Vintage Christianity

Gospel Proclamation In Luke-Acts

2007-09-01T21:02:00.001-07:00

THE GOSPEL IN LUKE-ACTS

The books of Luke and Acts bear witness to the gospel of Jesus Christ. Even though Luke does not use the noun “gospel” as does Matthew and Mark, he has much to say about it. Luke prefers the verb “to preach good news” and uses this verb to characterize the preaching of John, the preaching of Jesus, and also the continued preaching of the disciples after the resurrection. Luke notes that the good news is of Jewish origin, yet for all the world, and ushers in the long awaited kingdom of God. Luke’s gospel is a gospel of repentance that starts small but grows until it reaches all nations.

The Language of Luke’s Gospel

Luke uses the verb meaning “preach good news” (εὐαγγελίζω) 25 times in Luke/Acts. εὐαγγελίζω is used 10 times in Luke, and 15 times in Acts. Luke uses the noun gospel (εὐαγγέλιον) only twice, and both times in Acts (Acts 15:7, 20:24). Both are in direct discourse, once Peter and once Paul. Luke prefers the verb εὐαγγελίζω. [1]Matthew uses εὐαγγέλιον 4 times, and Mark uses it 8 times. The noun εὐαγγέλιον is the more common word in the N.T. It is used a total of 76 times, and εὐαγγελίζω is used only 54 times. Matthew uses εὐαγγελίζω only once, and Mark never uses the verb. Luke’s emphasis seems to be on the proclamation of the gospel, not just the facts of the gospel.[2]

Gospel for the Jews

Luke is careful to give the name of the angel who announces the births of John and Jesus (Lk. 1:19, 26). Luke is the only gospel writer to name Gabriel. Gabriel is the first messenger of the gospel. Matthew only mentions “an angel of the Lord” that appeared to Joseph in a dream and told him that it was okay to take Mary as his wife (Matt. 1:20). Perhaps Luke knew that by naming Gabriel as the messenger, he would be giving the birth of Jesus, and the arrival of the gospel, the same level of importance as the word of the Lord that came to Daniel by the same angel (Dan. 8:16; 9:21).[3] Naming Gabriel as the divine messenger also sets the events surrounding the births of John and of Jesus in the same type of eschatological milieu as that of Daniels visions.[4] Luke not only names Gabriel, but also has other angels announcing the arrival of Jesus (Lk. 2:10). Luke shows the divine origin of gospel and God’s activity among men as in Old Testament (Gen. 16:11, 22:11, 31:11; Ex. 3:2, 14:19, etc.). By doing so, Luke grabs the attention of the people, letting them know that God is working in their midst.

Luke shows that the arrival of the gospel is the fulfillment of Old Testament Prophecy. In Luke 4, Jesus stands up in the synagogue to read a scroll of Isaiah. He opens the scroll to Isaiah 61 and reads the first couple of sentences. He then sits down and says to the people, “Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing” (Lk. 4:21 ESV). Jesus was declaring that the prophecy of Isaiah was being fulfilled right then, in Jesus himself! This is a part of the teaching of Jesus that his disciples pick up on and preach after the resurrection. The gospel was “promised to the fathers” and “fulfilled” in Jesus (13:32,33 ESV). It is precisely this gospel that was spoken of by the prophets (Acts 10:42-43). On the Day of Pentecost Peter asserts that what was happening was “what was uttered through the prophet Joel” (Acts 2: 16 ESV). Again Peter proclaims that Jesus was “delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God” (Acts 2:23 ESV). The disciples preaching in Acts shows what Luke wanted to stress from the beginning of his writing in the book of Luke, namely that Jesus and his gospel is the fulfillment of the Old Testament.

Jesus declares that the purpose for which he was sent was to proclaim the gospel of the kingdom of God (Lk. 4:43). As was stated earlier, Luke never uses the noun εὐαγγέλιον (gospel) in the gospel of Luke. He prefers the verb εὐαγγελίζω (preach the gospel), which is the same word used in Isaiah 52:7 in the LXX. Isaiah declares, “How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him who brings good news (εὐαγγελίζω), who publishes peace, who brings good news (εὐαγγελίζω) of happiness, who publishes salvation, who says to Zion, ‘Your God reigns’ (Is. 52:7 ESV, emphasis added). Just as Isaiah prophesied by the Spirit that there was coming a day when God’s sovereign rule would break into the world in a special way, bringing blessing to his people, so Jesus announces its arrival (Lk. 8:1; 9:2, 60; 16:16). The sovereign rule of God in Christ on behalf of his people is an essential part of the gospel in Luke.[5] The gospel is “good news” because it declares “Your God reigns.” This is the gospel that Jesus preached. The gospel of Jesus Christ is not just good news, i.e. good news that the sins of the world are paid for, but good news that God is reigning sovereignty over all creation in Jesus Christ for the sake of his people and for his glory. It is “the gospel of the kingdom.” Even as Gabriel, the great messenger of the Old Testament is announcing the coming of the Christ he proclaims Jesus’ relationship to Israel. Gabriel says to Mary:

And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end (Lk. 1:31-33 ESV).

Jesus reigns on the throne of David, and brings salvation to his people (Lk. 2:30). So, the gospel is for Israel in that it is the good news that the Messiah has come who sits on the throne of David bringing justice and salvation.

The theme of the “gospel of the kingdom” is continued in the book of Acts. Even though, after the resurrection, Jesus has to correct the disciple’s understanding of the kingdom (Acts 1:6-8), nevertheless they preached the kingdom of God. From the earliest preaching of Phillip to the Samaritans in Acts 8 to the discourses of the apostle Paul in Acts 28, the kingdom of God was preached (Acts 5:42; 8:12; 20:25; 28:31).[6]

Gospel for All Peoples

The good news of the kingdom of God is not only for the Jews in Luke’s writing. Luke is careful to point out that from the beginning it was for all peoples. In Luke 2:32 it is “a light for revelation to the Gentiles, and for glory to your people Israel” (ESV). In Luke 24:47 the gospel begins at Jerusalem and goes out to all nations. In Acts 11:18 the disciples finally catch on that God has granted the grace of the good news to the Gentiles. The gospel of Jesus Christ is rooted in Jewish history. Jesus was born a Jew. The Father sent Jesus to the Jews as the heir of the throne of the Jewish king David. By sending Jesus God “has helped his servant Israel” (Lk. 1:54 ESV). The arrival of king Jesus meant glory for the people of Israel. But it also meant salvation and mercy and grace and “a light for revelation” for the Gentiles. It is clear in Luke that the gospel, even though a Jewish gospel, is meant for all the world.

Gospel of Repentance

The gospel is also a gospel of repentance. Why is it good news that mankind is hopelessly lost and in need of repentance? Because repentance is the doorway to the kingdom where all the blessings of salvation are to be found and all the horrors of being outside the kingdom are to be avoided (Lk. 13:3-5). If in Luke’s gospel the good news began with the birth of John who would “prepare the way for the Lord,” then the beginning of the gospel proclamation is the preaching of John.[7] John, from the beginning preached “a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins” (Lk. 3:3 ESV). Jesus came to call . . . sinners to repentance” (Lk. 5:32 ESV), and commanded his disciples that “repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem” (Lk. 24:47 ESV).

In obedience to Christ, Peter proclaims on the Day of Pentecost, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38 ESV). Again Peter declares, “Repent therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out” (Acts 3:19 ESV). Paul and Barnabas preached to the idol worshippers in the streets of Lystra, “we bring you good news, that you should turn from these vain things to a living God” (Acts 14:15 ESV, emphasis added). Paul preaches to the crowds gathered at Mars Hill that God “commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness . . . ” (Acts 17:30-31 ESV). Why is the gospel of repentance good news? It is good news because it is how sins get “blotted out.” It is good news because the God who commands this is the “living God,” not the dead gods of the pagans. This God can actually do something for humanity. It is good news because it is the means of escaping God’s righteous judgment on the world. The alternative is not good news.

Gospel that Grows

Luke’s gospel is also a gospel that grows. Luke Jesus’ “kingdom parables,” in which he says the kingdom of God is like a mustard seed, or leaven; both start out small and then grow over time (Lk. 13:18-21). It is in Luke’s first volume that the reader sees the beginnings of the gospel. In Acts Luke shows the growth of the gospel over time. Luke is fond of referring to the gospel as the “word of God” (Lk. 8:11; 11:28; Acts 4:31; 8:14, etc.). In Acts Luke records that “the word of God continued to increase (Acts 6:7 ESV, also Acts 8:4; 12:24; 13:49; 19:20). Luke repeats this refrain over and over again throughout the books of Acts. Indeed, the gospel began small, with just a handful of disciples in Judea. But it could not be contained. No less than a mustard seed dies in the ground but then becomes a great tree so that the birds nest in its branches, or no less than a small batch of yeast rises and gets larger and larger, so also the gospel of the kingdom, the word of the Lord spreads and grows to every region of the earth.[8]

Summary and Application

Luke’s gospel proclamation is a gospel that is not just mere facts that exist out there to be discovered by the scholarly and religious elite. It is a message to be proclaimed. Luke’s use of the verb εὐαγγελίζω rather than the noun εὐαγγέλιον may suggest that the gospel is more than knowledge to be learned and believed, but a gospel to be participated in. It is true that “the gospel” is the facts about Jesus and his death and resurrection, all of which are found in Luke-Acts, but that does not negate the fact that in Luke the gospel is what the church is about and what the church does. Jesus “preached good news.” The disciples “preached good news.” In Luke, this kind of action-oriented gospel is what characterizes the people of God.[9]

Therefore, the gospel must not only be believed in the church but it must also be proclaimed. It is not enough for the Christian church to believe that Jesus is the King of the ages and the only way of salvation, the church must preach that good news to everyone who will listen. The church must be filled with people who will “bring good news” (εὐαγγελίζω) to the nations, not just with people who believe it in their hearts and rejoice in it among themselves. Luke records this fact about the early believers: “Now those who were scattered went about preaching the word” (Acts 8:4 ESV). This must be a priority for gospel believing churches today. The good news must be preached.

Luke the historian is careful to show the breaking in of the gospel into the world in its proper historical setting.[10] The gospel came first to the Jews, for the Jews, by the Jews (through the Spirit) and about a Jew, namely Jesus of Nazareth. To separate the gospel from its original Jewish setting is detrimental to its force. If the good news is not connected to the historical events surrounding the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, then it is no good news at all; it would be just another religious idea. The fact is that the good news came in the context of Jewish life and history. The promises of God to the Christian church and the Old Testament promises of God to Israel are inseparable. Jesus came to fulfill those promises and establish the sovereign rule of God over his people and all the world. Angels in prophetic fashion announced the arrival of the good news of the kingdom.

Today’s gospel proclamation should be no less founded in the historical events of the 1^st century. The church must proclaim to the nations that Jesus came to reveal the God of the Jews to the world in the most real, most clear way imaginable. It is a gospel that proclaims the “God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth . . . (Acts 17:24 ESV). The church’s Jesus must not be a Jesus who is not Jewish in every way. Jesus must not be preached as a 5^th century Italian man, or a 16^th century German, or a 21^st century American. That is not to say that Jesus does not relate to all cultures everywhere. But the gospel must be rooted in the concrete historical facts that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah sent by the God of the Old Testament, the God of Israel to save his people and set up the kingdom which was promised to the Jewish king David long ago. A modern day gospel must be as relevant as possible to the current culture as well as ancient as the God of that gospel.

As was stated earlier, Jesus is relevant for all cultures everywhere, regardless of how far removed they may be from 1^st century Judaism. Indeed the gospel is for all peoples in that it was never meant to be for the Jews only. God made sure that the gospel did not stay in Jerusalem, but went out to “all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth” (Acts 1:8 ESV). What this means for the church today is that the gospel must not be held captive by cultural barriers. It is sin to believe the gospel but not take it to the nations. “Gospel hoarding” is especially prevalent in areas where there is much racial tension, like the Southern part of the U.S., as well as other parts of the country and world. To fail to proclaim the gospel to ones neighbors no matter their race or ethnic grouping is to contradict the gospel itself, which is for all the nations.

