Tag Archives: bible

June 5, 2024 · 4:04 pm

Does Acts 2:38 teach that baptism saves?

Does Acts 2:38 teach that baptism saves?                                                           by Jack Kettler

“Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 2:38)

Acts 2:38 does not teach that baptism is necessary for salvation:

Acts 2:38 in the King James Version (KJV) reads: “Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.”

In this passage, Reformed theologians argue that the Greek grammar does not support the interpretation that baptism is necessary for salvation. The key phrase in question is “for the remission of sins” (Greek: εἰς ἄφεσιν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν).

The Greek preposition “εἰς” (eis) is often translated as “for” or “unto,” but it can also carry the meaning of “because of,” “on the basis of,” or “on account of.” Reformed theologians argue that the latter interpretation is more consistent with the overall context of Scripture. They believe that the phrase “εἰς ἄφεσιν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν” should be understood as “on the basis of the remission of sins,” indicating that baptism is a response to the forgiveness of sins rather than a prerequisite for it.

Additional reasons why the interpretation that this passage does not teach that baptism is required for salvation:

The passage is teaching with a view to receiving forgiveness of sins rather than making baptism itself the requirement for forgiveness. In other passages, Scripture clearly teaches that salvation is by grace through faith in Christ alone, not by works such as baptism (Ephesians 2:8-9, Romans 3:28, Galatians 2:16).

There are examples in Scripture of people being forgiven and receiving the Holy Spirit before being baptized, such as Cornelius (Acts 10:44-48).

The immediate context of Acts 2:38 is Peter’s call for repentance (v. 38), which is consistently taught as the prerequisite for salvation (e.g., Mark 1:15, Luke 24:47, Acts 3:19).

So, a more likely interpretation is that Peter was calling the people to repent (turn from sin to Christ in faith) and then be baptized as a public identification with Christ and His forgiveness, rather than saying baptism itself is what grants forgiveness. Baptism is an important step of obedience, but Scripture seems to present it as a subsequent act that symbolizes the inward reality of salvation by faith, not as the means of achieving it.

Furthermore, Reformed theologians point to other passages in Scripture that emphasize salvation by grace through faith alone (Ephesians 2:8-9; Romans 3:28). They argue that baptism is an outward sign of an inward reality, a public declaration of one’s faith in Christ and the forgiveness of sins, rather than a means of obtaining salvation.

1.      If baptism is required for salvation, as some interpretations of Acts 2:38 suggest, salvation depends on the individual’s specific action or work.

2.      The doctrine of salvation by grace through faith alone, as taught in Ephesians 2:8-9 and Romans 3:28, emphasizes that salvation is a gift of God’s grace and not earned by works.

3.      If salvation depends on baptism, it contradicts the doctrine of salvation by grace through faith alone, as it introduces a requirement for salvation based on an individual’s work.

4.      Therefore, if Acts 2:38 teaches that baptism is required for salvation, it teaches a works-based salvation, which is inconsistent with the broader biblical teaching on salvation by grace through faith alone.

One classical commentary that refutes the idea that Acts 2:38 teaches that baptism is required for salvation is John Calvin’s commentary on Acts 2:38. Calvin, a prominent figure in the Protestant Reformation, argues that the phrase “for the remission of sins” should be understood as “because of the remission of sins.”

Calvin writes:

“Be baptized every one of you. Although in the text and order of the words, baptism doth here go before remission of sins, yet doth it follow it in order, because it is nothing else but a sealing of those good things which we have by Christ that they may be established in our consciences; therefore, after that Peter had intreated of repentance, he calleth the Jews unto the hope of grace and salvation; and, therefore, Luke well afterwards, in Paul’s sermon, joineth faith and repentance together in the same sense, wherein he putteth forgiveness of sins in this place, and that for good considerations; for the hope of salvation consisteth in the free imputation of righteousness; and we are counted just, freely before God, when he forgiveth us our sins. And as I said before, that the doctrine of repentance hath a daily use in the Church so must we think of the forgiveness of sins, that the same is continually offered unto us; and surely it is no less necessary for us during the whole course of our life, than at our first entrance into the Church, so that it should profit us nothing to be once received into favor by God, unless this embassage should have a continual course; be-reconciled unto God, because

“he which knew no sin was made sin for us, that we might be the righteousness of God in him,” (2 Corinthians 5:20.)

Moreover, the Papists do so corrupt this other part of the gospel, that they quite exclude the remission of sins, which was to be obtained by Christ. They confess their sins are freely forgiven in baptism, but they will have them redeemed with satisfactions after baptism; and although they mix the grace of Christ together therewithal, yet because they inwrap the same in men’s merits, they do by this means overthrow the whole doctrine of the gospel; for, first, they take from men’s consciences the certainty of faith; that done, forasmuch as they part the forgiveness of sins between the death of Christ and our satisfactions, they do altogether deprive us of Christ’s benefit. For Christ doth not reconcile us unto God in part, but wholly, neither can we obtain remission of sins by him, unless it be whole and perfect. But the Papists are much deceived therein, who restrain baptism unto the nativity and former life, as if the signification and force thereof did not reach even unto death.

Let us know, therefore, that forgiveness of sins is grounded in Christ alone, and that we must not think upon any other satisfaction [127] save only that which he hath performed by the sacrifice of his death. And for this cause, as we have already said, doth Peter express his name, whereby he doth signify unto us, that none of all these things can be rightly taught, unless Christ be set in the midst, to the end the effect of this doctrine may be sought in him. That needeth no long exposition where he commandeth them to be baptized for the remission of sins; for although God hath once reconciled men unto himself in Christ” by not imputing unto them their sins,” (2 Corinthians 5:19,) and doth now imprint in our hearts the faith thereof by his Spirit; yet, notwithstanding, because baptism is the seal whereby he doth confirm unto us this benefit, and so, consequently, the earnest and pledge of our adoption, it is worthily said to be given us for the remission of sins. For because we receive Christ’s gifts by faith, and baptism is a help to confirm and increase our faith, remission of sins, which is an effect of faith, is annexed unto it as unto the inferior mean. Furthermore, we must not fetch the definition of baptism from this place, because Peter doth only touch a part thereof. Our old man is crucified by baptism, as Paul teacheth, that we may rise unto newness of life, (Romans 6:4, 6.) And, again, we put on Christ himself, (1 Corinthians 12.) and the Scripture teacheth every where, that it is also a sign and token of repentance, (Galatians 3:27.) But because Peter doth not intreat in thin place openly of the whole nature of baptism, but speaking of the forgiveness of sins, doth, by the way, declare that the confirmation thereof is in baptism, there doth no inconvenience follow, if ye do omit the other part. [128]

In the name of Christ. Although baptism be no vain figure, but a true and effectual testimony; notwithstanding, lest any man attribute that unto the element of water which is there offered, the name of Christ is plainly expressed, to the end we may know that it shall be a profitable sign for us then, if we seek the force and effect thereof in Christ, and know that we are, therefore, washed in baptism, because the blood of Christ is our washing; and we do also hereby gather, that Christ is, the mark and end whereunto baptism directeth us; wherefore, every one profiteth so much in baptism as he learneth to look unto Christ. But here ariseth a question, Whether it were lawful for Peter to change the form prescribed by Christ? The Papists do think, at least feign so, and thence do they take a color of liberty to change or abrogate the institutions of Christ. They confess that nothing ought to be changed, as touching the substance, but they will have the Church to have liberty to change whatsoever it will in the form. But this argument may easily be answered. For we must first know that Christ did not indite and rehearse unto his apostles magical words for enchanting, as the Papists do dream, but he did, in few words, comprehend the sum of the mystery. Again, I deny that Peter doth speak in this place of the form of baptism; but he doth simply declare that the whole strength [129] of baptism is contained in Christ; although Christ cannot be laid hold on by faith without the Father by whom he was given us, and the Spirit by the which he reneweth and sanctifieth us. The answer consisteth wholly in this, that he intreateth not in this place of the certain form of baptizing, but the faithful are called back unto Christ, in whom alone we have whatsoever baptism doth prefigure unto us; for we are both made clean by his blood, and also we enter into a new life by the benefit of his death and resurrection.

Ye shall receive the gift of the Spirit. Because they were touched with wondering when they saw the apostles suddenly begin to speak with strange tongues, Peter saith that they shall be partakers of the same gift if they will pass over unto Christ. Remission of sins and newness of life were the principal things, and this was, as it were, an addition, that Christ should show forth unto them his power by some visible gift. Neither ought this place to be understood of the grace of sanctification, which is given generally to all the godly. Therefore he promiseth them the gift of the Spirit, whereof they saw a pattern in the diversity of tongues. Therefore this doth not properly appertain unto us. For because Christ meant to set forth the beginning of his kingdom with those miracles, they lasted but for a time; yet because the visible graces which the Lord did distribute to his did shoe, as it were in a glass, that Christ was the giver of the Spirit, therefore, that which Peter saith doth in some respect appertain unto all the whole Church: ye shall receive the gift of the Spirit. For although we do not receive it, that we may speak with tongues, that we may be prophets, that we may cure the sick, that we may work miracles; yet is it given us for a better use, that we may believe with the heart unto righteousness, that our tongues may be framed unto true confession, (Romans 10:10,) that we may pass from death to life, (John 5:24) that we, which are poor and empty, may be made rich, that we may withstand Satan and the world stoutly. Therefore, the grace of the Spirit shall always be annexed unto baptism, unless the let be in ourselves.” (1)

Calvin explains that baptism is an outward sign of an inward reality, a public declaration of one’s faith in Christ and the forgiveness of sins, rather than a means of obtaining salvation. This interpretation is consistent with the broader Reformed understanding of salvation by grace through faith alone.

