The Religion That Started in a Hat

What does the Bible say about Fornication? By Jack Kettler

As in previous studies, we will look at definitions, scriptures, lexical, and commentary evidence for the purpose to glorify God in how we live. Unfortunately, among young people today in nondenominational evangelistic churches, biblical reasons from abstaining for sex before marriage are said to be unclear.

Doctrinal uncertainty like this is shocking in light of the numerous warnings in Scripture about sexual immorality. How many of those saying such a thing have read the New Testament in its entirety? The problem is not with biblical clarity on this issue but with willful biblical illiteracy. Biblical ignorance is not an excuse that will work on judgment day.

The Scriptures:

“Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house; thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor’s.” (Exodus 20:17)

“But I say unto you, that whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery (ἐμοίχευσεν emoicheusen) with her already in his heart.” (Matthew 5:28)

“For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries (μοιχεῖαι moicheiai), sexual immorality (πορνεῖαι porneiai), thefts, false witness, and blasphemies.” (Matthew 15:19)

“Flee fornication (πορνείαν porneian). Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication (πορνεύων porneuōn) sinneth against his own body.” (1Corinthians 6:18)

“Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication (Πορνεία Porneia), uncleanness, lasciviousness.” (Galatians 5:19)

“But sexual immorality (Πορνεία Porneia), and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints.” (Ephesians 5:3)

“Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: sexual immorality (πορνείαν porneian), impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry.” (Colossians 3:5)

Glossary of terms and entries from Strong’s Lexicon:

Definition of fornication: Fornication is voluntary sexual intercourse between two people not married to each other. In contemporary usage, the term is often replaced with extramarital sex.

Fornication πορνείαν (porneian) Strong’s Greek 4202: Fornication, whoredom, met: idolatry. From porneuo; harlotry; figuratively, idolatry.

Definition of adultery: Voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and someone other than that person’s current spouse.

Adultery ἐμοίχευσεν (emoicheusen) Strong’s Greek 3431: To commit adultery (of a man with a married woman, but also of a married man). From moichos, to commit adultery.

Definition of sexual immorality:

Sexual immorality comes from the Greek word porneia. Porneia can also be translated as “whoredom,” “fornication,” and “idolatry.” It is primarily used of premarital sex. It can include adultery, prostitution, sexual relations between unmarried individuals, and homosexuality

Sexual immorality Πορνεία (Porneia) Strong’s Greek 4202: Fornication, whoredom, met: idolatry. From porneuo; harlotry; figuratively, idolatry.

Synonyms for fornication:
Adultery, illicit intercourse, unlicensed intercourse, promiscuousness, extramarital sex, premarital sex, carnality, unchastely, lewdness, licentiousness, unfaithfulness, whoredom, harlotry, prostitution, and concubinage.

Clarifying comments:

Fornication refers to sexual relations outside of marriage whereas; the term sexual immorality is broader and covers many illicit sexual practices. Whenever the Scriptures call believers to flee from sexual immorality, it includes premarital sex.

The Scriptures tell believers to “flee,” to “put to death,” and speaking of sexual sins, “let it not be once named among you.” The apostle Paul calls sexual sins “the works of the flesh” in Galatians 5:19. Paul clearly says, “For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live” (Romans 8:13).

Fornication, Fornicator – Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words

Fornication, Fornicator

[A-1, Noun, G4202, porneia]

is used

(a) of illicit sexual intercourse, in John 8:41; Acts 15:20, Acts 15:29; Acts 21:25; 1Corinthians 5:1; 1Corinthians 6:13, 1Corinthians 6:18; 2Corinthians 12:21; Galatians 5:19; Ephesians 5:3; Colossians 3:5; 1 Thessalonians 4:3; Revelation 2:21; Revelation 9:21; in the plural in 1 Corinthians 7:2; in Matthew 5:32; Matthew 19:9 it stands for, or includes, adultery; it is distinguished from it in Matthew 15:19; Mark 7:21;

(b) metaphorically, of “the association of pagan idolatry with doctrines of, and professed adherence to, the Christian faith,” Revelation 14:8; Revelation 17:2, Revelation 17:4; Revelation 18:3; Revelation 19:2; some suggest this as the sense in Revelation 2:21.

[A-2, Noun, G4205, pornos]

denotes “a man who indulges in fornication, a fornicator,” 1Corinthians 5:9-11; 1Corinthians 6:9; Ephesians 5:5, RV; 1Timothy 1:10, RV; Hebrews 12:16; Hebrews 13:4, RV; Revelation 21:8; Revelation 22:15, RV (AV, “whoremonger”).

[B-1, Verb, G4203, porneuo]

“to commit fornication,” is used

(a) literally, Mark 10:19; 1 Corinthians 6:18; 1 Corinthians 10:8; Revelation 2:14, Revelation 2:20, See

(a) and

(b) above;

(b) metaphorically, Revelation 17:2; Revelation 18:3, Revelation 18:9.

[B-2, Verb, G1608, ekporneuo]

a strengthened form of No. 1 (ek, used intensively), “to give oneself up to fornication,” implying excessive indulgence, Jude 1:7. (1)

Now for an outstanding overview of sexual immorality!

Baker’s Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology – Immorality, Sexual:

Immorality, Sexual

Interpersonal activity involving sex organs that does not conform to God’s revealed laws governing sexuality. The account of creation (Gen 1:1-28) includes reproductive activity as an essential part of the developmental scheme. This important function is given special prominence in the narrative describing the creation of woman (Gen 2:21-24). In a process cloaked in mystery, God takes an aspect (Heb. sela, improperly translated “rib” in many versions) of Adam and fashions it into a genetic counterpart that is specifically female, and which matches Adam’s maleness for purposes of reproducing the species. Adam and Eve are thus equal and complementary to one another, of the same physical and genetic composition apart from the slight difference that governs the characteristic nature of male and female fetuses. God tells them to “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill all the earth and subdue it” (Gen 1:28).

In normal males, the sex drive is a powerful biological and emotional force that is often difficult to control satisfactorily, particularly when it expresses itself in aggressive terms. But in the early narratives dealing with human family life there are no specific regulations for sexual behavior apart from the statement that Eve’s husband will be the object of her carnal desires (Gen 3:16). As the world’s population grows, so do the human misdemeanors (Gen 6:5-6), which seem to include mixed marriages (Gen 6:2) and possible sexual perversions, although the latter are not mentioned explicitly. At the same time there are certain situations of a sexual nature that are to be avoided by followers of the Lord. The shame associated with the exposure of male genitalia and the penalties that might accrue to observers (Gen 19:22-25) illustrates one form of prohibited sex-related activity. This represents the beginning of later Jewish traditions that held that nakedness was shameful.

In the patriarchal age, homosexuality was a prominent part of Canaanite culture, as the incident involving Lot in Sodom illustrates (Gen 19:1-9). So rampant was sexual perversion in that place that in later times the name of the city became synonymous with homosexual behavior. God’s judgment upon such a perversion of sexuality was to destroy the city and its corrupt inhabitants.

When God entered into a covenant relationship with the Israelites on Mount Sinai (Exod. 24:1-11), his intent was to assemble and foster a select group of human beings who would be obedient to him, worship him as their one and only true God, and live under his direction in community as a priestly kingdom and a holy nation (Exod. 19:6). Holiness demands adherence to certain stringent rules regarding worship and general conduct, but also requires a complete commitment of will and motive to the Lord’s commandments.

Because of the gross promiscuity of surrounding nations, whose behavior the Israelites are warned periodically to avoid, the covenant Lord reveals through Moses a collection of strict regulations that are to govern Israelite sexuality and morality. If these directives are followed, the individual and the community alike can expect blessing. But if the Israelites lapse into the immoral ways of nations such as Egypt and Canaan, they will be punished. God’s keen interest in the sexuality of his chosen people has two objectives: to exhibit Israel to the world as a people fulfilling his standards of holiness, and to ensure that, in the process, they enjoy physical, mental, and moral health.

The pronouncements on sexuality given to Moses while the Israelites are encamped at Mount Sinai occur in two separate places in Leviticus (18:6-23; 20:10-21). It should be remembered that Leviticus (the “Levite” book) comprises a technical priestly manual dealing with regulations governing Israelite worship and the holiness of the covenant community. God had chosen the covenant nation to be an illustration to pagan society of how individuals can become as holy as God through implicit faith in him and continuous obedience to his commandments. By setting out guidelines for the priests to teach to the Israelites, God promulgates explicitly a catalog of what is, and is not, acceptable social, moral, and spiritual behavior. In the distinctions between clean and unclean that occur in various parts of the priestly handbook, the emphasis is on that purity of life that should characterize God’s people. Enactments of this kind are unique in the ancient world, and only serve to demonstrate the seriousness of God’s intent to foster a people that can indeed have spiritual fellowship with their Lord because they reflect his holy and pure nature as they walk in the way of his commandments.

A closer look must now be taken at the regulations governing sexuality. In Leviticus 18:6-23, the matter is approached by the use of denunciations to describe immoral behavior. These fall into two groups, one dealing with carnal associations among people closely related by blood (consanguinity), and the other governing the sexual behavior of persons related through marriage (affinity). Accordingly a man is prohibited from copulating with his mother or any other wife belonging to his father; a sister or half-sister, a daughter-in-law or a granddaughter, an aunt on either side of the family, a woman and her daughter or her son’s daughter or daughter’s daughter, a wife’s sister as a rival wife, a neighbor’s wife, and a woman during the menses. Homosexuality is castigated as reprehensible morally, and bestiality is condemned summarily. Everything forbidden had already led to the moral defilement of the nations surrounding Israel, and for these perversions they are to fall under divine judgment (v. 24).

Homosexuality is described in the Mosaic legislation in terms of a man lying with a man “as one lies with a woman” (Lev. 18:22; 20:13), that is, for purposes of sexual intercourse. The practice originated in humanity’s remote past, and appears to have formed part of Babylonian religious activities. The Canaanites regarded their male and female cultic prostitutes as “holy persons,” meaning that they were dedicated specifically to the service of a god or goddess, not that they were exemplars of moral purity in society. While general condemnations of homosexuality occur in Leviticus, none of the pagan Near Eastern religions thought it either necessary or desirable to enact comparable legislation, since for them such activities were all part of normal religious life in temples or other places of cultic worship.

In general, homosexuality in Mesopotamia is not documented to any extent in surviving tablets, but that it was a widespread problem in the Middle Assyrian period (1300-900b.c.) is indicated by the fact that legislation from that time stipulates that an offender, when caught, should be castrated. This judicial sentence, when compared with the Hebrew prescription of death (Lev 20:13), shows that in Mesopotamian society the offense was regarded as a secondary civic infraction. While homosexuality seems to have been a recognized part of Hittite life, their laws nevertheless prescribe execution for a man who sodomizes his son.

Hebrew tradition, in contrast, is emphatic in condemning homosexuality, even though some Israelites succumbed to it. In Deuteronomy 23:18, male cultic prostitutes, and perhaps homosexuals also, are castigated as “dogs,” which is most probably the significance of the term in Revelation 22:15. Since the dog was generally despised by the Hebrews as an unclean animal, serving much the same scavenging purpose as the vulture (1Kings 22:38), the disparaging nature of the allusion is evident.

Bestiality, defined in terms of a man or woman having sexual relations with an animal (Lev 18:23; 20:15-16), is stigmatized in the Mosaic enactments as a defilement for a man and a sexual perversion for a woman. It appears to have been fairly common in antiquity (Lev 18:24), being indulged in by the Mesopotamians, Egyptians, and Hittites.

The shorter list of prohibited relationships in Leviticus 20:10-21 deals with many of the same offenses, but also prescribes punishments for such violations of Israel’s moral code. Thus a man who commits adultery with his neighbor’s wife is to be executed, along with his sexual partner. This is also the penalty for a man who defiles his father’s wife or his daughter-in-law, because such activity constitutes sexual perversion as defined by God’s laws. Homosexuality is once again condemned, and the sexual perverts sentenced to death. The marriage of a man, a woman, and her mother is deemed wicked, and the offenders sentenced to be burned with fire so as to expunge completely the wickedness of the act from the holy community. Bestiality, condemned already as a perversion, is regarded as a capital offense, which includes the animal also.

The marriage of a man with his sister from either side of the family is declared a highly immoral union, and the participants are to be put to death. The same is true of a man and a woman engaging in sexual activity during the woman’s menstrual period. Such blood is considered highly defiling, and a gross violation of the purity that God desires as the norm for Israel’s social behavior. The seriousness with which God assesses his holiness is reflected in the severe penalties prescribed for the infractions listed above. The phrase “their blood will be on their own heads” is a euphemism for capital punishment. Sexual relations between a man and his aunt, or between a man and his brother’s wife, are regarded as dishonoring the legal spouses, and are accorded the lesser sentence of childlessness. In some cases, however, this is tantamount to causing the death of the family, a prospect that few Hebrews could contemplate with equanimity. In Deuteronomy 25:5-10, the law allows a man to marry his deceased brother’s childless wife so as to rear a son for his brother’s family, but this is very different from a man marrying his brother’s wife while her legal husband is still alive.

There are important reasons why these enactments were part of ancient Hebrew law. Moral purity and spiritual dedication were fundamental requisites if the chosen people were to maintain their distinctive witness to God’s power and holiness in society. The prohibitions reinforced the traditional emphasis on family honor, since the family was the building block of society. It had to be maintained at all costs if society was to survive. Any marriage relationship that was too close would have exerted a devastating effect on community solidarity by provoking family feuds that could last for centuries.

Serious problems would also have arisen through inter marriage when the result of such unions was the concentration of lands and riches in the hands of a few Hebrew families. For modern observers, however, the greatest danger by far would have resulted from the pollution of the genetic pool because of inbreeding. The bulk of the relationships prohibited by the legislation involved first and second degrees of consanguinity, that is, parent-child and grandparent-grandchild incest. Coition within the forbidden degrees of family relationships generally results in genetic complications when offspring are produced. Recessive genes often become dominant and endow the fetus with various kinds of diseases or congenital malformations. This seems to have been the force of the Hebrew tebel [l, b, T], a word that occurs only in Leviticus 18:23 and 20:12. It comes from balal [l; l’ B], meaning “to confuse,” and conveys aptly the genetic upheaval that occurs in many cases of inbreeding, since God’s rules for procreation have been upset. Only in a few instances does close inbreeding produce beneficial effects by removing recessive lethal genes from the genetic pool. (This may have happened in the case of ancient Egyptian royalty.) Nevertheless, even in such instances, inbreeding diminishes the energy and vigor of species that are normally outbred, and reinforces the wisdom and authority of the Mosaic legislation.

When God entered into a covenant relationship with the Israelites he furnished them with certain fundamental regulations engraved in stone to symbolize their permanence. These “Ten Commandments,” as they are styled, contain certain injunctions of a moral character dealing with adultery, theft, false witness, and covetous behavior (Exod. 20:14-19).The last three offenses are social in character, involving the community of God to a greater or lesser degree. But the commandment prohibiting adultery deals with an act of a highly personal nature, occurring between normally consenting adults, which violates the “one flesh” character of marriage.

The fact that a commandment deals specifically with this form of behavior seems to indicate that adultery was common among the ancient Hebrews. At all events, adultery was understood as sexual intercourse between a man and another man’s wife or betrothed woman. Similarly, any act of coition between a married woman and a man who was not her husband was also regarded as adultery. Certain exceptions to these stringent rules were tolerated in Old Testament times, however. A man was not considered an adulterer if he engaged in sexual relations with a female slave (Gen 16:1-4), a prostitute (Gen 38:15-18), or his wife’s handmaid with the spouse’s permission (Gen 16:4). Nor was a man deemed to be in an adulterous relationship if he happened to be married to two wives.

The traditions banning adultery, made specific in the Decalog, were enshrined deeply in Israel’s national life. The prophets warn that divine judgment will descend upon those who practice it (Jer. 23:11-14; Ezek. 22:11; Mal 3:5). The Book of Proverbs, however, takes more of a social than a specifically moral view of adultery, ridiculing it as a stupid pattern of behavior that leads a man to self-destruction (6:25-35). The prophets use the term figuratively to describe the covenant people’s lack of fidelity to the high ideals of Mount Sinai. The prophets view the covenant as equivalent to a marriage relationship between God and Israel (Isa 54:5-8). Any breach of the covenant, therefore, is an act of spiritual adultery (Jer. 5:7-8; Ezek. 23:37).

In his teachings Jesus stands firmly in the traditions of the Mosaic law and prophecy by regarding adultery as sin. But he extends the definition to include any man who lust sin his mind after another woman, whether she is married or not. It is thus unnecessary for any physical contact to take place, since the intent is already present (Matt 5:28). By this teaching Jesus demonstrates that, under the new covenant, motivation is to be considered just as seriously as the mechanical act of breaking or keeping a particular law. The motivation of a believer should always be of the purest kind, enabling obedience to God’s will freely from the heart, and not just because the law makes certain demands.

Whereas the female is cast in an inferior, passive role in the Old Testament sexual legislation, Jesus considers the woman as equal to the man in his teachings about divorce and remarriage. In consequence the woman has to bear equal responsibility for adultery. Much discussion has taken place about Christ’s return to the strict marriage ideals of Genesis 2:24 (Mark 10:6) and the explanatory clause “except for marital unfaithfulness” (Matt 5:32; 19:9), which allows for remarriage after divorce and which does not occur in either Mark 10:11 or Luke 16:18.

Before New Testament technical terms are discussed, it is important to realize that Christ was directing his teaching at the new age of grace, which in his death was to render Old Testament legal traditions ineffective. The Mosaic Law was specific about the conditions under which divorce could occur. The wife had fallen into disfavor because her husband had found something unclean or indecent about her, and therefore he was entitled to divorce her. Jesus teaches that this procedure was allowed by God as a concession to human obduracy (Matt 19:8), even though the Creator hated divorce.

In New Testament times, only the man was able to institute divorce proceedings. It was in reality, however, a rare occurrence, and at that mostly the prerogative of the rich, since poor men could not afford another dowry or “bride price” for a subsequent marriage. The accused woman was protected under the law to the extent that her husband’s accusations had to be proved. Thus some scholars have seen the Matthean explanatory clause as indicating immorality as the sole ground for divorce, following the contemporary rabbinical school of Shammai, and not for some purely frivolous cause, as the school of Hillel taught. If this explanation is correct, Jesus was addressing a Jewish controversy that had no bearing on God’s marriage ideals in the age of grace, and which Mark and Luke consequently ignored because the exception did not apply to their audiences of Christian believers.

The most common term in the New Testament for sexual immorality is porneia [porneiva], and its related forms pornos [povrno] and porneuo [porneuvw]. An emphatic form of the verb, ekporneuo [ejkporneuvw], “indulging in sexual immorality, occurs in Jude 7. These words have been translated variously into English, some renderings for an immoral person being “who remonger,” “fornicator,” “loose liver,” and “sexually immoral.” The term pornos [povrno] refers to a man who engages in coition with a porne [povrnh], or female prostitute. The extended description of wanton immorality in Romans 1:24-32 discusses women spurning natural sexual relationships for unnatural ones, that is, indulging in lesbian activities of the kind practiced at Lesbos in pagan Greek religious ceremonies. The males are described as inflamed with lust for one another, and this leads to indecent and immoral behavior. In 1Corinthians, 6:9 the sexually immoral are classified as adulterers, male prostitutes, and homosexual offenders. In 1Timothy 1:10, sexually immoral people are described comprehensively as adulterers and perverts.

The New Testament contains far less teaching about sexual immorality than the Old Testament, on which Christian morals and ethics are based. The Mosaic Law condemned adultery, but placed less emphasis on prohibiting some other sexual offenses. In the end, disregard for the Mosaic enactments brought Israel to ruin and this made it important for the Christian church to distinguish carefully, among other matters, between adultery as a sin and porneia [porneiva], which was a fatal perversion.

The New Testament requires believers to deny physical and spiritual lusting after people and false gods, and to conduct their behavior at a high moral and spiritual level. Sexual activity is to be confined to the marriage relationship, and if a married man or woman has sexual intercourse with someone other than the spouse, that person has committed adultery. To be most satisfying for the Christian, sexual activity must reflect the values of self-sacrificing love and the unity of personality to which the Christian’s reconciliation to God by the atoning work of Jesus brings the believing couple. R. K. Harrison (2)

In closing:

There is no excuse for someone to plead ignorance of the biblical teaching on sex outside of marriage, i.e. fornication.

“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. W. E. Vine, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, (Iowa Falls, Iowa, Riverside Book and Bible House), p. 455.

2. Walter A. Elwell, Editor, Baker’s Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Baker Book House), p. 367-371.

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: http://www.TheReligionThatStartedInAHat.com

For more study:

Counting the Cost of Sexual Immorality by Randy Alcorn https://www.epm.org/…/counting-the-cost-of-sexual-immorality
Paul Washer | 1 Thessalonians 4:1-3 | Abstain from Sexual Immorality | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQPRp2K8LjA

A Christian Review of Napoleon Hill’s “Think & Grow Rich” by Jack Kettler

This book is challenging to review in light of the amalgamation of truth and error contained therein.

In this review, I will cover the biblical admonitions regarding the obtaining of wealth, a brief biological sketch of Napoleon Hill, followed by a survey of his ideas on business success. The reader will be amazed at some of Hill’s brilliant and at the same time, common sense ideas of obtaining wealth.

To begin this review, I would be negligent as a Christian, not to mention the Biblical admonitions against the “deceitfulness of riches” Matthew 13:22 and our Lord’s warning that “you cannot serve God and Mammon” Luke 16:13. As Christians, we are instructed to “seek first the Kingdom of God” Matthew 6:33. In case there is any confusion at this point, I do not equate money as being evil. The distinction I see is stated by the apostle Paul when he tells us, “For the Love of Money is the root of all evil” 1Timothy 6:10.

If the reader is to take anything away from this review, it should be how to approach the topic of gaining wealth and success and excellence in business by being fully aware of the personal motives behind this desire. Have you been influenced by the ways of this world? Consider this: “For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world and lose his soul?” Mark 8:36.

As Christians, we should desire success and excellence in our endeavors not only to be a witness for Christ but also to bring glory to God. The Bible gives us instructions on life, if followed will not lead to poverty. Negatively, we are neither to be a “sluggard” Proverbs 20:4 nor “to love sleep” Proverbs 20:13. Positively: “…diligent hands bring wealth” Proverbs 10:4 “The plans of the diligent lead to profit…” Proverbs 21:5. Finally, from Proverbs 31:10-31, is the praise given to the noble or virtuous woman.

I see several positive guidelines for achieving success and excellence in business in Napoleon Hill’s book. Conversely, there are sections and material in Hill’s book that are antithetical to Christian beliefs and practice that the reader should be aware of.

First, I will offer the briefest biographical sketch and then a survey of some of the positive material in the book. In the concluding section, I will point out some of the biblically speaking problematic areas of Hill’s theories. This review is limited to Hill’s book “Think & Grow Rich” and not to his work in future years, although I will comment on it.

Napoleon Hill was born on Oct. 26, 1883 and died Nov. 8 1970. Hill is best known as the author of one of the best-selling books of all time called “Think & Grow Rich.” Napoleon Hill is the father of what can be described as personal success or motivational literature. Hill’s biographer, Michael J. Ritt, Jr., tells us that he was born in poverty in a one-room cabin in the town of Pound Virginia, a rural area. At the age of 13, he began writing for small-town newspapers. He used his earnings as a reporter to enter law school but had to drop out for monetary reasons.

The turning point in his career happened with his assignment, to write a series of articles about famous men and to interview the wealthy industrialist Andrew Carnegie. Hill learned that Carnegie believed the process of success could be explained in a simple formula that could be learned and put into practice by the average person. Carnegie was impressed with Hill and subsequently commissioned him and provided him with letters of reference so that he could interview over 500 successful men and women to discover and publish this formula for success. This project went on for 20 years and culminated in Hill becoming an advisor to Carnegie and the publication of “Think & Grow Rich.” The knowledge obtained from the interviews with the leaders of industry is where you find the value of Hill’s book.

It is impressive how many of Hill’s ideas are used as quotes for practical encouragement.

Some of the more common quotations of Napoleon Hill are:

· “Think and grow Rich”

· “Desire is the starting point of all achievement, not a hope, not a wish, but a keen pulsating desire which transcends everything”

· “Your big opportunity may be right where you are now”

· “If you cannot do great things, do small things in a great way”

· “A goal is a dream with a deadline”

· “Lack of loyalty is one of the major causes of failure in every walk of life”

· “Perseverance: The majority of men meet with failure because of their lack of persistence in creating new plans to take the place of those that fail”

· “Every adversity carries with it the seed of an equivalent or greater benefit”

· “Thoughts mixed with definiteness of purpose, persistence, and burning desires are powerful things”

· “The majority of men meet with failure because of their lack of persistence in creating new plans to take the place of those which fail”

· “First comes thought; then organization of that thought, into ideas and plans; then transformation of those plans into reality. The beginning, as you will observe, is in your imagination”

· “If you’re not learning while you’re earning, you’re cheating yourself out of the better portion of your compensation “

· “It is literally true that you can succeed best and quickest by helping others to succeed”

Much of Hill’s book is an analysis of how capitalism works. Hill believed that he had discovered a principle that allows the regular everyday people to achieve success. Hill called his success teachings “The Philosophy of Achievement” and he considered freedom, democracy, and capitalism, to be important causative factors in his discovery.

Hill’s ideas would not work in a Marxist or a centralized planned economy because the tyrannical regulation and taxation would destroy anyone’s ability to strive for success since the fruits of success would be given to others who would squander it since it had no intrinsic value to them. Hill believed in personal honesty and in not cheating your fellow man or employees. The cheat or dishonest person would eventually be seen for what he is. A leader has to be one of moral and ethical integrity.

Hill believed that you achieve success by doing superior quality work, treating your customers as number one at all times, and how anyone can become successful if they overcome their personal shortcomings. Hill also incorporates a lot of good, practical business advice, like finding new opportunities created by what we would call today as disruptive technologies.

Also, key, according to Hill, is having a written business plan and not deviating from it, along with not being afraid to make mistakes as long as you grow and learn from the mistakes. If you find your strategy to be in error, you must be able to reformulate your plans. Hill believed that most people never succeed simply because of a lack of ambition or self-discipline. Relating to discipline, Hill said, “If you do not conquer self, you will be conquered by self.”

