"In [Christ] are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge." (Colossians 2:3)
Christ is the treasure. So too is the word of God treasure.
Will we find religious truth, yea, God himself, accidentally or on purpose? Will we "hunt" or not?
The psalmist said, “I rejoice at Your Word as one who finds great treasure” (Psalm 119:162).
"The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field. When a man found it, he hid it again, and then in his joy went and sold all he had and bought that field." (Matthew 13:44)
"If thou seekest her as silver, and searchest for her as for hid treasures; Then shalt thou understand the fear of the LORD, and find the knowledge of God." (Prov. 2:4-5)
We must do some digging!
Wrote Dennis Fisher (see here):
"Are you eager to find the treasures stored in Scripture? Start digging!"
When reading God’s Word, take special care,
To find the rich treasures hidden there;
Give thought to each line, each precept hear,
Then practice it well with godly fear. —Anon.
"The treasures of truth in God’s Word are best mined with the spade of meditation."
Other Quotations
"Jesus is like a treasure hidden in the field where everybody passes daily yet they do not see Him."
"Just as Jesus used an image or a story to illustrate a truth or a lesson, told to us hidden in parables, like buried treasure waiting to be discovered, for those who dug deep they would discover and understand his secrets."
Become a treasure hunter for theological truth! Mine the scriptures! You will surely be glad that you did.
Tuesday, July 31, 2018
On Righteous Indignation
Several Hardshells who have left comments on this blog over the years have accused those of us who left the Hardshells, and write against their heresies, as being "angry," and the implication is that we cannot therefore be saying anything truthful about the Hardshells.
On Ephesians 4: 26 John Gill wrote:
"Be ye angry, and sin not...There is anger which is not sinful; for anger is found in God himself, in Jesus Christ, in the holy angels, and in God's people; and a man may be said to be angry and not sin, when his anger arises from a true zeal for God and religion; when it is kindled not against persons, but sins; when a man is displeased with his own sins, and with the sins of others: with vice and immorality of every kind; with idolatry and idolatrous worship, and with all false doctrine; and also when it is carried on to answer good ends, as the good of those with whom we are angry, the glory of God, and the promoting of the interest of Christ: and there is an anger which is sinful; as when it is without a cause; when it exceeds due bounds; when it is not directed to a good end; when it is productive of bad effects, either in words or actions..."
The question is this - is it wrong to be angry at cult leaders and false teachers and heretics? Is it sin to hate false doctrine and those who promote it? To hate preachers who are liars, deceivers, and seducers?
"Yet this you do have, that you hate the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate." (Rev. 2:6 NASB)
On Ephesians 4: 26 John Gill wrote:
"Be ye angry, and sin not...There is anger which is not sinful; for anger is found in God himself, in Jesus Christ, in the holy angels, and in God's people; and a man may be said to be angry and not sin, when his anger arises from a true zeal for God and religion; when it is kindled not against persons, but sins; when a man is displeased with his own sins, and with the sins of others: with vice and immorality of every kind; with idolatry and idolatrous worship, and with all false doctrine; and also when it is carried on to answer good ends, as the good of those with whom we are angry, the glory of God, and the promoting of the interest of Christ: and there is an anger which is sinful; as when it is without a cause; when it exceeds due bounds; when it is not directed to a good end; when it is productive of bad effects, either in words or actions..."
The question is this - is it wrong to be angry at cult leaders and false teachers and heretics? Is it sin to hate false doctrine and those who promote it? To hate preachers who are liars, deceivers, and seducers?
"Yet this you do have, that you hate the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate." (Rev. 2:6 NASB)
Well, I hate Hardshellism, just like I hate Campbellism, Landmarkism, Pelagianism, Arminianism, Catholicism, Mormonism, etc. I hate heretics and false teachers.
Honesty In Bible Interpretation
"True interpretation is a sacred duty, carried out under God's eye and judgment."
(Shakespeare, Milton...By Marcus Walsh - see here)
Oh that so many do not understand this! Would to God our Hardshell brothers would heed this warning and not handle the word of God as they do!
Wrote Professor Daniel Wallace (see here - emphasis mine):
"This is the first in a series of occasional short essays on "Scripture Twisting." The purpose of these very brief essays is to challenge certain popular interpretations of the Bible that really have little or no basis."
Wallace gives several reasons for misinterpretation of scripture.
Reason One: Lack of Respect
"Hence, one reason for the abuse of Scripture is due to a lack of respect for the Bible as a divine and human work. In this approach it becomes a magical incantation book--almost a book of unconnected fortune cookie sayings!
Reason Two: Laziness
"Part and parcel of this abuse of Scripture is laziness. That is, most people simply don't take the trouble to read the context or to do their homework on the meaning of the Bible. And even when they are confronted with overwhelming evidence that is contrary to their view, they often glibly reply, "That's just your interpretation." This kind of response sounds as if all interpretations are up for grabs, as though all interpretations are equally plausible. Such a view is patently false."
I found this problem among the Hardshells when I was one of them.
Wallace continued:
"Take the following sentence as an example: "My mother likes climbing vines." One interpretation of these words is not just as valid as another. This sentence cannot mean "My father is an auto mechanic." "Mother" does not mean "Father"; "likes" does not mean "is"; "climbing vines" is not a synonym for "auto mechanic." Language cannot be twisted in this manner. Now, without a context, there are, however, two distinct options for the sentence in question. Either "My mother likes vines that climb" or "My mother likes to climb vines." Which is the right view? The only way to tell is to look at the context of the utterance--or to ask the author of the sentence! Both things are done in biblical interpretation. Sometimes the context solves the problem; other times, the more we know about an author, the better able we are to determine his meaning. But one recipe for missing the meaning of the text is to be too casual about it."
Brother Fralick has written much on how the Hardshells, in their interpretations of scripture, ignore context.
Reason Three: Dishonesty
"Another reason for Scripture twisting is simple dishonesty. Peter reminds his audience that Paul wrote things that are hard to understand, which the unstable and wicked twist to their own destruction (2 Peter 3:15-16). I'm afraid that this approach to Scripture represents the attitude of far too many folks. Not just heretics, either."
I believe that this is the chief reason for denominations and false interpretation. Most people do not approach the scriptures honestly. When we twist scripture, we are being dishonest. If you want to be kept from error in interpretation, begin with being honest with the text of scripture.
(Shakespeare, Milton...By Marcus Walsh - see here)
Oh that so many do not understand this! Would to God our Hardshell brothers would heed this warning and not handle the word of God as they do!
Wrote Professor Daniel Wallace (see here - emphasis mine):
"This is the first in a series of occasional short essays on "Scripture Twisting." The purpose of these very brief essays is to challenge certain popular interpretations of the Bible that really have little or no basis."
Wallace gives several reasons for misinterpretation of scripture.
Reason One: Lack of Respect
"Hence, one reason for the abuse of Scripture is due to a lack of respect for the Bible as a divine and human work. In this approach it becomes a magical incantation book--almost a book of unconnected fortune cookie sayings!
Reason Two: Laziness
"Part and parcel of this abuse of Scripture is laziness. That is, most people simply don't take the trouble to read the context or to do their homework on the meaning of the Bible. And even when they are confronted with overwhelming evidence that is contrary to their view, they often glibly reply, "That's just your interpretation." This kind of response sounds as if all interpretations are up for grabs, as though all interpretations are equally plausible. Such a view is patently false."
I found this problem among the Hardshells when I was one of them.
Wallace continued:
"Take the following sentence as an example: "My mother likes climbing vines." One interpretation of these words is not just as valid as another. This sentence cannot mean "My father is an auto mechanic." "Mother" does not mean "Father"; "likes" does not mean "is"; "climbing vines" is not a synonym for "auto mechanic." Language cannot be twisted in this manner. Now, without a context, there are, however, two distinct options for the sentence in question. Either "My mother likes vines that climb" or "My mother likes to climb vines." Which is the right view? The only way to tell is to look at the context of the utterance--or to ask the author of the sentence! Both things are done in biblical interpretation. Sometimes the context solves the problem; other times, the more we know about an author, the better able we are to determine his meaning. But one recipe for missing the meaning of the text is to be too casual about it."
Brother Fralick has written much on how the Hardshells, in their interpretations of scripture, ignore context.
Reason Three: Dishonesty
"Another reason for Scripture twisting is simple dishonesty. Peter reminds his audience that Paul wrote things that are hard to understand, which the unstable and wicked twist to their own destruction (2 Peter 3:15-16). I'm afraid that this approach to Scripture represents the attitude of far too many folks. Not just heretics, either."
I believe that this is the chief reason for denominations and false interpretation. Most people do not approach the scriptures honestly. When we twist scripture, we are being dishonest. If you want to be kept from error in interpretation, begin with being honest with the text of scripture.
Monday, July 30, 2018
News On The Predicted Trade War
This posting is a follow up to my previous posting Comments On My 2016 Prediction.
"Trade war risks becoming a dangerous currency war as China weakens yuan the most in 2 years" (see here).
"On the surface, the tit-for-tat trade war between the U.S. and China appears to be turning into a currency war."
"Trade war risks becoming a dangerous currency war as China weakens yuan the most in 2 years" (see here).
"On the surface, the tit-for-tat trade war between the U.S. and China appears to be turning into a currency war."
Fools Ignore Facts
"Some of us are just as foolish, and try as desperately to annihilate facts by ignoring them."
(From an article titled "THE KINSMAN-REDEEMER" at Christian Classics Ethereal Library - here)
Is that not true in regard to our Hardshell brothers? Do they not try to "ignore" the facts we regularly present here in this blog, appropriately titled "The Old Baptist Test"?
(From an article titled "THE KINSMAN-REDEEMER" at Christian Classics Ethereal Library - here)
Is that not true in regard to our Hardshell brothers? Do they not try to "ignore" the facts we regularly present here in this blog, appropriately titled "The Old Baptist Test"?
Sunday, July 29, 2018
The Apocalypse of Jesus Christ (III)
"The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:" (1:1 KJV)
The Book's Title & It's Significance
J.A. Seiss in his first lecture, continuing his analysis of these verses, wrote:
"What concerns the subject and contents of this book, I find for the most part in the name which it gives itself. It is the common rule with Scripture names, to express the substance of the things to which they are applied. The name of God expresses what God is; so the names of the Lord Jesus Christ, and all the leading names found in the Bible. Even those which the Church has given, are often wonderfully expressive and significant. Genesis is the generation of things; Exodus, the going forth from bondage; The Gospel, the very heart and substance of all God’s gracious communications — the good news. And when God himself designates this book The Revelation of Jesus Christ, we may rest assured, that it is the very substance and kernel of the book that is expressed in this title."
This is what was stressed in the previous posting in this series. The title of the book is "The Revelation (Apocalypse) of Jesus Christ" and that title defines the subject and content of the "book of Revelation." Further, as we have seen, "the revelation of Jesus Christ" means all the same as "the coming of Jesus Christ." The book of Revelation is therefore a book detailing that revelation or coming.
Wrote Seiss:
"What, then, are we to understand by “The Apocalypse of Jesus Christ?” There are certain books (adopted and held sacred by the Church of Rome, which we, however, receive only as human productions), which have a name somewhat similar to this in sound. You find them in some Bibles, between the Old and New Testaments, bearing the name of Apocrypha. But Apocrypha is just the opposite of Apocalypse. Apocrypha means something that is concealed, not set forth, not authentic; Apocalypse means something revealed, disclosed, manifested, shown. The verb apokalupto, means to reveal, to make manifest, to uncover to view. The noun apokalupsis, means a revelation, a disclosure, an appearing, a making manifest. The Apocalypse, or Revelation of Jesus Christ, must therefore be the revealment, manifestation, appearing, of Jesus Christ."
As we have seen, "revelation of Jesus Christ" does not mean "information coming from Jesus Christ." The genitive is objective, Jesus Christ being the thing revealed.
Since the coming again of the Lord Jesus Christ involves many things, so the Book of Revelation details those things. The second coming involves judgment, resurrection, etc., all connected with what in scripture is called "the day of the Lord," or "the day of the Christ," or sometimes simply "that day." It is also referred to as the "day of wrath," and "the hour of trial that will come upon all the earth." (Rev. 3:10) It is a time of harvest and of separating the righteous from the wicked. It is also called "the day of redemption," a time of not only when Christ "is revealed," but when the saints themselves are revealed, or experience an "apocalypse."
The Absence Of The Definite Article
There is no definite article "the" in Greek before "apocalypse." Thus the title simply is "Apocalypse of Jesus Christ." Or, since genitives generally function as adjectives, we could translate the title as "Jesus Christ's Apocalypse." Wrote Albert Barnes in his commentary:
"In the Greek, in this passage, the article is missing - ἀποκάλυψις apokalupsis - a Revelation, not ἡ hē, the Revelation. This is omitted because it is the title of a book, and because the use of the article might imply that this was the only revelation."
I think the absence of the definite article is further proof that the words "revelation of Jesus Christ" are 1) a title to the vision John sees and describes, and 2) denote the second coming, appearing, or revelation of Christ from heaven to earth.
The Gift Of Christ's Apocalypse
Wrote Seiss:
"Notice now its derivation and authorship. The text represents it as the gift of God to Christ. It is called “The Apocalypse of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him.” Some understand this gift in the sense of signified, made known to; and so put themselves under the necessity of explaining how this could be without compromising our Lord’s Divinity. This is the first difficulty engendered by the departure from the proper scriptural meaning of the word Apocalypse."
Though it is not to be doubted that the Father gave the man Christ Jesus information or messages to deliver to men, yet Christ as divine, as God, was not informed of anything, for he already knew all things. Christ, in his human nature, "grew in wisdom and stature," but such is not true of his divine nature. The comments by Seiss should lead men away from interpreting "revelation of Jesus Christ" as "revelation from Jesus Christ."
Wrote Seiss:
"People take it as denoting a piece of information, and so represent Christ in a state of ignorance respecting the sublimest results of his mediatorship until after his ascension into heaven. The incongruities of such an acceptation should teach men better. The Apocalypse of Christ is the future reappearance of Christ, clothed with the honours and crowned with the triumphs which are to characterize that forthcoming, and not the mere knowledge or description of these things. And it is that Apocalypse, with all its glorious concomitants and results, that God has, in covenant, given to Christ; — given to him as the crowning reward of his mediatorial work, as the Scriptures everywhere teach."
"The Apocalypse of Christ is the future reappearance of Christ." Yes, indeed! If you miss that, you miss from the start and are headed in the wrong direction, a direction that will lead you further away from a correct understanding of this capstone of revelation.
Wrote Seiss:
"The promise of the victory of the woman’s Seed involved this gift. Hannah’s song speaks of it as strength and exaltation which the Lord bestoweth upon his anointed. God’s promise to David of a son whose kingdom is to be established forever embraces it. It is the great theme of the second Psalm, where God says to his son: “I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession — thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.” It is in Isaiah’s pictures of Messiah, in Jeremiah’s prophecies, in the words of the annunciation to Mary, in Christ’s own parables, and in all the writings of the Apostles. Because Christ “made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men, and humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross, God hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” We are told that there was joy set before Christ as the reward of his sufferings and death, and that it was “for the joy that was set before him, he endured the cross, despising the shame.” And whatever else may be included in that exaltation or that joy, highest and greatest of all is a future Apocalypse, when “the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, and he shall sit upon the throne of his glory.” This, then, is what God “gave to Jesus Christ,” in promise, when he commenced his work, in its earnest, when he raised him from the dead and received him into glory; and thus gave what constitutes the substance of this book."
Again, it is failure to understand this fact about the Book of Revelation that causes misinterpretation and misunderstanding of it. "The Apocalypse" is not only a title denoting what are the contents of the visions given to the apostle John, but a term synonymous with the second coming or reappearing of the Lord Jesus Christ. Further, "the Apocalypse" is a gift of the Deity to the incarnate Son, being "the reward of his sufferings and death."
Wrote Seiss:
"The revelation of Christ is a gift from God to him, not as he is in his divinity, but rather in his humanity, as the man Christ Jesus. The first person in the Trinity is not giving to the second person the gift of "the revelation." Rather, it is the whole deity, especially the Father, who gives to the incarnate Son this glorious gift. This fact should keep us from interpreting "the revelation of Jesus Christ" as information communicated by or from Christ. Shall we say that the Father gave information to the Son for the purpose of giving it to us? Surely, this is not the meaning of the text. The arguments thus far presented disprove it."
All the evidence proves the veracity of what Seiss here says. Those who deny it must show how the evidence is false.
This gift of the Father to the incarnate Son is in turn given or shared with the saved, with the Lord's people. The second coming, with all the glories connected with it, is a gift that Christ shares with his redeemed.
Whether "revelation of Christ" means 1) information coming from Christ, or 2) appearing or coming of Christ can only be determined by the context; First, by the immediate context, Second, by the book of Revelation as a whole, and Third, to the scripture as a whole, or how the term is used elsewhere in the NT.
What truth the Father communicated to the Christ, the Christ communicates with his followers. Jesus state this fact many times. But, this is not what Christ is saying to the apostle John.
Four Apocalypses
First, there are the two apocalypses of the Christ. One has occurred, He has come and appeared once.
Second, there is the apocalypse of the sons of God.
Third, there is the apocalypse of the Man of Sin, or Antichrist
Two apocalypses of Christ, one of the sons of God, and one of the Antichrist.
But, more on this in the next several postings.
The Book's Title & It's Significance
J.A. Seiss in his first lecture, continuing his analysis of these verses, wrote:
"What concerns the subject and contents of this book, I find for the most part in the name which it gives itself. It is the common rule with Scripture names, to express the substance of the things to which they are applied. The name of God expresses what God is; so the names of the Lord Jesus Christ, and all the leading names found in the Bible. Even those which the Church has given, are often wonderfully expressive and significant. Genesis is the generation of things; Exodus, the going forth from bondage; The Gospel, the very heart and substance of all God’s gracious communications — the good news. And when God himself designates this book The Revelation of Jesus Christ, we may rest assured, that it is the very substance and kernel of the book that is expressed in this title."
This is what was stressed in the previous posting in this series. The title of the book is "The Revelation (Apocalypse) of Jesus Christ" and that title defines the subject and content of the "book of Revelation." Further, as we have seen, "the revelation of Jesus Christ" means all the same as "the coming of Jesus Christ." The book of Revelation is therefore a book detailing that revelation or coming.