In summary, Reformed theology interprets Acts 2:38 in light of the broader biblical teaching on salvation, arguing that the Greek grammar supports the understanding that baptism is a response to the remission of sins rather than a prerequisite for it.

The above study was Groked and perfected with Grammarly AI.

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

Notes:

1.      John Calvin, Calvin’s Commentaries, Acts, Volume 18, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Baker Book House Reprinted 1979), pp. 116-121.

Mr. Kettler is a respected author who has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife, Marea, are active Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church members. Mr. Kettler’s extensive work includes 18 books defending the Reformed Faith, which are available for order online at Amazon.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as , , , ,

June 1, 2024 · 4:09 pm

John 1:1, an Exegesis

John 1:1, an Exegesis                                                                                      by Jack Kettler

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (John 1:1)

John 1:1 is a cornerstone of Christian theology, as it introduces the concept of the “Word” (Greek: Logos) as a divine entity that coexisted with God from the very beginning. Breaking it down grammatically and biblically, one finds:

1.      “In the beginning” – This phrase echoes the opening of Genesis, suggesting a cosmic, timeless context. It implies that the Word existed before the creation of the world.

2.      “Was” – The verb “was” (Greek: ἦν, eimi) is in the imperfect tense, indicating continuous existence. It emphasizes the eternal nature of the Word.

3.      “The Word”- The Greek term “Logos” (λόγος) is rich in meaning. It can refer to the spoken word, reason, or an underlying principle or logic. John’s Gospel refers to the preexistent Christ, who embodies God’s wisdom and creative power.

4.      “With God” – The preposition “with” (Greek: πρός, pros) suggests a close, intimate relationship between the Word and God. It implies a distinction of persons within the Godhead, yet a unity of essence.

5.      “And the Word was God”- This phrase affirms the Word’s deity. The absence of the definite article before “God” (Greek: θεός, theos) is grammatically significant. It suggests that the Word shares the same divine nature as God without implying that the Word is a separate god.

Biblically, this verse establishes Jesus as the pre-existent, divine Word who became flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:14). It sets the stage for the rest of the Gospel, which proclaims Jesus as the incarnate Son of God, the source of life and light, and the Savior of the world.

The Arian Heresy:

The Arian heresy refers to a theological controversy that arose in the early Christian Church, named after its most prominent proponent, Arius, a presbyter from Alexandria in the early 4th century. At the heart of the controversy was the nature of the relationship between God the Father and Jesus Christ.

Arius taught that Jesus Christ, the Son, was not co-eternal with God the Father. He argued that the Son was created by the Father, and therefore, there was a time when the Son did not exist. In Arius’ view, the Son was a created being, divine in nature but not equal to the Father.

This view starkly contrasted with the traditional Christian belief, which held that the Son was co-eternal with the Father and fully divine, a belief encapsulated in the doctrine of the Trinity. The Arian heresy was condemned as a heresy at the First Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, where the Council Fathers affirmed the full divinity of the Son and formulated the Nicene Creed, which states that the Son is “of one substance with the Father.”

The Arian controversy had significant implications for the development of Christian theology. It forced the Church to clarify and define its understanding of the Trinity and the nature of Christ, leading to the formulation of doctrines that are still central to Christian theology today.

A modern-day example of Arianism:

The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, commonly known as the Jehovah’s Witnesses, interprets John 1:1 as “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.” This interpretation is based on a particular reading of the Greek text and has been a point of significant theological debate.

Biblical scholars have criticized this interpretation for several reasons:

1.      Greek Grammar: The Watchtower’s translation hinges on the absence of the definite article “the” (Greek: ὁ, ho) before “God” (Greek: θεός, theos) in the phrase “the Word was God.” However, Greek grammar does not require the definite article to denote a definite noun. The absence of the article here is more likely a stylistic choice to emphasize the nature of the Word rather than to diminish its divinity.

2.      Contextual Analysis: The Watchtower’s interpretation ignores the broader context of John’s Gospel, which consistently presents Jesus as divine. For example, John 20:28, where Thomas calls Jesus “My Lord and my God,” and John 10:30, where Jesus states, “I and the Father are one.”

3.      Historical Context: The early Christian Church universally accepted Christ’s deity. The Jehovah’s Witnesses’ interpretation is a relatively recent development, first appearing in their New World Translation of the Bible in 1950.

4.      Biblical Theology: The doctrine of the Trinity, which holds that the Father, the Son (Jesus), and the Holy Spirit are three distinct persons in one divine essence, is a central tenet of orthodox Christianity. The Watchtower’s interpretation contradicts this doctrine by suggesting that Jesus is a lesser deity, or “a god,” rather than being fully divine.

In conclusion, the Watchtower’s interpretation of John 1:1 is not accepted among biblical scholars and theologians. It is seen as a misinterpretation that stems from a particular theological perspective rather than a careful reading of the Greek text and its broader biblical context.

Additionally, the Granville Sharp Rule, named after the English theologian and scholar Granville Sharp, is a grammatical principle applied to the translation of New Testament Greek. It is used to determine the relationship between two nouns in a sentence when they are connected by the conjunction “and” (Greek: καί, “kai”). The rule states that when two singular common nouns are used to describe a person, and those two nouns are joined by the conjunction “and,” and the definite article (Greek: ὁ, “ho”) precedes the first noun, but not the second, then both nouns refer to the same person.

This rule is significant in New Testament studies, particularly in discussions regarding the deity of Christ. It has been applied to several verses, notably Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1, to argue that Jesus is explicitly referred to as “God” in these texts. For example, in Titus 2:13, the phrase “the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ” is translated from Greek as “τοῦ μεγάλου Θεοῦ καὶ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ.” According to the Granville Sharp Rule, since “God” and “Savior” are both preceded by the definite article “the” (in the genitive case), they refer to the same person, Jesus Christ, who is thus identified as “God” and “Savior.”

What a number of Greek scholars think about The New World Translation of John 1:1:

Dr. J. R. Mantey (who is quoted on pages 1158-1159) of the Jehovah’s Witnesses own Kingdom Interlinear Translation):

“A shocking mistranslation.” “Obsolete and incorrect.” “It is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 ‘The Word was a god.’”

“But of all the scholars in the world, so far as we know, none have translated this verse as Jehovah’s Witnesses have done.”

“I have never read any New Testament so badly translated as the Kingdom Interlinear of the Greek Scriptures…. It is a distortion–not a translation.”

“The translators of the New World Translation are ‘diabolical deceivers.’”

Dr. Bruce M. Metzger of Princeton (Professor of New Testament Language and Literature):

“A frightful mistranslation.” “Erroneous” and “pernicious” “reprehensible” “If the Jehovah’s Witnesses take this translation seriously, they are polytheists.”

Dr. Samuel J. Mikolaski of Zurich, Switzerland:

“This anarthrous (used without the article) construction does not mean what the indefinite article ‘a’ means in English. It is monstrous to translate the phrase ‘the Word was a god.’”

Dr. Paul L. Kaufman of Portland, Oregon:

“The Jehovah’s Witnesses people evidence an abysmal ignorance of the basic tenets of Greek grammar in their mistranslation of John 1:1.”

Dr. Charles L. Feinberg of La Mirada, California:

“I can assure you that the rendering which the Jehovah’s Witnesses give John 1:1 is not held by any reputable Greek scholar.”

Dr. James L. Boyer of Winona Lake, Indiana:

“I have never heard of, or read of any Greek Scholar who would have agreed to the interpretation of this verse insisted upon by the Jehovah’s Witnesses…I have never encountered one of them who had any knowledge of the Greek language.”

Dr. William Barclay of the University of Glasgow, Scotland:

“The deliberate distortion of truth by this sect is seen in their New Testament translations. John 1:1 is translated: ‘…the Word was a god,’ a translation which is grammatically impossible…It is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest.”

Dr. F. F. Bruce of the University of Manchester, England:

“Much is made by Arian amateur grammarians of the omission of the definite article with ‘God’ in the phrase ‘And the Word was God.’ Such an omission is common with nouns in a predicative construction…’a god’ would be totally indefensible.”

Dr. Ernest C. Colwell of the University of Chicago:

“A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb…this statement cannot be regarded as strange in the prologue of the gospel which reaches its climax in the confession of Thomas. ‘My Lord and my God.’ – John 20:28”

Dr. Phillip B. Harner of Heidelberg College:

“The verb preceding an anarthrous predicate would probably mean that the LOGOS was ‘a god’ or a divine being of some kind, belonging to the general category of THEOS but as a distinct being from HO THEOS. In the form that John actually uses, the word “THEOS” is placed at the beginning for emphasis.”

