Stilling The Storm In The Synoptics :: Redaction And Significance

STILLING THE STORM IN THE SYNOPTICS

Who is Jesus? This has been the question of the ages. Who was and who is this man who lived and died over 2000 years ago in Jerusalem? It is a question that began during Jesus’ own lifetime with his own contemporaries. In the gospel of Mark, in humble amazement at Jesus’ power over nature, even his own disciples question one another with the words Τίς ἄρα οὗτός ἐστιν—who then is this? Apparently for them it was still a question, even after they had witnessed so many great things.

Exegesis of Mark 4:35-41

Mark records in minute detail a magnificent gospel tradition that is loaded with Christological references, the stilling of the storm. In verse 35, Mark records the time of the event with the words ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ὀψίας γενομένης[1]—on that day, when evening had come. Mark uses the genitive absolute ὀψίας γενομένης to refer back to 4:1, indicating that the following event happened on the evening of the same day on which Jesus had been teaching by the Sea of Galilee. Jesus requested that his disciples take him across to the other side of the sea— Καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς . . . Διέλθωμεν εἰς τὸ πέραν. Mark uses λέγει—he says, as an historical present, perhaps to present the story in a more vivid manner, thereby drawing his readers into the story with him, as is his usual style.[2]

Next Mark records that the disciples do as Jesus asked and left the crowd on the shore, taking him with them—καὶ ἀφέντες τὸν ὄχλον παραλαμβάνουσιν αὐτὸν (v. 36). Here Mark makes a rather unusual comment. He uses the words ὡς ἦν ἐν τῷ πλοίῳ—as he was in the boat; this either refers to the manner in which they took him in the boat, “as he was,” or to the situation surrounding their taking him with them, he was already “in the boat.” The ESV says, “they took him with them in the boat, just as he was” (Mk. 4:36, ESV) indicating the manner in which they took him. But it is more likely that ὡς ἦν ἐν τῷ πλοίῳ refers back to v. 1, indicating that Jesus was still in the boat where he had been all day. Perhaps Mark senses the need to elaborate in light of v. 10 where he makes reference to Jesus being alone.[3]

Mark also speaks of other boats (ἄλλα πλοῖα ἦν μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ) being there (v. 36). R. T. France asserts that this remark reflects a mere a “circumstantial reminiscence” on the part of Mark’s eyewitness source, i.e. Peter.[4] France may be correct, but it may be that Mark is letting his readers know that what is about to take place in the story did not only affect Jesus and his disciples, but others as well. Perhaps Mark wants to communicate to his readers a sense of community in which this event took place, thereby identifying with the Christian community in the midst of suffering where all parties involved are affected in some way.[5]

In v. 37 Mark uses another historical present (γίνεται), to introduce the great storm of wind—λαῖλαψ μεγάλη ἀνέμου, a storm so great that the waves were beating against the boat and filling it up with water—τὰ κύματα ἐπέβαλλεν εἰς τὸ

πλοῖον, ὥστε ἤδη γεμίζεσθαι τὸ πλοῖον. Mark is indicating that the situation was potentially life threatening, which gives the reader a sense of the urgency of the situation ands sets the reader up for the following statement about Jesus in the midst of this turmoil.

Apparently, Jesus was not affected by the storm because he was in the stern of the boat asleep on a cushion—καὶ αὐτὸς ἦν ἐν τῇ πρύμνῃ ἐπὶ τὸ προσκεφάλαιον καθεύδων (v. 38). Contrasted here is the emotional/spiritual state of Jesus with that of his disciples. As Jesus was fast asleep, in total trust and dependence on the Father, the disciples, in an almost accusatory manner, cry out to Jesus, Διδάσκαλε, οὐ μέλει σοι ὅτι ἀπολλύμεθα;—teacher, is it of no concern to you that we are perishing? If in fact Mark is writing specifically to the persecuted Christians in Rome, then this language would hit home with those who were suffering their own “storms” and wondering if Jesus was with them or not. Mark uses two more historical presents here, ἐγείρουσιν—they are waking, and λέγουσιν—they are saying, again drawing the reader into the action as if it were taking place right now.

It is certain that Mark was familiar with the Old Testament story of Jonah. In fact, the language is so similar, and given the fact that Mark elsewhere quotes the LXX (e.g. Mk. 1:3; 4:12; 7:6-7), it may be unreasonable to think that he does not mean to make a comparison. Mark uses the same word, ἐφοβήθησαν, to describe the disciples’ fear as Jonah 1:5 uses to describe the sailors on the boat there. Both groups were afraid that they were perishing (Jon. 1:6). Even the structure is similar in regard to the reporting of the fear of those on the two boats. In Jonah the men were “afraid”—ἐφοβήθησαν, because of the storm, and in vv. 10 and 16 they were “greatly afraid”—ἐφοβήθησαν . . . φόβον μέγαν (Jon. 1:1-16, LXX). Both groups of men were more afraid after the miracle had taken place than they were before.[6]

Jonah’s captain woke him up asking Τί σὺ ῥέγχεις;—why do you snore?[7] In other words, what in the world are you doing down here asleep when we about to die in this storm! The disciples’ tone with Jesus is similar. The language employed by both authors is comparable. Jesus’ sleep, like Jonah’s, serves to highlight the central figure in the story, and the helplessness of the other people.[8]

In response to their pleas Jesus takes immediate action: καὶ διεγερθεὶς ἐπετίμησεν τῷ ἀνέμῳ καὶ εἶπεν τῇ θαλάσσῃ, Σιώπα, πεφίμωσο—and waking up he rebuked the wind and said to the sea, “Quiet down! Be still!” (v. 39). Mark shows that Jesus not only cares for the situation, but he also has the power to control the situation. The result was immediate. Mark records, καὶ ἐκόπασεν ὁ ἄνεμος καὶ ἐγένετο γαλήνη μεγάλη—and the wind stopped and there was a great calm (v. 39b). Mark is contrasting λαῖλαψ μεγάλη—a great storm, with γαλήνη μεγάλη—a great calm, perhaps to show his readers that Jesus can bring good out of the worst situations in life.