Wrote Seiss:
"What, then, are we to understand by “The Apocalypse of Jesus Christ?” There are certain books (adopted and held sacred by the Church of Rome, which we, however, receive only as human productions), which have a name somewhat similar to this in sound. You find them in some Bibles, between the Old and New Testaments, bearing the name of Apocrypha. But Apocrypha is just the opposite of Apocalypse. Apocrypha means something that is concealed, not set forth, not authentic; Apocalypse means something revealed, disclosed, manifested, shown. The verb apokalupto, means to reveal, to make manifest, to uncover to view. The noun apokalupsis, means a revelation, a disclosure, an appearing, a making manifest. The Apocalypse, or Revelation of Jesus Christ, must therefore be the revealment, manifestation, appearing, of Jesus Christ."
As we have seen, "revelation of Jesus Christ" does not mean "information coming from Jesus Christ." The genitive is objective, Jesus Christ being the thing revealed.
Since the coming again of the Lord Jesus Christ involves many things, so the Book of Revelation details those things. The second coming involves judgment, resurrection, etc., all connected with what in scripture is called "the day of the Lord," or "the day of the Christ," or sometimes simply "that day." It is also referred to as the "day of wrath," and "the hour of trial that will come upon all the earth." (Rev. 3:10) It is a time of harvest and of separating the righteous from the wicked. It is also called "the day of redemption," a time of not only when Christ "is revealed," but when the saints themselves are revealed, or experience an "apocalypse."
The Absence Of The Definite Article
There is no definite article "the" in Greek before "apocalypse." Thus the title simply is "Apocalypse of Jesus Christ." Or, since genitives generally function as adjectives, we could translate the title as "Jesus Christ's Apocalypse." Wrote Albert Barnes in his commentary:
"In the Greek, in this passage, the article is missing - ἀποκάλυψις apokalupsis - a Revelation, not ἡ hē, the Revelation. This is omitted because it is the title of a book, and because the use of the article might imply that this was the only revelation."
I think the absence of the definite article is further proof that the words "revelation of Jesus Christ" are 1) a title to the vision John sees and describes, and 2) denote the second coming, appearing, or revelation of Christ from heaven to earth.
The Gift Of Christ's Apocalypse
Wrote Seiss:
"Notice now its derivation and authorship. The text represents it as the gift of God to Christ. It is called “The Apocalypse of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him.” Some understand this gift in the sense of signified, made known to; and so put themselves under the necessity of explaining how this could be without compromising our Lord’s Divinity. This is the first difficulty engendered by the departure from the proper scriptural meaning of the word Apocalypse."
Though it is not to be doubted that the Father gave the man Christ Jesus information or messages to deliver to men, yet Christ as divine, as God, was not informed of anything, for he already knew all things. Christ, in his human nature, "grew in wisdom and stature," but such is not true of his divine nature. The comments by Seiss should lead men away from interpreting "revelation of Jesus Christ" as "revelation from Jesus Christ."
Wrote Seiss:
"People take it as denoting a piece of information, and so represent Christ in a state of ignorance respecting the sublimest results of his mediatorship until after his ascension into heaven. The incongruities of such an acceptation should teach men better. The Apocalypse of Christ is the future reappearance of Christ, clothed with the honours and crowned with the triumphs which are to characterize that forthcoming, and not the mere knowledge or description of these things. And it is that Apocalypse, with all its glorious concomitants and results, that God has, in covenant, given to Christ; — given to him as the crowning reward of his mediatorial work, as the Scriptures everywhere teach."
"The Apocalypse of Christ is the future reappearance of Christ." Yes, indeed! If you miss that, you miss from the start and are headed in the wrong direction, a direction that will lead you further away from a correct understanding of this capstone of revelation.
Wrote Seiss:
"The promise of the victory of the woman’s Seed involved this gift. Hannah’s song speaks of it as strength and exaltation which the Lord bestoweth upon his anointed. God’s promise to David of a son whose kingdom is to be established forever embraces it. It is the great theme of the second Psalm, where God says to his son: “I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession — thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.” It is in Isaiah’s pictures of Messiah, in Jeremiah’s prophecies, in the words of the annunciation to Mary, in Christ’s own parables, and in all the writings of the Apostles. Because Christ “made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men, and humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross, God hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” We are told that there was joy set before Christ as the reward of his sufferings and death, and that it was “for the joy that was set before him, he endured the cross, despising the shame.” And whatever else may be included in that exaltation or that joy, highest and greatest of all is a future Apocalypse, when “the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, and he shall sit upon the throne of his glory.” This, then, is what God “gave to Jesus Christ,” in promise, when he commenced his work, in its earnest, when he raised him from the dead and received him into glory; and thus gave what constitutes the substance of this book."
Again, it is failure to understand this fact about the Book of Revelation that causes misinterpretation and misunderstanding of it. "The Apocalypse" is not only a title denoting what are the contents of the visions given to the apostle John, but a term synonymous with the second coming or reappearing of the Lord Jesus Christ. Further, "the Apocalypse" is a gift of the Deity to the incarnate Son, being "the reward of his sufferings and death."
Wrote Seiss:
"The revelation of Christ is a gift from God to him, not as he is in his divinity, but rather in his humanity, as the man Christ Jesus. The first person in the Trinity is not giving to the second person the gift of "the revelation." Rather, it is the whole deity, especially the Father, who gives to the incarnate Son this glorious gift. This fact should keep us from interpreting "the revelation of Jesus Christ" as information communicated by or from Christ. Shall we say that the Father gave information to the Son for the purpose of giving it to us? Surely, this is not the meaning of the text. The arguments thus far presented disprove it."
All the evidence proves the veracity of what Seiss here says. Those who deny it must show how the evidence is false.
This gift of the Father to the incarnate Son is in turn given or shared with the saved, with the Lord's people. The second coming, with all the glories connected with it, is a gift that Christ shares with his redeemed.
Whether "revelation of Christ" means 1) information coming from Christ, or 2) appearing or coming of Christ can only be determined by the context; First, by the immediate context, Second, by the book of Revelation as a whole, and Third, to the scripture as a whole, or how the term is used elsewhere in the NT.
What truth the Father communicated to the Christ, the Christ communicates with his followers. Jesus state this fact many times. But, this is not what Christ is saying to the apostle John.
Four Apocalypses
First, there are the two apocalypses of the Christ. One has occurred, He has come and appeared once.
Second, there is the apocalypse of the sons of God.
Third, there is the apocalypse of the Man of Sin, or Antichrist
Two apocalypses of Christ, one of the sons of God, and one of the Antichrist.
But, more on this in the next several postings.
Friday, July 27, 2018
No Gossip Here. Only Exegesis.
Of late I have been thinking much of the recent charge made that this blog is a gossip blog, an absolutely ludicrous and laughable claim. My fellow laborer responded accordingly with a truth every honest mind will have to admit. We deal in facts here as we see them, whether they be biblical or historical. This has made me recall one of my older articles, originally titled 'Means A Matter of Context', from long ago that I wanted to repost that focuses solely on examining the context of certain passages in the Bible. These texts gave me lots of sleepless nights when I was being delivered from the heretical paradigm I once used to brainwash folks. I finally came to recognize that espousing the gospel means pattern of salvation is blatantly obvious upon reading the scriptures. The problem lied in me not wanting to see it; that is, until the Lord removed the scales.
There is no gossip here.
"We know, from the Holy Scriptures, that God employs his truth in the regeneration of the soul." (J.L. Dagg)
Just what does it take to come to the gospel means position with regards to how sinners are eternally saved? Must one forsake the reading of the scriptures, instead devoting his time to reading the works of Calvinists? Must he abandon the Word of God, exchanging it for systematic theologies, or base his beliefs upon confessions of faith maybe? To hear some speak, this is true. Such a one told me once that in leaving the anti-means paradigm I was walking away from the "simplicity that is in Christ" (2 Cor. 11:3); that in my desire for knowledge I had devoted too much time studying other resources and "crossed the Rubicon", so to speak. Well, take it from one who has come to such a position that this is complete and utter nonsense. Hopefully I speak on behalf of other ostracized ones out there who have traveled a similar path when I state that conviction that effectual calling is by "His Word and Spirit" is derived from the Bible, and the Bible alone. One need not read a lick of Calvin, Owen, Hodge, Spurgeon, Edwards, Dabney, etc. to see this taught in God’s Word. He doesn’t have to have access to John Gill’s Body of Divinity or Calvin’s Institutes as I’ve often heard it claimed! He can arrive at this position if he were stranded on a desert island with only his Bible in his hands. And he could do this through use of the most elementary rule of bible interpretation available to the common man: CONTEXT.
The average Christian often takes this rule for granted when reading God’s Word, for it is simply a no-brainer that a text should be considered in the light of what surrounds it. The fact that the majority, whether they incline towards Arminianism or Calvinism, agree that one must hear the gospel to be saved based upon seemingly clear passages which teach it (e.g. Mark 16:16; Acts 16:30; Romans 1:16) shows that something else must be at work in the anti-means mind which denies it. As a former advocate of this system I now know that it is only when one approaches these texts with an anti-means prejudice are they interpreted to mean something contrary to what the vast majority of Bible readers see when reading them; namely, sinners must have faith in Christ to be saved, and that faith comes from gospel revelation. It cannot be denied that there are such texts in the Bible which may be denoted as "means" passages. This is clearly established through the usage of the prepositions “by”, “through”, and “with” in connection with the gospel. There are two main questions which need to be considered here however. First, is the context of those passages where the gospel is set forth as the means dealing with matters of eternal or only temporal consequence? Second, with respect to those passages where eternal salvation is under consideration, is the gospel set forth as the means whereby it is affected, or something else? It shall be our business in this posting to seek an answer to these questions. We will not invoke the anti-means premise which says that if an instrument is used then it CAN’T BE referring to eternal salvation or if it is eternal salvation then the gospel CAN’T BE the means, for they hinder us from accomplish our specific goal, which is to settle the matter by context. If the passage is couched in language suggesting of eternal salvation, or the gospel is evidently proven to be the means whereby it is affected, then any premises must be discarded in favor of this basic hermeneutic of contextual interpretation. The honest Bible reader must acknowledge that the context of a passage is more important than some preconceived notion we might bring to it. To the law and to the testimony we now go.
Is the context of gospel means passages dealing with matters of eternal or temporal consequence?
TEXTS: Romans 1:16; 6:17; 10:1; 11:11-15; Eph. 1:13-14; 2 Thes. 2:13-14
All must agree that these are gospel means passages for the texts mention it specifically. I could refer to more, but I choose these for the specific reason that it cannot be denied that they all depict the gospel or Word of God as affecting SOMETHING, and the surrounding context explicitly deals with either the matter of salvation or condemnation. To the average Christian there is no need to engage the question of whether eternal or some temporal salvation is under consideration as he has not been ingrained in the Hardshell manner of partitioning the Bible. He recognizes that eternal salvation is the dominating theme of the Bible, and that these passages are to be placed in that category with minimal deliberation. To the anti-means mind though, this is a question to pursue. Or should I say it WAS a question to pursue, for the universal answer has been given that eternal salvation is NOT under consideration. Sadly, it was not because of sound hermeneutics which led to such a conclusion, but because of a preconceived bias that would not tolerate the alternative. And that, reader, is the whole problem. Let us examine the passages then allowing nothing but mere context to answer the question.
1) "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek." (Rom. 1:16)
In the first chapter of Romans, after writing that the gospel is the power of God unto salvation the Apostle Paul informs us of the wrath of God against the ungodly. He unfolds this starting in v.18, his thoughts culminating in the second chapter where we read of the “day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God” (2:5). The point of the Apostle in Romans 1:16 is to announce the salvation that is able to rescue a sinner from this woeful fate. That the salvation of Romans 1:16 cannot be disconnected from the wrath of God which the Apostle does here describe is proven by verse 18. This salvation exists "For" (because – KF) the wrath of God exists! Thus, Paul is revealing in v. 16 the method by which sinners find an escape from the impending wrath of God he will write about two verses later! Now if Paul is delineating the eternal wrath of God against the ungodly, culminating in the great judgment described in 2:1-10, then he must be announcing in 1:16 the salvation which is able to counteract this fate! If the judgment is eternal, then likewise must be the salvation! If Paul intended to convey to his audience in 1:16 that the purpose of the gospel is only to get a time salvation then what we should find is only a temporal wrath and judgment conveyed in the verses which follow! Only an anti-means Hardshell Baptist or possibly a Universalist would affirm, in the light of such a solemn portrait of God’s eternal wrath upon the ungodly, that the Apostle Paul precedes it all by telling us how to get a time salvation! God has provided a temporal salvation for sinners because the eternal wrath of God is against them???!!!
2) "But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you." (Rom. 6:17)
This passage doesn’t receive as much attention from the anti-means party as do James 1:18 and 1 Peter 1:23, the reason being there is no easy word upon which to place the time salvation twist. The word of truth mentioned by James and the word of God mentioned by Peter are possibly ambiguous and therefore grant a little space for the anti-means mind to argue against gospel regeneration. In this passage, however, we are confronted with "doctrine", a clear reference to the body of truth, or the message of the gospel. It certainly is not referring to Jesus, as the no-means view would love to say! Combined with the context’s clear description of the transition of going from death to life and it becomes, we think, an impossible task to squeeze this into the category of some sort of temporal salvation. According to Paul, the saints were once the servants of sin, an obvious reference to the unregenerate state. But now they are free from it and the servants of righteousness (v.18). Thus the text focuses on going from death to life, old man to new man, servants of sin to servants of God, and not some fictional state of "regenerated but unconverted" to "regenerated and converted", as the anti-means, time salvation heretic argues with all gospel means passages! The text is without a doubt saying that the doctrine was instrumental in the regeneration of the saints, a matter of eternal consequence!
3) "Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved." (Rom. 10:1)
What salvation is Paul praying for his Jewish brethren to receive in this tenth chapter, a temporal one or an eternal one? The average Christian would reply without hesitation that it is the same one described in chapter nine, and would find it incredibly strange that someone would feel that the Apostle Paul would do an about-face on his readers! However, the anti-means view does not see this contextual flow as firm evidence that the tenth chapter must be the same salvation as that which Paul has been unfolding. But what indeed does the context say? The previous chapter is arguably one of the most profound in all the Bible, powerfully describing the sovereignty of God in salvation and reprobation. Towards the end of the chapter the Apostle tells us that a remnant of Israel will be saved (v.27), and that such a salvation involves attaining to the law of righteousness (v.30-31). The chapter ends with a quotation from Isaiah that whoever believes in Christ shall not be ashamed (v.33). What a preposterous idea that the Apostle Paul in the very next breath laid aside any notion of context, and without given any evidence that he is about to do so, proceeded to write on a "kind" of salvation different than the one he had heretofore been erecting! And that the only way for a Bible reader to know this is to have a premise in mind, nowhere taught or explained in scripture, that if men are praying for salvation, or if it involves gospel instrumentality, that it can’t be talking about eternal salvation!
So much for the words prior to chapter ten. What of those after? It is equally devastating to the notion that chapter ten is not referring to eternal salvation. It begins with Paul referring to the same exact Israel he was praying for (11:1-4). We’re told, however, that whereas not all of them were saved, yet there was a current remnant which would be (v.5). And the salvation of which they would be the recipient is described in unmistakable language: "And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work." (v.6) Every anti-means Hardshell Baptist I know refers to this passage emphasizing that eternal salvation is by grace, and can’t be mixed with works, yet he fails to recognize that this is the exact same salvation that Paul was writing about in chapter 10!!!! Verse 7 makes it absolutely clear that the salvation which national Israel (chapter ten) sought for is the exact same salvation as that received by the remnant (chapter 11)! The election obtained the salvation (11:7). Which one? The one which the rest of the nation did not! If the salvation obtained by the remnant is described as eternal in verse 6, then this must be the same exact salvation that the rest of the nation didn’t obtain! And since the same nation is under consideration in chapter 10 and 11 then the salvation concerning them must be the same! This is crystal clear to anyone who is not wedded to a previous agenda and refuses to acknowledge it! Thus, the salvation obtained by the remnant of Israel is the same as that for which Paul was praying (10:1)! It is the one achieved by hearing the gospel and being brought to faith in Christ (10:14-17)! Context says that the salvation of Romans 10 is the same as that in chapters 9 and 11. To assert that Romans 10 exists in a vacuum in that the salvation it describes is different than that of chapter nine and 11 is to destroy the unity of the Apostle’s thought regarding salvation and the nation of Israel beginning in 9:1 and ending in 11:32.
4) "I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy. Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness? For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office: If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them. For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?" (Rom. 11:11-15)
Here we see that salvation came to the Gentiles through the fall of the Jews. It should not need arguing that this is eternal, for what anti-means mind says that time salvation came to the Gentiles through the fall of the Jews? Even I never heard anything that far-fetched. So when we read 3 verses below of Paul’s desire to be the means of saving some of his Jewish brethren (v.14), how could anything else be under consideration than this same exact salvation? Does context mean anything, or does the Hardshell premise that if the text mentions means then "it can’t be talking about eternal salvation" have precedent? If the latter, then are we to imagine an implicit change between the "kind" of salvation in verse 11 from that in verse 14! We could say that and yet still claim that verses should be interpreted by context???? Is it not clear that the Apostle Paul is expressing his desire to be the means whereby some of his Jewish brethren would be eternally saved?
5) "In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory." (Eph. 1:13-14)
We see the same thing with this passage as we did with Romans 10 in that it is surrounded by a powerful and unmistakable revelation of the sovereignty of God in saving sinners. It is simply astounding to imagine that anyone could surmise that this passage concerned a different kind of salvation than that which is described all around it. It is true that some Calvinists (Martyn Lloyd-Jones, for instance) do not feel that this passage had to do with regeneration proper, but rather the assurance that progressively comes to the Christian afterwards. Yet the difference is that these men nevertheless believed that this was part of the believer’s continued salvation to glory. They had not a grid which disconnected the present life from eternal salvation, claiming it was part of another optional life that the regenerated man may or may not receive. The connection between the present life and that which is to come is established when the Apostle says the Holy Spirit (received now – KF) is the earnest until the redemption of our bodies. The context is clear as to the placement of this text in the category of eternal salvation.
6) "But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ." (2 Thes. 2:13-14)
Paul here gives his thanks to God for the election of the believers at Thessalonica. This he states in contrast to the grim portrait he displays prior. Whatever be the correct eschatological view of the coming Wicked one, the verses are clear that eternal damnation is the fate of those who "received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved" (v.10). They will be "damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness" (v.12). What we see here is similar to what was viewed in the first chapter of Romans, only in reverse order, for whereas Paul in that letter revealed the salvation available from God (v.16) which could deliver a sinner from His wrath (v.18-2:10), here we see him first declaring the doom of the ungodly in v.12 followed by the deliverance of some from it (v.13). Again, if the Apostle is describing eternal condemnation in v.7-12 then eternal salvation must be under consideration in the very next passage. If the condemnation is eternal, likewise the salvation! It is not some temporal salvation for which Paul is giving thanks, but the salvation which can rescue a sinner from the doom described above! This is obvious to anyone who is willing to let the context speak, and has not a previous commitment to defy it. What a violation of the most basic rule of Bible interpretation to cast all of this contextual evidence away simply because of an anti-means mind which refuses to see what is as clear as day. God has elected men to salvation. They are effectually called to it “by the gospel”.
