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.
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.
“Dr. John M. Frame is an American philosopher and a Calvinist theologian especially noted for his work in epistemology and presuppositional apologetics, systematic theology, and ethics. He is one of the foremost interpreters and critics of the thought of Cornelius Van Til (whom he studied under while working on his B.D. at Westminster Theological Seminary). An outstanding theologian, John Frame distinguished himself during 31 years on the faculty of Westminster Theological Seminary and was a founding faculty member of WTS California. He is best known for his prolific writings including ten volumes, a contributor to many books and reference volumes, as well as scholarly articles and magazines.
For his education, Frame received degrees from Princeton University (A.B.), Westminster Theological Seminary (B.D.), Yale University (A.M. and M.Phil., though he was working on a doctorate and admits his own failure to complete his dissertation), and Belhaven College (D.D.). He has served on the faculty of Westminster Theological Seminary and was a founding faculty member of their California campus. He currently (as of 2005) teaches Apologetics and The History of Philosophy and Christian Thought at Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando, FL. He is appreciated, by many of his students, for his charitable spirit and fairness to opposing arguments (although, he fairly demolishes them nonetheless).” – Sources: Wikipedia, RTS website, and John Frame
Books written, a short list:
The Doctrine of God (2002)
The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God (A Theology of Lordship) (1987)
Apologetics to the Glory of God: An Introduction (1994)
Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Christian Belief (2013)
The Doctrine of the Christian Life (A Theology of Lordship) (2008)
Worship in Spirit and Truth (1996)
Salvation Belongs to the Lord: An Introduction to Systematic Theology (2006)
The Doctrine of the Word of God (Theology of Lordship) (2010)
A History of Western Philosophy and Theology (2015)
No Other God: A Response to Open Theism (2001)
Contemporary Worship Music: A Biblical Defense (1997)
Cornelius Van Til: An Analysis of His Thought (1995)
Apologetics: A Justification of Christian Belief (2015)
Medical Ethics: Principles, Persons, and Problems (Christian Perspectives) (1988)
Perspectives on the Word of God: An Introduction to Christian Ethics (1990)
No Other God: Publisher Comments:
“The theological movement known as open theism is shaking the church today, challenging the Reformed doctrines of God’s sovereignty, foreknowledge, and providence. In this timely work, John M. Frame clearly describes open theism and evaluates it’s biblically. He addresses questions such as: How do open theists read the Bible? Is love God’s most important attribute? Is God’s will the ultimate explanation of everything? Do we have genuine freedom? Is God ever weak or changeable? Does God know everything in advance? Frame not only answers the objections of open theists but sharpens our understanding of the relationship between God’s eternal plan and the decisions or events of our lives.”
What others are saying:
“A devastating critique of the concept of human freedom as articulated in the ‘open theistic’ view.” – Roger Nicole, visiting professor of Theology, Reformed Theological Seminary, Orlando Campus
“Open theism is bad news. The appearance of this book is good news. Precisely because God is closed and not open to the nullification of his purposes (Job 42:2), he has opened a future for believers that is utterly secure no matter what we suffer. The key that would open the defeat of God is eternally closed within the praiseworthy vault of His precious sovereignty. John Frame delights to show when it is good to be closed and when it is good to be open. And the Bible is his criterion.” – John Piper, Bethlehem Baptist Church, Minneapolis
“This book is something both to read and to give away… both needed and effective.” – D. A. Carson, Emeritus Professor of New Testament, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School; Editor, Pillar New Testament Commentary series
“We have known that John Frame was a superb theologian. In this book, we discover that he is a superb polemicist. In it he responds to one of the most alluring trends in modern evangelicalism. He does so thoroughly, fairly, and, most of all, by presenting a convincing alternative. He builds the biblical case for a God whose sovereignty is not a thing to be avoided, but to cherish.” -William Edgar, Professor of Apologetics, Westminster Theological Seminary
A Review:
“No Other God: A Response to Open Theism” by John M. Frame is a comprehensive and thought-provoking critique of the Open Theism movement. In this work, Frame presents a well-structured and well-reasoned argument against Open Theism, focusing on the key theological issues that separate it from the Reformed tradition.