The beginning of Hill’s philosophy began first with a thought; hence the title “Think & Grow Rich.” To start, you formulate a plan mentally. It involves desire, belief, and passion, (absolutely essential for success) auto-suggestion, (a controversial area of his research) obtaining specialized knowledge, (very helpful) using the imagination, (parts of this are very controversial) organized planning, (very helpful) decision making, persistence, the mastermind group, (portions of this section is very helpful) the last three areas transmutation, the subconscious mind and finally the brain is also quite controversial and unproven. One thing is certain; ideas most certainly do have consequences. In this respect, business success beginning first with an idea is difficult to question.

As said, there are many positive ideas in “Think & Grow Rich” such as organized planning and finding a group of people who think like you and then turning those plans into reality. Hill was a believer in the fact that all successful people were successful because they are able to find like-minded people who think as they do and who could be recruited into a business venture with them. Then their abilities, talents, and passion could be utilized for the benefit of the business venture. Hill is saying, “Don’t hang around with people who don’t think as you do.” Stay away from negative people since their negativity will affect you. Our parents were correct in warning us against hanging around with the wrong crowd.

Hill’s business success ideas focused on goal setting and making sure that decisions are carried through with consistency. In the area of responsibility, it means that you are responsible for your outcomes, and it is important that failures are not something to become fixated. Everyone has failures, and we should learn from them, including figuring out what caused them to happen. Most failures involve a breakdown of vision, or a failure to plan to take advantage of a new situation that may have arisen. An individual that is focused on success should not fixate on failure. We can learn from our mistakes and grow. Mistakes can be turned into successes.

Hill’s ideas on leadership are well thought out. His eleven points on the attributes of leadership are excellent, and exactly the traits you would hope any business leader would have. Likewise, the ten major causes of the failure of leadership are also very perceptive. His 31 significant causes of failure are points that are surprisingly accurate reasons for every person who tries and fails in business. His 28 questions for self-analysis are helpful to avoid self-deception. However, his teaching on transmutation of sexual energy has probably offended or shocked many as sounding sexist. It is accurate, according to Hill, that sexual energy can be turned into creative energy and not simply wasted in vain physical affairs.

A recap of positive things from “Think & Grow Rich:”

· “Failing to plan is planning to fail”

· “Perseverance: The majority of men meet with failure because of their lack of persistence in creating new plans to take the place of those that fail”

· “A quitter never wins, and a winner never quits”

· “It is literally true that you can succeed best and quickest by helping others to succeed”

· “The man who does more than he is paid for will soon be paid for more than he does.”

Hill’s philosophy of success in this book was grounded in the real world to a large extent, as can be seen by his statement that: “Riches do not respond to wishes. They respond only to definite plans, backed by definite desires, through constant persistence,” and “Great achievement is usually born of great sacrifice, and is never the result of selfishness.”

As the reader works their way through the book, they will see that much of Hill’s work boils down to setting goals, and making sure that important decisions are acted upon, thus ensuring your success. Hill is saying that you must put your plans into action. Hill was a believer that a group of people on the same wave-length and positively focused is substantially greater than a group of disorganized individuals.

Of all the successful leaders Hill interviewed, all of them attributed their success to being able to see opportunities, and most importantly, in finding people who can be delegated to help achieve success. It is not enough to work hard; one must also find like-minded people, and inspire them to work hard as a team on getting things done.

This idea of recruiting and inspiring individuals so that they be delegated various responsibilities reminds me of what J. Paul Getty once wrote, “I would much rather receive 1% of the efforts of 100 men than 100% of my own.” Much of the material in Hill’s book has been tremendously helpful for those individuals involved with network marketing. To illustrate this, Hill said, “It is literally true that you can succeed best and quickest by helping others to succeed.” Those involved in the Network Marketing industry will understand and appreciate this concept.

In the first part of this review, thus far, I covered the biblical admonitions regarding the obtaining of wealth, a brief biological sketch of Napoleon Hill, followed by a survey of his ideas on business success. Now in this section of the review, I will cover the negative and outright dangers in Hill’s philosophy. In addition, I will provide two appendixes, which will answer an anticipated question plus documentation of Hill’s progression into increasingly non-biblical thought.

The Dangers found in Hill’s ideas:

Hill’s idea of auto-suggestion and visualization, especially in the area of steps to stimulate your subconscious mind into obtaining a certain amount of money, will strike many people as bizarre. It seems a little weird to visualize a stack of cash and repeating to yourself day and night that you are going to get it. It appears that this idea by Hill may have set the stage for the “name it and claim it” movement in charismatic circles. Hill, at least as of the writing of this book, did see not this visualization process as disconnected or separate from the real world of offering hard work and quality service in exchange for money. Therefore, unless you were willing to follow time-tested real-world business preparation, no amount of visualizing money, and saying you are going to get it will work.

We can say with certainty that the teaching of the Bible in this area could be stated as: you make plans to achieve a goal and then first start by placing them in God’s hand and asking for the fulfillment of these plans to happen according to His will. Hill’s auto-suggestion technique at this point in his life may be a device for mental discipline in the area of goal setting. If so, I would not have a problem with the concept if reformulated utilizing the teaching of Scripture on discipline and framed in biblical prayer rather than a rote mental exercise.

In the Bible, we are taught to discipline our minds and to be diligent. We are to bring our petitions before God on a daily basis. This would include asking God’s blessings on our business endeavors. In contradiction, Hill’s ideas on auto-suggestion, visualization, and his imaginary council meetings are where a number of dangerous errors started developing in his philosophy. In my opinion, these ideas are nothing short of spiritual blasphemy.

Along this line of thinking, as Hill’s ideas on auto-suggestion and visualization developed into increasingly unbiblical areas, which included contact with invisible spiritual beings, I have concluded that in the end, Hill was promoting outright idolatry by his technique of auto-suggestion and visualization. In Scripture, we are taught to set our affection upon the Lord God and Him only. As stated at the beginning of this review as Christians, we are instructed to “seek first the Kingdom of God” Matthew 6:33. It seems as though in Hill’s work, he was promoting seek first material wealth!

One of the most demonstratively false and dangerous things in the book is Hill’s idea that:

“Whatever the mind of man can conceive and believe, it can achieve.”

This is a serious biblical error. In the Garden, the Serpent convinced Adam and Eve that they could become gods. No amount of conceiving and believing will ever make a finite person into a god. In fact, this lie of Satan is the chief lie that all human presuppositions start with. Since Hill was allegedly a Christian, it is unfortunate that he did not qualify many of his ideas with biblical limitations. Since he failed to do this, one has to question Hill’s understanding of the Christian Faith

In addition, another problematic area for a Christian is where Hill moves into some really strange and unproven ideas. He talks about a universal type of energy and powers such as telepathy, which can be supposedly used to reach into higher consciousness, and getting in touch with the minds of the great leaders in history. Hill’s imaginary counsel of leaders during the evening is an area that is where I believe he let his imagination run completely wild. He claimed that these evening meetings were purely imaginary. Some researchers believe that this practice by Hill bordered on the occult. There is strong evidence that in his future writings, he did move into what can be called Spiritism or Occultism. From a Christian perspective, Hill’s time could have been much better spent in prayer, seeking that his desire for success would truly bring glory to God.

Hill was supposedly a Christian and said that his book was not a course on religion, nor meant to interfere with a person’s faith. In spite of his disclaimers, Hill’s use of the term infinite intelligence rather than God is evidence that he had parted from any belief he may have had in the Christian Faith. Even if he had used the term God, it would not be possible to fit the biblical concept of God into some of his thoughts on the subject of obtaining success. Hill seems to see this infinite intelligence as some force that permeates the cosmos and in which all great minds are connected. This seems strikingly similar to the philosophy of idealism, a concept or theory in which all reality is ultimately reduced to a universal mind.

As stated earlier, Hill is considered the father of the positive thinking movement. This movement has led to all manner of wild speculations and metaphysical assertions, which by their very nature, are often unproven and usually unbiblical. Some followers of Hill’s theories on auto-suggestion have developed this into what appears to be nothing more than magical secret incantations to obtain material wealth and developing relationships and following the guidance of your inner-self. Developing and following guidance from your inner-self is the door-way into occultism and spiritism or in another sense, a sign of a mental disorder.

In the closing section of his book, some of his views discussed in the Six Ghost of Fear are interesting and reflect reality for many people. However, Hill denigrates the biblical concept of divine justice in this section the fear of death, which was for me, was another tip-off that Hill’s belief system was far removed from the Christian Faith.

A section from Walter Elwell’s Evangelical Dictionary has this to say that is relevant to a Christian analysis of positive thinking and thus to portions of Hill’s work:

“Theologically, positive thinking encourages a form of humanism that has often led to the development of heretical movements along the lines of New Though, Christian Science, and a variety of semi-Christian groups today. It overlooks biblical teachings about sin and the sovereignty of God to emphasize the essential goodness of humanity and the ability of people to solve their own problems through faith in their own abilities. In its Christianized form this self-faith is mediated through reference to Christian symbols, which upon closer examination are devoid of their original meaning.” (1)

The above quotation gets to the crux of the matter on the dangers inherent in the positive personal empowerment movement. We learn in Scripture that God is a sovereign God and any philosophy of personal empowerment or achievement that denigrates this has to be spoken against. If the vocation and calling you have is in business, you should strive for excellence and success all with the vision and goal of doing what is pleasing to God and for His Glory. We should always preface our plans in prayer asking first for God’s will to be done.

In fairness, Hill’s formula for business success in the book under review should not be understood simply as repeating some mantra about obtaining wealth. Hill does a fair job of guarding against this type of simplistic understanding by qualifying and stressing the necessity of planning, focusing on goals, obtaining specialized knowledge, surrounding yourself with like-minded business partners, and constant persistence and hard work. In reality, much of the book is about self-discipline, and how to prepare yourself for leadership is no easy task, yet this has been seen in all successful business leaders. This is where the value of the book for business leaders is found.

If you approach the book with some practical caution and especially biblical awareness, there are some good things you can learn from this book. On the other hand, there are certainly dangers involved with an uncritical acceptance of Hill’s philosophy of success. In this writer’s opinion, Hill should have cut about one-third of the speculative philosophy of success out of “Think & Grow Rich” and just dealt with what he learned from his interviews with successful business leaders.

A new edition needed:

It would be a good project if an abridged version of “Think & Grow Rich” could be edited and released which just contained the wisdom gleaned the 500 successful business leaders minus the unbiblical speculative philosophy. Because of the errors and the seeds of even more serious deviations from biblical truth, I can give only a very limited and qualified positive review of certain sections of “Think & Grow Rich.” Hill in my opinion was clearly a genius, yet in the end instead of glorifying God, he exalted his own finite mind. As in cases as Hill’s you have what can be described as genius run amok.

Appendix one covers documentation on how Hill moved into the occult, which seems to be the case as evidenced in his later works. It is a tragedy for someone such as Hill, who articulated so well what is involved in real-world business success to discredit himself with his involvement in occultism and spiritism ultimately. Hill, in his later books, claimed to be given information from spirit guides or ascended masters (in reality demons). Appendix two deals with my response to an anticipated question about this review.

As Christians, we are commanded by God to stay away from this type of communication. For example:

“And the soul that turneth after such as have familiar spirits, and after wizards, to go a whoring after them, I will even set my face against that soul, and will cut him off from among his people… A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them.” (Leviticus 20:6, 27)

Appendix one:

Material from The Christian Expositor (TCE) dialogue with one of their readers about where Hill taught things about his communication with the ascended spiritual masters.

“28th April, 2004 – TCE replies:

Thank you for your inquiry and we apologize for the delay in replying.

The answer to your questions can be found in the book in question: ”Grow Rich with Peace of Mind.”

Depending on the version read (probably between pages 158 to 162), you will find the following statements:

“Now and again I have had evidence that unseen friends hover about me, unknowable to ordinary senses. In my studies I discovered there is a group of strange beings who maintain a school of wisdom which must be ten thousand years old, but I did not connect them with myself. Now I have found there is a connection. I am not one of them! – but I have been watched by them. Here is how I found this out. I finished this book. I was alone in my study and all was very still. A voice spoke. I saw nobody. I cannot tell you whence the voice came. First it spoke a password known to few men that riveted my attention.”…. “I have come,” said the voice, “to give you one more section to include in your book…. I whispered; “Who are you?” In a softened voice, which sounded like chimes of great music, the unseen speaker replied: “I come from the Great School of the Masters. I am one of the Council of Thirty-Three who serve the Great School and its initiates on the physical plane…. The School has Masters who can disembody themselves and travel instantly to any place they choose …. Now I knew that one of these Masters had come across thousands of miles, through the night, into my study.”

“You have earned the right to reveal a Supreme Secret to others,” said the vibrant voice. “In the journey through life there is a Jungle of Life, a Black Forest through which every individual must pass alone. In the Black Forest he overcomes enemies and his own inner opposition and turmoil. … And now I shall name the enemies who must be met and conquered in the journey… The foremost is fear.” He went on to name intolerance, egotism, lust, anger and hatred and a total of 26 enemies. …”Know that one who seeks earnestly to conquer these twenty-six lurking enemies becomes an Initiate of the Great School. We know him, and he has access to the mind of a Master.” The Master concluded after another pause in the deep silence, and said: “He will not only understand the true purpose of life, but also he will have at his command the power to fulfill that purpose without having to experience another incarnation on this earthly plane. And the Masters of the Great School, on this earthly plane and all other planes, will rejoice at his triumph and will bid him God speed toward his own mastership.” … The voice ended. I began to hear little sounds of the world around me, and I knew the Master had returned to the Great School of the Masters.

Hill made similar statements in chapter two of the book “The Master Key to Riches” when he unconditionally represents ‘Eight Princes’ as distinct entities and (page 28) “my friends who have done most for me in preparing my mind for the acceptance of riches. I call them the Eight Princes. They serve me when I am awake and they serve me while I sleep.”

He further states on page 29, “My greatest asset consists in my good fortune in having recognized the existence of the Eight Princes….” Hill opens the chapter by saying that you can call them other names beside “princes” but he specifically gives them attributes of distinct beings that can impute knowledge and have powers to affect physical events. Hill states that Andrew Carnegie “was blessed with the services of the Eight Princes. The Prince of Overall Wisdom served him so well that he was inspired not only to give away all his material riches, but to provide the people with a complete philosophy of life through which they too might acquire riches.” He communicated with these beings every day expressing gratitude to each one for the named function. The exact words he used in addressing these beings are given on pages 27 through 29.

Hill refers to his communication as a “ceremony” on page 30 where he states: “Observe that I ask for nothing from the Princes, but I devote the entire ceremony to an expression of gratitude for the riches they have already bestowed upon me.” He gives further credit to theses beings: “The Princes know my needs and supply them!… Yes, they supply all of my needs in overabundance.” While discussing the philosophy of life that the princes gave, he states: “It supports all religions yet it is a part of none!”

Hill has stated in other books that he rejected the religion of his youth and believes that he is not associated with any religion but has knowledge that “supports all religion”. He states, in his early writings, that he never met these beings face to face. In other books, however, he describes how beings actually materialized in front of him and talked with him. He is clearly communicating with spiritual beings and pays some kind of homage to them, thus practicing a very old religion currently called by many “New Age” religion.

In about 1937 he wrote “Think and Grow Rich” and was communicating with an “imaginary cabinet” made up by himself of nine individuals who were long dead. He imagined them talking to himself. He claimed that knowledge came from them that he was not able to get from just thinking. He wrote (page 216) in ‘Think and Grow Rich’: “In these imaginary council meeting I call on my cabinet members for the knowledge I wished to contribute, addressing myself to each member in audible words. . . ”

“The Master Key to Riches”, was copyrighted in 1967 by Hill and he had now, apparently, stopped talking to an “imaginary cabinet” and was talking with actual unseen beings. So Hill’s journey into communication with these spirits apparently began at least as early as his 1937 book and was continued into the creation of “Grow Rich With Peace of Mind”.

Yours sincerely TCE”

This material by “TCE” is extremely damming to Hill, documenting thoroughly his descendent into spiritism after writing “Think & Grow Rich.”

Appendix 2:

I fully anticipate a question to rise along the lines of: how can I review and say anything positive about a book that contains serious errors and the seeds of even more error?

“This is a good and fair question. As Christians, we are to be conversant and to be able to speak accurately about the issues of our day. In doing this, we must be able to accurately state positions that we disagree. This requires reading and studying material; we may have substantial disagreements. As a Christian, I do not like to have my position misrepresented or misunderstood. We should be careful to extend the same courtesy to others. If there are truths stated in an author’s work, we should be able to thank and show appreciation for the things we see as true.

For example, in the area of philosophy, Christian apologists should read and be conversant in the Greek philosophy of Plato and Aristotle. Plato and his student Aristotle were two of the most brilliant minds who have ever lived. Their philosophy was so persuasive that modern philosophers have never been able to escape the ideas of these original Greek thinkers fully.

Platonic and Aristotelian philosophies are false; they nevertheless, were formally correct at various points. Plato, in particular, was formally correct in beginning his reasoning process, starting from the world of eternal ideas and moving to and interpreting the temporal earthly forms in terms of the eternal. The Christian presuppositionalist argues in a similar process.

Returning to my anticipated question, can a Christian encourage people to read Plato and Aristotle? Of course, they can, as long as qualified, much like my review of Hill’s book. I trust this digression helps answer any questions that may be raised about my review of Hill’s book.”

In closing:

As stated, this book has been difficult to review because of the mixture of truth and error. Like it or not, Hill’s book has been a classic book on starting and being successful in business and, therefore, cannot be dismissed out of hand. The book is a business classic. It is unfortunate that in Hill’s case, he promoted wildly speculative unbiblical ideas in portions of the book, thus creating controversy. As said, in this respect, Hill’s book is a challenging amalgamation of truth and error. His future books, as can be seen from the “TCE” letter, are biblically speaking, completely unusable, and spiritually dangerous.

Notes:

1. Walter A. Elwell, Editor, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Baker Book House), p. 863.

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: http://www.TheReligionThatStartedInAHat.com

The Triune nature of God and the Deity of Christ by Jack Kettler

Part One, an Introduction:

It is has been rare to find someone who could accurately state the Christian doctrine of the triune nature of God and at the same time, reject it. It speaks volumes when someone denies a position without understanding the position that is being rejected. If someone cannot state an opposing position, that individual does not understand it. The common reason for many in rejecting the triune nature of God is that they claim not to understand or comprehend that kind of being. If God is God and we are men, it should not surprise us that we cannot wholly comprehend God. If we could do this, then God would be nothing more than a finite entity.

On this line of reasoning about an easy to understand God, C.S. Lewis noted:

“If Christianity were something we were making up, of course we would make it easier. But it is not. We cannot compete in simplicity with people who are inventing religions. How could we? We are dealing with fact. Of course anyone can be simple if he doesn’t have any facts to bother about.” (1)

The standard for rejecting a belief should not necessarily be an inability to comprehend it entirely. Why? For example, almost no one can understand or comprehend how their brains function. It could be asked, why not reject our brains? In this respect, many individuals are operational rationalists. Rationalism is a philosophy where human reason becomes the ultimate standard of truth. For the Christian, the Bible is our standard of truth. Rejecting rationalism does not mean that Christians are irrational for believing in the triune nature of God. Nothing could be further from the truth.

It should be noted that epistemology is the study of how we know things. There are three theories of gaining knowledge, 1. Empiricism (a view that experience, especially the senses, is the only source of knowledge), 2. Rationalism (a belief that appeals to man’s independent reason as a source of knowledge) and 3. Dogmatism or scripturalism (all knowledge must be contained within a system and deduced from its starting principles, in the Christian case, the Bible). The Bible is the Christian’s starting principle or presupposition.

The triune biblical nature of God can be stated as three propositions:

1. There is only one God

2. There are three equally divine, distinct and eternal Persons called God

3. Therefore, these three equally divine and eternal Persons are the one God

Louis Berkhof’s Systematic Theology correctly defines the doctrine of God’s triune nature. The belief is stated likewise in a series of propositions:

1. There is in the Divine Being but one indivisible essence;

2. In this one Divine Being there are three Persons or individual subsistences, Father,

3. Son, and Holy Spirit;

4. The whole undivided essence of God belongs equally to each of the three persons;

5. The subsistence and operation of the three persons in the divine Being is marked by a certain definite order;

6. There are certain personal attributes by which the three persons are distinguished. (2)

The Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Father; the Son is not the Spirit; and the Father is not the Spirit. God is not one person who manifests or reveals himself in three different modes, or three gods who are one in purpose. There is only one God in essence, who truly exists as three divine persons. These three persons are God, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

The magisterial Westminster Confession of Faith summarizes this conception of the Godhead:

“In the unity of the Godhead there are three persons, of one substance, power and eternity; God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. The Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.” (3)

Part 2, Scriptural proofs that defend this conception of God.

The following Scriptures demonstrate that there is a plurality of persons in the Godhead; in other words, you see more than one divine person in each passage listed:

Genesis 1:26, 3:22, 11:7; Isaiah 6:8; 48:16; 61:1-2; Jeremiah 23:5-6; Zechariah 10:12; Matthew 28:19; Luke 4:18-19; John 1:1-3; John 14:23; 2 Corinthians 13:14; Colossians 2:2; Hebrews 1:8-10; Hebrews 3:7-11; 1 Peter 1:2; and 1 John 2:24

Yet, the Bible makes it indisputable that there is only one God:

“Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD.” (Deuteronomy 6:4)

“…I am he: before me there was no God formed. Neither shall there be after me, I, even I, am LORD, beside me there is no saviour.” (Isaiah 43:10)

“…I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me, there is no God.” (Isaiah 44:6)

“Is there a God beside me? Yea, there is no God; I know not any?” (Isaiah 44:8)

The Bible teaches the Father is God in the following verses:

“To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.” (Romans 1:7)

“Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.” (1Corinthians 1:3)

“Grace be to you and peace from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.” (2Corinthians 1:2)

The Father is Jehovah:

In Exodus 3:13, 14 God (Elohim) reveals Himself as the “I Am” or Jehovah the Lord.

The Father is both Jehovah and Elohim:

“These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD [Jehovah] God [Elohim] made the earth and the heavens.” (Genesis 2:4)

“And the LORD [Jehovah] God [Elohim] planted a garden Eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.” (Genesis 2:8)

“And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God (Elohim) of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? What shall I say unto them? And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he Said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM [Jehovah] hath sent me unto you.” (Exodus 3:13.14)

The Son is proved God by the following verses:

“But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.” (Hebrews 1:8)

“For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.” (Colossians 2:9)

“And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.” (1John 5:20)

“Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.” (Titus 2:13)

Jesus is Jehovah:

“Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say you, before Abraham was, I am.” [Jehovah] (John 8:58)

Jesus is using the divine name from Exodus 3:14. The Septuagint (Greek translation of the Old Testament) uses (Ego eimi) for Jehovah (I AM) in this verse. John 8:58 in the Greek uses the same formulation (Ego eimi). It is inescapable that Jesus is Jehovah.

“That unto me [Jehovah] every knee shall bow…” (Isaiah 45:23)

“That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth.” (Philippians 2:10)

The New Testament in Philippians 2:10 tells us that this verse from Isaiah speaks of Jesus. Jesus is Jehovah.

The following passage speaks of Jehovah:

“Thou hast ascended on high, thou hast led captivity captive: thou hast received gifts for men; yea, for the rebellious also, that the LORD God might dwell among them.” (Psalms 68:18)

The next verse from Ephesians speaks of Jesus with the wording from Psalms 68:18. This makes Jesus Jehovah.

“Wherefore he saith, when he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.” (Ephesians 4:8)

Jeremiah the prophet records:

“I the LORD search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings.” (Jeremiah 17:10)

What does the New Testament teach about Jesus that identifies him with Jehovah whom Jeremiah spoke? Consider what John says in Revelation 2:23:

“…I am he, which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.” (Revelation 2:23)

In addition, consider the following claim of Christ:

“I and my Father are one.” (John 10:30)

“Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.” (John 10:31)

Why did the Jews do this? Because Jesus was claiming to be Jehovah God this verse.

This is why the Jews said:

“The Jews answered him; saying, for a good work we stone thee not; bur for blasphemy: and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.” (John 10:33)

The Holy Spirit is called God in the following verses:

“But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land? …thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.” (Acts 5:3-4)

“Know you not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?” (1Corinthians 3:16)

“Wherefore (as the Holy Ghost saith, Today if ye will hear his voice, Harden not your hearts, as in the provocation, in the day of temptation in the wilderness.” (Hebrews 3:7, 8)

As seen clearly from Acts 5:3-4 the Holy Spirit is a person who can be lied to. In John 14:26 the Holy Spirit is sent to teach the apostles and bring things to their remembrance. This is proof that the Holy Spirit is an intelligent member of the Godhead, hence a person.

The Holy Spirit is Jehovah:

Now the Lord [Kyrios] is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord [Kyrios] is, there is liberty. (2Corinthians 3:17)

The Greek word Kyrios is used in the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Old Testament) to translate Jehovah. Kyrios is translated in English with the word “Lord.”

God is the creator. All three persons are involved in creation:

“But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him, and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.” (1Corinthians 8:6) (Father)

“All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made.” (John 1:3) (Son)

“The spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life.” (Job 33:4) (Spirit)

All three persons share the attributes of deity. For example, all three persons are omniscient:

“Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.” (Acts 15:18) (Father)

“And he said unto him, Lord thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee.” (John 21:17b) (Son)

“But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, and the deep things of God.” (1Corinthians 2:10) (Spirit)

All three persons are omnipotent:

“And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.” (Revelation 19:6) (Father)

“And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, all power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.” (Matthew 28:18) (Son)

“And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee:… For with God nothing shall be impossible.” (Luke 1:35, 37) (Spirit)

All three persons are omnipresent:

“Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? Saith the LORD. Do not I fill heaven and earth?” (Jeremiah 23:24) (Father)

“…and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world, Amen.” (Matthew 28:20) (Son)

“Wither shall I go from thy spirit? Or whither shall I flee from thy presence?” (Psalms 139:7) (Spirit)

The Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit are all eternal:

“But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith.” (Romans 16:26) (Father)

“Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today, and forever.” (Hebrews 13:8) (Son)

“How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit…” (Hebrews 9:14) (Spirit)

All three persons of the Trinity dwell in us. Only God can do this:

“Jesus answered and said unto him, if a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.” (John 14:23) (Father)

“That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye being rooted and grounded in love.” (Ephesians 3:17) (Son)

“Even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him, for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.” (John 14:17) (Spirit)

All three persons of the Trinity were involved in the resurrection of Christ from the dead. Only God can raise the dead:

“Paul, An apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead.)” (Galatians 1:1) (Father)

“Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up…. But he spoke of the temple of his body.” (John 2:18-20) (Son)

“For Christ also hath once suffered for sin, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit.” (1Peter 3:18) (Spirit)

We see all three persons at the baptism of Christ. These are persons, not modes of existence:

“And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” (Matthew 3:16-17)

We see all three persons at the Great Commission:

“Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” (Matthew 28:19)

We see all three persons in Paul’s letter:

“The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen.” (2Corinthians 13:14)

There is one God Deuteronomy 6:4 and Jesus is YAHWEH.