With respect to those passages where eternal salvation is under consideration, is the gospel set forth as the means whereby it is affected, or something else?
TEXTS: James 1:18; 1 Peter 1:22-23
To my knowledge there is no significant disagreement among the anti-means party that these two verses pertain to eternal salvation. “Begat” (James 1:18) and “born again” (1 Peter 1:22) are generally treated as references to regeneration, and since Hardshells devote much of their apologetics attempting to prove that the “word” in these passages is not the gospel, but Christ, proves that the text is being treated as if it pertains to eternal salvation, more particularly regeneration. Otherwise, they would not be under such pains to do so, for there is no objection that the gospel can be the means for an “unnecessary conversion” (i.e. time salvation). I’m sure (in fact, I know it to be the case) that there are some, who perhaps are a little more learned in the whole ordo salutis argumentation, that choose rather to place these passages in the category of conversion as something separate and distinct from regeneration. And since this is not deemed necessary of eternal salvation, it may be allowed that the gospel is under consideration in these passages.
1) "Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures." (James 1:18) Men are begotten with the word of truth. Simple grammar proves this to be a “means” text, for it answers the question of how men are begotten. But is the word of truth a reference to the gospel or something else? What says the context? First, the command is given "let every man be swift to hear" (v.19). Second, "receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls" (v.21). Third, "be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only" (v.22). Are these not clear admonitions to receive and apply gospel truth? If so, how can it be said that the word of truth in v.18 is something different? I’m tempted to say that the time salvation advocate might admit that the word of v.21 is the gospel so that he might teach from it that we can use the gospel to save our soul’s "timely", but then he would be left with the difficult task of proving how this word is the gospel, but the word of v.18 is not! Stay tuned to my next posting where I demonstrate the pains to which one goes to claim the word of truth is not the gospel.
2) "Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently: Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." (1 Peter 1:22-23)
One of the main problems that the anti-means party makes in their approach to this particular passage is their virtual silence on the surrounding text in determining the meaning of the word of God. I can only suspect the reason why it has been given such little attention is because it’s detrimental to the argument that the word of God has reference to Jesus. Surely, the word of v.23 is to be interpreted in light of v.22 which speaks of men purifying their souls by obeying the truth, a certain reference to the gospel! Probably even more convincing is the admonition to "desire the since milk of the word" in 2:2. One of the rules of bible interpretation, which makes perfect sense, is that verses which are possibly ambiguous should be interpreted in the light of those which are clear! If we do that here, then it becomes evident that it is by the gospel that men are born again.
SUMMARY:
It ought to be pointed out that in looking at these passages we have only concerned ourselves with the context in which they are placed. Were we to look closer at the verses themselves we would find additional evidence that the anti-means, time salvation view is simply not tenable. Our point in taking somewhat of a bird’s-eye view is hopefully to persuade others of their most glaring error. Either one of two things must be true regarding the passages cited. They are to be categorized based on what the surrounding context suggests or we must propose the silly idea that the Apostle Paul is alternating back and forth between eternal and temporal language, the word of God referring to Jesus in one passage, and the gospel in the next; and that, supposedly under the direction of the Holy Spirit! There is no way around this. If we remain obstinate and still maintain that these passages are nevertheless to be interpreted from their anti-means perspective, then let us be clear on what we are doing at this point. We are not "rightly dividing the word of truth", but butchering it! We are saying that the context is not to be the leading factor as to whether the text is to be applied in an eternal or temporal sense, but rather our pre-conceived premises that we carry to it.
It is a textbook definition of eisegesis.
There is no gossip here.
"We know, from the Holy Scriptures, that God employs his truth in the regeneration of the soul." (J.L. Dagg)
Just what does it take to come to the gospel means position with regards to how sinners are eternally saved? Must one forsake the reading of the scriptures, instead devoting his time to reading the works of Calvinists? Must he abandon the Word of God, exchanging it for systematic theologies, or base his beliefs upon confessions of faith maybe? To hear some speak, this is true. Such a one told me once that in leaving the anti-means paradigm I was walking away from the "simplicity that is in Christ" (2 Cor. 11:3); that in my desire for knowledge I had devoted too much time studying other resources and "crossed the Rubicon", so to speak. Well, take it from one who has come to such a position that this is complete and utter nonsense. Hopefully I speak on behalf of other ostracized ones out there who have traveled a similar path when I state that conviction that effectual calling is by "His Word and Spirit" is derived from the Bible, and the Bible alone. One need not read a lick of Calvin, Owen, Hodge, Spurgeon, Edwards, Dabney, etc. to see this taught in God’s Word. He doesn’t have to have access to John Gill’s Body of Divinity or Calvin’s Institutes as I’ve often heard it claimed! He can arrive at this position if he were stranded on a desert island with only his Bible in his hands. And he could do this through use of the most elementary rule of bible interpretation available to the common man: CONTEXT.
The average Christian often takes this rule for granted when reading God’s Word, for it is simply a no-brainer that a text should be considered in the light of what surrounds it. The fact that the majority, whether they incline towards Arminianism or Calvinism, agree that one must hear the gospel to be saved based upon seemingly clear passages which teach it (e.g. Mark 16:16; Acts 16:30; Romans 1:16) shows that something else must be at work in the anti-means mind which denies it. As a former advocate of this system I now know that it is only when one approaches these texts with an anti-means prejudice are they interpreted to mean something contrary to what the vast majority of Bible readers see when reading them; namely, sinners must have faith in Christ to be saved, and that faith comes from gospel revelation. It cannot be denied that there are such texts in the Bible which may be denoted as "means" passages. This is clearly established through the usage of the prepositions “by”, “through”, and “with” in connection with the gospel. There are two main questions which need to be considered here however. First, is the context of those passages where the gospel is set forth as the means dealing with matters of eternal or only temporal consequence? Second, with respect to those passages where eternal salvation is under consideration, is the gospel set forth as the means whereby it is affected, or something else? It shall be our business in this posting to seek an answer to these questions. We will not invoke the anti-means premise which says that if an instrument is used then it CAN’T BE referring to eternal salvation or if it is eternal salvation then the gospel CAN’T BE the means, for they hinder us from accomplish our specific goal, which is to settle the matter by context. If the passage is couched in language suggesting of eternal salvation, or the gospel is evidently proven to be the means whereby it is affected, then any premises must be discarded in favor of this basic hermeneutic of contextual interpretation. The honest Bible reader must acknowledge that the context of a passage is more important than some preconceived notion we might bring to it. To the law and to the testimony we now go.
Is the context of gospel means passages dealing with matters of eternal or temporal consequence?
TEXTS: Romans 1:16; 6:17; 10:1; 11:11-15; Eph. 1:13-14; 2 Thes. 2:13-14
All must agree that these are gospel means passages for the texts mention it specifically. I could refer to more, but I choose these for the specific reason that it cannot be denied that they all depict the gospel or Word of God as affecting SOMETHING, and the surrounding context explicitly deals with either the matter of salvation or condemnation. To the average Christian there is no need to engage the question of whether eternal or some temporal salvation is under consideration as he has not been ingrained in the Hardshell manner of partitioning the Bible. He recognizes that eternal salvation is the dominating theme of the Bible, and that these passages are to be placed in that category with minimal deliberation. To the anti-means mind though, this is a question to pursue. Or should I say it WAS a question to pursue, for the universal answer has been given that eternal salvation is NOT under consideration. Sadly, it was not because of sound hermeneutics which led to such a conclusion, but because of a preconceived bias that would not tolerate the alternative. And that, reader, is the whole problem. Let us examine the passages then allowing nothing but mere context to answer the question.
1) "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek." (Rom. 1:16)
In the first chapter of Romans, after writing that the gospel is the power of God unto salvation the Apostle Paul informs us of the wrath of God against the ungodly. He unfolds this starting in v.18, his thoughts culminating in the second chapter where we read of the “day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God” (2:5). The point of the Apostle in Romans 1:16 is to announce the salvation that is able to rescue a sinner from this woeful fate. That the salvation of Romans 1:16 cannot be disconnected from the wrath of God which the Apostle does here describe is proven by verse 18. This salvation exists "For" (because – KF) the wrath of God exists! Thus, Paul is revealing in v. 16 the method by which sinners find an escape from the impending wrath of God he will write about two verses later! Now if Paul is delineating the eternal wrath of God against the ungodly, culminating in the great judgment described in 2:1-10, then he must be announcing in 1:16 the salvation which is able to counteract this fate! If the judgment is eternal, then likewise must be the salvation! If Paul intended to convey to his audience in 1:16 that the purpose of the gospel is only to get a time salvation then what we should find is only a temporal wrath and judgment conveyed in the verses which follow! Only an anti-means Hardshell Baptist or possibly a Universalist would affirm, in the light of such a solemn portrait of God’s eternal wrath upon the ungodly, that the Apostle Paul precedes it all by telling us how to get a time salvation! God has provided a temporal salvation for sinners because the eternal wrath of God is against them???!!!
2) "But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you." (Rom. 6:17)
This passage doesn’t receive as much attention from the anti-means party as do James 1:18 and 1 Peter 1:23, the reason being there is no easy word upon which to place the time salvation twist. The word of truth mentioned by James and the word of God mentioned by Peter are possibly ambiguous and therefore grant a little space for the anti-means mind to argue against gospel regeneration. In this passage, however, we are confronted with "doctrine", a clear reference to the body of truth, or the message of the gospel. It certainly is not referring to Jesus, as the no-means view would love to say! Combined with the context’s clear description of the transition of going from death to life and it becomes, we think, an impossible task to squeeze this into the category of some sort of temporal salvation. According to Paul, the saints were once the servants of sin, an obvious reference to the unregenerate state. But now they are free from it and the servants of righteousness (v.18). Thus the text focuses on going from death to life, old man to new man, servants of sin to servants of God, and not some fictional state of "regenerated but unconverted" to "regenerated and converted", as the anti-means, time salvation heretic argues with all gospel means passages! The text is without a doubt saying that the doctrine was instrumental in the regeneration of the saints, a matter of eternal consequence!
3) "Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved." (Rom. 10:1)
What salvation is Paul praying for his Jewish brethren to receive in this tenth chapter, a temporal one or an eternal one? The average Christian would reply without hesitation that it is the same one described in chapter nine, and would find it incredibly strange that someone would feel that the Apostle Paul would do an about-face on his readers! However, the anti-means view does not see this contextual flow as firm evidence that the tenth chapter must be the same salvation as that which Paul has been unfolding. But what indeed does the context say? The previous chapter is arguably one of the most profound in all the Bible, powerfully describing the sovereignty of God in salvation and reprobation. Towards the end of the chapter the Apostle tells us that a remnant of Israel will be saved (v.27), and that such a salvation involves attaining to the law of righteousness (v.30-31). The chapter ends with a quotation from Isaiah that whoever believes in Christ shall not be ashamed (v.33). What a preposterous idea that the Apostle Paul in the very next breath laid aside any notion of context, and without given any evidence that he is about to do so, proceeded to write on a "kind" of salvation different than the one he had heretofore been erecting! And that the only way for a Bible reader to know this is to have a premise in mind, nowhere taught or explained in scripture, that if men are praying for salvation, or if it involves gospel instrumentality, that it can’t be talking about eternal salvation!
So much for the words prior to chapter ten. What of those after? It is equally devastating to the notion that chapter ten is not referring to eternal salvation. It begins with Paul referring to the same exact Israel he was praying for (11:1-4). We’re told, however, that whereas not all of them were saved, yet there was a current remnant which would be (v.5). And the salvation of which they would be the recipient is described in unmistakable language: "And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work." (v.6) Every anti-means Hardshell Baptist I know refers to this passage emphasizing that eternal salvation is by grace, and can’t be mixed with works, yet he fails to recognize that this is the exact same salvation that Paul was writing about in chapter 10!!!! Verse 7 makes it absolutely clear that the salvation which national Israel (chapter ten) sought for is the exact same salvation as that received by the remnant (chapter 11)! The election obtained the salvation (11:7). Which one? The one which the rest of the nation did not! If the salvation obtained by the remnant is described as eternal in verse 6, then this must be the same exact salvation that the rest of the nation didn’t obtain! And since the same nation is under consideration in chapter 10 and 11 then the salvation concerning them must be the same! This is crystal clear to anyone who is not wedded to a previous agenda and refuses to acknowledge it! Thus, the salvation obtained by the remnant of Israel is the same as that for which Paul was praying (10:1)! It is the one achieved by hearing the gospel and being brought to faith in Christ (10:14-17)! Context says that the salvation of Romans 10 is the same as that in chapters 9 and 11. To assert that Romans 10 exists in a vacuum in that the salvation it describes is different than that of chapter nine and 11 is to destroy the unity of the Apostle’s thought regarding salvation and the nation of Israel beginning in 9:1 and ending in 11:32.
4) "I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy. Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness? For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office: If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them. For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?" (Rom. 11:11-15)
Here we see that salvation came to the Gentiles through the fall of the Jews. It should not need arguing that this is eternal, for what anti-means mind says that time salvation came to the Gentiles through the fall of the Jews? Even I never heard anything that far-fetched. So when we read 3 verses below of Paul’s desire to be the means of saving some of his Jewish brethren (v.14), how could anything else be under consideration than this same exact salvation? Does context mean anything, or does the Hardshell premise that if the text mentions means then "it can’t be talking about eternal salvation" have precedent? If the latter, then are we to imagine an implicit change between the "kind" of salvation in verse 11 from that in verse 14! We could say that and yet still claim that verses should be interpreted by context???? Is it not clear that the Apostle Paul is expressing his desire to be the means whereby some of his Jewish brethren would be eternally saved?
5) "In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory." (Eph. 1:13-14)
We see the same thing with this passage as we did with Romans 10 in that it is surrounded by a powerful and unmistakable revelation of the sovereignty of God in saving sinners. It is simply astounding to imagine that anyone could surmise that this passage concerned a different kind of salvation than that which is described all around it. It is true that some Calvinists (Martyn Lloyd-Jones, for instance) do not feel that this passage had to do with regeneration proper, but rather the assurance that progressively comes to the Christian afterwards. Yet the difference is that these men nevertheless believed that this was part of the believer’s continued salvation to glory. They had not a grid which disconnected the present life from eternal salvation, claiming it was part of another optional life that the regenerated man may or may not receive. The connection between the present life and that which is to come is established when the Apostle says the Holy Spirit (received now – KF) is the earnest until the redemption of our bodies. The context is clear as to the placement of this text in the category of eternal salvation.
6) "But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ." (2 Thes. 2:13-14)
Paul here gives his thanks to God for the election of the believers at Thessalonica. This he states in contrast to the grim portrait he displays prior. Whatever be the correct eschatological view of the coming Wicked one, the verses are clear that eternal damnation is the fate of those who "received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved" (v.10). They will be "damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness" (v.12). What we see here is similar to what was viewed in the first chapter of Romans, only in reverse order, for whereas Paul in that letter revealed the salvation available from God (v.16) which could deliver a sinner from His wrath (v.18-2:10), here we see him first declaring the doom of the ungodly in v.12 followed by the deliverance of some from it (v.13). Again, if the Apostle is describing eternal condemnation in v.7-12 then eternal salvation must be under consideration in the very next passage. If the condemnation is eternal, likewise the salvation! It is not some temporal salvation for which Paul is giving thanks, but the salvation which can rescue a sinner from the doom described above! This is obvious to anyone who is willing to let the context speak, and has not a previous commitment to defy it. What a violation of the most basic rule of Bible interpretation to cast all of this contextual evidence away simply because of an anti-means mind which refuses to see what is as clear as day. God has elected men to salvation. They are effectually called to it “by the gospel”.
With respect to those passages where eternal salvation is under consideration, is the gospel set forth as the means whereby it is affected, or something else?
TEXTS: James 1:18; 1 Peter 1:22-23
To my knowledge there is no significant disagreement among the anti-means party that these two verses pertain to eternal salvation. “Begat” (James 1:18) and “born again” (1 Peter 1:22) are generally treated as references to regeneration, and since Hardshells devote much of their apologetics attempting to prove that the “word” in these passages is not the gospel, but Christ, proves that the text is being treated as if it pertains to eternal salvation, more particularly regeneration. Otherwise, they would not be under such pains to do so, for there is no objection that the gospel can be the means for an “unnecessary conversion” (i.e. time salvation). I’m sure (in fact, I know it to be the case) that there are some, who perhaps are a little more learned in the whole ordo salutis argumentation, that choose rather to place these passages in the category of conversion as something separate and distinct from regeneration. And since this is not deemed necessary of eternal salvation, it may be allowed that the gospel is under consideration in these passages.
1) "Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures." (James 1:18) Men are begotten with the word of truth. Simple grammar proves this to be a “means” text, for it answers the question of how men are begotten. But is the word of truth a reference to the gospel or something else? What says the context? First, the command is given "let every man be swift to hear" (v.19). Second, "receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls" (v.21). Third, "be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only" (v.22). Are these not clear admonitions to receive and apply gospel truth? If so, how can it be said that the word of truth in v.18 is something different? I’m tempted to say that the time salvation advocate might admit that the word of v.21 is the gospel so that he might teach from it that we can use the gospel to save our soul’s "timely", but then he would be left with the difficult task of proving how this word is the gospel, but the word of v.18 is not! Stay tuned to my next posting where I demonstrate the pains to which one goes to claim the word of truth is not the gospel.
2) "Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently: Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." (1 Peter 1:22-23)
One of the main problems that the anti-means party makes in their approach to this particular passage is their virtual silence on the surrounding text in determining the meaning of the word of God. I can only suspect the reason why it has been given such little attention is because it’s detrimental to the argument that the word of God has reference to Jesus. Surely, the word of v.23 is to be interpreted in light of v.22 which speaks of men purifying their souls by obeying the truth, a certain reference to the gospel! Probably even more convincing is the admonition to "desire the since milk of the word" in 2:2. One of the rules of bible interpretation, which makes perfect sense, is that verses which are possibly ambiguous should be interpreted in the light of those which are clear! If we do that here, then it becomes evident that it is by the gospel that men are born again.