Then, after Jesus rebuked the wind and the sea, he rebuked his disciples. Mark records Jesus asking them, Τί δειλοί ἐστε; οὔπω ἔχετε πίστιν;— Why are you afraid? Do you not yet have faith? (v.40). Jesus’ rebuke for their cowardly, fear invokes an even greater fear than what they had on account of the storm. Mark says, καὶ ἐφοβήθησαν φόβον μέγαν—and they feared a great fear, i.e. they were greatly afraid (v. 41). Mark’s use of fobeJomai can indicate great fear as in being terrified, or great reverence. If he means that the disciples were filled with reverence, it means that they were in awe at what Jesus had done. If Mark means that they were terrified, which seems to better fit the context, then it means that the disciples were greatly distressed at what Jesus had said to them after he rebuked the storm. Were they in danger of not having faith at all? This becomes to them something more terrible than a deadly storm at sea. Mark’s point then to his audience may be “Watch out how you respond to the trials of your life.”

All that had happened in those moments led them to question one another asking, Τίς ἄρα οὗτός ἐστιν ὅτι καὶ ὁ ἄνεμος καὶ ἡ θάλασσα ὑπακούει αὐτῷ;—who then is this that even the wind and the sea obeys him? (v.41b). The disciples’ question is the central point in the story, and shows Mark’s concern with Christology. Perhaps here Mark has in mind Psalm 107:23-30 (Ps. 106:23-30, LXX). According to the Psalmist it is the works of the LORD—τὰ ἔργα κυρίου (LXX), which of course is hwhy in Hebrew (Ps. 107: 24; 106:24, LXX) that made the storm be still (Ps. 107: 29; Ps. 106:29, LXX). Who is this Jesus? He is the Son of the true and living God, the Lord of heaven and earth, the God of the Old Testament[9] who alone has the power to control even nature, and who cares for his followers in their tribulation, and who acts to bring good out of bad for the glory of God. Mark refers readers to imagery found in O.T., and thereby equates Jesus with Yahweh. Mark’s Christology is of the highest variety. Jesus is God.

Mark recounts this story, not just to write down in an orderly fashion the oral traditions of the gospel, but also to speak to the church to encourage them in the midst of its tribulation.[10] Origen said:

“For as many as are in the little ship of faith are sailing with the Lord; as many as are in the bark of holy church will voyage with the Lord across this wave-tossed life; though the Lord himself may sleep in holy quiet, he is but watching your patience and endurance: looking forward to the repentance and to the conversion of those who have sinned. Come then to him eagerly, instant in prayer.”[11]

Mark has theological, historical, and pastoral concerns as he relates the story of Jesus stilling the storm to his readers.[12]

Synoptic Comparison

Of the three accounts of the stilling the storm narrative in the synoptic gospels Mark’s is the longest, Luke’s is the closest to the Markan account, and Matthew’s is the shortest, and most interpretive of the three. Luke’s is the most straight forward from a historical standpoint. He seems to intentionally omit details that Mark includes, such as the other boats around, and the cushion on which Jesus was sleeping. The only elements of the story that are truly unique to Luke is that he indicates that Jesus wanted to go to the other side “of the lake” (τῆς λίμνης), and the way the disciples address Jesus (Ἐπιστάτα ἐπιστάτα), which is close to that of Mark, and that he notes that the disciples were both fearful and marveling (φοβηθέντες and ἐθαύμασαν). Matthew, however, has much to say that is different from either Mark or Luke.

Matthew’s context is different from Mark’s. Matthew records in v. 18, Ἰδὼν δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς ὄχλον περὶ αὐτὸν ἐκέλευσεν ἀπελθεῖν εἰς τὸ πέραν—and Jesus, seeing the crowd around him, gave orders to go away to the other side. This language is unique to Matthew, except for εἰς τὸ πέραν, which occurs in all three synoptics. Luke is closer to the Markan account, although he is less specific concerning the exact day (ἐν μιᾷ τῶν ἡμερῶν) and simply has Jesus and his disciples together in the boat. Luke and Matthew both use ἐμβαίνω, where Mark does not because Jesus is already in the boat.[13]

What is also unique to Matthew is that two men approach Jesus after this. A scribe and one of his disciples (μαθητής) came to him wishing to follow (ἀκολουθέω) him, and yet wanting Jesus to wait for them while they go and do other things first (vv. 19-21). Then in v. 23, Matthew records, kαὶ ἐμβάντι αὐτῷ εἰς τὸ πλοῖον ἠκολούθησαν αὐτῷ οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ—and after he got into the boat his disciples followed him. So, whereas the first two men could not yet follow Jesus, the disciples did so immediately. This shows Matthew’s concern with discipleship, which is a major theme in his gospel.[14]

According to Gunther Bornkamm, Matthew alters Marks story and makes it a symbolic picture of discipleship. Matthew uses the catchword, ἀκολουθέω and gives it a richer meaning.[15] Matthew uses σεισμὸς, a term usually applied to situations of eschatological distress[16] to describe the storm, whereas Mark and Luke both call it a λαῖλαψ ἀνέμου. For Mark, according to Bornkamm, the story is a straight forward miracle story and centers on the miracle itself with language used and contrasts made. Luke seems to be more concerned with the history of the tradition, but Matthew seems to be more the preacher. Matthew uses ἄνθρωποι in v. 27, which is unique to his gospel, to shift the focus from the disciples to other men, perhaps to speak to those who would hear this preached. According to Bornkamm, Matthew was the first exegete and interpreter of Mark.[17]

Other than Matthew’s use of σεισμὸς, no real distinction exists between the authors’ description of the facts of the storm. All three report the arising of a great storm and the fact that Jesus was asleep. What is different in all three is how the disciples react to Jesus being asleep. While similar in the fact that they wake him up asking for help, they are all unique in how the disciples address Jesus when they wake him up. Mark has the title of general and familiar respect—dιδάσκαλε, followed by the irreverent query—οὐ μέλει σοι ὅτι ἀπολλύμεθα; and Luke has perhaps the more generic term for a person of high status—Ἐπιστάτα ἐπιστάτα, ἀπολλύμεθα. But Matthew is most unique in his address. Matthew records the crying out of the disciples as a prayer—Κύριε, σῶσον—Lord, save. Mark’s is the most harsh, and shows the frantic fear in the hearts of the disciples, Luke the historian merely reports that they woke Jesus up to inform him of their peril, but Matthew has the true disciples, i.e. followers of Jesus voice their fright in the form of faithful prayer.