In Chapter One, Frame identifies key components of Open Theism:
“The Main Contentions of Open Theism…
1. Love is God’s most important quality.
2. Love is not only care and commitment, but also being sensitive and responsive.
3. Creatures exert an influence on God.
4. God’s will is not the ultimate explanation of everything.
5. History is the combined result of what God and his creatures decide to do.
6. God does not know everything timelessly, but learns from events as they take place. So God is dependent on the world in some ways.”
Frame, John M.. No Other God: A Response to Open Theism (p. 23). P&R Publishing.
In Chapter Nine, Frame exposes another dangerous aspect of open theism, namely, Is God in Time?
“Another important plank in the open-theist platform is the temporality of God. Open theists reject the traditional view that God is supratemporal, “outside” or “above” time. They reject supratemporalism as a product of Greek philosophy rather than Scripture. Indeed, the Greek philosophers Parmenides, Plato, and Plotinus did understand “eternal” reality to be timeless—beyond or outside time—and their teaching may well have influenced Christian thought on the subject. But they did not consider eternity to be the dwelling place of an infinite, personal God.”
Frame, John M.. No Other God: A Response to Open Theism (p. 143). P&R Publishing.
Three significant points that Frame addresses in the book are:
1. The Biblical Interpretation of Open Theism: Frame argues that Open Theism’s interpretation of the Bible is flawed, as it tends to overlook the broader context of Scripture and the consistent theme of God’s sovereignty and foreknowledge. He points out that Open Theists often take passages out of context and rely heavily on human reasoning rather than a thorough exegesis of the text. This leads to a distorted understanding of God’s character and attributes, which ultimately undermines the authority of Scripture.
2. The Importance of Love in God’s Attributes: Frame emphasizes the significance of love in God’s character and how it relates to his other attributes, such as his sovereignty, foreknowledge, and providence. He argues that Open Theism’s emphasis on love as a primary attribute of God leads to a diminished view of God’s other attributes. In contrast, Frame presents a balanced view of God’s love in relation to his other attributes, demonstrating that they are all equally important and interconnected.
3. The Relationship Between God’s Eternal Plan and Human Decisions: One of the central issues in the debate between Open Theism and the Reformed tradition is the relationship between God’s eternal plan and the decisions or events of our lives. Frame addresses this issue by arguing that God’s eternal plan and our decisions are not mutually exclusive but rather work together in a mysterious and harmonious way. He contends that God’s sovereignty and foreknowledge do not negate human freedom and responsibility but rather provide a framework for understanding how God’s plan and our choices interact.
In conclusion:
“No Other God: A Response to Open Theism” by John M. Frame is a valuable resource for anyone interested in understanding the theological differences between Open Theism and Reformed theology. Frame’s book is a treasure trove of Scriptures. Moreover, Frame’s clear and logical presentation of the issues, along with his thorough analysis of Scripture, provides a strong case against Open Theism. While the book may not convince all readers to abandon Open Theism, it offers a thought-provoking critique that is sure to stimulate further discussion and reflection.
“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.
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.
Are we saved by sound doctrine or grace in 1 Timothy 4:16? by Jack Kettler
“Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.” (1 Timothy 4:16)
Is there a contradiction in 1 Timothy 4:16 and Ephesians 2:8-9? In 1 Timothy, it appears that one is saved by doing something, whereas Ephesians is emphatic that one is saved by grace.
Introduction:
1 Timothy 4:16 says, “Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.” On the other hand, Ephesians 2:8-9 states, “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.”
Some might argue that there is a contradiction here, but these verses emphasize different aspects of salvation. 1 Timothy 4:16 is more focused on the importance of personal responsibility in living a life of faith and sharing that faith with others. Ephesians 2:8-9 9 highlights that salvation is a gift from God, not something one can earn through actions or good deeds.