Yahweh, the god of the Israelites, whose name was revealed to Moses as four Hebrew consonants (YHWH) called the Tetragrammaton. The Tetragrammaton became the Latinized name Jehovah.

In the Old Testament, “Yahweh” is translated, “LORD” in all capital letters.

In Exodus, 3:14 God uses “I AM” and “Yahweh” interchangeably. This is why “I am” is a legitimate way to translate the name “Yahweh.”

In light of Deuteronomy 6:4, consider the following titles that are used for God and Jesus:

God the Creator:

“The Spirit of God has made me, and the breath of the Almighty gives me life.” (Job 33:4 ESV) All Scriptures in section are from the English Standard Version.

“Have you not known? Have you not heard? The LORD is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth. He does not faint or grow weary; his understanding is unsearchable.” (Isaiah 40:28)

“In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” (Genesis 1:1)

Jesus the Creator:

“All things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made.” (John 1:3)

“For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities – all things were created through him and for him.” (Colossians 1:16)

Jesus is being compared to the angels, “And, “You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands; they will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment, like a robe you will roll them up, like a garment they will be changed. But you are the same, and your years will have no end.” (Hebrews 1:10-12)

God the Savior:

“They forgot God, their Savior, who had done great things in Egypt.” (Psalms 106:21)

“For I am the LORD your God, the Holy One of Israel, your Savior. I give Egypt as your ransom, Cush and Seba in exchange for you.” (Isaiah 43:3)

“Declare and present your case; let them take counsel together! Who told this long ago? Who declared it of old? Was it not I, the LORD? And there is no other god besides me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none besides me.” (Isaiah 45:21)

Jesus the Savior:

“They said to the woman, “It is no longer because of what you said that we believe, for we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this is indeed the Savior of the world.” (John 4:42)

“And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” (Acts 4:12)

“And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world.” (1John 4:14)

God the King:

“But the LORD is the true God; he is the living God and the everlasting King. At his wrath the earth quakes and the nations cannot endure his indignation.” (Jeremiah 10:10)

“Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: “I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god.” (Isaiah 44:6)

Jesus the King:

“Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the east came to Jerusalem, saying, where is he who has been born king of the Jews? For we saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.” (Matthew 2:1-2)

“And Pilate asked him, “Are you the King of the Jews?” And he answered him, “You have said so.” (Luke 23:3)

“So the chief priests of the Jews said to Pilate, “Do not write, ‘The King of the Jews,’ but rather, ‘this man said, I am King of the Jews.’” (John 19:21)

God the Judge:

“Far be it from you to do such a thing, to put the righteous to death with the wicked, so that the righteous fare as the wicked! Far be that from you! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just?” (Genesis 18:25)

“Let the nations stir themselves up and come up to the Valley of Jehoshaphat; for there I will sit to judge all the surrounding nations.” (Joel 3:12)

“And to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect.” (Hebrews 12:23)

Jesus the Judge:

“For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil.” (2Corinthians 5:10)

“I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom.” (2Timothy 4:1)

God the Great I Am:

“God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.” And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel: ‘I AM has sent me to you.’” (Exodus 3:14)

“See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god beside me; I kill and I make alive; I wound and I heal; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand.” (Deuteronomy 32:39)

Jesus the Great I Am:

“Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” (John 8:58)

“I am telling you now before it happens, so that when it comes to pass, you will believe that I am He.” (John 13:19”

God the Rock:

“For you have forgotten the God of your salvation and have not remembered the Rock of your refuge; therefore, though you plant pleasant plants and sow the vine-branch of a stranger.” (Isaiah 17:10)

“For who is God, but the LORD? And who is a rock, except our God?” (2Samuel 22:32)

Jesus the Rock:

“And all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ.” (1Corinthians 10:4)

“For it stands in Scripture: “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious, and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame. So the honor is for you who believe, but for those who do not believe, the stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone, and ‘A stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense.’ They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.” (1Peter 2:6-8)

God the Shepherd:

“The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want. He makes me lie down in green pastures.

He leads me beside still waters. He restores my soul. He leads me in paths of righteousness for his name’s sake. Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for you are with me; your rod and your staff, they comfort me. You prepare a table before me in the presence of my enemies; you anoint my head with oil; my cup overflows. Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life, and I shall dwell in the house of the Lord forever.” (Psalms 23)

Jesus the Shepherd:

“I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.” (John 10:11)

“Now may the God of peace who brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, the great shepherd of the sheep, by the blood of the eternal covenant.” (Hebrews 13:20)

God the Light:

“Your sun shall no more go down, nor your moon withdraw itself; for the LORD will be your everlasting light, and your days of mourning shall be ended.” (Isaiah 60:20)

“The LORD is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear? The LORD is the stronghold of my life; of whom shall I be afraid?” (Psalms 27:1)

Jesus the Light:

“The true light, which gives light to everyone, was coming into the world.” (John 1:9)

“Again Jesus spoke to them, saying, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.” (John 8:12)

God the First and Last:

“Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: “I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god.” (Isaiah 44:6)

“Listen to me, O Jacob, and Israel, whom I called! I am he; I am the first, and I am the last.” (Isaiah 48:12)

Jesus the First and Last:

“When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. But he laid his right hand on me, saying, “Fear not, I am the first and the last.” (Revelation 1:17)

“I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.” (Revelation 22:13)

Part 3, a Conclusion:

Jesus is God, the Bible teaches that there are three persons who are called God, and yet the Bible is emphatic that there is only one God.

In conclusion, theologian Norman Geisler summarizes this conclusion:

•All three Persons possess the attribute of omnipresence (that is, all three are everywhere-present): the Father (Matthew 19:26), the Son (Matthew 28:18), and the Holy Spirit (Psalm 139:7).

•All three have the attribute of omniscience: the Father (Romans 11:33), the Son (Matthew 9:4), and the Holy Spirit (1Corinthians 2:10).

•All three have the attribute of omnipotence (that is, all three are all powerful): the Father (Jeremiah 32:27), the Son (Matthew 28:18), and the Holy Spirit (Romans 15:19).

•Holiness is ascribed to each of the three Persons: the Father (Revelation 15:4), the Son (Acts 3:14), and the Holy Spirit (John 16:7-14).

•Eternity is ascribed to all three Persons: the Father (Psalm 90:2), the Son (Micah 5:2; John 1:2; Revelation 1:8, 17), and the Holy Spirit (Hebrews 9:14).

•Each of the three Persons is individually described as the truth: the Father (John 7:28), the Son (Revelation 3:7), and the Holy Spirit (1John 5:6).

•As well, each of the three is called Lord (Romans 10:12; Luke 2:11; 2Corinthians 3:17), everlasting (Romans 16:26; Revelation 22:13; Hebrews 9:14), almighty (Genesis 17:1; Revelation 1:8; Romans 15:19), and powerful (Jeremiah 32:17; Hebrews 1:3; Luke 1:35).

Indeed, the Holy Spirit was present at the same time, revealing that they coexist. Further, the fact that they have separate titles (Father, Son, and Spirit) indicate that they are not one person. Also, each member of the Trinity has special functions that help us to identify them. For example, the Father planned salvation (John 3:16; Ephesians 1:4); the

Son accomplished it on the cross (John 17:4; 19:30; Heb. 1:1-2) and at the resurrection (Rom. 4:25; 1 Cor. 15:1-6), and the Holy Spirit applies it to the lives of the believers (John 3:5; Ephesians 4:30; Titus 3:5-7). The Son submits to the Father (1 Cor. 11:3; 15:28), and the Holy Spirit glorifies the Son (John 16:14). (4)

A further response to rationalist critics of God’s triune nature Geisler says:

Critics make a point of computing the mathematical impossibility of believing there is a Father, Son and Holy Spirit in the Godhead, without holding that there are three gods. Does not 1+1+1=3? It certainly does if you add them, but Christians insist that the triunity of God is more like 1x1x1=1. God is triune, not triplex. His one essence has multiple centers of personhood. Thus, there is no more mathematical problem in conceiving the Trinity that there is in understanding 1 cubed (13). (5)

Confessional support from Westminster Larger Catechism Q&A 8-11

Q. 8. Are there more Gods than one?

A. There is but one only, the living and true God.

Q. 9. How many persons are there in the Godhead?

A. There be three persons in the Godhead, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one true, eternal God, the same in substance, equal in power and glory; although distinguished by their personal properties.

Q. 10. What are the personal properties of the three persons in the Godhead?

A. It is proper to the Father to beget the Son, and to the Son to be begotten of the Father, and to the Holy Ghost to proceed from the Father and the Son from all eternity.

Q. 11. How doth it appear that the Son and the Holy Ghost are God equal with the Father?

A. The Scriptures manifest that the Son and the Holy Ghost are God equal with the Father, ascribing unto them such names, attributes, works, and worship, as are proper to God only.

John Calvin on Gregory of Nazianzus an Eastern Church Patriarch on the Trinity:

“Again, Scripture sets forth a distinction of the Father from the Word and of the Word from the Spirit. Yet the greatness of the mystery warns us how much reverence and sobriety we ought to use in investigating this.

And that passage in Gregory of Nazianzus vastly delights me:

‘I cannot think on the one without quickly being encircled by the splendor of the three; nor can I discern the three without being straightway carried back to the one.’”

“Let us not, then, be led to imagine a trinity of persons that keeps our thoughts distracted and does not at once lead them back to that unity. Indeed, the words “Father,” “Son,” and “Spirit” imply a real distinction – let no one think that these titles, whereby God is variously designated from his works, are empty – but a distinction, not a division, The passages that we have already cited [e.g., Zechariah 13:7] show that the Son has a character distinct from the Father, because the Word would not have been with God unless he were another than the Father, nor would he have had his glory with the Father were he not distinct from the Father. . . .” (6)

Therefore, there is only one God, and He is triune in nature.

“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. C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, (New York, New York, MacMillan, 1952), p. 129.

2. Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1979), pp. 87-89.

3. The Westminster Confession Of Faith Chap. II, 3. 1646.

4. Norman L. Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, pp. 731-732.

5. Norman L. Geisler, p. 732.

6. Calvin, John, Institutes of the Christian Religion, (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960), Book 1 Chapter 17, p. 141-142.

“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. Available at: http://www.TheReligionThatStartedInAHat.com

What does the Bible say about the Flood? By Jack Kettler

As in previous studies, we will look at definitions, scriptures, lexical, and commentary evidence for the purpose to glorify God in how we live. When looking at the text of Scripture in Genesis, we see that the flood was a worldwide event. Our Lord Jesus Christ himself referred to the flood, which came and destroyed the world of Noah’s day. The writer of Hebrews calls Noah one of the examples of faith. The apostle Peter mentions Noah and the flood. The flood was a real event in human history. At the end of this study, there is a link to Answer in Genesis for more research.

The Flood: God’s judgment on humankind for its moral depravity and sinfulness by means of an historical flood which wiped out the entire population of the world except for Noah and his family, as recorded in chapters 6-8 of Genesis; also called the Great Flood, the Great Deluge, or the biblical flood. *

The Scriptures:

“And the Lord said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation. Of every clean beast, thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female. Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female, to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth. For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth. And Noah did according unto all that the Lord commanded him. And Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters was upon the earth. And Noah went in, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons’ wives with him, into the ark, because of the waters of the flood.” (Genesis 7:1-7)

“And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth. And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters. And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered. And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died. And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark. And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.” (Genesis 7:17-24)

“This is like the days of Noah to me: as I swore that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth, so I have sworn that I will not be angry with you, and will not rebuke you.” (Isaiah 54:9 ESV)

“For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark.” (Matthew 24:38)

“Just as it was in the days of Noah, so will it be in the days of the Son of Man. They were eating and drinking and marrying and being given in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all.” (Luke 17:26-27 ESV)

From Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible on Luke 17:27:

“They did eat, they drank,…. That is, the inhabitants of the old world ate and drank, not merely in a common way, with moderation, and for the support and comfort of life, which is not blameworthy, nor inconsistent with religious exercises; but they lived in an extravagant and luxurious manner; they indulged their sensual appetites, and put away the evil day far from them, that Noah told them of:

they married wives, they were given in marriage; not as should have been done by professors of religion among themselves; but the sons of God, or professors of the true religion, the posterity of Seth took them wives of the daughters of men, of the wicked, of the seed of Cain; and very likely gave their daughters in marriage to the sons of men; see Genesis 6:2 and so they went on in a secure manner, notwithstanding all the remonstrances, warnings, and threatenings of God, by his servant:

until the day that Noe entered into the ark; which he had built by divine direction, for the saving of himself and family, and the creatures that were with him, from the waters of the flood; and this was in the six hundredth year of his life, in the second month, the month of October, and in the seventeenth day of that month; Genesis 7:11

and the flood came and destroyed them all; all the inhabitants of the earth, every living substance, men, cattle, creeping things, and fowls of the heaven; all but Noah, and his wife, and his three sons, and their wives, and the creatures that were with him in the ark: the flood came not of itself, or by chance, or through the influence, or by the concurrence of second causes merely; though these were used, ordered, and directed by the first cause of all things; but it came by the power of God, according to his will; he brought it on the world of the ungodly; see 2 Peter 2:5 The mode of expression is Jewish; it is said of Cain, who is supposed by the Jews to have lived till the flood, “the flood came”, and washed him away.” (1)

“By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.” (Hebrews 11:7)

From Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary on Hebrews 11:7:

7. warned of God—the same Greek, Heb. 8:5, “admonished of God.”

Moved with fear—not mere slavish fear, but as in Heb. 5:7; see on [2585] Heb. 5:7; Greek, “reverential fear”: opposed to the world’s sneering disbelief of the revelation, and self-deceiving security. Join “by faith” with “prepared an ark” (1Pe 3:20).

By the which—faith.

Condemned the world—for since he believed and was saved, so might they have believed and been saved, so that their condemnation by God is by his case shown to be just.

Righteousness, which is by faith—Greek, “according to faith.” A Pauline thought. Noah is first called “righteous” in Ge 6:9. Christ calls Abel so, Mt 23:35. Compare as to Noah’s righteousness, Ezekiel 14:14, 20; 2Pe 2:5, “a preacher of righteousness.” Paul here makes faith the principle and ground of his righteousness.

Heir—the consequence of sonship which flows from faith.” (2)

“And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly.” (2Peter 2:5)

From the Pulpit Commentary on 2Peter 2:5:

“Verse 5. – And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person; rather, as in the Revised Version, the ancient world, but preserved Noah with seven others. “The eighth” is a common classical idiom (generally with the pronoun αὐτός) for with seven others. Mark the close parallelism with 1Peter 3:20, where, as here, the apostle impresses upon his readers the fewness of the saved. A preacher of righteousness. The Old Testament narrative does not directly assert this; but “a just man and perfect,” who “walked with God” (Genesis 6:9), must have been a preacher (literally, “herald”) of righteousness to the ungodly among whom he lived. Josephus, in a well-known passage (‘Ant.,’ 1:03, 1), says that Noah tried to persuade his neighbours to change their mind and their actions for the better. Bringing in the Flood upon the world of the ungodly. The Revised Version renders, when he brought a Flood upon the world. In the Greek, there is no article throughout this verse. In verse 1 the ungodly are represented as bringing upon themselves swift destruction; here God brings the punishment upon them. The same Greek verb is used in both places. In one place St. Peter gives the human, in the other the Divine, aspect of the same events (comp. Clement I, 7 and 9).” (3)

“Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished.” (2Peter 3:6)

From Matthew Poole’s Commentary on 2Peter 3:6:

“Whereby, by which heavens and water, mentioned in the former verse, the fountains of the great deep being broken up, and the windows of heaven opened, Genesis 7:11. Or, by the word of God, as the principal cause, and the water as the instrumental, which, at his command, was poured out upon the earth both from above and below.

The world; the earth, with all the inhabitants of it, eight persons excepted. This the apostle allegeth against the forementioned scoffers, who said that all things continued as they were, when yet the flood had made so great a change in the face of the lower creation.” (4)

From Baker’s Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology on the Flood:

Terminology. The Genesis flood is denoted in the Old Testament by the technical Hebrew term mabbul [2Peter 3:6).

Extra biblical Parallels. Ancient flood stories are almost universal (up to 230 different stories are known). Floods are by far the most frequently given cause for past world calamities in the folk literature of antiquity. The stories nearest to the area of the dispersion at Babel are the closest in detail to the biblical account.

Four main flood stories are found in Mesopotamian sources: the Sumerian Eridu Genesis (ca. 1600 b.c.), the Old Babylonian Atrahasis Epic (ca. 1600 b.c.), the Gilgamesh Epic (Neo-Assyrian version, ca. eighth to the seventh centuries b.c.), and Berossus’ account (Babylon, third century b.c.).

The Unity of the Genesis Flood Account. The detailed chiastic literary structure of Genesis 6-9 argues for the unity of the flood narrative instead of small textual units (J and P) as suggested by the Documentary Hypothesis. A close reading of the flood narrative as a coherent literary whole, with particular attention to the chiastic structure, resolves apparent discrepancies in the Genesis account.

Theology of the Flood. Theology as History: The Historical Nature of the Flood. In the literary structure of the flood narrative the genealogical frame or envelope construction (Genesis 5:32, 9:28-29) plus the secondary genealogies (Genesis 6:9-10, 9:18-19) are indicators that the account is intended to be factual history. The use of the genealogical term toledot [6:9) as throughout Genesis (13 times, structuring the whole book), indicates that the author intended this narrative to be as historically veracious as the rest of Genesis. A number of references in the Book of Job may allude to the then-relatively-recent flood (9:5-8; 12:14-15; 14:11-12; 22:15-17; 26:10-14; 27:20-22; 28:9; 38:8-11). The occurrence of the flood is an integral part of the saving/judging Acts of God in redemptive history, and its historicity is assumed and essential to the theological arguments of later biblical writers employing flood typology.

The Motive or Theological Cause of the Flood . In contrast with the ancient Near Eastern flood stories, in which no cause of the flood is given (Gilgamesh Epic) or in which the gods decide to wipe out their human slaves because they are making too much noise (Atrahasis Epic and Eridu Genesis), the biblical account provides a profound theological motivation for the flood: humankind’s moral depravity and sinfulness, the all-pervading corruption and violence of all living beings (“all flesh”) on earth (Genesis 6:1-8,11-12 ), which demands divine punishment.

The God of the Flood (Theodicy). The theological motivation provides a divine justification (theodicy) for the flood. In contrast to the other ancient Near Eastern stories, in which the gods are arbitrary, acting out of unreasoning anger, selfishness, and caprice, seeking to deceive the people and not inform them of the impending flood, the biblical picture of the God of the flood is far different. God extends a probationary period during which his Spirit is striving with humanity to repent (Genesis 6:3). God warned the antediluvian world through Noah, the “preacher of righteousness” (2Peter 2:5; cf. 1 Peter 3:19-20).

God himself makes provision for the saving of humankind (Genesis 6:14-16). He “repents”—he is sorry, moved to pity, having compassion, suffering grief (Genesis 6:6). God takes up humanity’s pain and anguish (Genesis 6:6; 3:16-17). The divine act of destruction is not arbitrary. God “destroys” what humanity had already ruined or corrupted; he mercifully brings to completion the ruin already wrought by humankind.

The God of the biblical flood is not only just and merciful; he is also free to act according to his divine will, and he possesses sovereign power and full control over the forces of nature (in contrast to the weakness and fright of the gods during the flood, according to ancient Near Eastern stories). Yahweh’s omnipotent sovereignty seems to be the theological thrust of Psalm 29:10, the only biblical reference outside Genesis employing the term mabbul [מַבוּלּ]: “Yahweh sat enthroned at the flood.”

The choice of divine names throughout the flood narrative, instead of indicating separate sources, seems to highlight different aspects of God’s character: the generic Elohim when his universal, transcendent sovereignty or judicial authority is emphasized; and the covenant name Yahweh when his personal, ethical dealings with Noah and humankind are in view.

Human Moral Responsibility. The portrayal of humanity’s moral depravity as the cause of the flood highlights human responsibility for sin. Noah’s response of faith/faithfulness (Hebrews 11:7 ) underscores that accountability to God is not only corporate but individual: Noah found “favor” in God’s sight, he was “righteous,” “blameless,” and “walked together” in personal relationship with God (Genesis 6:8-9 ); he responded in implicit obedience to God’s commands (Genesis 6:22; 7:5,9; cf. Ezekiel 14:14,20).

Eschatological Judgment. When God announced the coming of the flood to Noah he said, “I have determined to make an end of all flesh” (Genesis 6:13). The “eschatological” term qes (end) later became a technical term for the eschaton. The divine judgment involved a period of probation (Genesis 6:3), followed by a judicial investigation (“The Lord saw” Genesis 6:5; “I have determined,” Genesis 6:13; RSV), the sentence (Genesis 6:7), and its execution (the bringing of the flood, Genesis 7:11-24). The New Testament recognizes the divine judgment of the Genesis flood as a typological foreshadowing of the final eschatological judgment.

The Noahic Covenant. The word berit [Genesis 6:18; 9:8-17), and the covenant motif is an integral part of the flood narrative. The Noahic covenant comes at God’s initiative, and demonstrates his concern, faithfulness, and dependability. He covenants never again to send a flood to destroy the earth. This covenant promise flows from the propitiatory animal sacrifice offered by Noah (Genesis 8:20-22).

Unlike the other biblical covenants, the Noahic covenant is made not only with humankind but with the whole earth (Genesis 9:13) including every living creature (Genesis 9:10, 12, 15, 16), and is thus completely unilateral and unconditional upon the response of the earth and its inhabitants. The sign of this everlasting covenant is the rainbow, which is not primarily for humankind, but for God to see and “remember” the covenant he has made with the earth (Genesis 9:16).

The Flood Remnant. The flood narrative contains the first mention in the biblical canon of the motif and terminology of remnant: “Only Noah and those who were with him in the ark remained [saar]” (Genesis 7:23). The remnant who survived the cosmic catastrophe of the flood were constituted thus because of their right relationship of faith and obedience to God, not because of caprice or the favoritism of the gods, as in the extra biblical ancient Near Eastern flood stories.

Salvific Grace. God’s grace is revealed already before the flood in his directions for the building of the ark to save those faithful to him (Genesis 6:14-21 ); and again after the flood in his covenant/promise never again to destroy the earth with a flood, even though human nature remained evil (Genesis 8:20-22; 9:8-17).

But the theological (and literary, chiastic) heart of the flood account is found in the phrase “God remembered Noah” (Genesis 8:1). The memory theology of Scripture does not imply that God has literally forgotten; for God to “remember” is to act in deliverance (see Exodus 6:5). The structural positioning of God’s “remembering” at the center of the narrative indicates that the apex of flood theology is not punitive judgment but divine salvific grace.

Numerous thematic and verbal parallels between the accounts of Noah’s salvation and Israel’s exodus deliverance reveal the author’s intent to emphasize their similarity. Various references in the psalms to God’s gracious deliverance of the righteous from the “great waters” of tribulation, may contain allusions to the Genesis flood (Psalm 18:16; 32:6; 65:5-8; 69:2; 89:9; 93:3; 124:4).

Flood Typology. The typological nature of the flood account is already implicit in Genesis. Isaiah provides an explicit verbal indicator that the flood is a type of covenantal eschatology (54:9), along with several possible allusions to the flood in his descriptions of the eschatological salvation of Israel (24:18; 28:2; 43:2; 54:8). The prophets Nahum (Nahum 1:8) and Daniel (9:26) depict the eschatological judgment in language probably alluding to the Genesis flood.

The New Testament writers recognize the typological connection between flood and eschatology. The salvation of Noah and his family in the ark through the waters of the flood finds its antitypical counterpart in New Testament eschatological salvation connected with water baptism (1 Peter 3:18-22 ). The flood is also a type of the final eschatological judgment at the end of the world, and the conditions of pre-flood morality provide signs of the end times (Matthew 24:37-39; Luke 17:26-27; 2Peter 2:5, 9; 3:5-7).

Universality of the Flood. One of the most controversial aspects of flood theology concerns the extent of the flood. Three major positions are taken: (1) the traditional, which asserts the universal, worldwide, nature of the deluge; (2) limited flood theories, which narrow the scope of the flood story to a particular geographical location in Mesopotamia; and (3) nonliteral (symbolic) interpretation, which suggests that the flood story is a nonhistorical account written to teach theological truth. Against the third interpretation, we have already discussed the historical nature of the flood. Of the two first positions, the limited flood theories rest primarily on scientific arguments that set forth seemingly difficult physical problems for a universal flood. These problems are not insurmountable given the supernatural nature of the flood; numerous recent scientific studies also provide a growing body of evidence for diluvial catastrophism instead of uniformitarianism. Only the traditional universalist understanding does full justice to all the biblical data, and this interpretation is crucial for flood theology in Genesis and for the theological implications drawn by later biblical writers.

Many lines of biblical evidence converge in affirming the universal extent of the flood and also reveal the theological significance of this conclusion: (1) the trajectory of major themes in Genesis 1-11 creation, fall, plan of redemption, spread of sin is universal in scope and calls for a matching universal judgment; (2) the genealogical lines from both Adam (Genesis 4:17-26; 5:1-31) and Noah (Genesis 10:1-32; 11:1-9) are exclusive in nature, indicating that as Adam was father of all preflood humanity, so Noah was father of all postflood humanity; (3) the same inclusive divine blessing to be fruitful and multiply is given to both Adam and Noah (Genesis 1:28; 9:1); (4) the covenant (Genesis 9:9-10) and its rainbow sign (Genesis 9:12-17) are clearly linked with the extent of the flood (Genesis 9:16,18); if there was only a local flood, then the covenant would be only a limited covenant; (5) the viability of God’s promise (Genesis 9:15; cf. Isaiah 54:9) is wrapped up in the universality of the flood; if only a local flood occurred, then God has broken his promise every time another local flood has happened; (6) the universality of the flood is underscored by the enormous size of the ark (Genesis 6:14-15) and the stated necessity for saving all the species of animals and plants in the ark (Genesis 6:16-21; 7:2-3); a massive ark filled with representatives of all nonaquatic animal/plant species would be unnecessary if this were only a local flood; (7) the covering of “all the high mountains” by at least twenty feet of water (Genesis 7:19-20) could not involve simply a local flood, since water seeks its own level across the surface of the globe; (8) the duration of the flood (Noah in the ark over a year, Genesis 7:11-8:14) makes sense only with a universal flood; (9) the New Testament passages concerning the flood all employ universal language (“took them all away” [ Matthew 24:39]; “destroyed them all” [Luke 17:27]; Noah “condemned the world” [Hebrews 11:7]); and (10) the New Testament flood typology assumes and depends upon the universality of the flood to theologically argue for an imminent worldwide judgment by fire (2Peter 3:6-7).

