Six-Day, Biblical, Creationism

That title alone will probably ruffle some feathers; I know this kind of a discussion has done so in conversations I have had before. :) Yet, I do believe that there is no other way to view the days in Genesis 1 and be faithful to the text. The rules of hermeneutics demand it.

Of course, I am aware of the disagreement on this matter, even among brothers and sisters in Christ, even to some degree in my own family and church. It was my intent when I started thinking about posting about this months ago to go through a detailed exegesis of relevant passages, including Genesis 1 and Exodus 20 -- but, as God would have it in His marvelous Providence, a few months ago I had the opportunity to preach a message on Genesis 1 in my church. Though you might need to look up a few terms (I wasn't as consistent as I should have been in defining little-used and not well understood terms), I deal with the relevant issues and come to the only consistent exegetical conclusion that you can. Have a listen:

May 6, 2012

May God bring blessing to the preaching and hearing of His word!

Soli Deo Gloria,
dbh

Responding to Tony Byrne and Peter Lumpkins on Matthew 23:37

Any church members who may read this post, should you have further questions about any of it, please feel free to contact me at church and/or through Facebook.

This post has been a long time coming, for several reasons, not the least of which is because I really didn't want to deal with it. :) It isn't because the matters Dr. Peter Lumpkins and Tony Byrne raised in this blog post are not important; they are important. Rather, I am one who isn't overly fond of conflict, and sometimes I wonder if there is much point in continuing a discussion since I think to myself, "people aren't going to listen/read anyway."

There is also the issue of being frequently misunderstood. Without a question, I need to be more clear, but it seems that no matter what kind of a context I provide (or think that I do), inevitably I fail to make a point clear, or people refuse to read carefully, or both. A very recent example indicates just this with regard to Dr. Lumpkins, and such examples are not at all uncommon. My point in saying that he significantly missed Paul's point wasn't that he was wrong in saying that the passage was talking to and about believers. If you scroll up a few comments from the previous link, you'll see that I was saying that Peter missed the point that Paul was referring to non-believers when describing those who were in the flesh. Those who are in the Spirit, those who have no condemnation on them, they surely are believers. Paul is writing chapter 8 as a great bit of encouragement to the Christians at Rome rather than making sanctification his subject -- but I digress, as Romans 8 is not the subject of this particular post. I'll address that more fully later, doing a much more complete exegesis of the first ten verses. Anyway, back to the reasons I have delayed posting on the matter relating to the title.

Such thoughts (that is, those of people not listening, my not being understood, my not liking conflict) are truly copping-out, not to mention aren't very respectful to brothers in Christ who, by the Spirit of God, are capable of a great deal more than a lost person in understanding truth and working with another brother. It also isn't respectful to God Himself, the Author of truth and source of love among the brethren, Who is certainly able to make it so that I can be a better communicator. Other reasons for delay are a bit more legitimate, such as church responsibilities (I'm a deacon @ PHBC, teach Sunday School, teach discipleship, am a choir and praise team member, take a few classes from time to time, manage the church website, etc).

All delays aside, I begin my response(s), taking into account the difficulty of the task of polemics. There are a few things I would like to address specifically, the issue of Matthew 23:37, historical consensus and proper hermeneutics, and the importance of all of this. It is to this last point I shall turn first, and may my God and Savior, Jesus Christ, by His inexhaustible grace to His own, sustain and keep me in holiness, righteousness, and graciousness as I write.

The Importance of the Matter

I am not the kind of person who likes to "agree to disagree" on theological issues, especially among Christians. Were I to have an impasse with someone over the issue of how superior pepperoni pizza is to one with toppings of black olives and anchovies, I could let the matter slide. After all, such is merely a matter of opinion, and such a difference is reason to praise God for making us in the ways He did. We are different, and it pleased Him to give us differing tastes in food, pasttimes, music style, etc.[2] However when it comes to theological differences, I am much more resistant to the suggestion that we "all just get along," even on points considered minor, or "Tier 3" as my pastor likes to say.

The reason I do not like to thrown in the towel on matters pertaining to the understanding of the teaching of Scripture (not a bad definition of theology, really) is because God has indeed revealed Himself in the pages of the Bible. Christians, people who truly have been saved by the amazing, unstoppable power of God, are people who (to an increasing degree) desire to know this awesome God. We want to understand Him more, that we may love, worship, serve, enjoy, and teach about Him more and more accurately. This is the main reason, I submit, that any Christian desires to come to the Scriptures: that we may encounter God and do so in a more pure fashion as we see how He has revealed Himself and then obey Him more perfectly.

Because of that conviction, when Christians have disagreement about something that the Bible teaches, it means at the very least that one of them is wrong. Further, again given my above conviction that the Bible is God's self-revelation, and that He had given it to His church to reveal Himself to His people, then if we are not right about part of its teaching we are missing that much of who God is. Such is something that leaves me uncomfortable at best[3]. It is for that reason that I do not understand Peter Lumpkins's comment on the post I referenced already:

I am not here to convince you of anything, frankly. And you are entitled to be unconvinced by Geisler and happy with every subtle nuance James White places upon any passage of Scripture whatsoever. Be my guest.