Dissecting 1 Timothy 4:16 into its grammatical components:
The verse can be dissected into its grammatical components as follows:
1. “Take heed unto thyself”: This is an imperative sentence, with the verb “take heed” (meaning to be cautious or attentive) in the imperative form and “thyself” as the object of the verb.
2. “and unto the doctrine”: This is a prepositional phrase, with “unto” as the preposition, “doctrine” as the object of the preposition, and “and” as the conjunction connecting it to the first part of the sentence.
3. “continue in them”: This is another imperative sentence, with “continue” in the imperative form and “in them” as the prepositional phrase indicating where to continue.
4. “for in doing this”: This is a dependent clause, with “for” as the subordinating conjunction introducing the clause, “in” as the preposition, and “doing” as the gerund form of the verb indicating the action being done.
5. “thou shalt both save thyself”: This is an independent clause, with “thou” as the subject, “shalt” as the auxiliary verb, “save” as the main verb, and “thyself” as the reflexive pronoun indicating the object of the verb.
6. “and them that hear thee”: This is a prepositional phrase, with “and” as the conjunction, “them” as the object of the preposition, and “that hear thee” as the relative clause modifying “them.” Grammatical dissection by Grok
Thus far, 1 Timothy 4:16 is a verse that consists of two imperative sentences, one dependent clause, one independent clause, and two prepositional phrases.
While this grammatical dissection is fascinating, unfortunately, it does not answer the starting question if the Apostle Paul is contradicting himself.
Consulting Barnes’ Notes on the Bible, one finds the solution:
“Take heed unto thyself – This may be understood as relating to everything of a personal nature that would qualify him for his work. It may be applied to personal piety; to health; to manners; to habits of living; to temper; to the ruling purposes; to the contact with others. In relation to personal religion, a minister should take heed:
(1) that he has true piety; and,”
“(2) that he is advancing in the knowledge and love of God. In relation to morals, he should be upright; to his contact with others, and his personal habits, he should be correct, consistent, and gentlemanly, so as to give needless offence to none. The person of a minister should be neat and cleanly; his manners such as will show the fair influence of religion on his temper and deportment; his style of conversation such as will be an example to the old and the young, and such as will not offend against the proper laws of courtesy and urbanity. There is no religion in a filthy person; in uncouth manners; in an inconvenient and strange form of apparel; in bad grammar, and in slovenly habits – and to be a real gentleman should be as much a matter of conscience with a minister of the gospel as to be a real Christian. Indeed, under the full and fair influence of the gospel, the one always implies the other. Religion refines the manners – it does not corrupt them; it makes one courteous, polite, and kind – it never produces boorish manners, or habits that give offence to the well-bred and the refined.”
“And unto the doctrine – The kind of teaching which you give, or to your public instructions. The meaning is, that he should hold and teach only the truth. He was to “take heed” to the whole business of public instruction; that is, both to the matter and the manner. The great object was to get as much truth as possible before the minds of his hearers, and in such a way as to produce the deepest impression on them.”
“Continue in them – That is, in these things which have been specified. He was ever to be found perseveringly engaged in the performance of these duties.”
“For in doing this thou shalt both save thyself – By holding of the truth, and by the faithful performance of your duties, you will secure the salvation of the soul. We are not to suppose that the apostle meant to teach that this would be the meritorious cause of his salvation, but that these faithful labors would be regarded as an evidence of piety, and would be accepted as such. It is equivalent to saying, that an unfaithful minister of the gospel cannot be saved; one who faithfully performs all the duties of that office with a right spirit, will be.”
“And them that hear thee – That is, you will be the means of their salvation. It is not necessary to suppose that the apostle meant to teach that he would save all that heard him. The declaration is to be understood in a popular sense, and it is undoubtedly true that a faithful minister will be the means of saving many sinners. This assurance furnishes a ground of encouragement for a minister of the gospel. He may hope for success, and should look for success. He has the promise of God that if he is faithful he shall see the fruit of his labors, and this result of his work is a sufficient reward for all the toils and sacrifices and self-denials of the ministry. If a minister should be the means of saving but one soul from the horrors of eternal suffering and eternal sinning, it would be worth the most self-denying labors of the longest life. Yet what minister of the gospel is there, who is at all faithful to his trust, who is not made the honored instrument of the salvation of many more than one? Few are the devoted ministers of Christ who are not permitted to see evidence even here, that their labor has not been in vain. Let not, then, the faithful preacher be discouraged. A single soul rescued from death will be a gem in his eternal crown brighter by far than ever sparkled on the brow of royalty.” (1) (Emphasis mine)
Barnes does an admirable job of explaining why the Apostle Paul is not contradicting himself.