Dr. J. Johnson of California State University, Long Beach:

“No justification whatsoever for translating THEOS EN HO LOGOS as ‘the Word was a god.’ There is no syntactical parallel to Acts 28:6 where there is a statement in indirect discourse; John 1:1 is direct….I am neither a Christian nor a trinitarian.”

Dr. Eugene A. Nida, head of the Translations Department, American Bible Society:

“With regard to John 1:1, there is of course a complication simply because the New World Translation was apparently done by persons who did not take seriously the syntax of the Greek.” [Responsible for the Good News Bible – The committee worked under him.]

Dr. B. F. Wescott (whose Greek text – not the English part – is used in the Kingdom Interlinear Translation):

“The predicate (God) stands emphatically first, as in IV.24. It is necessarily without the article…No idea of inferiority of nature is suggested by the form of expression, which simply affirms the true deity of the Word…in the third clause ‘the Word’ is declared to be ‘God’ and so included in the unity of the Godhead.”

The above study was Groked and perfected with Grammarly AI.

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

Mr. Kettler, a respected author and has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife, Marea, are active members of the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr. Kettler’s extensive work includes 18 books defending the Reformed Faith, which are available for order online at Amazon.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as , , , ,

May 25, 2024 · 3:34 pm

What is Divine Accommodation?

What is Divine Accommodation?                                                                     By Jack Kettler

The concept of divine accommodation in Christian theology refers to the idea that God, in His divine revelation, communicates with humans in ways that are understandable and accessible to their limited capacities. This principle suggests that God, being infinitely transcendent, adjusts His communication to match the cognitive and cultural context of the recipients of His revelation.

Divine accommodation is grounded in the Christian belief that humans are created in God’s image, which includes the capacity for reason and understanding. However, this does not mean that humans can fully comprehend the divine nature. Therefore, God accommodates His communication to our level, using language, concepts, and cultural expressions that are familiar to us.

This principle is evident in the Bible, where God often uses anthropomorphic language to describe Himself and His actions. For instance, the Bible speaks of God’s “hand,” “eyes,” and “ears,” and it describes God as “walking” in the garden with Adam and Eve. These expressions are not to be taken literally but rather as instances of divine accommodation, where God is described in human terms to facilitate understanding.

The idea of divine accommodation is also central to the Christian understanding of Jesus Christ, who is considered the ultimate revelation of God. In the incarnation, God the Son took on human form and lived among us, experiencing human life in all its fullness. This act of divine accommodation is seen as God’s most profound and intimate form of communication with humanity.

Examples of divine accommodation in the Bible, which show God’s interaction with humans in a manner that accommodates their understanding:

1.      Genesis 18:1-8 describes Abraham’s encounter with the three men (often considered to be the Lord and two angels) in the plains of Mamre. God appears in human form, eats, and converses with Abraham, showing an accommodation of human form and needs.

2.      Exodus 33:11 – God speaks to Moses “face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend.” Exodus 33:11 shows an accommodation of human communication methods, allowing Moses to understand and relate to God more easily.

3.      Numbers 12:6-8 – God speaks to the prophets in visions and dreams, a form of communication that accommodates the human capacity for understanding.

4.      1 Samuel 3:1-10 – God speaks to the young Samuel in a dream, using a method that accommodates Samuel’s age and understanding.

5.      Job 38-41 – God speaks to Job out of a whirlwind, a form of divine communication that accommodates human senses and understanding.

6.      Matthew 1:22-23 – The prophecy of Isaiah 7:14 is fulfilled in the birth of Jesus, showing God’s accommodation of human history and prophecy.

7.      John 1:14 – “The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.” The Incarnation of Christ is the ultimate example of divine accommodation, as God takes on human form in the person of Jesus Christ to interact with humanity on a personal level.

8.      1 Corinthians 1:21 – “For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.” 1 Corinthians 1:21 shows God’s accommodation in the method of salvation, choosing to communicate the gospel through human speech and preaching.

These above examples illustrate the principle of divine accommodation, where God communicates and interacts with humans in ways that are accessible and understandable to them despite their vast differences in nature.

In conclusion:

The Christian idea of God’s accommodation is a theological principle that acknowledges God’s infinite transcendence and His accommodation of human limitations in His revelation. It underscores the belief that God desires to communicate with His creation in ways that are accessible and understandable to them.

God appropriates humanly intelligible means to communicate real knowledge of himself. God speaks to us in a form that is suited to our human capacity.

From Institutes of the Christian Religion by John Calvin, 1.17.13:

“Because our weakness cannot reach his height, any description which we receive of him must be lowered to our capacity in order to be intelligible. And the mode of lowering is to represent him not as he really is, but as we conceive of him.”

The above study was Groked and perfected using Grammarly AI

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

Respected author Mr. Kettler has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife, Marea, are active members of the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr. Kettler’s extensive work includes 18 books defending the Reformed Faith, which are available for order online at Amazon.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as , , , ,

May 18, 2024 · 4:54 pm

Christ’s Atonement, what is it?

Christ’s Atonement, what is it?                                                                            By Jack Kettler

The Scriptures:

“For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.” (Romans 5:10-11)

“And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.” (2 Corinthians 5:18-19)

Reformed theology’s doctrine of the atonement emphasizes certain aspects of Christ’s work on the cross and its implications for salvation, in which humanity is viewed as fallen and sinful, deserving of God’s judgment, and unable to save itself.

Christ’s atonement centers on the idea of penal substitutionary atonement, and teaches that:

1.      God’s Justice: God’s justice demands that sin be punished. In the Reformed view, Christ’s sacrificial death satisfies this demand for justice, allowing God to forgive sinners without compromising His righteousness.

2.      Penal Atonement: Jesus Christ, through His death on the cross, bore the penalty of sin on behalf of believers. This penalty includes both the punishment due to sin (the divine wrath and justice) and the moral guilt associated with sin.

3.      Substitutionary Atonement: Christ acted as a substitute for sinners, taking their place and bearing the consequences of sin so that believers might be reconciled to God.

4.      Propitiatory Sacrifice: To propitiate means to “appease” or to “placate.” Jesus gave his life as a propitiatory sacrifice, thus, appeasing or satisfying God’s wrath.

5.      Redemption and Justification: Through Christ’s atoning work, believers are redeemed from sin and its consequences. They are justified before God, declared righteous on the basis of Christ’s righteousness imputed to them.

Other inadequate or false views of the atonement:

1.      The Moral Influence Theory of Christ’s atonement posits that the primary purpose and result of Christ’s death was to influence mankind toward moral improvement. This view emphasizes the love of God as demonstrated by Christ’s life and sacrifice, rather than focusing on the satisfaction of divine justice or the payment of a debt owed to God or the Devil. Proponents of this theory believe that Christ’s death serves as an ultimate example of love, inspiring and teaching people to live a life of faith and obedience.                         

2.      The Christus Victor theory of Christ’s atonement, is a perspective on the Christian understanding of salvation. It emphasizes Christ’s victory over the powers of darkness, sin, and death, as opposed to a focus on the legal or transactional aspects of atonement that other theories might stress. His death is not seen as a payment to God or the Devil, but as a strategic move to defeat the forces of darkness and to demonstrate God’s love and power. Christ’s resurrection is then the ultimate victory, demonstrating that death and sin have been conquered once and for all.

3.      The Governmental Theory of Christ’s atonement, also known as the rectoral theory or the moral government theory, is a doctrine in Christian theology that proposes Christ’s suffering and death served as a demonstration of God’s justice and mercy, rather than a direct substitution for the punishment of individual sinners. It emphasizes the role of Christ’s sacrifice in upholding God’s moral order and governance of the world. According to this theory, Christ’s death was not a literal payment for the penalty of sin, but rather a symbolic act that showed the seriousness of sin and God’s commitment to justice. It was a way for God to demonstrate his moral standards and maintain his moral government of the universe without having to punish every sinner directly.

4.      The Recapitulation Theory of Christ’s atonement, emphasizes the idea that Christ’s life and work reversed the disobedience and sin initiated by Adam, thus restoring humanity to obedience. This theory suggests that Christ recapitulated, or relived, the stages of human life, from infancy to adulthood, and in doing so, corrected the course of humanity from disobedience to obedience. In essence, the Recapitulation Theory views Christ’s life and death as a comprehensive restoration of humanity, undoing the effects of Adam’s original sin. It is rooted in the understanding of Christ as the “new Adam,” who, through his obedience, counteracts the disobedience of the first Adam.

While having elements of truth, these other speculative theories highlight the unique importance and theological standpoints of Reformed theology’s doctrine of atonement, particularly its focus on penal substitutionary atonement as the central mechanism for dealing with sin and reconciling humanity to God.

To receive the benefits of Christ’s atonement, one must follow the teachings laid out in the New Testament:

1.      Repent and Come unto Christ: This involves recognizing one’s sins and committing to turn away from them. It requires faith in Jesus Christ and a desire to follow his teachings and example.

2.      Accept Christ as Your Savior: By accepting Jesus Christ as your personal Savior and Redeemer, you acknowledge that it is through his grace and mercy, made possible by the atonement, that you can be forgiven of your sins and reconciled to God.

The atonement is a gift from God.

In Conclusion, the Westminster Confession of Faith explains atonement this way:

“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.”