In regard to Jesus’ response to the disciples Luke and Mark are the most similar. In Mark Jesus uses the stern rebuke Τί δειλοί ἐστε; οὔπω ἔχετε πίστιν;, indicating that the disciples might not yet have faith. Luke is less harsh—Ποῦ ἡ πίστις ὑμῶν;—where is your faith, indicating that they may have faith, missing or misplaced though it is. In both Mark and Luke Jesus calms the storm and then speaks to his disciples about their faith. But in Matthew, Jesus speaks to the disciples in the midst of the storm, perhaps to show the interaction between Jesus and his followers during tribulation, calling them ὀλιγόπιστοι—men of little faith, rather than no faith or misplaced faith. Perhaps Matthew wants to comfort his readers with the notion that they do indeed have faith, they only need to exercise more of it.

Reporting on Jesus’ rebuke of the storm Matthew and Luke are almost identical. Mark, however, focuses more on Jesus’ command. He alone records the words Σιώπα, πεφίμωσο. Here again Mark is probably adding emphasis for effect, or perhaps he is simply recounting the eyewitness observations of Peter.[18] The three synoptics are almost identical in reporting the result of Jesus’ command, i.e. ἐγένετο γαλήνη μεγάλη, the only exception being Luke’s omission of the adjective μεγάλη.

Where Mark recounts that the disciples were greatly afraid (ἐφοβήθησαν φόβον μέγαν), and Luke has them marvelling in the midst of their fear (φοβηθέντες δὲ ἐθαύμασαν), Matthew has no mention of the disciples fear at all, except for Jesus’ question to them after they woke him up. Most unique to Matthew is that he, as was mentioned above, now turns the attention from the disciples to the other men who were there. Matthew says these other men marveled (οἱ δὲ ἄνθρωποι ἐθαύμασαν). Presumably these were the same men who were in Mark’s ἄλλα πλοῖα.

The wording of the last verse in this passage is nearly identical in all three gospels. All end with Mark’s question: Τίς ἄρα οὗτός ἐστιν ὅτι καὶ ὁ ἄνεμος καὶ ἡ θάλασσα ὑπακούει αὐτῷ;—who then is this that even the wind and the sea obeys him? What is special is who Matthew has asking it. In Mark and Luke it is assumed that the disciples saying to one another (λέγοντες πρὸς ἀλλήλους), “who is this man.” In Matthew, it is the men (οἱ ἄνθρωποι) who are not only marveling at Jesus, but also asking the Christological question. What is also unique to Matthew is the adjective pοταπός, a term meaning “what sort?” or “what kind,” and denoting a sense of wonder and awe.[19] With Matthew’s ending it is as if he turns the attention from the disciples in their isolated crisis to believer’s of all the ages who will hear this gospel tradition preached. Such a shift in the ending is fitting for Matthew who wants every reader or hearer to see in this story what it means to be a true disciple of the true and living God, Jesus Christ.[20]

For Matthew, who writes primarily to a Jewish audience,[21] and for Luke who is concerned with God’s role in salvation and the life of the church in relation to God and each other, especially Gentile believers who want to know the truth about the gospel,[22] and for Mark who possibly writes to the persecuted Christians in Rome, the focus of the passage is on Jesus Christ. He is to be followed, believed in, worshipped, feared, trusted by all people everywhere. The Christological question at the end of each account is meant to be pondered[23] by all who read it and hear it, and the inevitable conclusion for all true followers of Jesus is Σὺ εἶ ὁ Χριστὸς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ζῶντος—you are the Messiah, the Son of the living God (Matt. 16:16).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aland, Kurt. Synopsis of the Four Gospels, English Edition (New York: Ameican Bible Society, 1982, 1985).

Blomberg, Craig L. The New American Commentary. Vol. 22, Matthew (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1992).

Bock, Darrell L. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Vol. 3a, Luke (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1994).

Bornkamm, Gunther; Barth, Gerhard; and Held, Heinz Joachim. Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1963).

Brooks, James A. The New American Commentary. Vol. 23, Mark (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1991).

Danker, Frederick William (ed.). A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature. (BDAG), 3^rd edition (Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 2000).

Edwards, James R. The Pillar New Testament Commentary, The Gospel According to Mark (Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2002).

Feiler, P. F. The Stilling of the Storm in Matthew: A Response to Gunther Bornkamm. Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, v. 26.4 (Dec. 1983).

France, R. T. The New International Greek Testament Commentary, Mark (Grand Rapids/Cambridge: The Paternoster Press, Eerdmans, 2002).

Guelich, Robert A. Word Biblical Commentary. Vol. 34a, Mark (Dallas: Word Books Publisher, 1989).

Hanger, Donald A. Word Biblical Commentary. Vol 33a, Matthew (Dallas: Word Books, 1993).

Lane, William L. The New International Commentary on the New Testament, Mark (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974).

Marshall, I. Howard. The New International Greek Testament Commentary, Luke (Grand Rapids: The Paternoster Press, Eerdmans, 1978).

Nolland, John. The New International Greek Testament Commentary, Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005).

Oden, Thomas C. and Hall, Christopher A. (eds). Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture. Vol. 2, Mark (Downers Groves: IVP, 1998).

Stanton, Graham. A Gospel for a New People: Studies in Matthew (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1992).

Stanton, Graham. The Gospels and Jesus, 2^nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002).

Stanton, Graham, ed. The Interpretation of Matthew, 2^nd ed. (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1995).

Stein, Robert H. The New American Commentary. Vol. 24, Luke (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1992).

Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1996).

WWW.APOSTLESBIBLE.COM

---

[1] All scripture quotations (Greek) are taken from the Nestle Aland 27^th edition. Unless otherwise noted, translation is the author’s own.

[2] See Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1996), 526-532. Here Wallace mentions that Mark uses the historical present more than any other New Testament author, probably reflecting the level of his Greek and reflecting his style of writing. Also, William L. Lane, The New International Commentary on the New Testament, Mark (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 26.

[3] R. T. France, The New International Greek Testament Commentary, Mark (Grand Rapids/Cambridge: The Paternoster Press, Eerdmans, 2002), 223.

[4] Ibid., 223.

[5] James R. Edwards, The Pillar New Testament Commentary, The Gospel According to Mark (Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2002), 152. It is argued here that Mark was writing to the persecuted church in Rome, as is argued by many scholars, and that he is trying to identify with his suffering readers in this story. See also James A. Brooks, The New American Commentary, Vol. 23, Mark (Nashville:Broadman Press, 1991), 23-30, and William L. Lane, The New International Commentary on the New Testament, Mark (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 15-25.