SUMMARY:
It ought to be pointed out that in looking at these passages we have only concerned ourselves with the context in which they are placed. Were we to look closer at the verses themselves we would find additional evidence that the anti-means, time salvation view is simply not tenable. Our point in taking somewhat of a bird’s-eye view is hopefully to persuade others of their most glaring error. Either one of two things must be true regarding the passages cited. They are to be categorized based on what the surrounding context suggests or we must propose the silly idea that the Apostle Paul is alternating back and forth between eternal and temporal language, the word of God referring to Jesus in one passage, and the gospel in the next; and that, supposedly under the direction of the Holy Spirit! There is no way around this. If we remain obstinate and still maintain that these passages are nevertheless to be interpreted from their anti-means perspective, then let us be clear on what we are doing at this point. We are not "rightly dividing the word of truth", but butchering it! We are saying that the context is not to be the leading factor as to whether the text is to be applied in an eternal or temporal sense, but rather our pre-conceived premises that we carry to it.
It is a textbook definition of eisegesis.
Wednesday, July 25, 2018
Redemption (vii)
Redemption And The Trinity
Few fail to comprehend how the work of redemption is not the work of the Son of God alone, though he is, in his incarnate state, "the redeemer" or "goel." It is a work of the whole Trinity, the Father and Spirit also being active in the work of redemption.
Ligonier Ministries has an article titled "The Trinity and Redemption" (see here) where it is said (emphasis mine):
"Although atonement is essential to God’s work of redemption, it is not identical to it. Redemption is a greater whole, of which atonement is one part. Redemption also involves things such as rescue from bondage, the resurrection of our bodies, and more (Ex. 20:1; Rom. 8:23)."
This is what many fail to see! Redemption is not atonement, for atonement is the chief means towards redemption. Atonement is complete and finished, being a one time act, but redemption is not completed, not being confined to a single act. If redemption "involves things such as rescue from bondage" and "the resurrection of our bodies," and even much "more," then redemption is not yet complete and is not limited to the payment of the price of redemption, or to the atonement.
The article continues:
"The Scriptures often associate particular aspects of redemption, such as sanctification, with the Holy Spirit (2 Thess. 2:13). This is because the work of sanctification reveals the Spirit in particular. Given inseparable operations, however, the Father and Son are also involved in everything the Spirit does. From start to finish, redemption is the work of the triune God. It is from the Father, through the Son, and in the Holy Spirit that we are redeemed."
This is what many fail to see; redemption has "aspects," and the work of regeneration, conversion, and sanctification, are all acts of redemption, and thus the Holy Spirit is a redeemer in that he actually delivers the slaves from the experience of their bondage. So, as I am daily being saved, sanctified, renewed, and transformed, so am I daily being redeemed.
The Covenant Of Redemption
There is what theologians call a "covenant of redemption" made between the Father, Son (Word), and Spirit to redeem fallen man. In "The Covenant of Grace – Covenant of Redemption" by Dr. Charles Hodge (see here), explanation is given of what is the "covenant of redemption" and how it involves the whole Trinity. Hodge wrote (emphasis mine):
"By this is meant the covenant between the Father and the Son in reference to the salvation of man. This is a subject which, from its nature, is entirely beyond our comprehension. We must receive the teachings of the Scriptures in relation to it without presuming to penetrate the mystery which naturally belongs to it. There is only one God, one divine Being, to whom all the attributes of divinity belong. But in the Godhead there are three persons, the same in substance, and equal in power and glory. It lies in the nature of personality, that one person is objective to another. If, therefore, the Father and the Son are distinct persons the one may be the object of the acts of the other. The one may love, address, and commune with the other. The Father may send the Son, may give Him a work to do, and promise Him a recompense. All this is indeed incomprehensible to us, but being clearly taught in Scripture, it must enter into the Christian’s faith."
"In order to prove that there is a covenant between the Father and the Son, formed in eternity, and revealed in time, it is not necessary that we should adduce passages of the Scriptures in which this truth is expressly asserted. There are indeed passages which are equivalent to such direct assertions. This is implied in the frequently recurring statements of the Scripture that the plan of God respecting the salvation of men was of the nature of a covenant, and was formed in eternity. Paul says that it was hidden for ages in the divine mind; that it was before the foundation of the world. Christ speaks of promises made to Him before his advent; and that He came into the world in execution of a commission which He had received from the Father. The parallel so distinctly drawn between Adam and Christ is also a proof of the point in question (Rom.5.12-21). As Adam was the head and representative of his posterity, so Christ is the head and representative of his people. And as God entered into covenant with Adam so He entered into covenant with Christ. This, in Rom. 5.12-21, is set forth as the fundamental idea of all God’s dealings with men, both in their fall and in their redemption.
The proof of the doctrine has, however, a much wider foundation. When one person assigns a stipulated work to another person with the promise of a reward upon the condition of the performance of that work, there is a covenant. Nothing can be plainer than that all this is true in relation to the Father and the Son. The Father gave the Son a work to do; He sent Him into the world to perform it, and promised Him a great reward when the work was accomplished. Such is the constant representation of the Scriptures. We have, therefore, the contracting parties, the promise, and the condition. These are the essential elements of a covenant. Such being the representation of Scripture, such must be the truth to which we are bound to adhere. It is not a mere figure, but a real transaction, and should be regarded and treated as such if we would understand aright the plan of salvation. In Psalm 40, expounded by the Apostle as referring to the Messiah, it is said, ‘Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me, I delight to do thy will,’ i.e., to execute thy purpose, to carry out thy plan. ‘By the which will,’ says the Apostle (Heb.10.10), ”we are sanctified (i. e., cleansed from the guilt of sin), through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.’ Christ came, therefore, in execution of a purpose of God, to fulfil a work which had been assigned Him. He, therefore, in John 17.4, says, ‘I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.’ This was said at the close of his earthly course. At its beginning, when yet a child, He said to his parents, ‘ Wist ye not that I must be about my Father’s business?’ (Luke 2.49.) Our lord speaks of Himself, and is spoken of as sent into the world. He says that as the Father had sent Him into the world, even so had He sent his disciples into the world. (John 17.18). ‘When the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman.’ (Gal. 4.4). ‘God sent his only begotten Son into the world.’ (1 John 4.9). God ‘sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.’ (Verse 10.)
It is plain, therefore, that Christ came to execute a work, that He was sent of the Father to fulfil a plan, or preconceived design. It is no less plain that special promises were made by the Father to the Son, suspended upon the accomplishment of the work assigned Him. This may appear as an anthropological mode of representing a transaction between the persons of the adorable Trinity. But it must be received as substantial truth. The Father did give the Son a work to do, and He did promise to Him a reward upon its accomplishment. The transaction was, therefore, of the nature of a covenant. An obligation was assumed by the Son to accomplish the work assigned Him; and an obligation was assumed by the Father to grant Him the stipulated reward. The infinitude of God does not prevent these things being possible.
As the exhibition of the work of Christ in the redemption of man constitutes a large part of the task of the theologian, all that is proper in this place is a simple reference to the Scriptural statements on the subject."
In one sense we may say that redemption is eternal, without beginning or end. Since the covenant of redemption is an eternal act of the mind of God, therefore it is without beginning. Further, since the redeemed state is eternal, therefore redemption is eternal in its effects.
Wrote Hodge under the sub heading "The work assigned to the Redeemer":
"He was to assume our nature, humbling Himself to be born of a. woman, and to be found in fashion as a man. This was to be a real incarnation, not a mere theophany such as occurred repeatedly under the old dispensation. He was to become flesh; to take part of flesh and body; to be bone of our bone and flesh of our flesh, made in all things like unto his brethren, yet without sin, that He might be touched with a sense of our infirmities, and able to sympathize with those who are tempted, being Himself also tempted. He was to be made under the law, voluntarily undertaking to fulfil all righteousness by obeying the law of God perfectly in all the forms in which it had been made obligatory on man.
He was to bear our sins, to be a curse for us, offering Himself as a sacrifice, or propitiation to God in expiation of the sins of men. This involved his whole life of humiliation, sorrow, and suffering, and his ignominious death upon the cross under the hiding of his Father’s countenance. What He was to do after this pertains to his exaltation and reward."
Again, let it be remembered, that the sufferings and death of Christ are essential conditions to fulfill in order that redemption may become a reality. The redemption work of Christ inures to the benefit of those redeemed and also to the incarnate Son. Christ is rewarded and he shares this reward with his elect.
Under the sub heading "The Promises made to the Redeemer," Hodge wrote:
"Such, in general terms, was the work which the Son of God undertook to perform. The promises of the Father to the Son conditioned on the accomplishment of that work, were,
That He would prepare Him a body, fit up a tabernacle for Him, formed as was the body of Adam by the immediate agency of God, uncontaminated and without spot or blemish.
That He would give the Spirit to Him without measure, that his whole human nature should be replenished with grace and strength, and so adorned with the beauty of holiness that He should be altogether lovely.
That He would be ever at his right hand to support and comfort Him is the darkest hours of his conflict with the powers of darkness, and that He would ultimately bruise Satan under his feet.
That He would deliver Him from the power of death, and exalt Him to his own right hand in heaven; and that all power in heaven and earth should be committed to Him.
That He, as the Theanthropos and head of the Church, should have the Holy Spirit to send to whom He willed, to renew their hearts, to satisfy and comfort them, and to qualify them for his service and kingdom.
That all given to Him by the Father should come to Him, and be kept by Him, so that none of them should be lost.
That a multitude whom no man can number should thus be made partakers of his redemption, and that ultimately the kingdom of the Messiah should embrace all the nations of the earth.
That through Christ, in Him, and in his ransomed Church, there should be made the highest manifestation of the divine perfections to all orders of holy intelligences throughout eternity. The Son of God was thus to see of the travail of his soul and be satisfied."
Thus we see how not only are the Son and Spirit redeemers, but also the Father, who purposed that redemption from before the foundation of the cosmos, and did the above enumerated things in order to that redemption.
Few fail to comprehend how the work of redemption is not the work of the Son of God alone, though he is, in his incarnate state, "the redeemer" or "goel." It is a work of the whole Trinity, the Father and Spirit also being active in the work of redemption.
Ligonier Ministries has an article titled "The Trinity and Redemption" (see here) where it is said (emphasis mine):
"Although atonement is essential to God’s work of redemption, it is not identical to it. Redemption is a greater whole, of which atonement is one part. Redemption also involves things such as rescue from bondage, the resurrection of our bodies, and more (Ex. 20:1; Rom. 8:23)."
This is what many fail to see! Redemption is not atonement, for atonement is the chief means towards redemption. Atonement is complete and finished, being a one time act, but redemption is not completed, not being confined to a single act. If redemption "involves things such as rescue from bondage" and "the resurrection of our bodies," and even much "more," then redemption is not yet complete and is not limited to the payment of the price of redemption, or to the atonement.
The article continues:
"The Scriptures often associate particular aspects of redemption, such as sanctification, with the Holy Spirit (2 Thess. 2:13). This is because the work of sanctification reveals the Spirit in particular. Given inseparable operations, however, the Father and Son are also involved in everything the Spirit does. From start to finish, redemption is the work of the triune God. It is from the Father, through the Son, and in the Holy Spirit that we are redeemed."
This is what many fail to see; redemption has "aspects," and the work of regeneration, conversion, and sanctification, are all acts of redemption, and thus the Holy Spirit is a redeemer in that he actually delivers the slaves from the experience of their bondage. So, as I am daily being saved, sanctified, renewed, and transformed, so am I daily being redeemed.
The Covenant Of Redemption
There is what theologians call a "covenant of redemption" made between the Father, Son (Word), and Spirit to redeem fallen man. In "The Covenant of Grace – Covenant of Redemption" by Dr. Charles Hodge (see here), explanation is given of what is the "covenant of redemption" and how it involves the whole Trinity. Hodge wrote (emphasis mine):
"By this is meant the covenant between the Father and the Son in reference to the salvation of man. This is a subject which, from its nature, is entirely beyond our comprehension. We must receive the teachings of the Scriptures in relation to it without presuming to penetrate the mystery which naturally belongs to it. There is only one God, one divine Being, to whom all the attributes of divinity belong. But in the Godhead there are three persons, the same in substance, and equal in power and glory. It lies in the nature of personality, that one person is objective to another. If, therefore, the Father and the Son are distinct persons the one may be the object of the acts of the other. The one may love, address, and commune with the other. The Father may send the Son, may give Him a work to do, and promise Him a recompense. All this is indeed incomprehensible to us, but being clearly taught in Scripture, it must enter into the Christian’s faith."
"In order to prove that there is a covenant between the Father and the Son, formed in eternity, and revealed in time, it is not necessary that we should adduce passages of the Scriptures in which this truth is expressly asserted. There are indeed passages which are equivalent to such direct assertions. This is implied in the frequently recurring statements of the Scripture that the plan of God respecting the salvation of men was of the nature of a covenant, and was formed in eternity. Paul says that it was hidden for ages in the divine mind; that it was before the foundation of the world. Christ speaks of promises made to Him before his advent; and that He came into the world in execution of a commission which He had received from the Father. The parallel so distinctly drawn between Adam and Christ is also a proof of the point in question (Rom.5.12-21). As Adam was the head and representative of his posterity, so Christ is the head and representative of his people. And as God entered into covenant with Adam so He entered into covenant with Christ. This, in Rom. 5.12-21, is set forth as the fundamental idea of all God’s dealings with men, both in their fall and in their redemption.
The proof of the doctrine has, however, a much wider foundation. When one person assigns a stipulated work to another person with the promise of a reward upon the condition of the performance of that work, there is a covenant. Nothing can be plainer than that all this is true in relation to the Father and the Son. The Father gave the Son a work to do; He sent Him into the world to perform it, and promised Him a great reward when the work was accomplished. Such is the constant representation of the Scriptures. We have, therefore, the contracting parties, the promise, and the condition. These are the essential elements of a covenant. Such being the representation of Scripture, such must be the truth to which we are bound to adhere. It is not a mere figure, but a real transaction, and should be regarded and treated as such if we would understand aright the plan of salvation. In Psalm 40, expounded by the Apostle as referring to the Messiah, it is said, ‘Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me, I delight to do thy will,’ i.e., to execute thy purpose, to carry out thy plan. ‘By the which will,’ says the Apostle (Heb.10.10), ”we are sanctified (i. e., cleansed from the guilt of sin), through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.’ Christ came, therefore, in execution of a purpose of God, to fulfil a work which had been assigned Him. He, therefore, in John 17.4, says, ‘I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.’ This was said at the close of his earthly course. At its beginning, when yet a child, He said to his parents, ‘ Wist ye not that I must be about my Father’s business?’ (Luke 2.49.) Our lord speaks of Himself, and is spoken of as sent into the world. He says that as the Father had sent Him into the world, even so had He sent his disciples into the world. (John 17.18). ‘When the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman.’ (Gal. 4.4). ‘God sent his only begotten Son into the world.’ (1 John 4.9). God ‘sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.’ (Verse 10.)
It is plain, therefore, that Christ came to execute a work, that He was sent of the Father to fulfil a plan, or preconceived design. It is no less plain that special promises were made by the Father to the Son, suspended upon the accomplishment of the work assigned Him. This may appear as an anthropological mode of representing a transaction between the persons of the adorable Trinity. But it must be received as substantial truth. The Father did give the Son a work to do, and He did promise to Him a reward upon its accomplishment. The transaction was, therefore, of the nature of a covenant. An obligation was assumed by the Son to accomplish the work assigned Him; and an obligation was assumed by the Father to grant Him the stipulated reward. The infinitude of God does not prevent these things being possible.
As the exhibition of the work of Christ in the redemption of man constitutes a large part of the task of the theologian, all that is proper in this place is a simple reference to the Scriptural statements on the subject."
In one sense we may say that redemption is eternal, without beginning or end. Since the covenant of redemption is an eternal act of the mind of God, therefore it is without beginning. Further, since the redeemed state is eternal, therefore redemption is eternal in its effects.
Wrote Hodge under the sub heading "The work assigned to the Redeemer":
"He was to assume our nature, humbling Himself to be born of a. woman, and to be found in fashion as a man. This was to be a real incarnation, not a mere theophany such as occurred repeatedly under the old dispensation. He was to become flesh; to take part of flesh and body; to be bone of our bone and flesh of our flesh, made in all things like unto his brethren, yet without sin, that He might be touched with a sense of our infirmities, and able to sympathize with those who are tempted, being Himself also tempted. He was to be made under the law, voluntarily undertaking to fulfil all righteousness by obeying the law of God perfectly in all the forms in which it had been made obligatory on man.
He was to bear our sins, to be a curse for us, offering Himself as a sacrifice, or propitiation to God in expiation of the sins of men. This involved his whole life of humiliation, sorrow, and suffering, and his ignominious death upon the cross under the hiding of his Father’s countenance. What He was to do after this pertains to his exaltation and reward."
Again, let it be remembered, that the sufferings and death of Christ are essential conditions to fulfill in order that redemption may become a reality. The redemption work of Christ inures to the benefit of those redeemed and also to the incarnate Son. Christ is rewarded and he shares this reward with his elect.
Under the sub heading "The Promises made to the Redeemer," Hodge wrote:
"Such, in general terms, was the work which the Son of God undertook to perform. The promises of the Father to the Son conditioned on the accomplishment of that work, were,
That He would prepare Him a body, fit up a tabernacle for Him, formed as was the body of Adam by the immediate agency of God, uncontaminated and without spot or blemish.
That He would give the Spirit to Him without measure, that his whole human nature should be replenished with grace and strength, and so adorned with the beauty of holiness that He should be altogether lovely.
That He would be ever at his right hand to support and comfort Him is the darkest hours of his conflict with the powers of darkness, and that He would ultimately bruise Satan under his feet.
That He would deliver Him from the power of death, and exalt Him to his own right hand in heaven; and that all power in heaven and earth should be committed to Him.
That He, as the Theanthropos and head of the Church, should have the Holy Spirit to send to whom He willed, to renew their hearts, to satisfy and comfort them, and to qualify them for his service and kingdom.
That all given to Him by the Father should come to Him, and be kept by Him, so that none of them should be lost.
That a multitude whom no man can number should thus be made partakers of his redemption, and that ultimately the kingdom of the Messiah should embrace all the nations of the earth.
That through Christ, in Him, and in his ransomed Church, there should be made the highest manifestation of the divine perfections to all orders of holy intelligences throughout eternity. The Son of God was thus to see of the travail of his soul and be satisfied."
Thus we see how not only are the Son and Spirit redeemers, but also the Father, who purposed that redemption from before the foundation of the cosmos, and did the above enumerated things in order to that redemption.