In summary:
At first glance, these verses may seem to present a potential contradiction, as 1 Timothy 4:16 emphasizes the importance of one’s actions (life and doctrine) for salvation. In contrast, Ephesians 2:8-9 emphasizes that salvation is a gift from God and not earned through works.
However, when interpreting biblical passages, it is crucial to consider the context of each verse within the broader message of the Bible. In the case of 1 Timothy 4:16, Paul advises Timothy to be vigilant in his conduct and teaching to fulfill his ministry and set an example for others. This does not necessarily imply that salvation is earned through works but emphasizes the importance of a consistent Christian life.
Ephesians 2:8-9, on the other hand, emphasizes that salvation is a result of God’s grace and is received through faith, not as a reward for human works.
Together, these verses can be seen as complementary rather than contradictory. Salvation is a gift from God, received through faith, and a transformed life and adherence to sound doctrine are the natural outcomes of genuine faith. The Christian life involves both receiving God’s grace through faith and living in a way that reflects that transformation.
Interpreting biblical passages involves considering the broader theological context and understanding the intended message of the entire Bible. Different passages may emphasize different aspects of the Christian experience without necessarily contradicting each other.
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. Albert Barnes, Barnes’ Notes on the Bible, 1 Timothy, (THE AGES DIGITAL LIBRARYCOMMENTARY), p. 3904.
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 17 books defending the Reformed Faith. Books can be ordered online at Amazon.
Colossians 2:9, A Refutation of Christological Errors by Jack Kettler
“For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.” (Colossians 2:9)
“For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.” (Jude 1:4)
Early Church Christological Heresies:
In the early centuries of Christianity, the Church contended with various theological controversies, particularly concerning the nature of Christ. These controversies led to the formulation of important doctrines to clarify the Church’s understanding of the person of Christ. Some early Christological errors emerged during this period. Here are a few:
1. Docetism:
Heresy: Docetism comes from the Greek word “dokeo,” meaning “to seem” or “to appear.” Docetists believed that Jesus only seemed to have a physical body but did not possess a real, physical nature.
Description: This view denied the true incarnation of Christ and the reality of his human nature, asserting that his earthly existence was merely an illusion.
2. Adoptionism:
Heresy: Adoptionism taught that Jesus was born as a regular human being and was later “adopted” as the Son of God, usually at his baptism.
Description: This perspective denied the pre-existence of Christ and the eternal Sonship, asserting that Jesus became the Son of God at a specific point in his life.
3. Arianism:
Heresy: Arianism, associated with the priest Arius, denied the full divinity of Christ. It argued that Jesus, while exalted and divine, was a created being and not co-eternal with God the Father.
Description: Arianism challenged the doctrine of the Trinity and the equality of the Father and the Son, emphasizing a hierarchical relationship between them.
4. Nestorianism:
Heresy: Nestorianism, associated with Nestorius, proposed a division between Christ’s divine and human natures to the extent that it seemed as if there were two separate persons—Jesus the man and the divine Son.
Description: This view was seen as undermining the unity of Christ’s person and was condemned as a heresy at the Council of Ephesus in 431.
5. Monophysitism:
Heresy: Monophysitism asserted that Christ had only one nature—the divine nature—absorbing or subsuming his human nature.
Description: This view conflicted with the Chalcedonian Definition of 451, which affirmed that Christ has two distinct but inseparable natures, fully human and fully divine, without confusion or change.
These early Christological heresies prompted significant theological debates and the convening of various ecumenical councils to address and clarify the Church’s understanding of Christ’s nature. The resolutions of these councils, such as the Council of Nicaea (325) and the Council of Chalcedon (451), played a crucial role in shaping historical orthodox Christian doctrine.