His comments are in response to my first comment on his blog post/thread. There are other things he said in that particular comment (such as James White being too extreme, something that I do not intend to address here), but the quoted paragraph is my main point of concern.

Of course, I am not satisfied with any subtle nuance anyone would put on a text, whether it be Matthew 23:37 or any other Bible passage. That was largely my point; without solid, consistent exegesis done according to solid hermeneutics, we cannot hope to arrive at the correct meaning of a passage. Further, if we are not predisposed to submit ourselves to the discoveries made following correct exegesis, then we sin and remain in our previous error.

It is also why I desire very much to spend time in exegesis of Bible passages and analyzing things people say in light of Scripture. Ultimately, my opinion doesn't matter, nor does that of Peter, Tony, James White, or anyone else. What the Bible says matters, and simply having a discussion without the Sacred Scripture informing that discussion, there is little more accomplished than wasted keystrokes.

These reasons are why I am troubled when Dr. Lumpkins said that he was not there to convince me of anything. I simply ask, why not? If I am in error about my understanding of, in this case, Matthew 23, then it follows that I am not representing my God and Savior, Jesus Christ, as well as I could be, or should be. Worse, I may well be speaking untruth about God, teaching others to believe untruths. However well intended I may be is irrelevant; instead of helping others worship God more purely, and helping them know Him more and love Him more, I do just the opposite. Such would indeed be the case were I teaching something that is not in line with Scripture.[4]

Historical Consensus and Hermeneutics

The issue of historical consensus came up at one point in the comments. What started the discussion of it was when I made a statement claiming that Scripture is really the only battleground that matters, and that is where we must spend our time if any resolution to a doctrinal disagreement is to be had. Tony added in his comment here that history also was a battleground needing to be considered, in terms of the history of Calvinism. He then went on to cite numerous examples of people who had what he termed a mainstream position on the text of Matthew 23:37, calling it John Murray's position. The links to his list of historical quotes can be found at a couple of links from within the comment I linked to above. He says in that comment, making his point clear:

I repeat: the battleground involves history as well as biblical interpretation. In short, the battleground is the truth in every field of study, and a failure to be honest with primary sources is indicative of Turretinfan and other White associates who are making a concerted effort to downplay God's revealed desire for the salvation of all men.

This is where the point of contention began. I immediately saw a red flag when I read Tony's comments, as it appeared that he was saying that history played a deciding part in our final understanding of the teaching of a particular Bible passage. It lead to my saying that I "care very little for historical consensus," and then him chastising me for that comment[5], even suggesting that I was being inconsistent by holding to the 1689 LBCF.

My point was certainly not to ignore the importance of history in informing our interpretation. I tried to say as much with some of my comments in the thread where I responded to Tony by saying:

You said I was missing the point of what you were trying to say, that you weren't trying to offer detailed exegesis but rather demonstrating a consensus, being in line with John Murray's position. However, I cannot help but think you have missed my point for raising my objection in the first place. I care very little for historical consensus; majority does not rule in biblical interpretation. Agreed of course that if we disagree with the majority on a matter (in this case about a context I think) then we must do so carefully, but since context is the first rule of interpretation, anything that doesn't take it into account is a questionable interpretation at best, no matter how many people say it is true (unless we are working in Proverbs).

My point with the Proverbs comment was that Proverbs often don't have a lot of context, if any, and therefore can often be interpreted in a single-verse manner.

I hope it is clear what I meant by my statement that I care little for historical consensus. It isn't that I don't value how God has worked in history; I surely do. We have tremendous things we can learn from the saints who have gone before us, how they have struggled with the text of Scripture in many different situations. I have had great encouragement from the likes of Jonathan Edwards, Charles Spurgeon, George Whitfield, Arthur Pink, John Owen, and even John Calvin, not to mention a host of modern servants of Christ's church, including John Piper, John MacArthur, Sam Waldron, James White, and more. I could expand the list of both without much difficulty. God has given much wisdom and insight into the text of Scripture throughout history, and we would be foolish to ignore it. This is something that students in my classes at church have heard from me more than once. My sentiments on how to view church history, and my laments with regard to those who ignore it, are those of Drs. White and Barcellos in this video interview.

All that being said, however, the usefulness of church history in the interpretation of Scripture is directly proportional to how it properly handles the text of the Bible with regard to proper hermeneutics, first and foremost with regard to the context of a passage. On the right sidebar on my blog here you can read a couple of posts that deal with context. I recommend that you read them, as they form much of the foundation with regard to how I try to approach a Bible passage, prayerfully seeking the Spirit's guidance. So, no matter how many people, modern or historic, say something about a particular passage, if the context is not the main guide in understanding the argument or discussion of a biblical writer, then the interpretation provided is suspect at best, flat out errant at worst. This was my meaning when I said that I cared little for historical consensus; it was merely to say that we cannot allow a majority-rules hermeneutic.


