham and Isaac, did walk.” The subject matter is God’s covenant with Abraham (15, 16) and God’s plan to bring that family into the promised land four hundred years later.

“And when Joseph’s brethren saw that their father was dead, they said, Joseph will peradventure hate us and certainly requite us all the evil which we did to him.” In a loose sense Joseph’s being imprisoned by Potiphar was a calamity; but the anticipated hatred had to do with the sins of the brothers. Evil here means sin. Indeed, verse 17 speaks of trespass and sin, then of evil, and finally trespass again. So also verse 20.

Since the misrepresentation of Isa. 45:7 derives chiefly from a non-scriptural presupposition relative to what God can and cannot do, rather than from textual exegesis, a discussion in order to be thorough would have to examine all the verses. The reader is invited and urged to do so. But so long as this discussion lists some of the verses which non-reformed theologians use in their avoidance of the full Biblical position, it may conveniently omit all of Exodus, include some of Numbers and Deuteronomy, and skip over many others. A careful student can easily find the omitted instances of ra.

The term occurs in Num. 11:15; in 14:27, 35, 37; in 20:5 and 32:13. In the first of these references the KJ translates it wretchedness. Moses contrasts his wretchedness with “favor in thy sight.” This wretchedness may include the physical and mental burdens of welding a horde of slaves into an organized society. But the favor he asks is to be cleansed from his sins and that God may kill him forthwith and receive him into heaven.

Numbers 14:27 refers to the Israelites as an evil congregation. It is God who calls them evil, and the evil is their murmurings against God. That is, the evil was sin. The same idea recurs explicitly in 14:35, implicitly in 14:37, for the evil report was a denial of God’s omnipotence.

The evil in Num. 20:5 includes thirst and starvation, which would indeed be a calamity; but it is also the background of sin and rebellion from verses 2, 3, and 4. As clearly as anywhere evil means sin in Num. 32:13. It says that “the Lord’s anger was kindled against Israel … that had done evil in the sight of the Lord.” Now, if only calamity were meant, the Lord might be expected to show compassion rather than anger. No, the ra was sin against God. Sin and anger are in the next verse also. So much for Numbers.

Unless I have missed one or two, Deuteronomy has sixteen instances of the word ra. Chapter one, verses 35 and 39, very obviously speak of sin, for God was “wroth” and “angry,” though the little children were too young to distinguish good from evil. In 4:25 ra refers to idolatry, which God will punish in his anger. Punishment is no doubt a calamity, but the evil was sin. The evil diseases of Egypt in 7:15 are also calamities; whether these diseases were the result of sin or only of natural causes, the text does not say. The evil of 13:5 is bad theology. Capital punishment is the penalty. Similarly, the evil of 17:7 and 12 is a transgression of the covenant, particularly idolatry, and “that man shall die and thou shalt put away the evil from Israel.” The evil of 19:19, 20 is perjury. Rebellion against parents, gluttony and drunkenness are the evils of 21:21. In the next chapter, 22:14, the sin is the defamation of a wife’s character, continued in verse 19. Verse 22 concerns adultery; and verse 24 distinguishes between rape when people are near enough to hear a cry for help, and rape where no cry could be heard. Chapter 24:7 is a case of theft.

At this point it may be well to return to Genesis and quote a few verses where ra is translated otherwise than by the English evil. Genesis 31:52 has harm. It is part of a treaty between Laban and Jacob. The harms seem to be mostly a theft of sheep and an insult to Laban’s daughters as Jacob’s wives. At least theft is a sin. The evil in Gen. 44:29, called sorrow, would be Jacob’s death, if Benjamin were harmed as Joseph was supposed to have been. The harm of Num. 35:23 is an unintentional homicide, that is, a fatal accident. In such a case the agent did not seek the victim’s harm. The harm in II Kings 4:41 is accidental poisoning. No sin seems to be involved. This is one of the few verses where ra seems totally separated from sin. In Prov. 3:29

ra is translated evil and in 3:30 it is harm. The evil is clearly some sin in 3:29, and harm is only a bit less clear in 3:30.

Naturally the Psalms often mention ra. Psalm 10:6 tells us that “The wicked … hath said in his heart … I shall never be in adversity.” This sound like calamity, and maybe the wicked man thought so; but the context includes covetousness, irreligion, cursing, deceit, and fraud.

Psalm 27:5 reads, “In the time of trouble he shall hide me in his pavilion.” Now, the trouble seems to be injuries inflicted by enemies, and verse 12 mentions cruelty; but the safety besought from God is at least mainly spiritual. Palm 94:13 is less clear: “Blessed is the man whom thou chasteneth … that thou mayest give him rest from the days of adversity until the pit be digged for the wicked.” One could suppose that the adversity is purely physical, or with mental apprehension, but the other side of the coin is wickedness and iniquity. Psalm 107:26, 39 have the business entrepreneur lifted up on the sea to heaven and then dropped down to the depths: “their soul is melted because of trouble.” This is a good verse to use, if one wishes to eradicate sin from ra. But perhaps the entrepreneur had forgotten God because it is in their trouble that they cry out to him for help. In 107:39, the word is affliction. Just what this is the verse does not say.

Doubtless those who would rid ra of sin would quote Eccl. 7:14. Adversity is contrasted with prosperity. Even so, God sends the adversity. We now skip to Jer. 2:27, 48:16, and 51:2. In the first of these references, ra is translated trouble; but the subject matter is idolatry. The second reference says, “The calamity [not ra] of Moab is near to come, and his affliction hasteth fast.” The affliction, I take it, is punishment for sin. Of course those who disagree with my main contention will point out that punishment is not sin. The background, however, is. Jeremiah 51:1, 2 say, “Thus saith the Lord, Behold I will raise up against Babylon … and shall empty her land, for in the day of trouble they shall be against her round about.” This could be a reference to Belshazzar’s feast, where he praised the gods of gold and silver, as he used the sacred vessels from the temple in Jerusalem, while the army of Darius the Mede was surrounding the city.

Lamentations 1:21, in English, uses the word trouble. But note that in the previous verse “my bowels are troubled, mine heart is turned within me, for I have grievously rebelled.” Ordinarily we do not think of Jeremiah as having grievously rebelled against God. Presumably Jeremiah is identifying himself with and speaking for Jerusalem.

It is true that some of the verses quoted, and others not quoted, can by a sharp separation be confined to the penalty for sin so as to purge the term ra from any sinful connotation. This, I believe, is an excessive separation. But let such verses be so. That ra frequently means sin is indisputable. In Zeph. 3:15 the evil which they shall not see any more is identified with speaking lies and a deceitful tongue; its opposite is, not doing iniquity, rejoicing with all their heart, and absence of fear because the Lord is in the midst of thee.

For a final verse, not particularly climactic, Zech. 1:15 says that God is “sore displeased with the heathen,” and the rest of the verse, though puzzling, seems to say that God’s slight displeasure at first was increased as the heathen “helped forward the affliction.” The NEB translates it, “For I was a little angry, and they helped, but with evil intent.” The RSV, which I never trust, has “they furthered the disaster.” So does the NAS. Though the verse may be puzzling, it seems clear enough to me that the heathen increased their sinning. One could hardly say that God’s displeasure increased simply because their calamities increased. Indeed, God would be pleased by such an increase.

This list of quotations is far from exhaustive, however exhausting. One must note, however, that the list does not exclude verses, which are seemingly inconsistent with the conclusion to be drawn. In any case, concordances are at the disposal of nearly every reader, where he can search the Scriptures and see whether these things are so. One good source is the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament by Harris, Archer, and Waltke, Vol. II, p. 854, #2191, a, b, c. Now we can return to the misunderstood verse with which we started, and draw our conclusion.

The verse says, “I make peace and create evil.” Since there are a few verses where ra seems not to include sin, one cannot assert right off that here it means sin. If statistics alone could settle the problem, one would have to decide for sin. But many theologians are deeply predetermined to deny sin and favor physical calamities, such as earthquakes and war. But in war, if not in earthquakes, one side and sometimes both sides have committed sins.

The Scofield Bible makes a desperate attempt to rule out sin by a device, which I would call deceptive. Scofield’s note on Isa. 45:7 is, “Heb. ra, translated ‘sorrow,’ ‘wretchedness,’ ‘adversity,’ ‘afflictions,’ ‘calamities,’ but never translated sin. God created evil only in the sense that He made sorrows, wretchedness, etc., to be the sure fruits of sin.”

The first point, but not the most important, is the submerged logical fallacy that if ra is never translated sin it cannot mean sin. But beyond this, the phrase “never translated sin” is interesting, very interesting, precisely because it is true. To make such a statement responsibly, one must have examined every one of its instances in the Old Testament. There are over one hundred instances before one finishes I Kings. There is easily another hundred before the end of Proverbs – and these figures do not include those cases where ra is translated sorrow, adversity, or calamity. Yet note that Scofield’s statement is all-inclusive: “God created evil only in the sense that He made sorrow … to be the sure fruits of sin.”

No man of even ordinary intelligence can fail to see that in most cases ra means sin. True enough, ra is never translated sin. This true, but utterly irrelevant, observation gives the impression that ra never means sin. But of course Scofield did not dare say so, for he knew it was not true.” (2)

 God and Evil in Religion, Reason, and Revelation by Gordon H. Clark:

 Is God the cause of sin? Gordon Clark replies:

“Let it be unequivocally said that this view certainly makes God the cause of sin. God is the sole ultimate cause of everything. There is nothing independent of him. He alone is the eternal being. He alone is omnipotent. He alone is sovereign. Not only is Satan his creature, but every detail of history was eternally in his plan before the world began; and he willed that it should all come to pass….” (3) (p. 237- 238)

Clark referencing the Westminster Confession of Faith and saying that God is the cause of sin. Does this mean he is “the author of sin?”

Clark speaks of “first and secondary causation” and “God is the ultimate cause of everything, including sin, but he is not the “author” (immediate cause) of sin. (4)

“God is neither responsible nor sinful, even though he is the ultimate cause of everything.” (5)

“As God cannot sin, so … God is not responsible for sin, even though he decrees it.” (6)

“The sinner therefore, and not God, is responsible; the sinner alone is the author of sin. Man has no free will, for salvation is purely of grace; and God is sovereign.” (7) (p. 241)

 The Evil Argument by Gordon H. Clark:

 “The Problem of Evil” by Hupert P. Black attacks a subject that should receive much more attention than it does … Dr. Black is to be commended for writing on a subject many short-sighted Christians prefer to avoid. Nevertheless … [his argument] is unacceptable because it contradicts Scripture.

 The author tries to defend divine omnipotence. God can do anything but he limits himself by giving man freedom. Whatever small value this may have relative to omnipotence, it has no bearing on God’s goodness. Can God be good if he grants man freedom, knowing ahead of time what terrible evils man will commit? If God were good, he would not have made such a man …

 Further, the appeal to freedom completely ignores the tragedies of earthquakes in California and Peru, tidal waves in East Pakistan, and the Black Death in medieval Europe. God can control nature, can’t he? … [But] the author contradicts the doctrine of creation ex nihilo in his statement, “God’s power is not limited by natural events that thwart his will but is relative to actual occasions in the sense that they provide the conditions for the exercise of his creative power.” This sentence not only makes God’s acts of creation dependent on a prior existing nature, but also asserts that nature thwarts God’s will. Apparently, God cannot prevent tidal waves and earthquakes. The sentence quoted begins by saying that God’s power is not limited, but it ends by nature thwarting God’s power. Gordon Clark, Professor of Philosophy” (8)

 In closing:

 In the above essays, Professor Clark explains how believers do not need to be troubled by the Isaiah 45:7 passage. Clark solves this ostensible dilemma by utilizing the argument of first and secondary causes or, said another way, the immediate and ultimate causes. The distinction between evil and moral evil and the free will argument provide no solution. The moral versus evil argument is arbitrary, and the free will argument does not answer the question prior to the actual creation.    

 When God in the councils of His will, determined to create humanity and the world, knew that sin would enter in, and determined to create nonetheless. It is inescapable that God allowed sin into the creation; consequently, He is a remote cause but not the author of sin. Therefore, God has not sinned.

 Everything God does is right because He does it:

 “And in very deed for this cause have I †raised thee up, for to shew in thee my power; and that my name may be declared throughout all the earth.” (Exodus 9:16)

 “The Lord is righteous in all his ways and holy in all his works. The Lord is nigh unto all them that call upon him, to all that call upon him in truth. He will fulfil the desire of them that fear him: he also will hear their cry, and will save them. The Lord preserveth all them that love him: but all the wicked will he destroy. My mouth shall speak the praise of the Lord: and let all flesh bless his holy name for ever and ever.” (Psalm 145:17-21)

 “Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, to the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.” (Ephesians 1:5–6)

 “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.      Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, Commentary on the Whole Bible, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Zondervan, 1977) p. 568.

2.      Gordon H. Clark, Desultory New Testament Curiosities, his essay, along with two others, was submitted by Gordon Clark to Allen Guelzo of the Reformed Episcopal Seminary for inclusion in the latter’s book, Ambitious to Be Well Pleasing.