The theology of the flood is the pivot of a connected but multifaceted universal theme running through Genesis 1-11 and the whole rest of Scripture: creation, and the character of the Creator, in his original purpose for creation; uncreation, in humankind’s turning from the Creator, the universal spread of sin, ending in universal eschatological judgment; and re-creation, in the eschatological salvation of the faithful remnant and the universal renewal of the earth. Richard M. Davidson (5)

In closing:

“The LORD sitteth upon the flood; yea, the LORD sitteth King forever.” (Psalm 29:10)

From Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible on Psalm 29:10:

“The Lord sitteth upon the flood,…. Noah’s flood; which is always designed by the word here used, the Lord sat and judged the old world for its wickedness, and brought a flood upon them, and destroyed them; and then he abated it, sent a wind to assuage the waters, stopped up the windows of heaven, and the fountains of the great deep, and restrained rain from heaven; and he now sits upon the confidence of waters in the heavens, at the time of a thunder storm, which threatens with an overflowing flood; and he remembers his covenant, and restrains them from destroying the earth any more: and he sits upon the floods of ungodly men, and stops their rage and fury, and suffers them not to proceed to overwhelm his people and interest; and so the floods of afflictions of every kind, and the floods of Satan’s temptations, and of errors and heresies, are at his control, and he permits them to go so far, and no farther;

yea, the Lord sitteth King for ever: he is King of the whole world, over angels and men, and even the kings of the earth; and he is also King of saints, in whose hearts he reigns by his Spirit and grace; and the Gospel dispensation is more eminently his kingdom, in which his spiritual government is most visible; and this will more appear in the latter day glory, when the Lord shall be King over all the earth; and after which the Lord Christ will reign with his saints here a thousand years, and then with them to all eternity, and of his kingdom there shall be no end.” (6)

From Strong’s Lexicon:

“over the flood;

לַמַּבּ֣וּל (lam·mab·būl)

Preposition-l, Article | Noun – masculine singular

Strong’s Hebrew 3999: 1) flood, deluge. 1a) Noah’s flood that submerged the entire planet earth under water for about a year. Some think Noah’s flood was only local. However, the description of it found in Gen. 6 through 8 makes this patently absurd. If it was local, Noah had 120 years to migrate out of the area to safe ground! Why waste all that effort building a ship? He only had to move less than 1500 feet a day to reach the farthest point on the globe! With the possible exception of Ps 29:10, this word always refers to Noah’s flood. The real reason for insisting on a local flood is the acceptance of evolution with its long geological ages. Most holding that view are not willing to allow a global worldwide flood to have happened less than 5000 years ago. To admit such eliminates the need for the geological ages for most of the geological column would have been rapidly laid down by Noah’s flood.” (7)

God’s covenant with Noah:

“And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there anymore be a flood to destroy the earth.” (Genesis 9:11)

“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. John Gill, Exposition of the Old and New Testaments, Luke, 9 Volumes, (Grace Works, Multi-Media Labs), 2011, p. 486.

2. Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, Commentary on the Whole Bible, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Zondervan, 1977) p. 1433.

3. H. D. M. Spence and Joseph S. Exell, The Pulpit Commentary, 2Peter, Vol.22., (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Eerdmans Publishing Company reprint 1978), p. 44.

4. Matthew Poole’s Commentary on the Holy Bible, (Peabody, Massachusetts, Hendrickson Publishers, 1985) p. 926.

5. Walter A. Elwell, Editor, Baker’s Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Baker Book House), p. 261-263.

6. John Gill, Exposition of the Old and New Testaments, Psalms, 9 Volumes, (Grace Works, Multi-Media Labs), 2011, p. 327-328.

7. KJV Bible with Comprehensive Strong’s Dictionary (3 in 1): [Illustrated]: KJV Bible with Strong’s markup, Strong’s dictionary with Lexicon definitions, Bible word index [Kindle Edition] 152552-152559.

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: http://www.TheReligionThatStartedInAHat.com

For more study:

* http://www.rebecca-writes.com/…/theological-term-of-the-wee…

Answers in Genesis the Flood https://answersingenesis.org/the-flood/

What is the Gospel? By Jack Kettler

Concisely:

“Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures.” (1Corinthians 15:1-4 ESV)

Definitions

The Gospel is the good news that we have forgiveness of sins through Jesus. Specifically, the gospel is defined by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4: “Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures.”

The gospel comes from God (Galatians 1:10-12), is the power of God for salvation (Romans 1:16), is a mystery (Ephesians 6:19), and is a source of hope (Colossians 1:23), faith (Acts 15:7), life (1Corinthians 4:15), and peace (Ephesians 6:15). *

The Gospel:

The word gospel literally means “good news” and occurs 93 times in the Bible, exclusively in the New Testament. In Greek, it is the word euaggelion, from which we get our English words evangelist, evangel, and evangelical. The gospel is, broadly speaking, the whole of Scripture; more narrowly, the gospel is the good news concerning Christ and the way of salvation. **

Synonyms for Gospel:

Christian teaching, Christ’s teaching, the life of Christ, the word of God, the good news, Christian doctrine, the New Testament, the writings of the evangelists

From Strong’s Lexicon:

Gospel

εὐαγγέλιον (euangelion)

Noun – Accusative Neuter Singular

Strong’s Greek 2098: From the same as euaggelizo, a good message, i.e. the gospel.

Commentary selections on each verse from 1Corinthian 15:1-4:

Consider the excellent entry on 1Corinthians 15:1 from Barnes’ Notes on the Bible:

“Moreover – But (δὲ de). In addition to what I have said or in that which I am now about to say, I make known the main and leading truth of the gospel. The particle δὲ de is “strictly adversative, but more frequently denotes transition and conversion, and serves to introduce something else, whether opposite to what precedes, or simply continuative or explanatory” – Robinson. Here it serves to introduce another topic that was not properly a continuation of what he had said, but which pertained to the same general subject, and which was deemed of great importance.

I declare unto you – (Γνωρίζω Gnōrizō). This word properly means to make known, to declare, to reveal Luke 2:15; Romans 9:22-23; then to tell, narrate, inform Ephesians 6:21; Colossians 4:7, Colossians 4:9; and also to put in mind of, to impress, to confirm; see the note at 1Corinthians 12:3. Here it does not mean that he was communicating to them any new truth, but he wished to remind them of it, to state the arguments for it, and to impress it deeply on their memories. There is an abruptness in our translation, which does not exist in the original. Bloomfield.

The gospel – See the note at Mark 1:1. The word here means the “glad announcement,” or the “good news” about the coming of the Messiah, his life, and sufferings, and death, and especially his resurrection. The main subject to which Paul refers in this chapter is the resurrection, but he includes in the word gospel. Here, the doctrine that he died for sins, and was buried, as well as the doctrine of his resurrection; see 1Corinthians 15:3-4.

Which I preached unto you – Paul founded the church at Corinth; Acts 18:1 ff. It was proper that he should remind them of what he had taught them at first; of the great elementary truths on which the church had been established, but from which their minds had been diverted by the other subjects that had been introduced as matters of debate and strife. It was fair to presume that they would regard with respect the doctrines, which the founder of their church had first proclaimed, if they were reminded of them; and Paul, therefore, calls their attention to the great and vital truths by which they had been converted, and by which the church had thus far prospered. It is well, often, to remind Christians of the truths, which were preached to them when they were converted, and which were instrumental in their conversion. When they have gone off from these doctrines, when they had given their minds to speculation and philosophy, it has a good effect to “remind” them that they were converted by the simple truths, that Christ died, and was buried, and rose again from the dead. The argument of Paul here is, that they owed all the piety and comfort, which they had to these doctrines; and that, therefore, they should still adhere to them as the foundation of all their hopes.

Which also ye have received – Which you embraced; which you all admitted as true; which were the means of your conversion. I would remind you, that, however that truth may now be denied by you, it was once received by you, and you professed to believe in the fact that Christ rose from the dead, and that the saints would rise.

And wherein ye stand – By which your church was founded, and by which all your piety and hope has been produced, and which is at the foundation of all your religion. You were built up by this, and by this only can you stand as a Christian church. This doctrine was vital and fundamental. This demonstrates that the doctrines that Christ died “for sins,” and rose from the dead, are fundamental truths of Christianity. They enter into its very nature; and without them there can be no true religion.” (1)

Matthew Poole’s Commentary captures the apostle thought nicely from 1Corinthinas 15:2:

“By which also ye are saved; by the believing, receiving, of which doctrine, you are already in the way to salvation (as it is said, John 3:18: He that believeth on him is not condemned; and John 3:36: He hath everlasting life, and shall be eternally saved): but not unless ye persevere (for that is meant by keeping in memory the doctrine which I have preached unto you); and this you must do, or your believing will signify nothing, but be in vain to your souls.” (2)

The Pulpit Commentary summarizes 1Corinthians 15:3 well:

“Verse 3. – First of all; literally, among the first things; but this idiom means “first of all.” It does not occur elsewhere in the New Testament, but is found in Genesis 33:2, 2Samuel 5:8 (LXX.). This testimony to the Resurrection is very remarkable, because:

1. It is the completest summary.

2. It refers to some incidents, which are not mentioned in the Gospels.

3. It declares that the death and resurrection of Christ were a subject of ancient prophecy.

4. It shows the force of the evidence on which the apostles relied and the number of living eye witnesses to whom they could appeal.

5. It is the earliest written testimony to the Resurrection; for it was penned within twenty-five years of the event itself.

6. It shows that the evidence for the Resurrection as a literal, historical, objective fact was sufficient to convince the powerful intellect of a hostile contemporary observer.

7. It probably embodies, and became the model for, a part of the earliest Creed of the Church. For our sins, literally, on behalf of. The passage is remarkable as the only one in which “on behalf of” is used with “sins” in St. Paul. In 1Corinthians 1:13 we are told that he died” on behalf of us” (Romans 5:8; see 2Corinthians 5:21; 1Peter 2:24). The expressions involve the image of Christ as a Sin Offering for the forgiveness of sins. According to the Scriptures. The chief passages alluded to are doubtless Isaiah 53:5, 8; Daniel 9:26; Psalm 22; Zechariah 12:10; together with such types as the offering of Isaac (Genesis 22.) and the Paschal lamb, etc. Our Lord had taught the apostles confidently to refer to the Messianic interpretation of the Old Testament prophecies (Luke 24:25, 46: Acts 8:35; Acts 17:3; Acts 26:22, 23; John 2:22; John 20:9; 1 Peter 1:11).” (3)

Contemplate Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible on 1Corinthians 15:4:

“And that he was buried,…. That is, according to the Scriptures; for as he died and rose again according to the Scriptures, he was buried according to them; which speak of his being in hell, in “sheol”, in the grave, and of his making his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, Psalm 16:10 and which had their accomplishment through Joseph of Arimathea, a rich man, who begged the body of Jesus, wrapped in linen, and laid it in his own new tomb. And besides these Scripture prophecies of his burial, Jonah’s being three days and three nights in the whale’s belly was a type of it, and according to which our Lord himself foretold it, Matthew 12:40. Now since this was prophesied of, and typified, and had its actual accomplishment, it was very proper for the apostle to take notice of it, both to confirm the certainty of Christ’s death, and the truth of his resurrection, which his death and burial are mentioned, in order to lead on to, and next follows:

And that he rose again the third day according to the Scriptures: that he should rise again from the dead was very plainly hinted or expressed in several prophecies which speak of the rising of his dead body, of its not being left in the grave so long as to see corruption; and which therefore could not be in it more than three days; and of his lifting up his head after he had drank of the brook by the way; of his ascension to heaven, and session at the right hand of God, which suppose his resurrection, Isaiah 26:19. And that he should rise again the third day, is not only suggested in Hosea 6:2 but was prefigured by the deliverance of Isaac on the third day after Abraham had given him up for dead, from whence he received him, in a figure of Christ’s resurrection; and by Jonah’s deliverance out of the whale’s belly, after he had been in it three days. The Jews take a particular notice of the third day as remarkable for many things they observe (e), as

“Of the third day Abraham lift up his eyes, Genesis 22:4 of the third day of the tribes, Genesis 42:18 of the third day of the spies, Joshua 2:16 of the third day of the giving of the law, Exodus 19:16 of the third day of Jonah, Jonah 1:17 of the third day of them that came out of the captivity, Ezra 8:15 of the third day of the resurrection of the dead, as it is written, Hosea 6:2 “after two days will he revive us, in the third day he will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight”.”

From which passage, it is clear, that they under stood the prophecy in Hosea of the resurrection of the dead; and it is observable, that among the remarkable third days they take notice of, are the two instances of Isaac’s and Jonah’s deliverances, which were Scripture types of Christ’s resurrection. From which observations they establish this as a maxim (f), that

“God does not leave the righteous in distress more than three days.”’

That Christ did rise again from the dead, in pursuance of those prophecies and types, the apostle afterwards proves by an induction of particular instances of persons who were eyewitnesses of it.” (4)

What does a man need to do in light of the gospel message?

Paul declares the following concerning man’s condition, “As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one…that every mouth may be stopped, and the entire world may become guilty before God” Romans 3:10, 19. This is a sinner’s condition. This condition of sin must be acknowledged in humility. Paul goes on to say, “For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord” Romans 6:23. All humanity has earned the wages of death. God in his mercy gives the gift of eternal life based upon the work of Christ. The only thing that humankind has earned and deserved is death. Eternal life comes as a gift. If the confession sin and the accepting the work of Christ on one’s behalf is real, this confession will agree that there was and is absolutely nothing in a man that caused God to give this gift. Jesus Christ gets all the glory and praise.

Gospel presentation for sinners:

The basics of the gospel message might be presented like this:

God is perfect and holy and He requires nothing less than His own perfection. But, we are not able to attain His holiness. He doesn’t lie, cheat, or steal, but we do these things. Therefore, there’s a judgment upon us because we have broken the Law of God, we have sinned by lying and cheating and stealing. This judgment is eternal damnation. However, God the Father loves us so much that He sent God the Son, Jesus, who died on the cross as a sacrifice to pay the penalty for our sins. He died on the cross and physically rose from the dead three days later. This proves that His sacrifice was acceptable to the Father. Therefore, if you want to receive what Jesus has done to remove the wrath of God the Father, then you must receive Him and His sacrifice by faith. Would you like to pray and ask Jesus to forgive your sins against God? * From CARM

The results of gospel conversion:

The converted sinner will attempt to do as the writer of Hebrews sets forth: “Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith” (Hebrews 12:2). The repentant sinner will look to Jesus by giving him the glory in all things. God is the one that gives the gift of faith. The sinner is saved by grace and even the faith is a gift. Ephesians 2:8 says, “And that not of yourselves.” What is not of yourselves? Faith! Did the sinner choose Christ and exercise faith on his own apart from God and His divine working? Who gets the glory? Christ or the sinner? Why does a sinner choose to believe? Ephesians 1:4, 5 supplies the answer: “According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will.” Was this salvation in the sinner’s hands to choose or reject? If this were the case, could not the sinner glory in himself? How can that be so? Because the sinner would have done something, others had not done. The following verse tells us that it is, “according to the good pleasure of his will.” “So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy” (Romans 9:16). Salvation is by Grace and not of works!

Hymns about Grace:

When I stand before the throne,
Dressed in beauty not my own,
When I see Thee as Thou art,
Love Thee With unsinning heart Robert Murray McCheyne

1 Rock of Ages, cleft for me,
let me hide myself in thee;
let the water and the blood,
from thy wounded side which flowed,
be of sin the double cure;
save from wrath and make me pure.

2 Not the labors of my hands
can fulfill thy law’s demands;
could my zeal no respite know,
could my tears forever flow,
all for sin could not atone;
thou must save, and thou alone.

3 Nothing in my hand I bring,
simply to the cross I cling;
naked, come to thee for dress;
helpless, look to thee for grace;
foul, I to the fountain fly;
wash me, Savior, or I die.

4 While I draw this fleeting breath,
when mine eyes shall close in death,
when I soar to worlds unknown,
see thee on thy judgment throne,
Rock of Ages, cleft for me,
let me hide myself in thee. Augustus Toplady

Quotes on Grace:

“Even if we have thousands of acts of great virtue to our credit, our confidence in being heard must be based on God’s mercy and His love for men. Even if we stand at the very summit of virtue, it is by mercy that we shall be saved.” – St. John Chrysostom

“The nature of the Divine goodness is not only to open to those who knock. But also to cause them to knock and ask.” – Augustine

“We ought always to beware of making the smallest claim for ourselves.” – John Calvin

“Grace alone makes the elect gracious; grace alone keeps them gracious; and the same grace alone will render them everlastingly glorious in the heaven of heavens.” – Augustus Toplady

“You may be quite certain that if you love God it is a fruit, not a root.” – C.H. Spurgeon

“We are not born again by repentance or faith or conversion: we repent and believe because we have been born again.” – John Murray

“As grace led me to faith in the first-place, so grace will keep me believing to the end. Faith, both in its origin and continuance, is a gift of grace.” – J.I. Packer

“Regeneration, however it is described, is a divine activity in us, in which we are not the actors but the recipients.” – Sinclair Ferguson

“Without the Holy Spirit there would be no new birth, no illumination, no understanding or affection for the gospel, and thus no faith — in other words, no Christians.” – J.W. Hendryx

“To make human action the cause of divine blessing is to overturn the whole nature of salvation.” – Iain Murray

In closing, the Word of God:

“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, 1Corinthians, Vol. 3 p. 2770.

2. Matthew Poole’s Commentary on the Holy Bible, (Peabody, Massachusetts, Hendrickson Publishers, 1985) p. 592.

3. H. D. M. Spence and Joseph S. Exell, The Pulpit Commentary, 1Corinthians, Vol.19., (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Eerdmans Publishing Company reprint 1978), p. 484.

4. John Gill, Exposition of the Old and New Testaments, 1Corinthians, 9 Volumes, (Grace Works, Multi-Media Labs), 2011, p. 351-352.

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: http://www.TheReligionThatStartedInAHat.com

* CARM Theological Dictionary https://www.studylight.org/dictionaries/ctd/g/gospel.html https://carm.org/how-to-present-gospel-properly

** What is the gospel? At GOT Questions https://www.gotquestions.org/what-is-the-gospel.html

What is meant by the term Atonement? By Jack Kettler

As in previous studies, we will look at definitions, scriptures, lexical, and commentary evidence and confessional support for the purpose to glorify God in how we live.

Definitions: Atonement or substitutionary atonement

Atonement: To atone means to make amends, to repair a wrong done. Biblically, it means to remove sin. The Old Testament atonements offered by the high priest were temporary and a foreshadow of the real and final atonement made by Jesus. Jesus atoned for the sins of the world (1John 2:2). This atonement is received by faith (Romans 5:1; Ephesians 2:8-9).

Man is a sinner (Romans 5:8) and cannot atone for himself. Therefore, it was the love of the Father that sent Jesus (1John 4:10) to die in our place (1Peter 3:18) for our sins (1Peter 2:24). Because of the atonement, our fellowship with God is restored (Romans 5:10). *

What is the substitutionary atonement?

Answer: The substitutionary atonement refers to Jesus Christ dying as a substitute for sinners. The Scriptures teach that all men are sinners (Romans 3:9-18, 23). The penalty for our sinfulness is death. Romans 6:23 reads, “For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” **

What the Scriptures say along with selected commentary entries:

“For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.” (Leviticus 17:11)

“But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes, we are healed.” (Isaiah 53:5)

The Pulpit Commentary provides excellent commentary of this passage from Isaiah:

“Verse 5. – But he was wounded for our transgressions. This verse contains four asseverations of the great truth that all Christ’s sufferings were for us, and constituted the atonement for our sins. The form is varied, but the truth is one. Christ was “wounded” or “pierced”

(1) by the thorns; (2) by the nails; and (3) by the spear of the soldier.

The wounds inflicted by the nails caused his death, He was bruised; or, crushed (comp. Isaiah 3:15; Isaiah 19:10; Isaiah 57:15. Psalm 72:4). “No stronger expression could be found in Hebrew to denote severity of suffering – suffering unto death” (Urwick). The chastisement of our peace was upon him; i.e. “the chastisement which brought us peace,” which put a stop to the enmity between fallen man and an offended God – which made them once more at one (comp. Ephesians 2:15-17, “Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the Law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; and that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: and came and preached peace to you which were afar off;” Colossians 1:20, “Having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself”). With his stripes we are healed; rather, we were healed (comp. 1Peter 2:24, “By whose stripes ye were healed”). Besides the blows inflicted on him with the hand (Matthew 26:27) and with the reed (Matthew 27:30), our Lord was judicially scourged (Matthew 27:26). Such scourging would leave the “stripe-marks” which are here spoken of.” (1)

“Who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification.” (Romans 4:25ESV)

“For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.” (Romans 5:6)

“Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.” (Hebrews 9:12)

“And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.” (Hebrews 9:22)

“Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate.” (Hebrews 13:12)

“Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.” (1Peter 2:24)

Matthew Poole’s Commentary is profitable for 1Peter 2:24:

“Who his own self, not by offering any other sacrifice, (as the Levitical priests did), but by that of himself.

Bare our sins; or, took up, or lifted up, in allusion to the sacrifices of the Old Testament, the same word being used of them, Hebrews 7:27 Jam 2:21. As the sins of the offerer were typically laid upon the sacrifice, which, being substituted in his place, was likewise slain in his stead; so Christ standing in our room, took upon him the guilt of our sins, and bare their punishment, Isaiah 53:4, &c. The Lord laid on him our iniquities, and he willingly took them up; and by bearing their curse, took away our guilt. Or, it may have respect to the cross, on which Christ being lifted up, {John 3:14, 15 Joh 12:32} took up our sins with him, and expiated their guilt by undergoing that death which was due to us for them.

In his own body; this doth not exclude his soul but is rather to be understood, by a synecdoche, of his whole human nature, and we have the sufferings of his soul mentioned, Isaiah 53:10,12Jo 12:27; but mention is made of his body, because the sufferings of that were most visible.

On the tree, on the cross.

That we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness; another end of Christ’s death, the mortification of sin, and our being freed from the dominion of it, Romans 6:2,6, and being reformed to a life of holiness.

By whose stripes ye were healed; viz. of the wound made in your souls by sin: this seems to relate to the blows that servants might receive of cruel masters, against which the apostle comforts them, and to the patient bearing of which he exhorts them, because Christ by bearing stripes, (a servile punishment), under which may be comprehended all the sufferings of his death, had healed them of much worse wounds, and spiritual diseases, the guilt of their consciences, and the defilement of their souls.” (2)

“And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.” (1John 2:2)

“And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation.” (Revelation 5:9)

Synonyms for atonement:

Redemption; reparation; amends; expiation; payment; propitiation; recompense; redress; restitution; satisfaction

Propitiation: This means the turning away of wrath by an offering. It is similar to expiation but expiation does not carry the nuances involving wrath. For the Christian the propitiation was the shed blood of Jesus on the cross. It turned away the wrath of God so that He could pass “over the sins previously committed” (Romans 3:25). It was the Father who sent the Son to be the propitiation (1John 4:10) for all (1John 2:2). *

Vine’s Expository Dictionary of OT Words on Atone:

Atone

A. Verb.

Kâphar (כָּפַר, Strong’s #3722), “to cover over, atone, propitiate, pacify.” This root is found in the Hebrew language at all periods of its history, and perhaps is best known from the term Yom Kippur, “Day of Atonement.” Its verbal forms occur approximately 100 times in the Hebrew Bible. Kâphar is first found in Gen. 6:14, where it is used in its primary sense of “to cover over.” Here God gives Noah instructions concerning the ark, including, “Cover it inside and out with pitch” (RSV). (The KJV translates, “Pitch it within and without with pitch.”)Most uses of the word, however, involve the theological meaning of “covering over,” often with the blood of a sacrifice, in order to atone for some sin. It is not clear whether this means that the “covering over” hides the sin from God’s sight or implies that the sin is wiped away in this process.

As might be expected, this word occurs more frequently in the Book of Leviticus than in any other book, since Leviticus deals with the ritual sacrifices that were made to atone for sin. For example, Lev. 4:13-21 gives instructions for bringing a young bull to the tent of meeting for a sin offering. After the elders laid their hands on the bull (to transfer the people’s sin to the bull), the bull was killed. The priest then brought some of the blood of the bull into the tent of meeting and sprinkled it seven times before the veil. Some of the blood was put on the horns of the altar and the rest of the blood was poured at the base of the altar of burnt offering. The fat of the bull was then burned on the altar. The bull itself was to be burned outside the camp. By means of this ritual, “the priest shall make an atonement [kâphar] for them, and it shall be forgiven them” (Lev. 4:20).

The term “atonement” is found at least 16 times in Lev. 16, the great chapter concerning the Day of Atonement. Before anything else, the high priest had to “make atonement” for himself and his house by offering a bull as a sin offering. After lots were cast upon the two goats, one was sent away into the wilderness as an atonement (v. 10), while the other was sacrificed and its blood sprinkled on the mercy seat as an atonement for the people (vv. 15-20). The Day of Atonement was celebrated only once a year. Only on this day could the high priest enter the holy of holies of the tabernacle or temple on behalf of the people of Israel and make atonement for them.

Sometimes atonement for sin was made apart from or without blood offerings. During his vision-call experience, Isaiah’s lips were touched with a coal of fire taken from the altar by one of the seraphim. With that, he was told, “Thy sin is purged [kâphar]” (Isa. 6:7). The English versions translate the word variously as “purged” (KJV, JB); “forgiven” (RSV, NASB, TEV); and “wiped away” (NEB). In another passage, Scripture says that the guilt or iniquity of Israel would be “purged” (KJV, NEB) by the destruction of the implements of idolatrous worship (Isa. 27:9). In this case, the RSV renders kapar as “expiated,” while the NASB and TEV translate it as “forgiven.”