Sunday, July 22, 2018
No Regeneration Without Faith in Christ
The following is from "The Baptist Gadfly" of Feb. 2010 under title John Stott Or John Stock?
It seems to me that Piper would do well to heap praise on John Stock, as did Charles Spurgeon, who said this regarding the relationship of faith to regeneration (and endorsed by Spurgeon).
Chapter 8 - "The New Birth"
Stock writes:
"It is unprofitable to dispute as to which mental faculty is the first to feel the converting influence, whether the intellect or the affections. Into the metaphysics of regeneration we decline to enter. It is enough to know that the Divine Spirit operates upon the whole mental and moral man. Besides, though we speak of the faculties of the soul, we must not forget that the soul itself is one. It is a simple, indivisible spirit. It is not, like the body, compounded of various elements, and possessed of va1ious members. Hence the regeneration of the soul involves the regeneration of all its powers—of the whole soul."
"In these and in other parallel passages, regeneration is ascribed to the truth which the Holy Spirit leads us to receive. It is in connection with the hearing, reading, or remembering of the Word of God, or of the general truths which it makes known, that the Holy Ghost puts forth His power. It is to induce us to receive this truth that the Divine Spirit is imparted. Hence it is that "faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God." The word is the occasion of the new birth. The Holy Spirit works by the truth. The Word of God is His sword (Ephes. vi. 17). It is the fire with which He burns up our dross, and the hammer with which He breaks our rocky hearts in pieces (Jer. xxiii. 29)."
"The great difficulty in this doctrine, however, yet remains; we mean the question whether regeneration precedes faith in the Saviour, or faith in the Saviour precedes regeneration, or whether the two are simultaneous —Two things are clear.
First—That the reception of Christ by the sinner is ascribed to a divine influence. Hence faith is styled "the gift of God" (Ephes. ii. 8), and "a fruit of the Spirit" (Gal. v. 22); "the heart is opened" to receive Christ (Acts xvi. 14); "flesh and blood do not reveal Jesus to the soul, but our Father who is in heaven" (Matt. xvi. 17 ); "God reveals these things unto babes" (Matt. xi. 25); "They are spiritually discerned" (1 Cor. ii. 14). But another truth is as clearly asserted in Holy Scripture, viz. :
Secondly—That until a man has received the Saviour he has no life in him. Thus our Lord testified, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of man, ye have no life in you" (John vi. 53). Until a man by faith receives the sacrifice of Christ, he has no life, not even its first elements, in his soul. There are several other passages which are in the same strain. "To as many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God" (John i. 12). "Ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus" (Gal. iii. 26). "If a man eat of this bread he shall live for ever" (John vi. 51). "He that eateth Me shall live by Me" (John vi. 57). Thus Christ is emphatically our life, while without faith in Him we have no life.
Here, then, is the difficulty; if men receive a divine influence in order to believe in Christ, are they not made alive to God by this influence, and are they not consequently regenerated before receiving Christ into the soul? But if they are regenerated before believing in the Saviour, and if they were to die in this state, they would assuredly go to heaven (for no regenerate soul can be lost), and would thus obtain eternal life without having believed in Christ, which is contrary to one of the first principles of revelation. Our Lord emphatically says that, except we eat His flesh and drink His blood, we have No life in us.
Besides, regeneration is the implantation of a holy life, and no man can become holy until he has believed in Jesus. "Without faith it is impossible to please God" (Heb. xi.6). No action can be holy until it is performed under the influence of love to Jehovah; and no sinner can be brought to love the whole character of God, until he has learned to look upon that character as it is revealed in the death of Jesus. "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them" (2 Cor. v. 19). Hence, as no man can love God without faith in Jesus, no man can be holy without faith in Jesus, for love to God is the essential principle of holiness. As, then, without faith in the Saviour, we cannot be holy and cannot please God, it is manifest that without faith we cannot be regenerated.
The explanation of this grave difficulty we apprehend to be simply this : The influence by which men are awakened and convinced, and made to see their need of Jesus, is only preliminary to regeneration.—We are not regenerated or made holy until we are reconciled to God by the death of His Son. Then we receive Christ, "who is our life." To those who receive Christ He gives the privilege of becoming instantly the sons of God (John i. 12). We are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus (Gal. iii. 26). Faith purifies the heart (Acts xv. 9), overcomes the world (1 John v. 4), and works by love (Gal. v. 6). "Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God" (1 John v. 1). The preparatory influence, though not regeneration, is absolutely necessary to its production.
Many are awakened by natural conscience who are never converted, and the only decisive evidence that our convictions are of God, is their leading us to a hearty reception of the gospel plan of redemption. Out of Christ there is no salvation (Acts iv. 12); but if men are regenerated who have never been to Christ, they are in a state of salvation without faith in that precious name. The influence by which we are regenerated is the sovereign grace of the Holy Ghost; but the influence by which we are regenerated is one thing, regeneration itself is another. It is confounding the efficacious cause with the blessed result that has created the difficulty now under consideration.** All the elect shall infallibly receive this life, and the influences necessary to its production. None of them shall die in a state of nature, or even in one of mere conviction, but all shall be brought to Christ by faith, shall live in Him (Gal . ii. 20), die in Him (Rev. xiv. 13), sleep in Him (1 Thess. iv. 14), rise in Him (1 Cor. xv. 49), and be for ever with Him (1 Thess. iv. 17). The sovereign influence may extend over a long period of awakening and conviction before it ends in regeneration; while in other cases it may lead the vessel of mercy gently to Christ, almost at the outset. The influences of the Spirit are not regeneration, but are simply the mighty power by which that stupendous work is wrought. In short, we are not regenerated until we believe; and we never believe until led to do so by the gracious and almighty influences of the Eternal Comforter, the glorifier of Christ in the hearts and consciences of men. Thus regeneration is, from beginning to end, the effect of the Spirit's power; though the change is wrought in us at the instant of closing in with the Messiah as the hope of Israel.
There is no evidence of the new birth in the mere dread of hell. The fear of punishment is an instinct of human nature. Many ungodly men are at times most terribly alarmed on account of the prospects lying before them. But, obviously, there is no moral excellence, and, consequently, no evidence of a renewed state of mind, in a mere conviction that the effects of our sins will be ruinous.
Many men who know this well enough persist in hugging the sins which are sinking them to hell. There is no proof of regeneration until we have learned to abhor and forsake sin at the foot of the cross. We must not confound a mere dread of the punishment of sin with the turning of the heart from sin itself. Conviction of sin, even when wrought by the power of the Spirit, is not to be confounded with the new birth, though all the people of God have to pass, more or less deeply, through this preparatory discipline. Some are much more powerfully agitated with these terrors than others, but all alike pass from death unto life, when through grace they believe in Jesus, "to the saving of the soul" (Heb. x- 39).
"We close this chapter with the confession that the regenerating grace of the Spirit is undoubtedly a great mystery. The fact of its existence we believe, but the mode of its operation we cannot explain. We receive it as a fact, upon the testimony of revelation and our own consciousness; but we confess our inability to unravel many questions arising out of its existence. "The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, nor whither it goeth : so is everyone that is born of the Spirit" (John iii. 8). The influence is real, positive, and direct, notwithstanding its mysteriousness. The unlettered rustic, who is in perfect ignorance of all the physiological phenomena of inspiration and expiration, knows, nevertheless, that he breathes, and that by breathing life is sustained."
See here
Thus, Piper would have done better to have cited John Stock rather than John Stott.
** In my posting Mediate Or Immediate? I cited from Archibald Alexander who wrote:
"Curious inquiries respecting the way in which the word is instrumental in the production of this change are not for edification. Sometimes regeneration is considered distinctly from the acts and exercises of the mind which proceed from it, but in the Holy Scriptures the cause and effect are included; and we shall therefore treat the subject in this practical and popular form. The instrumentality of the word can never derogate from the efficient agency of the Spirit in this work. The Spirit operates by and through the word. The word derives all its power and penetrating energy from the Spirit. Without the omnipotence of God the word would be as inefficient as clay and spittle, to restore sight to the blind."
We cannot define "regeneration" by what causes it to the exclusion of what is effected in it (as do the Hyper Calvinists).
It seems to me that Piper would do well to heap praise on John Stock, as did Charles Spurgeon, who said this regarding the relationship of faith to regeneration (and endorsed by Spurgeon).
Chapter 8 - "The New Birth"
Stock writes:
"It is unprofitable to dispute as to which mental faculty is the first to feel the converting influence, whether the intellect or the affections. Into the metaphysics of regeneration we decline to enter. It is enough to know that the Divine Spirit operates upon the whole mental and moral man. Besides, though we speak of the faculties of the soul, we must not forget that the soul itself is one. It is a simple, indivisible spirit. It is not, like the body, compounded of various elements, and possessed of va1ious members. Hence the regeneration of the soul involves the regeneration of all its powers—of the whole soul."
"In these and in other parallel passages, regeneration is ascribed to the truth which the Holy Spirit leads us to receive. It is in connection with the hearing, reading, or remembering of the Word of God, or of the general truths which it makes known, that the Holy Ghost puts forth His power. It is to induce us to receive this truth that the Divine Spirit is imparted. Hence it is that "faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God." The word is the occasion of the new birth. The Holy Spirit works by the truth. The Word of God is His sword (Ephes. vi. 17). It is the fire with which He burns up our dross, and the hammer with which He breaks our rocky hearts in pieces (Jer. xxiii. 29)."
"The great difficulty in this doctrine, however, yet remains; we mean the question whether regeneration precedes faith in the Saviour, or faith in the Saviour precedes regeneration, or whether the two are simultaneous —Two things are clear.
First—That the reception of Christ by the sinner is ascribed to a divine influence. Hence faith is styled "the gift of God" (Ephes. ii. 8), and "a fruit of the Spirit" (Gal. v. 22); "the heart is opened" to receive Christ (Acts xvi. 14); "flesh and blood do not reveal Jesus to the soul, but our Father who is in heaven" (Matt. xvi. 17 ); "God reveals these things unto babes" (Matt. xi. 25); "They are spiritually discerned" (1 Cor. ii. 14). But another truth is as clearly asserted in Holy Scripture, viz. :
Secondly—That until a man has received the Saviour he has no life in him. Thus our Lord testified, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of man, ye have no life in you" (John vi. 53). Until a man by faith receives the sacrifice of Christ, he has no life, not even its first elements, in his soul. There are several other passages which are in the same strain. "To as many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God" (John i. 12). "Ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus" (Gal. iii. 26). "If a man eat of this bread he shall live for ever" (John vi. 51). "He that eateth Me shall live by Me" (John vi. 57). Thus Christ is emphatically our life, while without faith in Him we have no life.
Here, then, is the difficulty; if men receive a divine influence in order to believe in Christ, are they not made alive to God by this influence, and are they not consequently regenerated before receiving Christ into the soul? But if they are regenerated before believing in the Saviour, and if they were to die in this state, they would assuredly go to heaven (for no regenerate soul can be lost), and would thus obtain eternal life without having believed in Christ, which is contrary to one of the first principles of revelation. Our Lord emphatically says that, except we eat His flesh and drink His blood, we have No life in us.
Besides, regeneration is the implantation of a holy life, and no man can become holy until he has believed in Jesus. "Without faith it is impossible to please God" (Heb. xi.6). No action can be holy until it is performed under the influence of love to Jehovah; and no sinner can be brought to love the whole character of God, until he has learned to look upon that character as it is revealed in the death of Jesus. "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them" (2 Cor. v. 19). Hence, as no man can love God without faith in Jesus, no man can be holy without faith in Jesus, for love to God is the essential principle of holiness. As, then, without faith in the Saviour, we cannot be holy and cannot please God, it is manifest that without faith we cannot be regenerated.
The explanation of this grave difficulty we apprehend to be simply this : The influence by which men are awakened and convinced, and made to see their need of Jesus, is only preliminary to regeneration.—We are not regenerated or made holy until we are reconciled to God by the death of His Son. Then we receive Christ, "who is our life." To those who receive Christ He gives the privilege of becoming instantly the sons of God (John i. 12). We are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus (Gal. iii. 26). Faith purifies the heart (Acts xv. 9), overcomes the world (1 John v. 4), and works by love (Gal. v. 6). "Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God" (1 John v. 1). The preparatory influence, though not regeneration, is absolutely necessary to its production.
Many are awakened by natural conscience who are never converted, and the only decisive evidence that our convictions are of God, is their leading us to a hearty reception of the gospel plan of redemption. Out of Christ there is no salvation (Acts iv. 12); but if men are regenerated who have never been to Christ, they are in a state of salvation without faith in that precious name. The influence by which we are regenerated is the sovereign grace of the Holy Ghost; but the influence by which we are regenerated is one thing, regeneration itself is another. It is confounding the efficacious cause with the blessed result that has created the difficulty now under consideration.** All the elect shall infallibly receive this life, and the influences necessary to its production. None of them shall die in a state of nature, or even in one of mere conviction, but all shall be brought to Christ by faith, shall live in Him (Gal . ii. 20), die in Him (Rev. xiv. 13), sleep in Him (1 Thess. iv. 14), rise in Him (1 Cor. xv. 49), and be for ever with Him (1 Thess. iv. 17). The sovereign influence may extend over a long period of awakening and conviction before it ends in regeneration; while in other cases it may lead the vessel of mercy gently to Christ, almost at the outset. The influences of the Spirit are not regeneration, but are simply the mighty power by which that stupendous work is wrought. In short, we are not regenerated until we believe; and we never believe until led to do so by the gracious and almighty influences of the Eternal Comforter, the glorifier of Christ in the hearts and consciences of men. Thus regeneration is, from beginning to end, the effect of the Spirit's power; though the change is wrought in us at the instant of closing in with the Messiah as the hope of Israel.
There is no evidence of the new birth in the mere dread of hell. The fear of punishment is an instinct of human nature. Many ungodly men are at times most terribly alarmed on account of the prospects lying before them. But, obviously, there is no moral excellence, and, consequently, no evidence of a renewed state of mind, in a mere conviction that the effects of our sins will be ruinous.
Many men who know this well enough persist in hugging the sins which are sinking them to hell. There is no proof of regeneration until we have learned to abhor and forsake sin at the foot of the cross. We must not confound a mere dread of the punishment of sin with the turning of the heart from sin itself. Conviction of sin, even when wrought by the power of the Spirit, is not to be confounded with the new birth, though all the people of God have to pass, more or less deeply, through this preparatory discipline. Some are much more powerfully agitated with these terrors than others, but all alike pass from death unto life, when through grace they believe in Jesus, "to the saving of the soul" (Heb. x- 39).
"We close this chapter with the confession that the regenerating grace of the Spirit is undoubtedly a great mystery. The fact of its existence we believe, but the mode of its operation we cannot explain. We receive it as a fact, upon the testimony of revelation and our own consciousness; but we confess our inability to unravel many questions arising out of its existence. "The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, nor whither it goeth : so is everyone that is born of the Spirit" (John iii. 8). The influence is real, positive, and direct, notwithstanding its mysteriousness. The unlettered rustic, who is in perfect ignorance of all the physiological phenomena of inspiration and expiration, knows, nevertheless, that he breathes, and that by breathing life is sustained."
See here
Thus, Piper would have done better to have cited John Stock rather than John Stott.
** In my posting Mediate Or Immediate? I cited from Archibald Alexander who wrote:
"Curious inquiries respecting the way in which the word is instrumental in the production of this change are not for edification. Sometimes regeneration is considered distinctly from the acts and exercises of the mind which proceed from it, but in the Holy Scriptures the cause and effect are included; and we shall therefore treat the subject in this practical and popular form. The instrumentality of the word can never derogate from the efficient agency of the Spirit in this work. The Spirit operates by and through the word. The word derives all its power and penetrating energy from the Spirit. Without the omnipotence of God the word would be as inefficient as clay and spittle, to restore sight to the blind."
We cannot define "regeneration" by what causes it to the exclusion of what is effected in it (as do the Hyper Calvinists).
Wednesday, July 11, 2018
Does Regeneration Make Sinners Happy?
I remember father asking me years ago when I was a young Hardshell preacher - "does regeneration make one happy or sad?" Honestly, I don't recall precisely how I answered father's question. However, I do remember his giving me his answer (one which he felt that only few Christians believed, yet believed by PBs, and being a mark of identity for them, as a true church of Christ). He said that PBs believed that regeneration (or being born again) made one sad, yea, even miserable, because it instantly produces (at least in those who are not regenerated in infancy) conviction of sin, a deep sense of guilt, and a fear of being lost and finally condemned. He then gave the unique Hardshell proposition that says that "regeneration produces conviction of sin or sorrow over sin." He also spoke of the consequences of this view, saying that
1. Regeneration makes one sad, but conversion, which comes later (possibly), made one happy.
2. Though all the elect will be made sad by regeneration, only a few of them will be made happy in conversion.
3. Any sinner who feels guilt over sin, who is under conviction, or fears the day of judgment, be he heathen or atheist, is thus evidently regenerated.
I have written on this subject much. For instance, see the post Awakened Sinners III. In that post I give links to other more lengthy writings on this subject and give some citations from others on this topic, even Hardshell founder, elder Wilson Thompson. I show how this view of "regeneration" is false, and the cause of many other errors in faith and practice. The sad consequences of such a divorcing of regeneration and conversion are numerous.
It would be nice if our Hardshell brothers would come here and discuss this topic. Who knows, we all might learn something by it! It might even be blessed by God!
Stephen Charnock, the well known Puritan writer, said this on the subject:
"The soul must be beaten down by conviction before it be raised up by regeneration..."
That is historic Baptist teaching! It is also what the first Hardshells believed! Therefore, the present view of the Hardshells is a new teaching, and not the historic teaching of their own forefathers. They are therefore not entitled to be called "primitive," "old school," or "old Baptist."
1. Regeneration makes one sad, but conversion, which comes later (possibly), made one happy.
2. Though all the elect will be made sad by regeneration, only a few of them will be made happy in conversion.
3. Any sinner who feels guilt over sin, who is under conviction, or fears the day of judgment, be he heathen or atheist, is thus evidently regenerated.
I have written on this subject much. For instance, see the post Awakened Sinners III. In that post I give links to other more lengthy writings on this subject and give some citations from others on this topic, even Hardshell founder, elder Wilson Thompson. I show how this view of "regeneration" is false, and the cause of many other errors in faith and practice. The sad consequences of such a divorcing of regeneration and conversion are numerous.
It would be nice if our Hardshell brothers would come here and discuss this topic. Who knows, we all might learn something by it! It might even be blessed by God!
Stephen Charnock, the well known Puritan writer, said this on the subject:
"The soul must be beaten down by conviction before it be raised up by regeneration..."