Luke’s emphasis on repentance is especially in need of being recovered today. Any gospel proclamation that does not include repentance is no gospel proclamation at all. The gospel is “good news, that [people] should turn from these vain things to a living God” (Acts 14:15 ESV). To take away repentance from the gospel of the kingdom of God is to take away the very door through which people are to enter the kingdom of God. This is not being faithful to the gospel. Repentance must be preached. The church must preach that people should repent and then prove their repentance by their deeds (Acts 26:20). There must be a turning away from sin in the hearts of all who would believe the gospel, or else they have not believed the gospel.[11] The gospel of repentance from sin must not be watered down for the sake of cultural trends or for fear of offending people and turning them away from the church.[12]

Luke’s stressing of the fact that the gospel starts out small and then grows is meant to be an encouragement for the church that preaches it. Just as the church began with only a few disciples and then exploded into a worldwide and world changing enterprise, so also does the gospel grow in one’s heart, or one’s community, or one’s nation. The good news of the kingdom of God will grow and grow until the Lord returns. Just as one might not see at first the growth of the mustard seed or the rising of the leaven, so also one might not be able to visibly see the growth of the gospel either in a person’s heart or in a nation or tribe. But that does not mean it is not growing. As in the days of the apostles as recorded in the book of Acts the word of the Lord will increase in the world and the gospel will grow until all the church is united in Christ in his day.

Conclusion

In the books of Luke and Acts there is a clear message about the gospel of Jesus Christ, even though Luke never calls it that. Luke uses the verb “to preach good news” when talking about the preaching of Jesus and the disciples rather than the noun “gospel.” Luke shows the gospel in its original context in 1^st century Palestine and notes that the good news comes from the Jews to the Jews by a Jew, Jesus. Luke shows this by recording the first announcer of the gospel, the angel Gabriel, who also revealed to word of the Lord to Daniel. There is a great connection in Luke-Acts between the New Covenant gospel and the Old Covenant God of Israel. Jesus is the Jewish Messiah who sits on the throne of David, and establishes the long awaited kingdom of God.

Luke’s gospel is also for the Gentiles too, i.e. the rest of humanity other than the Jews. From the beginning Luke says that the good news is for all peoples. The gospel in Luke-Acts is a gospel of repentance that deals with the problem of human sin and makes a way for sinful people to enter the sinless kingdom of God. This gospel for Luke is also a gospel that grows with time. It may start small, like the smallest of all seeds, but it ends up being a worldwide phenomenon. For Luke, it is this growing, Jewish-Gentile gospel of repentance that must be proclaimed in all the world in order for people gain access into the kingdom of God in Christ.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Geldenhuys, Norval. Commentary on the Gospel of Luke. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988

Kistemaker, Simon J. Exposition of the Acts of the Apostles. New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1990.

Marshall, I. Howard. The Gospel of Luke. NIGTC.. Exeter: The Paternoster Press/Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978.

Nolland, John. Word Biblical Commentary. Vol. 35A. Dallas: Word Books, Publisher, 1989.

Piper, John. God is the Gospel. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2005.

Polhill, John B. The New American Commentary. Vol. 26 Nashville: Broadman Press, 1992.

Ringe, Sharon H. Luke. Westminster Bible Companion. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995.

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

Walaskay, Paul W. Acts. Westminster Bible Companion. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1998.

[1] See Robert H. Stein, The New American Commentary, Vol. 24 (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1992), 77.

[2] Norval Geldenhuys, Commentary on the Gospel of Luke, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 71.

[3] Robert H. Stein, The New American Commentary, Vol. 24 (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1992), 77.

[4] John Nalland, Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 35A (Dallas: Word Books, Publisher, 1989), 35-36.

[5] See John Piper, God is the Gospel (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2005), 27.

[6] See Robert H. Stein, The New American Commentary, Vol. 24 (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1992), 78, for a greater discussion of this theme. Also see John B. Polhill, The New American Commentary, Vol. 26 (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1992), 545-548.

[7] See Robert H. Stein, The New American Commentary, Vol. 24 (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1992), 77.

[8] I. Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke, NIGTC (Exeter: The Paternoster Press/Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 559-560.

[9] Sharon H. Ringe, Luke, Westminster Bible Companion (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995), 72.

[10] Paul W. Walaskay, Acts, Westminster Bible Companion (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1998), 10-12.

[11] Simon J. Kistemaker, Exposition of the Acts of the Apostles, New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1990), 901.

[12]Robert H. Stein, The New American Commentary, Vol. 24 (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1992). Luke 3.3.

Stilling The Storm In The Synoptics :: Redaction And Significance

2007-08-30T21:38:00.000-07:00

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

2007-08-30T21:29:00.000-07:00

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

The Authority Of The Bible

2007-08-30T21:25:00.001-07:00

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

2007-08-30T21:19:00.000-07:00

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.

The Purpose Of The Law In Galatians 3:19-25 (Greek Exegesis)

2007-08-30T21:15:00.000-07:00

THE PURPOSE OF THE LAW IN GALATIANS 3:19-25

In his epistle to the Galatians, the apostle Paul is writing, as would a father to a wayward child. The Galatians have turned away from the faith of Christ, to a false gospel. He writes not only rebuke them in their error, but also to correct the problem by encouraging them to remain in the true faith. Paul spends a great deal of time in the early chapters of his letter telling the Galatians what the true gospel is and where it came from.

The great offence on the part of the Galatians is that they have forsaken justification by faith in Christ alone and turned to the Jewish law of circumcision for their justification before God. Paul had preached his gospel to them beforehand, they had accepted it as truth, and now they were being led astray to something that was not what Paul preached. Apparently there were false teachers among the churches of Galatia who were preaching this false gospel. In response to this, Paul begs an appropriate question of the Galatian Christians; ejnarxavmenoi pneuvmati nu'n sarki; ejpitelei'sqe—having begun by the Spirit, are you now being completed by the flesh? (Gal. 3:3). Paul questions them so as to point out to them the error of being set free from the law in Christ and then supposing to go back to the slavery of it for the living out of the Christian life. If the Galatians had indeed “begun by the Spirit,” then it logically followed that they should continue in the Spirit rather than turn to the Jewish law. Paul warned them of the curse of attempting to be justified by the law; ejpikatavrato" pa'" o}" oujk ejmmevnei pa'sin toi'" gegrammevnoi" ejn tw'/ biblivw/ tou' novmou tou' poih'sai aujtav (Gal. 3:10). So Paul asserts boldly, ejn novmw/ oujdei;" dikaiou'tai para; tw'/ qew,'—by the law no one will be justified before God (Gal. 3:11).

Paul’s argument here is that justification comes by faith in Christ, not by works of the law. Those who have received Christ by faith have received the promise made to Abraham through the offspring of Abraham, that is Christ. So, in light of this, it is foolish for the Galatians to suppose that they may be justified by works of the law, when the law has nothing to do with the promise made by God to Abraham. The promise was by faith from the beginning, and the law did not come until later, so it had no bearing on the promise already made, the covenant God ratified with Abraham. Paul declares in verse 17 that the novmo" does not cancel a diaqhvkhn prokekurwmevnhn uJpo; tou' qeou', neither does it nullify the ejpaggeliva, the promise made to Abraham. The law came 430 years after the covenant ratified by God, and so it has no effect on the promise made to Abraham. So for Jew and Gentile alike, it is foolish to trust in the law to bring about justification before God when the promise of God’s grace is by faith and has always been by faith.

The question then remains: Tiv ou\n oJ novmo"—why then the law (Gal. 3:19)? If the promise of justification comes by faith and has been such since the covenant made to Abraham, what was the purpose of the law? Why did God give the law to Moses? Why did the law serve such a prominent role in Jewish history? The law, as Paul will show was given to serve a temporary role in salvation history, and would be rendered invalid at the coming of faith in Christ. Paul shows how the law was inferior to the promise in that the law could not give life, was given indirectly from God to humans by the hands of mediators, and that the law was a guardian in charge of keeping or imprisoning people under sin. On the other hand the promise of Christ that is by faith gives life and justification apart from the law.

Paul’s answer to the question of the law’s purpose, in short, is that the law was given tw'n parabavsewn cavrin—because of transgressions. BDAG remarks that the law was given in the interest of transgressions or for their sake; the purpose of the law was to make sins possible and readily apparent.[1] In this view, the law was added (prosetevqh) to the revelation of the promise of God to Abraham in order to make sins knowable and visible to the people of God, a view which is consistent with other Pauline texts such as Romans 3:20; 5:13, and 7:7. The law was added to “reveal”[2] transgressions.

The law surely served in this capacity, but it also served to multiply, even provoke sins. Ronald Y. K. Fung suggests that the use of cavrin indicates the purpose of the law, not its cause. In other words, the law was not added because of transgressions in the sense that God added the law in response to the existence of sin. No, the law was added with a specific purpose in mind for its existence, something that Paul will explain further throughout Galatians 3, and also something he illustrates in other texts his letters. The law then served a negative role rather than a positive one.[3]

Richard N. Longenecker remarks, in opposition to Fung’s position, that the law was added simply to bring the knowledge of sin. He completely rejects the notion of the law provoking or multiplying transgressions, seeing no reason for God desiring to increase sin before the coming of the Messiah.[4]

Both Fung and Longenecker agree, however that the law served a specific purpose in the history of redemption, but was only temporary. The law served its purpose a[cri" ou| e[lqh/ to; spevrma w|/ ejphvggeltai—until the seed to whom the promise had been made should come. The word a[cri" used with the relative pronoun ou| simply means until, denoting the extent of time[5] in which the law will serve its purpose. The law was given a role in history up until the time that the seed, the offspring of Abraham, should come to whom the promise of Abraham had been made. That seed is Christ (v. 16).

Paul says that the law was ordered through angels—diatagei;" di j ajggevlwn, by the hand of a mediator—ejn ceiri; mesivtou. Apparently, Yahweh used his angels to give the law to Moses on Mt. Sinai, who would in turn give the law to the people of Israel. J. B. Lightfoot notes that there was a two-fold mediation from God to the people: the angels between Yahweh and Moses, and Moses between the angels and the people. Lightfoot makes the comparison between the law, which was not given directly by God to the people, and Christ who came directly from God to mankind, with no mediator between the two parties but himself, who is God in flesh.[6] Paul posits the idea of angelic mediation here to illustrate the superiority of the covenant of promise over the covenant of the law.[7]

In verse 20, Paul explains that the fact that the law was given through mediation implies that it was a contract between two parties, Yahweh and Israel, both of which must keep their end of the bargain for the covenant to remain in effect.[8] The ESV translates oJ de; mesivth" eJno;" oujk e[stin, “an intermediary implies more than one” (Gal. 3:20, ESV). So there was more than one party involved in the covenant the law, but God, who made the promise to Abraham and swore to uphold it is one—oJ de; qeo;" ei|" ejstin. DeV here is meant as a contrast between the former statement and the later. There is then a contrast between the law, which was dependent on two parties, and the promise of Abraham, which is dependent on God alone who had sworn to uphold it. In other words the law was contingent, but the promise is absolute and unconditional.[9] God is one (Deut. 6:4), and the promise is built on and depends on his character and power alone.

At this point the contrast between the law and the promise has been so strong that Paul deals with an obvious question: oJ ou\n novmo" kata; tw'n ejpaggeliw'n[10] tou' qeou'—is the law then against the promises of God? It is easy to see why this question should be asked. If the law came 430 years after the covenant made with Abraham, and could not nullify the promise of God, and was only added multiply transgressions among God’s people, then it seems that it worked against the covenant of grace. Did the law then “take the place of”[11] the promise so as to bring justification apart from the promise? The apostle emphatically counters mh; gevnoito—may it never be!

Paul explains that if a law had been given that was able to give life—eij ga;r ejdovqh novmo" oJ dunavmeno" zw/opoih'sai, then righteousness would certainly be available ejk novmou—by the law. So in other words, if it were possible to obtain the righteousness of God by works of any law, then the law of Moses would have indeed been kata; tw'n ejpaggeliw'n tou' qeou'—against the promises of God. The promise of God was by faith—ejk pivstew" (v. 11), and the law was in no way contrary to the promise because the law could not produce righteousness. The participle oJ dunavmeno" is attributive to novmo", meaning the able law to put it woodenly, i.e. a law that was able zw/opoih'sai—to give life, or the able to give life law. As will be seen in the next verse, this was not that kind of law. The if/then construction in this verse is known as a second-class condition, or a condition contrary to the fact.[12] If there were such a thing as a law that could bring life and justification before God, which there is not, then the Law of Moses would indeed have produced righteousness in its adherents. Because there is no such thing as this kind of law, then the law only kills; it does not give life. It does not help; it just leaves one helpless. It does not deliver from sin; it simply keeps one locked in sin.