What are the implications of the Colossians 2:9 passage for the above Christological heresies?
Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers answers this question in the following way:
“(9) In him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. — Here almost every word is emphatic. First, “All the fulness of the Godhead”—not a mere emanation from the Supreme Being. Next, “dwells” and remains for ever—not descending on Him for a time and leaving Him again. Lastly, “bodily,” i.e., as incarnate in His humanity. The whole is an extension and enforcement of Colossians 1:19, “God was pleased that in Him all the fulness should dwell.” The horror of all that was material, as having in it the seed of evil, induced denial either of the reality of our Lord’s body, or of its inseparable connection with the Godhead in Him. Hence the emphasis here; as also we find (somewhat later) in St. John, “The Word was made flesh” (John 1:14); “The spirit which confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh . . . is the spirit of antichrist” (1 John 4:3).”
“On the meaning of “fullness” (plerorna), see Colossians 1:10; Ephesians 1:3; Ephesians 3:19; Ephesians 4:13. Here it is only necessary to add, that, as in the later Gnosticism, so probably in its earlier forms, the word was used for the infinite nature of the Supreme Deity, out of which all the emanations (afterwards called Æons) received in various degrees of imperfection, according to their capacity. Probably for that reason St. Paul uses it so emphatically here. In the same spirit, St. John declares (John 1:16), “Out of His (Christ’s) fulness have all we received.” It is not finite, but infinitely perfect; hence we all can draw from it, yet leave it unimpaired.” (1)
Matthew Poole’s Commentary, in a more comprehensive fashion, answers this question:
“For; the causal particle induceth this as an argument to enforce the caution immediately foregoing, against those who did seek to draw from Christ by philosophy, as well as urging the ceremonial law; else the apostle’s reasoning were not cogent unless against both.”
“In him; it is evident that the Lord Jesus Christ himself, whom he had described and but just now named, is the subject, the person of whom he speaks, and in whom is seated, and unto whom he attributes, what followeth, Colossians 1:19 John 1:4 1 Timothy 4:16. He doth not say, in his doctrine, whatever Socinians cavil, as if they would render the apostle absurd, and not to agree with himself in what he asserts of Christ’s person before (as hath been showed) and after in the context. It is plain this relative him, respects not only Colossians 2:8, but Colossians 2:11, &c. in whom the believing Colossians are said to be complete as their Head, both in the former chapter, and soon after in this. Would it not be absurd to say, Christ’s doctrine is the head of angels? We are crucified in the doctrine of Christ? Buried and quickened together with his doctrine? The hand-writing of ordinances was nailed to the cross of doctrine? Is a doctrine the head of principalities and powers? Can a doctrine be buried in baptism? &c. To silence all the earth, that they should not restrain it to Christ’s doctrine only, what he asserts of his person, Paul, after Christ had been several years in heaven, put it in the present tense, dwelleth, not dwelt, {as 2 Timothy 1:5} in regard of the person eternally the same, Hebrews 13:8; for his argument had not been cogent, to contain Christians in the faith of Christ, and their duty to him, to have alleged, in the doctrine of Christ now in heaven hath dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead bodily (could propriety of speech have allowed it); but from the other respect, because in their very flesh (the body of Christ, now an inhabitant of the heavens) the very Godhead, in the whole fulness thereof, personally, from the moment of his incarnation, doth yet dwell. What will not the faithful perform and work out with their utmost faith, that they may never suffer themselves to be rent from spiritual and mystical union with him, in whom they understand that even they themselves shall be also divinely filled, Colossians 2:10, i.e. in their measure be made partakers of the Divine nature, 2 Peter 1:4.”