B. Noun.

Kappôreth (כַּפֹּרֶת, Strong’s #3727), “mercy seat; throne of mercy.” This noun form of kapar has been variously interpreted by the English versions as “mercy seat” (KJV, RSV); “cover” (NEB); “lid” (TEV); “throne of mercy” (JB); and “throne” (Knox). It refers to a slab of gold that rested on top of the ark of the covenant. Images of two cherubims stood on this slab, facing each other. This slab of gold represented the throne of God and symbolized His real presence in the worship shrine. On the Day of Atonement, the high priest sprinkled the blood of the sin offering on it, apparently symbolizing the blood’s reception by God. Thus, the Kappôreth was the central point at which Israel, through its high priest, could come into the presence of God.

This is further seen in the fact that the temple proper was distinguished from its porches and other accompanying structures by the name “place of the mercy seat (Kappôreth)” (1Chron. 28:11). The Septuagint refers to the mercy seat as a “propitiary” (hilasteirion). (3)

Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words on Atonement:

1Strong’s Number: g2643 Greek: katallage

Atonement:

Translated “atonement” in the AV of Rom 5:11, signifies, not “atonement,” but “reconciliation,” as in the RV. See also Rom 11:15; 2Cr 5:18, 19. So with the corresponding verb katallasso, see under RECONCILE. “Atonement” (the explanation of this English word as being “at-one-ment” is entirely fanciful) is frequently found in the OT. See, for instance, Leviticus, chapters 16 and 17. The corresponding NT words are hilasmos, “propitiation,” 1Jo 2:2; 4:10, and hilasterion, Rom 3:25; Hebrews 9:5, “mercy-seat,” the covering of the ark of the covenant. These describe the means (in and through the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ, in His death on the Cross by the shedding of His blood in His vicarious sacrifice for sin) by which God shows mercy to sinners.

See PROPITIATION.

A-1 Verb Strong’s Number: g2433 Greek: hilaskomai

Propitiation:

was used amongst the Greeks with the significance “to make the gods propitious, to appease, propitiate,” inasmuch as their good will was not conceived as their natural attitude, but something to be earned first. This use of the word is foreign to the Greek Bible, with respect to God, whether in the Sept. or in the NT. It is never used of any act whereby man brings God into a favorable attitude or gracious disposition. It is God who is “propitiated” by the vindication of His holy and righteous character, whereby, through the provision He has made in the vicarious and expiatory sacrifice of Christ, He has so dealt with sin that He can show mercy to the believing sinner in the removal of his guilt and the remission of his sins.

Thus in Luke 18:13 it signifies “to be propitious” or “merciful to” (with the person as the object of the verb), and in Hebrews 2:17 “to expiate, to make propitiation for” (the object of the verb being sins); here the RV, “to make propitiation” is an important correction of the AV, “to make reconciliation.” Through the “propitiation” sacrifice of Christ, he who believes upon Him is by God’s own act delivered from justly deserved wrath, and comes under the covenant of grace. Never is God said to be reconciled, a fact itself indicative that the enmity exists on man’s part alone, and that it is man who needs to be reconciled to God, and not God to man. God is always the same and, since He is Himself immutable, His relative attitude does change towards those who change. He can act differently towards those who come to Him by faith, and solely on the ground of the “propitiatory” sacrifice of Christ, not because He has changed, but because He ever acts according to His unchanging righteousness.

The expiatory work of the Cross is therefore the means whereby the barrier which sin interposes between God and man is broken down. By the giving up of His sinless life sacrificially, Christ annuls the power of sin to separate between God and the believer.

In the OT the Hebrew verb kaphar is connected with kopher, “a covering” (see MERCY-SEAT), and is used in connection with the burnt offering, e.g., Lev 1:4; 14:20; 16:24, the guilt offering e.g., Lev 5:16,18, the sin offering, e.g., Lev 4:20, 26, 31, 35, the sin offering and burnt offering together, e.g., Lev 5:10; 9:7, the meal offering and peace offering, e.g., Ezekiel 45:15, 17, as well as in other respects. It is used of the ram offered at the consecration of the high priest, Exodus 29:33, and of the blood which God gave upon the altar to make “propitiation” for the souls of the people, and that because “the life of the flesh is in the blood,” Lev 17:11, and “it is the blood that maketh atonement by reason of the life” (RV). Man has forfeited his life on account of sin and God has provided the one and only way whereby eternal life could be bestowed, namely, by the voluntary laying down of His life by His Son, under Divine retribution. Of this, the former sacrifices appointed by God were foreshadowings.

B-1 Noun Strong’s Number: g2435 Greek: hilasterion

Propitiation:

Akin to A, is regarded as the neuter of an adjective signifying “propitiatory.” In the Sept. it is used adjectivelly in connection with epithema, “a cover,” in Exodus 25:17; 37:6, of the lid of the ark (see MERCY-SEAT), but it is used as a noun (without epithema), of locality, in Exodus 25:18-22; 31:7; 35:12; 37:7, 8, 9; Lev 16:2, 13-15; Num. 7:89, and this is its use in Hebrews 9:5.

Elsewhere in the NT, it occurs in Rom 3:25, where it is used of Christ Himself; the RV text and punctuation in this verse are important: “whom God set forth to be a propitiation, through faith, by His blood.” The phrase “by His blood” is to be taken in immediate connection with “propitiation.” Christ, through His expiatory death, is the Personal means by whom God shows the mercy of His justifying grace to the sinner who believes. His “blood” stands for the voluntary giving up of His life, by the shedding of His blood in expiatory sacrifice, under Divine judgment righteously due to us as sinners, faith being the sole condition on man’s part.

Note: “By metonymy, ‘blood’ is sometimes put for ‘death,’ inasmuch as, blood being essential to life, Lev 17:11, when the blood is shed life is given up, that is, death takes place. The fundamental principle on which God deals with sinners is expressed in the words ‘apart from shedding of blood,’ i.e., unless a death takes place, ‘there is no remission’ of sins,” Hebrews 9:22.

“But whereas the essential of the type lay in the fact that blood was shed, the essential of the antitype lies in this, that the blood shed was that of Christ. Hence, in connection with Jewish sacrifices, ‘the blood’ is mentioned without reference to the victim from which it flowed, but in connection with the great antitypical sacrifice of the NT the words ‘the blood’ never stand alone; the One Who shed the blood is invariably specified, for it is the Person that gives value to the work; the saving efficacy of the Death depends entirely upon the fact that He Who died was the Son of God.” *

[* From Notes on Thessalonians by Hogg and Vine, p. 168.]

B-2 Noun Strong’s Number: g2434 Greek: hilasmos

Propitiation:

Akin to hileos (“merciful, propitious”), signifies “an expiation, a means whereby sin is covered and remitted.” It is used in the NT of Christ Himself as “the propitiation,” in 1Jo 2:2; 4:10, signifying that He Himself, through the expiatory sacrifice of His Death, is the Personal means by whom God shows mercy to the sinner who believes on Christ as the One thus provided. In the former passage, He is described as “the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the whole world.” The italicized addition in the AV, “the sins of,” gives a wrong interpretation. What is indicated is that provision is made for the whole world, so that no one is, by Divine predetermination, excluded from the scope of God’s mercy; the efficacy of the “propitiation,” however, is made actual for those who believe. In 1Jo 4:10, the fact that God “sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins,” is shown to be the great expression of God’s love toward man, and the reason why Christians should love one another. In the Sept., Lev 25:9; Num. 5:8; 1Ch 28:20; Psalm 130:4; Ezekiel 44:27; Amos 8:14. (4)

Baker’s Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology – Atonement:

Atonement

That the Bible’s central message is atonement, that is, that God has provided a way for humankind to come back into harmonious relation with him, is everywhere apparent in Scripture. From the first stories in Genesis to the last visions of Revelation, God seeks to reconcile his people to himself. Atonement, however, cannot be usefully discussed in this way, and translators have settled on it, and its cognate expressions, as a translation for a relatively circumscribed number of nouns and verbs in the Bible.

The Old Testament In the Old Testament atonement, and related phrases, such as sacrifice of atonement, most often translates the Hebrew piel verb kipur [ruPiK] and two related nouns, one, kippurim, found always in the plural and signifying the noun equivalent of kipur [ruPiK], and the other, kapporeth [t,roP;K], meaning the so-called mercy-seat or the place where the sacrifice of atonement happens. These occur with meanings related to atonement around 140 times, almost always in the context of the cults, as a sacrifice for sins and to provide reconciliation to God.

The breadth of the use of the concept in the Old Testament is striking. Atonement is provided for inanimate objects such as a mildewing house, the altar in the temple, the sanctuary (i.e., the Holy of Holies within the Tent of Meeting), the holy place, and the tent of meeting/temple itself. In one place atonement is also provided for an animal, the scapegoat used in the atonement rituals found in Leviticus 16. Sacrifice accomplishes atonement “for sins” in many places, though these passages always mean atonement for people “because of” their sins rather than atonement “on behalf of” sins, as if sins were being personified and therefore in need of redemption. Of course, the majority of all the references are to atonement on behalf of people, either individually or as members of the community of Israel.

Atonement for inanimate objects is found twelve places in the Old Testament: ex 29:36-37; 30:10; le 8:15; 14:53; 16:10, 16, 18, 20; eze 43:20, 26; 45:20. Eleven of these passages refer to cleansing either the tent/temple, one of its rooms, or the altar inside it. The lone exception refers to the cleansing of a contaminated house. In one of the stranger passages of the Law, God instructs Moses and Aaron about the purification rites they are to apply to a house that has “a spreading mildew” and declares that, if a house responds to the treatment, then it can be declared clean (Lev 14:33-53 ). The priest cleanses the house by sacrificing a bird, and dipping cedar wood, hyssop, scarlet yarn, and a live bird in the blood of the dead bird, then sprinkling the blood on the house seven times. He then is to release the live bird into the open fields outside the town. “In this way he will make atonement for the house, and it will be clean” (Lev 14:53).

The entire passage significantly echoes the preceding passage in which a human being undergoes the same investigations and purifications for infectious skin diseases, and it anticipates the important regulations of Leviticus 16 concerning the Day of Atonement, the most important sacrifice of all, when sacrifice is made for the cleansing of the sins of all the people. The point is apparently that the surface of the skin can demonstrate a deeper sickness underneath as can the surface of a house; both need to be cleansed of that deeper sickness as does the human heart of its sin.

Far more important are the references to the atonement of the Tent of Meeting, the temple, the holy place, the sanctuary, and the altar. These take place in the contexts of the ordination of priests (Exod 29:35-37; Lev 8:15), God’s instructions for the building of the eschatological temple in the later chapters of Ezekiel (Ezekiel 43:20 Ezekiel 43:26; 45:20), and the Day of Atonement itself (Leviticus 16:16 Leviticus 16:18 Leviticus 16:20). The need for cleansing the buildings, the altar and the sanctuaries is due to the fact that these are the meeting places of the divine, Holy One with his people. The holiness and purity of God are so emphasized that not only does he and the one who approaches him have to be pure, but even the means of their communication and relationship must be covered by the blood of an atoning sacrifice because of its contamination by sin.

It is perhaps important that this cleansing of inanimate objects, with the lone exception of the house (which seems to serve as an analog to human cleansing), is limited to the house of God and its parts. There is no sense that the world is God’s place of meeting and in need of a cleansing sacrifice of atonement, but rather that the special cultic and covenantal relationship that God has with his people is what is in need of purification. This is not to deny that the world has been infected by sin, just that the particular relationship of redemption that God has with his covenant people is not extended to the whole world, but simply to the people of Israel, and even that is vicarious, that is, through the priests and their cultic duties.

Primary among the objects of atonement in the Old Testament are the people of God, but the means of atonement can vary. Goats, sheep, and birds are listed among the acceptable animals to be sacrificed, but there were also grain, oil, and drink offerings. Ransom money can provide atonement for the lives of the people; God commands at least one census to be made of the people at which each participant pays the same amount to buy his life and the lives of his family from God, who promises no plague will harm them when they do pay (Exod 30:11-16). Significantly, the money is to be used to support the services of the Tent of Meeting, hence tying it to the sacrifice of blood for atonement, if only in a tangential way. The other non animal sacrifices are often equally tied to atonement by blood.

Certainly the most frequently mentioned means of atonement in the Old Testament were the blood sacrifices, dominating the use of the term by constant reference in the books of Leviticus and Numbers. Atonement needed to be made for everything from heinous crimes like idolatry (Num16:47) to mistakes of intent, when the only sin was ignorance or error, not willful disobedience (Num15:22-29).

Perhaps the heart of the Old Testament teaching on atonement is found in Leviticus 16, where the regulations for the Day of Atonement occur. Five characteristics relating to the ritual of the Day of Atonement are worthy of note because they are generally true of atonement as it is found throughout Scripture: (1) the sovereignty of God in atonement; (2) the purpose and result of making atonement; (3) the two goats emphasize two different things, and the burning another, about the removal of sin; (4) that Aaron had to make special sacrifice for himself; (5) the comprehensive quality of the act.

Atonement is clearly the action of God and not of man throughout the Bible, but especially in Leviticus 16. Aaron’s two sons, Nadab and Abihu, had been recently put to death by the Lord for disobeying his command by offering “unauthorized fire” before the Lord (Lev 10:1-3). Here God gives Aaron precise instructions concerning how he wants the sacrifices to be made, down to the clothes Aaron is to wear, the bathing rituals in which he is to engage, and the types of sacrificial animals he is to bring. His sovereignty is further emphasized by the fact that the lot is used to choose which goat will be sacrificed and which goat will serve as the scapegoat.

The purpose for the ritual is made very clear in several places. It is to cleanse you “from all your sins” (Lev 16:30). Other passages make it clear that such cleansing results in saving the life of the participant (cf., e.g., Lev 17:11). The restoring of pure relationship is an important result, too, since the atonement is for all “uncleanness and rebellion of the Israelites, whatever their sins have been” (Lev 16:16). Thus Israel is reunited in purity to its God by the atoning sacrifice for sins.

The symbolic import of the sacrifices is so detailed that three different actions were necessary to display everything that God apparently intended us to understand about the way he was to deal with sin. The sacrificial death of the first goat showed clearly that the offense of sin requires the punishment of death (Eze 18:4). The sending of the second goat into the wilderness with the sins laid on the top of its head emphasizes that sin will be removed from the person and the community “as far as the east is from the west” (Psalm 103:12). The burning of the sacrifice so that it is consumed shows the power of God over sin, completely destroying it so that it can bother the supplicant no more.

Particularly important for the full biblical picture of atonement as it is found in Christ is the sacrifice Aaron makes for himself and his family (Lev 16:11-14). Everyone, even the high priest, is guilty and needs atonement that can only be provided by God himself. The author of Hebrews emphasizes this point to make clear his doctrine of the purity of Christ as both the true and perfect sacrifice and the true and perfect priest who performs the ritual of atonement (8:3-6; 9:6-15). The Old Testament sacrifices are shown to be but shadows of the real sacrifice of Christ on the cross by the fact of Aaron’s sinfulness; an imperfect high priest cannot offer a true sacrifice, just as the blood of bulls and goats could never truly pay for the offense of human sin or substitute for the shedding of human blood.

Lastly, atonement covers all the sins — intentional, unintentional, heinous, trivial of those for whom it is intended. No one was to enter the Tent of Meeting until the ritual was over because what was taking place there was for the whole of the community of Israel (Lev 16:17), presumably because any interference with the sovereign action of God’s cleansing might bring an impurity into the equation that would nullify the purificatory act. The comprehensive nature of the sacrifice of atonement prefigures the comprehensiveness of the shedding of Christ’s blood on the cross, but it limits its effects in the same way the Old Testament limits the effects of its sacrifice on the day of atonement to the people whom God has elected to call his own and them alone.

The New Testament The so-called ransom saying, found in the Gospel of Mark (10:45 ; cf. the parallel saying at Matt 20:28), has been much disputed as to its authenticity, but its theological content is clear. Speaking in the context of the apostles’ dispute over which of them is the greatest, Jesus relates his mission to two things: serving all and giving his life as a ransom for many. Like many of the teachings of Jesus, the saying dramatically extends the answer to an immediate question or problem (that of the selfishness and pride of the apostles) to include something that no one would have linked to that problem (the ransom nature of the cross). The saying of course primarily relates the death of Christ to the metaphor of service; giving his life is the greatest example of servanthood that can be imagined. The fact that his death is also a ransom links the idea of atonement to the servant spirit of the Christ, probably in the light of the famous servant song of Isaiah 53.

The second Gospel passage relating to atonement appears in the eucharistic words of Jesus recorded in all three Gospels (Matt 26:26-29; = Mark 14:22-25; = Luke 22:15-20). At Luke 22:19-20, Jesus asserts that both the bread and the wine symbolize the fact that his death would be “for you” (huper humon [uJpevruJmw’n]), a phrase not found in the other Gospels (though the notion of the blood of Christ being “poured out for many” is found in both Matthew and Mark). The key element linking the passage in all three Gospels to atonement is the sacrificial nature of the language; the poured-out blood is the blood of the lamb of Leviticus 16, sacrificed “for the forgiveness of sins” (Matt 26:28).

To discuss Paul on atonement is, again, to make a choice between a thorough discussion of Paul’s soteriology and limiting oneself to a discussion of the meaning of hilasterion [iJlasthvrion] in Romans 3:25. Space does not even allow for a full evaluation of the latter in this article. The preponderance of the evidence weighs in favor of a translation that recognizes the background of Leviticus 16 in the crucial passage. Some now argue that Paul intends a quite specific reference to the mercy seat of the Ark of the Covenant and that hilasterion [iJlasthvrion] should be translated “mercy seat.”

In any case the passage occurs in a clear context of God’s righteous, wrathful judgment against the sins of humankind (Rom 1:18-3:31; cf. esp. 1:18; 2:5) and declares God’s merciful action of atonement on behalf of his people. He takes an action that is rightly called “substitutionary,” putting his Son in our place and so remaining just but also demonstrating his mercy (3:25-26). This shuts out any possibility for humankind to boast of its having saved itself (3:27). Thus the themes of sovereignty, mercy, and comprehensiveness that we saw present in Leviticus 16 are paramount in the mind of Paul too.

The same applies to the rest of the references to hilasterion and its cognates (hilaskomai [iJlasmov], hilasmos [iJlasmov]) in the New Testament. Hebrews 2:17 points squarely at Jesus as the high priests of Leviticus 16 who offers a sacrifice of atonement (hilaskomai [iJlavskomai]) for his brothers and is therefore a merciful and faithful high priest, but who is of course also the very sacrifice he offers, suffering so that he is able to help those who are tempted in their time of need. The oneness both between Jesus and the redeemed and between God and humanity is emphasized by the family metaphor used throughout the context of the passage (Heb 2:10-17). Similarly, in 1 John 2:2 Jesus’ sacrifice of atonement (hilasmos [iJlasmov]) is powerful enough to heal the sins of the whole world and unite it to God, but it is only “Jesus Christ, the Righteous One” (1 John 2:1) who can accomplish this. God’s sovereignty and love in atonement are clearly seen in 1jo 4:10 and cap the New Testament teaching on this essential doctrine: our love for God is not the issue, but rather his for us and it is this love that has both motivated and produced the sacrifice of atonement (hilasmos [iJlasmov]) necessary for healing the relationship of God to man. So the biblical teaching about atonement is summed up: “This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins” (1 Jo 4:10). Andrew H. Trotter, Jr. (5)

In Closing:

The Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter 11.3:

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

The confession is saying that the atonement is the means by which a fallen sinner is reconciled to God through Christ’s sacrificial suffering and death on his behalf.

“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, Isaiah, Vol.10., (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Eerdmans Publishing Company reprint 1978), p. 205-206.

2. Matthew Poole’s Commentary on the Holy Bible, (Peabody, Massachusetts, Hendrickson Publishers, 1985) p. 907.

3. W. E. Vine, Vine’s Expository Dictionary of OT, (Dallas, TX, Thomas Nelson), p. 10.

4. W. E. Vine, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, (Iowa Falls, Iowa, Riverside Book and Bible House), pp. 77-78; 895.

5. Walter A. Elwell, Editor, Baker’s Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Baker Book House), p. 42-45.

Mr. Kettler has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife Marea attend the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. He 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

For more study:

* CARM https://www.studylight.org/dictionaries/ctd/a/atonement.html

** https://www.gotquestions.org/substitutionary-atonement.html

What is meant by the term advent? By Jack Kettler

As in previous studies, we will look at definitions, scriptures, lexical, and commentary evidence and confessional support for the purpose to glorify God in how we live.

Definitions:

Advent: The coming of Christ, used to refer to either his incarnation (first advent), or his future second coming (second advent). Also used in reference to the season of worship (or the period of the church calendar) leading up to and anticipating the celebration of the birth of Christ. *

What is Advent?

The word advent itself means, “arrival” or “an appearing or coming into place.” Christians often speak of Christ’s “first advent” and “second advent”; that is, His first and second comings to earth. His first advent would be the Incarnation—Christmastime. **

The English word ‘Advent’ comes from a Latin word ‘Adventus’ that means “coming”.

Gleaning from Strong’s Lexicon:

3952. Parousia — a presence, a coming

Of Speech: Noun, Feminine Transliteration: Parousia Phonetic Spelling:

(par-oo-see’-ah) Short Definition: presence, a coming, arrival, advent

1660. eleusis – a coming

A coming. Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine Transliteration: eleusis Phonetic Spelling:

(el’-yoo-sis) Short Definition: a coming, arrival, advent

2015. epiphaneia — appearance

Appearance, brightness. From epiphanes; a manifestation, i.e. (specially) the advent

Of Christ (past or future) — appearing, brightness. See GREEK epiphanes….

3824. paliggenesia — regeneration, renewal

3824 (“renewal, rebirth”) is used twice in the NT referring to: a) the re-birth

Of at Christ’s return (Advent), which inaugurates His millennial kingdom (Mt 19 …

Synonyms for advent:

Advent is a noun signifying the beginning or arrival of something anticipated.

Arrival; coming; appearance, visitation, second coming; Parousia; incarnation.

From the Scriptures and selected commentary evidence:

Frist Advent:

“Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” (Isaiah 7:14)

“Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.” (Matthew 1:23)

“But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.” (Galatians 4:4)

Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers explains this passage from Galatians nicely:

“(4) The fullness of the time.—That which was predetermined in the counsels of God as the right and proper time when the whole course of previous preparation both for Jew and Gentile was complete. Here we have a very clear expression of the conception of religion as progressive, divided into periods, and finding its culmination in Christianity. The phrase “fullness of the time” corresponds to “the time appointed of the father” in Galatians 4:2.

Sent forth—i.e., from Himself; from that station which is described in John 1:1: “The Word was with God.” The pre-existence of the Son is distinctly recognised by St. Paul.

Made of a woman.—Perhaps better translated, born of a woman. There is no allusion here to the miraculous conception. The phrase “born of a woman” was of common use. Comp. Matthew 11:11: “Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist.” So here, the expression is intended to bring out, not the divinity, but the true humanity of Christ.

Made under the law.—Born under law—i.e., born into a state of things where the whole world was subject to law—born under the legal dispensation, though Himself destined to put an end to that dispensation.” (1)

Second Advent:

“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne.” (Matthew 25:31 ESV)

“Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? And they have slain them which shewed before of the coming [Advent] of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers.” (Acts 7:52)

“Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.” (Titus 2:13)

From the Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary on Titus 2:13:

“13. (Php 3:20, 21).

Looking for—with constant expectation (so the Greek) and with joy (Ro 8:19). This will prove the antidote to worldly lusts, and the stimulus to “live in this present world” conformably to this expectation. The Greek is translated, “waiting for,” in Lu 2:25.

that—Greek, “the.”

blessed—bringing blessedness (Ro 4:7, 8).

hope—that is, object of hope (Ro 8:24; Ga 5:5; Col 1:5).

the glorious appearing—There is but one Greek article to both “hope” and “appearing,” which marks their close connection (the hope being about to be realized only at the appearing of Christ). Translate, “The blessed hope and manifestation (compare Note, see on [2533] Tit 2:11) of the glory.” The Greek for “manifestation” is translated “brightness” in 2Th. 2:8. As His “coming” (Greek, “parousia”) expresses the fact, so “brightness, appearing,” or “manifestation” (epiphaneia) expresses His personal visibility when He shall come.

The great God and our Saviour Jesus—There is but one Greek article to “God” and “Saviour,” which shows that both are predicated of one and the same Being. “Of Him who is at once the great God and our Saviour.” Also (2) “appearing” (epiphaneia) is never by Paul predicated of God the Father (Joh 1:18; 1Ti 6:16), or even of “His glory” (as Alford explains it): it is invariably applied to Christ’s coming, to which (at His first advent, compare 2Ti 1:10) the kindred verb “appeared” (epephanee), Tit 2:11, refers (1Ti 6:14; 2Ti 4:1, 8). Also (3) in the context (Tit 2:14) there is no reference to the Father, but to Christ alone; and here there is no occasion for reference to the Father in the exigencies of the context. Also (4) the expression “great God,” as applied to Christ, is in accordance with the context, which refers to the glory of His appearing; just as “the true God” is predicated of Christ, 1Jo 5:20. The phrase occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, but often in the Old Testament. De 7:21; 10:17, predicated of Jehovah, who, as their manifested Lord, led the Israelites through the wilderness, doubtless the Second Person in the Trinity. Believers now look for the manifestation of His glory, inasmuch as they shall share in it. Even the Socinian explanation, making “the great God” to be the Father, “our Saviour,” the Son, places God and Christ on an equal relation to “the glory” of the future appearing: a fact incompatible with the notion that Christ is not divine; indeed it would be blasphemy so to couple any mere created being with God.” (2)

“So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.” (Hebrews 9:28)

Now for a real gem in theology.