3.      Gordon H. Clark, Religion, Reason, and Revelation, (Jefferson, Maryland, Trinity Foundation, 1986), pp. 237-238.

4.      Gordon H. Clark, Religion, Reason, and Revelation, (Jefferson, Maryland, Trinity Foundation, 1986), p. 239.

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. and other titles by Mr. Kettler are available at Amazon.com

What is Abraham’s Bosom?                                                     By Jack Kettler

“So it was that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels to Abraham’s bosom. The rich man also died and was buried.” (Luke 16:22 NKJV)

What is “Abraham’s bosom”? Is it a literal place? Does it still exist today? Is “Abraham’s bosom” in “Paradise?” Are there two areas in Hades, one for the unrighteous and torment and another “Paradise,” a place of rest for the righteous? A Biblical encyclopedia and three commentary entries will be consulted.

From the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia:
“Abraham’s Bosom

booz’-um (kolpos Abraam; kolpoi Abraam): Figurative. The expression occurs in Lu 16:22-23, in the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus, to denote the place of repose to which Lazarus was carried after his death. The figure is suggested by the practice of the guest at a feast reclining on the breast of his neighbor. Thus, John leaned on the breast of Jesus at supper (Joh 21:20). The rabbis divided the state after death (Sheol) into a place for the righteous and a place for the wicked (see ESCHATOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT; SHEOL), but it is doubtful whether the figure of Jesus quite corresponds with this idea. “Abraham’s bosom” is not spoken of as in “Hades,” but rather as distinguished from it (Lu 16:23)–a place of blessedness by itself. There Abraham receives, as at a feast, the truly faithful, and admits them to closest intimacy. It may be regarded as equivalent to the “Paradise” of Lu 23:43. James Orr” (1)

 The encyclopedia entry classifies the parable in Luke as figurative. The encyclopedia also notes that the two corresponding places in the parable, rest and torment, are in the same place. If this is true, “Abraham’s bosom” is not in Hades.

 From the classic Pulpit Commentary on Luke 16:22:  “Verse 22. – And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom. At last kind death came, and relieved Lazarus of his sufferings. His dismissal, as might have been expected, preceded that of the rich man; for he was enfeebled by a deadly disease. We must not, of course, press too much the details we find in parables; still, from our Lord’s way of speaking of the great change in the cases of both Lazarus and Dives, it would seem as though there was absolutely no pause between the two lives of this world and the world to come. The rich man evidently is pictured as closing his eyes upon his gorgeous surroundings here, and opening them directly again upon his cheerless surroundings there. Lazarus is described as being borne at once into Abraham’s bosom. Indeed, some interpret the words as signifying that the body as well as the soul was carried by angels into Paradise. It is; however, better, with Calvin, to understand the expression as alluding only to Lazarus’s soul; of the body of the pauper nothing was said, as men probably contemptuously, if not carelessly, buried it with the burial rites, which such homeless, friendless ones too often receive. The place whither the blest Lazarus went is termed “Abraham’s bosom.” This term was used by the Jews indifferently, with “the garden of Eden,” or “under the throne of glory,” for the home of happy but waiting souls. The rich man also died, and was buried. There is a terrible irony here in this mention of burial. This human pageantry of woe was for the rich man what the carrying by the angels into Abraham’s bosom was for Lazarus – it was his equivalent; but while these empty honours were being paid to his senseless, deserted body, the rich man was already gazing on the surroundings of his new and cheerless home. After the moment’s sleep of death, what an awakening!” (2)

 Before Christ’s atoning work:

 From Luke 16:22-26, it can be concluded that after death, there is a separation into two separate places. “Hades,” where the unrighteous go after death, and “Paradise” or “Abraham’s bosom,” the place of respite for the righteous. The two places, divided as it were by a great chasm, and could not be spanned by the inhabitants on either side. 

 Is “Abraham’s Bosom” still a reality after Christ’s atoning work? Since the Pulpit commentary references Calvin, his thoughts will be helpful.

 John Calvin’s comments on this are significant:

 “It will perhaps be asked, is the same condition reserved after death for the godly of our own day, or did Christ, when he rose, open his bosom to admit Abraham himself, as well as all the godly? I reply briefly: As the grace of God is more clearly revealed to us in the Gospel, and as Christ himself, the Sun of Righteousness, (Malachi 4:2,) has brought to us that salvation, which the fathers were formerly permitted to behold at a distance and under dark shadows, so there cannot be a doubt that believers, when they die, make a nearer approach to the enjoyment of the heavenly life. Still, it must be understood, that the glory of immortality is delayed till the last day of redemption. So far as relates to the word bosom, that quiet harbor at which believers arrive after the navigation of the present life, may be called either Abraham’s bosom or Christ’s bosom; but, as we have advanced farther than the fathers did under the Law, this distinction will be more properly expressed by saying, that the members of Christ are associated with their Head; and thus there will be an end of the metaphor about Abraham’s bosom, as the brightness of the sun, when he is risen, makes all the stars to disappear. From the mode of expression which Christ has here employed, we may, in the meantime, draw the inference, that the fathers under the Law embraced by faith, while they lived, that inheritance of the heavenly life into which they were admitted at death.” (3)

 Calvin refers to “Abraham’s bosom” and “Christ’s bosom” to be synonymous. Therefore, Hades or Sheol is distinct from “Paradise” or “Abraham’s bosom.”

 An additional contemporary commentary entry by William Hendriksen on Luke 16:22-26:  “22. In course of time the beggar died and was carried away by the angels to Abraham’s bosom. The rich man also died, and he was buried.

The beggar’s misery ended at last. He died. Whether he was also buried is not even mentioned. If there was a real burial, it must have been so obscure and dismal that it better be passed by in silence. On the other hand, what happened to the soul of Lazarus is all-important. He—for man’s soul or spirit is the real person—was carried away by the angels to Abraham’s bosom.

Two expressions here merit special attention:

First of all the angels. According to Scripture

ANGELS ARE:

Attendants of Christ (2 Thess. 1:7), their exalted Head (Eph. 1:21, 22; Col. 2:10).

Bringers of good tidings concerning our salvation (see on Luke 2:14; 24:4–7; Acts 1:11; 1 Tim. 3:16).

Choristers of heaven (Luke 15:10; 1 Cor. 13:1; Rev. 5:11, 12).

Defenders of God’s children (Ps. 34:7; 91:11; Dan. 6:22; 10:10, 13, 20; Matt. 18:10; Acts 5:19; 2 Thess. 1:7–10; Rev. 12:7), though the latter outrank them and will judge them (1 Cor. 6:3; Heb. 1:14).

Examples in obedience (Matt. 6:10; 1 Cor. 11:10).

Friends of the redeemed, constantly watching over them, deeply interested in their salvation, and rendering service to them in every way, including executing the judgment of God upon the enemy (Matt. 13:41; 25:31, 32; Luke 15:10; 16:22; 1 Cor. 4:9; Gal. 3:19; 2 Thess. 1:7; Heb. 1:14; 1 Peter 1:12; Rev. 20:1–3).

Next, Abraham’s bosom. The fact that Lazarus was by the angels carried to Abraham’s bosom certainly proves that he had been true to his name. While on earth he had placed his trust in God as his Helper, and now God had ordered the angels to take his soul to Paradise. He who had yearned to receive crumbs and scraps is now reclining at heaven’s table, where a banquet is being held. Moreover, to recline in Abraham’s bosom, as the apostle John was going to recline in the bosom of Jesus, indicates special favor, as has been shown in connection with Luke 14:7; see on that verse. See also John 1:18. We should not forget, in this connection, that Abraham is regarded in Scripture as being not only the great patriarch (Heb. 7:4) but also the father of all believers (Rom. 4:11).

The rich man also died and was buried. It must have been a splendid burial. Note the meaningful contrast: nothing is said about the beggar’s burial; on the other hand, nothing is here said about the rich man’s soul, as to what happened to it at the moment of death.

B. In the Hereafter

23, 24. And in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes. He sees Abraham afar off, and Lazarus by his side. And he cried out and said, Father Abraham, take pity on me and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am in agony in this flame.

A few matters stand out:

a. The rich show-off is pictured as being in Hades. The popular view, according to which the term Hades in the entire New Testament is the abode of all the dead, believers and unbelievers, is certainly incorrect. As far as the Gospels are concerned the following is true:

In the present parable Hades is clearly the place of torments and of the flame. It is hell. So also hell may well be the correct rendering of Hades in Matt. 11:23 and in Luke 10:15, for there Hades is sharply contrasted with heaven, and should probably be understood in the figurative sense of thorough ruin. In Matt. 16:18 the thought may well be that not even all the demons streaming forth out of the gates of hell will ever be able to destroy Christ’s true church.

b. The condition of the dead and the communication between them is represented here in very literal, earthly terms, so that a vivid impression is created. It should be clear, nevertheless, that much of what is here conveyed cannot be interpreted literally. For example, we read about the lifting up of the eyes, of seeing people afar off, of a finger and of a tongue, even though we have been told that the rich man had been buried.

This does not take away the fact, however, that certain definite truths concerning the life hereafter are conveyed here, one of them being that the departed ones are not asleep but fully awake; another, that some are saved, others are suffering.

c. If all this is understood, it will have become clear that the one great truth here emphasized is that once a person has died, his soul having been separated from his body, his condition, whether blessed or doomed, is fixed forever. There is no such thing as a “second” chance. Therefore opportunities to help those in need and, in general, to live a fruitful life to the glory of God should be seized now.

These preliminary remarks should guard us against taking literally what was never meant to be so interpreted.

With all this in mind, note that the rich man of the parable is here represented as being in torment, a condition which is not relieved by the fact that in the distance he sees Abraham and Lazarus by his side. Very respectfully he now addresses the arch-patriarch as “Father Abraham,” and asks him to take pity on him. Such pity he, the rich man himself, had never shown when he had the opportunity to do so. He requests that Abraham dispatch Lazarus, so that the latter, having dipped the tip of his finger in water, might cool the sufferer’s tongue. “I am in agony in this flame,” he adds.

Note the word flame. That hell is a place of fire or of the flame is the language of Scripture throughout (Isa. 33:14; 66:24; Matt. 3:12; 5:22; 13:40, 42, 50; 18:8, 9; 25:41; Mark 9:43–48; Luke 3:17; Jude 7; Rev. 14:10; 19:20; 20:10, 14, 15; 21:8). This fire is unquenchable. It devours forever and ever.

Yet, hell is also the abode where darkness dwells. For some it is the place of “outer darkness” (Matt. 8:12; 22:13; 25:30). It is the region where the evil spirits are kept “in everlasting chains under darkness” (Jude 6; cf. Jude 13).

But if hell is a place of fire, how can it also be a place of darkness? Are not these two concepts mutually exclusive? Well, not always necessarily. For example, by means of a certain form of radiation people have been seriously burned even though when it happened they were in a dark room, Nevertheless, it is advisable not to speculate. Everlasting fire has been prepared “for the devil and his angels,” yet these are spirits. It should be sufficient to conclude from all this that such terms as fire and darkness should not be taken too literally. Each in its own way indicates the terrors of the lost in the place from which there is no return.

Note that the rich man’s character has not changed any. He still views Lazarus as his servant, and is not a bit ashamed to ask for a favor from the very person who never received a favor from him! Also, he expects Abraham to send Lazarus, even though he, the show-off, never tried, during his life on earth, to imitate Abraham’s faith.

25, 26. But Abraham answered, Son, remember that during your lifetime you received in full your good things, and similarly Lazarus (received) the bad things. Now he is being comforted here, and you are in agony. And besides all this, between us and you a vast chasm has been fixed, in order that those who want to cross from this side to you would not be able to do so, and that those who would pass over from there to us would (also) not be able.

Abraham answers in a friendly manner, even calls him “son,” for the rich man has called Abraham “father.” Besides, is not the sufferer a child of Abraham, biologically speaking?

In his answer Abraham intends to indicate that for two reasons the request cannot be honored: to grant it would be (a) improper and (b) impossible.

It would be improper, contrary to the requirements of justice—“During your lifetime you received … your good things; that is, those things you considered good, namely, being dressed in purple and fine linen, and living in dazzling splendor day in, day out. Those matters were first on the list of your priorities.” Implied is: to help poor Lazarus and, in general, to live a life of being useful to your fellow men and of glorifying God was not at all your aim. Now, then, you receive what is coming to you. On the other hand, Lazarus received the bad things, not his bad things. He did not bring them upon himself. (On the contrary, he was true to his name.) Now he is being comforted and this, again, is as it should be.

It would also be impossible. Abraham tells the doomed man that there is a vast chasm, a yawning gorge—a typically Palestinian figure, for the country where this parable was spoken has many of these ravines (see the note on 16:26 on page 789)—separating the lost from the redeemed. Crossing over from one side to the other is, therefore, forever and absolutely impossible. This is a very graphic and unforgettable symbolical representation of the irreversibility of a person’s lot after death. The chasm was intended for rendering crossing over impossible.” (4)

 In closing:

 “Abraham’s Bosom” is now emptied of all the inhabitants after Christ’s atonement and resurrection. “Abraham’s Bosom” still has a figurative and metaphorical value of an expression. Its expression is now synonymous with Heaven itself. Now the souls of the righteous go immediately to Heaven with Christ awaiting the resurrection of their bodies.