That is historic Baptist teaching! It is also what the first Hardshells believed! Therefore, the present view of the Hardshells is a new teaching, and not the historic teaching of their own forefathers. They are therefore not entitled to be called "primitive," "old school," or "old Baptist."
Tuesday, July 10, 2018
The Apocalypse of Jesus Christ II
"The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:" (1:1 KJV)
What is "the revelation of Jesus Christ" that was given to Christ by the Father?
"The Revelation of Jesus Christ" - The Book's Title
The great Christian writer, J.A. Seiss, in his famous book "The Apocalypse," wrote:
"From the beginning, the author of these Lectures was led to take the inspired title of this Book as the proper key to its contents, and to that he has adhered throughout. “The Apocalypse of Jesus Christ,” does not mean a communicated message, but the coming, appearing, manifestation, uncovering, presentation, of JESUS CHRIST in person."
"The revelation of Jesus Christ" (Ἀποκάλυψις Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ) is a genitive. But, what kind of genitive? Determining this will lead one to translate as "of Jesus Christ" or "from Jesus Christ." Is this revelation from Christ, or is it Christ himself who is being revealed? Is it a subjective genitive or objective genitive, possessive genitive, or some other?
The translation of Ἀποκάλυψις Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ is certainly “the revelation of Jesus Christ.” The real question is whether the genitive phrase should be understood as a subjective genitive or objective genitive. Many think it is subjective genitive and therefore means "the revelation from Jesus Christ," expressing the idea of revelation coming from Christ as a source. Others, like I do, see it as objective genitive. But, more on this shortly.
Seiss "hit the nail on the head" when he spoke of the words "the revelation of Jesus Christ" as being an "inspired title" to this final revelation of truth. The words "the revelation of Jesus Christ" means all the same thing as "the coming of Jesus Christ" or "the appearing of Jesus Christ." But, more on this as we proceed.
Wrote Seiss:
"Dr. Ebrard remarks in his Commentary, that the word apokalupsis should be translated enthullung, unveiling, uncovering. Dr. Bleek admits, in his Lectures on the Apocalypse, that “the genitive after apokalupsis stands in the New Testament (even in this combination with Christou, 1 Corinthians 1:7; 2 Thessalonians 1:7; 1 Peter 1:7-13), as a genitive of the object of what comes forth, as being revealed.” Here Jesus Christ is the genitive of object. The Apocalypse would therefore be the coming, revealing, appearing, or manifestation of Himself, the Revelation of Him, not to Him."
This seems clear. If we look at the other times "the revelation of Jesus Christ" are used, it clearly is objective genitive, Jesus Christ being the thing unveiled, or revealed. When we say "the unveiling of the statue," we mean that it is the statue that is revealed, not that the unveiling came from the statue. The same is true when we read of "the revelation (unveiling) of Jesus Christ." Christ is the one being unveiled, revealed, or manifested. Likewise, when we use the genitive and say "the coming of the Lord," we mean that it is the Lord who comes.
Wrote Seiss:
"Dr. Lucke, in his work on the Apocalypse, for the same grammatical reasons, considers that “The Apocalypse of Jesus Christ,” means “the unveiling of Christ in His majesty, as His glorious appearing.” So also Dr. Heinrichs. And there is every reason for the conclusion that the great theme and subject of this Book is the Coming of Christ, the Apocalypse of Himself, His own personal manifestation and unveiling in the scenes and administrations of the great Day of the Lord. When men speak of “the death of Jesus Christ,” their language inevitably conveys the idea that it is Christ who experiences the death affirmed; and so when the Holy Ghost speaks of “The Apocalypse of Jesus Christ” by the same necessity of language the only admissible idea is, that it is Christ who, experiences or undergoes the Apocalypse affirmed."
That is what many fail to see, and this blindness has evil consequences. "The great theme and subject of this Book is the Coming of Christ, the Apocalypse of Himself." The Book of Revelation is the Book of the Second Coming. This in itself fully supports the Futurist school of interpretation, for clearly Christ has not come a second time as yet.
Wrote Seiss:
"The only Apocalypses of Jesus Christ that we read of in the New Testament, are personal manifestations of Himself. And it is thus against all the laws of speech, and against the whole usus loquendi of the sacred writers, to understand the inspired title of this Book as referring to anything but the revelation, or personal manifestation, of Jesus Christ in the great Day of Judgment, as everywhere foretold in the holy Scriptures."
What a powerful and insightful statement! "The only Apocalypse of Jesus Christ we read of in the NT are personal manifestations of Himself"! If we interpret scripture by scripture (and we should), then by "the apocalypse of Jesus Christ" means his personal appearing, his presence, with his being here. No where in the NT are the words "revelation of Christ" to be interpreted as subjective genitives. Why would we make Rev. 1: 1 an exception?
Wrote Seiss:
"So the Book’s own description of its subject matter pronounces, and to this every succeeding vision accords when taken in the plain straightforward sense of the record. It is thus unmistakably proven that we have here a portrayal, not of a few dim outlines of the fortunes of the Church in its march through this present world, but a scenic account of the actual occurrences of that period “when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed (ἐν τῇ ἀποκαλύψει τοῦ Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ - in the Apocalypse of the Lord Jesus) from heaven with His mighty Angels, in flaming fire, taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the Gospel; who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of His power; when He shall come to be glorified in His saints, and to be admired in all them that believe in that day.” (2 Thessalonians 1:7-10.) This is The Apocalypse of Jesus Christ, expressly so called in the passage; and this it is that John was made to see, and commanded to write, that all might learn exactly how things are then to be ordered."
If indeed "the revelation of Jesus Christ" is synonymous with the coming or appearing of the Lord, then we must view not only the whole of the book in this light, but each section. To fail to connect each vision with something that relates to the coming again of Christ is a mistake. Truly, right in the opening words, in the divinely given title, we are able to say with Seiss that they give "the Book’s own description of its subject matter."
Wrote Seiss:
"A tremendous Revelation is therefore brought before men in this Book. And if any one would fully profit by it, let him bear with him this one vital and all-conditioning thought, that he is here dealing with Christ’s own infallible foreshowings of the style, manner, and succession of events in which the Apocalypse awarded to Him by the Father is to take place."
Truly Christians love the doctrine of the coming again of their Lord. They know what it will mean for them, for the world, and for the Lord Jesus himself. What Christian can fail to be blessed in reading and understanding this book?
Wrote Seiss:
"He who fails in this, misses the kernel of the Book, and must fail of the blessing of those who read, hear, and observe the things which are written in it."
Exactly!
In his "Lecture First" Seiss cites the first three verses of the Book of Revelation and makes powerful comments on the meaning of the passage. He wrote:
Revelation 1:1-3 (Revised Text). — The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to show unto his servants that which must come to pass speedily; and he signified [it] sending by his angel to his servant John; who attested the word of God, and the testimony of Jesus Christ, what things soever he saw. Blessed he who readeth, and those who hear the words of the prophecy, and observe the things which are written init: for the time [is] near.
The words which I have announced for our present consideration, give us the Divine Preface or superscription to this book. They are meant to advise the reader as to that with which he is about to deal, and to prepare him to appreciate what is to follow. They relate to three leading points:
I. THE SUBJECT AND CONTENTS OF THE BOOK.
II. ITS DERIVATION AND AUTHORSHIP.
III. ITS VALUE AND PRECIOUSNESS.
Let us look briefly at these several particulars."
This all being true, why is it then that many Christians fail to grasp it?
Wrote Seiss:
"What concerns the subject and contents of this book, I find for the most part in the name which it gives itself. It is the common rule with Scripture names, to express the substance of the things to which they are applied. The name of God expresses what God is; so the names of the Lord Jesus Christ, and all the leading names found in the Bible. Even those which the Church has given, are often wonderfully expressive and significant. Genesis is the generation of things; Exodus, the going forth from bondage; The Gospel, the very heart and substance of all God’s gracious communications — the good news. And when God himself designates this book The Revelation of Jesus Christ, we may rest assured, that it is the very substance and kernel of the book that is expressed in this title."
What a unique book of the NT! A divinely given title! A title that governs how we interpret what follows in the book!
Wrote Albert Barnes in his commentary:
Wrote Seiss:
"Some accept the words as if they were meant to express the revealment of the Revelation. This I take to be a mistake, and a vital mistake, as regards any right interpretation of this book. It is not the Apocalypse which is the subject of the disclosure. This book is not the Apocalypse of the Apocalypse, but THE APOCALYPSE OF JESUS CHRIST."
Yes, a "vital mistake"!
Wrote Seiss:
"And this is the key to the whole book. It is a book of which Christ is the great subject and centre, particularly in that period of his administrations and glory designated as the day of his uncovering, the day of his appearing. It is not a mere prediction of divine judgments upon the wicked, and of the final triumph of the righteous, made known by Christ; but a the revelation of Christ, in his own person, offices, and future administrations, when he shall be seen coming from heaven, as he was once seen going into heaven."
Yes, "the key to the whole book"!
Wrote Seiss:
"If “The Revelation of Jesus Christ” meant nothing more than certain communications made known by Christ, I can see no significance or propriety in affixing this title to this book, rather than to any other books of holy Scripture. Are they not all alike the revelation of Jesus Christ, in this sense?"
Exactly!
Wrote Seiss:
"With the meaning of this word thus established, what can that book be, of which it is descriptive, but an account of the revelation of Christ in his personal forthcoming from his present invisible estate, to receive his Bride, judge the wicked, and set up his eternal kingdom on the earth."
I believe this will become evident as we go through the book.
NT Usage In Regard To The Words
Gal. 1: 12 "but by the revelation of Jesus Christ"
I Peter 1: 13 "hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ"
I Cor. 1: 7 "waiting for the revelation ('coming' KJV) our our Lord Jesus Christ"
II Thess. 1: 7 "in the apocalypse of the Lord Jesus"
In all these passages "the apocalypse of Christ" denotes his second coming. Therefore, this is what it means in Rev. 1: 1!
Christ has had one apocalypse already. That is, he has been revealed once. His first coming is his first appearing, his first apocalypse, for all signify the same thing.
There are three major Greek words used to speak about the "coming" of the Lord.
1) epiphany (ἐπιφανείᾳ - epiphaneia)
2) parousia (παρουσία)
3) apocalypse (ἀποκάλυψις)
Epiphany is generally translated as "appearing" or "manifestation"
Parousia is generally translated as "coming" or "presence"
Apocalypse is generally translated as "revelation" or "unveiling"
Each of these words is used to refer to both the first and second comings of the Lord. In fact, in II Thess. 2: 8 we have in the KJV "the brightness of his coming" where the word "brightness" (a bad translation) is from the Greek word "epiphaneia" and "coming" is from the Greek word "parousia," both being used together in reference to the return of Christ. A better translation would be "the appearing of his presence."
What is "the revelation of Jesus Christ" that was given to Christ by the Father?
"The Revelation of Jesus Christ" - The Book's Title
The great Christian writer, J.A. Seiss, in his famous book "The Apocalypse," wrote:
"From the beginning, the author of these Lectures was led to take the inspired title of this Book as the proper key to its contents, and to that he has adhered throughout. “The Apocalypse of Jesus Christ,” does not mean a communicated message, but the coming, appearing, manifestation, uncovering, presentation, of JESUS CHRIST in person."
"The revelation of Jesus Christ" (Ἀποκάλυψις Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ) is a genitive. But, what kind of genitive? Determining this will lead one to translate as "of Jesus Christ" or "from Jesus Christ." Is this revelation from Christ, or is it Christ himself who is being revealed? Is it a subjective genitive or objective genitive, possessive genitive, or some other?
The translation of Ἀποκάλυψις Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ is certainly “the revelation of Jesus Christ.” The real question is whether the genitive phrase should be understood as a subjective genitive or objective genitive. Many think it is subjective genitive and therefore means "the revelation from Jesus Christ," expressing the idea of revelation coming from Christ as a source. Others, like I do, see it as objective genitive. But, more on this shortly.
Seiss "hit the nail on the head" when he spoke of the words "the revelation of Jesus Christ" as being an "inspired title" to this final revelation of truth. The words "the revelation of Jesus Christ" means all the same thing as "the coming of Jesus Christ" or "the appearing of Jesus Christ." But, more on this as we proceed.
Wrote Seiss:
"Dr. Ebrard remarks in his Commentary, that the word apokalupsis should be translated enthullung, unveiling, uncovering. Dr. Bleek admits, in his Lectures on the Apocalypse, that “the genitive after apokalupsis stands in the New Testament (even in this combination with Christou, 1 Corinthians 1:7; 2 Thessalonians 1:7; 1 Peter 1:7-13), as a genitive of the object of what comes forth, as being revealed.” Here Jesus Christ is the genitive of object. The Apocalypse would therefore be the coming, revealing, appearing, or manifestation of Himself, the Revelation of Him, not to Him."
This seems clear. If we look at the other times "the revelation of Jesus Christ" are used, it clearly is objective genitive, Jesus Christ being the thing unveiled, or revealed. When we say "the unveiling of the statue," we mean that it is the statue that is revealed, not that the unveiling came from the statue. The same is true when we read of "the revelation (unveiling) of Jesus Christ." Christ is the one being unveiled, revealed, or manifested. Likewise, when we use the genitive and say "the coming of the Lord," we mean that it is the Lord who comes.
Wrote Seiss:
"Dr. Lucke, in his work on the Apocalypse, for the same grammatical reasons, considers that “The Apocalypse of Jesus Christ,” means “the unveiling of Christ in His majesty, as His glorious appearing.” So also Dr. Heinrichs. And there is every reason for the conclusion that the great theme and subject of this Book is the Coming of Christ, the Apocalypse of Himself, His own personal manifestation and unveiling in the scenes and administrations of the great Day of the Lord. When men speak of “the death of Jesus Christ,” their language inevitably conveys the idea that it is Christ who experiences the death affirmed; and so when the Holy Ghost speaks of “The Apocalypse of Jesus Christ” by the same necessity of language the only admissible idea is, that it is Christ who, experiences or undergoes the Apocalypse affirmed."
That is what many fail to see, and this blindness has evil consequences. "The great theme and subject of this Book is the Coming of Christ, the Apocalypse of Himself." The Book of Revelation is the Book of the Second Coming. This in itself fully supports the Futurist school of interpretation, for clearly Christ has not come a second time as yet.
Wrote Seiss:
"The only Apocalypses of Jesus Christ that we read of in the New Testament, are personal manifestations of Himself. And it is thus against all the laws of speech, and against the whole usus loquendi of the sacred writers, to understand the inspired title of this Book as referring to anything but the revelation, or personal manifestation, of Jesus Christ in the great Day of Judgment, as everywhere foretold in the holy Scriptures."
What a powerful and insightful statement! "The only Apocalypse of Jesus Christ we read of in the NT are personal manifestations of Himself"! If we interpret scripture by scripture (and we should), then by "the apocalypse of Jesus Christ" means his personal appearing, his presence, with his being here. No where in the NT are the words "revelation of Christ" to be interpreted as subjective genitives. Why would we make Rev. 1: 1 an exception?
Wrote Seiss:
"So the Book’s own description of its subject matter pronounces, and to this every succeeding vision accords when taken in the plain straightforward sense of the record. It is thus unmistakably proven that we have here a portrayal, not of a few dim outlines of the fortunes of the Church in its march through this present world, but a scenic account of the actual occurrences of that period “when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed (ἐν τῇ ἀποκαλύψει τοῦ Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ - in the Apocalypse of the Lord Jesus) from heaven with His mighty Angels, in flaming fire, taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the Gospel; who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of His power; when He shall come to be glorified in His saints, and to be admired in all them that believe in that day.” (2 Thessalonians 1:7-10.) This is The Apocalypse of Jesus Christ, expressly so called in the passage; and this it is that John was made to see, and commanded to write, that all might learn exactly how things are then to be ordered."
If indeed "the revelation of Jesus Christ" is synonymous with the coming or appearing of the Lord, then we must view not only the whole of the book in this light, but each section. To fail to connect each vision with something that relates to the coming again of Christ is a mistake. Truly, right in the opening words, in the divinely given title, we are able to say with Seiss that they give "the Book’s own description of its subject matter."
Wrote Seiss:
"A tremendous Revelation is therefore brought before men in this Book. And if any one would fully profit by it, let him bear with him this one vital and all-conditioning thought, that he is here dealing with Christ’s own infallible foreshowings of the style, manner, and succession of events in which the Apocalypse awarded to Him by the Father is to take place."
Truly Christians love the doctrine of the coming again of their Lord. They know what it will mean for them, for the world, and for the Lord Jesus himself. What Christian can fail to be blessed in reading and understanding this book?
Wrote Seiss:
"He who fails in this, misses the kernel of the Book, and must fail of the blessing of those who read, hear, and observe the things which are written in it."
Exactly!
In his "Lecture First" Seiss cites the first three verses of the Book of Revelation and makes powerful comments on the meaning of the passage. He wrote:
Revelation 1:1-3 (Revised Text). — The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to show unto his servants that which must come to pass speedily; and he signified [it] sending by his angel to his servant John; who attested the word of God, and the testimony of Jesus Christ, what things soever he saw. Blessed he who readeth, and those who hear the words of the prophecy, and observe the things which are written init: for the time [is] near.
The words which I have announced for our present consideration, give us the Divine Preface or superscription to this book. They are meant to advise the reader as to that with which he is about to deal, and to prepare him to appreciate what is to follow. They relate to three leading points:
I. THE SUBJECT AND CONTENTS OF THE BOOK.
II. ITS DERIVATION AND AUTHORSHIP.
III. ITS VALUE AND PRECIOUSNESS.
Let us look briefly at these several particulars."
This all being true, why is it then that many Christians fail to grasp it?
Wrote Seiss:
"What concerns the subject and contents of this book, I find for the most part in the name which it gives itself. It is the common rule with Scripture names, to express the substance of the things to which they are applied. The name of God expresses what God is; so the names of the Lord Jesus Christ, and all the leading names found in the Bible. Even those which the Church has given, are often wonderfully expressive and significant. Genesis is the generation of things; Exodus, the going forth from bondage; The Gospel, the very heart and substance of all God’s gracious communications — the good news. And when God himself designates this book The Revelation of Jesus Christ, we may rest assured, that it is the very substance and kernel of the book that is expressed in this title."
What a unique book of the NT! A divinely given title! A title that governs how we interpret what follows in the book!
Wrote Albert Barnes in his commentary:
"This is evidently a title or caption of the whole book, and is designed to comprise the substance of the whole."