The Personal Advent of Christ by Charles Hodge:

“It is admitted that the words “coming of the Lord” are often used in Scripture for any signal manifestation of his presence either for judgment or for mercy. When Jesus promised to manifest Himself to his disciples, “Judas saith unto Him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world? Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.” (John xiv. 22, 23.) There is a coming of Christ, true and real, which is not outward and visible. Thus also in the epistle to the Church in Pergamos, it is said: “Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly.” (Rev. ii. 16.) This form of expression is used frequently in the Bible. There are, therefore, many commentators who explain everything said in the New Testament of the second coming of Christ, of the spiritual manifestation of his power. Thus Mr. Alger, to cite a single example of this school, says, “The Hebrews called any signal manifestation of power — especially any dreadful calamity — a coming of the Lord. It was a coming of Jehovah when his vengeance strewed the ground with the corpses of Sennacherib’s host; when its storm swept Jerusalem as with fire, and bore Israel into bondage; when its sword came down upon Idumea and was bathed in blood upon Edom. ‘The day of the Lord’ is another term of precisely similar import. It occurs in the Old Testament about fifteen times. In every instance, it means some mighty manifestation of God’s power in calamity. These occasions are pictured forth with the most astounding figures of speech.”1 On the following page he says he fully believes that the evangelists and early Christians understood the language of Christ in reference to his second coming, as predictions of a personal and visible advent, connected with a resurrection and a general judgment, but he more than doubts whether such was the meaning of Christ Himself. (1.) Because he says nothing of a resurrection of the dead. (2.) The figures, which He uses, are precisely those, which the Jewish prophets employed in predicting “great and signal events on the earth.” (3.) Because He “fixed the date of the events He referred to within that generation.” Christ he thinks, meant to teach that his “truths shall prevail and shall be owned as the criteria of Divine judgment. According to them,” he understands Christ to say, “all the righteous shall be distinguished as my subjects, and all the iniquitous shall be separated from my kingdom. Some of those standing here shall not taste death till all these things be fulfilled. Then it will be seen that I am the Messiah, and that through the eternal principles of truth which I have proclaimed I shall sit upon a throne of glory, not literally, in person, as you thought, blessing the Jews and cursing the Gentiles, but spiritually, in the truth, dispensing joy to good men and woe to bad men, according to their deserts.” It is something to have it admitted that the Apostles and early Christians believed in the personal advent of Christ. What the Apostles believed we are bound to believe; for St. John said “He that knoweth God heareth us.” That the New Testament does teach a second, visible, and glorious appearing of the Son of God is plain: —

1. From the analogy between the first and second advents. The rationalistic Jews would have had precisely the same reasons for believing in a more spiritual coming of the Messiah as modern rationalists have for saying that his second coming is to be spiritual. The advent in both cases is predicted in very nearly the same terms. If, therefore, his first coming was in person and visible, so his second coming must be. The two advents are often spoken of in connection, the one illustrating the other. He came the first time as the Lamb of God bearing the sins of the world; He is to come “the second time, without sin, unto salvation.” (Heb. ix. 28.) God, said the apostle Peter, “shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.” (Acts iii. 20, 21.) Christ is now invisible to us, having been received up into heaven. He is to remain thus invisible, until God shall send him at the restitution of all things.

2. In many places it is directly asserted that his appearing is to be personal and visible. At the time of his ascension, the angels said to his disciples, “Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.” (Acts i. 11.) His second coming is to be as visible as his ascension. They saw Him go; and they shall see him come. In Matt. xxvi. 64, it is said, “Hereafter shall ye see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven;” Matt. xxiv. 30, “Then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn and they shall see the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.” Luke xxi. 27, “Then shall they see the Son of Man coming in a cloud.”

3. The circumstances attending the second advent prove that it is to be personal and visible. It is to be in the clouds; with power and great glory; with the holy angels and all the saints; and it is to be with a shout and the voice of the archangel.

4. The effects ascribed to his advent prove the same thing. All the tribes of the earth shall mourn; the dead, both small and great are to arise; the wicked shall call on the rocks and hills to cover them; the saints are to be caught up to meet the Lord in the air; and the earth and the heavens are to flee away at his presence.

5. That the Apostles understood Christ to predict his second coming in person does not admit of doubt. Indeed almost all the rationalistic commentators teach that the Apostles fully beheved and even taught that the second advent with all its glorious consequences would occur in their day. Certain it is that they believed that He would come visibly and with great glory, and that they held his coming as the great object of expectation and desire. Indeed Christians are described as those who “are waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1Cor. i. 7); as those who are “looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ” (Tit. ii. 13) (it is to them who look for Him, He is to “appear the second time, without sin unto salvation,” Heb. ix. 28); as those who are expecting and earnestly desiring the coming of the day of God. (2Pet. iii. 12.) It is a marked characteristic of the apostolic writings that they give such prominence to the doctrine of the second advent. “Judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come.” (1Cor. iv. 5.) “Christ the first-fruits; afterwards they that are Christ’s at his coming.” (1Cor. xv. 23.) Ye are our rejoicing “in the day of the Lord Jesus.” (2Cor. i. 14.) “He. . . . will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ.” (Phil. i. 6.) “That I may rejoice in the day of Christ.” (ii. 16.) “Our conversation is in heaven, from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ.” (iii. 20.) “When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with Him in glory.” (Col. iii. 4.) “To wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come.” (1Thess. i. 10.) “What is our hope . . . are not even ye in the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ at his coming?” (ii. 19.) “Unblamable in holiness . . . at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ with all his saints.” (iii. 13.) “We which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord . . . shall be caught up . . . in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.” (iv. 15-17.) In his second epistle he assures the Thessalonians that they shall have rest, “when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven.” (2Thess. i. 7.) The coming of Christ, however, he tells them was not at hand; there must come a great falling away first. Paul said to Timothy, “Keep this commandment without spot, unrebukable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (1Tim. vi. 14.) “There is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing.” (2Tim. iv. 8.) The epistles of Peter afford the same evidence of the deep hold, which the promise of Christ’s second coming had taken on the minds of the Apostles and of all the early Christians. He tells his readers that they “are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation, ready to be revealed in the last time . . . that the trial of your faith, . . might be found unto praise, and honour, and glory, at the appearing of Jesus Christ.” (1Pet. i. 5-7.) Men are to “give account to Him that is ready to judge the quick and the dead.” (iv. 5.) “Rejoice that, when his glory shall be revealed, ye may be glad also with exceeding joy.” (verse 13.) “When the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory.” (v. 4.) “We have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eye-witnesses of his majesty.” (2Pet. i. 16). The transfiguration on the mount was a type and pledge of the glory of the second advent. The Apostle warns the disciples that scoffers would come “saying, where is the promise of his coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.” In answer to this objection, he reminds them that the threatened deluge was long delayed, but came at last; that time is not with God as it is with us; that with Him a thousand years are as one day, and one day as a thousand years. He repeats the assurance that “the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat; the earth also and the works that are therein, shall be burned up.” (2Peter iii. 3-10.)

From all these passages, and from the whole drift of the New Testament, it is plain, (1.) That the Apostles fully believed that there is to be a second coming of Christ. (2.) That his coming is to be in person, visible and glorious. (3.) That they kept this great event constantly before their own minds, and urged it on the attention of the people, as a motive to patience, constancy, joy, and holy living. (4.) That the Apostles believed that the second advent of Christ would be attended by the general resurrection, the final judgment, and the end of the world.

As already intimated, it is objected to this view of the prophecies of the New Testament referring to the Second Advent, —

1. That the first advent of Christ is predicted in the Old Testament in nearly as glowing terms as his second coming is set forth in the New Testament. He was to come in the clouds of heaven; with great pomp and power; all nations were to be subject to Him; all people were to be gathered before Him; the stars were to fall from heaven; the sun was to be darkened, and the moon to be turned into blood. These descriptions were not realized by the event; and are understood to refer to the great changes in the state of the world to be effected by his coming. It is unreasonable, therefore, as it is agreed, to expect anything like a literal fulfilment of these New Testament prophecies. To this it may be answered, (1.) That in the Old Testament the Messianic period is described as a whole. The fact that the Messiah was to come and establish an everlasting kingdom, which was to triumph over all opposition, and experience a glorious consummation, is clearly foretold. All these events were, so to speak, included in the same picture; but the perspective was not preserved. The prophecies were not intended to give the chronological order of the events foretold. Hence, the consummation of the Messiah’s kingdom is depicted as in immediate proximity with his appearance in the flesh. This led almost all the Jews, and even the disciples of Christ themselves, before the day of Pentecost, to look for the immediate establishment of the Messiah’s kingdom in its glory. Such being the character of the Old Testament prophecies, it cannot be fairly inferred that they have as yet received their full accomplishment; or that they are now being fulfilled in the silent progress of the Gospel. They include the past and the present, but much remains to be accomplished in the future more in accordance with their literal meaning. (2.) The character of the predictions in the New Testament does not admit of their being made to refer to any spiritual coming of Christ or to the constant progress of his Church. They evidently refer to a single event; to an event in the future, not now in progress, an event, which shall attract the attention of all nations, and be attended by the resurrection of the dead, the complete salvation of the righteous, and the condemnation of the wicked. (3.) A third answer to the objection under consideration is, that the Apostles, as is conceded, understood the predictions of Christ concerning his second coming, in the way in which they have been understood by the Church, as a whole, from that day to this.

2. A second objection to the common Church view of the eschatology of the New Testament is, that our Lord expressly says that the events which He foretold were to come to pass during that generation. His words are, “Verily, I say unto you, this generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.” This objection is founded upon the pregnant discourse of Christ recorded in the twenty-fourth and twenty-fifth chapters of Matthew. It is to be remarked that those chapters contain the answer which Christ gave to three questions addressed to Him by his disciples; first, when the destruction of the temple and of Jerusalem was to occur second, what was to be the sign of liii coming; and third, when the end of the world was to take place. The difficulty in interpreting this discourse is, to determine its relation to these several questions. There are three methods of interpretation, which have been applied to this passage. The first assumes that the whole of our Lord’s discourse refers but to one question, namely, When was Jerusalem to be destroyed and Christ’s kingdom to be inaugurated; the second adopts the theory of what used to be called the double sense of prophecy; that is, that the same words or prediction refer to one event in one sense, and to a different event in a higher sense; the third assumes that one part of our Lord’s predictions refers exclusively to one of the questions asked, and that other portions refer exclusively to the other questions.

The rationalistic interpreters adopt the first method and refer everything to the overthrow of the Jewish polity, the destruction of Jerusalem, and the inauguration of the Church, which is to do its work of judgment in the earth. Some evangelical interpreters also assume that our Lord answers the three questions put to Him as one, as they constituted in fact but one in the minds of his disciples, since they believed that the three events, the destruction of Jerusalem, the second coming of Christ, and the end of the world, were all to occur together. Thus Luthardt says: “There are three questions according to the words; but only one in the minds of the disciples, as they did not consider the three events, the destruction of Jerusalem, the second coming of Christ, and the end of the world, as separated chronologically; but as three great acts in the final drama of the world’s history.”2 In this sense our Lord, he adds, answered their inquiries. He does not separate the different subjects, so as to speak first of one and then of another; but he keeps all ever in view. “It is the method,” he says, “of Biblical prophecy, which our Lord observes, always to predict the one great end and all else and what is preparatory, only so far as it stands in connection with that end and appears as one of its elements.”3 Although, therefore, the prophecy of Christ extends to events in the distant future, He could say that that generation should not pass away until all was fulfilled; for the destruction of Jerusalem was the commencement of that work of judgment which Christ foretold.

According to this view, the first method of interpretation differs very little from the second of those above mentioned. Both suppose that the same words or descriptions are intended to refer to two or more events very different in their nature and in the time of their occurrence. Isaiah’s prediction of the great deliverance which God was to effect for his people, was so framed as to answer both to the redemption of the Jews from their captivity in Babylon, and to the greater redemption by the Messiah. It was in fact and equally a prediction of both events. The former was the type, and the first step toward the accomplishment of the other. So also in the fourteenth chapter of Zechariah, the prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem, the spiritual redemption, and the final judgment, are blended together. As, therefore, in the Old Testament the Messianic prophecies took in the whole scope of God’s dealings with his people, including their deliverance from Babylon and their redemption by Christ, so as to make it doubtful what refers to the former and what to the latter event; so this discourse of Christ may be considered as taking in the whole history of his kingdom, including his great work of judgment in casting out the Jews and calling the Gentiles, as well as the final consummation of his work. Thus everything predicted of the final judgment had its counterpart in what was fulfilled in that generation.

The third method of interpretation is greatly to be preferred, if it can be successfully carried out. Christ does in fact answer the three questions presented by his disciples. He told when the temple and the city were to be destroyed; it was when they should see Jerusalem compassed about with armies. He told them that the sign of the coming of the Son of Man was to be great defection in the Church, dreadful persecutions, and all but irresistible temptations, and that with his coming were to be connected the final judgment and the end of the world; but that the time when those events were to occur, was not given unto them to know, nor even to the angels of heaven. (Matt. xxiv. 36.)

If this be the method of interpreting these important predictions, then the declaration contained in Matt. xxiv. 34, “This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled,” must be restricted to the “all things spoken of, referring to the destruction of Jerusalem and the inauguration of the Church as Christ’s kingdom on earth. There is, however, high authority for making h`genea au-th, here and in the parallel passages, Mark xiii. 30 and Luke xxi. 32, refer to Israel as a people or race; in this case the meaning would be that the Jews would not cease to be a distinct people until his predictions were fulfilled.”4 There is nothing, therefore, in this discourse of Christ’s inconsistent with the common Church doctrine as to the nature and concomitants of his Second Advent.” (3)

Notes:

1. Charles John Ellicott, Bible Commentary for English Readers, Galatians, Vol.2, (London, England, Cassell and Company), p. 449.

2. Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, Commentary on the Whole Bible, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Zondervan, 1977) p. 1388.

3. Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 3 (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Eerdmans Publishing Company), pp. 792-800.

“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. He 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

For more study:

* http://www.rebecca-writes.com/theological-terms-in-ao/

** https://www.gotquestions.org/what-is-Advent.html

Hebrews 9:27-28 – Two Advents of Christ by Charles H. Spurgeon http://www.spurgeongems.org/vols7-9/chs430.pdf

Biblical grounds for resistance against evil political leaders by Jack Kettler

Many times in history the Church, Christians have faced persecution. Books have been written on the bravery of Christians facing all manner of persecution and martyrdom. Is it possible to biblically to resist those with evil intentions against you? Alternatively, is passive submission the only option? In this study, it will be explored to see what other kinds of actions are possible. This study will take into account the eschatological development in redemptive history.

Introductory Scriptures:

“Deliver me, O Lord, from the evil man: preserve me from the violent man;” (Psalm 140:1)

“Discretion shall preserve thee, understanding shall keep thee: To deliver thee from the way of the evil man, from the man that speaketh froward things;” (Proverbs 2:11-12)

The main thrust of this study will be how do we know when resistance against the ungodly is justified?

Historically, there are steps as a rule that are required before resistance:

1. Fleeing, Joseph and Mary fleeing to Egypt (Matthew 2:13–23).

2. Suffering persecution, as in (Matthew 5:11) and Christian martyrdom, Stephen’s speech (Acts 7).

3. Submission to civil authorities, as seen in Paul (Romans 13:1-7) and (1Peter 2:13-17).

Notable examples of the biblical precedent to resist unjust laws:

Exodus 1:15-18 Midwives disobeyed
Daniel 6: 7-9 Daniel disobeys
Chapters Acts 5:29 the apostles disobeyed the Jewish rulers
Revelation 13:13 believers told to resist the mark of the beast

As seen in the numbered and bullet list, there are tensions in Scripture. Eschatological development in redemptive history may provide a solution to these tensions.

Enter an eschatological dynamic:

The terms eschatological dynamic, advancement or development are used to explain the gradual submission of the nations to Christ’s rule in history. See Isaiah 9:7; Psalm 110:1-2; 1Corinthians 15:24-26; Colossians 2:15; and Daniel 2:44.

As to be seen, in this study and the unfolding of history there has been the emergence of Christendom or the nations that embraced biblical law into their legal systems, which recognized Christ as the King and Saviour. This embracing of biblical law by many nations adds an eschatological dynamic to the concept of resistance that is sanctioned by Holy Scripture.

In light of this eschatological dynamic, for example in America, the political rulers are restrained:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” – (First Amendment)

Amendment XIV Section 1:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

These amendments and others like it placed a limiting factor on governments in light of the idea that rights come from God and not from a King or politician.

In England for example:

The Magna Carta, which means “The Great Charter,” is one of the most important documents in history as it established the principle that everyone is subject to the law, even the king, and guarantees the rights of individuals, the right to justice and the right to a fair trial. Surely, this is what the Bible teaches.

What is the source of these restrictions placed upon governments? Was it a man’s law or God’s law that restricted rulers? The law of a man is fleeting, whereas God’s law stands eternal.

Greg Bahnsen explains why restrictions are placed upon Kings and governments:

“The civil magistrate cannot function without some ethical guidance, without some standard of good and evil. If that standard is not to be, the revealed law of God, if not, then what will it be? In some form or expression, it will have to be the law of man (or men) – the standard of self-law or autonomy. And when autonomous laws come to govern a commonwealth, the sword is certainly wielded in vain, for it represents simply the brute force of some men’s will against the will of other men.” – Greg L. Bahnsen

Principally, we must remember, God is sovereign. God is in control. We see this in the next passage:

“And he changeth the times and the seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings…” (Daniel 2:21)

God sets up kings and removes them by His sovereign power. God will even raise up an evil king to bring judgment upon, and ultimately bringing repentance to His people. We should pray; “O Lord, help us to acknowledge our evil as a nation. Help us to bring forth fruits worthy of repentance.”

What has God required His people to do?

“If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.” (2Chronicles 7:14)

National repentance and true reformation are required for God to hear our collective prayers. God’s people must humble themselves, pray earnestly for the removal of God’s judgment, and seek him for deliverance.

Scriptural prayers for deliverance and the judgment against evildoers are sanctioned:

“Hear this, you leaders of Jacob, you rulers of Israel, who despise justice and distort all that is right; who build Zion with bloodshed, and Jerusalem with wickedness. Her leaders, judge for a bribe, her priests teach for a price, and her prophets tell fortunes for money. Therefore because of you, Zion will be plowed like a field; Jerusalem will become a heap of rubble, the temple hill a mound overgrown with thickets.” (Micah 3:9-12)

“Pronounce them guilty, O God! Let them fall by their own counsels; cast them out in the multitude of their transgressions, for they have rebelled against you.” (Psalms 5:10)

“Deliver me, O Lord, from the evil man…” (Psalm 140:1)

“When he is judged, let him be found guilty, and let his prayer become sin. Let his days be few, and let another take his office.” (Psalms 109:7-8)

“Let all my enemies be ashamed and greatly troubled; let them turn back and be ashamed suddenly.” (Psalms 6:10)

“His trouble shall return upon his own head, and his violent dealing shall come down on his own crown.” (Psalms 7:16)

“Break the arm of the wicked and evildoer; call his wickedness to account till you find none.” (Psalms 10:15)

“O God, break the teeth in their mouths; tear out the fangs of the young lions, O Lord! Let them vanish like water that runs away, when he aims his arrows, let them be blunted. Let them be like the snail that dissolves into slime, like the stillborn child who never sees the sun.” (Psalms 58:6-8)

“Let sinners be consumed from the earth, and let the wicked be no more! Bless the Lord, O my soul! Praise the Lord!” (Psalms 104:35)

“And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil.” (Matthew 6:13)

From the above Scriptures, we can conclude as Christians; we have to right to pray privately and publically for the removal of ungodly leaders.

The doctrine of resistance at one level is justified in Scripture when a ruler demands the outright denial of God’s people to worship or follow God’s commandments:

“But Peter and John replied, Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God’s sight to listen to you rather than God.” (Acts 4:19)

Later in Church history with significant doctrinal development and the advancement of Christ’s Kingdom among the nations whose law systems have been formulated upon biblical principles. In light of this, the option of resistance become a viable option. Christian influence has been so strong; many nations have national churches such and the Church of England. Today, the Russian Orthodox Church is the official Church of Russia.

King Alfred, 871 to 886 for example enacted a law code that had a translation of the Ten Commandments into English. God’s law was to be the basis of the law for Alfred’s Christian nation if it wished to have God’s blessings. After the Ten Commandments, Alfred incorporated the fuller Law of Moses Exodus 21:1-23:19, and the Golden Rule of Matthew 7:12.

Other nations to one degree or another also incorporated biblical law into the law codes of their nations. Laws against murder, stealing, adultery, bearing false witness, etc., all are rooted in the Ten Commandments; they did not just spring out of nowhere.

Within a nation that had biblical law at the core, this created an entirely different situation than people had under the emperors of the old Roman Empire. The legal systems of Christendom and ancient Rome were entirely different. In a Christian nation, the Church and individual Christians can call a politician to repentance for committing the act of adultery. In ancient Rome and its legal system, calling Nero to repentance for fornication would have been unintelligible.

The thesis in this article is that a nation that has biblical law incorporated into its legal system opens up the option of various forms of resistance and appeal. If a King or ruler curses God, the Church of God can call the ruler to repent. In the infancy of the church, believers submitted to the ungodly to win them to Christ, the true King. Today, in the gospel era, unbelieving rulers are called to submit to Christ and His Word. The call for rulers to submit to Christ is a resurrection truth. There has been an eschatological advancement in history.

Thomas Aquinas notes this advance God’s law over man’s law in history:

“An unjust law is no law at all” – Thomas Aquinas (Rome’s leading theologian of the 2nd Millennium) in short, Aquinas said unbiblical law was not law.

Political leaders are not immune to the following command:

“Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.” (Exodus 20:7)

It would be informative to consider public oaths in the Christian era:

Oaths made before God using His name involve His divine honor. To swear falsely is to misuse God’s name and in essence, call God a liar.

An oath of office is an affirmation or covenant that a person takes before assuming the duties of the office. Ordinarily, this is a position in government for legislators and civil servants or a church office holder. An oath that is made by calling God as a witness is a religious oath. The only effective way to certify that a candidate’s affirmation is truthful was to put his words before God by way of an oath with his hand upon God’s Word, the Bible.

By calling God as a witness, an oath is a solemn promise made in God’s presence. Significantly when making an oath, the political candidate elect places his left hand on the Bible and raises his right hand toward heaven, and promises to uphold and carry out the duties required in the Constitution of the United States. It should be clear; God is the witness in this covenant! If a man does not believe in God or has no intention of keeping the oath, then he is committing sacrilege.

There are oaths, which call for God’s intervention, such as; “I swear to tell the truth, so help me God.” It should be noted, to swear to tell the truth with God as a witness is a religious oath even if made in a civil setting. To perjure oneself, or go against God, would place the violator of the oath before God, awaiting His judgment.

In America, all members of Congress are required to take the following oath before assuming elected or appointed office. Five U.S.C. 3331:

“An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services shall take the following oath: ‘I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.’” (Emphasis mine)

Again, it should be noted that this oath references in context (hand on the Bible) the God who is revealed in the Bible as a witness to the oath.

What are the implications of this?

“From the day of the Declaration . . . they (the American people) were bound by the laws of God, which they all, and by the laws of The Gospel, which they nearly all, acknowledged as the rules of their conduct.” – John Quincy Adams (July 4, 1821)

“If the judge does not represent God’s Law order, he is ultimately a political hack and hatchet man whose job it is to keep the people in line, protect the establishment, and, in the process, to feather his own nest. Ungodly judges are to be feared and hated: they represent a particularly fearful and ugly form of evil, and their abuse of office is a deadly cancer to any society.”- R. J. Rushdoony, Institutes of Biblical Law, vol. 1, p. 613.

“The more a power departs from God’s Law, the more impotent it becomes in coping with real offenses, and the more severe it becomes with trifling offenses or with meaningless infractions of empty statutes which seek to govern without moral authority and with reason.”- R. J. Rushdoony, Institutes of Biblical Law, vol. 1, p. 620.

“While man has never seen, heard, touched, smelled, nor tasted God’s invisible laws, he has observed their effects through the blessings resulting from man’s obedience and the curses from disobedience. At the heart of the common law was a Biblical definition of law. One of its great expositors, Sir William Blackstone, noted that God, as the Creator of the heavens and the earth, created the rules of action that all creation was bound to obey.” – Herbert W. Titus, from Biblical Principles of Law

Against this background of public oaths, the resistance of Church leaders when dealing with political tyranny can be justified.

At an earlier time in history, this thinking was in kernel form and developing.

Consider Scottish Presbyterianism’s spiritual leader:

“Although I never lack the presence and plain image of my own wretched infirmity, yet seeing sin so manifestly abounds in all estates, I am compelled to thunder out the threatenings of God against the obstinate rebels.” – John Knox

In Lex Rex, (the law is king) Samuel Rutherford another Presbyterian argued that the law is above the king because it is founded on the Law of God. If the king disobeyed God’s law then the king was to be disobeyed. Rutherford argued that the civil authorities are fiduciary figures, meaning that they hold authority in trust for the people. If they violate that trust, the people have a legitimate recourse to resistance.

Rutherford recommended increasing the levels of resistance as a remedy for individuals:

1. by self-defense by protest or legal action;

2. by a flight where possible; then only

3. By use of force in self-defense.

Because God’s law is above civil rulers, we have the right to say, “The emperor has no clothes.”

John Knox said, “Resistance to tyranny is obedience to God.”

Consider The First Blast of the Trumpet against the Monstrous Regiment of Women by John Knox. The First Blast published in 1558 was prompted by the murderous activities of Mary Tudor, a Roman Catholic who succeeded to the throne of England.

Mary Queen of Scots told him that God expected subjects to obey their ruler. Knox replied that subjects did not have to obey a ruler who was ‘ungodly.’

Knox was building on biblical law:

Knox was undoubtedly right that we do not have to obey an ungodly ruler. Today, would he have thundered out the threatenings of God today against our obstinate covenant lawbreakers? The answer would be yes! Is there a place for a Jeremiah like figure in modern history? Are Christians called to be Jeremiahs when it comes to public wickedness?

Does submission to the governing authorities mean that believers and the church must keep silent in the face of public evil by these same governing authorities? Was John Knox in violation of what Paul is teaching in Romans 13:1-7 and 1Peter 2:13-17?

If so, this contradicts the centuries of redemptive history wherein the nations are brought progressively under the submission of the Lord Jesus Christ as seen in Psalm 2 and following:

“Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even forever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.” (Isaiah 9:7)

“The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand until I make thine enemies thy footstool. The LORD shall send the rod of thy strength out of Zion: rule thou in the midst of thine enemies.” (Psalm 110:1-2)

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

“Then comes the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.” (1Corinthians 15:24-26)

“And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it.” (Colossians 2:15)

“And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever.” (Daniel 2:44)

There is an eschatological advancement in history:

Now, the rulers of nations must submit to the Lord Jesus Christ and His law. Citizens must hold their rulers faithful to God’s law. The lawbreaking politician has no basis for his resistance to God’s law. The Christian citizen has every right to challenge and resist ungodly laws. Romans 13:1-7 and 1Peter 2:13-17 still command God’s people. Christians are to be model citizens and pray for civil rulers. However, with the law of God law built into the legal system of modern nations numerous options have opened up the rights of resistance and appeal, which are enshrined into modern law codes. Christians are not in violation of Peter or Paul’s instructions when forming legal associations to resist and fight public wickedness.