 After the Crucifixion, Jesus went to the place of torment for the unrighteous (“By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison.” (1 Peter 3:19) This is why the Apostle’s Creed says: “descended to hell.” Then Christ went to “Abrahams’s bosom” to bring the righteous into the heavenly kingdom with the Father.

 Jesus is at the right hand of the Father:
“Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come. And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.” (Ephesians 1:20–23)

 “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.      Orr, James, M.A., D.D. General Editor, International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Eerdmans, reprinted 1986), p. 22.

2.      H. D. M. Spence and Joseph S. Exell, The Pulpit Commentary, Luke, Vol. 16, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Eerdmans Publishing Company reprint 1978), p. 66-67.

3.      John Calvin, Calvin’s Commentaries, Luke, Volume XV1, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Baker Book House Reprinted 1979), p. 186.

4.      William Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary, Luke, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Baker Book House, 1984), pp. 783-786. 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. and other books by the author are available at: http://www.JackKettler.com 

What does Jesus mean in Luke 17:21?                                                     By Jack Kettler

“Neither shall they say, Lo here! Or, lo there! For, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.” (Luke 17:21 KJV)

“Nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or ‘There!’ for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you.” (Luke 17:21 ESV)

What does within or in the midst of you mean? First, it will have to be determined what the kingdom of God is.

The New Dictionary of Biblical Theology says regarding the kingdom of God:
“The kingdom comes through the ministry of Jesus and the preaching of the gospel in all the world. It is both the reign and the realm of God for, although in the present age the locus of the kingdom in the world is diffuse, it is defined by the presence of Jesus at the right hand of the Father. It is both present and future until its consummation at Jesus’ return. It is also at least one possible theme by which biblical theology can be integrated. It is the focus of both creation and redemption: God’s plan of redemption is to bring in a new creation. The entire biblical story, despite its great diversity of forms and foci, is consistent in its emphasis on the reign of God over his people in the environment he creates for them.” (1)

 A classic commentator, Barnes’ Notes on the Bible on Luke 17:21 is representative:  “Lo here! or, Lo there!” When an earthly prince visits different parts of his territories, he does it with pomp. His movements attract observation, and become the common topic of conversation. The inquiry is, where is he? Which way will he go? And it is a matter of important “news” to be able to say where he is. Jesus says that the Messiah would not come in that manner. It would not be with such pomp and public attention. It would be silent, obscure, and attracting comparatively little notice. Or the passage may have reference to the custom of the “pretended” Messiahs, who appeared in this manner. They said that in this place or in that, in this mountain or that desert, they would show signs that would convince the people that they were the Messiah. Compare the notes at Acts 5:36-37.

Is within you – This is capable of two interpretations.

1. The reign of God is “in the heart.” It does not come with pomp and splendor, like the reign of temporal kings, merely to control the external “actions” and strike the senses of people with awe, but it reigns in the heart by the law of God; it sets up its dominion over the passions, and brings every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ.

2. It may mean the new dispensation is “even now among you.” The Messiah has come. John has ushered in the kingdom of God, and you are not to expect the appearance of the Messiah with great pomp and splendor, for he is now among you. Most critics at present incline to this latter interpretation. The ancient versions chiefly follow the former.” (2)

 A contemporary exposition on the Kingdom Of God by O. Palmer Robertson:  “The kingdom associated with the coming of Jesus is intimately connected with the promised kingdom of the old covenant that God made with Israel. In the beginning of his gospel, Luke indicates that the Lord would give Jesus “the throne of his father David,” and that his rule over the house of Jacob (Israel) would never end (Luke 1:32-33). Clearly Jesus’ kingdom would have continuity with the covenants of old.

The kingdom of God as presented in Luke’s gospel would be realized progressively. The coming rule of the Messiah had been prophesied earlier, but it actually began only after the ministry of John the Baptist. It was only after the time of John that the good news of the kingdom was being preached (Luke 16:16). Furthermore, the least in the kingdom of God was to be viewed as greater than John (7:28). Jesus declared that he had come to proclaim the good news of the presence of the kingdom (4:43; 8:1). He passed on to his disciples the same privilege of announcing the arrival of the kingdom of God (9:2, 60; 10:9, 11). If the question arose as to whether the kingdom was only “near” or actually had come, Jesus made the point quite explicitly: “The kingdom of God is in your midst” (Luke 17:21 NASB). The presence of Jesus establishes the present reality of the kingdom of god. IF the king has come, the kingdom must be present.

At the same time, the kingdom in an important sense had not yet come. Jesus taught his disciples to pray, “Your kingdom come” (Luke 11:2), which implied that the kingdom remained to be fully realized. As he approached the end of his ministry, Jesus taught his disciples about the signs that would mark the coming of the kingdom (21:31). He would not eat or drink with his disciples again until the kingdom had come (22:16, 18), which implies that the full realization of the kingdom of God is still in the future.

The kingdom that Jesus brought should not be understood as belonging exclusively to the ethnic descendants of Israel. Although this point is not stressed in Luke’s gospel, it is nonetheless a part of Jesus’’ teaching. While the people of Israel had the privilege of witnessing the ministry of Jesus, many of them would be thrown out of the kingdom of God. At the same time, “people will come from east and west and north and south, and will take their places at the feast in the kingdom of God” (Luke 13:28-29; cf. Matt. 8:8-12). This teaching about the universal scope of the kingdom fits right into the programmatic realization of the kingdom as reported in the book of Acts.

So the message of Jesus about the kingdom of God as recorded in Luke’s gospel helps to explain the experience of Christ’s rule as reported in the book of Acts. This kingdom would represent the realization of the covenant promises given to the patriarchs in general and David in particular. It would come into its fullness in stages. Eventually it would encompass the Gentile nations spread all across the earth.

Luke’s gospel also anticipates the distinctiveness of God’s kingdom in Acts by emphasizing the role of the Holy Spirit in the ministry of Jesus. Because the Holy Spirit came upon Mary, the “holy one” born of her would be called the Son of God (Luke 1:35). John characterized Jesus’ ministry as a baptizing in the Holy Spirit, and so Jesus began his ministry by being baptized in the Spirit himself (3:16, 22). Only Luke indicates that Jesus was “full of the Holy Spirit” as he was led into the wilderness to be tested as the second Israel, and only he notes that Jesus returned triumphantly after his temptation “in the power of the Spirit” (4:1, 14). Only Luke records Jesus’ opening sermon in Nazareth, where he claimed to fulfill Isaiah’s prophecy by having the Spirit of the Lord upon him (4:18). Only Luke states that Jesus was “full of joy through the Holy Spirit: (10:21). Only Luke records Jesus’ announcement that the Father would give the Holy Spirit to those who asked him (11:13.)

Luke’s distinctive emphasis on the working of the Spirit in the life and ministry of Jesus provides a natural basis for understanding the central role of the Spirit in the messianic kingdom as it comes to light in the book of Acts. If Jesus was made holy by the Spirit, his people will become holy by the same Spirit. If he was baptized in the Spirit at the beginning of his ministry, then they may expect to have the same experience. If he was led by the Spirit, preached in the Spirit, and ministered in the power of the Spirit, then would not the citizens of his kingdom experience similar manifestations of the Spirit? OF course, the uniqueness of Christ must be maintained. But since he had experienced these manifestations of the Spirit, the citizens of his kingdom could also expect to participate in the workings of the Spirit.” (3)

 Palmer continues:     “The term kingdom occurs only six times in Acts after the initial question of the disciples. But the distribution of these references is significant. At each critical moment in the narrative, reference is made to the coming of the kingdom: when the power of the gospel is displayed in Samaria (Acts 8:12), when Paul provides an explanation for the suffering of believers at the end of his first missionary journey (Acts 14:22), during the three months and the additional two years of his ministry in Ephesus (Acts 19:8, 10; 20:25), and after he finally arrives in Rome (Acts 28:23, 31). At each of these new stages in the advancement of the gospel, reference is made to the presence of the kingdom of God.” (4)

 In closing:

 The reader is encouraged to look again at Barnes’ notes on Luke 17:21, where it is said concerning the kingdom of God, “Is within you – This is capable of two interpretations.” Both of Barnes’s examples are plausible, whether in the regenerate heart or a new dispensation with the advent of the Messiah’s reign. Moreover, it is possible that both interpretations are accurate. There is no inherent conflict in affirming both.     “The kingdom of God is the rule of an eternal sovereign God over all creatures and things (Psalms 103:19; Daniel 4:3). The kingdom of God is also the designation for the sphere of salvation entered into at the new birth (John 3:5-7).” – Monergism web site

 “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.      Graeme Goldsworthy, New Dictionary of Biblical Theology, (Downers Grove, Illinois,   IVP Academic), p. 620.

2.      Albert Barnes, THE AGES DIGITAL LIBRARYCOMMENTARY, Barnes’ Notes on the Bible, Luke, Vol. p. 916.

3.      O. Palmer Robertson, The Israel of God: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow, (Phillipsburg, New Jersey, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing), pp. 123-125.

4.      O. Palmer Robertson, The Israel of God: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow, (Phillipsburg, New Jersey, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing), p. 137.   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. Other books by Mr. Kettler @ http://www.JackKettler.com

The Christian spiritual warfare and the use of the mind                               By Jack Kettler

Spiritual warfare as a Christian is inescapable. How does this warfare take place? Christianity is a rational religion, meaning it is not divorced from the use of the mind or intellect. The use of the mind is a result of man being an image-bearer of God. Hence, the warfare that takes place involves the use of the mind.

What is the Scriptural proof that man is an image-bearer of God?

“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” (Genesis 1:27 ESV)

Relevant to this study, Francis Schaeffer says regarding God’s image in man:
“…Nothing is to be autonomous from God. The inward areas of knowledge, meaning, and values and the inward area of morals, are bound by God as much as the outward world. As the Christian grows spiritually he should be a man who consciously, more and more, brings his thought-world as well as his outward world under the norms of the Bible.” (1)

According to Schaeffer, man’s image consists of “knowledge, meaning, and values… are bound by God.” In other words, man has the innate ability for moral and rational cognizance.

The following Scriptural warnings to be on guard prove that the mind must be involved:

“Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.” (Jude 1:3 NKJV)

“O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called.” (1 Timothy 6:20)

“By the Holy Spirit who dwells within us, guard the good deposit entrusted to you.” (2 Timothy 1:14 ESV)

“Guard the good deposit.” What was the good deposit Paul speaks of in 2 Timothy 1:14?

“Parallel with the thought just expressed is that contained in verse 14: That precious (or: excellent) thing which was entrusted to you guard through the Holy Spirit who dwells within us.
The ‘precious deposit’ is, of course, the gospel, taken in its widest sense (see 1 Timothy 6:20). It consists of ‘the sound words’ which Timothy has heard from Paul (see the preceding verse, 13). It is precious or excellent because it belongs to God and results in his glory through the salvation of those who accept it by sovereign grace. Again (as in 1 Timothy 6:20), Timothy is urged once for all to guard this deposit. He must defend it against every attack and never allow it to be changed or modified in the slightest degree.
But since the enemy is strong and Timothy is weak, Paul very wisely adds the thought that this guarding cannot be done except ‘through the Holy Spirit who dwells within us,’ that is, within Paul, Timothy, all believers (Romans 8:11). Timothy, then, should hold on to the pure gospel, the sound doctrine, as Paul has always done.” (2)

Summarizing Hendriksen, it can be said: 

The faith or good deposit is to be protected. The protection is done by guarding, contending, which means to avoid profane babbling and fraudulent science. The intellect is used to distinguish truth and error.

It can be concluded that the intellectual and spiritual aspects of this warfare are unified and not contradictory.  

 Be on guard, because deceivers, false prophets, false apostles, savage wolves, and others trying to draw away disciples after themselves shall come to ravage the Church:

 “And the LORD said to me: “The prophets are prophesying lies in my name. I did not send them, nor did I command them or speak to them. They are prophesying to you a lying vision, worthless divination, and the deceit of their own minds.” (Jeremiah 14:14 ESV)

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

 “For I know this that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.” (Acts 20:29)

 “For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.” (Romans 16:18)

 “For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ.” (2 Corinthians 11:13 ESV))

 “O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?” (Galatians 3:1)

 “Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience.” (Ephesians 5:6 NKJV)

 “Now this I say lest anyone should deceive you with persuasive words.” (Colossians 2:4 NKJV)

 “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.” (Colossians 2:8)

 “But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.” (1 Peter 2:1)

 “Be sober; be vigilant; because your adversary the devil walks about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour.” (1 Peter 5:8 NKJV)

 “By covetousness they will exploit you with deceptive words; for a long time their judgment has not been idle, and their destruction does not slumber.” (2 Peter 2:3 NKJV)

 “I write these things to you about those who are trying to deceive you.” (1 John 2:26 ESV)

 In conclusion:

 Common to all of these warnings, as an example, the bewitching of the Galatians typified and involved the believing of lies. The lies were brought by various deceivers, in which the apostles were aptly described in the warning passages above. As in the case of the Galatians, Paul’s reproof was necessary because of the lack of scrutiny on their part of the doctrine of the Judaizers.