Wrote Seiss:
"Some accept the words as if they were meant to express the revealment of the Revelation. This I take to be a mistake, and a vital mistake, as regards any right interpretation of this book. It is not the Apocalypse which is the subject of the disclosure. This book is not the Apocalypse of the Apocalypse, but THE APOCALYPSE OF JESUS CHRIST."
Yes, a "vital mistake"!
Wrote Seiss:
"And this is the key to the whole book. It is a book of which Christ is the great subject and centre, particularly in that period of his administrations and glory designated as the day of his uncovering, the day of his appearing. It is not a mere prediction of divine judgments upon the wicked, and of the final triumph of the righteous, made known by Christ; but a the revelation of Christ, in his own person, offices, and future administrations, when he shall be seen coming from heaven, as he was once seen going into heaven."
Yes, "the key to the whole book"!
Wrote Seiss:
"If “The Revelation of Jesus Christ” meant nothing more than certain communications made known by Christ, I can see no significance or propriety in affixing this title to this book, rather than to any other books of holy Scripture. Are they not all alike the revelation of Jesus Christ, in this sense?"
Exactly!
Wrote Seiss:
"With the meaning of this word thus established, what can that book be, of which it is descriptive, but an account of the revelation of Christ in his personal forthcoming from his present invisible estate, to receive his Bride, judge the wicked, and set up his eternal kingdom on the earth."
I believe this will become evident as we go through the book.
NT Usage In Regard To The Words
Gal. 1: 12 "but by the revelation of Jesus Christ"
I Peter 1: 13 "hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ"
I Cor. 1: 7 "waiting for the revelation ('coming' KJV) our our Lord Jesus Christ"
II Thess. 1: 7 "in the apocalypse of the Lord Jesus"
In all these passages "the apocalypse of Christ" denotes his second coming. Therefore, this is what it means in Rev. 1: 1!
Christ has had one apocalypse already. That is, he has been revealed once. His first coming is his first appearing, his first apocalypse, for all signify the same thing.
There are three major Greek words used to speak about the "coming" of the Lord.
1) epiphany (ἐπιφανείᾳ - epiphaneia)
2) parousia (παρουσία)
3) apocalypse (ἀποκάλυψις)
Epiphany is generally translated as "appearing" or "manifestation"
Parousia is generally translated as "coming" or "presence"
Apocalypse is generally translated as "revelation" or "unveiling"
Each of these words is used to refer to both the first and second comings of the Lord. In fact, in II Thess. 2: 8 we have in the KJV "the brightness of his coming" where the word "brightness" (a bad translation) is from the Greek word "epiphaneia" and "coming" is from the Greek word "parousia," both being used together in reference to the return of Christ. A better translation would be "the appearing of his presence."
Oops!
I just checked the "awaiting moderation" for comments on my blogger dashboard and found about ten comments that people have made over the past several months that have not been published. I have now published them and plan to respond to some of them. I did not know that both Elder David Montgomery and Ben Winslet had left comments!
In the past my blogger dashboard would alert me to a comment that needs approval and I would nearly always approve and post it immediately. But, for some reason, the above comments gave me no alert. In order that this not happen again in the future, I will be checking the "awaiting moderation" daily. Sorry for this mistake. We want people to comment!
In the past my blogger dashboard would alert me to a comment that needs approval and I would nearly always approve and post it immediately. But, for some reason, the above comments gave me no alert. In order that this not happen again in the future, I will be checking the "awaiting moderation" daily. Sorry for this mistake. We want people to comment!
Redemption (vi)
In chapter four in this series I cited from Dr. Charles Hodge on the long passage in Ephesians 3 and on how Paul says he created the world "to the intent..." Hodge wrote:
"To the intent that now might be made known, ἵνα γνωρισθῇ νῦν. If this clause depend on the immediately preceding, then the apostle teaches that creation is in order to redemption. God created all things in order that by the church might be made known his manifold wisdom."
Dr. Gordon Clark, in his great book "Predestination," wrote the following under the heading "Creation and the Church":
Ephesians 3:8-10 read as follows (study them carefully):
Unto me who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ; and to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world has been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: to the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be made known by the church the manifold wisdom of God...
Note, just as a preliminary step, that this passage mentions the preaching of Paul, the creation of the world, and a certain revelation of God’s wisdom to heavenly creatures.
The main exegetical problem of this passage, which must be solved in order to understand it aright, is the identification of the antecedent of the purpose clause. Something happened in order that the wisdom of God might be made known by means of the church to heavenly beings, according to God’s eternal purpose, which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord. What was it that happened for this purpose? What is the antecedent of the purpose clause?
There are three, and apparently only three, possible antecedents: Paul’s preaching might have had this purpose; the mystery was hid for this purpose; or, God created the world for this purpose.
The second of these possibilities is the least likely. We can eliminate it from consideration because this interpretation would hold that God kept a certain secret hidden from the beginning in order to reveal it in New Testament times. The only support in the wording of the verses for this interpretation, aside from the fact that the event of hiding is mentioned prior to the purpose clause, is the word now. By emphasizing the word now, one may say that the mystery or secret was kept hidden for the purpose of revealing it now. It is true that the emphatic position is given to the verb might be made known, and hence a contrast with a previous hiding is pointed out. The word now, however, is not particularly emphatic and cannot bear the burden of this exegesis. The burden is considerable, for while it is possible to hide something in order to reveal it at a later date, it is more probable that the revelation is the purpose of Paul’s preaching or of God’s creation of the world. Hiding is more or less a negative idea, and it seems reasonable to expect some definite and outward event that has happened for the purpose stated here.
This is not to deny that there is some minimum truth in the notion that God hid the secret earlier in order to reveal it later. Surely it could not have been revealed later if it had not been hidden earlier. But this is a relatively unimportant truth, and the passage has much more to say.
Let us then consider the next possibility. The interpretation that Paul was called to preach in order that God’s wisdom might be made known seems to fit in very well with the preceding context.
In verse 8 Paul had just referred to the grace God had given him for the purpose of preaching the Gospel to the Gentiles. From this point the long complicated sentence continues to the end of verse 13. Even further back, as early as verse 2, the idea of Paul’s preaching had been introduced. Therefore, no one can doubt that Paul’s preaching is the main idea of the passage, or at least one of the main ideas. Whether or not Paul’s personal ministry recedes from its central position as the paragraph approaches its end, and what other subordinate ideas may be found in verses 9-11, must of course be determined by direct examination. But the idea of Paul’s preaching is without doubt prominent.
The question now is whether or not Paul’s preaching has for its stated purpose the revelation of God’s wisdom to the powers in Heaven. It is obviously true that the purpose of Paul’s preaching was to reveal God’s wisdom to men on Earth. This was both God’s purpose and Paul’s purpose. But was it God’s purpose (it could hardly have been Paul’s purpose) to reveal his wisdom to heavenly beings through the preaching of Paul?
Some good commentators think that this is what the passage means. Charles Hodge is one such commentator. Aside from his objection to other interpretations, which we shall study presently, his positive argument is as follows:
The apostle is speaking of his conversion and call to the apostleship. To him was the grace given to preach the unsearchable riches of Christ, and to teach all men the economy of redemption, in order that through the church might be made known the manifold wisdom of God. It is only thus that the connection of this verse with the main idea of the context is preserved. It is not the design of creation, but the design of the revelation of the mystery of redemption, of which he is here speaking.
For the moment the only objection to Hodge’s exegesis is the seemingly peculiar notion that Paul’s preaching on Earth reveals the wisdom of God to the powers in Heaven. Paul preached to men; he did not preach to angels, demons, or whomever these powers may be. Admittedly, in the chain of divine intentions and the purposes of purposes, Paul’s preaching and the founding of the church can be said to reveal God’s wisdom to these powers, if we suppose that God directed their attention to what was going on; but it would be a purpose two or three steps removed. Immediately, it would seem more natural to connect Paul’s preaching with its effects on men, rather than on angels or demons."
To disconnect "who created all things" from "to the intent" is not natural, as Dr. Clark points out. To apply the "hina clause" (purpose clause) to Paul's preaching, or to God's previous hiding of revelation, makes the "purpose clause" to connect with an event further back in the sentence, which is not natural nor the general practice. It is natural to connect ἵνα γνωρισθῇ (literally "in order to make known") immediately with τῷ τὰ πάντα κτίσαντι (literally "who the all things created"), thus literally saying "who the all things created in order to make known."
In my series on Predestination, I dealt with Hodge's interpretation at length and I wish to cite what I wrote now. I wrote (see here):
Hodge rejects the interpretation that sees Paul affirming that God created all things in order to redemption, and yet this to me is Paul's obvious meaning. Hodge is an infralapsarian Calvinist. In his denial Hodge says that Paul's words "who created all things by Jesus Christ," is an interjection that has no connection with anything in the passage, merely a statement of praise unrelated to anything he has said in the context. This is wholly untenable. First, why not simply say, "God who is blessed" or some other statement of praise and adoration? Second, Hodge thinks that it is the calling of the apostle to preach the gospel that is the thing God has done "in order to redemption." Certainly that is included, but it is not limited to that event. Was Paul's being made into an apostle and evangelist not a creative act of God? Yes. So, Paul is saying that God made Paul in order to redemption. So, Hodge's view still is upholding the principle that he condemns, that principle which says that God created Paul to be an apostle in order to redemption! Creation unto redemption! Viewed in this light, it is not an unconnected thought for Paul to say "who created all things (not just Paul)" unto redemption. Thus, Hodge's argument about the clause being unnatural is false. It is very natural and appropriate. Hodge's view makes the clause meaningless, an interjection that does not relate to anything Paul has said! Hodge said - "the words ‘who created all things,’ is entirely subordinate and unessential." I find this view totally false. The words are pertinent and essential.
Yes, the creation of Paul into an apostle and evangelist is "unto redemption," and Paul appropriately does not limit his being made an apostle for the purpose of redemption, but includes "all things" that God has made. Hodge's statement that the - "clause might be omitted without materially affecting the sense of the passage," is an absurd position, and indicts the apostle in charging him with uttering things in a complex sentence without any relation to anything he has stated in the sentence.
Further, it is more likely that the phrase "to the intent" connects with the clause "who created all things by Jesus Christ" for this is the clause nearest the phrase.
It is also a natural and connected thought, and not unnatural and an unconnected thought. If Paul had just spoken of his being made or created, it is appropriate for him to expand his thought to the creation of all things. Why was Paul created an apostle? Well, for the same reason why all things have been created.
Further, the argument on the word "now" by Hodge carries no weight. Paul is simply saying that the purpose of his being made an apostle, like God's purpose in all things, is "now" known, in a superior way, by the new testament revelation.
Hodge is wrong to not recognize that God's "design" in gospel preaching is the same as his"design" in creation.
Clark continued:
"There is no decisive grammatical reason why Paul’s preaching cannot be the antecedent of the purpose clause. Hodge’s interpretation is a quite possible meaning of the passage. And, as with the case of the notion of hiding, there is at least a minimum of truth in it. All of God’s purposes form a connected system, and in some way a preceding event has for its purpose anything that succeeds it.
On the other hand, there is a third interpretation, also grammatically possible, one that seems to have weightier reasons in its favor, and which does not suffer under the objections raised against it. Grammatically, in fact, this third interpretation is not merely equally good, but somewhat preferable; and it makes better sense out of the passage as a whole.
When we say that God created the world for the purpose of displaying his manifold wisdom, we connect the purpose clause with its nearest antecedent. As anyone can see, the reference to Paul’s preaching lies several clauses further back. The immediate antecedent is creation, and this immediate connection between creation and the purpose clause is, we hold, of some value in deciding the matter. It is usually better to choose the nearest possible antecedent. Since, therefore, the syntax is at least somewhat in its favor, the best procedure is to examine objections against so understanding it.
The objections are well stated by Charles Hodge. The view that God created the universe in order to display his manifold wisdom is, as Hodge says, the supralapsarian view. Never mind the technical theological name at the moment. Against this view Hodge urges four objections. First, this passage is the only passage in Scripture adduced as directly asserting supralapsarianism; and supralapsarianism, so Hodge says, is foreign to the New Testament. Second, apart from such a doctrinal consideration, this interpretation imposes an unnatural connection on the clauses. The idea of creation in Ephesians 3:10 is entirely subordinate and unessential. It could have been omitted, says Hodge, without materially affecting the sense of the passage. Third, the theme of the passage concerns Paul’s preaching the Gospel; only by connecting the purpose clause with Paul’s preaching can the unity of the context be preserved. And fourth, the word now, in contrast with the previous hiding, supports the reference to Paul’s preaching. It was Paul’s preaching that had now put an end to the secret’s hiddenness. Such are Hodge’s four objections.
Let us consider the last one first. Admittedly it was Paul’s preaching that founded the church, and the founding of the church made known God’s wisdom to the powers in Heaven. The supralapsarian interpretation does not deny that Paul played this important part in God’s eternal plan. But even so, Paul’s preaching was not the immediate cause of the revelation of God’s wisdom. It was the existence of the church that was the immediate cause. Yet grammar prevents us from saying that the church was founded in order that God’s wisdom might be revealed. It is true that the church was founded in order to reveal God’s wisdom, but this is not what the verse says. Now, if several events occurred, all leading up to this revelation of God’s wisdom, including the founding of the church, Paul’s preaching, and of course the death and resurrection of Christ that Paul preached, the word now in the verse cannot be used to single out Paul’s preaching in contrast with other events mentioned in the passage. This fourth objection is therefore a poor one.
Next, the first objection says that this is the only passage adduced as directly asserting supralapsarianism, and supralapsarianism is foreign to the New Testament. The latter half of this objection is a case of begging the question. If this verse teaches supralapsarianism, then the doctrine is not foreign to the New Testament. We should not assume that the doctrine is foreign to the New Testament and then determine what the verse means. We should first determine what the verse means in order to find out whether or not the doctrine is foreign to the New Testament.
To be sure, if this one verse were indeed the only verse in the Bible with supralapsarian overtones, we would be justified in entertaining some suspicion of this interpretation. Hodge does not say explicitly that this is the only verse; he says it is the only verse adduced as directly asserting supralapsarianism.
Well, really, even this verse does not directly assert the whole complex supralapsarian view. Very few verses in Scripture directly assert the whole of any major doctrine. There is no one verse, for example, that gives us the full doctrine of the Trinity. Therefore we must recognize degrees of directness, partial and even fragmentary assertions of a doctrine. And with this recognition, regularly acknowledged in the development of any doctrine, it is evident that this verse does not stand alone in suspicious isolation.
More of the complete doctrine of supralapsarianism will come to light when in the next chapter we discuss the knowledge of God. The main point of the present discussion is whether or not the purpose of creation was to make known the wisdom of God. All that is required at this point is the avoidance of the assumption that this verse in Ephesians cannot mean this before examining it.
Thus, we come to objection number two. Hodge claims that the supralapsarian interpretation of this verse imposes an unnatural connection upon the clauses. The idea of creation, he said, is entirely unessential and could have been omitted without materially affecting the sense of the passage.
Does not this objection make it clear that Hodge does not know how to handle the reference to creation? He claims that it is unessential, a chance, thoughtless remark that does not affect the sense of the passage. Such careless writing does not seem to me to be Paul’s usual style. For example, in Galatians 1:1 Paul says, “Paul, an apostle, not from men nor through a man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised him from the dead.” Why now did Paul mention that God had raised Jesus Christ? If it were a chance remark without logical connection with the sense of the passage, a remark intended only to speak of some random aspect of God’s glory, Paul could have as well said, God who created the universe. But it is fairly clear that Paul had a conscious purpose in selecting the resurrection instead of the creation. He wanted to emphasize, against his detractors, that he had his apostolic authority from Jesus himself. And Jesus was able personally to give him that authority because he was not dead but had been raised up by God.
So, as Paul chose the idea of resurrection in Galatians instead of the idea of creation, he also chose the idea of creation in Ephesians instead of resurrection, because the idea of creation contributed some meaning to his thought. Certainly the supralapsarian or teleological interpretation of Ephesians 3:10 accommodates the idea of creation, and, contrariwise, an interpretation that can find no meaning in these words of the text is a poorer interpretation.
The remaining objection is that only by making Paul’s preaching the antecedent of the purpose clause can the unity of the context be preserved. The reverse seems to be the case. Not only does Hodge fail to account for the mention of creation, and thus diminish the unity of the context, but further stress on purpose, running from creation to the present, unifies the passage in a most satisfactory manner."
I agree. The purpose clause being connected with the statement about God creating all things does in fact preserve the unity of the context.
Albert Barnes in his Notes on the Whole Bible wrote (emphasis mine):
"To the intent - Greek, “that” Ἵνα - Hina". The sense is, that it was with this design, or that this was the purpose for which all things were made. One grand purpose in the creation of the universe was, that the wisdom of God might be clearly shown by the church. It was not enough to evince it by the formation of the sun, the stars, the earth, the seas, the mountains, the floods. It was not enough to show it by the creation of intelligent beings, the formation of immortal minds on earth, and the various ranks of the angelic world. There were views of the divine character which could be obtained only in connection with the redemption of the world. Hence the universe was created, and man was made upon the earth, not merely to illustrate the divine perfections in the work of creation, but in a still more illustrious manner in the work of redemption. And hence the deep interest which the angelic hosts have ever evinced in the salvation of man."
Clark continued:
"The supralapsarian or teleological understanding of God’s working, that is, the understanding that God works for a purpose, enables us to combine all three of these interpretations, including even the second, which in itself has so little into its favor, in a unified and intelligible thought. Since God does everything for a purpose (and this truth will be made more clear in the next chapter), and since whatever precedes in time has in a general way the purpose of preparing for what follows, we may say that God kept the secret hidden in order to reveal it now, and also that Paul preached in order to reveal it now. But if God had not created the world, there would have been no Paul to do the preaching, no church by which the revelation could be made, and no heavenly powers on which to impress the idea of God’s manifold wisdom. Only by connecting the purpose clause with the immediate antecedent concerning creation can a unified sense be obtained from the passage as a whole. We conclude, therefore, that this was the purpose of creation."
I agree with Clark and disagree with Hodge. It is "only by connecting the purpose clause with the immediate antecedent concerning creation" that the unity of the long sentence is preserved. Further, when Paul affirms that "all things" were created in order to display God's wisdom, he certainly includes the idea of creating Paul himself (and thus his apostleship and preaching) and of the church.
Clark continued:
"If it has now been sufficiently shown that the ultimate purpose of creation is the glory of God, this chapter may well conclude with a brief statement as to what glory means.