[6] Brooks, The New American Commentary, Vol. 23, Mark, 4:41. See also P. F. Feiler, The Stilling of the Storm in Matthew: A Response to Gunther Bornkamm, JETS v. 26.4 (Dec. 1983), for a further discussion of the parallels between Jonah and the Psalms, and the gospel account (Feiler deals mainly with the Matthean account).

[7] Translation of LXX was aided by http://www.apostlesbible.com/books/j32jonah/j32c01.htm.

[8] France, NIGTC, Mark, 223.

[9] Edwards, PNTC, Mark, 148.

[10] Robert A Guelich, Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 34a, Mark (Dallas: Word Books Publisher, 1989), xli-xliii.

[11] Origen, On Matthew, Homily 6, as quoted in Thomas C. Oden, and Christopher A. Hall, (eds), Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, Vol. 2, Mark (Downers Groves: IVP, 1998).

[12] James A. Brooks, The New American Commentary, Vol. 23, Mark (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1991), 23-30.

[13] I. Howard Marshall, The New International Greek Testament Commentary, Luke (Grand Rapids: The Paternoster Press, Eerdmans, 1978), 333.

[14] John Nolland, The New International Greek Testament Commentary, Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 369-370.

[15] While scholars such as Stanton agree with Bornkamm’s thesis, P. F. Feiler disagrees, claiming that Bornkamm’s hypotheses are “open to question.” See Feiler, The Stilling of the Storm in Matthew: A Response to Gunther Bornkamm, JETS v. 26.4 (Dec. 1983).

[16] Ibid., 370.

[17] Gunther Bornkamm, Gerhard Barth, and Heinz Joachim Held, Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1963), 53-56. Bornkamm’s work is also referenced in more recent works; see Graham Stanton, ed. The Interpretation of Matthew, 2^nd ed. (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1995), 123-124, and Graham Stanton, A Gospel for a New People: Studies in Matthew (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1992), 24, and Graham Stanton, The Gospels and Jesus, 2^nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 30-32.

[18] Edwards, PNTC, Mark (Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2002), 147.

[19] See BDAG, 3^rd edition, 856.

[20] See introduction to Donald A. Hagner, Word Biblical Commentary, v. 33a, Matthew (Dallas: Word Books, 1993).

[21] Craig L. Blomberg, The New American Commentary, Vol. 22, Matthew (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1992), 34.

[22] See Darrell L. Bock, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, Vol. 3a, Luke (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1994), 14-43, and Robert H. Stein, The New American Commentary, Vol. 24, Luke (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1992), 26-49.

[23] Bock, BECNT, Vol. 3a, Luke (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1994), 764.

Meditations On The Cross :: A Cheesy Hymn I Had To Write At Seminary

Meditations on the Cross

The glorious cross so dim and so black

Through all its pain nothing do I lack

An eternal place in heaven reserved

Purchased with blood so undeserved

Christ’s redeeming blood so undeserved

All that I was all that God hates

His awesome wrath did Christ propitiate

God’s justice satisfied in Christ’s sacrifice

The Lamb of God died for my eternal life

The Lamb of God died for our eternal life

Enemies of God and children of wrath

Idolatrous lives wasted on the wrong path

Reconciliation between God and men

Christ is victor over death and sin

Walk now in victory over death and sin

Jesus our savior pours out perfect love

Holy and pure from heaven above

Mercy toward sinners is ours now to claim

Atonement was made when Christ took the blame

Atonement was made when Christ took our blame

To bring us to God

He suffered and died

His righteous blood

For my unrighteous life

His righteous blood for our unrighteous life

(c) 2006 by Christopher N. Gates

The Authority of the Bible

Authority today is a topic that most people would rather not discuss, unless it is the authority that they themselves possess. There are many authorities in the lives of most modern people: the government under which they live, the local police, parents, teachers, institutions, the church, etc. Some seem to try to live without any authority at all, but for themselves and their own whims and desires. The authority of God over the lives of human beings that he has created is a topic that even fewer people are willing to discuss. All one has to do is bring up the subject of the gospel with people on the street, or in the workplace to see the rejection of God’s authority in their lives. The truth is that if God is the source of all truth and the creator of all things, including humans (which he most certainly is), then he has the sole right and authority to demand from his creatures whatever he pleases.[1] This is not easily accepted among humans who are tainted by original sin and who are at odds with their creator.

The question remains, however, how does God exercise his authority over humans, and by what means does he do this? God has revealed himself to mankind in many ways. The progressive revelation of God to man has come in the form of direct verbal communication (e.g. Moses and the burning bush, the call of Abraham, etc.), inspired songs or psalms, prophecies, as well as inspired narratives and apostolic letters to churches. This collection of inspired writings, called the Bible, coupled with the authority of God’s Holy Spirit, is the supreme authority over all of life, and its message the primary means God uses to communicate that authority. Millard Erickson states, “By the authority of the Bible we mean that the Bible, as the expression of God’s will to us, possesses the right supremely to define what we are to believe and how we are to conduct ourselves.[2] This authority applies both to believers and non-believers.

In dealing with the Bible’s authority, it is necessary to examine reasons why the Bible is authoritative, as well as the nature of its authority as it is realized in the lives of people. The primary reason for this is that the Bible comes from God himself and its central theme is the person and authority of Jesus Christ. Also, the authority of the Scriptures is not in competition with the authority and role of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer, and vice-versa. Finally, the Bible is not subject to the authority of any church, man-made institution, or individual, but both humans and their institutions must be in submission to the Bible as the word of God. What follows will be an examination of each of these in detail.

First of all, the Bible is authoritative because of its divine origin.

The Bible testifies concerning itself that, “All Scripture is breathed out by God.” (II Tim. 3:16, ESV). Peter states, “No prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (II Peter 1:20-21, ESV). David declares, “The Spirit of the Lord speaks by me; his word is on my tongue” (2 Samuel 23:2, ESV). The Bible was written by men, but inspired by God himself. Even more than that, the Scriptures are actually God-breathed. The men who wrote the letters and prophecies and stories and songs and genealogies of the Bible were instruments used by God to pen his revelation to mankind. The God who created the universe spoke to humans through the mouths and pens of his prophets and apostles (Heb. 1:1-2). If God is the sovereign creator and king of the universe, then it follows that what he speaks is in fact authoritative. It does not take one long in reading the Scriptures to note that it assumes authority over all its hearers.