“Dwelleth imports more than a transient stay for a few minutes, or a little while, even abiding in him constantly and for ever, as dwelling most usually notes, 2 Corinthians 6:16. That which doth thus perpetually abide in his person, as denominated after the human nature, is all the fulness of the Godhead, viz. that rich and incomprehensible abundance of perfections, whereof the supreme and adorable nature is full; so that indeed there is not at all any perfection or excellency in the Divine nature but is found abiding in him. And after no common or ordinary way, but by a hypostatical or personal union of the Godhead with the manhood in Christ; which is not by way of mixture, confusion, conversion, or any other mutation; but bodily, to exclude that inhabitation which is only by extrinsical denomination. It being an adverb, doth denote the manner as well as the subject; wherefore when he speaks of the temple of his body, John 2:21, that doth not fully reach the apostle’s meaning here: but it must be expounded personally, since in the Greek that which signifies with us a body, and so our English word body, is put for a person, Romans 12:1 2 Corinthians 5:10 Revelation 18:13: somebody or nobody, i.e. some person or no person. There is a presence of the Godhead general, by essence and power; particular, in the prophets and apostles working miracles: gracious, in all sanctified ones; glorious, in heaven, in light which no man can approach unto, 1 Timothy 6:16; relative, in the church visible and ordinances, typically under the law, and symbolically in the sacraments: but all these dwellings, or being present in the creature, fall short of that in the text, viz. bodily, connoting the personal habitation of the Deity in, and union of it with, the humanity of Christ, so close, and strait, and intimate, that the Godhead inhabiting and the manhood inhabited make but one and the same person, even as the reasonable soul and body in man make but one man. The way of the presence of the Deity with the humanity of Christ is above all those manners of the presence of God with angels and men. The Godhead dwells in him personally, in them in regard of assistance and energy: Godhead notes the truth of it; Christ was not only partaker of the Divine nature, 2 Peter 1:4, but the very Godhead dwells in him: it is not only the Divinity (as the Socinians, following the Vulgar Latin in this, would have it) but the Deity, the very nature and essence of God. Now it is observable, though in God himself Divinity and Deity be indeed the same, Romans 1:20, and may differ only from the manner of our conception and contemplation; yet here, when the enemies to Christ’s Deity might by their cavilling make more use of the word Divinity, (as when the soul of man is said to be a divine thing), to insinuate as if it here noted only the Divine will exclusive to the other attributes, (which exclusion the term all doth significantly prevent), the apostle puts in Deity or Godhead.”
“Then lest Christ might (as by the Arians) be deemed a secondary God, or (as some since) a made god, inferior to the Father, he saith the fulness of the Godhead, which speaks him perfect God, coequal with the Father: further, connoting a numerical sameness of essence between the Godhead of the Father and the Son, all the fulness of the Godhead dwelleth in him. There is not one fulness of the Father and another of the Son, but one and the same singular Godhead in both, John 10:30. The fulness of the manhood in Adam and Eve were not numerically the same, but the Godhead of the Father and the Son is: yet is not the manhood of Christ co-extended and commensurate with the Godhead (as some Lutherans conceit); but where the manhood is, or Christ as man is, or hath his existence, there the fulness of the Godhead dwells bodily: so that this fulness is extended as the manhood only in which it is, and not as far as the Deity in which this derivative fulness is not as in its seat, though it be all originally from it, but inherently or subjectively in Christ.” (2)
Vincent’s Word Studies does a good job of explaining key Greek words in the text:
Fullness See on Colossians 1:19.
Godhead (θεότητος)
“Only here in the New Testament. See on Romans 1:20, where θειότης divinity or godhood is used. Appropriate there, because God personally would not be known from His revelation in nature, but only His attributes – His majesty and glory. Here Paul is speaking of the essential and personal deity as belonging to Christ. So Bengel: ‘Not the divine attributes, but the divine nature.’”
Bodily (σωματικῶς)
1. “In bodily fashion or bodily-wise. The verse contains two distinct assertions: 1. That the fullness of the Godhead eternally dwells in Christ. The present tense κατοικεῖ dwelleth, is used like ἐστιν is (the image), Colossians 1:15, to denote an eternal and essential characteristic of Christ’s being. The indwelling of the divine fullness in Him is characteristic of Him as Christ, from all ages and to all ages. Hence the fullness of the Godhead dwelt in Him before His incarnation, when He was “in the form of God” (Philippians 2:6). The Word in the beginning, was with God and was God (John 1:1). It dwelt in Him during His incarnation. It was the Word that became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth, and His glory which was beheld was the glory as of the Only begotten of the Father (John 1:14; compare 1 John 1:1-3). The fullness of the Godhead dwells in His glorified humanity in heaven.”