Rather than the law being able to give life and righteousness, the scripture has imprisoned all things—sunevkleisen hJ grafh; ta; pavnta under sin—uJpo; aJmartivan. BDAG suggests that all things were “locked in” under the “power of sin.”[13] Paul may have in mind a specific scripture, namely Deuteronomy 27:26. This would be consistent with Paul’s use of grafh; throughout his epistles. However, it may be the case that Paul is departing here from his usual use of grafh; and using the singular “scripture” to refer to the Old Testament as a whole. It seems that Paul’s case cannot be clearly deducted from the Deuteronomy passage or any other single passage, but it can be drawn out of the whole of Old Testament witness.[14] Paul has the scripture actually doing what it declares to have been done.[15] Scripture can be seen as the magistrate responsible for holding prisoners. Fung remarks that Paul is here equating the scriptures with God himself as the subject, the imprisoning agent.[16] This is a bold assertion, that Yahweh, by his word would imprison his people under the power and control of sin. This is similar to what is said in Romans 11:32: sunevkleisen ga;r oJ qeo;" tou;" pavnta" eij" ajpeivqeian—for God has imprisoned everyone in disobedience. God has locked everyone up in subjection to sin and its condemnation, offering them no way of escape through the law.[17]

What the law accomplished then was imprisonment and bondage. If the purpose of the law was to imprison, the purpose of the imprisonment was freedom—i{na hJ ejpaggeliva ejk pivstew" jIhsou' Cristou' doqh'/ toi'" pisteuvousin. The law imprisoned the Jews[18] so that the promise of Abraham might be given by faith to those who believe. At first thought this sounds absurd. However, God’s plan was to use Israel as a depository of the gospel of Christ in order to reconcile the world to himself.

Verse 23 explains that before the coming of faith, or before faith came—Pro; tou' de; ejlqei'n th;n pivstin—that is, before faith in Christ came, the Jews were being guarded under the law—uJpo; novmon ejfrourouvmeqa. They were being kept as prisoners (sugkleiovmenoi) for a period of time, until the coming of the gospel of Christ—eij" th;n mevllousan pivstin ajpokalufqh'nai, until the faith that was destined to be revealed should come. The NEB translates well the phrase, “pending the revelation of faith.” The coming of faith and the coming of the Christ are one and the same.[19]

The law was meant for a specific and temporary role that would be rendered invalid once Jesus came on the scene. The law served as a guardian (paidagwgo;") until Christ came—eij" Cristovn. A paidagwgo;" was a slave of high rank charged with watching over a children until they came of age (Gal. 4:1-2). The term paidagwgo;" conveys the idea of stringent and guarded supervision of a child.[20] The Mosaic law then was not only a means of imprisoning the Jews in sin, but very imprisonment was used as a kind of custodian whose responsibility was to set boundaries for the Jews. Fung and Longenecker both agree that the law was not a teacher in the modern sense, one who instructs children to do good. Rather, the law was the slave guardian charged with keeping children in a certain condition or circumstance: to make sure they stayed safely where they were, much like a prison guard. The law served a disciplinary and custodial function, not an educational one.[21] Therefore the law was not designed to “lead us to Christ” (see Gal. 3:24, KJV, NIV).

The preposition eij" can signify motion towards something or motion into something, thus making possible the translation unto Christ, or to Christ. But it is more likely that it simply signifies here the temporal sense of the duration of the law. The law would be in effect, imprisoning the people until the coming of Christ when it would then be rendered invalid.[22] So the law was not Christ-ward, but simply until Christ. The law was not positive preparation for Christ, not a teacher or schoolmaster to lead people to Christ (KJV, NIV). Paul’s language simply indicates the temporary function of the law in the history of redemption.[23] That means that this passage has no direct application to the way a person comes to Christ today, but rather that Paul is just recounting historical facts. This does not mean that the law should not be used in preaching to bring knowledge of sin, but simply that Paul is speaking of something different in this passage.

Again in verse 24 Paul asserts that the reason for the law, the imprisonment under sin, and the moral imprisonment of the Jews was that they, and the rest of the world might be justified by faith—i{na ejk pivstew" dikaiwqw'men. It seems like Paul is being double tongued here. He first says that the law could not give life and that its purpose was to enslave under sin, but then he goes on to say that the reason for the law’s work in salvation history was in order that we might be justified by faith. Which is it? The law only served the direct role of prison guard and custodian. But in the end, it has served God’s ultimate purpose; the redemption of the world. So it was not the immediate purpose of the law to bring anyone to Christ, but God used the law to work toward his ultimate goal for his people.[24]

Paul next makes as bold a statement about the relationship of the law and the believer as one can make—ejlqouvsh" de; th'" pivstew" oujkevti uJpo; paidagwgovn ejsmen—but now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian. In other words, the law now has no bearing on the Christian life. This does not mean that the believer is free to commit lawlessness, but that those who believe are justified apart from the works of the law and are free from its bondage and requirements. Righteousness has come by faith in Christ, who is the fulfillment of the law.

So then, the purpose of the law was only temporary, and it lasted only until the coming of the Messiah who would set free those who were imprisoned under its curse. The law came later than the promise given by God to Abraham, and is therefore inferior to the promise. The promise is of Abraham and his seed, i.e. Jesus Christ is by faith, and faith is superior to and in contrast to the works of the law. The law could never have given life, only it kept people imprisoned under the consequences of sin, waiting for the day when Christ would come to set the captives free. The Law of Moses did not directly influence anyone toward faith in Christ, but it did serve God’s ultimate purpose for the salvation of his people, according to the promise of faith in Christ to all who believe. To God be the glory!

[1] BDAG, 1079.

[2] J. B. Lightfoot, The Epistle of St. Paul to the Galatians, A Revised Text with Introductions, Notes, and Dissertations, 10^th ed. Pradis Bible Software (The Zondervan Corporation), CD-Rom, 2002).

[3] Ronald Y. K. Fung, The Epistle to the Galatians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988), 159-160.

[4] Richard N. Longenecker, Galatians, Word Biblical Commentary, v. 41 (Dallas, Texas: Word Books, 1990), 138, 148.

[5] BDAG, 160.

[6] Lightfoot, Galatians.

[7] Fung, 162.

[8] Lightfoot, Galatians.

[9] Lightfoot, Galatians.

[10] Lightfoot remarks that the plural is used for the promise here, as well as in v. 16 because the promise was spoken to Abraham on several occasions. See Genesis 12:2-3, 13:15-16, 17:8.

[11] Lightfoot, Galatians.

[12] Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, An Exegetical Syntaz of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1996), 694.

[13] BDAG, 952.

[14] Fung, Galatians, 164.

[15] Lightfoot, Galatians.

[16] Fung, Galatians, 164. See Romans 11:32.

[17] Fung, Galatians, 164-165.

[18] Fung believes that the transition from the 1^st person plural pronoun “we,” implied in ejfrourouvmeqa and sugkleiovmenoi, in verse 23 to the 2^nd person plural pronoun “you,” implied in verse 26 (ejste) is incidental. He suggests that the “we” includes the later “you,” referring to and including both Jews and Gentiles alike as the recipients of the imprisonment under the law (Fung, Galatians, 167). This is consistent with other Pauline passages (Rom. 3), even though there are some scholars who would disagree with Fung’s position. However, regardless of whether it is incidental or not, the meaning is not much changed. The point here is that the law imprisoned, but the promise gives freedom and life.

[19] Fung, Galatians, 168.

[20] Lightfoot, Galatians.

[21] Fung, Galatians, 169, also Longenecker, Galatians, 146. See especially Longenecker’s reference to Plato’s use of paidagwgo;", 146.

[22] Longenecker, Galatians, 148-149.

[23] Ibid.

[24] Longenecker, Galatians, 149.

Did Christ Die For The Cherokee? :: A Defense of the Doctrine of Limited Atonement

2007-08-30T21:10:00.000-07:00

DID CHRIST DIE FOR THE CHEROKEE?

A Defense of the Doctrine of Limited Atonement

In the early part of the 1^st century A.D. the Han Dynasty ruled over most of the territory of modern day China. The Maya peoples were thriving in the Yucatan Peninsula, and the Cherokee Indians were settling in the Appalachian mountains of what is now the United States of America. One could think of many examples of peoples all over the globe who lived about the time that Jesus was dying on the cross. This begs the question: Could these peoples say with the same certainty as the apostle Paul that Jesus “loved me and gave himself for me” (Gal. 2:20, ESV)? Did Christ give up his life for every member of the human race? Did he die for all men in the same way, or was there a special efficacious union between his death and his individual followers from which others are excluded? Did Christ die a substitutionary death for the Cherokee Indians of North America who were alive at the time of the crucifixion and resurrection, but who died centuries before the good news could reach them? If the nature of Christ’s atonement is substitution, then what was its extent? The real question of the atonement is: “on whose behalf did Christ offer himself as a sacrifice?”[1]

The atonement is the crowning jewel of Christian theology and one must be a careful student of the Bible to discover the answers to the questions concerning the accomplishment of Christ’s death. As J.M. Pendleton states it: “The death of Christ is the most important event that has ever taken place in the universe. His cross is invested with a moral grandeur to be seen nowhere else in the boundless empire of space.”[2] There are several factors that give credence to the reformed doctrine of limited or particular atonement. These include the witness of the Bible, the witness of history, the idea of covenant and the doctrine of divine election, and the doctrine of Christ’s high priestly work.

The Witness of the Bible

The author of Hebrews states that “when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come,then through the greater and more perfect tent . . . he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption” (Heb. 9:11-12 ESV, emphasis added). For whom did Christ secure this eternal redemption? Again he states: “Therefore he [Christ] is a mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant” (Heb. 9:15 ESV, emphasis added). So, here in the book of Hebrews it is said that Christ actually secured eternal redemption and that it was for those who are called by God. The cross was for those in Israel who were called, having committed trespasses “under the first covenant,” and for the called of all the ages. In this passage is found both the nature and the extent of the atonement of Christ.[3] Jesus died for God’s elect.[4]

According to the scriptures, the nature of the atonement is one of redemption, reconciliation, propitiation, and substitution (Eph. 1:7; Rom. 5:11; 1 Jn. 4:10; 1 Pet. 3:18). An understanding of its extent is bound up in questions such as whom did Christ reconcile to God?, for whom did Christ propitiate the wrath of God?, and whom did he redeem?[5] Some claim that these terms mean that God so altered the world in Christ that all men are now “rendered savable,”[6] while others maintain that these terms are definite in nature with respect to a certain number of the human race, namely the elect.

With regard to the nature of redemption, it seems unreasonable to suggest that there is a redemption that does not actually redeem.[7] According to John Murray, redemption means that something was actually redeemed at the cross; it is not the case that Christ merely made redemption available, but that he actually redeemed.[8] Murray maintains:

“It is to beggar the concept of redemption as an effective securement of release by price…to construe it as anything less than the effectual accomplishment which secures the salvation of those who are its objects. Christ did not come to put men in a redeemable position but to redeem to himself a people.”[9]

Others, such as August Pfeiffer, hold the position, based on the same scriptural evidence, that “Jesus redeemed and made satisfaction for all men.”[10]

With regard to propitiation, Roger Nicole states, “God is actually appeased and he does not deal any further in terms of his righteous anger with those who are under the benefit of propitiation.”[11] Pfeiffer’s position seems to indicate that God’s anger toward sin is satisfied and turned away from all men equally. Pfeiffer makes no attempt to deny the efficacy of redemption or propitiation, but at the same time holds that it was not limited in scope. He is forced to say, then, that God has provided a perfect redemption and propitiation in Christ, but that he makes it contingent upon the response of people, so as to avoid the error of universalism.[12] However, as A. W. Pink argues, “To say that salvation turns upon the sinner’s own acceptance of Christ would be like offering a sum of money to a blind man upon the condition that he would see.”[13]

Murray argues that atonement something that has already happened upon the death of Christ as an offering for sin.[14] Murray says:

“In the atonement something was accomplished once for all, without any participation or contribution on our part. A work was perfected which antedates any and every recognition or response on the part of those who are its beneficiaries.”[15]

The same argument can be applied to the idea of substitution. Penal substitution is consistent only with a doctrine of definite atonement, because of its nature. It has been well said, “A substitute which does not substitute is not a substitution.”[16] Substitution implies that Christ has literally taken the place of the sinners, dying the death that was due them, and rendering them right with God. It is inconceivable to think that those who are rendered right with God based on the substitutionary death of Christ should still suffer the penalty of their sins.