“V. The Lord Jesus, by His perfect obedience, and sacrifice of Himself, which He through the eternal Spirit, once offered up unto God, has fully satisfied the justice of His Father; and purchased, not only reconciliation, but an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven, for those whom the Father has given unto Him.” (WCF 11.3, 5)

The Confession teaches that Christ alone is a sufficient Savior, and to suggest that something more is required beyond Him would be blasphemous. It highlights the principle that the life of a creature is in the blood, and it is through the shedding of Christ’s blood that atonement is made for one’s life. This theological framework emphasizes the centrality of Christ’s sacrifice in achieving salvation and reconciliation with God

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

Notes:

Mr. Kettler, a respected author and has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife, Marea, are active members of the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr. Kettler’s extensive work includes 18 books defending the Reformed Faith, which are available for order online at Amazon.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as , , , ,

May 11, 2024 · 3:17 pm

Exploring the theological implications of God’s choices in Romans 9:13-18  

Exploring the theological implications of God’s choices in Romans 9:13-18                                                                       by Jack Kettler

“As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.” (Romans 9:13-18)

From the viewpoint of Reformed theology, Romans 9:13-18 illuminates God’s sovereignty in electing certain individuals for salvation while passing over others. Paul’s reference to Malachi 1:2-3 in verse 13, where God loved Jacob but hated Esau, underscores that God’s choice is not based on human merit or effort.

In verses 14-15, Paul addresses the question of fairness by asserting God’s right to show mercy and compassion to whomever He chooses. This aligns with the belief in unconditional election, where God’s choice for salvation is solely based on His will, not human merit.

Verse 16 brings forth a comforting truth, one that is central to the “Doctrines of Grace” theology in which salvation is not dependent on human will or effort. This reinforces the belief in “total depravity”, which asserts that humans, due to their inherently sinful nature, are incapable of seeking God or contributing to their salvation.

In verse 17, Paul cites the example of Pharaoh, who was raised by God to demonstrate His power and mercy. This illustrates another key concept of Reformed theology, “reprobation,” where God passes over certain individuals, allowing them to remain in their sinful state to serve His purposes.

Finally, verse 18 reiterates the reassuring truth of God’s sovereignty in hardening hearts and showing mercy, emphasizing the Reformed theology’s belief in irresistible grace, which holds that God’s elect will inevitably respond to His call and be saved.

In summary of the above:

From a Reformed theological perspective, the concept of free will is considered inadequate to refute Romans 9:13-18 or to make the text more palatable to an unbeliever because it assumes that human choice plays a role in determining salvation. Reformed theology, on the other hand, emphasizes God’s sovereignty and the belief in total depravity, stating that humans are incapable of seeking God or contributing to their salvation due to their inherently sinful nature.

In the context of Romans 9:13-18, the Reformed theological interpretation highlights that salvation is not dependent on human will or effort but solely on God’s sovereign choice (verse 16). This understanding is further reinforced by Paul’s assertion that God has the right to show mercy and compassion to whomever He chooses (verse 15), indicating that salvation is not a result of human merit or decision-making.

Additionally, the concept of free will is considered inadequate because it does not account for the Reformed doctrine of irresistible grace, which maintains that God’s elect will inevitably respond to His call and be saved. This belief is supported by Romans 9:18, which emphasizes that God has the power to harden hearts and show mercy according to His sovereign will.

Consider the following comments on Romans 9:18 from Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible:

“Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will,… These are the express words of the former testimony: it follows, and whom he will he hardeneth; which is the just and natural consequence of what is contained in the latter; for if God could, or he did, without any injustice, raise up Pharaoh, and harden his heart against him and his people, that he might rise up against him and destroy him by his power for his own glory, then he may harden any other person, and even whom he will: now this hardening of men’s hearts may be understood in perfect agreement with the justice and holiness of God: men first harden their own hearts by sinning, as Pharaoh did; what God does, is by leaving them to the hardness of their hearts, denying them that grace which only can soften them, and which he is not obliged to give, and therefore does them no injustice in withholding it from them; by sending them both mercies and judgments, which through the corruption of their hearts, are the means of the greater hardening of them; so judgments in the case of Pharaoh, and mercies in the case of others; see Isaiah 6:10; by delivering them up into the hands of Satan, and to their own lusts, which they themselves approve of; and by giving them up to a judicial blindness and hardness of heart, as a just punishment for their impieties.” (1)

Gill’s comments discuss the concept of divine hardening of hearts, particularly referencing the story of Pharaoh in the Bible. It suggests that God may harden the hearts of individuals, as seen with Pharaoh, for his own purposes without injustice. It argues that individuals first harden their own hearts through sin, and God’s action in hardening is by allowing them to remain in this state, withholding grace that could soften them. This hardening can occur through various means such as the denial of grace, sending mercies and judgments that further harden hearts, delivering individuals to their own lusts, and allowing them to experience judicial blindness and hardness of heart as a punishment for their sins.

In summary, according to Reformed theology, the concept of free will is not an adequate rebuttal to Romans 9:13-18 because it contradicts the core biblical beliefs in God’s sovereignty, total depravity, and irresistible grace.

Stated logically:

1.      Premise 1: Free will requires that individuals have the ability to make genuinely uncaused choices.

2.      Premise 2: Uncaused choices cannot be rational or morally responsible, as they are arbitrary and not grounded in reason or character.

3.      Premise 3: A moral agent must be able to make rational and morally responsible choices.

4.      Conclusion: Therefore, free will arguments fail, as they require uncaused choices, which are neither rational nor morally responsible, contradicting the necessary conditions for moral agency.

The following hypothetical story by Christian philosopher and theologian Gordon H. Clark makes the point that the free will argument is no solution to lighten or soften the Romans 9:13-18 text:  

“On the road below, to the observer’s left, a car is being driven west. To the observer’s right a car is coming south. He can see and know that there will be a collision at the intersection immediately beneath him. But his foreknowledge, so the argument runs, does not cause [that is made necessary] the accident. Similarly, God is supposed to know the future without causing it.”

“The similarity, however, is deceptive on several points. A human observer cannot really know that a collision will occur. Though it is unlikely, it is possible for both cars to have blowouts before reaching the intersection and swerving apart. It is also possible that the observer has misjudged speeds, in which case one car could slow down, and the other accelerates so that they would not collide. The human observer, therefore, does not infallible foreknowledge.”

“No such mistakes can be assumed for God. The human observer may make a probable guess that the accident will occur, and this guess does not make the accident unavoidable; but if God knows, there is no possibility of avoiding the accident. A hundred years before the drivers were born, there was no possibility that either of them could have chosen to stay home that day, to have driven a different route, to have driven a different time, to have driven a different speed. They could not have chosen otherwise than as they did. This means either that they had no free will [understood as a liberty of indifference] or that God did not know.”

“Suppose it be granted, just for the moment, that divine foreknowledge, like human guesses, does not cause the foreknown event. Even so, if there is foreknowledge, in contrast with fallible guesses, free will is impossible. If man has free will, and things can be different, God cannot be omniscient. Some Arminians have admitted this and have denied omniscience [the open theists], but this puts them obviously at odds with Biblical Christianity. There is also another difficulty. If the Arminian . . . wishes to retain divine omniscience and at the same time assert that foreknowledge has no causal efficacy, he is put to explain how the collision was made certain a hundred years, an eternity, before the drivers were born. If God did not arrange the universe this way, who did?”

“If God did not arrange it this way, then there must be an independent factor in the universe. And if there is such, one consequence and perhaps two follow. First, the doctrine of creation must be abandoned. . . . Independent forces cannot be created forces, and created forces cannot be independent. Then, second, if the universe is not God’s creation, his knowledge of it past and future cannot depend on what he intends to do, but on his observation of how it works. In such a case, how could we be sure that God’s observations are accurate? How could we be sure that these independent forces will not later show us an unsuspected twist that will falsify God’s predictions? And finally, on this view God’s knowledge would be empirical, rather than an integral part of his essence, and thus he would be a dependent knower. These objections are insurmountable. We can consistently believe in creation, omnipotence, omniscience, and the divine decree. But we cannot retain sanity and combine any of these with free will.” (2)

As seen from the above quote, Gordon H. Clark argued against the concept of free will from a Reformed theological perspective. His main arguments can be summarized as follows:

1.      Incompatibility with God’s sovereignty: Clark asserted that free will is incompatible with the idea of an omnipotent and sovereign God. He believed that if humans have free will, their choices could potentially contradict or override God’s sovereign plan, resulting in a limitation of God’s power and authority.

2.      Contradiction with divine foreknowledge: Clark argued that the concept of free will contradicts the idea of God’s foreknowledge, as it implies that God’s knowledge of future events is dependent on human choices. According to Clark, this undermines God’s omnipotence, as it suggests that God’s knowledge is contingent on human decisions rather than being absolute and certain.

3.      Impossibility of uncaused choices: Clark maintained that free will requires uncaused choices, which are logically impossible. He argued that every choice must have a cause, whether it is a conscious decision or an unconscious desire. Since uncaused choices cannot exist, free will, as traditionally understood, is an incoherent concept.