Can an ungodly ruler forfeit their power by an unrepentant violation of God’s Law?

What saith, the prince of exegetes?

“For earthly princes lay aside their power when they rise up against God and are unworthy to be reckoned among the number of mankind. We ought, rather, to spit upon their heads than to obey them.” – John Calvin (Commentary on Daniel, Lecture XXX Daniel 6:22)

“If they (government authorities) command anything against Him (God), let it go un-esteemed. And here let us not be concerned about all the dignity which the magistrates possess.” – John Calvin, The Institutes of the Christian Religion

What is interposition?

Interposition denotes to the right of the states to safeguard their liberties from fed gov violation that are believed to be treacherous or unconstitutional. This concept of interposition is rooted in biblical law. It is similar to nullification. The states created the fed gov, not the other way around, so they have the upper hand legally.

For example, the doctrine of interposition is taught throughout the book of Judges:

“For if there are now any magistrates of the people, appointed to restrain the willfulness of kings…I am so far from forbidding them to withstand, in accordance with their duty, the fierce licentiousness of kings, that, if they wink at kings who violently fall upon and assault the lowly common folk, I declare that their dissimulation involves nefarious perfidy, because they dishonestly betray the freedom of the people, of which they have been appointed protectors by God’s ordinance.” John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Chapter XX, par. 31, pp. 1518-1519.

Calvin here denounces the failure of leaders to implement interposition at the local level in the strongest terms. He is calling for the “magistrates of the people” to refuse obedience to the lawless king and not to “wink” at him as in the twentieth century where many of the German people blindly followed the orders of Hitler.

How this idea of interposition became a factor in the War for Independence:

“There is ever, and in all places, a mutual and reciprocal obligation between the people and the prince…If the prince fails in his promise, the people are exempt from obedience, the contract is made void, the rights of an obligation of no force.” -Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos written in 1579, author unknown

When politicians break God’s laws, they break their contract with the people, and the contract becomes canceled.

For example, in modern law, a contract can become voidable under the following circumstances:

The terms of the contract were breached
The contract is fraudulent (omitting or falsifying facts or information, or the intention to not carry out the promise in the contract)
Misrepresentation occurs (a false statement of fact)

A politician who promises to obey God and does not invalidates his contract with the people as an elected representative because of (a false statement of fact). Modern legal contracts are rooted in biblical law.

The passages in Romans 13:1-7 and 1Peter 2:13-17 must not be ignored, but there are considerations in the face of public wickedness considering that biblical law that is the cornerstone of the legal systems of many modern nations. This fact provides for the right of appeal and resistance. Remember the oath of Congressmen and government employees as see above. These oaths are contracts or covenants. Failure to keep the contract invalidates it, and the people are free from giving recognition and submission to the political leader.

Conventional thinking in the early American colonies:

“[W]e conceive that as the magistrate hath his power from God, so undoubtedly he is to improve it for the honor of God.” – Nathaniel Morton, Secretary of Plymouth Colony

Consider the thoughts of one New England pastor from a time when public office holders, seriously acknowledged the God of the Bible:

“It is blasphemy to call tyrants and oppressors, God’s ministers. They are more properly the messengers of Satan to buffet us. No rulers are properly God’s ministers, but such as are just, ruling in the fear of God. When once magistrates act contrary to their office, and the end of their institution; when they rob and ruin the public, instead of being guardians of its peace and welfare; they immediately cease to be the ordinance and ministers of God, and no more deserve that glorious character than common pirates and highwaymen. So that whenever that argument for submission, fails, which is grounded upon the usefulness of magistracy to civil society, (as it always does when magistrates do hurt to society instead of good) the other argument, which is taken from their being the ordinance of God, must necessarily fail also; to person of a civil character being God’s minister, in the sense of the apostle, any farther than he performs God’s will, by exercising a just and reasonable authority; and ruling for the good of the subject.…. When magistrates rob and ruin the people, instead of being guardians of its peace and welfare, they immediately cease to be the ordinance and ministers of God, and no more deserve that glorious character than common pirates and highwaymen.” – Jonathan Mayhew (1720 – 1766), Congregational minister at West Church in Boston

Civil disobedience is required when the government’s laws or commands are in direct violation of God’s laws and commands.

For example, a Christian will still attend worship services even in the face of direct commands of lawless politicians not to do so. A tyrannical decree for Christians not to meet for worship may mean meeting in secret, in houses, in the forest. God’s command outweighs the command of a man.

Submission to governing authorities cannot possibly mean the Church and individual Christians must remain silent in the face of public wickedness.

For instance, contemporary evangelical leader, James Dobson, calls the president to repent for his support of baby killing at the national prayer event.

Some of Dobson’s comments:

“I believe in the rule of law,” he said, but “I will not pay the surcharge for abortion services. … To pay one cent for the killing of babies is egregious to me, and I will do all I can to correct a government that lies to me about its intentions and then tries to coerce my acquiescence with extortion.” So, he concluded, “come and get me if you must, Mr. President. I will not bow before your wicked regulation.”

Dobson was in the right with the Bible in his hand figuratively speaking, called out public wickedness. Dobson was acting in the same biblical manner as John Knox and John Calvin.

As mentioned, what about the passage in 1Peter where we are instructed to submit to every authority. Are there qualifications or limits in this passage?

Some have argued yes. For example:

The American colonists read 1Peter 2:13, “Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every authority,” and saw the phrase “for the Lord’s sake” as a condition for obedience.

The reasoning ran thus:

“If the authority was unrighteous and passed unrighteous laws, then following them could not be a righteous thing. In other words, one cannot obey a wicked law “for the Lord’s sake.” The Duty of Christian Subjects, TO EXECUTE JUDGEMENT, Upon Criminal Magistrates; As Maintained by the Presbyterian Reformer, John Knox, in a debate with Secretary Lethington.

Consider another recourse for citizens whose rulers who break God’s laws or go beyond their jurisdiction:

“A civil ruler only operates legitimately in those things over which he has jurisdictional authority. He cannot claim that because he is a king that whatever he does is the result of his office. An elected official that lies, cheats, steals, and murders are not doing God’s will in his civil capacity. He can and should be called to account.” Is It Unbiblical to Protest Against Unrighteous Governments? By Gary DeMar

To understand this, who would think that the governor of New York could levy a tax upon citizens of another state? The point is that there are obvious limits to the jurisdiction of politicians. Likewise, in the American War for Independence, the English parliament had no jurisdiction to tax the colonies. Today it is common knowledge that the English parliament cannot tax Canada or Australia, nations that are historically under the crown.

Thoughts to provoke deeper thinking:

“So long as we consider finance, industry, trade, agriculture merely as competing interests to be reconciled from time to time as best they may, so long as we consider ‘education’ as a good in itself of which everyone has a right to the utmost, without any idea of the good life for society or for the individual, we shall move from one uneasy compromise to another. To the quick and simple organization of society for ends which, being only material and worldly, must be as ephemeral as a worldly success, there is only one alternative. As political philosophy derives its sanction from ethics and ethics from the truth of religion, it is only by returning to the eternal source of truth that we can hope for any social organization, which will not, to its ultimate destruction, ignore some essential aspect of reality. The term ‘democracy,’ as I have said, again and again, does not contain enough positive content to stand alone against the forces that you dislike––it can easily be transformed by them. If you will not have God (and He is a jealous God) you should pay your respects to Hitler or Stalin.” – T.S. Eliot

“If no divine law is recognized above the law of the State, then the law of man has become absolute in men’s eyes–there is then no logical barrier to totalitarianism.” – Greg L. Bahnsen, By This Standard: The Authority of God’s Law Today

“We must realize that the Reformation world view leads in the direction of government freedom. But the humanist world view with inevitable certainty leads in the direction of statism. This is so because humanists, having no god, must put something at the center, and it is inevitably society, government, or the state.” – Francis Schaeffer

“No totalitarian authority nor authoritarian state can tolerate those who have an absolute by which to judge that state and its actions. The Christians had that absolute in God’s revelation.” – Francis Schaeffer

In closing, resistance to Tyrants against the backdrop of biblical law:

“Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.” – Dietrich Bonhoeffer

“It must be recognized that in any culture the source of law is the god of that society.” – R. J. Rushdoony

“If no divine law is recognized above the law of the State, then the law of man has become absolute in men’s eyes–there is then no logical barrier to totalitarianism.” – Greg L. Bahnsen

“When the government engages in the involuntary transfer of wealth, that’s nothing more than legalized plunder. There is nothing noble or laudatory about it. It is contemptible, evil and profoundly wrong.” – Frederic Bastiat

“If there is no final place for civil disobedience, then the government has been made autonomous, and as such, it has been put in the place of the living God.” – Francis A. Schaeffer, A Christian Manifesto

“Be not intimidated… nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your liberties by any pretense of politeness, delicacy, or decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for hypocrisy, chicanery and cowardice.” – John Adams

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

Mr. Kettler has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife Marea attend the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. He 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

For more study, contrarian books on unlimited submission to unrighteous rulers:

* Is It Unbiblical to Protest Against Unrighteous Governments? By Gary DeMar https://americanvision.org/…/is-it-unbiblical-to-protest-a…/

Matthew J. Trewhella, The Doctrine of the Lesser Magistrates: A Proper Resistance to Tyranny and a Repudiation of Unlimited Obedience to Civil Government

Gordan E. Runyan, Resistance to Tyrants: Romans 13 and the Christian Duty to Oppose Wicked Rulers

Timothy Baldwin, Romans 13: The True Meaning of Submission, 2nd Ed.

By the Pastors of Magdeburg, The Magdeburg Confession: 13th of April 1550 AD. The Magdeburg Confession is the first known document in the history of man to formally set forth the Doctrine of the Lesser Magistrates. The Lesser Magistrate Doctrine teaches that when a superior authority makes unjust laws or decrees, the lesser authority has a God-given right and duty to resist those unjust laws or decrees.

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: http://www.TheReligionThatStartedInAHat.com

What Are Demons? By Jack Kettler

As in previous studies, we will look at definitions, scriptures, lexical, and commentary evidence and confessional support for the purpose to glorify God in how we live.

Definitions:

Demon: A fallen angel that assists Satan in the opposition of God. Demons are evil (Luke 10:17-18), powerful (Luke 8:29), and under the power of Satan (Matthew 12:24-30). They recognized Christ (Mark 1:23-24) and can possess non-Christians (Matthew 8:29). *

Demons: What does the Bible say about demons?

Demons are fallen angels, as Revelation 12:9 indicates: “The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him.” Satan’s fall from heaven is symbolically described in Isaiah 14:12–15 and Ezekiel 28:12–15. When he fell, Satan took some of the angels with him—one third of them, according to Revelation 12:4. Jude 6 also mentions angels who sinned. So, biblically, demons are fallen angels who, along with Satan, chose to rebel against God. **

From the Scriptures about demons:

“Yea, they sacrificed their sons and their daughters unto devils (demons).” (Psalm 106:37)

From Strong’s Lexicon on the Hebrew:

To demons לַשֵּֽׁדִים׃ (laš·šê·ḏîm)

Preposition-l, Article | Noun – masculine plural

Strong’s Hebrew 7700: 1) demon

“So the devils (demons) besought him, saying, if thou cast us out, suffer us to go away into the herd of swine.” (Matthew 8:31)

From Strong’s Lexicon on the Greek:

daimón: a demon Original Word: δαίμων, ονος, ὁ

Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine Transliteration: daimón

Phonetic Spelling: (dah’-ee-mown)

Definition: a demon Usage: an evil-spirit, demon.

“Then certain of the vagabond Jews, exorcists, took upon them to call over them which had evil spirits the name of the Lord Jesus, saying, we adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preacheth.” (Acts 19:13)

From Strong’s Lexicon on the Greek:

Evil πονηρὰ (ponēra)

Adjective – Accusative Neuter Plural

Strong’s Greek 4190: Evil, bad, wicked, malicious, slothful.

Spirits πνεύματα (pneumata)

Noun – Accusative Neuter Plural

Strong’s Greek 4151: Wind, breath, spirit.

“But I say that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils (demons), and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils (demons).” (1Corinthians 10:20)

“For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.” (Ephesians 6:12)

From Matthew Poole’s Commentary on Ephesian 6:12 we read:

“We wrestle not, not only, or not principally.

Against flesh and blood, men, consisting of flesh and blood, Matthew 16:17 Galatians 1:16.

But against principalities, against powers; devils, Colossians 2:15: see Ephesians 1:21.

Against the rulers of the darkness of this world; either that rule in the dark air, where God permits them to be for the punishment of men; see Ephesians 2:2: or rather, that rule in the dark places of the earth, the dark minds of men, and have their rule over them by reason of the darkness that is in them; in which respect the devil is called the god of this world, 2 Corinthians 4:4, and the prince of it, John 14:30. So that the dark world here seems to be opposed to children of light, Ephesians 5:8.

Against spiritual wickedness; either wicked spirits, or, emphatically, spiritual wickednesses, for wickedncsses of the highest kind; implying the intenseness of wickedness in those angelical substances, which are so much the more wicked, by how much the more excellent in themselves their natures are.

In high places; or heavenly, taking heaven for the whole expansum, or spreading out of the air, between the earth and the stars, the air being the place from whence the devils assault us, as Ephesians 2:2. Or rather, in for about heavenly places or things, in the same sense as the word rendered heavenly is taken four times before in this Epistle, Ephesians 1:3,20 2:6 3:10; being in none of them taken for the air; and then the sense must be, that we wrestle about heavenly places or things, not with flesh and blood, but with principalities, with powers, &c.

Objection. The Greek preposition will not bear this construction.

Answer. Let Chrysostom and other Greeks answer for that. They understood their language best, and they give this interpretation.” (1)

“Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils (demons).” (1Timothy 4:1)

From The Pulpit Commentary on 1Timothy 4:1:

“Verse 1. – But for now, A.V.; saith for speaketh, A.V.; later for the latter, A.V.; fall away for depart, A.V. The Spirit saith expressly (ῤητῶς), only here in the New Testament, and very rare in classical Greek. But the adjective ῤητός, in the sense of something “laid down,” “definite… expressly mentioned,” is common. It was, doubtless, on account of these prophetic warnings of a falling away from the faith, that the apostle gave the preceding heads of Christian doctrine in such a terse and tangible form, and laid such a solemn charge upon Timothy. (For examples of these prophetic utterances, see Acts 11:28; Acts 13:2; Acts 20:23; Acts 21:11; 1Corinthians 12:8; 1Corinthians 14. ’30, 32, etc.) Shall fall away (ἀποστησονται). So St. Paul says (2Thessalonians 2:3) that the day of Christ will not be, “except the falling away (ἡ ἀποστασία) come first” (comp. Hebrews 3:12). The faith, objective (see 1Timothy 3:9 and 16, note). This “falling away” is to take place ἐν ὑστέροις καιροῖς, not, as in the R.V., in “later times,” but as in the A.V., “the latter times.” The adjective ὕστερος is only found here in the New Testament. But in the LXX. (e.g., 1Chronicles 29:29; Jeremiah 1:19; Jeremiah 27:17, LXX.), ὕστερος means “the last”” as opposed to “the first.” And so the adverb ὕστερον always in the New Testament (see Matthew 4:2; Matthew 21:37; Matthew 26:60; or more fully ὕστερον πάντεν, 22:27). Here, therefore, ἐν ὑστεροις καιροῖς is equivalent to ἐν ταῖς ἐσχάταις ἡμέραις (Acts 2:17) and ἐν ἐσχάταις ἡμέραις (2Timothy 3:1; comp. James 5:3; 1 Peter 1:5; 2 Peter 3:3; Jude 1:18). It should be observed that in all these passages there is no article. Giving heed (προσέχοντες); as in ver. 13; in 1Timothy 1:4; Titus 1:14; Acts 8:6, and elsewhere. Seducing spirits (πνεύμασι πλάνοις). Such were the “lying spirits” who deceived (ἠπάτησαν) Ahab to his destruction (2Kings 22:22). Πλάνος, seducing, is not elsewhere found in the New Testament as an adjective (see Matthew 27:63; 2Corinthians 6:8 2John 7, in all which places, however, it is almost an adjective). The idea is “causing to wander,” or “go astray.” St. John warns his people against such deceiving spirits (John 4:1-6). He calls them generically πνεύμα τῆς πλάνης, “the spirit of error.” Doctrines of devils; i.e. teachings suggested by devils. So the unbelieving Jews suggested that John the Baptist had a devil (Luke 7:33), and that our Lord himself had a devil (John 7:20; John 8:48, 52; John 10:19).” (2)

“Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils (demons) also believe, and tremble.” (James 2:19)

From Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words:

A-1 Noun Strong’s Number: g1142 Greek: daimon

Demon, Demoniac:

“A demon,” signified, among pagan Greeks, an inferior deity, whether good or bad. In the NT, it denotes “an evil spirit.” It is used in Mat 8:31 mistranslated “devils.”

Some would derive the word from a root da–, meaning, “to distribute.” More probably it is from a similar root da–, meaning, “to know,” and hence means “a knowing one.”

A-2 Noun Strong’s Number: g1140 Greek: daimonion

Demon, Demoniac:

Not a diminutive of daimon, No. 1, but the neuter of the adjective daimonios, pertaining to a demon, is also mistranslated “devil,” “devils.” In Act 17:18, it denotes an inferior pagan deity. “Demons” are the spiritual agents acting in all idolatry. The idol itself is nothing, but every idol has a “demon” associated with it who induces idolatry, with its worship and sacrifices, 1Cr 10:20, 21; Rev 9:20; cp. Deuteronomy 32:17; Isa 13:21; 34:14; 65:3, 11. They disseminate errors among men, and seek to seduce believers, 1Ti 4:1. As seducing spirits they deceive men into the supposition that through mediums (those who have “familiar spirits,” Lev 20:6, 27, e.g.) they can converse with deceased human beings. Hence the destructive deception of Spiritism, forbidden in Scripture, Lev 19:31; Deuteronomy 18:11; Isa 8:19. “Demons” tremble before God, Jam 2:19; they recognized Christ as Lord and as their future Judge, Mat 8:29; Luke 4:41. Christ cast them out of human beings by His own power. His disciples did so in His Name, and by exercising faith, e.g., Mat 17:20.

Acting under Satan (cp. Rev 16:13, 14), “demons” are permitted to afflict with bodily disease, Luke 13:16. Being unclean they tempt human beings with unclean thoughts, Mat 10:1; Mar 5:2; 7:25; Luke 8:27-29; Rev 16:13; 18:2, e.g. They differ in degrees of wickedness, Mat 12:45. They will instigate the rulers of the nations at the end of this age to make war against God and His Christ, Rev 16:14.

See DEVIL.

B-1 Verb Strong’s Number: g1139 Greek: daimonizomai

Demon, Demoniac:

Signifies “to be possessed of a demon, to act under the control of a demon.” Those who were thus afflicted expressed the mind and consciousness of the “demon” or “demons” indwelling them, e.g., Luke 8:28. The verb is found chiefly in Matt. and Mark; Mat 4:24; 8:16, 28, 33; 9:32; 12:22; 15:22; Mark 1:32; 5:15, 16, 18; elsewhere in Luke 8:36; and John 10:21, “him that hath a devil (demon).”

C-1 Adjective Strong’s Number: g1141 Greek: daimoniodes

Demon, Demoniac:

Signifies proceeding from, or resembling, a demon, “demoniacal;” see marg. of Jam 3:15, RV (text, “devilish”). (3)

Can a Christian be demon possessed? See below for link.

Not to fear:

“Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.” (1John 4:4)

Notes:

1. Matthew Poole’s Commentary on the Holy Bible, Ephesians, Vol. 3. (Peabody, Massachusetts, Hendrickson Publishers, 1985) p. 679.

2. H. D. M. Spence and Joseph S. Exell, The Pulpit Commentary, 1Timothy, Vol.21., (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Eerdmans Publishing Company reprint 1978), p. 68.

3. W. E. Vine, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, (Iowa Falls, Iowa, Riverside Book and Bible House), p. 283-284.

“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. He 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

For more study:

* CARM theological dictionary https://carm.org/dictionary-hermeneutics

** https://www.gotquestions.org/demons-Bible.html

Satan Disarmed, Sin Forgiven, Soul Alive by John Piper https://www.desiringgod.org/…/satan-disarmed-sin-forgiven-s…

Can a Christian be demon possessed? https://www.gotquestions.org/Christian-demon-possessed.html

What Are Angels? By Jack Kettler

As in previous studies, we will look at definitions, scriptures, lexical, and commentary evidence and confessional support for the purpose to glorify God in how we live.

Definitions:

Angels: Angel means messenger. Angels are created (Psalms 148:2; Psalm 148:5; Colossians 1:16), non-human, spirit beings (Hebrews 1:14). They are immortal (Luke 20:36), innumerable (Hebrews 12:22), invisible (Numbers 22:22-31), sexless (Matthew 22:30), and do the will of God (Psalms 103:20). These angels have a ministry to believers. They guide (Genesis 24:7; Gen 24:40), protect (Psalms 34:7), and comfort (Acts 27:2; Act 27:24).

There are good angels (Genesis 28:12; Psalms 91:11) and bad angels (2Peter 2:4; Jude 1:1:6). The only angels mentioned by name are Gabriel (Daniel 8:16; Dan 9:21), Michael (Daniel 10:13, 21; 112:1), and Lucifer (Luke 10:18). Michael is always mentioned in the context of battle (Daniel 10:13) and Gabriel as a messenger (Luke 1:26). Of course, Lucifer, who became Satan, is the one who opposes God.

Angels were originally created for the purpose of serving and carrying out the will of God. The fallen angels rebelled and became evil angels. Satan is such an angel (Isaiah 14:12-16; Ezekiel 28:12-15). *

Angels: God created two sorts of personal beings: angels (from the Greek term meaning “messenger”) and human beings. There are many angels (Matt. 26:53; Rev. 5:11). They are intelligent moral agents, without bodies and normally invisible, although they are able to show themselves to men in what appears as a physical form (Gen. 18:2-19:22; John 20:10-14; Acts 12:7-10). They do not marry, and are not subject to physical death (Matt. 22:30; Luke 20:35-36). They can move from one point in space to another, and many of them can congregate in a tiny area (Luke 8:30, where the reference is to fallen angels).

The Scriptures honor all holy angels as glorious creatures. They are called “sons of God” (Job 1:6; 2:1) and “mighty ones” (Psa. 29:1). They are said to be radiant and powerful (Isa. 6:1-4; 2Thess. 1:7; 1Pet. 3:22; 2Pet. 2:11; Rev. 15:8) even forming the victorious army of God (Exod. 14:19). Yet, Scripture also points to the honor and splendor of being holy human beings. The Psalmist said we were made “a little lower than the heavenly beings” (Psa. 8:5), which is an honorable position. Yet, the apostle Paul noted that this would not be the final order between angels and humans. He told the Corinthians that when Christ returns we will “judge the angels” (1Cor. 6:3). The human race – the image of God – will one day rule over not only the earth and its creatures but also the angels. **

From the Scriptures about angels:

“Bless the LORD, ye his angels that excel in strength, that do his commandments, hearkening unto the voice of his word.” (Psalm 103:20)

From the Geneva Study Bible on Psalm 103:20:

“Bless the LORD, ye his angels that excel in strength, that do his commandments, hearkening unto the voice of his word.

In that we, who naturally are slow to praise God, exhort the angels, who willingly do it, we stir up ourselves to consider our duty and wake from our sluggishness.”

From Strong’s Lexicon:

“All His angels

מַלְאָ֫כָ֥יו (mal·’ā·ḵāw)

Noun – masculine plural construct | third person masculine singular

Strong’s Hebrew 4397: 1) messenger, representative 1a) messenger 1b) angel 1c) the theophanic angel”

“And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.” (Luke 1:30-31)

From the Geneva Study Bible on Luke 1:30-31:

“And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.

So the Hebrews said, saying that those men have found favour who are in favour.

And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.”

From Strong’s Lexicon:

“Angel

ἄγγελος (angelos)

Noun – Nominative Masculine Singular

Strong’s Greek 32: From aggello; a messenger; especially an ‘angel’; by implication, a pastor.”

Regarding the Angel of the Lord:

“And it came to pass that night that the angel of the LORD went out, and smote in the camp of the Assyrians an hundred fourscore and five thousand: and when they arose early in the morning, behold, they were all dead corpses.” (2Kings 19:35)

From Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers on 2Kings 19:35 and the angel of the LORD:

“(35-37) THE CATASTROPHE. SENNACHERIB’S RETREAT, AND HIS VIOLENT END.

(35) And it came to pass (in) that night.—This definition of time is wanting in the parallel text; but it is implied by the phrase in the morning (Isaiah 37:36; 2Kings 19:35). The night intended can hardly be the one which followed the day when the prophecy was spoken (see 2Kings 19:29). The expression “in that night,” may perhaps be compared with the prophetic “in that day,” and understood to. mean simply “in that memorable night which was the occasion of this catastrophe.” (Theuius sees in this clause an indication that the present section was derived from another source, probably from the one used by the chronicler in 2Chronicles 32:20-23. Reuss thinks this confirmed by the fact that neither the prediction in 2Kings 19:7, nor that of 2Kings 19:21-34, speaks of so great and so immediate an overthrow.)

The angel of the Lord went out.—the destroying angel, who smote the firstborn of the Egyptians (Exodus 12:12-13; Exodus 12:23), and smote Israel after David’s census (2Samuel 24:15-17). These passages undoubtedly favour the view that the Assyrian army was devastated by pestilence, as Josephus asserts. Others have suggested the agency of a simoom, a storm with lightning, an earthquake, &c. In any case, a supernatural causation is involved not only in the immense number slain, and that in one night (Psalm 91:6), but in the coincidence of the event with the predictions of Isaiah, and with the crisis in the history of the true religion:

“Vuolsi così colà dove si puote

Ciò che si vuole; e più non dimandare.”