Some may argue, however, that it is insufficient to cite what the Bible says about itself in establishing its authority. Someone might say that using the Bible itself to prove something about the Bible reveals a great degree of circularity in reasoning. As Millard Erickson points out, “Any theology (or any other system of thought for that matter) faces a dilemma when dealing with its basic authority.”[3] In other words, on what authority does one base the authority of the Bible if not on its own testimony? A strong case can be made within the realm of orthodox Christianity that it is sufficient to base the Bible’s authority on what it says about itself because of the testimony of the Holy Spirit. However, as John Calvin argues for the skeptic at heart, there are sufficient proofs outside the pages of the Bible that confirm its divine origin, truthfulness, and authority.[4] These include historical evidence, fulfilled prophecies, archeology, etc. No matter how one arrives at it, the conclusion is that the Bible is of a distinctly supernatural origin and on that ground possesses great authority.

It simply shows the depravity of the human heart that people are quicker to accept the authority of the local newspaper than the authority of the supernatural word of God. Both believers and non-believers alike need to recognize the Bible’s authority over them and submit to it wholeheartedly.

Second, the Bible is authoritative because it is directly linked to Christ, who is the Word.

The Baptist Faith and Message, 2000 states, “All Scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is Himself the focus of divine revelation.” Jesus said concerning the scriptures, “it is they that bear witness about me” (John 5:39, ESV). The apostle John teaches that Christ is the incarnate Word of God, who himself is God from all eternity (John 1:1-2, 14). Hebrews 1:1-2 says “God…has spoken to us by his Son…” In the passage known as the great commission Jesus declares, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.” (Matt. 28:18, ESV).

The Scriptures clearly testify about Christ and are inseparable from him. Christ is the focus of the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and he himself gives it his stamp of approval and establishes its authority. For Martin Luther, it was this “Christological concentration” that convinced him of the Bible’s pervasive authority.[5] The scriptures are about Christ, Christ is the eternal Word, and God the Father has given Christ all authority; therefore, the Bible has every right to claim absolute authority.

Just the simple fact that the Bible claims to be the very words of Christ to his people should be motivation enough for everyone to place more value in it than in other forms of authority, such as psychologists, preachers, institutions, the media, etc. When one reads and meditates upon the scriptures, one does not merely encounter facts about God, but, through the ministry of the Spirit, actually encounters God himself. When believers read the Bible, they are essentially entering into fellowship with Christ, who is already working in their lives. Believers must appreciate this Christocentrism of the word of God, and devote their entire lives to mastering its contents.

Third, the authority of the Bible does not exclude the role of the Holy Spirit in interpretation, and the two should not be separated.

To say that the Bible is the sole authority for the Christian is not to say that this authority is separate from the authority of the Holy Spirit. And to say that the Holy Spirit is the Christian’s authority is not to say that this authority is separate from the authority of the Holy Scriptures. These are not two separate authorities working against one another according to each believer’s personal preference as to which one to give more emphasis. No, they are indeed one. The Holy Spirit guides the believer into the truth of God’s word (John 16:13), and the Bible’s authority in the life of the believer is dependent upon the Holy Spirit’s work in the believer’s heart. I Corinthians 2:14 (ESV) states, “The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.” John Calvin understood that “the Scriptures obtain full authority among believers only when men regard them as having sprung from heaven, as if there the living words of God were hear,” and that this can only come through the Holy Spirit.[6] According to Millard Erickson, “the Holy Spirit’s ministry involves elucidating the truth, bringing belief and persuasion and conviction, but not new revelation.”[7] Therefore, no believer can say that something has been revealed which is contrary to the scriptures. The Bible is authoritative in a person’s life only when the Spirit of God convinces that person of its truth, and a person is able to follow the guiding of the Spirit only to the degree that they understand the Bible. Thus authority does not lie with the Spirit alone apart from the scriptures.

For Erickson and Calvin alike, authority is not in the Bible alone, but in the Bible applied by the Spirit. For those who maintain that the Bible is in and of itself (apart from the Spirit) the sole authority, “a virtually sacramental view of the Bible can result.”[8] However, as Mark Noll puts it:

“To impugn the trustworthiness of the external Word (Scripture) is to impugn the very gospel itself, for it is through the external Word that the internal Word [the inner working of Christ by the Spirit] does its work. As in striking the flesh of the Lord Jesus, the son of God was wounded, so striking the external Word of Scripture wounds the gospel.”[9]

So, both the Bible and the Spirit are needed for a sufficient authority to be established in the life of the believer. What believers must do is to study and seek to understand the scriptures with all their might, trusting and seeking the Holy Spirit’s guidance by prayer and meditation.

Fourth, the Bible is not subject to the authority of tradition or church, but tradition and the church must be subject to the authority of the Bible.

For some, the authority of the church or church tradition is equal to, and in some cases greater than, the authority of the Bible. It has been said that the Protestant Reformation was the triumph of the authority of the Bible over the authority of the church. Martin Luther is reported to have said, “My conscience is captive to the word of God.”[10] By this, Luther meant to say to his accusers, that for him the Bible was his supreme authority, and not the church. For the reformers, the Bible won the day over every ordinance of man. As David Lotz rightly states, “the churches entire life and substance reside in the Word of God.”[11] The reformers understood this, and the course of ecclesiastical history was changed forever.

John Calvin said:

“A most pernicious error widely prevails that Scripture has only so much weight as is conceded to it by the consent of the church. As if the eternal and inviolable truth of God depended upon the decision of men!”[12]

The Particular Baptists in London in the seventeenth century revealed a similar view when they stated:

“The authority of the Holy Scripture for which it ought to be believed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or church, but wholly upon God (who is truth itself), the author thereof; therefore it is to be received because it is the Word of God.”[13]

Martin Luther said:

“[It] is an accursed lie that the pope is the arbiter of Scripture or that the church has authority over the Scripture,” and “The pope, Luther, Augustine, Paul, an angel from heaven — these should not be masters, judges or arbiters, but only witnesses, disciples, and confessors of Scripture. Nor should any doctrine be taught or heard in the church except the pure Word of God. Otherwise, let the teachers and the hearers be accursed along with their doctrine.”[14]

It is clear that the traditions of the church ought to be subject to the word of God. What Christians must do today is to be like the Jews in Acts 17:11, and search the scriptures in order to prove or refute any claim made by man or church. That is not to say that Christians should be opposed to authorities in the church, but that the supreme rule and guide for submitting to these authorities is the Bible. Let it be as the apostle Paul says, “even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed” (Galatians 1:8, ESV).