4.      Inconsistency with moral responsibility: Clark believed that free will is inconsistent with moral responsibility, as it assumes that individuals can be held accountable for their choices even if they are arbitrary and uncaused. He argued that genuine moral responsibility requires choices to be based on reasons and character, which is not possible if free will is understood as an uncaused choice.

In Conclusion:

Gordon H. Clark’s arguments against free will primarily revolve around the incompatibility of free will with God’s sovereignty, divine foreknowledge, the impossibility of uncaused choices, and the inconsistency of moral responsibility. Therefore, those who interpret Romans 9:13-18 in such a way as to not offend people are mishandling the Scriptures.

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

Notes:

1.      John Gill, Exposition of the Old and New Testaments, Romans, (Grace Works, Multi-Media Labs), p. 255.

2.      Gordon Clark, From God and Evil (Unicoi, TN: Trinity Foundation, 2004), 25 26. Cited in Reymond, What Is God? pp. 132, 133.

Mr. Kettler, a respected author and has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife, Marea, are active members of the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr. Kettler’s extensive work includes 18 books defending the Reformed Faith, which are available for order online at Amazon.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as , , , ,

May 7, 2024 · 3:11 pm

Does 1 Timothy 4:10 teach universal salvation? 

Does 1 Timothy 4:10 teach universal salvation?                                       by Jack Kettler

“For therefore we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, especially of those that believe.” (1Timothy 4:!0)

A surface meaning of the above text seems to teach that “ God, who is the Saviour of all men, especially of those that believe.” If so, this would mean Paul is teaching salvific universalism.

How can this be, since in other passages from Holy Scripture one reads:

“Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.” (Matthew 7:14-15)

For example, consider the Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary:

“Mt 7:13-29. Conclusion and Effect of the Sermon on the Mount.”

“We have here the application of the whole preceding discourse.”

“Conclusion of the Sermon on the Mount (Mt 7:13-27). “The righteousness of the kingdom,” so amply described, both in principle and in detail, would be seen to involve self-sacrifice at every step. Multitudes would never face this. But it must be faced, else the consequences will be fatal. This would divide all within the sound of these truths into two classes: the many, who will follow the path of ease and self-indulgence — end where it might; and the few, who, bent on eternal safety above everything else, take the way that leads to it—at whatever cost. This gives occasion to the two opening verses of this application.”

“13. Enter ye in at the strait gate—as if hardly wide enough to admit one at all. This expresses the difficulty of the first right step in religion, involving, as it does, a triumph over all our natural inclinations. Hence the still stronger expression in Luke (Lu 13:24), “Strive to enter in at the strait gate.”

“for wide is the gate—easily entered.

and broad is the way—easily trodden.

that leadeth to destruction, and—thus lured ‘many there be which go in thereat.’” (1)

According to the above commentary entry on Matthew, universal salvation is refuted. So, how should 1 Timothy 4:10 be understood?

Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers sheds important light upon the text:

“(10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach.—And for this end—to obtain this glorious promise, this highest blessedness here, that endless life with God hereafter, to win this glorious promise—we Christian missionaries and teachers care for no toil, however painful—shrink from no shame, however agonising.”

“Because we trust in the living God. — More accurately translated, because we have our hope in the living God. And this is why we toil and endure shame. We know that the promise made will be fulfilled, because the God on whom—as on a sure foundation—our hopes rest, is a living God. “Living,” in strong contrast to those dumb and lifeless idols shrined in the well-known Ephesian temples.”

“Who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.—These words, like the assertion of 1Timothy 2:4, have been often pressed into the service of that school of kindly, but mistaken, interpreters, who ignore, or explain away, the plain doctrine of Holy Scripture which tells us there are those whose destruction from the presence of the Lord shall be everlasting, whose portion shall be the “second death” (2 Thessalonians 1:9; Revelation 21:8). These interpreters prefer to substitute in place of this terrible, but repeated declaration, their own perilous theories of universalism. Here the gracious words seem to affix a seal to the statement immediately preceding, which speaks of “the hope in the living God” as the source of all the labour and brave patience of the Lord’s true servants. The living God is also a loving God, the Saviour of all, if they would receive Him, and, undoubtedly, the Redeemer of those who accept His love and are faithful to His holy cause.” (Emphasis mine)                   

“It must be borne in mind that there were many Hebrews still in every Christian congregation, many in every church, who still clung with passionate zeal to the old loved Hebrew thought, that Messiah’s work of salvation was limited to the chosen race. This and similar sayings were specially meant to set aside for ever these narrow and selfish conceptions of the Redeemer’s will; were intended to show these exclusive children of Israel that Christ’s work would stretch over a greater and a grander platform than ever Israel could fill; were designed to tell out to all the churches how indeed “it was a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel.” Still, with all these guarded considerations, which serve to warn us from entertaining any hopes of a universal redemption, such a saying as this seems to point to the blessed Atonement mystery as performing a work whose consequences reach far beyond the limits of human thought, or even of sober speculation.” (2)

Ellicott’s comments on this passage do not allow for universal salvation, and 1 Timothy 4:10 is not in contradiction with passages like Matthew 7:13.     

Why 1 Timothy 4:10 does not teach universal salvation:

The phrase “Savior of all people” has led some to suggest the idea of universal salvation, the belief that all humans will ultimately be saved by God. However, this interpretation is not universally accepted within Christian theology.

The key phrase here is “who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.” This can be understood as follows:

1.      Saviour of all men: This statement affirms the universal aspect of God’s salvation. God desires the salvation of all people (2 Peter 3:9), and His saving work through Christ is available to everyone.

2.      Specially of those that believe: Here, Paul emphasizes that while God offers salvation to all, it is particularly experienced and appropriated by those who have faith in Jesus Christ. Believers receive the full benefits of salvation, including forgiveness of sins, reconciliation with God, and eternal life.

Many theologians argue that the phrase “Savior of all men” should be understood in the context of God’s universal offer of salvation to humanity through Jesus Christ. In this view, while salvation is offered to all, it is received through personal faith and acceptance of Christ’s sacrifice.

Furthermore, the latter part of the verse emphasizes that salvation is especially for those who believe. This aligns with other passages in the Bible that highlight the importance of faith in Jesus Christ for salvation (e.g., John 3:16, Acts 4:12).

In summary:

While 1 Timothy 4:10 may be interpreted differently by different individuals or theological traditions, it does not explicitly teach universal salvation. Rather, it underscores the universal offer of salvation through Christ with an emphasis on personal faith as the means of receiving that salvation.

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

Notes:

1.      Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, Commentary on the Whole Bible, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Zondervan, 1977), p. 911.

2.      Charles John Ellicott, Bible Commentary for English Readers, 1 Timothy, Vol. 8, (London, England, Cassell and Company), p. 198.

Mr. Kettler, a respected author and theologian, has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife, Marea, are active members of the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr. Kettler’s extensive work includes 18 books defending the Reformed Faith, which are available for order online at Amazon.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as , , , ,

May 7, 2024 · 3:07 pm

Last Days Madness

Last Days Madness

By Gary DeMar American Vision

Reviewed by Jack Kettler

Bio:

Gary DeMar is a prominent Christian author, speaker, and educator known for his works in the fields of theology, eschatology, and Christian worldview. He was born on November 2, 1950, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA. DeMar holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in Latin and Greek from Western Michigan University and a Master of Divinity degree from Reformed Theological Seminary.

Throughout his career, Gary DeMar has been a staunch advocate for a biblical worldview and has engaged in debates and discussions regarding various theological and cultural issues. He is particularly well-known for his critiques of Dispensationalist eschatology and his defense of postmillennialism, a perspective that holds to an optimistic view of the future based on the gradual triumph of the Gospel in history.

Some of Gary DeMar’s notable books include:

1.      “Last Days Madness: Obsession of the Modern Church” – In this book, DeMar critiques Dispensationalist eschatology and presents alternative interpretations of key biblical passages related to end-times prophecy.

2.      “End Times Fiction: A Biblical Consideration of the Left Behind Theology” – DeMar addresses popular beliefs about the end times popularized by the “Left Behind” series and offers a biblical critique of Dispensationalist teachings.

3.      “Is Jesus Coming Soon?” – This book explores the biblical teachings about the timing of Christ’s return and challenges the notion of an imminent secret rapture followed by a seven-year tribulation period.

4.      “God and Government”—DeMar delves into the relationship between Christianity and civil government, advocating for a biblically informed perspective on political and social issues.

5.      “America’s Christian History: The Untold Story” (co-authored with Mark A. Beliles) – DeMar examines the influence of Christianity on American history and challenges secular narratives that downplay the nation’s Christian heritage.

6.      “The Debate Over Christian Reconstruction” (co-authored with Gary North) – DeMar engages in discussions about Christian Reconstructionism, a theological framework emphasizing the application of biblical law to various aspects of society.

These works reflect Gary DeMar’s commitment to biblical scholarship, cultural engagement, and the application of Christian principles to contemporary issues. He continues to be a respected voice in Christian circles and a proponent of a comprehensive Christian worldview that encompasses all areas of life.