And what of reconciliation? The apostle Paul states, “In Christ God was reconcilingthe world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them” (2 Cor. 5:19 ESV). How is it that people are reconciled to God? It is through the substitutionary, propitiatory, redemptive death of Christ. It is true that in this same passage Paul implores his readers to “be reconciled to God,” but this is to be regarded in the same sense that the apostle elsewhere speaks of salvation in general. Reconciliation is something that God has done in Christ on behalf of the elect, but it still remains that it be played out in each of their lives in conversion. While it may be argued that the sinner has something to do with reconciliation before it actually occurs, this may not be said of redemption and propitiation. Redemption and propitiation are means by which sinners are reconciled to God.

It cannot be the case that reconciliation by propitiation and redemption has occurred on behalf of those who do not believe in Christ and who die in their sins. If God has truly not counted their trespasses against them, then he would be exacting double payment for their offense, one when Christ died as their substitute and another when they are punished in hell forever. Nowhere does the Bible teach that God should require a double payment for sins. God neither forgives sin apart from satisfaction, nor does he punish sin where satisfaction has been paid.[17] To say that those for whom Christ died still have to pay for sin by dying in hell is as errant as saying that the elect who are given to Christ do not enjoy the benefits of the atonement. One is as illogical as the other. God does not demand double payment for sin.[18]

In Romans 5, Paul compares Adam to Christ. Adam represents the human race: “Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men,” and Christ re-represents the human race: “so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men” (Rom. 5:18, ESV). At first glance this passage might be said to give credence to the doctrine of universal salvation. Those who wish to have Christ dying for all men equally but who do not wish to fall into universalism interpret this verse as meaning that Christ has made salvation possible for “all men,” upon the condition that they should take advantage of what was done for them.[19] However, there is a better explanation. Verse 19 makes the meaning more obvious: “For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous” (Rom. 5:19, ESV). Adam represented one group of “many”, the whole human race, and Christ represented another group of “many,” the elect. It cannot be that Christ represented every member of the human race because he brought justification and life and righteous to all whom he represented, just as Adam brought judgment to all whom he represented. It is clear that Paul speaks of “actual justification,”[20] and if he means every member of the human race, then Paul teaches universalism. The context demands a limited or particular atonement.

John Murray points out the efficacious nature of the death of Christ on behalf of sinners by referring to passages that claim that those for whom Christ died also died in Christ, and that all those who died with Christ also were raised with him (Rom. 6:3-11; 2 Cor. 5:14,15; Eph. 2:4-7; Col. 3:3).[21] In 2 Corinthians 5:14-15, the apostle declares, “one has died for all, therefore all have died; and he died for all, that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised,” (ESV). Here is seen the purpose and the effect of the atonement. Christ died so that people would live for him, and the effect of his death is the death of those who will in fact live for him. If the “all” mentioned by Paul here refers to each and every member of the human race, then it follows that each and every member of the human race has died in Christ and will forsake themselves and devote their lives to him.

To those in the reformed tradition, the Bible is clear that Jesus’ death had a special and particular reference to his people. Hebrews 13:12 declares that “Jesus also suffered outside the gate in order to sanctify the people through his own blood” (ESV, emphasis added). Here the relationship between the Old Testament sacrifice on the Yom Kippur and the atonement made by Christ is seen. The Day of Atonement sacrifice was for the people (Heb. 9:7), that is, the people of Israel with whom God had made a covenant. It was not for the people of the nations surrounding Israel. It had a definite reference to a specific group of people. So also, Christ offered himself as a sacrifice for God’s covenant people, i.e. the elect of all the ages.

Louis Berkhof notes that Caiaphas the high priest, speaking by the Holy Spirit, prophesies correctly that Jesus would die for the nation of Israel, and “not for the nation only, but also to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad” (John 11:51-52, ESV).[22] The words of the high priest are consistent with the rest of the biblical witness concerning the extent of the work of Christ. Matthew 1:21 states that Jesus “will save his people from their sins" (ESV, emphasis added). Titus 2:14 says Christ “gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works” (ESV, emphasis added). Ephesians 2:16 says that Christ died in order that he “might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross. . .” (ESV emphasis added). Jesus said, “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep” (Jn. 10:11, ESV, emphasis added). Jesus spoke about himself and his work in limited terms. To the Pharisees he said, “You do not believe because you are not part of my flock. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand” (Jn. 10:26-30, ESV, emphasis added). Many other passages could be cited that speak of the atonement in limited or definite terms (John 17:1-11, 20, 24-26; John 10:14-18; John 15:18; Matthew 20:28; Matthew 26:28; Isaiah 53; Acts 20:28; Ephesians 5:25-27; Romans 8:32-34; Revelation 5:9).

It is argued that passages that state that Jesus died for his people need not be interpreted in a way that makes his death exclusive to his people. If Jesus did in fact die for the whole human race, then it would not be wrong to say that he died for the church as a part of the whole.[23] So those who maintain that the atonement was for each member of the human race without exception interpret these verses in just such a manner. It may be pointed out, however, that those who hold to a particular atonement may do the same with passages that suggest a universal atonement, with good, biblical exegesis. According to J. M. Pendleton, Christ died primarily for mankind as a whole, and only secondarily for the church as a part of the whole. That Christ died for the church is less important than that he died for the whole. That he died for individual sinners personally is simply “a joyous appropriation of the blessings of salvation.”[24] Pendleton’s position is untenable in that it depersonalizes the cross.[25]

The Witness of History

Perhaps the most classical expression of the doctrine of limited or definite atonement is found in the writings of John Owen. In his classic The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, Owen argues:

“God imposed his wrath due unto, and Christ underwent the pains of hell for, either all the sins of all men, or all the sins of some men, or some sins of all men. If the last, some sins of all men, then have all men some sins to answer for, and so shall no man be saved…If the second, that is it which we affirm, that Christ in their stead and room suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the world. If the first, why, then, are not all freed from the punishment of all their sins? You will say, ‘Because of their unbelief; they will not believe.’ But this unbelief, is it a sin or not? If not, why should they be punished for it? If it be, then Christ underwent the punishment due to it, or not. If so, then why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which he died from partaking of the fruit of his death? If he did not, then did he not die for all their sins. Let them choose which part they will…To affirm Christ to die for all men is the readiest way to prove that he died for no man.”[26]

It must be admitted that Owen’s reasoning is difficult to argue to the contrary. Christ either died to forgive all the sins of all for whom he died, or he did not. As Loraine Boettner aptly puts it, for the Calvinist, the atonement is a “narrow bridge” that extends all the way across a river, but for those who reject the reformed doctrine, the atonement is but a “wide bridge” that extends only half way across.[27] If the salvation of men is only half accomplished, then all are in trouble.

John Calvin, in his Institutes of the Christian Religion, speaks of the special relationship connecting Christ’s death to his followers. Although Calvin never explicitly spells out a doctrine of limited atonement, he never speaks in a way that would lead the reader to suspect him of holding to a universal or general atonement. For example, Calvin says, “Christ enriches his people with everything necessary to the eternal salvation of their souls.”[28] And again, he holds that God is “the deliverer of the church by the hand of Christ.”[29] Calvin explicitly states, “God was enemy to every man, till by the death of Christ they were restored to his favor.”[30] Here Calvin speaks of the enemies of God, namely “men.” He clearly does not mean to say that all men have been restored to God. Calvin speaks of the church as being loved by God from before creation, and that this love is the basis for his sending Christ to restore them.[31] Calvin, in light of his doctrine of double predestination[32], does in fact teach a limited or particular atonement.

Another scholarly work is that of Charles Hodge:

“If it were just that all men should perish on account of their sin it was just to leave a portion of the race thus to perish, while the salvation of the other portion is a matter of unmerited favor…Christ did not die equally for all mankind, but that He gave Himself for his people and for their redemption.”[33]

Hodge maintains that particular redemption is the orthodox position on the atonement by labeling his own view the Augustinian doctrine. Says Hodge,

“Augustine, the follower and expounder of St. Paul, taught that God out of his mere good pleasure had elected some to everlasting life, and held that Christ came into the world to suffer and die for their salvation. He purchased them with his own precious blood.”[34]

From Augustine to Calvin, from Spurgeon to Edwards, history is replete with godly men who, in their own Spirit-led studies of the word of God, held the doctrine of particular redemption as the orthodox position on the atonement.

Objections to the Reformed Doctrine

The Reformed doctrine of definite atonement is rejected on many fronts, not the least of which is the small number of scripture passages that seem to speak of the atonement in universal terms. For example, Hebrews 2:9 states, “But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone” (ESV, emphasis added). It is said that this teaches a universal atonement, that Jesus “tasted death” for each and every member of the human race.[35]

From careful exegesis it may be seen that it is not necessary to find a universal atonement in this passage. First, the context demands only that the “everyone” of verse 9 refer to the “many sons” and the “children” in verses 10 and 13 (Heb. 2:10, 13, ESV). John Murray affirms:

“It is this that supplies us with the scope and reference of the ‘everyone’ for whom Christ tasted death. Christ did taste death for every son to be brought to glory and for all the children whom God had given him. But there is not the slightest warrant in this text to extend the reference of the vicarious death of Christ beyond those who are most expressly referred to in the context. This text shows how plausible off-hand quotation may be and yet how baseless in such an appeal in support of a doctrine of universal atonement.”[36]

According to Murray, Hebrews 2:9 must be interpreted in light of its immediate context.

Secondly, there is in this verse evidence of a larger context that is less specific to atonement, and more specific to the idea expressed in Psalm 8. God’s purpose for man, namely that of dominion over all things, was fulfilled in Christ who “tasted death” in order to accomplish the vision of the Psalmist.[37] Where Calvin saw substitution meant by use of the preposition uJper,[38] William Lane takes the phrase uJper panto" to mean “on behalf of everyone”.[39] The meaning of the prepositional phrase here could be either one, and the context of Psalm 8 does not rule out substitution, but it does take the emphasis off of atonement and makes it a more general statement about Christ fulfilling for the human race what God had intended for them since creation. Either Murray’s or Lane’s interpretation fits the context of Hebrews 2:9 better than the idea of universal atonement.

And then there is 1 John 2:2: “He [Jesus] is the propitiation for our sins and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world” (ESV, emphasis added). This verse is used as certain evidence against the doctrine of limited atonement.[40] It is said that this verse not only proves that the atonement not only had some reference to the whole human race, but that it was actually a propitiation for the sins of each and every person on earth. While August Pfeiffer mocks those of the reformed faith for relying to heavily on logic and reason in their theology,[41] he still must use reason to avoid universalism. It is a huge logical jump to claim that Jesus actually propitiated the wrath of God, that because of Christ God no longer counts people’s sins against them, and that the sacrifice was for the sins of every person, and at the same time claim that it does not result in universal salvation for every person. Here indeed is a doctrine that must be logically deduced from one’s own hermeneutic.

Much has been said regarding this passage in response to the idea that John means universal propitiation for all sins. Louis Berkhof points out that the term “world” (kosmos) means different things in different passages (Lk 2.1; Jn 1.10; Acts 11.28; 19.27; 24.5; Rom 1.8; Col 1.6), and that even in reference to men it does not always mean all men, i.e. each and every member of the human race (Jn 7.4; 12.19; 14.22; 18.20; Rom 11.12, 15).[42] Gary Long mentions that kosmos is never used universally in a salvation context outside of John, and that John himself uses the term in a way that cannot possibly mean every person (1 Jn 5.19).[43]

John Murray cites three reasons why John might use universal language in his letter to the church. According to Murray, John’s reasons are as follows. 1) The scope of Jesus’ atonement was not just John’s immediate community, but to every nation, 2) that everyone in the world needs propitiation. The sacrifice of Jesus is the only way for all peoples and 3) the propitiation of Jesus is ongoing in its effects to the whole world, to the end.[44] With regard to the universal language employed by the apostle John in his writings (Jn. 1:29; 3:16; I Jn. 2:2, etc.), Long cites B. B. Warfield’s doctrine of “eschatological universalism.”[45] According to Warfield, Jesus came to save the world, and at the end of the age the entire world will in fact be saved, that is, the entire world at that time.[46] A better explanation of John’s universalism is what Long refers to as an “ethnological interpretation.”[47] John uses world just as Paul does in Romans 11:11-15, that is, relatively; Jesus came to secure the salvation of his people from every nation of the earth (see Rev. 5:9). This is what A. W. Pink calls “relative universality” in John.[48] According to Kuiper, it is the Calvinist who is most capable of being an “ardent universalist” in the biblical sense. He above all can be deeply committed to “scriptural universalism.”[49] All of the previous arguments are sufficient to prove that it is not necessary to find universal atonement in John’s first epistle.