In the camp of the Assyrians.—Where this is was not said. That it was not before Jerusalem appears from 2Kings 19:32-33; and the well-known narrative of Herodotus (ii. 141) fixes Egypt, the land of plagues, as the scene of the catastrophe. “Of the details of the catastrophe, which the Bible narrative is content to characterize as the act of God, the Assyrian monuments contain no record, because the issue of the campaign gave them nothing to boast of; but an Egyptian account, preserved by Herodotus, though full of fabulous circumstances, shows that in Egypt, as well as in Judea, it was recognized as a direct intervention of Divine power. The disaster did not break the power of the great king, who continued to reign for twenty years, and waged many other victorious wars. But none the less it must have been a very grave blow, the effects of which were felt throughout the empire, and permanently modified the imperial policy; for in the following year Chaldea was again in revolt, and to the end of his reign Sennacherib never renewed his attack upon Judah” (Robertson Smith).

And when they arose early.—The few who were spared found, not sick and dying, but corpses, all around them. (Comp. Exodus 12:33: “They said, we be all dead men.”) (1)

From Strong’s Lexicon:

The angel

מַלְאַ֣ךְ (mal·’aḵ)

Noun – masculine singular construct

Strong’s Hebrew 4397: 1) messenger, representative 1a) messenger 1b) angel 1c) the theophanic angel

Of the LORD

יְהוָ֗ה (Yah·weh)

Noun – proper – masculine singular

Strong’s Hebrew 3068: Jehovah = ‘the existing One’ 1) the proper name of the one true God 1a) unpronounced except with the vowel pointings of H0136

Regarding Archangels:

“Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.” (Jude 1:9)

From Matthew Poole’s Commentary regarding an Archangel:

“Michael the archangel: either this is understood of Christ the Prince of angels, who is often in Scripture called an Angel, or of a created angel; and that either:

1. One of the archangels: Daniel 10:13, Michael is called one of the chief princes, which though the word archangel be not found in the plural number in Scripture, may well imply a plurality of them; for what is one of the chief princes among the angels, but an archangel? Or:

2. A principal angel, or one that is chief among others.

When contending with the devil; it may be meant either of Christ contending with the devil, as Matthew 4:1-25, in his temptation, and Zechariah 3:1,2, and Revelation 12:7; or rather, of Michael, a created angel.

He disputed about the body of Moses:

1. If Michael the archangel be meant of Christ, then the body of Moses may be taken figuratively, for that body whereof the Mosaical ceremonies were shadows, Colossians 2:17, i.e. the truth and accomplishment of the law given by Moses; that accomplishment was to be in Christ, who is represented by Joshua, Zechariah 3:1-10: him Satan resists in the execution of his office, and by him strikes at Christ, whose type he was, and whom he afterward opposeth in the execution of his office, when he was come in the flesh. Or:

2. If we take Michael for a created angel, which agrees best with the parallel place in Peter, then the body of Moses must be taken properly, (as most take it), and the dispute seems to be: Whether Moses’s body should be so buried as to be concealed from the Israelites? Deut. 34:6, it is said God buried him, (which might be by the ministry of Michael the archangel), and that no man knoweth of his sepulchre. The devil opposeth the angel, desiring to have the place of his burial known, that in after-times it might be a snare to that people, and a means to bring them to idolatry. And this seems very probable, if we consider what work the devil hath made in the world with the bodies of saints and martyrs, and how much idolatry he hath brought in thereby. This passage Jude, most probably, had (as was observed in the argument) from some known tradition among the Jews, the truth of which we are now sure of, because certified here concerning it.

Durst not bring against him; or, could not endure, (as the Greek word is often taken among profane writers), or find in his heart, not from fear of punishment, but by reason of the holiness of his own nature, and to give an example to us. And this sense agrees to the scope of the place, whether we understand it of Christ, or of a created angel, Hebrews 12:3 1Peter 2:23.

A railing accusation: see 2Peter 2:11.

But said, The Lord rebuke thee; i.e. put thee to silence, restrain thy insolence, hinder thy design, &c.: hereby the angel refers the cause to God.” (2)

Regarding Cherubim:

“Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.” (Ezekiel 28:14)

From Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary on Cherub:

“14. Anointed cherub—Gesenius translates from an Aramaic root, “extended cherub.” English Version, from a Hebrew root, is better. “The cherub consecrated to the Lord by the anointing oil” [Fairbairn].

covereth—The imagery employed by Ezekiel as a priest is from the Jewish temple, wherein the cherubim overshadowed the mercy seat, as the king of Tyre, a demi-god in his own esteem, extended his protection over the interests of Tyre. The cherub—an ideal compound of the highest kinds of animal existence and the type of redeemed man in his ultimate state of perfection—is made the image of the king of Tyre, as if the beau ideal of humanity. The pretensions of Antichrist are the ulterior reference, of whom the king of Tyre is a type. Compare “As God … in the temple of God” (2Th 2:4).

I have set thee—not thou set thyself (Prov. 8:16; Ro 13:1).

Upon the holy mountain of God—Zion, following up the image.

in … midst of … stones of fire—In ambitious imagination he stood in the place of God, “under whose feet was, as it were, a pavement of sapphire,” while His glory was like “devouring fire” (Ex 24:10, 17).” (3)

Regarding Seraphim:

“In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple. Above it stood the seraphims: each one had six wings; with twain, he covered his face, and with twain, he covered his feet, and with twain, he did fly. And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory.” (Isaiah 6:1-3)

From Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers regarding Seraphim from Isaiah:

“(2) Above it stood the seraphims . . .—it is noticeable that this is the only passage in which the seraphim are mentioned as part of the host of heaven. In Numbers 21:6, the word (the primary meaning of which is the burning ones) occurs as denoting the fiery serpents that attacked the people in the wilderness. Probably the brazen serpent which Hezekiah afterwards destroyed (2Kings 18:4) had preserved the name and its significance as denoting the instruments of the fiery judgments of Jehovah. Here, however, there is no trace of the serpent form, nor again, as far as the description goes, of the animal forms of the cherubim of Ezekiel 1:5-11, and of the “living creatures” of Revelation 4:7-8. The “burning ones” are in the likeness of men, with the addition of the six wings. The patristic and mediaeval distinction between the seraphim that excel in love, and the cherubim that excel in knowledge, rests apparently on the etymology of the former word. The “living creatures” of Revelation 4:7-8, seem to unite the forms of the cherubim of Ezekiel with the six wings of the seraphim of this passage. Symbolically the seraphim would seem to be as transfigured cherubim, representing the “flaming fire” of the lightning, as the latter did the storm-winds and other elemental forces of nature (Psalm 104:4).” (4)

Angels are not to be worshiped:

“And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellow servant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.” (Revelation 19:10)

Rarely does one find an entry as detailed as the following.

Angel from the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia:

an’-jel (mal’akh; Septuagint and New Testament, aggelos):

I. Definition and Scripture Terms.

The word angel is applied in Scripture to an order of supernatural or heavenly beings whose business it is to act as God’s messengers to men, and as agents who carry out His will. Both in Hebrew and Greek the word is applied to human messengers (1Ki 19:2; Lu 7:24); in Hebrew it is used in the singular to denote a Divine messenger, and in the plural for human messengers, although there are exceptions to both usages. It is applied to the prophet Haggai (Hag 1:13), to the priest (Mal 2:7), and to the messenger who is to prepare the way of the Lord (Mal 3:1). Other Hebrew words and phrases applied to angels are bene ha-‘elohim (Ge 6:2, 4; Job 1:6; 2:1) and bene ‘elim (Ps 29:1; 89:6), i.e. sons of the ‘elohim or ‘elim; this means, according to a common Hebrew usage, members of the class called ‘elohim or ‘elim, the heavenly powers. It seems doubtful whether the word ‘elohim, standing by itself, is ever used to describe angels, although Septuagint so translates it in a few passages. The most notable instance is Ps 8:5; where the Revised Version (British and American) gives, “Thou hast made him but little lower than God,” with the English Revised Version, margin reading of “the angels” for “God” (compare Heb. 2:7,9); qedhoshim “holy ones” (Ps 89:5,7), a name suggesting the fact that they belong to God; `ir, `irim, “watcher,” “watchers” (Da 4:13,17,23). Other expressions are used to designate angels collectively: codh, “council” (Ps 89:7), where the reference may be to an inner group of exalted angels; `edhah and qahal, “congregation” (Ps 82:1; 89:5); and finally tsabha’, tsebha’oth, “host,” “hosts,” as in the familiar phrase “the God of hosts.”

In New Testament the word aggelos, when it refers to a Divine messenger, is frequently accompanied by some phrase which makes this meaning clear, e.g. “the angels of heaven” (Mt 24:36). Angels belong to the “heavenly host” (Lu 2:13). In reference to their nature they are called “spirits” (Heb. 1:14). Paul evidently referred to the ordered ranks of supra-mundane beings in a group of words that are found in various combinations, namely, archai, “principalities,” exousiai, “powers,” thronoi, “thrones,” kuriotetes, “dominions,” and dunameis, also translated “powers.” The first four are apparently used in a good sense in Col 1:16, where it is said that all these beings were created through Christ and unto Him; in most of the other passages in which words from this group occur, they seem to represent evil powers. We are told that our wrestling is against them (Eph. 6:12), and that Christ triumphs over the principalities and powers (Col 2:15; compare Ro 8:38; 1Co 15:24). In two passages the word archaggelos, “archangel” or chief angel, occurs: “the voice of the archangel” (1Th 4:16), and “Michael the archangel” (Jude 1:9).

II. Angels in Old Testament.

1. Nature, Appearances and Functions:

Everywhere in the Old Testament, the existence of angels is assumed. The creation of angels is referred to in Ps 148:2, 5 (compare Col 1:16). They were present at the creation of the world, and were so filled with wonder and gladness that they “shouted for joy” (Job 38:7). Of their nature, we are told nothing. In general, they are simply regarded as embodiments of their mission. Though presumably the holiest of created beings, they are charged by God with folly (Job 4:18), and we are told that “he putteth no trust in his holy ones” (Job 15:15). References to the fall of the angels are only found in the obscure and probably corrupt passage Ge 6:1-4, and in the interdependent passages 2Pe 2:4 and Jude 1:6, which draw their inspiration from the Apocryphal book of Enoch. Demons are mentioned (see DEMON); and although Satan appears among the sons of God (Job 1:6; 2:1), there is a growing tendency in later writers to attribute to him a malignity that is all his own (see SATAN).

As to their outward appearance, it is evident that they bore the human form, and could at times be mistaken for men (Ezekiel 9:2; Ge 18:2, 16). There is no hint that they ever appeared in female form. The conception of angels as winged beings, so familiar in Christian art, finds no support in Scripture (except, perhaps Da 9:21; Re 14:6, where angels are represented as “flying”). The cherubim and seraphim (see CHERUB; SERAPHIM) are represented as winged (Ex 25:20; Isa 6:2); winged also are the symbolic living creatures of Ezekiel (Ezekiel 1:6; compare Re 4:8).

As above stated, angels are messengers and instruments of the Divine will. As a rule they exercise no influence in the physical sphere. In several instances, however, they are represented as destroying angels: two angels are commissioned to destroy Sodom (Ge 19:13); when David numbers the people, an angel destroys them by pestilence (2Sa 24:16); it is by an angel that the Assyrian army is destroyed (2Ki 19:35); and Ezekiel hears six angels receiving the command to destroy those who were sinful in Jerusalem (Ezekiel 9:1,5,7). In this connection should be noted the expression “angels of evil,” i.e. angels that bring evil upon men from God and execute His judgments (Ps 78:49; compare 1Sa 16:14). Angels appear to Jacob in dreams (Ge 28:12; 31:11). The angel who meets Balaam is visible first to the ass, and not to the rider (Nu 22:1-41 ff). Angels interpret God’s will, showing man what is right for him (Job 33:23). The idea of angels as caring for men also appears (Ps 91:11 f), although the modern conception of the possession by each man of a special guardian angel is not found in Old Testament.

2. The Angelic Host:

The phrase “the host of heaven” is applied to the stars, which were sometimes worshipped by idolatrous Jews (Jer. 33:22; 2Ki 21:3; Zep 1:5); the name is applied to the company of angels because of their countless numbers (compare Da 7:10) and their glory. They are represented as standing on the right and left hand of Yahweh (1Ki 22:19). Hence God, who is over them all, is continually called throughout Old Testament “the God of hosts,” “Yahweh of hosts,” “Yahweh God of hosts”; and once “the prince of the host” (Da 8:11). One of the principal functions of the heavenly host is to be ever praising the name of the Lord (Ps 103:21; 148:1 f). In this host, there are certain figures that stand out prominently, and some of them are named. The angel who appears to Joshua calls himself “prince of the host of Yahweh” (Jos 5:14 f). The glorious angel who interprets to Daniel the vision which he saw in the third year of Cyrus (Da 10:5), like the angel who interprets the vision in the first year of Belshazzar (Da 7:16), is not named; but other visions of the same prophet were explained to him by the angel Gabriel, who is called “the man Gabriel,” and is described as speaking with “a man’s voice” (Da 9:21; 8:15 f). In Daniel, we find occasional reference made to “princes”: “the prince of Persia,” “the prince of Greece” (Da 10:20). These are angels to whom is entrusted the charge of, and possibly the rule over, certain peoples. Most notable among them is Michael, described as “one of the chief princes,” “the great prince who standeth for the children of thy people,” and, more briefly, “your prince” (Da 10:13; 12:1; 10:21), Michael is therefore regarded as the patron-angel of the Jews. In Apocrypha Raphael, Uriel and Jeremiel are also named. Of Raphael it is said (Tobit 12:15) that he is “one of the seven holy angels who present the prayers of the saints” to God (compare Re 8:2, “the seven angels that stand before God”). It is possible that this group of seven is referred to in the above-quoted phrase, “one of the chief princes”. Some (notably Kosters) have maintained that the expressions “the sons of the ‘elohim,” God’s “council” and “congregation,” refer to the ancient gods of the heathen, now degraded and wholly subordinated to Yahweh. This rather daring speculation has little support in Scripture; but we find traces of a belief that the patron-angels of the nations have failed in establishing righteousness within their allotted sphere on earth, and that they will accordingly be punished by Yahweh their over-Lord (Isa 24:21 f; Ps 82:1-8; compare Ps 58:1 f the Revised Version, margin; compare Jude 1:6).

3. The Angel of the Theophany:

This angel is spoken of as “the angel of Yahweh,” and “the angel of the presence (or face) of Yahweh.” The following passages contain references to this angel: Ge 16:7 ff–the angel and Hagar; Ge 18:1-33–Abraham intercedes with the angel for Sodom; Ge 22:11 ff–the angel interposes to prevent the sacrifice of Isaac; Ge 24:7,40–Abraham sends Eliezer and promises the angel’s protection; Ge 31:11 ff–the angel who appears to Jacob says “I am the God of Beth-el”; Ge 32:24 ff–Jacob wrestles with the angel and says, “I have seen God face to face”; Ge 48:15 f–Jacob speaks of God and the angel as identical; Ex 3:1-22 (compare Ac 7:30 ff)–the angel appears to Moses in the burning bush; Ex 13:21; 14:19 (compare Nu 20:16)–God or the angel leads Israel out of Egypt; Ex 23:20 ff–the people are commanded to obey the angel; Ex 32:34 through Ex 33:17 (compare Isa 63:9)–Moses pleads for the presence of God with His people; Jos 5:13 through Jos 6:2–the angel appears to Joshua; Judges 2:1-5–the angel speaks to the people; Judges 6:11 ff–the angel appears to Gideon.

A study of these passages shows that while the angel and Yahweh are at times distinguished from each other, they are with equal frequency, and in the same passages, merged into each other. How is this to be explained? It is obvious that these apparitions cannot be the Almighty Himself, whom no man hath seen, or can see. In seeking the explanation, special attention should be paid to two of the passages above cited. In Ex 23:20 ff God promises to send an angel before His people to lead them to the promised land; they are commanded to obey him and not to provoke him “for he will not pardon your transgression: for my name is in him.” Thus, the angel can forgive sin, which only God can do, because God’s name, i.e. His character and thus His authority, are in the angel. Further, in the passage Ex. 32:34 through Ex. 33:17 Moses intercedes for the people after their first breach of the covenant; God responds by promising, “Behold mine angel shall go before thee”; and immediately after God says, “I will not go up in the midst of thee.” In answer to further pleading, God says, “My presence shall go with thee, and I will give thee rest.” Here a clear distinction is made between an ordinary angel, and the angel who carries with him God’s presence. The conclusion may be summed up in the words of Davidson in his Old Testament Theology: “In particular providences one may trace the presence of Yahweh in influence and operation; in ordinary angelic appearances one may discover Yahweh present on some side of His being, in some attribute of His character; in the angel of the Lord He is fully present as the covenant God of His people, to redeem them.” The question still remains, Who is theophanic angel? To this many answers have been given, of which the following may be mentioned: (1) This angel is simply an angel with a special commission; (2) He may be a momentary descent of God into visibility; (3) He may be the Logos, a kind of temporary preincarnation of the second person of the Trinity. Each has its difficulties, but the last is certainly the most tempting to the mind. Yet it must be remembered that at best these are only conjectures that touch on a great mystery. It is certain that from the beginning God used angels in human form, with human voices, in order to communicate with man; and the appearances of the angel of the Lord, with his special redemptive relation to God’s people, show the working of that Divine mode of self-revelation which culminated in the coming of the Saviour, and are thus a fore-shadowing of, and a preparation for, the full revelation of God in Jesus Christ. Further than this, it is not safe to go.

III. Angels in New Testament.

1. Appearances:

Nothing is related of angels in New Testament, which is inconsistent with the teaching of Old Testament on the subject. Just as they are specially active in the beginning of Old Testament history, when God’s people is being born, so they appear frequently in connection with the birth of Jesus, and again when a new order of things begins with the resurrection. An angel appears three times in dreams to Joseph (Mt 1:20; 2:13, 19). The angel Gabriel appears to Zacharias, and then to Mary in the annunciation (Lu 1:1-80). An angel announces to the shepherds the birth of Jesus, and is joined by a “multitude of the heavenly host,” praising God in celestial song (Lu 2:8 ff). When Jesus is tempted, and again during the agony at Gethsemane, angels appear to Him to strengthen His soul (Mt 4:11; Lu 22:43). The verse which tells how an angel came down to trouble the pool (Joh 5:4) is now omitted from the text as not being genuine. An angel descends to roll away the stone from the tomb of Jesus (Mt 28:2); angels are seen there by certain women (Lu 24:23) and (two) by Mary Magdalene (Joh 20:12). An angel releases the apostles from prison, directs Philip, appears to Peter in a dream, frees him from prison, smites Herod with sickness, appears to Paul in a dream (Ac 5:19; 8:26; 10:3; 12:7 ff; Ac 12:23; 27:23). Once they appear clothed in white; they are so dazzling in appearance as to terrify beholders; hence they begin their message with the words “Fear not” (Mt 28:2-5).

2. The Teaching of Jesus about Angels:

It is quite certain that our Lord accepted the main teachings of Old Testament about angels, as well as the later Jewish belief in good and bad angels. He speaks of the “angels in heaven” (Mt 22:30), and of “the devil and his angels” (Mt 25:41). According to our Lord the angels of God are holy (Mark 8:38); they have no sex or sensuous desires (Mt 22:30); they have high intelligence, but they know not the time of the Second Coming (Mt 24:36); they carry (in a parable) the soul of Lazarus to Abraham’s bosom (Lu 16:22); they could have been summoned to the aid of our Lord, had He so desired (Mt 26:53); they will accompany Him at the Second Coming (Mt 25:31) and separate the righteous from the wicked (Mt 13:41, 49). They watch with sympathetic eyes the fortunes of men, rejoicing in the repentance of a sinner (Lu 15:10; compare 1Pe 1:12; Eph. 3:10; 1Co 4:9); and they will hear the Son of Man confessing or denying those who have confessed or denied Him before men (Lu 12:8 f). The angels of the presence of God, who do not appear to correspond to our conception of guardian angels, are specially interested in God’s little ones (Mt 18:10). Finally, the existence of angels is implied in the Lord’s Prayer in the petition, “Thy will be done, as in heaven, so on earth” (Mt 6:10).

3. Other New Testament References:

Paul refers to the ranks of angels (“principalities, powers” etc.) only in order to emphasize the complete supremacy of Jesus Christ. He teaches that angels will be judged by the saints (1Co 6:3). He attacks the incipient Gnosticism of Asia Minor by forbidding the, worship of angels (Col 2:18). He speaks of God’s angels as “elect,” because they are included in the counsels of Divine love (1Ti 5:21). When Paul commands the women to keep their heads covered in church because of the angels (1Co 11:10) he probably means that the angels, who watch all human affairs with deep interest, would be pained to see any infraction of the laws of modesty. In Hebrews 1:14 angels are (described as ministering spirits engaged in the service of the saints. Peter also emphasizes the supremacy of our Lord over all angelic beings (1Pe 3:22). The references to angels in 2Peter and Jude are colored by contact with Apocrypha literature. In Revelation, where the references are obviously symbolic, there is very frequent mention of angels. The angels of the seven churches (Re 1:20) are the guardian angels or the personifications of these churches. The worship of angels is also forbidden (Re 22:8 f). Specially interesting is the mention of elemental angels—“the angel of the waters” (Re 16:5), and the angel “that hath power over fire” (Re 14:18; compare Re 7:1; 19:17). Reference is also made to the “angel of the bottomless pit,” who is called ABADDON or APOLLYON (which see), evidently an evil angel (Re 9:11 the King James Version, the Revised Version (British and American) “abyss”). In Re 12:7 ff we are told that there was war between Michael with his angels and the dragon with his angels.

IV. Development of the Doctrine.

In the childhood of the race, it was easy to believe in God, and He was very near to the soul. In Paradise, there is no thought of angels; it is God Himself who walks in the garden. A little later, the thought of angels appears, but, God has not gone away, and as “the angel of Yahweh” He appears to His people and redeems them. In these early times the Jews believed that there were multitudes of angels, not yet divided in thought into good and bad; these had no names or personal characteristics, but were simply embodied messages. Till the time of the captivity the Jewish angelology shows little development. During that dark period they came into close contact with a polytheistic people, only to be more deeply confirmed in their monotheism thereby. They also became acquainted with the purer faith of the Persians, and in all probability viewed the tenets of Zoroastrianism with a more favorable eye, because of the great kindness of Cyrus to their nation. There are few direct traces of Zoroastrianism in the later angelology of the Old Testament. It is not even certain that the number seven as applied to the highest group of angels is Persian in its origin; the number seven was not wholly disregarded by the Jews. One result of the contact was that the idea of a hierarchy of the angels was more fully developed. The conception in Dan of angels as “watchers,” and the idea of patron-princes or angel-guardians of nations may be set down to Persian influence. It is probable that contact with the Persians helped the Jews to develop ideas already latent in their minds. According to Jewish tradition, the names of the angels came from Babylon. By this time the consciousness of sin had grown more intense in the Jewish mind, and God had receded to an immeasurable distance; the angels helped to fill the gap between God and man.

The more elaborate conceptions of Daniel and Zechariah are further developed in Apocrypha, especially in 2Esdras, Tobit and 2Macc.

In the New Testament, we find that there is little further development; and by the Spirit of God its writers were saved from the absurdly puerile teachings of contemporary Rabbinism. We find that the Sadducees, as contrasted with the Pharisees, did not believe in angels or spirits (Ac 23:8). We may conclude that the Sadducees, with their materialistic standpoint, and denial of the resurrection, regarded angels merely as symbolical expressions of God’s actions. It is noteworthy in this connection that the great priestly document (Priestly Code, P) makes no mention of angels. The Book of Revelation naturally shows a close kinship to the books of Ezekiel and Daniel.

Regarding the rabbinical developments of angelology, some beautiful, some extravagant, some grotesque, but all fanciful, it is not necessary here to speak. The Essenes held an esoteric doctrine of angels, in which most scholars find the germ of the Gnostic eons.

V. The Reality of Angels.

A belief in angels, if not indispensable to the faith of a Christian, has its place there. In such a belief there is nothing unnatural or contrary to reason. Indeed, the warm welcome which human nature has always given to this thought is an argument in its favor. Why should there not be such an order of beings, if God so willed it? For the Christian the whole question turns on the weight to be attached to the words of our Lord. All are agreed that He teaches the existence, reality, and activity of angelic beings. Was He in error because of His human limitations? That is a conclusion, which it is very hard for the Christian to draw, and we may set it aside. Did He then adjust His teaching to popular belief, knowing that what He said was not true? This explanation would seem to impute deliberate untruth to our Lord, and must equally be set aside. So we find ourselves restricted to the conclusion that we have the guaranty of Christ’s word for the existence of angels; for most Christians that will settle the question.

The visible activity of angels has come to an end, because their mediating work is done; Christ has founded the kingdom of the Spirit, and God’s Spirit speaks directly to the spirit of man. This new and living way has been opened up to us by Jesus Christ, upon whom faith can yet behold the angels of God ascending and descending. Still they watch the lot of man, and rejoice in his salvation; still they join in the praise and adoration of God, the Lord of hosts, still can they be regarded as “ministering spirits sent forth to do service for the sake of them that shall inherit salvation.” John Macartney Wilson (5)

Notes:

1. Charles John Ellicott, Bible Commentary for English Readers, 2Kings, Vol.3, (London, England, Cassell and Company), p.182-183.

2. Matthew Poole’s Commentary on the Holy Bible, Jude. Vol. 3. (Peabody, Massachusetts, Hendrickson Publishers, 1985) p. 945.

3. Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, Commentary on the Whole Bible, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Zondervan, 1977) p. 710.

4. Charles John Ellicott, Bible Commentary for English Readers, Isaiah, Vol.4, (London, England, Cassell and Company), p.432-433.

5. Orr, James, M.A., D.D. General Editor, Entry for “ANGELS,” “International Standard Bible Encyclopedia,” (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Eerdmans, reprinted 1986), pp. 132-135.

“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. He served as an ordained ruling elder in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. He worked in and retired from a fortune five hundred company in corporate America after forty years. He runs two blogs sites and 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

For more study:

* CARM theological dictionary https://carm.org/dictionary-hermeneutics

** Angels at http://reformedanswers.org/answer.asp/file/40882

Can angels be spirit guides?

Popular Angels and the Occult by: The John Ankerberg Show https://www.jashow.org/artic…/popular-angels-and-the-occult/

What are spirit guides? Should Christians consult spirit guides? https://www.gotquestions.org/spirit-guides.html