Now, in addition to internal excellence, the word glory can mean the exhibition of this excellence. The brightness of the Sun and stars in 1 Corinthians 15:41 is not precisely their inward constitution but their outward appearance. Ezekiel 1:28 makes it very clear: “As the appearance of the bow that is in the cloud in the day of rain, so was the appearance of the brightness round about. This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord.” Isaiah 6:1-3 is a more familiar passage: “I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple. Above it stood the seraphim…and the whole Earth is full of his glory.” Another passage is Isaiah 60:1-2, “Arise, shine, for your light is come, and the glory of the Lord is risen upon you.” Again, there are dozens of such verses (Luke 2:9; Acts 22:11; 2 Corinthians 3:7, 18; 2 Corinthians 4:4, 6; Hebrews 1:3, etc.).
The purpose, then, of creation will be, not the production of God’s internal and eternal excellence, but the display of his greatness to principalities, to powers, and to mere human beings.
That there is a chain or system of purposes is not to be denied. Indeed, these details will be insisted upon in the following chapters. Therefore, it is quite true to say that the purpose of creation, or, better, one purpose of creation, was to have Abraham born in Ur and move his family to Palestine. But the purpose, the final purpose, the all-inclusive purpose, is to display God’s excellence. If God’s excellence contains knowledge or mysteries, then the purpose of creation is to make these known. These are part of God’s glory. If God’s excellence contains power, then God raised up Pharaoh for the purpose of displaying his power, not precisely to him, but through him, so that God’s name might be declared throughout all the Earth, as is explicitly stated both in Exodus 9:16 and in Romans 9:17.
The manifold subsidiary purposes are all summed up and comprehended in a single ultimate purpose, the glory of God. It is the revelation of God’s excellence, the revelation of God himself. He created the world in order to display his sovereign majesty. He is Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the final and ultimate end. Only by realizing the glory and omnipotence of God can a proper understanding of predestination be achieved."
What would we know of God's nature without redemption? Would there have ever been an incarnation and resurrection had there been no sin?
"To the intent that now might be made known, ἵνα γνωρισθῇ νῦν. If this clause depend on the immediately preceding, then the apostle teaches that creation is in order to redemption. God created all things in order that by the church might be made known his manifold wisdom."
Dr. Gordon Clark, in his great book "Predestination," wrote the following under the heading "Creation and the Church":
Ephesians 3:8-10 read as follows (study them carefully):
Unto me who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ; and to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world has been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: to the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be made known by the church the manifold wisdom of God...
Note, just as a preliminary step, that this passage mentions the preaching of Paul, the creation of the world, and a certain revelation of God’s wisdom to heavenly creatures.
The main exegetical problem of this passage, which must be solved in order to understand it aright, is the identification of the antecedent of the purpose clause. Something happened in order that the wisdom of God might be made known by means of the church to heavenly beings, according to God’s eternal purpose, which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord. What was it that happened for this purpose? What is the antecedent of the purpose clause?
There are three, and apparently only three, possible antecedents: Paul’s preaching might have had this purpose; the mystery was hid for this purpose; or, God created the world for this purpose.
The second of these possibilities is the least likely. We can eliminate it from consideration because this interpretation would hold that God kept a certain secret hidden from the beginning in order to reveal it in New Testament times. The only support in the wording of the verses for this interpretation, aside from the fact that the event of hiding is mentioned prior to the purpose clause, is the word now. By emphasizing the word now, one may say that the mystery or secret was kept hidden for the purpose of revealing it now. It is true that the emphatic position is given to the verb might be made known, and hence a contrast with a previous hiding is pointed out. The word now, however, is not particularly emphatic and cannot bear the burden of this exegesis. The burden is considerable, for while it is possible to hide something in order to reveal it at a later date, it is more probable that the revelation is the purpose of Paul’s preaching or of God’s creation of the world. Hiding is more or less a negative idea, and it seems reasonable to expect some definite and outward event that has happened for the purpose stated here.
This is not to deny that there is some minimum truth in the notion that God hid the secret earlier in order to reveal it later. Surely it could not have been revealed later if it had not been hidden earlier. But this is a relatively unimportant truth, and the passage has much more to say.
Let us then consider the next possibility. The interpretation that Paul was called to preach in order that God’s wisdom might be made known seems to fit in very well with the preceding context.
In verse 8 Paul had just referred to the grace God had given him for the purpose of preaching the Gospel to the Gentiles. From this point the long complicated sentence continues to the end of verse 13. Even further back, as early as verse 2, the idea of Paul’s preaching had been introduced. Therefore, no one can doubt that Paul’s preaching is the main idea of the passage, or at least one of the main ideas. Whether or not Paul’s personal ministry recedes from its central position as the paragraph approaches its end, and what other subordinate ideas may be found in verses 9-11, must of course be determined by direct examination. But the idea of Paul’s preaching is without doubt prominent.
The question now is whether or not Paul’s preaching has for its stated purpose the revelation of God’s wisdom to the powers in Heaven. It is obviously true that the purpose of Paul’s preaching was to reveal God’s wisdom to men on Earth. This was both God’s purpose and Paul’s purpose. But was it God’s purpose (it could hardly have been Paul’s purpose) to reveal his wisdom to heavenly beings through the preaching of Paul?
Some good commentators think that this is what the passage means. Charles Hodge is one such commentator. Aside from his objection to other interpretations, which we shall study presently, his positive argument is as follows:
The apostle is speaking of his conversion and call to the apostleship. To him was the grace given to preach the unsearchable riches of Christ, and to teach all men the economy of redemption, in order that through the church might be made known the manifold wisdom of God. It is only thus that the connection of this verse with the main idea of the context is preserved. It is not the design of creation, but the design of the revelation of the mystery of redemption, of which he is here speaking.
For the moment the only objection to Hodge’s exegesis is the seemingly peculiar notion that Paul’s preaching on Earth reveals the wisdom of God to the powers in Heaven. Paul preached to men; he did not preach to angels, demons, or whomever these powers may be. Admittedly, in the chain of divine intentions and the purposes of purposes, Paul’s preaching and the founding of the church can be said to reveal God’s wisdom to these powers, if we suppose that God directed their attention to what was going on; but it would be a purpose two or three steps removed. Immediately, it would seem more natural to connect Paul’s preaching with its effects on men, rather than on angels or demons."
To disconnect "who created all things" from "to the intent" is not natural, as Dr. Clark points out. To apply the "hina clause" (purpose clause) to Paul's preaching, or to God's previous hiding of revelation, makes the "purpose clause" to connect with an event further back in the sentence, which is not natural nor the general practice. It is natural to connect ἵνα γνωρισθῇ (literally "in order to make known") immediately with τῷ τὰ πάντα κτίσαντι (literally "who the all things created"), thus literally saying "who the all things created in order to make known."
In my series on Predestination, I dealt with Hodge's interpretation at length and I wish to cite what I wrote now. I wrote (see here):
Hodge rejects the interpretation that sees Paul affirming that God created all things in order to redemption, and yet this to me is Paul's obvious meaning. Hodge is an infralapsarian Calvinist. In his denial Hodge says that Paul's words "who created all things by Jesus Christ," is an interjection that has no connection with anything in the passage, merely a statement of praise unrelated to anything he has said in the context. This is wholly untenable. First, why not simply say, "God who is blessed" or some other statement of praise and adoration? Second, Hodge thinks that it is the calling of the apostle to preach the gospel that is the thing God has done "in order to redemption." Certainly that is included, but it is not limited to that event. Was Paul's being made into an apostle and evangelist not a creative act of God? Yes. So, Paul is saying that God made Paul in order to redemption. So, Hodge's view still is upholding the principle that he condemns, that principle which says that God created Paul to be an apostle in order to redemption! Creation unto redemption! Viewed in this light, it is not an unconnected thought for Paul to say "who created all things (not just Paul)" unto redemption. Thus, Hodge's argument about the clause being unnatural is false. It is very natural and appropriate. Hodge's view makes the clause meaningless, an interjection that does not relate to anything Paul has said! Hodge said - "the words ‘who created all things,’ is entirely subordinate and unessential." I find this view totally false. The words are pertinent and essential.
Yes, the creation of Paul into an apostle and evangelist is "unto redemption," and Paul appropriately does not limit his being made an apostle for the purpose of redemption, but includes "all things" that God has made. Hodge's statement that the - "clause might be omitted without materially affecting the sense of the passage," is an absurd position, and indicts the apostle in charging him with uttering things in a complex sentence without any relation to anything he has stated in the sentence.
Further, it is more likely that the phrase "to the intent" connects with the clause "who created all things by Jesus Christ" for this is the clause nearest the phrase.
It is also a natural and connected thought, and not unnatural and an unconnected thought. If Paul had just spoken of his being made or created, it is appropriate for him to expand his thought to the creation of all things. Why was Paul created an apostle? Well, for the same reason why all things have been created.
Further, the argument on the word "now" by Hodge carries no weight. Paul is simply saying that the purpose of his being made an apostle, like God's purpose in all things, is "now" known, in a superior way, by the new testament revelation.
Hodge is wrong to not recognize that God's "design" in gospel preaching is the same as his"design" in creation.
Clark continued:
"There is no decisive grammatical reason why Paul’s preaching cannot be the antecedent of the purpose clause. Hodge’s interpretation is a quite possible meaning of the passage. And, as with the case of the notion of hiding, there is at least a minimum of truth in it. All of God’s purposes form a connected system, and in some way a preceding event has for its purpose anything that succeeds it.
On the other hand, there is a third interpretation, also grammatically possible, one that seems to have weightier reasons in its favor, and which does not suffer under the objections raised against it. Grammatically, in fact, this third interpretation is not merely equally good, but somewhat preferable; and it makes better sense out of the passage as a whole.
When we say that God created the world for the purpose of displaying his manifold wisdom, we connect the purpose clause with its nearest antecedent. As anyone can see, the reference to Paul’s preaching lies several clauses further back. The immediate antecedent is creation, and this immediate connection between creation and the purpose clause is, we hold, of some value in deciding the matter. It is usually better to choose the nearest possible antecedent. Since, therefore, the syntax is at least somewhat in its favor, the best procedure is to examine objections against so understanding it.
The objections are well stated by Charles Hodge. The view that God created the universe in order to display his manifold wisdom is, as Hodge says, the supralapsarian view. Never mind the technical theological name at the moment. Against this view Hodge urges four objections. First, this passage is the only passage in Scripture adduced as directly asserting supralapsarianism; and supralapsarianism, so Hodge says, is foreign to the New Testament. Second, apart from such a doctrinal consideration, this interpretation imposes an unnatural connection on the clauses. The idea of creation in Ephesians 3:10 is entirely subordinate and unessential. It could have been omitted, says Hodge, without materially affecting the sense of the passage. Third, the theme of the passage concerns Paul’s preaching the Gospel; only by connecting the purpose clause with Paul’s preaching can the unity of the context be preserved. And fourth, the word now, in contrast with the previous hiding, supports the reference to Paul’s preaching. It was Paul’s preaching that had now put an end to the secret’s hiddenness. Such are Hodge’s four objections.
Let us consider the last one first. Admittedly it was Paul’s preaching that founded the church, and the founding of the church made known God’s wisdom to the powers in Heaven. The supralapsarian interpretation does not deny that Paul played this important part in God’s eternal plan. But even so, Paul’s preaching was not the immediate cause of the revelation of God’s wisdom. It was the existence of the church that was the immediate cause. Yet grammar prevents us from saying that the church was founded in order that God’s wisdom might be revealed. It is true that the church was founded in order to reveal God’s wisdom, but this is not what the verse says. Now, if several events occurred, all leading up to this revelation of God’s wisdom, including the founding of the church, Paul’s preaching, and of course the death and resurrection of Christ that Paul preached, the word now in the verse cannot be used to single out Paul’s preaching in contrast with other events mentioned in the passage. This fourth objection is therefore a poor one.
Next, the first objection says that this is the only passage adduced as directly asserting supralapsarianism, and supralapsarianism is foreign to the New Testament. The latter half of this objection is a case of begging the question. If this verse teaches supralapsarianism, then the doctrine is not foreign to the New Testament. We should not assume that the doctrine is foreign to the New Testament and then determine what the verse means. We should first determine what the verse means in order to find out whether or not the doctrine is foreign to the New Testament.
To be sure, if this one verse were indeed the only verse in the Bible with supralapsarian overtones, we would be justified in entertaining some suspicion of this interpretation. Hodge does not say explicitly that this is the only verse; he says it is the only verse adduced as directly asserting supralapsarianism.
Well, really, even this verse does not directly assert the whole complex supralapsarian view. Very few verses in Scripture directly assert the whole of any major doctrine. There is no one verse, for example, that gives us the full doctrine of the Trinity. Therefore we must recognize degrees of directness, partial and even fragmentary assertions of a doctrine. And with this recognition, regularly acknowledged in the development of any doctrine, it is evident that this verse does not stand alone in suspicious isolation.
More of the complete doctrine of supralapsarianism will come to light when in the next chapter we discuss the knowledge of God. The main point of the present discussion is whether or not the purpose of creation was to make known the wisdom of God. All that is required at this point is the avoidance of the assumption that this verse in Ephesians cannot mean this before examining it.
Thus, we come to objection number two. Hodge claims that the supralapsarian interpretation of this verse imposes an unnatural connection upon the clauses. The idea of creation, he said, is entirely unessential and could have been omitted without materially affecting the sense of the passage.
Does not this objection make it clear that Hodge does not know how to handle the reference to creation? He claims that it is unessential, a chance, thoughtless remark that does not affect the sense of the passage. Such careless writing does not seem to me to be Paul’s usual style. For example, in Galatians 1:1 Paul says, “Paul, an apostle, not from men nor through a man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised him from the dead.” Why now did Paul mention that God had raised Jesus Christ? If it were a chance remark without logical connection with the sense of the passage, a remark intended only to speak of some random aspect of God’s glory, Paul could have as well said, God who created the universe. But it is fairly clear that Paul had a conscious purpose in selecting the resurrection instead of the creation. He wanted to emphasize, against his detractors, that he had his apostolic authority from Jesus himself. And Jesus was able personally to give him that authority because he was not dead but had been raised up by God.
So, as Paul chose the idea of resurrection in Galatians instead of the idea of creation, he also chose the idea of creation in Ephesians instead of resurrection, because the idea of creation contributed some meaning to his thought. Certainly the supralapsarian or teleological interpretation of Ephesians 3:10 accommodates the idea of creation, and, contrariwise, an interpretation that can find no meaning in these words of the text is a poorer interpretation.
The remaining objection is that only by making Paul’s preaching the antecedent of the purpose clause can the unity of the context be preserved. The reverse seems to be the case. Not only does Hodge fail to account for the mention of creation, and thus diminish the unity of the context, but further stress on purpose, running from creation to the present, unifies the passage in a most satisfactory manner."
I agree. The purpose clause being connected with the statement about God creating all things does in fact preserve the unity of the context.
Albert Barnes in his Notes on the Whole Bible wrote (emphasis mine):
"To the intent - Greek, “that” Ἵνα - Hina". The sense is, that it was with this design, or that this was the purpose for which all things were made. One grand purpose in the creation of the universe was, that the wisdom of God might be clearly shown by the church. It was not enough to evince it by the formation of the sun, the stars, the earth, the seas, the mountains, the floods. It was not enough to show it by the creation of intelligent beings, the formation of immortal minds on earth, and the various ranks of the angelic world. There were views of the divine character which could be obtained only in connection with the redemption of the world. Hence the universe was created, and man was made upon the earth, not merely to illustrate the divine perfections in the work of creation, but in a still more illustrious manner in the work of redemption. And hence the deep interest which the angelic hosts have ever evinced in the salvation of man."
Clark continued:
"The supralapsarian or teleological understanding of God’s working, that is, the understanding that God works for a purpose, enables us to combine all three of these interpretations, including even the second, which in itself has so little into its favor, in a unified and intelligible thought. Since God does everything for a purpose (and this truth will be made more clear in the next chapter), and since whatever precedes in time has in a general way the purpose of preparing for what follows, we may say that God kept the secret hidden in order to reveal it now, and also that Paul preached in order to reveal it now. But if God had not created the world, there would have been no Paul to do the preaching, no church by which the revelation could be made, and no heavenly powers on which to impress the idea of God’s manifold wisdom. Only by connecting the purpose clause with the immediate antecedent concerning creation can a unified sense be obtained from the passage as a whole. We conclude, therefore, that this was the purpose of creation."
I agree with Clark and disagree with Hodge. It is "only by connecting the purpose clause with the immediate antecedent concerning creation" that the unity of the long sentence is preserved. Further, when Paul affirms that "all things" were created in order to display God's wisdom, he certainly includes the idea of creating Paul himself (and thus his apostleship and preaching) and of the church.
Clark continued:
"If it has now been sufficiently shown that the ultimate purpose of creation is the glory of God, this chapter may well conclude with a brief statement as to what glory means.
Now, in addition to internal excellence, the word glory can mean the exhibition of this excellence. The brightness of the Sun and stars in 1 Corinthians 15:41 is not precisely their inward constitution but their outward appearance. Ezekiel 1:28 makes it very clear: “As the appearance of the bow that is in the cloud in the day of rain, so was the appearance of the brightness round about. This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord.” Isaiah 6:1-3 is a more familiar passage: “I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple. Above it stood the seraphim…and the whole Earth is full of his glory.” Another passage is Isaiah 60:1-2, “Arise, shine, for your light is come, and the glory of the Lord is risen upon you.” Again, there are dozens of such verses (Luke 2:9; Acts 22:11; 2 Corinthians 3:7, 18; 2 Corinthians 4:4, 6; Hebrews 1:3, etc.).
The purpose, then, of creation will be, not the production of God’s internal and eternal excellence, but the display of his greatness to principalities, to powers, and to mere human beings.
That there is a chain or system of purposes is not to be denied. Indeed, these details will be insisted upon in the following chapters. Therefore, it is quite true to say that the purpose of creation, or, better, one purpose of creation, was to have Abraham born in Ur and move his family to Palestine. But the purpose, the final purpose, the all-inclusive purpose, is to display God’s excellence. If God’s excellence contains knowledge or mysteries, then the purpose of creation is to make these known. These are part of God’s glory. If God’s excellence contains power, then God raised up Pharaoh for the purpose of displaying his power, not precisely to him, but through him, so that God’s name might be declared throughout all the Earth, as is explicitly stated both in Exodus 9:16 and in Romans 9:17.
The manifold subsidiary purposes are all summed up and comprehended in a single ultimate purpose, the glory of God. It is the revelation of God’s excellence, the revelation of God himself. He created the world in order to display his sovereign majesty. He is Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the final and ultimate end. Only by realizing the glory and omnipotence of God can a proper understanding of predestination be achieved."
What would we know of God's nature without redemption? Would there have ever been an incarnation and resurrection had there been no sin?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)