Now, to be fair, Tony was quick to respond when I started speaking of the issues of context and how to understand a passage, agreeing that context was the most important thing:

Of course the bible is the ultimate authority and of course the context of a given biblical passage is of highest priority for understanding the true sense of it. All I am saying is that if you're going to depart from such an overwhelming Reformed and Calvinistic consensus on the text and side with John Gill's hard dichotomy between "Jerusalem" and the "children" and view the text in totally and singularly in a judgment sense, seeing in it nothing of Jesus' yearning love that accords with God's revealed desire for the salvation of all in the city (even those that perish), then you should pause and wonder if you're actually engaging in novel, pseudo-exegesis or the kind of obvious system-driven interpretation that is so common in John Gill, who utterly denied God's revealed desire for the eternal salvation of any of the non-elect.

As I haven't studied John Gill to any significant extent at all, I cannot comment on Gills view. However, Tony's caution (with my emphasis provided above) is a wise sentiment, one with which I agree completely, and one I use to give caution to others. This is clearly Tony's belief, and it is a right one. At the same time, I see a large inconsistency in how Tony presented this principle, and some other things he said.

If you, the reader, followed one of the links I gave earlier to Tony's comments (and then followed his links to many a quote on Matthew 23:37) you will notice something, probably the same thing I noticed. The context of Matthew 23 wasn't referenced at all in any of those quotes he gave. He mentioned that this wasn't the point:

Many of the men cited are not cited because they're offering detailed exegesis in any way, but as testimony to the fact that they are basically in the mainstream John Murray position on the text, which White and those like him have departed from. Then there are other places where I seek to offer some critical analysis.

A quick perusal of Tony's blog in his section on Matthew 23:37 didn't reveal any critical analysis that I could find. Admittedly, I didn't look past the first page of quotes and citations, so there may be some deeper than I checked. Given his statement above, I trust that to be the case. I did find however, a large number of quotes from a large number of people, very few of which referenced much in detail beyond the one verse, none of which took us all the way back to verse 13 or went through verse 39. So, it would seem that Tony considers having a large number of people, even a large number of Reformed people, saying one thing about a passage carries some weight. However, given the fact that none of them went into the context in depth means that their understandings may well not carry any weight. It doesn't mean that they are wrong; in fact, given that so many say something similar about a passage should indeed give one pause should one desire to disagree with them. The fact that the context wasn't considered must tell us that, if we are to agree OR disagree with them, we need to be sure that they have interpreted the text in question aright. If we cannot find support for their conclusions in the context of the passage, but rather find support for understanding the passage differently, then the given interpretation must be rejected. It doesn't matter how many people have said something for however long: if the context indicates something else, then we must interpret the text differently. Traditional understandings may be long lived and popular, yet still be incorrect.[6]

Matthew 23:37 in its Context

Now we get to the heart of the matter. Truly, without biblical exegesis, and conforming to the teaching of Scripture once we understand it, there is no progress in a theological discussion. So, it is to that I now turn!

Often Matthew 23:37 is used as a text that speaks of the desire of God for the salvation of all people, irrespective if they are elect or not. This is nearly always the main focus of people when they approach this text, whether they be Reformed or otherwise. The problem with this focus, even if it were true, is that it ignores the context of the passage and the judgment of God contained in it, of which verse 37 is clearly a part. That being the case, and that the whole of verses 13--39 is a judgment of Israel's leaders, past and present, the main focus of any exegesis of verse 37 must be that of Jesus's judgment against the leaders of Israel before we can talk about any other implications of the passage. Our implications then need to be seen in light of the context and the main focus of what Jesus is talking about. Do they line up, or are they inconsistent with each other? Such questions will be explored to some extent below.

I mentioned to Tony that Matthew 23 was a passage of judgment. His response was as follows:

But White says, "it's a judgment passages! a judgment passage!," as if anyone denies that. Of course the text involves judgment, but not only judgment. Jesus expresses a desire for something that did not come to pass, a desire to "gather the children," which is soteriological in nature.

He rightly agrees that the text involves judgment, and is also correct that it does not only involve judgment. The problem is, I do not believe with Tony that it is absurd to think that anyone denies it. Rather, I think the opposite is true -- that most Christians, especially of the non-Reformed variety, do not even take the judgment context into account when they read this passage. Far, far too often is verse 37 provided without regard to its context, and in doing so, those who quote it engender misunderstanding at best, poor hermeneutical habits tending to follow.

Dr. James White does provide a brief exegesis of some of the context in his excellent book, The Potter's Freedom. It is quite helpful, and I shall cite it below. Tony didn't seem to care for it, saying "White is not "exegeting" Matthew 23:37. He's exploding it, not explaining it." Such a comment, aside from being uncharitable, doesn't address the main reason Dr. White makes the statements he does about this passage being a judgment context: that of verse 13.

It might be helpful to bring out Dr. White's exegesis in full from the aforementioned book, and then review it and provide a further exegesis of the text relying on the context. So, I provide Dr. White's comments on the passage from pages 137--139 in The Potter's Freedom, 2nd edition. All emphasis is in the original.

The first fact to ascertain in examining any passage of Scripture is its context. This passage comes in the midst of the proclamation of judgment upon the leaders of the Jews. Matthew 23 contains the strongest denunciations of the scribes and Pharisees in all of the Gospels.