What others are saying:

“Last Days Madness” by Gary DeMar has received positive endorsements from various scholars, theologians, and readers. Here are a few endorsements highlighting the book’s strengths:

R.C. Sproul (Renowned Reformed theologian and founder of Ligonier Ministries):

“This is a timely book. I believe it makes a powerful case for a pre-A.D. 70 date for the book of Revelation. If that is the case, as I am inclined to believe, it takes an enormous amount of wind out of the sails of the dispensational position.”

Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr. (Reformed theologian and author of “Before Jerusalem Fell”):

“This is an excellent work and long overdue. In a most readable style, Gary DeMar provides biblical answers to one of the most crucial issues facing the Church today. His scholarship is sound, and his arguments are compelling. If you want to understand what the Bible teaches about the last days, you need to read this book.”

Joel McDurmon (President of American Vision and author):

“Gary DeMar’s Last Days Madness is a mainstay in the postmillennial, preterist, and partial preterist movements. This book has brought scores of Christians out of the quagmire of newspaper eschatology and into the glorious light of first-century reality. It provides a solid biblical understanding of ‘the last days’ that does not leave one feeling hopeless and out of control.”

James B. Jordan (Biblical scholar and author of “Through New Eyes”):

“Last Days Madness is one of the most important books written on Bible prophecy. It demonstrates that the Bible does not predict the future in the way commonly thought in our day. This book is must reading for pastors, teachers, and thinking Christians generally.”

These endorsements from respected theologians and scholars highlight the book’s scholarly rigor, its contribution to understanding biblical eschatology, and its impact in challenging popular but questionable interpretations of end-times prophecy. DeMar’s work has been influential in encouraging readers to engage deeply with the biblical text and to reconsider widely accepted eschatological frameworks.

A Review:

Gary DeMar’s “Last Days Madness” is a compelling critique of Dispensationalist eschatology, offering a robust examination of its theological premises and challenging many of its speculative interpretations regarding end times. In his work, DeMar presents a well-researched and structured argument that aims to dismantle popular Dispensationalist beliefs about the end times, highlighting key flaws and inconsistencies along the way.

Gary DeMar’s book “Last Days Madness” is divided into the following chapters:

1.      Introduction: An Overview of Eschatology

2.      The Covenants: Old and New

3.      The Seventy Weeks of Daniel 9

4.      The Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24)

5.      The Book of Revelation

6.      The Restrainer

7.      The Beast of Revelation

8.      The Millennium

9.      The Great Tribulation

10.  The Rapture

11.  The Resurrection

12.  Conclusion: A Hopeful Future

These chapters provide a structured framework for DeMar to address various aspects of Dispensationalist eschatology and offer his critiques and alternative interpretations based on biblical analysis and historical context. Each chapter delves into specific topics related to end-times theology, making “Last Days Madness” a comprehensive exploration of the subject from a non-Dispensationalist perspective.

One of the central arguments DeMar makes is against the idea of a secret rapture followed by a seven-year tribulation period, a cornerstone belief in many Dispensationalist frameworks. He argues that this concept is a relatively recent development in Christian theology and lacks substantial biblical support, instead tracing its origins to the 19th-century teachings of John Nelson Darby and the subsequent rise of Dispensationalism.

DeMar also challenges the Dispensationalist view of Israel’s role in end-times prophecy, arguing that the New Testament presents a different understanding of the relationship between Israel and the Church. He critiques the idea of a future rebuilt temple in Jerusalem and a reestablished sacrificial system, arguing that such beliefs undermine the finished work of Christ and the spiritual nature of the Church.

Furthermore, DeMar engages with Dispensationalist interpretations of key biblical passages such as Daniel, Matthew 24, and Revelation, offering alternative readings that emphasize the fulfillment of prophetic promises in Christ rather than in future events. He contends that many Dispensationalist interpretations rely on forced readings of scripture and fail to consider the historical and cultural context of the biblical texts.

Overall, “Last Days Madness” presents a thorough and thought-provoking critique of Dispensationalist eschatology. It encourages readers to reconsider popular end-times beliefs and engage more deeply with the biblical text and its historical context. Through careful analysis and compelling arguments, DeMar invites readers to explore alternative perspectives on eschatology that are grounded in a broader understanding of Christian theology and biblical interpretation.

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

Mr. Kettler has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife, Marea, attend the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr. Kettler is the author of 18 books defending the Reformed Faith. Books can be ordered online at Amazon.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as , , , ,

May 2, 2024 · 3:00 pm

Systematic Theology 3 Volumes Kelly

Systematic Theology (Volume 1): Grounded in Holy Scripture and understood in light of the Church

Systematic Theology (Volume 2): The Beauty of Christ – a Trinitarian Vision

Systematic Theology (Volume 3): The Holy Spirit and the Church

Douglas F. Kelly, Published by Mentor 2008, 2014, 2021

A Review by Jack Kettler

Bio:

“Douglas Floyd Kelly is a Presbyterian pastor, theologian, and noted author, who was the Richard Jordan Professor of Theology at Reformed Theological Seminary for 33 years from 1982 to 2016, during which time he published numerous books and articles, of which he is best known for If God Already Knows, Why Pray?, his translations of Calvin’s Sermons on II Samuel and his three-volume magnum opus of systematic theology: Volume One: The God Who Is: The Holy Trinity; Volume Two: The Beauty of Christ: A Trinitarian Vision; and Volume Three: The Holy Spirit and the Church.” – Wikipedia

What others are saying:

Volume 1:

“Douglas F. Kelly is one of the English-speaking world’s leading Reformed theologians. Here we begin to enjoy the fruits of his labors. What a feast it is. Few Protestant theologians in our day know the terrain of the doctrine of the Trinity, and the Person of Christ, as well as Professor Kelly… He is at his best when opening up to us the unrealized importance and glory of these foundational truths about our Savior God. For those who yearn for an orthodox Reformed catholicity, Kelly shows the way forward.” – Ligon Duncan, First Pres. Church, Jackson, Miss. President, Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals. (Chancellor and CEO, Reformed Theological Seminary)

“I just now completed reading through the entire book you wrote Systematic Theology, vol. 1. I want to express my sincere appreciation for the quality work you have done. You show that you know ancient languages (Hebrew, Greek and Latin) as well as modern languages (French and German). You delve into the Christian fathers of the first few centuries and are familiar with the works of the Reformers and the latest books and articles on Systematic Theology. This is eminent scholarship that lies back of numerous years of study. You have done the Church a favor by writing this book and I personally thank you for this contribution. Excellent work!” – Simon Kistemaker (Professor of New Testament Emeritus, Reformed Theological Seminary, Orlando, Florida)

Volume 2:

“Striking indeed… Reminds us of Jonathan Edwards, Augustine, and many other great writers of the church.” – John M. Frame (Professor of Systematic Theology and Philosophy, Reformed Theological Seminary, Orlando, Florida)

“One of those rare books that will shape both scholarly and pastoral theology for generations to come.” – Richard Pratt (President, Third Millennium Ministries, Orlando, Florida)

Volume 3:

“… a thoroughly Trinitarian exploration of the Holy Spirit in the life of the church that is exegetically sharp, consistently readable, and deeply informed by the full breadth of the Christian tradition. In short, this is Reformed theology at its best.” – Matthew C. Bingham (Lecturer in Systematic Theology and Church History, Oak Hill College, London)

“Douglas Kelly has produced an excellent, lucid exposition of Deuteronomy. He presents the message of the book in a clear and accessible way. Free from jargon and technicalities, while yet informed by scholarly discussion, this should be of great value for pastors and lay readers alike.” – Robert Letham (Wales Evangelical School of Theology, Bridgend, Wales)

From the Publisher:

“This modern systematic theology written from a reformed and non-dispensational view by a worldwide respected professor is sure to delight scholars everywhere.”

A Review:

An introductory overview of Kelly’s three-volume work:

1.      Systematic Theology (Volume 1): Grounded in Holy Scripture and understood in light of the Church:

·         This volume explores foundational truths of the Christian faith, drawing from both Reformed and Catholic heritage.

·         Kelly engages with insights from Eastern Orthodox, Western Catholic, and Reformation Protestant traditions.

·         Topics covered include the nature of God, creation, sin, redemption, and the role of Scripture.

·         The Holy Spirit, who reflects the beauty of the Father and the Son, is a central focus.

2.      Systematic Theology (Volume 2): The Beauty of Christ – a Trinitarian Vision:

·         Kelly delves into the wonder of Christ, emphasizing His beauty and significance.

·         He draws from Patristics, Scholastics, Reformers, Puritans, and Modern theologians.

·         The volume highlights the Father and the Spirit being fully revealed through Christ.

·         Christ’s coming is portrayed as the restoration of the universe.

3.      Systematic Theology (Volume 3): The Holy Spirit and the Church:

·         Part 1 (chs. 1–4) focuses on the Holy Spirit explicitly.

·         Part 2 (chs. 5–11) explores the Spirit’s work in the church.

·         Part 3 (chs. 12–16) centers on the Christian life.

Volume 1:

“Systematic Theology: Volume 1” by Douglas F. Kelly offers readers a rigorous yet accessible exploration of Christian theology. Grounded in Scripture and informed by the rich tradition of the Church, Kelly navigates through key theological concepts with clarity and depth. He skillfully covers topics such as the nature of God, the Trinity, creation, providence, and humanity’s fall, among others, providing readers with a comprehensive understanding of foundational Christian beliefs. Kelly’s work is characterized by its scholarly precision, engaging writing style, and deep reverence for the Christian tradition, making it a valuable resource for theologians, pastors, students, and anyone interested in deepening their understanding of Christian doctrine.