Another passage commonly cited against the doctrine of limited atonement is 2 Peter 2:1: “But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction” (ESV, emphasis added). It is said that the atonement must have been universal in extent because here it is said that Christ “bought” false teachers whose end is destruction.[50] As Robert Lightner puts it: “Christ paid the ransom price even for those who deny him.”[51]

In response, Long argues that Peter is referencing the song of Moses (Deut. 32.6), rather than teaching that Christ paid a ransom price for these false teachers. He maintains that Christ, in his sovereignty, acquired these false teachers as a part of his church to show his glory in condemning them, making mention of the purpose Peter cites in verses 4 and 9 of the same chapter.[52] Pink would agree, claiming that this verse presents no problem to his view of limited atonement. There is a difference between buying and redeeming. There is buying like you buy a field, and then there is buying in the relational sense, redeeming, which is more personal. This verse simply says that Christ bought everyone in the same sense that a man might buy or acquire a field.[53] A more plausible interpretation, however, is that of R. B. Kuiper. Kuiper maintains that Peter speaks of the false teachers in relation to how they presented themselves to the church. They presented themselves as redeemed teachers and this is how Peter refers to them, even though he goes on to explain their actual end.[54] This seems to best account for the manner in which Peter is speaking. Murray points out that it is not taught in the Bible that those for whom Christ made died should perish; actually just the opposite is true (Jn. 6:38-39).[55]

Yet another verse that may be wielded against the reformed view is 1 Timothy 4:10: “For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe” (ESV, emphasis added). It may be said that God is the “savior of all people” by those who argue for universal atonement, but what do they do with the last phrase—“especially those who believe?” Kuiper interprets this verse in the sense that God is the savior, i.e. preserver of all men. For Kuiper, God is a lover of all men, even the non-elect, providing them with common grace. This grace was also purchased in the atonement. But even though God loves all men everywhere as his creatures, he loves and saves the elect in a special way. Therefore, it can be said that God is both savior of all men, but especially to those who believe.[56] Millard Erickson agrees and says that Christ died in some way for both believers and non-believers.[57] Charles Hodge maintains both to be true, that in one sense Christ died for all, yet in another he died only for the elect.[58] While the term “limited atonement” may not capture the whole of the work of Christ, despite its inadequacies, unless one is ready to believe in universalism, one cannot have an unlimited atonement. According to John Murray, those who hold to a general atonement have a limited atonement with respect to its very character; general atonement is a cheapening of the work of Christ.[59]

The Idea of Covenant and the Doctrine of Divine Election

It is clear from scripture Christ died “in execution of a covenant in which his people were promised to him as his reward.”[60] Christ fulfilled his part of the covenant God was making with mankind in that “he rendered the obedience required of all, and suffered the penalty which all had incurred.”[61] This covenant is spelled out in Jeremiah 31:31-34 which is also referenced by the author of Hebrews (Heb. 8:8-13). It is, for Charles Hodge, the nature of this covenant that determines the nature and extent of the atonement.[62] Election and Covenant are seen as being closely related. Christ’s redeeming work was definite in both its intent and its extent. It’s purpose and result was to make total satisfaction for a select group of sinners whom God chose out of the world, and to actually make certain the salvation of those individuals to the exclusion of the non-elect. “Redemption, therefore, was designed to bring to pass God’s purpose of election.”[63] If there was a covenant between the Father and the Son with reference to the elect, then it follows that Christ’s death be for the elect. It is not necessary to apply it any further. If it were unjust to have Christ die for only the elect, would not also be unjust for God to elect in the first place? Hodge points out that the doctrine of limited atonement was never rejected until the doctrine of sovereign election was rejected. Hodge states it this way:

“The one doctrine necessarily involves the other. If God from eternity determined to save one portion of the human race and not another, it seems to be a contradiction to say that the plan of salvation had equal reference to both portions; that the Father sent his Son to die for those whom He had predetermined not to save, as truly as, and in the same sense that He gave Him up for those whom He had chosen to make the heirs of salvation.”[64]

For Hodge, these two doctrines go hand in hand.

It was a special love for his covenant people that motivated Christ to die, not some generic sense of benevolence to every sinner on earth. It is a mistake and a contradiction to say that God’s love for those whom he has not chosen was what caused Christ to die on the cross. The doctrine of universal atonement is not consistent with the doctrine of divine election. This is true whether one believes in a conditional or unconditional election. Christ not only made salvation possible, he made salvation sure and efficacious.[65] It is a contradiction to say that God sent Jesus to die for those whom he had already determined not to save.[66]

Christ as High Priest

Another significant factor in determining the extent of the atonement is the High Priestly work of Christ, in comparison to the work of the High Priest in the Old Testament. According to Charles Hodge:

“The unity of the priestly office rendered the functions of the priesthood inseparable. The high-priest interceded for all those for whom he offered sacrifice. The one service did not extend beyond the other. He bore upon his breast the names of the twelve tribes. He represented them in drawing near to God. He offered sacrifices for their sins on the great day of atonement, and for them he interceded, and for no others. The sacrifice and the intercession went together. What was true of the Aaronic priests, is true of Christ. The former, we are told, were the types of the latter. Christ’s functions as priest are in like manner united. He intercedes for all for whom He offered Himself as a sacrifice. He himself, however, says expressly, ‘I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me.’ (John xvii. 9.) Him the Father heareth always, and, therefore, He cannot be assumed to intercede for those who do not actually receive the benefits of his redemption.”[67]

The atonement of Christ falls under the category of his priesthood. Christ worked as a “merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people” (Heb. 2:17 ESV). Therefore his work cannot be general and indefinite, because priesthood “prerequires personal relation.”[68] It does not follow that those for whom Christ served as a high priest should perish, and as Kuiper argues, Christ’s atonement cannot apply to more than to those for whom he effectually prayed.[69] If in fact Jesus did not pray for the world, but only for those who were given to him by the father (Jn. 17), then it follows that his sacrificial work not exceed his intercessory work.

Conclusion

So, in answering the question of the extent of the atonement, one must consider what is taught from a study of the Biblical evidence, the witness of Spirit-filled theologians throughout history, the idea of covenant redemption and the doctrine of divine election, and the doctrine of Christ’s high priestly work. These together are sufficient to prove that Christ’s death was definite in nature and in scope. Christ died for the sins of his covenant people, namely the elect. Again Charles Hodge is worthy of quoting:

“When Christ said, ‘I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me,’ He meant men of all ages, classes, and conditions, and not every individual man. When God predicted that upon the advent of the Messiah He would pour out his Spirit upon all flesh, all that was foretold was a general elusion of the Holy Ghost. And when it is said that all men shall see (experience) the salvation of God, it does not mean that all men individually, but that a vast multitude of all classes shall be saved. The same remark applies to the use of the term world. It means men, mankind, as a race or order of beings. No one hesitates to call the Lord Jesus the ‘Salvator hominum.’ He is so hailed and so worshipped wherever his name is known. But no one means by this that He actually saves all mankind. What is meant is that He is our Saviour, the Saviour of men, not of angels, not of Jews exclusively, nor yet of the Gentiles only, not of the rich, or of the poor alone, not of the righteous only, but also of publicans and sinners. He is the Saviour of all men who come unto Him. Thus when He is called the Lamb of God that bears the sin of the world, all that is meant is that He bears the sins of men; He came as a sin-offering bearing not his own, but the sins of others.”[70]

So did Christ die for the Cherokee Indians of North America? No and yes. It is not feasible that Christ would have died for the sins of those who were alive at the time of his death but who were never given an opportunity to hear the good news. Yet, at the same time it may be said that, in light of the ethnological universalism taught in the bible, Christ did in fact die for the Cherokee. It is doubtless that there will be Cherokee Indians, as well as men and women from every nation of the earth included in the countless multitude in heaven, whose song is forever “Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation” (Rev. 5:9 ESV).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Berkhof, Louis. The History of Christian Doctrines. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 1949.

Berkhof, Louis. Vicarious Atonement Through Christ. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1936.

Boettner, Loraine. Studies in Theology. The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1974.

Boettner, Loraine. The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 1951.

Bruce, F. F. The Epistle to the Hebrews, in The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964.

Calvin, John. Commentaries on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews. Translated by John Owen. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 1948.

Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Translated by Henry Beveridge. Translation of: Institutio Christianae religionis.; Reprint, with new introd. Originally published: Edinburgh : Calvin Translation Society, 1845-1846. Logos Research Systems, Inc.: Oak Harbor, WA. 1997.

Campbell, John M. The Nature of the Atonement. London: MacMillan and Company. 1886.

Chafer, Lewis Sperry. SystematicTheology. 8 volumes. Dallas, TX: Dallas Seminary Press. 1948.

Culpepper, Robert H. Interpreting the Atonement. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 1966.

Edwards, Jonathan. The Satisfaction for Sin, in The Works of Jonathan Edwards. Christian Classics Ethereal Library at Calvin College. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/edwards/works2.xi.v.html.

Edwards, Jonathan. The Works of President Edwards. 4 volumes. New York: Jonathan Leavitt and John F. Trow, Boston: Crocker and Brewster. 1863.

Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. 2d edition. Grand Rapids: Baker Books. 1998.

Gill, John. Body of Divinity. Atlanta: Turner Lassetter. 1965.

Hill, Charles E. and James, Frank A. III, eds. The Glory of the Atonement. Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press. 2004.

Hodge, Archibald A. The Atonement. Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication. 1867.

Hodge, Charles C. Systematic Theology. Vol 2. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 1952.

Hodge, Charles C. Systematic theology. Originally published 1872. Logos Research Systems, Inc.: Oak Harbor, WA. 1997.

Hodge, Charles C. The Orthodox Doctrine Regarding the Extent of the Atonement Vindicated. Edinburgh: R. Groombridge and Sons, 1846.

Kuiper, R.B. For Whom Did Christ Die? Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959.

Lane, William L. Word Biblical Commentary, Hebrews. Vol. 47a. Dallas, TX: Word Books Publisher. 1991.

Lightner, Robert P. The Death Christ Died: A Case for Unlimited Atonement. Des Plaines, Illinois: Regular Baptist Press, 1967

Lillback, Peter A., Editor. The Practical Calvinist: An Introduction to the Presbyterian and Reformed Heritage. Granies House, Fearn, Ross-shire, Great Britain: Christian Focus Publications. 2002.

Long, Gary D. Definite Atonement. Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company. 1977.

Morris, Leon. The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980.

Murray, John. Redemption Accomplished and Applied. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980.

Nicole, Roger. The Case for Definite Atonement, in Bulletin of the Evangelical Theological Society. X, No. 4. 1967.

Owen, John. An Exposition of Hebrews. Vol. 4. Evansville, Indiana: Sovereign Grace Publishers. 1960.

Owen, John. The Works of John Owen. Vol. 10. Ed by William H. Goold. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 2000.

Owen, John. The Death of Death in the Death of Christ. London: Banner of Truth Trust, 1963.

Pendleton, J. M. The Atonement of Christ. Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1885.

Pfeiffer, August. Anti-Calvinism. Columbus, Ohio: Printing House of the Joint Synod of Ohio. 1881.

Pink, Arthur W. The Atonement. Swengel, PA: Reiner Publications.

Steele, David N., Thomas, Curtis C., Quinn, S. Lance. The Five Points of Calvinism: Defined, Defended, and Documented. 2d edition. P & R Publishing. Phillpsburg, New Jersey. 2004.

Warfield, B.B. The Plan of Salvation. The Works of B.B. Warfield. http://www.mbrem.com/calvinism/pos4.htm

Wiley, H. Orton. Christian Theology. Kansas City, MO: Beacon Hill, 1958. Vol 2.

[1] John Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), p. 62.

[2] J.M. Pendleton, The Atonement of Christ (Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1885), p.86.

[3] William L. Lane, Word Biblical Commentary, Hebrews. Vol. 47a (Dallas, TX: Word Books Publisher, 1991), 241.

[4] John Owen, An Exposition of Hebrews, Vol. 4 (Evansville, Indiana: Sovereign Grace Publishers, 1960), pp. 326-327.

[5] John Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), p. 62.

[6] Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology. 8 vols. (Dallas, TX: Dallas Seminary Press, 1948), vol. III, p. 91.

[7] Gary D. Long, Definite Atonement (Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1977), p. 28.

[8] Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied, p. 63.

[9] Ibid.

[10] August Pfeiffer, Anti-Calvinism (Columbus, Ohio: Printing House of the Joint Synod of Ohio, 1881), p. 107.

[11] Roger Nicole, The Case for Definite Atonement, in Bulletin of the Evangelical Theological Society, X, no. 4, 1967, p. 210.