In conclusion, most people today do not lead lives that are characterized by willful submission to God’s authority over them. God’s primary means of exercising his authority is the Bible. To say that the Bible has authority is to say that it holds the right to command actions and beliefs. The Bible maintains the authority of God himself because of its distinctly divine origin and its Christocentric nature. The Bible works in unison with the Holy Spirit in relating its authority to the lives of believers, and should never be subject to the any human authority. What is needed today is for people to recognize the authority of the Bible and live their lives accordingly.

---

[1] Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, Second Edition (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998), p. 266.

[2] Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, Second Edition (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998), p. 267.

[3] Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, Second Edition (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998), p. 226.

[4] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, book 1, chapter 2.

[5] David W. Lotz, Sola Scriptura: Luther on Biblical Authority, in Interpretation, (vol. 35, 1981) p. 270.

[6] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, book 1, p. 74.

[7] Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, Second Edition (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998), p. 276.

[8] Ibid., p. 277.

[9] Mark A. Noll, The Word of God and the Bible: A View from the Reformation, in Christian Scholar’s Review, (vol. 8, no. 1, 1978) p. 31.

[10] Roland Bainton, Here I Stand (New York: Mentor, 1950) p. 144.

[11] David W. Lotz, Sola Scriptura: Luther on Biblical Authority, in Interpretation (vol. 35, 1981) p. 261.

[12] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, book 1, p. 75.

[13] The London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689, chapter 1, no. 4.

[14] Martin Luther, Lectures on Galatians, in Luther's Works, vol. 26, translated by Jaroslav Pelikan (St. Louis: Concordia, 1963), pp. 57-8.

God's Purpose Of Election :: The Doctrine Of Divine Election And Its Implications And Importance In The Christian Life

GOD’S PURPOSE OF ELECTION:

THE DOCTRINE OF DIVINE ELECTION AND ITS IMPLICATIONS AND IMPORTANCE IN THE CHRISTIAN LIFE

Introduction

“Election destroys evangelism! It encourages pride and diminishes the responsibility of God’s people to reach out to the world in missions. Those pastors who preach the doctrine of election are in churches that are doing nothing for the growth of the kingdom. I believe in election, but I do not teach it because it would drive people away.” Those are the words of the pastor of a large Southern Baptist church.

The Southern Baptist statement of faith says:

Election is the gracious purpose of God, according to which He regenerates, justifies, sanctifies, and glorifies sinners. It is consistent with the free agency of man, and comprehends all the means in connection with the end. It is the glorious display of God's sovereign goodness, and is infinitely wise, holy, and unchangeable. It excludes boasting and promotes humility.[i]

What is it about the doctrine of election that a Southern Baptist pastor would be so afraid of? Many simply do not understand the doctrine of election, its biblical basis, and its history. Some who claim to believe in the doctrine fail to see its importance in the Christian life. Carey C. Newman, in an article published in Review and Expositor argues, “Biblical teaching about election and predestination remains as vital for the church as it is controversial for the history of interpretation.”[ii] So if the doctrine is greatly misunderstood and controversial it is equally (if not more) important, especially to the week-to-week preaching of pastors who are responsible to God for their people’s knowledge of the word of God.

The well-respected Baptist theologian Millard Erickson says, “Election is the selection of some for eternal life.”[iii] Election means that God has chosen some individuals from all the peoples on earth to be special, a people who would be redeemed and ransomed by the blood of Christ, for the purpose of being “a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works” (Tit. 2:14 ESV). This is the meaning of the doctrine of divine election and it should not be avoided simply because it is a difficult doctrine.

The purpose of this paper is not to completely explain every aspect of the doctrine, but to show four implications of the doctrine of election that give it importance for the Christian life. These are:

1. Divine election is unconditional and eternal and therefore destroys human boasting, and promotes humility.

2. Divine election is the motivation and the guarantee for the success of evangelism and missions.

3. Divine election is the foundation on which the Christian life is built and the foundation of the Christian’s hope for the future.

4. Divine election is Christological in nature, and is intended to display the glory of the grace of God.

1. Divine Election is Unconditional and Eternal and Therefore Destroys Human Boasting, and Promotes Humility.

“Even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will” (Eph. 1:4-5 ESV).

Paul says in Ephesians 1:4 (ESV) that the election of God’s people is “according to the purpose of his [God’s] will,” and that it was “before the foundation of the world.” First of all, this means that God’s election of people for salvation is unconditional, according to the “purpose” of “his will.” There was no reason outside the sovereign will and purpose of God for any person to be chosen for salvation in Christ. God freely chooses whomever he wills, based on his own purpose and good pleasure.

Paul makes reference to this sovereign will of God again in Romans 9. Here he is speaking of Jacob and Esau. Jacob was chosen over Esau to be Israel, not because of anything that Jacob or Esau did, but simply because that is the way God chose to work his plan. He says “though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of his call” (Rom. 9:11 ESV). In verse 13 he adds, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” By all rights Esau should have been the one to receive the more prominent position, but God chose Jacob to be the leader of his people. This is testimony to the fact that God “works all things after the counsel of his own will” (Eph. 1:11 KJV), and for no other reason.

Secondly, God’s election is eternal, “before the foundation of the world.” Humans were unable to influence God’s decision in whom to choose by virtue of the fact that they were not there at the time he chose. Before there was ever a created universe, there was God. Before God ever created human beings who would fall away from him in sin, he chose a certain number of them to be redeemed in Christ. The Bible clearly teaches an eternal, unconditional election.

The doctrine of election, however, in no way encourages pride. John Calvin stated that the opposite is true:

“It [election] is useful, necessary, and most sweet. Ignorance of it impairs the glory of God, plucks up humility by the roots, begets and fosters pride. The doctrine establishes the certainty of salvation, peace of conscience, and the true origin of the Church.”[iv]

As the apostle Paul was teaching the gentiles about how God had hardened the hearts of Israel so that they would not believe and the gentiles would believe, he warned them sternly, “do not be arrogant toward the branches (Israel),” but to “note the kindness and severity of God” (Rom. 11: 18, 22). There is no room for boasting in the Christian life.

The truth is that there was no other reason for God choosing any person over another but that he simply chose to do it that way. This is designed to humble the believer who realizes that no one deserves God’s grace, and that every person deserves God’s wrath. As the Baptist Faith and Message states it, the doctrine of election “excludes boasting and promotes humility.”[v] The person who has been chosen by God can no more boast of his standing than the beggar and criminal to whom a king decides to show favor. Paul again makes it clear that salvation is not of human effort, but all of God’s grace and mercy:

“For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast” (Eph. 2:8-9 ESV).