One of the strengths of Kelly’s “Systematic Theology” is his commitment to maintaining the balance between academic rigor and theological accessibility. He successfully bridges the gap between the academic study of theology and the practical concerns of Christian faith, offering insights that are both intellectually stimulating and spiritually enriching. Additionally, Kelly’s unwavering adherence to orthodox Christian doctrine ensures that readers are grounded in the historic faith of the Church. While some readers may find the depth of theological discourse challenging, Kelly’s clear explanations and systematic approach make complex theological concepts understandable and relevant to contemporary readers. Overall, “Systematic Theology: Volume 1” stands as a commendable contribution to the field of Christian theology, offering a solid foundation for further theological exploration and reflection.

Volume 2:

 Douglas F. Kelly’s “Systematic Theology (Volume 2): The Beauty of Christ—a Trinitarian Vision” delves into the profound theological exploration of Christ’s beauty as viewed through the lens of the Trinity. Kelly’s work is marked by its rigorous engagement with classical Christian theology and its commitment to presenting a coherent vision of the Christian faith. In this volume, Kelly examines the beauty of Christ, drawing upon biblical, historical, and philosophical resources to illuminate the significance of Christ’s person and work within the framework of Trinitarian theology. He demonstrates how understanding Christ’s beauty leads to a deeper appreciation of the Triune God and informs Christian living and worship.

Kelly’s systematic approach in this volume provides readers with a comprehensive understanding of the beauty of Christ within the context of Trinitarian theology. Through careful exegetical analysis and theological reflection, Kelly invites readers to contemplate the glory of Christ as the eternal Son of God and to grasp the transformative power of this beauty in shaping Christian belief and practice. Moreover, Kelly’s emphasis on the Trinitarian nature of Christ’s beauty highlights the relational aspect of God’s self-revelation, emphasizing the dynamic interaction between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in the economy of salvation. Overall, Kelly’s work serves as a valuable resource for theologians, pastors, and students seeking to deepen their understanding of the beauty of Christ and its implications for Christian theology and spirituality.

Volume 3:

“Systematic Theology (Volume 3): The Holy Spirit and the Church” by Douglas F. Kelly is a comprehensive exploration of two foundational aspects of Christian theology: the Holy Spirit and the Church. Kelly meticulously examines the biblical teachings, historical perspectives, and theological implications surrounding these topics, offering readers a profound understanding of their significance in the Christian faith. With scholarly rigor and clarity, Kelly navigates through the complexities of pneumatology and ecclesiology, illuminating key doctrines such as the personhood and work of the Holy Spirit, the nature and mission of the Church, and the dynamics of spiritual life and community.

Kelly’s work stands out for its balanced approach, drawing from both Scripture and tradition while engaging with contemporary theological discussions. He skillfully integrates insights from various theological traditions, offering readers a broad perspective on the subjects under consideration. Furthermore, Kelly’s writing style is accessible yet rich in theological depth, making this volume valuable for theologians, pastors, students, and any Christian seeking a deeper understanding of the Holy Spirit’s role in the life of the Church. Through his systematic exposition, Kelly not only informs the reader but also inspires a deeper appreciation for the profound mysteries of the Holy Spirit’s work and the Church’s calling in the world.

In conclusion:

Kelly’s deep engagement with Scripture and the Great Tradition enriches this work.

These volumes provide a comprehensive exploration of theology, combining biblical fidelity with historical insights. Kelly’s devotion to the Lord makes the work accessible and engaging for readers. Kelly’s work in these three volumes is of such significance that it will surely find its way into the libraries of Roman and Orthodox seminary libraries.  

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

Mr. Kettler has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife, Marea, attend the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr. Kettler is the author of 18 books defending the Reformed Faith. Books can be ordered online at Amazon.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as , , , ,

April 22, 2024 · 4:05 pm

The Word of God and the Mind of Man A Review

The Word of God and the Mind of Man

The Crisis of Revealed Truth in Contemporary Theology

Ronald H. Nash Copyright 1982 Zondervan

A review by Jack Kettler

Bio:

Ronald H. Nash was a distinguished philosophy professor at Western Kentucky University, Reformed Theological Seminary, and Southern Baptist Seminary. He has devoted over 40 years to teaching and writing in the areas of worldview, apologetics, ethics, theology, and history. He was a lifelong student of St. Augustine, his favorite philosopher, and was influenced by evangelical scholar Carl F. H. Henry. His advocacy of Austrian economics and criticism of the evangelical left have earned him recognition in academic circles.

Nash authored more than thirty books. A partial list of books written:

Worldviews in Conflict: Choosing Christianity in a World of Ideas

Life’s Ultimate Questions

Faith and Reason

Is Jesus the Only Savior?

The Gospel and the Greeks: Did the New Testament Borrow from Pagan Thought?

The Concept of God: An Exploration of Contemporary Difficulties with the Attributes of God

The Meaning of History

Social Justice and the Christian Church

Poverty and Wealth: Why Socialism Doesn’t Work

Light of the Mind

The The Closing of the American Heart: What’s Really Wrong With America’s Schools

Why the Left Is Not Right: The Religious Left: Who They Are and What They Believe

Freedom, Justice and the State

Christianity and the Hellenistic World

Process Theology

Review:

“The Word of God and the Mind of Man: The Crisis of Revealed Truth in Contemporary Theology” by Ronald H. Nash is a seminal work in Christian theology, particularly addressing the challenges and controversies surrounding the concept of revealed truth in modern theological discourse. Nash, a Christian philosopher and theologian, explores the tension between traditional views of divine revelation and the skepticism of those views in contemporary theological thought. The book delves into questions about the nature of scripture, the authority of religious texts, and the relationship between divine revelation and human understanding. It’s often cited in discussions about biblical inerrancy, hermeneutics, and the intersection of faith and reason.

While not a long book, Nash as the chapter titles indicate engages in some deep theological and philosophical issues:  

Chapter 1: Hume’s Gap- Divorcing Faith and Knowledge

Chapter 2: Theological Agnosticism: From Kant to Ritschl

Chapter 3: The Assault on Propositional Revelation

Chapter 4: A Defense of Propositional Revelation

Chapter 5: A Brief But Necessary Interlude

Chapter 6: The Christian Logos

Chapter 7: Rationalism and Empiricism and

Chapter 8: The Christian Rationalism of St. Augustine

Chapter 9: The Religious Revolt Against Logic

Chapter 10: Reason and Religion

Chapter 11: Reason, Revelation, and Language

Chapter 12: Revelation and the Bible

A philosophical overview of Nash’s book with the following key points:

1.      The book addresses the challenges and critiques faced by contemporary theology regarding the communication of divine revelation to human beings. It explores the extent to which human knowledge about God is possible and proposes an alternative theory that makes such knowledge possible.

2.      Nash argues against the evolving attacks on the role of knowledge in Christian theology and presents a theory that allows for a relationship between the human mind and the divine mind. This relationship makes the communication of truth from God to humans possible.

3.      The work is a significant contribution to the field of Christian philosophy and theology, challenging traditional views on the limitations of human understanding of God and offering a new perspective on how divine truth can be accessed and understood by human beings.

4.      Nash’s book is a response to contemporary theological issues, aiming to reconcile the apparent disconnect between human understanding and divine revelation. It emphasizes the importance of understanding and appreciating the process through which God communicates with humanity.

5.      The book also addresses the philosophical implications of its theological argument, engaging with the broader philosophical discourse on the nature of knowledge, truth, and the relationship between the human mind and the divine.

6.      Nash’s work is relevant not only to theologians and philosophers but also to anyone interested in exploring the relationship between human beings and the divine and the ways in which divine truth can be discerned and understood

Nash’s book is a thought-provoking exploration of the challenges facing contemporary theology in wrestling with the concept of revealed truth. Published in 1982, the book remains relevant and influential in discussions surrounding biblical interpretation, theological methodology, and the authority of scripture.

In this book, Nash delves into the intriguing question of how much divine revelation the human mind can grasp, placing a strong emphasis on the communication of truth. He challenges the notion that human knowledge about God is unattainable and presents an alternative theory that makes such knowledge possible. Nash’s defense against the evolving attacks on the role of knowledge in Christian theology and his proposition of a relationship between the human mind and the divine mind that facilitates the communication of truth from God to humans make his work a significant and thought-provoking contribution to the field of Christian philosophy and theology.

For example, Nash takes on David Hume, and Immanuel Kant, naysayers of God’s ability to communicate with man using propositional revelation:

“Following the lead of eighteenth-century philosophers David Hume and Immanuel Kant, many modern theologians have questioned God’s ability to communicate truth to man and undermined man’s ability to attain knowledge about God.” (p. 11)

Nash’s goal is to counter Hume and Kant, as well as Karl Barth and his followers. How does Nash do this?