[12] Pfeiffer, Anti-Calvinism, p. 107.

[13] A.W. Pink, The Atonement (Swengel, PA: Reiner Publications), p. 245.

[14] Murray, Redemption Accomplished, p. 62.

[15] Ibid, p. 52.

[16] Gary D. Long, Definite Atonement (Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1977), pp. 30-33.

[17] A.W. Pink, The Atonement (Swengel, PA: Reiner Publications), p. 249.

[18] Jonathan Edwards, The Satisfaction for Sin, in The Works of Jonathan Edwards (Christian Classics Ethereal Library at Calvin College), http://www.ccel.org/ccel/edwards/works2.xi.v.html.

[19] Robert H. Culpepper, Interpreting the Atonement, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1966), p. 126.

[20] Murray, Redemption Accomplished, p. 60.

[21] Ibid, pp. 69-70.

[22] Louis Berkhof, Vicarious Atonement Through Christ (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1936), p. 161.

[23] Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 2d edition (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998), p. 849.

[24] J. M. Pendleton, The Atonement of Christ (Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1885), p. 103.

[25] Charles Hodge, The Orthodox Doctrine Regarding the Extent of the Atonement Vindicated (Edinburgh: John Johnstone, Hunter Square, London: R. Groombridge and Sons, 1846), p. 63.

[26] John Owen, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ (London: Banner of Truth Trust, 1963), pp. 61-62.

[27] Laraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publications, 1963), p. 153.

[28] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Translated by Henry Beveridge (Translation of: Institutio Christianae religionis.; Reprint, with new introd. Originally published: Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1845-1846. Logos Research Systems, Inc.: Oak Harbor, WA. 1997), 2.15.4, (emphasis added).

[29] Calvin, Institutes, 2.6.4, (emphasis added).

[30] Ibid, 2.16.2.

[31] Ibid, 2.16.4 (emphasis added).

[32] Ibid, 3.21.

[33] Charles C. Hodge, Systematic theology (Originally published 1872. Logos Research Systems, Inc.: Oak Harbor, WA, 1997), vol. 2, chp. 8.

[34] Charles C. Hodge, Systematic theology (Originally published 1872. Logos Research Systems, Inc.: Oak Harbor, WA, 1997), vol. 2, chp. 8.

[35] August Pfeiffer, Anti-Calvinism (Columbus, Ohio: Printing House of the Joint Synod of Ohio, 1881), pp. 113-118.

[36] John Murray, Redemption Accomplished, p. 61.

[37] William L. Lane, Word Biblical Commentary, Hebrews, Vol. 47a (Dallas, TX: Word Books Publisher, 1991), pp. 49-50.

[38] John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews, Translated and edited by John Owen (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1948), p. 61.

[39] William L. Lane, Word Biblical Commentary, Hebrews, Volume 47a (Dallas, TX: Word Books Publisher, 1991), pp. 49-50.

[40] Pfeiffer, Anti-Calvinism, pp. 113-118.

[41] Pfeiffer, Anti-Calvinism, p. 2.

[42] Berkhof, Vicarious Atonement, p. 67.

[43] Long, Definite Atonement, p. 89

[44] Murray, Redemption Accomplished, pp. 72-73

[45] B.B. Warfield, The Plan of Salvation (http://www.mbrem.com/calvinism/pos4.htm). Warfield proclaims: “Calvinism is the guardian…of the universalism by which I am assured that he [Christ] is also the true and actual Savior of the world.”

[46] Long, Definite Atonement, p. 93.

[47] Ibid, p. 94.

[48] Pink, The Atonement, p. 263.

[49] R.B. Kuiper., For Whom Did Christ Die? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959), p. 79.

[50] Pfeiffer, Anti-Calvinism, pp. 113-118.

[51] Robert P. Lightner, The Death Christ Died: A Case for Unlimited Atonement (Des Plaines, Illinois: Regular Baptist Press, 1967), p. 77.

[52] Long, Definite Atonement, pp. 76-77. Long notes that there is no ransom price mentioned here and that in almost every passage where ajgorazw is used in a salvation context a price for ransom is mentioned or implied. Long, referring back to Deuteronomy 32:6, believes that Peter quotes the Old Testament passage because of similar context, and substitutes ajgorazw for ktaomai (LXX). While the linguistic validity of Long’s argument has not been proven to this author, it is worth noting as a possible interpretation.

[53] Pink, The Atonement, p. 264.

[54] R. B. Kuiper, For Whom Did Christ Die? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959), p. 38.

[55] Murray, Redemption Accomplished, p. 64.

[56] Kuiper, For Whom Did Christ Die?, p. 82.

[57] Erickson, Christian Theology, p. 846.

[58] Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952), p. 546.

[59] Murray, Redemption Accomplished, p. 64.

[60] Charles Hodge, The Orthodox Doctrine Regarding the Extent of the Atonement Vindicated (Edinburgh: John Johnstone, Hunter Square, London: R. Groombridge and Sons, 1846), p. 67.

[61] Hodge, Systematic Theology, p. 546.

[62] Charles C. Hodge, Systematic theology (Originally published 1872. Logos Research Systems, Inc.: Oak Harbor, WA, 1997), vol. 2, chp. 8.

[63] David N. Steele, Curtis C. Thomas, S. Lance Quinn, The Five Points of Calvinism: Defined, Defended, and Documented. 2d edition (Phillpsburg, New Jersey: P & R Publishing, 2004) pp. 39-40.

[64] Charles C. Hodge, Systematic theology (Originally published 1872. Logos Research Systems, Inc.: Oak Harbor, WA, 1997), vol. 2, chp. 8.

[65] Charles Hodge, The Orthodox Doctrine Regarding the Extent of the Atonement Vindicated (Edinburgh: R. Groombridge and Sons, 1846), pp. 63-64.

[66] Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol 2 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952), p. 548.

[67] Charles C. Hodge, Systematic theology (Originally published 1872. Logos Research Systems, Inc.: Oak Harbor, WA, 1997), vol. 2, chp. 8.

[68]Long, Definite Atonement, p. 29.

[69] Kuiper, For Whom Did Christ Die?, p. 64.

[70] Charles C. Hodge, Systematic theology (Originally published 1872. Logos Research Systems, Inc.: Oak Harbor, WA, 1997), vol. 2, chp. 8.

How Few There Are Who Die So Hard :: The Suffering And Successes Of Adoniram Judson

2007-08-30T21:02:00.000-07:00

HOW FEW THERE ARE WHO DIE SO HARD:

THE SUFFERINGS AND SUCCESSES OF ADONIRAM JUDSON

The year was 1850. The Aristide Marie made headway in dark waters, just east of the shadow of the Andaman Islands as it traveled toward the Isle of France. The ship was filled with a hot, salty ocean air, which was intended for the healing of Adoniram Judson’s illness. Writhing in pain, Judson whispered to his companions, “How few there are who…die so hard!”[1] These were among Judson’s last words. With thoughts swimming in his head of his wife and children, and with the ship’s officers gathered at the door of his cabin to watch the end, with a calm, peaceful spirit Adoniram Judson breathed his last. On the night of April 12, 1850, the port door of the ship was opened, and Judson’s coffin slipped into the blackness of the sea.[2]

For what would a man suffer the loss of two precious wives, six wonderful children, his health, and even his own life? Adoniram Judson had spent more than thirty-five years in the country of Burma preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ to any who would listen. He was, in fact, the first American foreign missionary, and his dream of converting the Burmese people to Christianity drove him to suffer, as he gave his life to the work of missions. Judson accomplished much in his time in Burma, but not only for Burma. His life and labor inspired many in America and other countries to take up the missionary endeavor. Because of Adoniram Judson’s willingness to leave his life of American comfort in exchange for the sufferings of the mission field, foreign mission societies were started in America among Congregationalists, Baptists, Methodists, and Presbyterians. A great work was started in Burma that would eventually explode among its people, having a tremendous impact on the population of the Kingdom of God. Judson was also the first to complete a Burmese translation of the scriptures, as well as a Burmese-English dictionary that would be used by generations of missionaries after him. Adoniram Judson was indeed one who “died hard,” and his life would touch many more in the years to come who looked to him for inspiration for the work of the gospel all around the world.

Adoniram Judson was born on Saturday, August 9, 1788 to Rev. Adoniram (Sr.) and Abigail Judson, in the town of Malden, Massachusetts. Judson’s father was a prominent minister in the Congregational church, and early in Judson’s life told him that he expected him to be a very great man. At a young age Judson displayed a preference for books rather than play, and had a knack for solving riddles and doing mathematics. As he got older he suspected that he was destined to become a great orator or statesman; perhaps the next John Adams. Judson desired a profession that would allow him to influence the hearts and minds of many people, and win him praise and fame.[3] He dreamed that his name would “ring down the ages.” [4]

When he was sixteen Judson entered Rhode Island College (which would later be known as Brown University), where he was allowed to enter as a sophomore, apparently displaying a tremendous intellect for a boy of his age. Even though Rhode Island College (Brown University) was a Baptist school, Judson’s father, not wanting him to be influenced by liberal Congregationalism, reasoned that because of its conservative nature, and the fact that there were a good number of Congregationalists on the board, young Adoniram would be safe there.[5] At Brown, Judson met a Deist by the name of Jacob Eames. These two would become best friends, and to the Rev. Judson’s dismay, Eames would convince Adoniram to become a Deist. Adoniram had never professed personal faith in Christ, and on his twentieth birthday, in 1808, he revealed his Deist beliefs to his parents and left for New York to study theatre.[6]

New York did not work out according to Judson’s expectations. Greatly discouraged about the direction of his life he left New York with the intention of wandering. As he was staying the night at his uncle’s parsonage, he conversed with a young minister who impressed him with his piety, warmth, and inner peace. As Judson traveled on the next evening he stopped for the night at a small village inn. The only room that was available was next to a room in which a dying man was staying. Judson stayed the night thinking about the man in the next room, and in the morning asked the innkeeper if he had died. The innkeeper said that he had, but also added at Adoniram’s request, that the deceased was a man from Rhode Island College by the name of Jacob Eames. The shock of his friend’s death, coupled with his own inner struggle caused him to question the validity of his Deist beliefs. It seemed that Judson was “in mortal fear for his own soul.”[7] Judson immediately decided to return home to the house of his father.[8]

Judson, convinced that God was speaking to him through the death of Eames, entered Andover Seminary on October 12, 1908.[9] On December 2 of the same year, Judson “made a solemn dedication of himself to God,” [10] bringing to an end the inner struggle for peace that had plagued him for so long.

While at Andover Seminary, Judson was introduced to great stories of missionaries from afar. Among these were stories of William Carey and the Serampore trio in India. In addition, he was greatly influenced by a written sermon entitled Star in the East, which was an appeal for missionary work in India. Adoniram’s imagination was kindled as he thought of himself as one of these foreign missionaries to unreached lands. Judson determined then that he would become the first American foreign missionary.[11]

Despite his sincerity, Judson’s aspirations were met with much ridicule among his fellow students at Andover. This, however, did not sway Judson. He read An Account of an Embassy to the Kingdom of Ava, a book by a British army officer who had been sent to Burma. The book described the mysterious golden kingdom of Burma, and spoke of the pagan practices of its people. From the reading of this book on, Judson’s thought were fixed on Burma. While walking in a snowy grove in February 1810 the command of Christ to preach the gospel to all was presented clearly to his mind.[12] That same day he knelt in the snow and dedicated himself before God to foreign missions.[13]

After this experience, Judson met other Andover students who were interested in foreign missions. On Christmas day, 1810, the newly formed American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions appointed Judson as a missionary. This was the first foreign missions organization in America. Adoniram and his new wife Nancy (Ann Hasseltine) set sail for India on February 19, 1812.[14] During the voyage, Judson sought to find biblical grounds for defending his Congregational belief regarding baptism against the Baptist convictions of William Carey and others. As he read the Greek New Testament, however, he came to realize that the Bible actually teaches baptism by immersion.[15]

As soon as Judson arrived in Calcutta, India, he went to see Carey to seek his advice. Carey never actually attempted to persuade the Judsons of his views on baptism, and Judson was impressed with him, above any man he had ever met. Carey told him of dismal prospects in both India and Burma, but said he would help in whatever way he could. Judson and his company stayed for a few weeks in the Carey household, learned about India and its religion, and made every effort to get acclimated to the new culture. The Judsons later moved in with a family in Calcutta whose home had a great library. Here Judson would find many books on the subject of baptism, and became convinced that immersion was the proper mode of Baptism. On September 6, 1812 the Judsons were baptized by William Ward. Anticipating severe trials such as the loss of friends and reputation at home in America, Judson, compelled by the truth, converted to the Baptist faith.[16]