 The model example:

 “These were more noble 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)

 Paul, the apostle, explains it best:

 “For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ.” (2 Corinthians 10:4-5 NKJV)

 That is why the Christian must:

 “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.      Francis Schaeffer, He Is There and He Is Not Silent, (Westchester, Illinois, Crossway Books), p. 82.

2.      William Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary, Thessalonians, Timothy and Titus 1984, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Baker Book House, 1984), p. 237. 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: www.TheReligionThatStartedInAHat.com

Reformed Dogmatics Five Volumes A Review by Jack Kettler

Reformed Dogmatics Five Volumes 

Geerhardus Vos, Gaffin, Richard B., Translator and Editor

Publisher: Lexham Press, Bellingham, WA

Author’s Bio:

Theologian, author, and Professor of Biblical Theology at Princeton Theological Seminary, Geerhardus Johannes Vos, was born in March 1862 at Heerenveen, Netherlands. A prolific author, Vos’s published writings include articles, essays, reviews, poems, and biblical-theological studies on both Old and New Testament topics. The Teaching of Jesus Concerning the Kingdom of God (1903) and his analysis of Pauline theology, The Pauline Eschatology (1930), remain two of his most important works. Vos’s approach to the theology of the Old and New Testaments was published in 1948 as ‘Biblical Theology.’ John Murray, the professor of systematic theology at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, considered Geerhardus Vos to be the most incisive exegete in the English-speaking world of the twentieth century.

What others are saying:

“This translation of Vos’ Dogmatick is the last link in access to his magnificent oeuvre. English readers will now be able to match the Princetonian’s commitment to historic Reformed doctrinal orthodoxy with his pioneering work in redemptive–historical biblical theology. The interaction is refreshing as well as pace–setting. Kudos to publisher and translator alike for undertaking this project.” James T. Dennison Jr., Academic Dean and Professor of Church History and Biblical Theology, Northwest Theological Seminary

“Like books, people can become classics. Great in their day, but richer and more fulfilling with time. Not yet a classic, Vos never-before-published Reformed Dogmatics is more like a lost Shakespeare play recently discovered. There seems to have been a flurry in recent years of systematic theologians writing with an eye for biblical theology. With this series we now have a biblical theologian writing a systematic theology. Thanks to Lexham Press for giving us such a long-awaited but impressive access to this much-discussed gem.” Michael Horton, Professor of Theology and Apologetics, Westminster Seminary California

Other works by Vos:

·         Biblical Theology

·         Pauline Eschatology

·         The Teaching of the Epistle to the Hebrews

·         Grace and Glory

·         Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation  

·         The Kingdom of God and the Church

A Review:

The Volume titles are essential to understand the scope of this work:

Volume One: Theology Proper

Volume Two: Anthropology

Volume Three: Christology

Volume Four: Soteriology

Volume Five: Ecclesiology, The Means of Grace, Eschatology

To repeat John Murry’s comments that Geerhardus Vos one of the most incisive exegetes in the English-speaking world of the twentieth century. It can also be said that the same is true of Vos’ Five Volume Reformed Dogmatics. It is a towering work of theology, and worthy of being called a systematic theology. Even for the lay reader, Vos’ work in the Reformed Dogmatics is comprehensible. The layout of this work is brilliant, with numbered sections and lettered subsections make working through the material very easy. In addition, Vos uses a catechetical method of questions and answers in his Reformed Dogmatics, making the work unique.     

In Volume One on Theology Proper, Vos grounds the knowability of God in Scripture:
“1. The Knowability of God

1. Is God knowable?

Yes, Scripture teaches this: “that we may know the One who is true” (1 John 5:20), although it also reminds us of the limited character of our knowledge (Matt 11:25).

2. In what sense do Reformed theologians maintain that God cannot be known?

a)   Insofar as we can have only an incomplete understanding of an infinite being.

b)   Insofar as we cannot give a definition of God but only a description.

3. On what ground do others deny God’s knowability?

On the ground that God is All-Being. They have a pantheistic view of God. Now, knowing presumes that the object known is not all there is, since it always remains distinct from the subject doing the knowing. Making God the object of knowledge, one reasons, is equivalent to saying that He is not all there is, that He is limited.

4. What response is to be made against this view?

a)   The objection that this view presents stems entirely from a philosophical view of God, as if He were All-Being. This view is wrong. God is certainly infinite, but God is not the All. There are things that exist, whose existence is not identical with God.

b)   It is certainly true that we cannot make a visible representation of God because He is a purely spiritual being. But we also cannot do that of our own soul. Yet we believe that we know it.

c)   It is also true that we do not have an in-depth and comprehensive knowledge of God. All our knowledge, even with regard to created things, is in part. This is even truer of God. We only know Him insofar as He reveals Himself, that is, has turned His being outwardly for us. God alone possesses ideal knowledge of Himself and of the whole world, since He pervades everything with His omniscience.

d)   That we are able to know God truly rests on the fact that God has made us in His own image, thus an impression of Himself, albeit from the greatest distance. Because we ourselves are spirit, possess a mind, will, etc., we know what it means when in His Word God ascribes these things to Himself” (1)

 The catechetical nature of Vos’ work is seen right at the beginning of his work. Each volume has a helpful question page number index. Because of this among many reasons makes Vos’ dogmatics immensely useful.

 In Volume Two, Vos, in a systematic approach, delves into the nature of man. But, unfortunately, many Christians buy into a view of humanity known as trichotomy. Vos exposes this as an example of Greek philosophical paganism infiltrating Christian theology and refutes it decisively.

 In Volume two on Anthropology, again one sees the catechetical nature of Vos’ work:  “1. The Nature of Man

1. According to Holy Scripture, of what does the nature of man consist?

The Scripture teaches:

a)   That man consists of two parts, body and soul.

b)   That the soul is a substance.

c)   That it is a substance distinct from the body.

2. How does Scripture teach these truths?

Not so much explicitly as by assuming and presupposing them everywhere. More specifically:

a)   In places like Gen 3:19; Eccl 12:7.

b)   In places that depict the body as clothing, a tabernacle (2 Cor 5:1).

c)   In all the places that teach that the soul exists and acts after death.

3. What does God’s word teach concerning the relationship between soul and body?

This is a mystery. The following, however, is certain beyond all doubt:

a)   The union between them is a life-unity. The organic life of the body and the life of the soul are not in parallel. Only on the presence of the soul in the body does the possibility rest that the organic bond of the latter is maintained.

b)   Certain conditions of the body are dependent on the self-conscious acting of the spirit; others are independent of this.

c)   Some functions of the soul are bound to the body; others can be done independently of the body.

d)   In antithesis to Materialism, Idealism, occasionalism, etc., one may call this realistic dualism. It is most closely connected with some of the principal doctrines of the Bible.

4. What does one mean by trichotomy?

The doctrine that man does not consist of two but of three specifically different parts, namely:

a)   πνεῦμα, animus, the principal and most noble part; “the spirit” to which the capacities of reason, will, and conscience belong.

b)   ψυχή, anima, the soul, the principle of animal, bodily life that ceases to exist with death. Animals also have a ψυχή.

c)   The body, σῶμα, considered solely as matter.

5. What are the principal objections against this trichotomy?

a)   It is philosophical in origin (Pythagoreans, Plato) and rests on a disparaging of the body and a one-sided elevation of the nonmaterial existence of man. Because one fails to appreciate the organic bond between body and soul, the functions with which the soul works within the body must be detached from the soul and viewed as a third, independent principle. This motif is completely unbiblical and anti-Christian. Christianity wants a redemption of the body as well as of the soul.

b)   Genesis 2:7 shows how God created man consisting of two parts: dust of the earth that was first inanimate, and spirit blown into it, through which man became a living soul.

c)   Scripture nowhere uses the terms רוּחַ and נֶפֶשׁ, πνεῦμα and ψυχή, arbitrarily, but where they are in contrast that contrast is not the trichotomic one given above but an entirely different one. רוּחַ, πνεῦμα, spirit, is the principle of life and movement in man, and is that insofar as it enlivens and moves the body. That, according to philosophical terminology, should be called ψυχή. Hence, according to Scripture, the animals have that just as well as man. This, of course, in no way means that there is no specific difference between a human spirit and an animal soul but simply informs that by רוּחַ the principal feature is expressed that is the higher principle common to man and animals, namely the enlivening and moving of the body. To indicate the distinction between the animals and the human soul, the Scripture has used other words (“heart,” etc.). So, one sees how Scripture and philosophical terminology are diametrically opposed to each other.” (2)

 As seen from the above citation and repeating a previous comment slightly differently, the Hellenistic philosophy behind trichotomy is demolished by Vos as he uses Biblical, logical arguments effectively.  

 Volume Three on Christology is rich in content concerning the person, nature, and role of Christ:  “3. Person and Natures

1. As a result of the meaning of these different names, what can already be established provisionally concerning the person of the Mediator and His natures?

a)   That He is truly God. We found that included:

1.   in His name Jesus;

2.   in the name Lord and the absolute sovereignty expressed by that;

3.   in the name “Son of God,” insofar as that also has an official meaning and is synonymous with Messiah.

b)   That He is truly man. This is implied:

1.   in the official name Christ, since at least equipping for an office can only take place in His human nature;

2.   in the name “Son of Man.”

c)   That in these two natures He is anointed to three offices, as is clear from the name Christ.

d)   That for exercising His work as Mediator, He had to pass through a state of humiliation as well as a state of exaltation, as is to be derived from the names “Servant of the Lord,” ‘Son of David.’” (3)

 In this short citation, one sees Christ magnified, and the two natures of Christ explained and defended.

 In Chapter Five of Volume Four on Soteriology. In forty-four numbered sections, Vos’ explanation and defense of the Protestant doctrine of Justification is one of the best to found anywhere.

 As an example, the reader will be treated to section one:    “5. Justification

1. What words are used in Scripture for the concept of “justification,” and what can be derived from this usage for the doctrine to be treated now?

a) The Hebrew term is hitsdiq, hitsdiq, which in by far the most cases means “to declare judicially that someone’s status is in agreement with the demands of justice.” “For I will not justify the godless” (Exod 23:7). “If there is a dispute between men and they come for judgment that the judges decide between them, they shall declare righteous the one who is righteous and condemn the one who is unrighteous” (Deut 25:1). “Those who justify the godless for a gift and deprive the righteous of their righteousness” (Isa 5:23). “He who justifies me is near” (Isa 50:8). The pi‘el forms of the verb can have the same meaning, tseddeq, tseddeq (cf. Jer 3:11; Ezek 16:50–51). That the meaning of the word is strictly judicial and nothing else appears most clearly from Proverbs 17:15: “The one who justifies the godless and the one who condemns the righteous are both indeed an abomination to the LORD.” Were one now to maintain that here “justify” means “to change someone into an upright person by infusing good qualities,” one would then get the result that to make an evil person into a good one is an abomination to God.

When, in a few places, the concept includes more than “to declare just,” these are exceptions to the rule. And even then, the meaning is not simply synonymous with “to make good, holy” but means, rather, “to place in such a condition that a judgment of justification can be pronounced.” That is, it is not the changing of disposition in itself that is designated “to justify,” but rather the changing of disposition with an eye to a judicial pronouncement, whereby that change is taken into consideration and credited. This is the case in Daniel 12:3: “Those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the sky above, and those who justify many like the stars forever and ever.” Here the term is used of the instrumentality of the ministers of the gospel by which those who hear them come to be in a state of justification, that is, believing, whereupon God can pronounce on them His verdict of justification. Similarly, Isaiah 53:11: “By his knowledge shall my servant, the righteous one, make many righteous, for he shall bear their iniquities.” Here “justify” is certainly more than “declare just.” It means to bring about everything that is necessary to make possible such a declaration of righteousness. The Servant of the Lord does this by His suretyship, and in doing that, He justifies. Usually, however, it is God the Father as judge, who, pronouncing the verdict, justifies; who, taking note of a status of righteousness—whether as one’s own or by imputation—announces the corresponding status.

b) The New Testament word is dikaioun. This also means “to let justice take place by a formal declaration,” “to declare just or righteous.” For example, “the tax collectors justified God” (Luke 7:29)—that is, they acknowledged God to be righteous, as having the right that was due Him. “But he, desiring to justify himself, said to Jesus, ‘Who is my neighbor?’” (Luke 10:29). The meaning here is, “to present someone as dikaios [righteous, just].” The passive has the meaning of “to be presented or known as dikaios.” “For by your words you will be justified and by your words you will be condemned” (Matt 12:37). In extrabiblical Greek dikaioun can mean “to pronounce a just verdict on someone,” both in a good as well as a bad sense: (1) for the evildoer, punishment; (2) for the one who does good, reward. In the New Testament, however, the word is used exclusively for acquittal—thus, in a good sense, never in a bad sense for condemnation to punishment. This is also already the case in the Septuagint.