2. Divine Election is the Motivation and the Guarantee for the Success of Evangelism and Missions.

“Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory” (2 Tim. 2:10 ESV).

There are those who claim that the doctrine of unconditional election hinders, even destroys evangelism and missions. If God’s “elect” are going to come to faith in him no matter what, they reason, then it follows that there is no need for the preaching of the gospel. It is true, especially among Particular Baptists in 17^th and 18^th century England that some Christians in the Church’s history have held to this view of election. This hyper-Calvinist view is what many are reacting against when they object to the doctrine of unconditional election. There are still many hyper-Calvinistic churches around today. However, those who object to teaching the doctrine of election on these grounds simply demonstrate their ignorance of the whole of Church history, and of the word of God.

Moreover, there are also those who believe strongly in the doctrine of unconditional election (especially in staunchly Reformed traditions), who fall into the same error as that of their objectors. These maintain that the elect will come to Christ no matter what the church does to reach out to them (for God is sovereignly in control of all things), but that the church must preach the gospel simply out of obedience to Christ’s command, namely the great commission (Matt. 28:19-20). Even though these proponents of the doctrine intend to uphold the truth of the word of God, they miss the importance of election to evangelism and missions. This does not aid their case against the former group.

There is an easy answer to the question “if the elect are going to be saved, why do evangelism?” It is found in 1 Corinthians 1:21. The apostle Paul writes, “it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe” (KJV). The Bible teaches that God has chosen a people for himself, and that he has also chosen the means by which they become his people, namely preaching. Jesus said, “And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd” (Jn.10:16, ESV). Do you hear the confident language of Jesus? He was certain that his “other sheep” would come into the fold. How would they come? They would hear his “voice.” God’s elect hear about the grace of God through the preaching of the gospel, and they respond accordingly.

Paul has said that he is “a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ,” “for the sake of the faith of God's elect…” (Tit.1:1 ESV). Paul suffered many things because of his commitment to the gospel of Christ. Why? Surely he did not work in obedience to the great commission without a certianty that God would work in the hearts of those to whom he preached. No, he claimed the promise of the gospel, which ensures that Christ has by his own blood “ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation” (Rev. 5:9 ESV). Paul says that for this reason he was willing to “endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory” (2 Tim. 2:10 ESV).

So then it follows that the doctrine of election is election is the “impetus” and “guarantor” of the success of evangelism.[vi] Election ensures the church that it’s labor is not in vain. The preaching of the cross, as foolish as it may seem, will convert the hearts of sinners, bringing them into the kingdom of God. On this doctrine the church must wager all.

Many claim that the Reformed doctrine of election hinders evangelism and therefore they reject the teaching of reformers such as John Calvin. But again they only show their ignorance of the past and base their objections on mere speculation. Joel R. Beeke, writing in the Reformation and Revival journal, points out that “Calvin was more of an evangelist than is commonly recognized. Through instruction and practice, he relit the torch of biblical, Reformed, God-centered evangelism,”[vii] and “the truths of sovereign grace taught by Calvin such as election are precisely the doctrines that encourage missionary activity.”[viii]

May the truth of history be acknowledged and gloried in that the greatest missionaries and pastors and evangelists of modern times have been staunch, five-point-Calvinists, holding to the highest, most biblical view of the doctrine of eternal, unconditional election. Among these are William Carey, the father of modern missions, Adoniram Judson, the first American foreign missionary, Charles Haddon Spurgeon, revivalists George Whitefield and Jonathon Edwards. Ministers of the gospel today should have no reservations about being counted among this great cloud of witnesses.

3. Divine Election is the Foundation on Which the Christian Life is Built and the Foundation of the Christian’s Hope for the Future.

“He chose us…that we should be holy and blameless before him” (Eph. 1:4 ESV).

“For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified” (Rom. 8:29-30 ESV).

John Calvin called election “the church’s heart, hope, and comfort.”[ix] The doctrine of election is the grounds on which Christians may be confident toward God in the Christian life. Believers have certainty of eternal life, not because of themselves, but because of God’s grace in election. Election works itself out in the Christian life, confirming the believer’s standing with God, and therefore providing a foundation on which to live victoriously. The apostle Peter encourages Christians to “be all the more diligent to make your calling and election sure” so that “you will never fall” (2 Pet.1:10 ESV).

Against the notion mentioned earlier that election produces pride on the part of those chosen by God stands the reasoning of the apostle Paul. He says, “Put on then, as God's chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassion, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience” (Col.3:12 ESV). Election is the basis for which Christians are to display a humble attitude toward God and the world. The knowledge that one has been graciously chosen should lead to “compassion,” “kindness,” “humility,” “meekness,” and “patience.” The knowledge of election causes the church to walk humbly before God, having as its great ambition to freely give what it has been freely given (Matt. 10:8).

The elect have been chosen for the purpose of living lives of holiness and blamelessness before God, and thus inheriting an eternal life of glorification. But God does not leave this up to the believer to accomplish. His election ensures the Christian that “he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ” (Phil.1:6 ESV). Carey C. Newman states, “The beginning, middle, and end of the Christian life is wholly and wonderfully dependent upon the mercy, love, and grace of God.”[x] “Election,” says Newman, “inaugurates the progressive transformation of the total person.”[xi] Without the knowledge of the grace of God in election, Christians will live in doubt as to whether they can live the Christian life, and in fear of the future. With a proper understanding believers are enabled to live fruitful lives. Jesus said,

“You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you” (Jn. 15:16 ESV).

An understanding of the doctrine of election and its consequences enables believers to live triumphantly over depression, suffering, and even death. The great tragedies and questions of the age are less of a threat to the person who is grounded in the grace of God. Again Newman encourages the church: “God answers life’s bizarre irrationality through the security, empowerment, and promise grounded in election…”[xii] Calvin himself stated that “the design of all God’s promises…[is] to keep us from being disturbed, to give us quietness of mind, and to cause us to look for the help promised to us.”[xiii] The doctrine of election is the great foundation for the victorious Christian life, and the assurance of hope for the future.

4. Divine Election is Christological in Nature, and is Intended to Display the Glory of the Grace of God.

“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him [Christ] before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved” (Eph. 1:3-6, ESV).