For a solution, Nash appeals to Augustine’s theory of “Divine Illumination” in the following two quotes:

“Augustine’s theory of divine illumination must take of the fact that two lights are involved in any act of human knowledge. Augustine is very careful in Against Faustus, the Manichaean to distinguish between the uncreated light of  God and different, created light, namely, the human mind, which plays a necessary role in knowledge.” (6) (6 Against Faustus the Manichaean 20, 7.) (p. 80-81)

“Augustine came to hold that God had implanted a knowledge of the forms in the human mind contemporaneous with birth. In other words, Augustine’s account of human knowledge replaced Plato’s appeal to recollection with a theory of innate ideas that belong to humankind by virtue of our creation in the image of God.” (p. 84)

Following Augustine, Nash maintained that the laws of logic were both in God’s mind and human minds, and thus, there was a commonality between them. Thus, human rationality is legitimized because of the connection between the uncreated light of God and the different created light of the human mind. “That was the true Light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.” (John 1:9)

One of Nash’s strengths in this book is his engagement with theological and philosophical concepts. He navigates complex issues such as biblical inerrancy, the nature of inspiration, and the role of human reason in interpreting divine revelation with clarity and precision. Nash’s background as a Christian philosopher is seen through his careful analysis and logical argumentation.

Nash’s thesis centers on the idea that the authority of scripture is foundational to Christian theology. He argues that a proper understanding of divine revelation is essential for maintaining the integrity of Christian doctrine. Nash contends that while human reason has a role to play in interpreting scripture, it must always be subject to the authority of God’s Word.

Moreover, Nash emphasizes the importance of a hermeneutical approach that takes seriously the historical context and literary genres of biblical texts. He warns against simplistic readings of scripture that fail to account for its complexity and cultural background. Nash’s call for a contextual interpretation of scripture resonates with contemporary debates in biblical studies.

For this reviewer, in chapter eight, Nash’s Augustine citation is truly satisfying: 

“To summarize: The forms or eternal ideas exist in the mind of God (independently of particular things), but in a secondary sense they also exist in the human mind. God created humans with a structure of rationality patterned after the divine forms in His own mind. This innate knowledge is part of what it means to be created in the image of God. In addition to knowledge of forms, knowledge of the world is possible because God has also patterned the world after the divine ideas. We can know the corporeal world because God has given man a knowledge of these ideas by which we can judge sensations and gain knowledge.

“I regard these conclusions as merely an elaboration or logical extension of the Logos doctrine. Augustine is one Christian theist who believed that the claim that the human logos is part of the image of God rests on a sound philosophical and theological ground. He believed that the Logos teaching of the New Testament and the early church fathers entailed a similarity between the rational structure of the human mind and the rational structure of the divine mind. It is possible for the human logos to know the divine Logos because God created the human being as a creature who has the God-given ability to know the divine mind and to think God’s thoughts after Him. The laws of reasons are the same for both God and humans.” (p. 90)

Some may see this summary as an example of Augustine’s alleged dependence on Plato. It is true that as a young man, Augustine utilized the philosophical thought forms of his day, which were Platonic. However, any fair reading of Augustine shows that as he matured as a Christian, he abandoned earlier Platonic thinking. Nash resoundingly refutes the idea that Christianity is dependent on Greek philosophical thought in his book Christianity and the Hellenistic World.

In conclusion:

“The Word of God and the Mind of Man” defends scripture’s authority and reliability in the face of critics’ challenges. Nash’s rigorous analysis of theological issues makes this book a valuable resource for scholars, pastors, and laypeople alike. To be conversant, the serious student of scripture should be familiar with this work.

Note: Ronald H. Nash, The Word of God and the Mind of Man, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, The Zondervan Corporation, 1982), 11, 81-82, 84, 90.

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

Mr. Kettler has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife, Marea, attend the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr. Kettler is the author of 18 books defending the Reformed Faith. Books can be ordered online at Amazon.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as , , , ,

April 20, 2024 · 4:53 pm

Was God wrong to tell Abraham to sacrifice Isaac in Genesis 22?

Was God wrong to tell Abraham to sacrifice Isaac in Genesis 22?            By Jack Kettler

In Genesis 22, God commands Abraham to do something forbidden elsewhere, as in Jeremiah 7:31.

“And he said, take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.” (Genesis 22:2)

How can this apparent contradiction be resolved? The complexity of this theological puzzle is intriguing, inviting believers to delve deeper into the text.

In Genesis 22:2, God issues a profound command to Abraham, a command that seems to contradict the prohibition against child sacrifice found in Jeremiah 7:31. This command, however, is not a call to violence, but a test of Abraham’s faith, a test that carries immense weight and significance.

Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers, a valuable resource, sheds light on the context of child sacrifice:

“(31) High places. — Not the same word as in Jeremiah 7:29, but bamoth, as in the “high places” of Baal, in Numbers 22:41; Numbers 23:3, the Bamoth-baal of Joshua 13:17. The word had become almost technical for the mounds, natural or (as in this passage) artificial, on which altars to Jehovah or to other gods were erected, and appears in 1 Samuel 9:12; 1 Kings 3:4; Ezekiel 20:29; Amos 7:9.”

“Tophet. — This appears to have been originally, not a local name, but a descriptive epithet. The word appears in Job 17:6 (“by-word” in the Authorised version) as a thing spat upon and loathed. Its use is probably therefore analogous to the scorn with which the prophets substituted bosheth, the “shameful thing,” for Baal (e.g., Jeremiah 3:24; Jeremiah 11:13). When the prediction is repeated in Jeremiah 19:5; Jeremiah 32:35, we have the “high places of Baal,” and “Tophet” here is obviously substituted for that name in indignant contempt. The word in Isaiah 30:33, though not identical in form (Tophteh, not Tophet), had probably the same meaning. Other etymologies give as the meaning of the word “a garden,” “a place of burning,” or “a place of drums,” i.e., a music grove, and so connect it more closely with the Molech ritual. Possibly the last was the original meaning of the name, for which, as said above, the prophets used the term of opprobrium.”

“The son of Hinnom. — Possibly the first recorded owner, or a local hero. The name is perpetuated in later Jewish language in Ge-henna = Ge-Hinnom = the vale of Hinnom. It was older than the Molech worship with which it became identified, and appears in the “Doomsday Book” of Israel (Joshua 15:8; Joshua 18:16).”

“To burn their sons and their daughters. — The words are important as determining the character of the act more vaguely described in Jeremiah 32:35, as “making to pass through the fire.” The children were, in some cases at least, actually burnt, though often, perhaps (see Ezekiel 16:21), slain first. Horrible as the practice seems to us, it was part of the Canaanite or Phœnician worship of Molech or Malcom (Leviticus 18:21; Leviticus 20:2-5), and had been practised by Ahaz (2 Kings 16:3; 2 Chronicles 28:3) and Manasseh (2 Kings 21:6; 2 Chronicles 33:6).” (1)

To resolve this apparent contradiction, one can consider the following points:

  1. The context of the command: In Genesis 22:2, God never intended for Abraham to actually sacrifice Isaac. It was a test of Abraham’s faith and obedience. As soon as God saw that Abraham was willing to obey, He provided a ram for the sacrifice instead of Isaac.
  2. The purpose of the command: The command was not given to promote child sacrifice but rather to test Abraham’s faith and demonstrate his unwavering commitment to God. This event also foreshadows the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, who willingly gave His life for the salvation of humanity.
  3. The difference in time and context: The command to Abraham in Genesis 22 took place in a different time and context than the prohibition against child sacrifice in Jeremiah 7:31. The latter was given to the Israelites during a time when child sacrifice was a common practice among the surrounding nations, and God wanted to make it clear that such practices were not acceptable.

“And Abraham said, ‘My son, God will provide for Himself the lamb for a burnt offering.’ So, the two of them went together.” (Genesis 22:8)

Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary sheds more light on this apparent dilemma:

22:11-14 It was not God’s intention that Isaac should actually be sacrificed, yet nobler blood than that of animals, in due time, was to be shed for sin, even the blood of the only begotten Son of God. But in the mean while God would not in any case have human sacrifices used. Another sacrifice is provided. Reference must be had to the promised Messiah, the blessed Seed. Christ was sacrificed in our stead, as this ram instead of Isaac, and his death was our discharge. And observe, that the temple, the place of sacrifice, was afterwards built upon this same mount Moriah; and Calvary, where Christ was crucified, was near. A new name was given to that place, for the encouragement of all believers, to the end of the world, cheerfully to trust in God, and obey him. Jehovah-jireh, the Lord will provide; probably alluding to what Abraham had said, God will provide himself a lamb. The Lord will always have his eye upon his people, in their straits and distresses, that he may give them seasonable help. (2)

In conclusion, the apparent contradiction between Genesis 22:2 and Jeremiah 7:31 can be resolved by considering the context, purpose, and time of the commands. The key takeaway is that God never intended for Issac to be sacrificed, and the command to Abraham was a unique test of faith that ultimately pointed to the ultimate sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

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

Notes:

  1. Charles John Ellicott, Bible Commentary for English Readers, Jeremiah, Vol. 5, (London, England, Cassell and Company), p. 35.
  2. Matthew Henry, Concise Commentary, Genesis, (Nashville, Tennessee, Thomas Nelson), p. 275.

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 18 books defending the Reformed Faith. Books can be ordered online at Amazon.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as , , , ,