Who, then, is "Jerusalem"? It is assumed by Arminian writers that "Jerusalem" represents individual Jews who are, therefore, capable of resisting the work and will of Christ. But upon what warrant do we leap from "Jerusalem" to "individual Jews"? The context would not lead us to conclude that this is to be taken in a universal sense. Jesus is condemning the Jewish leaders, and it is to them that He refers here. This is clearly seen in that:

1. It is to the leaders that God sent prophets;
2. It was the Jewish leaders who killed the prophets and those sent to them;
3. Jesus speaks of "your children," differentiating those to whom He is speaking from those the Lord desired to gather together.
4. The context refers to the Jewish leaders, scribes and Pharisees.

A vitally important point to make here is that the ones the Lord desired to gather are not the ones who "were not willing"! Jesus speaks to the leaders about their children that they, the leaders, would not allow Him to "gather." Jesus was not seeking to gather the leaders, but their children. This one consideration alone renders the passage useless for the Arminian seeking to establish freewillism. The "children" of the leaders would be Jews who were hindered by the Jewish leaders from hearing Christ. The "you would not" then is referring to the same men indicated by the context: the Jweish leaders who "were unwilling" to allow those under their authority to hear the proclamation of the Christ. This verse, then, is speaking to the same issues raised earlier in Matthew 23:13:

"But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you shut off the kingdom of heaven from people; for you do not enter in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering in to go in."

John Gill added this insight:

"That the persons whom Christ would have gathered are not represented as being unwilling to be gathered; but their rulers were not willing that they should. The opposition and resistance to the will of Christ, were not made by the people, but by their governors. The common people seemed inclined to attend the ministry of Christ, as appears from the vast crowds which, at different times and places, followed him; but the chief priests and rulers did all they could to hinder the collection of them to him; and their belief in him as the Messiah, by traducing his character, miracles, and doctrines, and by passing an act that whosoever confessed him should be put out of the synagogue; so that the obvious meaning of the text is the same with that of verse 13 . . . and consequently is no proof of men's resisting the operations of the Spirit and grace of God, but of obstructions and discouragements thrown in the way of attendance on the external ministry of the word."

So we can now plainly see that CBF[7] has absolutely no basis for its assertion that it is the "plain meaning" of the text that God wanted "all of them, even the unrepentant, to be saved." One of the three primary passages used in CBF is seen, then, to have no connection with the application made of it over and over again in the text.

So, are Dr. White's observations and conclusions about the text accurate? To decide this, we must read the whole passage in question, which would be Matthew 23:13-39. I recommend strongly that you do so now, either at this link or a Bible of your choice, and then examine Dr. White's conclusions in light of the passage. I shall do some of that and provide some of my own conclusions from the text as a whole and on some individual verses, 37 included among them.

First, it is certainly worth pointing out where Dr. White put the emphasis with regard to interpretation -- it rests on the context of the passage. I agree wholeheartedly, and have written on the matter here and here. Dr. White is a far greater and far more capable an interpreter than I ever could be; in fact, it is because God working through him and those like him that I have come to understand the rules of biblical interpretation to the extent that I have. At the same time, it doesn't matter how good a person is per se, but if that person is consistent in the interpretation of a particular passage. Do I believe that Dr. White has done this with the passage in question? Well, I suspect the answer to that will come out as I work through the passage myself. The first stop will be with verse 13:

Matthew 23:13 ESV "But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut the kingdom of heaven in people's faces. For you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in.

I won't touch on all parts of every verse, but will focus on the main theme of the passage, that of judgment. This theme begins with verse thirteen cited above. We see Jesus prescribing a woe on them, that is, denouncing them, and calling them hypocrites. Jesus says they "shut the kingdom of heaven in people's faces." The idea behind this phrase is that the Jewish leaders, the scribes and the Pharisees in particular here, were doing what they could to oppose Jesus's ministry. They spread falsehoods about Him, and strongly discouraged people from following Him. They attributed His miracles to Satan (more than once), and said that He Himself was demon possessed. The examples could be multiplied, but these should suffice to demonstrate what Jesus meant by His statement.

The next part of what He said is truly fascinating. Jesus says first that the scribes and Pharisees do not enter the kingdom of heaven. What does it mean to "enter the kingdom of heaven"? Searching through Matthew's Gospel alone identifies this with salvation, both in this life and Heaven itself after this life is over. Jesus flatly says that the scribes and Pharisees do not enter the kingdom of heaven. They are not being saved, and will not be either. Surely, this statement alone must be seen as judgment against them! What a turn of events this must have been in the minds of the Jewish leaders! The Pharisees and Scribes thought they were right with God in opposing Jesus, in doing all that they could to keep people from embracing Him and His teaching. However, in the end, it will be they who end up outside of God's kingdom, not all of those they were deceiving. They shut up the kingdom against others, but entrance to the kingdom will instead be blocked from them.

I say "instead" because, though they shut the kingdom against others, they are truly not successful in their efforts. For all of their lies and opposition to Jesus, in spite of the threats of being thrown out of the synagogue, there were still those who "would enter." A better translation that maintains the participle would be from the NASB, "nor do you allow those who are entering to go in."

We know elsewhere from Jesus's words that everyone given Him by God will come to Him:

John 6:37-40 ESV All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. (38) For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. (39) And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. (40) For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day."