Now this posed a problem for Judson. His newfound Baptist identity raised questions of affiliation and support. He was now unsure how he would provide for his family, for whom he would be working, and where he would be going; but he had a burning desire and determination to work for the conversion of the lost people of the East. Judson wrote to the American Baptists and suggested that they form a Baptist mission society in America.[17]

Adoniram continued to feel drawn to Burma, despite its many drawbacks. He had heard the warning of William Carey, but he also felt called to translate the Bible into Burmese, a task that had never been done. But after meeting with Carey’s son, Felix (who had been in Burma already), Judson decided to give up on Burma because it remained inaccessible to him. Being forced by the government to leave Calcutta, Judson sailed for the Isle of France in the hope of starting a work there. He arrived January 17, 1813, but was disappointed when he arrived. It seemed that there was no real place to work. Leaving the Isle of France, Judson went to Madras to look for another place to work, but met with disappointment there also. It seemed that there would be no place in the East for him to work, and he contemplated going to England or perhaps returning home.[18]

It was then that Judson happened upon a Portuguese ship called Georgiana that was headed for Rangoon, in Burma. He decided that this turn of luck meant that God wanted him to go to Burma after all. Against counsel that would have them go to England and lose a few years for the sake themselves and their children, the Judson’s followed God to Burma. The only thing now in Adoniram’s and Nancy’s hearts and on their minds was the conversion of the Burmese people. So on June 22, 1813, the Judsons sailed for Rangoon.[19]

The Judsons reached Rangoon on the thirteenth of July, and went to stay with the Carey’s (Felix and his family) in the mission house and immediately began learning the language. The Careys however soon left, Felix taking a position in the Burmese government, and the Judsons were left alone in the mission house trying to understand a people whose language had no words to use for communicating the essential ideas of Christianity. It was extremely difficult to explain the concept of one eternal God to the Burmese people because of the nature of their own pagan Gods who changed form all the time. Judson continued to learn the language as best he could, and by 1815, after they had been in Rangoon for a year and a half, knew enough of the language to begin to speak to the people about religion.[20]

Adoniram produced his first Burmese tract, entitled The Way to Heaven, which spoke of the essential doctrines of Christianity and the purpose for the missionaries being there to preach, and by May 1817 had translated the gospel of Matthew. Judson held his first service in a small hut-like building he had built on the side of one of the main roads in Rangoon on Sunday, April 4, 1819. He continued these services week after week, and struggled to break through to the people who came to hear him preach. It seemed, though, that most were only curious at best, and disinterested at worst.[21]

The Judson had been in Rangoon for six years and had little to show for their work. There were few who came to listen to the gospel seriously and no converts. Then there was Maung Nau. Maung Nau had been to the little hut several times to listen to Adoniram preach the gospel, and on Sunday, May 9, 1819, he professed to be a believer in Christ in the presence of thirty or more people. Maung Nau was baptized the following month. The Judsons were overjoyed. This was only one convert in six hard years, but it was a start.

Judson paused from his work of preaching and teaching only to go to Ava, the Burman capital to seek the favor of the king. This was an endeavor that was met with much frustration, and the king forbid him to preach the gospel to any native. Adoniram returned to Rangoon in February of 1820 and told his three or four converts what the king had said, that the gospel could not be preached to Burmans, and that they could expect persecution if it was. The effect of this was only to increase the native convert’s zeal for the gospel, and by July of 1820, there was in Rangoon a church of 10 native Burmans, including the first baptized Burmese woman.[22]

Life continued to be difficult for the Judons, and at times Adoniram had to be away from Nancy for long periods of time, once for two years when Nancy had to return to America because of illness. The work of the mission was now slower than ever, and twelve years after leaving New England, Judson only had 18 converts. To make matters worse, as a war between Burman and England was developing, Judson was accused of being a spy and imprisoned. Judson had been translating the Bible into Burmese, and now thought that all his work would be lost. But Nancy managed to salvage the manuscript and sneak it in an old pillow to Adoniram at the prison. Each night Judson slept with his head on “the only complete copy of the Burmese New Testament in existence.”[23] For all of this, Judson eventually contemplated suicide as he was being led away to be executed, after having spent eleven months in a harsh prison.[24]

Instead of being executed, however, Judson was summoned to help negotiate peace with the British. This earned him the respect of many in the government of Burma, and he was told that if he stayed in Ava he would become a very great man there. Judson refused this honor, and was allowed to leave with his wife, who was now very ill, and moved the mission center to Amherst, which was one of the coastal territories of Burma now under British control. It was here, at Amherst that Nancy would die on October 24, 1826. Adoniram served the British as a translator and advisor, on the condition that the British commissioner would try to get religious freedom for all of Burma so they could openly return and preach the gospel.[25]

Finally it seemed that, at great cost to the missionaries Adoniram and Nancy Judson, the work was actually increasing in Burma. Judson converted a former murderer by the name of Ko Tha Byu, who went on to become “the father of Karen Christianity.”[26] The Karens were a wild jungle people who lived in the mountains of lower Burma. By 1830 the church in Burma was growing as many among the Burmese increasingly came to faith in Christ, and more missionaries arrived from America. In May of 1830, as Judson traveled the countryside, he reported that all the people of Burma seemed to be interested in Christianity, and by 1831, he saw, despite threats of persecution from the Buddhists, a “spirit of inquiry that is spreading everywhere, through the whole length and breath of the land.”[27] By March of 1831, Judson had given out ten thousand tracts, giving to only those who asked; some people came three months journey saying that they had heard about hell and requesting “a writing”[28] to tell them how to escape it.[29]

Although it took Judson some nine or ten years to convert 18 natives, in the first five years after the war 242 natives had been baptized, plus 113 foreigners, a total of 391 converts. There were 217 converted in 1831 alone. The work was going well now, and by January of 1834, at age forty-six Judson had finished translating the entire Bible into Burmese.[30]

Following the death of his second wife Sarah, Judson returned home to America in October 1845, for the first time in thirty-three years. He found crowds of people on the shore waiting for him, and many homes open to him. Adoniram had become a legendary figure in America, and traveled much and spoke of his journeys to many. His heart, however, was still in Burma. Judson met Emily, who would become his third wife, and on July 11, 1846 the newly- weds sailed for Burma, and returned to Rangoon in 1847, and began rebuilding the church there.[31]

In January 1849, Judson finished the English-Burmese portion of a dictionary he had long been writing, and judged that it would be the basis for “all future work on the language.”[32] This would be Adoniram’s last written contribution to the work in Burma. On April 12, 1850, while on a sea voyage in an effort to cure an illness, Adoniram Judson died and was buried at sea.[33]

Edward Judson (Adoniram’s son), in the preface of his biography of his father, said that Judson’s career “may be justly said to form the main artery of all American foreign missionary endeavor.”[34] “Mr. Judson’s achievements far transcended the wildest aspirations of his youth,” says Edward.[35] At the time of Judson’s death there were over 7,000 native Christians (both Burmese and Karen) in Burma, and 63 churches had been established. There were 163 “missionaries, native pastors, and assistants” who oversaw these churches.[36] Edward Judson went on to praise his father, “it was Mr. Judson’s lot to labor in the hard and obscure period of the first beginnings.”[37] Judson had succeeded in translating both Old and New Testaments into the Burmese language, and “he had laid the foundations of Christianity deep down in the Burman heart where they could never be washed away.”[38]

Adoniram struggled for complete religious freedom for Burma, but never saw this dream become a reality. However, in May of 1978, the Burmese government allowed religious freedom for the first time, and published over 10,000 Bibles in the Burmese language.[39]

In the beginning Adoniram Judson’s missionary zeal had resulted in the formation of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions among the Congregational churches in America, and by 1880 it had invested over $600,000 in the work of missions, and had works in Africa, Turkey, India, China, Japan, Micronesia, Mexico, Spain, and Austria. They had started 272 churches, and gained over 17,000 members, and had 1685 missionaries in the field.[40]

Not only did Judson impact the Congregational church in America, but since he had become a Baptist almost as soon as he set foot on the mission field, he had a major impact on Baptists as well. Judson’s charge to the Baptists in America resulted almost immediately in the forming of the first American Baptist Mission Society. By 1880, Baptists had dispensed over $300,000 to the work of foreign missions, and developed works in Burmah, Siam, India, China, Japan, and Europe, claiming 908 native churches, 85,308 members, and 1214 missionaries and native pastors.[41] Today, “the largest Christian force in Burma is the Burma Baptist Convention, which owes its origin to the pioneering activity of…Adoniram Judson.”[42] Patrick Johnstone estimated in 2001, that the Baptist Convention in Burma (now called Myanmar) consisted of over 3700 churches with 617,781 members, and 1,900,000 affiliates.[43]

Judson’s influence was not limited solely to the two denominations of which he had been a part. He also inspired missionary work among American Methodists and Presbyterians. Edward Judson said, “Mr. Judson’s career of heroic action and suffering stimulated Christian activity among all denominations,” both in America and in other countries around the world.[44] It seems that Adoniram Judson’s aspiration to be the first American foreign missionary was realized, but he was not the last. There have been many who followed in his footsteps, looking to his sufferings and triumphs for inspiration.

Adoniram Judson, perhaps disenchanted by his failure during early adulthood, but encouraged by his newfound faith and commitment toward Christ, left the comforts of his life in America and devoted his entire life to a missionary enterprise that would ultimately claim his life. Judson was the first American foreign missionary, and was the first to translate the entire Bible into the Burmese language. By his sufferings and successes, many in the country of Burma came to Christ in his lifetime, and thousands more came to Christ after his death. The Baptists in America were tremendously impacted by Judson’s work. He had caused the formation of the first American Baptist foreign mission society, and in the years following his death, many souls around the globe were added to the Baptist church. His life of suffering and toil in Burma caused a tidal wave of missionary endeavor that outlives him to this day. It is not an understatement to say that the foreign missions movement in America owes its origin to an American, a Baptist, Adoniram Judson.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anderson, Courtney. To the Golden Shore: The Life of Adoniram Judson (Garden City, NY: Dolphin Books, 1961).

Barrett, David, ed., World Chritian Encyclopedia (New York: Oxford University Press, 1982).

Hall, Gordon Langley. Golden Boats of Burma (Philadelphia: Macrae Smith Company, 1961).

Hulse, Erroll. Adoniram Judson and the Missionary Call (Leeds, England: Reformation Today Trust, 1996).

Johnstone, Patrick; Jason Mandryk, eds., Operation World (Carlisle, UK: Paternoster, 2001).

Judson, Edward. The Life of Adoniram Judson (New York: Anson D. F. Randolph and Company, 1883).

McBeth, Leon. The Baptist Heritage (Nashville: Broadman, 1987).

Miller, Basil. Ann Judson: Heroine of Burma (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1947).

Stott, John R. W. The Christian Church in Burma, in Christianity Today (vol. 23, Feb. 2, 1979).

Wayland, Francis. A Memoir of the Life and Labors of the Rev. Adoniram Judson, D. D. (Boston: Phillips, Sampson, and Company, 1853), 2 volumes.

[1] Courtney Anderson, To the Golden Shore: The Life of Adoniram Judson (Garden City, NY: Dolphin Books, 1961), p. 488.

[2] Information from Courtney Anderson, To the Golden Shore: The Life of Adoniram Judson (Garden City, NY: Dolphin Books, 1961), pp. 487-489.

[3] Ibid., pp. 19-40.

[4] Courtney Anderson, To the Golden Shore, p. 40.

[5] Ibid., p. 42.

[6] Ibid., pp. 42-50.

[7] Ibid., pp. 57-58.

[8] Ibid., pp. 52-58.

[9] Ibid., pp. 56, 60.

[10] Ibid., p. 62.

[11] Ibid., pp. 64-65.

[12] Ibid., pp. 66-68.

[13] Leon McBeth, The Baptist Heritage (Nashville: Broadman, 1987), p. 345.

[14] Ibid.

[15] Courtney Anderson, To the Golden Shore, pp. 71, 95, 131, 132.

[16] Ibid., pp. 138-149.

[17] Ibid., pp. 149.

[18] Ibid., pp. 150, 152, 163, 166.

[19] Ibid., pp. 167-168.

[20] Ibid., pp. 169-184.

[21] Ibid., pp. 197-198, 215-220.

[22] Ibid., pp. 221-264.

[23] Ibid., p. 314.