Dikaioun is a term whose soteriological meaning comes to its full rights in Paul. From Romans 4:5, it is evident that we have to do here with a judicial pronouncement and not with a transforming act. “But to him who does not work but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness.” This is no less evident from the terms that are the antithesis of “justify.” For example, Romans 8:33–34: “It is God who justifies. Who is the one who condemns?” From Romans 4:5, it is also evident that justification does not depend on the condition of the person himself, but on what is imputed to him by grace.

Here, too, a few texts are produced that appear to deviate from this normal usage. These are principally Revelation 22:11, “The one who does wrong, let him still do wrong; and the one who is filthy, let him still be filthy; and the one who is righteous, let him still be justified; and the one who is holy, let him still be sanctified.”1 For “let him still be justified,” the Textus Receptus has dikaiōthētō. Since Bengel it is fairly common to read dikaiosynēn poiēsatō eti, “let him do more righteousness” (so, too, Wescott and Hort). Here, then, justification is not spoken of as a transforming action by which a person gradually makes himself more and more righteous, but of the exercise of righteousness in life.

First Corinthians 6:11 is also a passage to which appeal is made to prove the ethical meaning of dikaioun. There we read, “Such were some of you; but you are washed, you are sanctified, you are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.” It is said that here justification is presented as occurring through the Spirit of God, and from this it should then be evident how “justify” is synonymous with “sanctify.” But that here, too, that justification cannot simply be equivalent to “sanctify” is apparent from the fact that this concept immediately precedes, and the apostle cannot have wanted to say the same thing twice. Nor does the fact that the Spirit justifies prove anything, for besides the fact that He is certainly the creator of justifying faith and the one who applies justification to the conscience, one need not have “by the Spirit of our God” refer to justification. It can refer exclusively to “you are washed, you are sanctified.” The apostle apparently alludes in this text to baptism, in which justification is signified and sealed “in the name of Christ.”

A third passage appealed to is Titus 3:5–7: “He has saved us, not because of works of righteousness that we had done but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, whom he has poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that we, being justified by his grace, might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.” It is said that here the rich outpouring of the Holy Spirit, which effects regeneration and renewal, is presented as the cause of justification because “so that” is in the text. We respond: Here, “so that” ought not to be connected with “poured out,” but with the preceding, “he has saved us.” And furthermore, the clause does not have in view “being justified,” but reads, “so that after having been justified [that is, after having received the right of inheritance], we [actually] would become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.” (4)

 Keep in mind, the above citation is just the start of Vos’ defense of Justification.

 Volume 5: Ecclesiology, The Means of Grace, Eschatology is the final volume in this set. The following citation is from chapter three on “The Means of Grace,” in which Vos’ continues his masterful exposition of central theological issues that set the Reformed Faith apart from other branches of Christianity.   “3. Word and Sacraments

1. In how many senses can one speak of grace?

In three senses:

a) As an attribute of God. Then in a broader sense grace is unmerited favor and in a more specific sense, that favor toward sinners. This grace has no means by which it is induced or brought about. It chooses and creates its own means. The entire plan of salvation, not excluding the Mediator, is a fruit of this grace.

b) As an objective gift in Christ. In Him as the exalted Mediator is found the basis of all manifestations of favor granted to the sinner. From His fullness we have all received grace for grace [John 1:16]. The means by which this grace was obtained and brought about are found in the satisfaction of the Savior.

c) As a subjective action in us. Everything that happens in us or to us as the outworking of the attribute of God and the gift of grace in Christ is called grace in the specific sense of the word. And this third grace is in view when we speak of the means of grace. There are certain instruments by which God wills for us to come to know and to apply His favor residing in Christ. These are means connected with the communication of grace. Grace is hereby taken in its widest sense, so that it is not limited to effectual, seeking, or regenerating grace, but includes everything that happens subjectively in or below our consciousness.

2. What follows when we understand the word “grace” in the expression “means of grace” in this way?

A certain indefiniteness that makes it difficult for us at a first glance to delineate sharply the concept of the means of grace. Everything that God uses as a means in order to show me any unmerited favor and by which He acts for my good then becomes a means of grace. There is common grace and special grace. But what serves for receiving and granting the former must also count as a means of grace. What occurs in the sphere of God’s providence cannot be excluded. Through the particular circumstances of life, God can act on me, and it is grace from Him when He does this. However, one senses that we cannot let the expression depend on this indefinite sense. The concept, taken so generally, would lose its theological significance for us.

3. In what way can one place some limits on this generalization?

a) By showing that many of these things that one would like to call means of grace, in the widest sense, are not such in an independent way and by virtue of their own content, but only through the connection into which they are brought with instrumentalities that are the proper means of grace. One or another experience that I have in my life can certainly be used by God to strengthen the life of grace in me, but it could not do this by itself. It does this only because it brings me anew into contact with the Word of God and has as its consequence a new application of that Word to my life. It is therefore not a means of grace in the proper sense.

b) By saying that not every connection with preparatory grace or with common grace makes something a means of grace, but only the specific connection with the regenerating, effectual, converting, justifying, sanctifying grace of God. Said more succinctly: its connection with the beginning and the continuation of special grace. If something is not connected with that in one way or another, it may not be called a means of grace.

c) By saying that something must be linked with the gracious working of God not just incidentally on a single occasion but that it must be the regular, ordained means that accompanies that working. The means of grace are constant, not exceptional.

If we accept these three conditions, then it appears that they only apply to the Word of God and the sacraments. These two are the only means of grace in the narrower sense.

4. Is the concept “means of grace” (media gratiae), so understood, valued equally by all?

No, varying value is attributed to it. There are those who deny all ordered working of grace, who compare it to the blowing of the wind, in which man can discover neither a law nor a norm. Grace is then tied to nothing—neither to the church nor to office, neither to Word nor to sacrament. It comes and it goes, just as God wills it (mystics).

Others go less far but will not acknowledge an organic connection between inward grace and outward means. The former works, according to them, not unrestrained and arbitrarily but nonetheless completely controlled by its own secret law, as life that spreads and proliferates in a certain sphere (the Ethical theologians). Still others will have grace bound completely to the means, and then in different ways. In the first place, one can identify it with the natural significance of the means. The Word of God then works, for example, through its reasonable, moral content, convincing and admonishing (Rationalists). One can also let it flow into the outward means in a supernatural way, so that they actually cease being natural means but change into something higher, so that, for example, in the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper bread and wine become flesh and blood, or the water of baptism washes away sin ex opere operato, “through the worked work” (Roman Catholics). Finally, one can bind grace completely to its means in a secret manner, so that it does remain distinguished from these means but still occurs nowhere separated from them (Lutherans).

The Reformed doctrine of the means of grace may never be confused with any of these views.” (5)

 The weightiness of the theology seen in the above quotation should spur the reader on, seeking purity and preciseness in understanding the doctrine of the sacraments.

 In conclusion:

 Hopefully, these citations from the Five-Volume set will convince the reader of the value of acquiring the Reformed Dogmatics by Vos. Richard B. Gaffin Jr. most certainly needs to be complimented on his work editing and translating this magnificent work into English. The translation is fresh and immensely readable.        

 Notes:

 1.      Geerhardus Vos, Translated and Edited by Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., Reformed Dogmatics, Volume One, (Lexham Press, Bellingham, WA), pp. 1-2.

2.      Geerhardus Vos, Translated and Edited by Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., Reformed Dogmatics, Volume Two, (Lexham Press, Bellingham, WA), pp. 1-2.

3.      Geerhardus Vos, Translated and Edited by Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., Reformed Dogmatics, Volume Three, (Lexham Press, Bellingham, WA), p. 20.

4.      Geerhardus Vos, Translated and Edited by Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., Reformed Dogmatics, Volume Four, (Lexham Press, Bellingham, WA), pp. 133-136.

5.      Geerhardus Vos, Translated and Edited by Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., Reformed Dogmatics, Volume Five, (Lexham Press, Bellingham, WA), pp. 77-79.

 “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)

 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.
Other books by Mr. Kettler

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

“For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe. They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers that it move not.” (Jeremiah 10:3-4)

The above passage from Jeremiah 10:3-4 is routinely misinterpreted. It is common to have this passage cited as a warning not to have Christmas trees. The problem that jumps from the text is that the Hebrew wording does not support the notion of a tree itself being set up as an idol. The tree must be read into the text in which is an anachronism.
“An anachronism is a chronological inconsistency in some arrangement, especially a juxtaposition of persons, events, objects, or customs from different periods.” – Wikipedia

 The insights of the Pulpit Commentary are noteworthy in understanding the text:  “Verse 3. – The customs of the people. “People” should, as usual, be corrected into peoples – the heathen nations are referred to. The Hebrew has “the statutes;” but the Authorized Version is substantially right, customs having a force as of iron in Eastern countries. It seems to be implied that the “customs” are of religious origin (setup. 2 Kings 17:8, where “the statutes of the heathen” are obviously the rites and customs of polytheism. For one cutteth a tree, etc. This is intended to prove the foregoing statement of the “vanity,” or groundlessness, of idolatry. The order of the Hebrew, however, is more forcible, for as wood out of the forest one cutteth it, viz. the idol.

Verse 4. – They deck it… that it move not. The close resemblance of this verse to Isaiah 40:19, 20, Isaiah 41:7 will strike every reader. “Move” should rather be totter.” (1)

 According to the Pulpit Commentary, the Hebrew is best understood “as wood out of the forest one cutteth it.” For that reason, the passage is not talking about setting up an actual tree, but cutting wood from a tree to be used as an idol. In reality, a block of wood is taken and carved into an idol from which parts of it are then overlaid with silver or gold.

 The entry from Brown-Driver-Briggs on עֵץ֙ concurs with the Pulpit Commentary:

2 (approximately 175 times; approximately 120 times plural, to denote pieces [or articles] of wood)

a. wood, as material; for building, 2 Kings 12:13 (+ אַבְנֵי מַתְצֵב), 2 Kings 22:6 2Chronicles 34:11 (both + id.), Nehemiah 2:8 +; עֲצֵי שָׁ֑מֶן 1 Kings 6:23,31,33 compare 1 Kings 6:32; עֲצֵיגֹּֿפֶר Genesis 6:14 (Noah’s ark), עֲצֵי שִׁטִּים Exodus 25:5,10 20t. Exodus (of tabernacle and its furniture; all P) Deuteronomy 10:3; מִגְדַּלעֵֿץ Nehemiah 8:4; מוֺטִת עֵץ Jeremiah 28:13 (in figurative; opposed to בַּרְזֶל ׳מ); כְּלִיעֵֿץ article of wood Leviticus 11:32; Leviticus 15:12; Numbers 31:20, compare Numbers 35:18 (all P). Hence

b. עֵצִים = articles of wood Exodus 7:19 (P; “” אֲבָנִים), 1 Chronicles 29:2; so עֲצֵי בְרוֺשִׁים 2 Samuel 6:5 (but see בְּרוֺשׁ near the end); specifically הָעֵץ = helve of axe Deuteronomy 19:5; עֵץ חֲנִית(וֺׅ 1 Samuel 17:7 Qr (Kt חֵץ) = 1 Chronicles 20:5; 2 Samuel 21:19; 2 Samuel 23:7; עֲצֵי הָעֲגָלָה 1 Samuel 6:14 (i.e. wood of which cart was made), עֲצֵי הָאֲשֵׁרָה Judges 6:26; especially timbers of a house Zechariah 5:4; Habakkuk 2:11; Leviticus 14:45, of a city 1 Kings 15:22 2Chronicles 16:5; Ezekiel 26:12; עֵץ of pole on which bodies of slain (criminals and others) were exposed (perhaps originally trees) Genesis 40:19 (E), Joshua 8:29 (twice in verse); Joshua 10:26 (twice in verse); Joshua 10:27 (all J E), Deuteronomy 21:22,23; late (in Persian) used for executing criminals (? by hanging = gallows), תָּלָח עַלעֵֿץ Esther 2:23 8t. Esther.

c. of idols, עֵץ וָאֶבֶן Deuteronomy 4:28; Deuteronomy 28:36,64; Deuteronomy 29:16; 2 Kings 19:18 = Isaiah 37:19; Ezekiel 20:32, compare Jeremiah 2:27; Jeremiah 3:9; Habakkuk 2:19; so עֵץ alone Hosea 4:12; Isaiah 40:20, of. Isaiah 44:19; Isaiah 45:20; אֲשֵׁרָה כָּלעֵֿץ Deuteronomy 16:21.

d. (fire-) wood Joshua 9:23, 27 (J), Joshua 9:21 (P), Deuteronomy 19:5; Isaiah 30:33 +, read עֵצִים also Ezekiel 24:5 (for ᵑ0 עצמים) Bö Ew Sm Co Berthol Toy; especially for sacrifices 1 Kings 18:23 (twice in verse) +, Genesis 22:7, 9 (twice in verse); Leviticus 1:7 6t. Leviticus (all P), 2 Samuel 24:22 “” 1 Chronicles 21:23, +; עֲצֵי עוֺלָה Genesis 22:3, 6 (P).

e. עֵץ (הָ)אֶרֶז cedar-wood, used in purifications Leviticus 14:4,6,49,51,52; Numbers 19:6 (all P).

f. מִּשְׁתֵּי הָעֵץ Joshua 2:6 woody-flax, i.e. flax on the stalk. — Jeremiah 10:8 Gie proposes הֶבֶל מֹעֲצֹתָו for ᵑ0 הֲבָלִים עִץ הוּא. — מֹאֶסֶת כָּלעֵֿץ Ezekiel 21:15 is dubious, Sm proposes מָאֵסְתָּ כָלעֵֿץ, Co מֹאֲסֵי כָלעֹֿז, Berthol וּמְנַסֵּף כָּלעַֿז; Siegf^{Kau Toy leave untranslated}. (2)

Jeremiah 10:3-4 describes what men do. Moses tells why not to do it:

 “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness [of any thing] that [is] in heaven above, or that [is] in the earth beneath, or that [is] in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God [am] a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth [generation] of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.” (Exodus 20:4-6)

 “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.      H. D. M. Spence and Joseph S. Exell, The Pulpit Commentary, Jerimiah, Vol. 11. (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Eerdmans Publishing Company reprint 1978), p. 268.