The Jewish leaders were obstacles to the people coming, but they were obstacles that would eventually be moved out of the way. There were still people who were believing in Jesus, and the Jewish leaders could not stop it from happening![8]

So, we can already see that in verse thirteen that Dr. White's point #4 is seen to be true. Clearly Jesus is condemning the Jewish leaders in verse thirteen.

Moving down through the passage, we encounter several other woes Jesus makes against the Scribes and Pharisees. Jesus says that they bring greater condemnation on their proselytes than themselves (15), that they do not understand the value of sacred objects used in worship and swear amiss by them (16-22), and that they are blind guides, unable to lead people after God (16). Jesus says that they have neglected the most important things in the Law of God, which are justice, mercy, and faithfulness (23), and exposes the filth of their lawlessness and hypocrisy (24-28), demonstrating that their righteousness is only skin deep, merely an outward appearance and having no real substance. To say that Jesus is continuing to condemn them is needlessly stating the obvious. Moving further into the chapter:

Matthew 23:29-32 ESV "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets and decorate the monuments of the righteous, (30) saying, 'If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.' (31) Thus you witness against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. (32) Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers.

In these verses, Jesus flatly calls the Jewish leaders on their hypocrisy. They claim that they will not repeat the sins of their fathers in shedding the blood of the prophets, but in the process end up condemning themselves. They will, as Jesus says, "fill up the measure of [their] fathers" sins.[9] They have already proven that they are more than the biological descendants of those who came before him; they have been persecuting Jesus, and He certainly held the office of prophet. Further, the Scribes and Pharisees would continue to show this as they would persecute those Jesus would later send in His Name.

Matthew 23:33 ESV You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell?

This statement of our Lord Jesus to these Jewish leaders is not meant as an invitation; rather, it is rhetorically asked thus making a point. He means to indicate that they cannot escape being condemned. This question is another declaration of judgment. D.A. Carson, an astounding Bible scholar who has probably forgotten more than I'll ever learn (though I'll disagree with him ever so slightly later), explains why what I said is true:

The transition from the preceding verse is clear: if the teachers of the law and Pharisees are filling up the measure of the sin of their forefathers, how can they possibly escape the condemnation of hell?[10]

Obviously, they would not. They were being condemned, and rightly so for reasons Jesus Himself has mentioned before, and would continue to declare.

Matthew 23:34-36 ESV Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will flog in your synagogues and persecute from town to town, (35) so that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of innocent Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar. (36) Truly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.

The judgment sayings against the scribes and pharisees continue. Jesus said that He would send them prophets, wise men, scribes. These, sent from Jesus, would be killed in various ways by the Jewish leaders. In this, as Jesus has already said, they would be filling up their fathers sins. This is why Jesus lays at their feet the guilt of the righteous men who have walked the earth, those who have been calling to the people to turn in faith and repentance to the One True God. By killing those Jesus would send[11] they demonstrate His words about them to be true -- they are their fathers' children. They persecute God's messengers just like their fathers did, when they should have been leading the people to them. They would be rightly punished for it, as verse 36 indicates, certainly including the destruction of Jerusalem among other things.

From these verses we can see clearly that points 1 and 2 that Dr. White set forth (quoted above) are valid. The Jewish leaders were the ones who were responsible and guilty for killing the prophets Jesus would send to them.

Now we get to the main verse in question, but, having spent the time we needed to in the context leading up to it, we are prepared to give a fair treatment of it in light of what Jesus has been saying all along. Even now, the verse should not be taken without more context, the two verses that follow.

Matthew 23:37-39 ESV "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not! (38) See, your house is left to you desolate. (39) For I tell you, you will not see me again, until you say, 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.'"

About this verse, as we noticed above, Dr. White says the following, his 3rd point: "Jesus speaks of 'your children,' differentiating those to whom He is speaking from those that the Lord desired to gather together.' Is this an acceptable understanding of the passage?

On the surface of it, it would seem that he is correct. Jesus speaks to "Jerusalem" and also identifies the children of Jerusalem, and does not appear to be speaking to them. In fact, to suggest that the two different groups are really one and the same in Jesus's words would require exegetical evidence. It would seem D.A. Carson attempted to provide such evidence. If you follow this link, you'll find what Dr. Carson said about the verse over at Tony Byrne's blog. There is a particular section of what Dr. Carson has said that I find to be particularly relevant to our discussion:

There is also a change of number from Jerusalem to people of Jerusalem: "you [sing.] who kill . . . sent to you [sing.] . . . your [sing.] children . . . your [pl.] house . . . you [pl.] will not see." The effect is to move from the abstraction of the city to the concrete reality of people.

Dr. Carson is surely right in that there is a change of number, and that the idea is to move from the abstraction of the city to the concrete reality of people. However, why must the change in number be "from Jerusalem to people of Jerusalem"? This is simply stated, and not supported by Dr. Carson's exegesis. Rather, it seems best to see Jerusalem, and this move to plurality, as another way to address the leaders of the people rather than all of the people. We can see this if we compare 23:37 with some of the previous verses, First, look back to verses 35-36. Who is it in these verses who kill the prophets? Jesus is clearly talking about the scribes and pharisees. Compare in verse 34:

"Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify"

with this phrase in verse 37:

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it!"