[24] Ibid., pp. 278, 299, 314, 331.

[25] Ibid., pp. 350, 355, 359.

[26] Ibid., p. 374.

[27] Ibid., p. 386.

[28] Ibid.

[29] Ibid., pp. 374, 379, 382, 386.

[30] Ibid., pp. 391, 396, 399.

[31] Ibid., pp. 430, 456, 463.

[32] Ibid., p. 478.

[33] Ibid., pp. 489.

[34] Edward Judson, The Life of Adoniram Judson (New York: Anson D. F. Randolph and Company, 1883), preface.

[35] Edward Judson, The Life of Adoniram Judson, p. 552.

[36] Ibid.

[37] Ibid., p. 553.

[38] Ibid., p. 552.

[39] John R. W. Stott, The Christian Church in Burma, in Christianity Today (vol. 23, Feb. 2, 1979), pp. 30-31.

[40] Edward Judson, The Life of Adoniram Judson, p. 556.

[41] Ibid.

[42] David Barrett, ed., World Christian Encyclopedia (New York: Oxford University Press, 1982), p. 202.

[43] Patrick Johnstone, Jason Mandryk, eds., Operation World (Carlisle, UK: Paternoster, 2001), pp. 15-16.

[44]Edward Judson, The Life of Adoniram Judson, pp. 556-557.

[25] Theses: The New Reformation-Against All, For All

2007-05-13T17:35:00.000-07:00

On October 31, 1517, Martin Luther posted his now famous 95 Theses on the door of the Wittenburg church in Germany. It was a list of problems that he had observed in the church at that time, which in his mind needed to be reformed. In the same spirit I offer these 25 theses in an effort to bring to light some of the problems of our own day. I do not compare myself with Dr. Luther, nor do I claim to be an authority in these areas, nor do I have any lofty ideas about sparking a world-wide reformation with this post. I am simply a follower of Jesus Christ, called by God to ministry, seeking to live a life that is worthy of the gospel. I desire primarily to accomplish 3 small things with this post. First, I wanted to establish a written form of my growing concerns for our churches. Second, I wish to encourage and challenge my brothers in the ministry to make every effort to live the biblical gospel before God. Third, I want to initiate discussion and friendly debate over these theses. Hopefully, some of you will take me up on my offer and some truth will come out of it to the glory of God. Let our consciences be "held captive to the word of God."*

* Famous Luther quote

1. Jesus Christ is thought of and preached in the church as a “semi-gay-hippie-peasant-in-a-dress”** who walks around the desert, sipping herbal tea, and looking to meet some nice people, and enjoy some good times making everyone feel good about themselves, while working for world peace.

This picture of Jesus must be done away with. The church must begin to preach the real Jesus, Jesus the Warrior-King, God eternal, Almighty creator, the vengeance-is-mine-saith-the-LORD, King of kings and Lord of lords Jesus who is reveald in Scripture.

** Stole this language from Mark Driscoll

2. Pulpits are filled with so-called “men of God” who are as God-centered as an episode of 7^th Heaven, and as gospel saturated as a bag of potato chips, offering their people an unhealthy dose of spiritual self-help, and self-esteem theology.

Pastors must begin to preach the word; that’s “THE” word, not THEIR word. Pastors must begin to teach and preach in such a way so as to raise the affections of the people toward Christ, to the glory of God.

3. Churches are filled with Youth Ministers and Children's Ministers who resemble the baby sitter next door, rather than servants of the church who desire to help parents fulfill their responsibility to teach their children (and teenagers) the ways of God.

Churches must restructure their ministries in an effort to encourage and challenge husbands and fathers to take up their God-given role as the primary spiritual leader and teacher in his family, and to assist parents in cultivating in their children a passion for the glory of God.

4. Churches are governmentally structured like an American Democracy promoting the ideas of enlightenment philosophers, rather than like the body of Christ which should be governed by God-called men who possess the proper gifts of the Spirit.

Churches must seek to be biblical in structuring their governments. They must be governed by biblically qualified elders who are following the leadership of the Holy Spirit in submission to and in conjunction with each other, rather than giving controlling power to the people in the pews who may or may not even be truly regenerate.

5. Churches are ruled by elders who do not meet biblical qualifications for elders.

Churches must be intentional about singling out God-gifted, qualified men to serve the church as elders, who are qualified in accordance with the scriptures.

6. Churches are filled with pastors who live lifestyles more consistent with the CEO of Microsoft Corporation than the lifestyle of a suffering servant and good soldier of Jesus Christ.

Men of God must seek to live moderate lifestyles, choosing rather to "suffer" with the people of God, than to enjoy the comforts and leisurely distractions of this world. Pastors and elders must give themselves fully and wholeheartedly to the ministry of the word of God and prayer, proving themselves "worthy of their wages." Furthermore, churches must insist on pastors and elders keeping their lifestyles in check, in accordance with the example of Christ.

7. Regarding worship, churches follow the two extremes of, on the one hand stubbornly refusing to modernize music and songs for congregational worship, and on the other hand rejecting older hymns and traditional forms of worship which have enjoyed great significance in the life of the historical church.

Churches must seek foremost to glorify God in worship, communicating the truths of the gospel and the greatness of God in song in such a way that the people understand and are challenged and encouraged and built up. Churches must seek men and women who are passionate about the supremacy of God in worship, and who are well versed in the music and methods of worship.

8. Churches are theologically illiterate, having no concept of the great truths of Scripture whereby we are brought into a deeper understanding and knowledge of God through the Spirit.

Churches must hold to, and study and teach sound doctrine, in keeping with the orthodox creeds of Christendom, which were handed down from the apostles and prophets of the first church, and preserved in accordance with what the scriptures reveal about God, the nature of mankind, and the practice of the church.

9. Churches who are theological in nature can be more concerned with promoting a certain theological system, or their favorite pet doctrines than they are about preaching the gospel to all nations.

Churches must get over their favorite theological acronym and seek to preach and teach from a purely biblical perspective and hermeneutic, not getting caught up in trying to win the world to their way of thinking on peripheral issues.

10. Churches no longer practice proper discipline of its members, and encouragement toward holy living.

Churches must begin to establish biblical standards for church membership, disciplining those who lives inconsistently with the narrow way.

11. Salvation in the church has become a mere recitation of the proper words and phrases (the sinner's prayer), in conjunction with "going down" the isle.

Preacher's must insist that there be repentance and faith in a would-be convert's heart before he/she is admitted into church membership. Church membership must be REGENERATE church membership, with converts showing forth fruit that is in accordance with repentance. Furthermore, the churches evangelical proclamation must be scriptural in nature, not making room for wrong motivations on the part of the respondent, and being careful not to give false assurance to converts.

12. Some Churches, on the other hand, have become so afraid of giving false hope to unregenerate candidates that they fail to properly exhort people to repentance and faith and good works.

Churches must proclaim the responsibility of every person to repent before God, and to live for his glory, showing and helping converts to see how this is done in dependence on the Holy Spirit.

13. Churches have become exclusivistic in nature, refusing to intentionally seek fellowship with sister churches, which could greatly benefit all parties involved.

Churches must seek to fellowship with other like-minded churches as much as possible in order to foster a biblical feeling of Kingdom reality.

14. Pastors and elders refuse to train and mentor younger men who feel called to vocational ministry.

These pastors must be intentional about seeking out such God-called men, training and discipling them, mentoring them in the ways of gospel ministry, helping them with education costs, and sending them out with the support (both prayerful and financial) of the local body of Christ.

15. Churches disregard the Lord's Supper, neglecting to observe it on a regular basis.

Churches must observe the ordinance of communion often, perhaps every time they gather for worship thereby "proclaiming the Lord's death until he comes." There is no greater portrayal of the death of Christ than the constant reminder of the Lord's supper.

16. Churches have reduced the meaning of the Lord's Supper to a mere symbol which can be observed just every-so-often (once a quarter for most, some less).

Churches must reevaluate the scriptural significance of this holy rite as an actual participation in the body and blood of the Lord, and a means of grace and spiritual food that cannot be done without.

17. Churches have weakened the meaning of Baptism in the minds and hearts of the people by allowing "converts" to participate in the church without being immediately baptized in profession of their faith in Christ.

Churches must insist that all converts submit to baptism immediately, under the proper counsel teaching, as part of their confession of faith and repentance, in obedience to Christ. Baptism must be viewed, not as a mere picture of what has happened to a convert, but as a means of grace whereby the convert makes his/her "pledge to God for a clean conscience," and makes his/her public profession of the name of Jesus Christ to the glory of God the Father.

18. Churches have relaxed their standards for holy living under the banner of "once saved, always saved," thereby unintentionally excusing members to lives lawlessly.

Churches must insist that members live holy lives in reverential fear of God, "examining" and "testing" themselves to see if they are "in the faith," living lives that are "worthy of the gospel of Christ," and pursuing the "holiness without which no one will see the Lord." Churched must teach and preach the doctrine of perseverance, being certain that only "those who persevere to the end will be saved."

19. Churches have ceased to provide for the physical needs of its members, as well as neglecting ministries of mercy to the poor.

Churches must be intentional about seeking out needs within the congregations and distributing resources in such a manner that no one remains in need. Some churches would rather spend money helping homeless people before they would spend it helping out its own members. At the same time, churches must reach out to the poor and downcast of society, helping to show God's mercy in relieving some of their stresses (hunger, thirst, clothes, companionship, etc.), realizing that to such is given the kingdom of God.

20. Churches have wasted money that could be used for the furtherance of the gospel in unreached groups around the world on gaudy buildings with bad acoustics, and jungle gym playgrounds for unruly kids.

Churches must give tirelessly, of the money and their time, to the work of missions around the globe, evaluating budgetary items such as large building programs in the light of the what will serve best for the missionary enterprise.

21. Men in the church no longer act as men. Godly male leadership has given place to that kind emasculated manhood whereby men are satisfied to allow anyone else to run things so long as they get to go fishing or golfing once a week. The result is that younger men have no role models in the church.

Pastors must teach and preach what biblical manhood looks like, challenging men to live lives of purity and holiness, and to be godly, spiritual leaders in the home and in the community. Men must take up their responsibility in the home to lead in all areas, training their children for service in the kingdom of God.

22. Women in the church have rejected their biblical roles as godly mothers, submissive wives, and humble servants of Christ and his church. Biblical womanhood has given place to attitudes and practices which are not fitting for women of God.

Men must lead spiritually in the home, caring for and loving their wives the way Christ loves the church, seeking their sanctification by the Word in an effort to enjoy being co-heirs of the kingdom of God in Christ. Likewise, women must submit to their husbands (or to parents and/or elders if not married) out of reverence for Christ, working to assist their husbands in his God-called role.

23. Pastors and elders have failed to lead the charge in local evangelism.

Pastors must lead congregations, both from the pulpit and from the community in reaching out to lost people, declaring the glory of Christ in the gospel and calling people to repentance and faith.

24. Regarding cultural relevance churches have fallen into one of two extremes. On the one hand, being so culturally irrelevant that they ensure that no one outside the church comes there to seek the gospel of Christ, and on the other hand, so culturally relevant that they forget the gospel altogether.

Churches must seek to be relevant to its surrounding culture, ministering to it in fear of Christ, and communicating the gospel in language that they understand.

25. Churches have rejected the use of miraculous spiritual gifts, thinking rather that things such as abstinence from alcohol makes one godly and provides the proper witness to the world.

Churches must seek to practice all spiritual gifts in an orderly, thoroughly biblical manner, relying on the Spirit's power and authority to work in the hearts and lives of people as he sees fit. Churches must not continue to quench the Spirit in this manner, but must seek his will, and all expressions of it. Churches must be faithful in prayer and laying on of hands for sick people, believing that the Holy Spirit still heals. Churches must not think that outward expressions of abstinence from such things as alcohol, tobacco, and/or movies will replace the ministry of the Holy Spirit, who works miraculously in the lives of people, testifying of the greatness of the mercy and grace of our Lord.

Churches must, in everything they do, seek to "spread a passion for the supremacy of God in all things, for the joy of all peoples."*** Churches must seek to be intently biblical in all areas of worship, practice, government, family life, ministry, missions and theology.They must worship God faithfully, think and preach about him biblically, and be as committed to His name and His renown as he himself is through Jesus Christ. Primary and foremost in the thinking and in the life and labor of the church must be the ever-glorious, fearful and majestic, joy giving truth of the glory of God.

*** Stole this language from John Piper

Let the Reformation begin! :)

For other relevant posts on the topic of reformation and more, please visit us @

VintageChristianity.org