2.      The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius, Hebrew English Lexicon, (Peabody, Massachusetts, Hendrickson Publishers), p. 781.
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. Christian Apologetics in the market place of ideas Paperback at, https://www.amazon.com/dp/B09FS31QMG?ref_=pe_3052080_397514860

Reformed Dogmatics Four Volumes 

Herman Bavinck

Grand Rapids, MI, Baker Academic

Author’s Bio:

Herman Bavinck (1854-1921) was a Dutch Reformed theologian. He succeeded Abraham Kuyper as Professor of Theology at the Free University of Amsterdam. He was a scholar in the Calvinist tradition. He enjoyed the same theological stature as his predecessor and American scholar B. B. Warfield, the last principal of the Princeton Theological Seminary.

Endorsements:

“Bavinck’s Reformed Dogmatics has been the fountainhead of Reformed theology for the last hundred years. It is by far the most profound and comprehensive Reformed systematic theology of the twentieth century. The reader will be amazed by Bavinck’s erudition, creativity, and balance. Bavinck is confessionally orthodox, but he recognizes the need to rethink the traditional formulations from Scripture in the context of contemporary discussion. I cannot express how delighted I was to read volume one for the first time in my own language! I hope it will have a large readership and will bring forth much theological and spiritual fruit.” – John M. Frame, professor of systematic theology and philosophy, Reformed Theological Seminary.

“Arguably the most important systematic theology ever produced in the Reformed tradition. I have found it to be the most valuable. English-speaking theology throughout the 20th century until now has been singularly impoverished by not having at its disposal a translation of Bavinck’s Dogmatiek in its entirety. The appearance of this volume, with the remaining three planned to follow in the near future, will be an incomparable boon for generations of students, pastors, teachers, and others, serving to deepen understanding and enrich reflection in both historical and systematic theology.” – Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., professor of biblical and systematic theology, Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia.

Other works by Bavinck:

·         The Doctrine of God

·         Saved by Grace: The Holy Spirit’s Work in Calling and Regeneration

·         Essays on Religion, Science, and Society

·         The Philosophy of Revelation

·         Our Reasonable Faith

·         The Sacrifice of Praise: Meditations Before and After Receiving Access to the Table of the Lord

A Review:

The Volume and section breakdown are important to understand the scope of this work:

Prolegomena Volume One:

Part I: Introduction to Dogmatics

Part II: The History and Literature of Dogmatic Theology

Part III: Foundations of Dogmatic Theology (Principia)

Part IV: Revelation (Principium Externum)

Part V: Faith (Principium Internum)

God and Creation Volume Two:

Part I: The Incomprehensibility of God

Part II: The Living, Acting God

Part III: God’s Will on Earth as it is in Heaven

Part IV: Maker of Heaven and Earth

Part V: The Image of God

Part VI: God’s Fatherly Care

Sin and Salvation in Christ Volume Three:

Part I: The Fallen World

Part II: Christ the Redeemer

Part III: The Work of Christ

Part IV: Salvation in Christ

Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation Volume Four:

Part I: The Spirit Gives New Life to Believers

Part II: The Spirit Creates New Community

Part III: The Spirit Makes All Things New

Without fear of contradiction, Bavinck’s Four Volume Reformed Dogmatics is one of the most important theological works ever produced in the twentieth century. Bavinck’s doctrine of antithesis:

“There is not a single Christian who has not in his or her own way learned to know the antithesis between “the wisdom of the world” and “the foolishness of God.” (1)

The reader will see this theme of antithesis or contrast with Christian and non-Christian thought appearing at many points throughout the dogmatics.

As first articulated and advanced by Kuyper, Bavinck continues the development of the doctrine of the antithesis between Christian and non-Christian thought and culture, thus, paving the way for Cornelius Van Til’s presuppositional apologetics in which the antithesis between Christian and non-Christian thought is fully developed into a powerful defense of the Gospel along with laying in waste all non-Christian epistemology.

The implications of the doctrine of antithesis fully developed apologetically:    
“Metaphysically, both parties have all things in common, while epistemologically they have nothing in common.” (2)

 Bavinck is certainly worthy in every sense with providing the impetus for Van Til’s presuppositional apologetics. In other words, Cornelius Van Til is dependent on Herman Bavinck and Kuyper before him. Without a doubt, theologians in the Dutch Reformed tradition and beyond are standing on the shoulders of Bavinck.  
One of the many strengths of Bavinck’s work is his interaction with different religious traditions. The value of this is that the student of theology will state accurately the theological position that one disagrees. Without being able to state the opponent’s position accurately, one should not come to the debate.

In Volume Two, “The Creator Is the Triune God,” one reads:
“Bavinck’s balanced doctrine of creation is self-consciously rooted in his trinitarian doctrine of God. He begins the chapter (8) on creation with the following direct linkage: “The realization of the counsel of God begins with creation. Creation is the initial act and foundation of all divine revelation and therefore the foundation of all religious and ethical life as well.” A biblical doctrine of God sees his counsel or decree as the link that connects God and the world. As the first of God’s external acts, creation is vitally important; subsequent acts of God must be seen in the light of creation. Thus, redemptive grace does not diminish or elevate or divinize creation but restores it. As the same time, as the expression of God’s decree, creation is not necessary but is contingent and dependent on God. God is self-sufficient; he does not need creation, and thus the error of pantheism is avoided as well as that of Deism.” (3)

 For those departing from the Protestant doctrine of original sin, the semi-Pelagian, i.e., Arminian, should spend some time in this Volume to decide whether they would prefer to be in line with Roman Catholic soteriology or identify as a Protestant. The importance of this will be seen in the following citation of Bavinck. 

 In Volume Three, “Explaining Original Sin: Human Solidarity,” Bavinck says:  “[323] The doctrine of original sin is one of the weightiest but also one of the most difficult subjects in the field of dogmatics. “Nothing is better known than original sin for preaching; for understanding, nothing is more mysterious.”85 “It is astonishing, however, that the mystery furthest from our understanding is the transmission of sin, the one thing without which we can have no understanding of ourselves! Because there can be no doubt that nothing shocks our reason more than to say that the sin of the first man made guilty those who, so far from that source, seem incapable of having taken part in it.… Nevertheless, without this most incomprehensible of all mysteries we are incomprehensible to ourselves. Within this gnarled chasm lie the twists and turns of our condition. So, humanity is more inconceivable without this mystery than this mystery is conceivable to humanity.”86 “Original sin explains everything and without it one cannot explain anything” (de Maistre), and yet the doctrine itself needs explanation more than anything.87 From ancient times it was described in theology as original sin (peccatum originale), not because it was peculiar to humans from their origin by virtue of creation, but because in all humans it is the origin and source of all other sins. Much misunderstanding could be avoided if in original sin we differentiated between an originating sin (peccatum originans; imputed, guilt) and the sin originated (peccatum originatum; inherent, punishment). Actually, by original or hereditary sin, one should only understand the moral depravity that people carry with them from the time of their conception and birth from their sinful parents.” (4)

Bavinck lands squarely in the Western Church’s doctrine of original sin in opposition to the Eastern Orthodoxy’s denial of this doctrine. Continuing and defending and explaining original sin and the implications for theology at many levels, especially in the area of common grace and individual liberty, and enslavement to sin.    

Bavinck’s section on “The Particular Call of Grace” in Volume Four gets to the heart of the matter:
“[435] Scripture and experience testify, however, that all these workings of external calling do not always and in every case lead people to a sincere faith and salvation. Hence the question arises: What is the ultimate cause of this diverse outcome? In the Christian church, in the main, a threefold answer was given to that question. Some said that this diverse outcome was due to the human will, whether that will had received the power to accept or reject the gospel from its natural self, or from the grace of the Logos, or from the grace of baptism, or from that of the calling. According to this view, there is no distinction between external and internal, or between efficient and efficacious calling. Inwardly and essentially the calling is always and, in every case, the same. It is only called efficacious in terms of the outcome when a person responds to the call. After everything we have said previously about Pelagianism,11 this answer does not call for a lengthy refutation. It clearly offers no solution. In practice one can indeed confine oneself to the proximate cause and attribute unbelief specifically to the human will. In that case, one is speaking truthfully (Deut. 30:19; Josh. 24:15; Isa. 65:12; Matt. 22:2–3; 23:37; John 7:17; Rom. 9:32; etc.): the sinful will of humans is responsible for their unbelief. But even in practice all believers at all times and in all schools of thought have attributed their faith and salvation to God’s grace alone.12 There is nothing that distinguishes them other than that gift of grace (1 Cor. 4:7). Ultimately, therefore, this difference cannot lie in the human will. If one nevertheless insists on considering will the final cause, one is instantly faced with all the psychological, ethical, historical, and theological objections that have at all times been raised against Pelagianism. It introduces incalculable caprice and weakens sin; the decision about the outcome of world history is put in the hands of humans, the governance over all things is taken away from God; his grace is canceled out. Even if one ascribes the power to choose for or against the gospel to the restoration of grace, this does not help matters. In that case one introduces a grace that consists solely in the restoration of volitional choice, one that is nowhere mentioned in Scripture, that actually presupposes regeneration and yet has to bring it about only after the right choice has been made.13 On this position one also gets stuck with all the millions of people who have never heard of the gospel or died as infants and for that reason were never in a position to accept or reject Christ. Accordingly, the free will of humans cannot be the ultimate cause of faith and unbelief.

Another answer to the above question was therefore devised by Bellarmine. He rejected both the doctrine of Pelagius and that of Augustine, sought a path somewhere between them, and said that the efficacy of the call depended on whether it came to a person at an opportune time when the will was inclined to follow it (congruitas).14 Agreeing with this congruism are the views of Pajon, Kleman, as well as Shedd, who considers salvation “in the highest degree probable” for everyone who makes serious and diligent use of the means of grace.15 But this answer, too, is unsatisfactory. In this congruity theory there is indeed an important truth that, while ignored by Methodism, comes into its own in the Reformed doctrine of preparatory grace. But it is completely unable to explain the efficacy of the call. The reason is that it is inherently nothing other than moral suasion, which in the nature of the case is powerless to create the spiritual life that, according to Scripture, is the result of regeneration. Further, it presupposes that a human being is fit one moment and unfit the next to accept grace, thus locating sin in circumstances and weakening it in humans. In addition, it makes the ultimate decision dependent on the human will and thereby again provokes all the objections mentioned above and lodged by Bellarmine himself against Pelagianism. Finally, it links calling and conversion by a thread of congruity, which, being moral in nature, can at all times be broken by the will and hence cannot guarantee the efficacy of the call. 

Augustinians, Thomists, and Reformed theologians, therefore, located the reason why in one person the calling bore fruit and in another it did not in the nature of the calling itself. The first group said that when the call was efficacious, a “triumphant delight” (delectatio victrix) was present, which granted not only the capacity to act (posse) but also the will to act (velle). The Thomists spoke of a “natural predetermination” or “natural action of God” that prompted the capacity to act (posse agere), conferred by “sufficient calling,” to pass into action.16 The Reformed, however, objecting to the use of these terms, took exception especially to the description of an act of God in conversion as “natural” and preferred to speak of an “external” and an “internal” call. This distinction already occurs in Augustine,17 was taken over from him by Calvin,18 and was further adopted in Reformed theology. Earlier this twofold calling was referred to by other terms as well, such as the “material and formal,” the “revealed” call and the call of “God’s good pleasure,” the common and the personal, the universal and the special call,19 but the terms “external” and “internal” call gained the upper hand and gradually pushed out the others. 

Now although this distinction does not occur in so many words in Scripture, it is based on Scripture.