Given that Jesus is talking to the Jewish leaders in verse 34 and is providing the same condemnation for Jerusalem in verse 37, it follows that again, He is denouncing the Jewish leaders, making more concrete this fact when he gets to verse 38, saying that their house would be left desolate to them. Everything that they loved, the power over the people they abused, and their leadership in its entirety, would be taken from them. They would have nothing.

Further, compare a couple of sentences from verse 13 with verse 37:

"For you shut the kingdom of heaven in people's faces. For you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in."

compare to:

"How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!"

Jesus was seeking to gather people in Jerusalem, and the leaders (that is, Jerusalem in 37) were standing in the way, and opposed Jesus. They would not submit to and obey Him, they would not stop doing all they could to hinder His message.[12] So then, it seems clear that Jesus was drawing the children referred to in 37, and continuing to speak judgment against the leaders of the people. It also seems clear that He was not drawing those against whom He was directing judgment, especially when we take into account the fact that Jesus said in verse 13 that they would not enter the kingdom of heaven, and that they would not escape being condemned to Hell in verse 33.

It would then appear that Dr. White was correct in his assessment of Matther 23:37, when all of the context is considered. Yet I think I would do a disservice to the passage were I to leave it without first metioning something important in verse 39, quoted above. Jesus tells them that they wouldn't see Him again unless they said "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord." Surely since they would physically see him again (at the crucifixion and at other times) we need to look for an understanding for this statement other than physical perception. Jesus is alluding to something that many of the people did say, and certainly, some truly meant:

Matthew 21:8-9 ESV Most of the crowd spread their cloaks on the road, and others cut branches from the trees and spread them on the road. (9) And the crowds that went before him and that followed him were shouting, "Hosanna to the Son of David! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord! Hosanna in the highest!"

I find this truly amazing. Our Lord had condemned the Jewish leaders, and He had effectively sentenced them to Hell; they were not going to inherit eternal life. However, even given this, Jesus still tells them what they must do to be saved! To put it in slightly different terms, even though they were not elect, and Jesus knew that to be true, He still proclaimed the truth to them, that they needed to believe Him to be Who He truly was. In this statement, and even though it is not the main point of the context of the passage, we do see Jesus's desire for even those who would be condemned to Hell for all eternity to obey Him and believe in Him. It is a minor point, but still present, nonetheless, and it should motivate us all to proclaim the Gospel to all, no matter what we think of them. We shouldn't try to figure out who the elect are anyway, but considering Jesus DID know that and still told people who would remain lost that they needed to believe in Him, we must certainly do no less.

I do truly hope and pray that this post, exegesis and all, will be beneficial to God's people. May the Name of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, be magnified.

Soli Deo Gloria,
dbh

PS -- please read the rules for commenting at the right before doing so here. Further, please also keep comments on topic.

_______________________________________

1. These are not the only issues present in the post, of course. For example, I firmly believe (as does every other 5 point Calvinist I know of) that Dr. James White is not a hyper-Calvinist. I may address that in a different post, I may not. However, for any who wish to comment on this current post, the matter in this footnote is not to be considered "on topic" in the ensuing discussion.

2. This is of course not to say that I shouldn't be thankful for a pizza of olives and anchovies if that is what I had to eat; most certainly I should, but the point I trust wasn't missed.

3. I do realize that eventually, some situations will not be resolved between brothers on theological matters. However, if I am going to arrive at that conclusion, it won't be without a fight to expound the Scriptures and correct understanding, whether it be mine, the person with whom I disagree, or both.

4. This is part of the reason, I believe, that James gives the warning he does about teaching in the first part of James 3.

5. Specifically by saying that I was probably the first self-described Reformed person he had seen make such a statement in this comment.

6. Though I have said this already, it bears repeating, because the witness of history IS important. I would concur wholeheartedly with R.C. Sproul's sentiments on this issue as he is quoted in the Amazing Grace DVD set. I shall paraphrase it, as I don't have my DVDs in front of me at the moment: If your interpretation has been virtually unknown for the past 2000 years of church history or has been championed by universally recognized heretics, then chances are pretty good you should abandon your interpretation.

7. That is, Norman Geisler's book, Chosen But Free.

8. This doesn't mean that the things the Jewish leaders were doing against Jesus didn't have any effect at all; obviously they were standing in the way and opposing Jesus's teaching. However, those who truly were coming, and were not just the crowds coming for a show, would still indeed come. People cannot thwart God's purposes, and for all the deception and opposition, the efforts of the Jewish leaders would ultimately fail.

9. This hearkens back to a passage in Genesis:

Genesis 15:14-16 ESV But I will bring judgment on the nation that they serve, and afterward they shall come out with great possessions. (15) As for yourself, you shall go to your fathers in peace; you shall be buried in a good old age. (16) And they shall come back here in the fourth generation, for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete."

Why was God going to wait to bring the Israelites into the promised land? In this text, the reason is that it was going to take 400 years for the iniquity of the Amorites, their sin, to be complete. God was going to use His people to bring divine judgment against the Amorites and the other peoples in the land, but they hadn't finished sinning the sins for which they were to be judged. So, when Jesus tells the Jewish leaders to fill up the measure of their fathers sins, He is indicating in a not-so-subtle way that He intends to bring further judgment against them once they do.