2. “The fullness of the Godhead dwells in Him in a bodily way, clothed the body. This means that it dwells in Him as one having a human body. This could not be true of His preincarnate state, when He was “in the form of God,” for the human body was taken on by Him in the fullness of time, when “He became in the likeness of men” (Philippians 2:7), when the Word became flesh. The fullness of the Godhead dwelt in His person from His birth to His ascension. He carried His human body with Him into heaven, and in His glorified body now and ever dwells the fullness of the Godhead.”
“O, for a sight, a blissful sight
Of our Almighty Father’s throne!
There sits the Savior crowned with light,
Clothed in a body like our own.
“Adoring saints around Him stand,
And thrones and powers before Him fall;
The God shines gracious through the man,
continued… (3)
Colossians 2:9 is frequently cited by proponents of the Trinity to bolster the concept of Jesus being God incarnate. The verse explicitly declares the presence of divinity within Jesus. Its significance lies in the unique use of the term ‘deity,’ not found elsewhere in the Bible, which denotes the fundamental nature or divine essence. This verse asserts that Jesus embodies the entirety of God’s fullness, representing the complete state of divinity. He is not lacking any divine attributes.
The use of Philippians 2:7 proof text used by theological heretics refuted:
Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers on Philippians 2:7:
“(7) But made himself . . .—This verse needs more exact translation. It should be, But emptied (or, stripped) Himself of His glory by having taken on Him the form of a slave and having been made (or, born) in likeness of men. The “glory” is the “glory which He had with the Father before the world was” (John 17:5; comp. Philippians 1:14), clearly corresponding to the Shechinah of the Divine Presence. Of this He stripped Himself in the Incarnation, taking on Him the “form (or, nature) of a servant” of God. He resumed it for a moment in the Transfiguration; He was crowned with it anew at the Ascension.”
“Made in the likeness of man. — This clause, at first sight, seems to weaken the previous clause, for it does not distinctly express our Lord’s true humanity. But we note that the phrase is “the likeness of men,” i.e., of men in general, men as they actually are. Hence the key to the meaning is to be found in such passages as Romans 8:3, God sent His own Son in “the likeness of sinful flesh;” or Hebrews 2:17; Hebrews 4:15, “It behoved Him to be made like unto His brethren,” “in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.” It would have been an infinite humiliation to have assumed humanity, even in unique and visible glory; but our Lord went beyond this, by deigning to seem like other men in all things, one only of the multitude, and that, too, in a station, which confused Him with the commoner types of mankind. The truth of His humanity is expressed in the phrase “form of a servant;” its unique and ideal character is glanced at when it is said to have worn only the “likeness of men.” (4)
Vincent’s Word Studies clarifies the Philippians text correctly and supports Ellicott’s interpretation:
“Made Himself of no reputation (ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν).”
“Lit. Emptied Himself. The general sense is that He divested Himself of that peculiar mode of existence which was proper and peculiar to Him as one with God. He laid aside the form of God. In so doing, He did not divest Himself of His divine nature. The change was a change of state: the form of a servant for the form of God. His personality continued the same. His self-emptying was not self-extinction, nor was the divine Being changed into a mere man. In His humanity He retained the consciousness of deity, and in His incarnate state carried out the mind which animated Him before His incarnation. He was not unable to assert equality with God. He was able not to assert it.”
“Form of a servant (μορφὴν δούλου)”
“The same word for form as in the phrase form of God, and with the same sense. The mode of expression of a slave’s being is indeed apprehensible, and is associated with human shape, but it is not this side of the fact which Paul is developing. It is that Christ assumed that mode of being which answered to, and was the complete and characteristic expression of, the slave’s being. The mode itself is not defined. This is appropriately inserted here as bringing out the contrast with counted not equality with God, etc. What Christ grasped at in His incarnation was not divine sovereignty, but service.”