1.     It is already implied in the fact that all humans are the same by nature, worthy of condemnation before God (Rom. 3:9–19; 5:12; 9:21; 11:32), dead in sins and trespasses (Eph. 2:2–3), darkened in their understanding (1 Cor. 2:14; Eph. 4:18; 5:8). They cannot see the kingdom of God (John 3:3), are the slaves of sin (8:34; Rom. 6:20), enemies of God (8:7; Col. 1:21), do not and cannot submit to God’s law (Rom. 8:7), are unable to think or do anything good from within themselves (John 15:5; 2 Cor. 3:5); though the gospel is for the benefit of humans, they are hostile toward it and despise it as an offense or folly (1 Cor. 1:23; 2:14). Hence the difference that occurs among people after the calling is inexplicable in terms of human capacities. God and his grace alone make the difference (1 Cor. 4:7). 

2.     Simply the preaching of the Word by itself is not sufficient (Isa. 6:9–10; 53:1; Matt. 13:13ff.; Mark 4:12; John 12:38–40; etc.). Hence in the Old Testament already we learn of the promised Spirit who would teach everyone and grant them all a new heart (Isa. 32:15; Jer. 31:33; 32:39; Ezek. 11:19; 36:26; Joel 2:28). To that end he was poured out on the day of Pentecost to witness to Christ along with and through the apostles (John 15:26–27), to convict the world of sin and righteousness and judgment (John 16:8–11), to regenerate people (John 3:5ff.; 6:63; 16:13), and to lead them to confess Jesus as Lord (1 Cor. 12:3). 

3.     The work of redemption, therefore, is ascribed completely, both subjectively and objectively, to God. This is not just meant in a general sense, the way we say that God works all things by his providence, but definitely in the restricted sense that by a special divine power he works regeneration and conversions. So it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God who shows mercy (Rom. 9:16). The calling is the implementation of divine election (8:28; 11:29). It is God who renews the human heart and inscribes his law on it (Ps. 51:12; Jer. 31:33; Ezek. 36:26), who enlightens the eyes of the heart (Ps. 119:18; Eph. 1:18; Col. 1:9–11), opens the heart (Acts 16:14), makes his own recognize his Son as the Christ (Matt. 11:25; 16:17; Gal. 1:16), and draws people to him with spiritual power (John 6:44; Col. 1:12–13). He causes the gospel to be preached, not only in words but also in demonstration of the spirit and power (1 Cor. 2:4; 1 Thess. 1:5–6), and himself gives wisdom (1 Cor. 2:6–9). He, in short, is at work in us, enabling us both to will and to work according to his good pleasure (Phil. 2:13) and to that end uses a power like the power by which he raised Christ from the dead and made him sit at his right hand (Eph. 1:18–20).

4.     The very act by which God accomplishes this change in humans is often called “rebirth” (John 1:13; 3:3ff.; Titus 3:5; etc.), and the fruit of it is called a new heart (Jer. 31:33), a new creation (2 Cor. 5:17), his workmanship created in Christ Jesus (Eph. 2:10), the work of God (Rom. 14:20), and his building (1 Cor. 3:9; Eph. 2:21; etc.). This is to say that what is brought about in humans by the grace of God is much too rich and great for it to be explained in terms of the “moral suasion” of the preaching of the Word. 

5.     Finally, Scripture itself speaks of calling in a dual sense. Repeatedly it refers to a calling and invitation to which there was no positive response (Isa. 65:12; Matt. 22:3, 14; 23:37; Mark 16:15–16; etc.). In that case it could say that while God did everything on his part (Isa. 5:4), people in their obstinacy refused to believe and resisted God’s counsel, the Holy Spirit, and calling (Matt. 11:20ff.; 23:37; Luke 7:30; Acts 7:51). But Scripture also knows a calling from God—a realization of election—that is always efficacious. This is especially true in Paul (Rom. 4:17; 8:30; 9:11, 24; 1 Cor. 1:9; 7:15ff.; Gal. 1:6, 15; 5:8; Eph. 4:1, 4; 1 Thess. 2:12; 2 Tim. 1:9; also cf. 1 Pet. 1:15; 2:9; 5:10; 2 Pet. 1:3). Believers are therefore repeatedly described simply as “those who are called” (Rom. 1:7; 1 Cor. 1:2, 24), and “those who are called in Christ” or “in the Lord” (1 Cor. 7:22); that is, those who are called by God belong to Christ and live in communion with him. In addition, Paul also knows of a preaching of the gospel to those who reject it. To them the gospel is foolishness (1 Cor. 1:18, 23), a fragrance from death to death (2 Cor. 2:15–16). They do not understand it (1 Cor. 2:14). As a power of God (1 Cor. 1:18, 24), it proves itself to those who are called by God according to his purpose (Rom. 8:28; 9:11; 11:28; Eph. 1:4–5)” (5)

In conclusion:

Volume Four of the Reformed Dogmatics is a theological feast. The following headings are some of the material covered in Volume Four, The Intermediate State, The Question of Immortality, Between Death and Resurrection, The Return of Christ, Israel, the Millennium, and Christ’s Return, The Consummation, The Day of the Lord, and The Renewal of Creation.

Bavinck concludes this final magnificent Volume in the “Service in the Eternal Sabbath”:
“[580] The communion with God that is enjoyed in the communion of saints no more excludes all action and activity in the age to come than it does in the present dispensation. As a rule, Christian theology indeed paid little attention to this fact and primarily spoke of heavenly blessedness as a matter of knowing and enjoying God. And this, undoubtedly, is the core and center, the source and power, of eternal life. Also, Scripture offers but little information enabling us to form a clear picture of the activity of the blessed. It describes this blessedness more in terms of resting from our earthly labors than of engaging in new activities (Heb. 4:9; Rev. 14:13). Still, the rest enjoyed in the new Jerusalem is not to be conceived, either in the case of God (John 5:17) or in the case of his children, as blessed inaction. Scripture itself tells us that eternal life consists in knowing and serving God, in glorifying and praising him (John 17:3; Rev. 4:11; 5:8–10; etc.). His children remain his servants, who serve him night and day (Rev. 22:3). They are prophets, priests, and kings who reign on earth forever (1:6; 5:10; 22:5). Inasmuch as they have been faithful over little on earth, they will be put in charge of many things in the kingdom of God (Matt. 24:47; 25:21, 23). All will retain their own personalities, for the names of all who enter the new Jerusalem have been written in the Lamb’s book of life (Rev. 20:15; 21:27), and all will receive a new name of their own (Isa. 62:2; 65:15; Rev. 2:17; 3:12; cf. 21:12, 14). The dead who die in the Lord rest from their labors but each is followed by one’s own works (Rev. 14:13). Tribes, peoples, and nations all make their own particular contribution to the enrichment of life in the new Jerusalem (5:9; 7:9; 21:24, 26). What we have sown here is harvested in eternity (Matt. 25:24, 26; 1 Cor. 15:42ff.; 2 Cor. 9:6; Gal. 6:7–9). The great diversity that exists among people in all sorts of ways is not destroyed in eternity but is cleansed from all that is sinful and made serviceable to fellowship with God and each other. And just as the natural diversity present in the believing community on earth is augmented with spiritual diversity (1 Cor. 12:7ff.), so also this natural and spiritual diversity is in turn augmented in heaven by the diversity of degrees of glory present there…

His purpose in doing this, however, is that, on earth as in heaven, there would be profuse diversity in the believing community, and that in such diversity the glory of his attributes would be manifest. Indeed, as a result of this diversity, the life of fellowship with God and with the angels, and of the blessed among themselves, gains in depth and intimacy. In that fellowship everyone has a place and task of one’s own, based on personality and character, just as this is the case in the believing community on earth (Rom. 12:4–8; 1 Cor. 12). While we may not be able to form a clear picture of the activity of the blessed, Scripture does teach that the prophetic, priestly, and royal office, which was humanity’s original possession, is fully restored in them by Christ. The service of God, mutual communion, and inhabiting the new heaven and the new earth undoubtedly offer abundant opportunity for the exercise of these offices, even though the form and manner of this exercise are unknown to us. That activity, however, coincides with resting and enjoying. The difference between day and night, between the Sabbath and the workdays, has been suspended. Time is charged with the eternity of God. Space is full of his presence. Eternal becoming is wedded to immutable being. Even the contrast between heaven and earth is gone. For all the things that are in heaven and on earth have been gathered up in Christ as head (Eph. 1:10). All creatures will then live and move and have their being in God [Acts 17:28], who is all in all [1 Cor. 15:28], who reflects all his attributes in the mirror of his works and glorifies himself in them.32” (6)

While Bavinck did not call his Reformed Dogmatics a systematic theology, it most certainly is. Bavinck’s magnificent Four Volume Reformed Dogmatics should find a place in every serious student of theology’s library. Reformed Churches around the world will be forever indebted to Herman Bavinck.  

Notes:

1.      Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, Volume One: Prolegomena, ed. John Bolt, trans. John Vriend (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003), p. 441.

2.      Cornelius Van Til, Common Grace and the Gospel, (Phillipsburg, New Jersey, Presbyterian & Reformed, 1972), p. 9.

3.      Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, Volume Two: God and Creation, ed. John Bolt, trans. John Vriend (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005), p. 20.

4.      Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, Volume Three: Sin and Salvation in Christ, ed. John Bolt, trans. John Vriend (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006), p. 100-101.

5.      Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, Volume Four: Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation, ed. John Bolt, trans. John Vriend (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), p. 41-44.

6.      Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, Volume Four: Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation, ed. John Bolt, trans. John Vriend (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), p. 727-730.

“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)
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. at: .com Christian apologetics in the marketplace of ideas at
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B09FS31QMG?ref_=pe_3052080_397514860

Introduction:

As the title suggests, this work will draw upon the observations and forays into the market place of ideas. One job of the Christian apologist is to expose the faulty thinking of non-believers. The focus of this work will seek to accomplish this.

“A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God’s truth is attacked and yet would remain silent.” John Calvin

Westminster Confession of Faith:

“We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the church to a high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture. And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.” – WCF 1:5

Presuppositional Apologetics:  

“Presuppositionalism is a school of Christian apologetics that believes the Christian faith is the only basis for rational thought. It presupposes that the Bible is divine revelation and attempts to expose flaws in other worldviews.” – Wikipedia

“For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.” (Ephesians 6:12 ESV)

“See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.” (Colossians 2:8 ESV)

“We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ.” (2 Corinthians 10:5 ESV)

“Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes.” (Proverbs 26:5 ESV)

“Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.” (1 John 4:1 ESV)

“We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ.” (2 Corinthians 10:5 ESV)

At a glance:

1. Gain confidence in witnessing.
2. Learn about worldview apologetics.
3. What is presuppositionalism?
4. Learn how to present the gospel.
5. Learn about the canards of unbelief.

Does the Bible teach sinless Perfectionism?                                             By Jack Kettler

“We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.” (1 John 5:18 KJV)

Is the Bible in this verse, teaching that a believer born of God no longer sins? What does “sinneth not” mean? Lexical and commentary evidence will be consulted to answer this question. The Greek word for “sinneth not” is ἁμαρτάνει.

What is sinless Perfection?
Christian perfection is the name given to various teachings within Christianity that describe the process of achieving spiritual maturity or perfection. The ultimate goal of this process is union with God characterized by pure love of God and other people as well as personal holiness or sanctification. Various terms have been used to describe the concept, such as Christian holiness, entire sanctification, and perfect love, the baptism with the Holy Spirit, the second blessing, and the second work of grace. Wikipedia

 Churches that teach sinless Perfectionism:

Wesleyan Pentecostal denominations such as the Church of God (Cleveland, Tennessee), the International Pentecostal Holiness Church, and the United Holy Church of America teach variant forms of sinless perfectionism.

From Strong’s Lexicon:

Does not keep on sinning,

Ἁμαρτάνει (hamartanei)

Verb – Present Indicative Active – 3rd Person Singular

Strong’s Greek 264: Perhaps from the base of meros, properly, to miss the mark, i.e. to err, especially to sin.

Barnes’ Notes on the Bible on 1 John 5:18 comments are short and concise:
“We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not – Is not habitually and characteristically a sinner; does not ultimately and finally sin and perish; cannot, therefore, commit the unpardonable sin. Though he may fall into sin, and grieve his brethren, yet we are never to cease to pray for a true Christian: we are never to feel that he has committed the sin which has never forgiveness, and that he has thrown himself beyond the reach of our prayers. This passage, in its connection, is a full proof that a true Christian “will” never commit the unpardonable sin, and, therefore, is a proof that he will never fall from grace. Compare the notes at Hebrews 6:4-8, Hebrews 10:26. On the meaning of the assertion here made, that “whosoever is born of God sinneth not,” see the notes at 1 John 3:6-9.

Keepeth himself – It is not said that he does it by his own strength, but he will put forth his best efforts to keep himself from sin, and by divine assistance he will be able to accomplish it. Compare the 1 John 3:3 note; Jude 1:21 note.