From this verse alone one can see the Christological nature of divine election. It is “in Christ” that God has chosen his elect and adopted them “through Jesus Christ.” There is no election apart from Jesus Christ, the eternal Son of God.

The purpose of election is to stimulate praise for “the glory of [God’s] grace” (Eph. 1:6 KJV). The glory of the grace of God is seen in none other than the person and work of Christ. Christ vividly displayed the gracious purpose of God in the days that he walked this earth in human form. He loved, he labored, he lived, and he wept for the purpose of bringing glory to the Father. This was them primary focus of Jesus’ life, and it is the primary focus of the gospel today, clearly stated and seen in the doctrine of divine election. Carey Newman states, “To speak of election is to speak of God first, and only secondarily of humanity.”[xiv] This theme is repeated in Ephesians 1: 6,12,14: “to the praise of his glory” (ESV).

Newman says again:

“Election is the clearest expression of God’s will. Election in, through, and by Christ consequently becomes the interpretive prism by which and through which all of God’s will, history, and even our lives can and should be read. Fundamental questions such as, ‘what is God like?,’ ‘how does he behave?,’ and ‘upon what should we stake our lives?,’ receive their most decisive and salient answer in election.”[xv]

What is primary and most important to God is seen in the doctrine of election, namely, his glory, or more specifically, the glory of his grace. God desires, not only a people ransomed for himself, but a people who will give him praise for the glory of his free gift of grace in Christ. This is the very foundation of the gospel. The church must not only proclaim that sinners can be saved and have eternal life in Christ, it must also be careful to proclaim the glory of the one who gives salvation and eternal life.

A proper understanding of the doctrine of election, as well as what is at stake (the glory of God), will move to church away from a “humanistic concept of evangelistic task and methods,” and will promote and fuel “God-centered, God glorifying evangelism” that is in keeping with the truth of God’s revelation.[xvi] The church must see God as a God-centered God, and the gospel as a God-centered gospel, and must proclaim the glory of God in Christ in all its endeavors. Election at its root is the primary doctrine that guards against a man-centered, idolatrous view of God and the gospel.

What is foremost in the doctrine of election is the election of Christ, and not the individual who is chosen in Christ. In the Old Testament, God proclaimed this through the prophet Isaiah:

“Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles” (Isa. 42:1 KJV).

If the elect were chosen in Christ “before the foundation of the world,” it is also true that Christ was a lamb slain before the foundation of the world (1 Pet. 1:19-20). Peter was careful to draw attention to Christ:

“Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Zion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded” (1 Pet. 2:6 KJV).

The election of Christ must take precedence over the election of individuals, regardless of one’s view of the logical order of God’s decrees. Without the election of Christ and his passion, the election of individuals would be meaningless. Romans 8:29 says, “For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. The glory of God in Christ is the primary focus of election.

Conclusion

Some may mock the doctrine of election as having no importance for the Christian life. Some say that the doctrine of election belongs only to the academy for discussion and theological debate, and not for the average Christian in the average church. The Christian life, they claim, consists of a more practical nature than does the study of systematic doctrines, such as election. What these pastors and teachers fail to see is that the doctrine of divine election has many practical implications for the Christian life, and that it is important for the believer’s spiritual journey.

One implication is that the doctrine of election eliminates human boasting and promotes humility before God. When believers realize that God has chosen them for no other reason than his sovereign purpose of grace, they live lives of thanksgiving and gratitude.

Another implication is that divine election is the motivation and guarantee for the success of evangelism and missions. There are those who maintain that the doctrine destroys evangelistic fervor, but they simply show their ignorance of history, and of the word of God. The knowledge that God will call his elect to himself through the church’s preaching of the gospel will encourage and motivate the church to go to the ends of the earth with the gospel of Christ.

The doctrine of divine election also is the very foundation on which the Christian life is built, and the foundation of the Christian’s hope for the future. Believer’s are encouraged in Scripture, “Put on then, as God's chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassion, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience” (Col.3:12 ESV). Knowledge of the free grace of God is the basis for which the Church seeks to do good works.

Finally, divine election is Christological in nature, and is intended to display the glory of the grace of God. What could be more important for the Christian life than a proper understanding of the person and work of Christ in relation to the glory of God the Father? Understanding the biblical doctrine of election means to understand the most important and most valuable thing in the universe, namely the glory of God. God desires that his glory be seen most clearly in his grace toward humans, and this is seen most clearly in the doctrine of divine election.

Pastors who would diminish the importance of the doctrine of election miss the point of biblical doctrine. They are robbing their people of the spiritual experience of understanding a little more of the God that has redeemed them, and they will be held accountable to God for their neglect.

---

[i] Baptist Faith and Message, 2000, Article V.

[ii] Carey C. Newman, Election and Predestination in Ephesians 1:4-6a: An Exegetical-Theological Study of the Historical, Christological Realization of God’s Purpose, in Review and Expositor (vol. 93, Spring 1996), p. 237.

[iii] Millard Erickson, Christian Theology 2^nd edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1998), p. 921.

[iv] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (Translated 1845 by Henry Beveridge, Published August 1, 1536. Zondervan Pradis [CD ROM]), 3.21.1.

[v] Baptist Faith and Message, 2000, Article V.

[vi] Joel R. Beeke, John Calvin: Teacher and Practitioner of Evangelism, in Reformation and Revival (vol. 10 no 4 Fall 2001), p. 124.

[vii] Ibid., p. 108.

[viii] Ibid., p. 123.

[ix] Ibid., p. 124.

[x] Carey C. Newman, Election and Predestination in Ephesians 1:4-6a: An Exegetical-Theological Study of the Historical, Christological Realization of God’s Purpose, in Review and Expositor (vol. 93, Spring 1996), p. 240.

[xi] Ibid., p. 240.

[xii] Ibid., p. 242.

[xiii] John Calvin, quoted in Reformation and Revival (vol. 10 no 4 Fall 2001), p. 105.

[xiv] Carey C. Newman, Election and Predestination in Ephesians 1:4-6a: An Exegetical-Theological Study of the Historical, Christological Realization of God’s Purpose, in Review and Expositor (vol. 93, Spring 1996), p. 238.

[xv] Ibid.

[xvi] Joel R. Beeke, John Calvin: Teacher and Practitioner of Evangelism, in Reformation and Revival (vol. 10 no 4 Fall 2001), p. 124.