“Was made in the likeness of men (ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος)”
“Lit., becoming in, etc. Notice the choice of the verb, not was, but became: entered into a new state. Likeness. The word does not imply the reality of our Lord’s humanity, μορφή form implied the reality of His deity. That fact is stated in the form of a servant. Neither is εἰκών image employed, which, for our purposes, implies substantially the same as μορφή. See on Colossians 1:15. As form of a servant exhibits the inmost reality of Christ’s condition as a servant – that He became really and essentially the servant of men (Luke 22:27) – so likeness of men expresses the fact that His mode of manifestation resembled what men are. This leaves room for the assumption of another side of His nature – the divine – in the likeness of which He did not appear. As He appealed to men, He was like themselves, with a real likeness; but this likeness to men did not express His whole self. The totality of His being could not appear to men, for that involved the form of God. Hence the apostle views Him solely as He could appear to men. All that was possible was a real and complete likeness to humanity. What He was essentially and eternally could not enter into His human mode of existence. Humanly He was like men, but regarded with reference to His whole self, He was not identical with man, because there was an element of His personality which did not dwell in them – equality with God. Hence the statement of His human manifestation is necessarily limited by this fact, and is confined to likeness and does not extend to identity. “To affirm likeness is at once to assert similarity and to deny sameness” (5)
The reader will notice how Vincent addresses what is known without using the name as the Kenosis theory when explicating how Christ “emptied” or “made” Himself in the Incarnation.
The Kenosis theory is a false teaching that says that Christ, when emptying himself, gave up some or all of the attributes of Deity, such as omniscience, to exist as a man. The danger in this theory is that the implications are that Christ was not fully God during His time on earth.
Another un-named theory this writer encountered was that Jesus is a lonely savior because after the resurrection, He remains confined in His body, and the only relation He has with believers is indirect via the Holy Spirit. While this is true about Jesus dwelling in the believer’s heart via the Holy Spirit, this theory negates the fullness of divine attributes shared equally by the persons of the Triune Godhead. During His Advent, it is true that “For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.” (Colossians 2:9). To argue that in His glorified body, this fullness is absent is indefensible and heretical.
In conclusion:
Jesus retained all His divine attributes on earth and after His ascension into heaven because Jesus is God in the flesh, fully man and fully God. His divine attributes, such as omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence, were not diminished when He took on human form. Instead, He willingly humbled Himself and submitted to the limitations of humanity while remaining fully divine. After His resurrection and ascension, Jesus continued in His full divine state, possessing all the attributes of God.
Key Scriptures that support the idea that Jesus retained His divine attributes while on earth and after His ascension into heaven. Some of the most important include:
1. John 1:1-2, 14: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.”
2. John 10:30: “I and the Father are one.”
3. Philippians 2:5-11: “In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death—even death on a cross! Therefore, God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”
4. Colossians 2:9: “For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form.”
5. Hebrews 4:15: “For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin.”
These Scriptures show that Jesus, while fully man, was also fully God, maintaining His divine attributes throughout His life and after His ascension into heaven. Anything less is heresy.
Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)
Notes:
1. Charles John Ellicott, Bible Commentary for English Readers, Philippians, Vol. 8, (London, England, Cassell and Company), p. 106.
2. Matthew Poole’s Commentary on the Holy Bible, Colossians, Vol. 3, (Peabody, Massachusetts, Hendrickson Publishers, 1985), p. 716.
3. Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies In The New Testament, (Mclean, Virginia, Macdonald Publishing Company), p. 486-487.
4. Charles John Ellicott, Bible Commentary for English Readers, Philippians, Vol. 8, (London, England, Cassell and Company), p. 74.
5. Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies In The New Testament, (Mclean, Virginia, Macdonald Publishing Company), p. 432-433.
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 17 books defending the Reformed Faith. Books can be ordered online at Amazon.
The Religion That Started in a Hat 