10. Carson, D.A. Matthew in The Expositor's Bible Commentary Frank Gaebelein, Ed. Electronic version cited.

11. The fact that God is the one Who sends messengers and that Jesus is saying He is the one sending them was a fact not likely missed by the Jewish leaders. Again, Jesus was claiming to be the One True God they claimed to serve.

12. It also seems very likely, if not a certainty, that those children of Jerusalem (ie, those over whom the leaders had responsibility) are to be equated with the ones coming from verse 13. That being the case, then verse 37 is speaking of those who were truly coming and would come when it speaks of "the children."

The Atonement: How We Are Justified

I have taken a great deal of time getting to the writing of this particular post, at least in finishing it. I suppose the reason for that is that I am not one who enjoys conflict, especially conflict among Christians, whatever it may be. However, this is something that is quite important, as it addresses the very work of Christ and what He has accomplished on the cross for people, and, more specifically, for all who would believe.

This isn't an article about how God views someone as righteous; that is, my point here is not to contend with the errors of Rome with regard to what Justification actually is. Though I'll cite verses that speak of the wonder of justification by faith, I'll do so as statements to the reality of it rather than arguing for it for the most part. This article is for Christians, and any true believer in Christ will indeed affirm that God views us as righteous by faith, and that apart from works.

The point of this particular post is instead the question of where faith comes from, and what is the ground of it. That is to say, how is it one comes to believe? On what basis does God produce faith, a wondrous righteousness, in the lives of wicked sinners?

The origin and source of faith is the question I shall address, and, by the grace of God, answer from the Scriptures as I complete this long overdue post.

Recently, I have discussed this matter via blog posts with Tony Byrne and via email with David Ponter. Mr. Ponter has been quite gracious in his responses and answering of the questions I've posed to him, and Tony's wealth of information and historical/theological citations have contributed to all that I've needed to make this post accurate and thorough. It is with one of those aforementioned citations that I shall take issue to bring out the differences between us (that is, between me and what Mr. Ponter and Mr. Byrne, both of whom agree with each other against me in this) and to shed some biblical light on what the work of Christ has done with regard to bringing faith to God's elect.

Some time ago,[1] Tony posted this article about faith and the Atonement, citing Henry James Carpenter and something he had to say about this matter. I have reproduced the quote below:

"But I proceed to notice another objection, and one very commonly urged against this doctrine [general redemption]. It is objected, that if our Lord died for all, then it would be unjust to punish any one, for this would be to exact a double penalty for the same offence—to punish the same sins twice over.

No doubt it would be unjust to punish the sinner if Christ had borne his sins, with the stipulation that his sins should be absolutely forgiven—that, in consequence of his sacrifice, all men should be unconditionally pardoned, irrespective of their state of mind, irrespective of their believing or not believing, of their receiving the Gospel or rejecting the Gospel.

But nothing like this doctrine can be discovered in the Bible; the death of our Lord is nowhere in Scripture represented in this light. There we read, as I observed before, that a certain medium is necessary before the benefits of Christ's death can be actually applied to any man. Men must have faith; they must believe on Christ—they must trust wholly in his atoning sacrifice, that they may be forgiven their trespasses. "He that believeth shall be saved; he that believeth not shall be damned." The Lord Jesus is "set forth to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood."

It is undeniable that our Lord could have annexed what condition he, in his wisdom, thought fit, in order that man should receive the benefits of the sacrifice he was about to offer; and it is no more unjust to punish the sinner who rejects Christ's offer of salvation than to treat an imprisoned debtor as still liable to his debt, because he refuses to send a petition to his rich benefactor, who freely paid his debt, but stipulated that the benefits of his generous payment should only be enjoyed by those debtors who would comply with his condition, and petition him for their release."

Henry James Carpenter, Did Christ Die For All Men, Or For The Elect Only? A Letter To A Friend In Ireland (London: T. Hatchard, 1857), 21.

This quote from Henry James Carpenter makes reference to John Owen's double payment argument. I thought it wise to dig up the original quote,[2] since it is often referenced and almost never quoted. So then, here it is:

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; for if God enter into judgment with us, though it were with all mankind for one sin, no flesh should be justified in his sight: “If the Lord should mark iniquities, who should stand?” Ps. cxxx. 3. We might all go to cast all that we have “to the moles and to the bats, to go into the clefts of the rocks, and into the tops of the ragged rocks, for fear of the Lord, and for the glory of his majesty,” Isa. ii. 20, 21. 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.

From John Owen's The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, pages 173--174.

Tony has observed with some measure of frustration that people tend to toss John Owen's double payment argument around, assuming that it settles the matter of the Atonement in and of itself. He, that is, Tony, makes it very clear with the quote he provided by HJC that he does not believe that Dr. Owen's argument settles the matter of the Atonement in and of itself, as he has disagreed with it publicly on more than one occasion. In fact, there is more discussion on the internet (at least according to Google) that disagrees with and critiques Dr. Owen's argument than agrees with it!