And that wicked one toucheth him not – The great enemy of all good is repelled in his assaults, and he is kept from falling into his snares. The word “toucheth” (ἅπτεται haptetai) is used here in the sense of harm or injure.” (1)

A general introduction on the words Perfect and Perfection from the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia:
Perfect; Perfection

pûr´fekt , pẽr – fek´shun (שׁלם, shālēm, תּמים, tāmı̄m; τέλειος, téleios, τελειότης, teleiótēs):

1. In the Old Testament:

“Perfect” in the Old Testament is the translation of shālēm , “finished,” “whole,” “complete,” used (except in Deuteronomy 25:15, “perfect weight”) of persons, e.g. a “perfect heart,” i.e. wholly or completely devoted to Yahweh (1 Kings 8:61 , etc.; 1 Chronicles 12:38 ; Isaiah 38:3 , etc.); tāmı̄m, “complete,” “perfect,” “sound or unblemished,” is also used of persons and of God, His way, and law (“Noah was a just man and perfect,” the Revised Version margin “blameless” (Genesis 6:9 ); “As for God, his way is perfect” (Psalm 18:30 ); “The law of Yahweh is perfect” (Psalm 19:7 ), etc.); tam, with the same, meaning, occurs only in Job, except twice in Psalms (Job 1:1 , Job 1:8; Job 2:3, etc.; Psalm 37:37 ; Psalm 64:4 ); kālı̄l, “complete,” and various other words are translated “perfect.”

Perfection is the translation of various words so translated once only: kālı̄l ( Lamentations 2:15 ); mı̄khlāl, “completeness” (Psalm 50:2); minleh, “possession” (Job 15:29, the King James Version “neither shall the prolong the perfection thereof upon the earth,” the American Standard Revised Version “neither shall their possessions be extended on the earth,” margin “their produce bend to the earth”; the English Revised Version reverses this text and margin); tikhlāh, “completeness,” or “perfection” (Psalm 119:96 ); takhlı̄th (twice), “end,” “completeness” (Job 11:7 , “Canst thou find out the Almighty unto perfection?” Job 28:3, “searcheth out all” the Revised Version (British and American) the King James Version, the Revised Version (British and American) “to the furthest bound”; compare Job 26:10, “unto the confines of light and darkness”); tōm, “perfect,” “completeness” (Isaiah 47:9, the King James Version “They shall come upon thee in their perfection,” the Revised Version (British and American) “in their full measure”). The Revised Version margin gives the meaning of “the Urim and the Thummim” (Exodus 28:30. etc.) as “the Lights and the Perfections.”

2. In the New Testament:

In the New Testament “perfect” is usually the tr of teleios, primarily, “having reached the end,” “term,” “limit,” hence, “complete,” “full,” “perfect” (Matthew 5:48, “Ye therefore shall be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect”; Matthew 19:21, “if thou wouldst be perfect”; Ephesians 4:13, the King James Version “till we all come … unto a perfect man,” the Revised Version (British and American) “full-grown”; Philippians 3:15, “as many as are perfect,” the American Revised Version margin “full-grown”; 1 Corinthians 2:6; Colossians 1:28, “perfect in Christ”; Colossians 4:12; James 3:2 margin, etc.).

Other words are teleióō. “to perfect,” “to end,” “complete” (Luke 13:32, “The third day I am perfected,” the Revised Version margin “end my course”; John 17:23, “perfected into one”; 2 Corinthians 12:9; Philippians 3:12, the Revised Version (British and American) “made perfect”; Hebrews 2:10, etc.); also epiteléō, “to bring through to an end” (2 Corinthians 7:1, “perfecting holiness in the fear of God”; Galatians 3:3, “Are ye now made perfect by the flesh?” The King James Version, the Revised Version (British and American) “perfected in the flesh,” margin “Do ye now make an end in the flesh?”); katartı́zō “to make quite ready,” “to make complete,” is translated “perfect,” “to perfect” (Matthew 21:16, “perfected praise”; Luke 6:40, “Every one when he is perfected shall be as his teacher”; 1 Corinthians 1:10; 2 Corinthians 13:11, “be perfected”; 1 Thessalonians 3:10 ; 1 Peter 5:10 , the Revised Version margin “restore”); akribṓs , “accurately,” “diligently,” is translated “perfect” (Luke 1:3, “having had perfect understanding,” the Revised Version (British and American) “having traced … accurately”; Acts 18:26 the King James Version, the Revised Version (British and American) “more accurately”). We have also ártios , “fitted,” “perfected” (2 Timothy 3:7, the Revised Version (British and American) “complete”); pleróō , “to fill,” “to make full” (Revelation 3:2, the American Standard Revised Version “perfected,” the English Revised Version “fulfilled”); katartismós, “complete adjustment,” “perfecting” (Ephesians 4:12, “for the perfecting of the saints”).

Perfection is the translation of katártisis “thorough adjustment,” “fitness” ( 2 Corinthians 13:9 , the Revised Version (British and American) “perfecting”); of teleiósı̄s (Hebrews 7:11 ); of teleiotess (Hebrews 6:1, the Revised Version margin “full growth”); it is translated “perfectness” (Colossians 3:14 ); “perfection” in Luke 8:14 is the translation of telesphoréō, “to bear on to completion or perfection.” In Apocrypha “perfect,” “perfection,” etc., are for the most part the translation of words from télos, “the end,” e.g. The Wisdom of Solomon 4:13; Ecclesiasticus 34:8; 44:17; 45:8, suntélia “full end”; 24:28; 50:11.

The Revised Version (British and American) has “perfect” for “upright” (2 Samuel 22:24, 2 Samuel 22:26 twice); for “sound” (Psalm 119:80 ); for “perform” (Philippians 1:16); for “undefiled” (Psalm 119:1, margin “upright in way”); for “perfect peace, and at such a time” (Ezra 7:12), “perfect and so forth”; for “He maketh my way perfect” (2 Samuel 22:33), “He guideth the perfect in his way,” margin “or, ‘setteth free.’ According to another reading, ‘guideth my way in perfectness’”; “shall himself perfect,” margin “restore,” for, “make you perfect” (1 Peter 5:10); “perfecter” for “finisher” (Hebrews 12:2); “perfectly” is omitted in the Revised Version (British and American) (Matthew 14:36 ); “set your hope perfectly on” for the King James Version “hope to the end for” (1 Peter 1:13).

3. The Christian Ideal:

Perfection is the Christian ideal and aim, but inasmuch as that which God has set before us is infinite – “Ye therefore shall be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matthew 5:48 ) – absolute perfection must be forever beyond, not only any human, but any finite, being; it is a divine ideal forever shining before us, calling us upward, and making endless progression possible. As noted above, the perfect man, in the Old Testament phrase, was the man whose heart was truly or wholly devoted to God. Christian perfection must also have its seat in such a heart, but it implies the whole conduct and the whole man, conformed thereto as knowledge grows and opportunity arises, or might be found. There may be, of course, a relative perfection, e.g. of the child as a child compared with that of the man. The Christian ought to be continually moving onward toward perfection, looking to Him who is able to “make you perfect in every good thing (or work) to do his will, working in us that which is well-pleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ to whom be the glory forever and ever. Amen” (Hebrews 13:21).” W. L. Walker (2)

The Two Sources of Perfectionism by Benjamin B. Warfield:

“THE historical source, from which the main streams of Perfectionist doctrine that have invaded modern Protestantism take their origin, is the teaching of John Wesley. But John Wesley did not first introduce Perfectionism into Protestantism, nor can all the Perfectionist tendencies which have shown themselves in Protestantism since his day be traced to him. Such tendencies appear constantly along the courses of two fundamental streams of thought. Wherever Mysticism intrudes, it carries a tendency to Perfectionism with it. On Mystical ground—as, for example, among the Quakers—a Perfectionism has been developed to which that taught by Wesley shows such similarity, even in details and modes of expression that a mistaken attempt has been made to discover an immediate genetic connection between them. Wherever again men lapse into an essentially Pelagian mode of thinking concerning the endowments of human nature and the conditions of human action, a Perfectionism similar to that taught by Pelagius himself tends to repeat itself. That is to say, history verifies the correlation of Perfectionism and Libertarianism, and wherever Libertarianism rules the thoughts of men, Perfectionism persistently makes its appearance. It is to this stream of influence that Wesleyan Perfectionism owes its own origin. Its roots are set historically in the Semi-Pelagian Perfectionism of the Dutch Remonstrants, although its rise was not unaffected by influences of a very similar character and ultimate source which came to it through the channels of Anglo-Catholicism. Its particular differentiation is determined by the supernaturalization, which it shares with the whole body of modifications introduced by Wesley into his fundamental Arminianism, from which Wesleyanism, in distinction from the underlying Remonstrantism, has acquired its Evangelical character.” (3)

 Another gem from Warfield on the error of Perfectionism:

 “There is nothing in us or done by us, at any stage of our earthly development, because of which we are acceptable to God. We must always be accepted for Christ’s sake, or we cannot ever be accepted at all. This is not true of us only when we believe. It is just as true after we have believed. It will continue to be trust as long as we live. Our need of Christ does not cease with our believing; nor does the nature of our relation to Him or to God through Him ever alter, no matter what our attainments in Christian graces or our achievements in behavior may be. It is always on His “blood and righteousness” alone that we can rest.” (4)

 Scriptural problems for the sinless perfection doctrine:

 “Surely, there is not a righteous man on earth who does good and never sins.” (Ecclesiastes 7:20 ESV)

  “For we all stumble in many ways. And if anyone does not stumble in what he says, he is a perfect man, able also to bridle his whole body.” (James 3:2 ESV)

 “If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.” (1 John 1:8 ESV)

 In conclusion:

 The text in 1 John 5:18 means that the person who has been born again does not practice sin or habitually sin. It is inexcusable after John says in 1 John 1:8, “If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us” to misinterpret 1 John 5:18. As seen, ἁμαρτάνει means does not keep on sinning or continue to practice sin. During this life, one born of God has an acute awareness of their sin by the Holy Spirit and continually asks God for grace and mercy. Those who claim to have reached a state of sinless perfection are, as John says, deceived, and the truth is not in them.     

 “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. 4893.

2.      Orr, James, M.A., D.D. General Editor. Entry for ‘Perfect; Perfection’. International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Eerdmans, reprinted 1986), pp. 2320-2321.

3.      Benjamin B. Warfield, The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield: Perfectionism, Part 1, vol. 7 (Grand Rapids, MI, Baker Publishing, reprint 2003), p. 3-4.

4.      Benjamin B. Warfield, The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield: Perfectionism, Part 1, vol. 7 (Grand Rapids, MI, Baker Publishing, reprint 2003), p. 113.

 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. Christian apologetics in the marketplace of ideas
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B09FS31QMG?ref_=pe_3052080_397514860
For more study:

 Studies in Perfectionism (eBook) by B. B. Warfield

https://www.monergism.com/studies-perfectionism-ebook

The Heresy of Perfectionism by R.C. Sproul

https://www.ligonier.org/blog/heresy-perfectionism/

How does a Christian respond to forced vaccinations?

The question has been asked before. Abraham Kuyper was one of the most powerful conservative theologians in the Netherlands when be became Prim Minister.

Kuyper’s insights are just as valuable today as when he expressed them:
“Vaccination certificates will therefore have to go… The form of tyranny hidden in these vaccination certificates is just as real a threat to the nation’s spiritual resources as a smallpox epidemic itself.” – Abraham Kuyper was the Prime Minister of the Netherlands between 1901 and 1905.

“Our physicians may be mistaken and government may never stamp a particular medical opinion as orthodox and therefore binding. Moreover, compulsion can never be justified until the illness manifests itself and may therefore never be prescribed as preventative. A third reason is that government should keep its hands off our bodies. Fourthly, government must respect conscientious objections. In the fifth place, it is one or the other: either it does not itself believe in vaccination, or if it does, it will do redundant work by proceeding to protect once more those already safeguarded against an evil that will no longer have a hold on them anyway.” – Abraham Kuyper was the Prime Minister of the Netherlands between 1901 and 1905.

“Ten times better is a state in which a few eccentrics can make themselves a laughingstock for a time by abusing freedom of conscience, then a state in which these eccentricities are prevented from by violating conscience itself.

Hence our supreme maxim, sacred and incontestable, reads as follows: as soon as a subject appeals to his conscience, government shall step back out of respect for what is holy.

That it will never coerce. It will not impose the oath, not compulsory military service, nor compulsory school attendance, nor compulsory vaccination, nor anything of the kind.” – Abraham Kuyper was the Prime Minister of the Netherlands between 1901 and 1905.

 Attached is a PDF consisting in a compilation of Synodal Statements, Medical Studies, Professional Dissertations, and Hierarchical and Monastic Statements which either forbid totally or recommend against receiving the COVID-19 Vaccine.  “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.” Dr. Benjamin Rush

 Online resources:

 https://www.vaccinesandchristianity.org/ Main site

https://www.vaccinesandchristianity.org/resources/ Particularly relevant

 OpenVAERS, tracks vaccine deaths and injuries. This included covid vaccines*

Home

*VAERS is the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System put in place in 1990. It is a voluntary reporting system that has been estimated to account for only 1% (see the Lazarus Report) of vaccine injuries. OpenVAERS is built from the HHS data available for download at vaers.hhs.gov.