I like John Owen's argument as stated above and in his work The Death of Death in the Death of Christ. I find it helpful and useful. However, I also agree with one point that Tony has in his objecting to people using the double payment argument as if it is the end-all argument on the Atonement. I think it is significant that Dr. Owen waited until pages 173 and 174 in his work to put forward this particular assertion. Dr. Owen didn't lay it out without a foundation on which to set it; he had already written over 150 pages of text leading up to this point in his work. For Dr. Owen, it was the conclusion of much arguing from Scripture on which it was founded. Failure, then, to put forward the Scriptures to buttress this "double payment argument" written by this amazing theologian is often a failure to use it properly. The particular section of the argument I address here, and my point of contention with Mr. Ponter, Mr. Byrne, and also Mr. Henry James Carpenter, is that of faith. I do indeed believe that faith is something obtained by Christ in the Redemption, the Atonement that He made, for those He purchased on that tortuous cross, that is the elect, and for no one else. Therefore, the Atonement, the propitiation that Christ made on behalf of the elect, is for them alone, and not for every single person who has ever lived. He provided faith for their unbelief.

This assertion is contrary to what Mr. Carpenter said in the quote Tony provided from him. In the quote from the letter Tony provided, Mr. Carpenter said (emphasis added):

No doubt it would be unjust to punish the sinner if Christ had borne his sins, with the stipulation that his sins should be absolutely forgiven—that, in consequence of his sacrifice, all men should be unconditionally pardoned, irrespective of their state of mind, irrespective of their believing or not believing, of their receiving the Gospel or rejecting the Gospel.

The problem with the above statement is, well, that it doesn't address the argument. It is indeed unjust for God to punish sins that are borne by Christ. That was Owen's point -- but it isn't irrespective of their faith, their receiving the Gospel. It rather guarantees that some men will have faith and receive the Gospel! The work of Christ makes certain that minds will indeed be changed and set aright to embrace the One True God through Jesus Christ -- that such would truly have genuine faith. The sins of the elect are to be absolutely forgiven, including that of unbelief, and the reason for it must be that the provision to remove that unbelief is sealed up in the work of Christ itself.

Mr. Byrne and Mr. Ponter clearly believe that faith is a gift that God provides. In this blog post that Dr. White put up at Alpha and Omega Ministries we can see Tony affirming it as he talks to "brig" and "conviction", using the name "Polhill":

(Polhill) brig, faith is a gift, but it is also the act of the renewed man, as Spurgeon said.

(Polhill) Conviction, the bible doesn't speak of "faith" as a gift that must be accepted. Rather, it is Christ who is the gift that must be accepted through our act of faith.

As Tony seems to suggest here, and as Mr. Ponter clearly affirmed in an email to me, they do not believe that faith is something that Jesus obtained [edit 5-18-2010] and secured for the elect on the cross, though they do understand it to be a gift from God. Those who agree with Owen on the Atonement, however, would insist that faith is something Jesus obtained [edit 5-18-2010] and secured for the elect, as I have stated earlier. Yet, all of this stating this or that is nice, but what does the Scripture say? What does the Bible teach about this aspect of faith? That is where we must turn. Only the Scriptures can decide between us, and lest I run the risk of falling into the error I have already warned against with regard to Owen's double payment argument, it is to the Word of God that we shall now go! First we shall "turn" to Ephesians 2:8-9 and address the issue of faith as a gift before we look more intently into Paul's argument about from where it springs.

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

This is an absolutely beautiful passage that demonstrates quite well that our salvation comes to us not as a result of works. Most people would rightly maintain that this passage teaches that salvation is not of works, but rather of grace -- for Paul says clearly that we are saved by grace. He says this is "through faith," as well in verse eight, and then goes on to say that "this is not your own doing." Now, to what was Paul referring when he used the word "this"? It is a (near)demonstrative pronoun, and all pronouns have antecedents. So then, what is the antecedent, that is, the word or words that the word "this" replace(s)?

The Greek language is quite exact, a good deal more so than English. Pronouns agree with the nouns they replace in gender as well as number. In English, words don't have gender; that is, they are not considered masculine or feminine (or neuter for that matter), but in Greek, all of them are. It helps us to determine which words modify what in a given context.

In this case, in verse eight, we have the word "grace" which is a feminine noun. We also have "faith," another feminine noun. Lastly, we have "saved" which is a masculine participle. So, it would make sense for the "this" to be masculine we might think, that it would modify saved....or perhaps feminine, that it would modify one of the two nouns mentioned. However.... we do not have either. The word "this" is a neuter demonstrative pronoun, so it doesn't match any of the three candidates we've given in gender. Yet, all is not lost! Sometimes in Greek, a neuter is used as a catch-all; that is, it is employed to refer back to all of the preceding nouns in a sentence, regardless of their gender.

This is what we have here. Paul is saying in no uncertain terms, that the whole of our salvation proceeds from God -- all of it. Grace, faith, being saved -- all of it is a result of God's work in the lives of the elect to bring about the latter's salvation. The text is quite clear.

That being established, we now move on to the origin of this salvation, the reason God can grant it at all. How is it this grace through faith salvation comes to undeserving sinners? I'm glad you asked, and Paul doesn't leave us without an answer as he wrote the very words breathed out by God:

Romans 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, (24) and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, (25) whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. (26) It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. (27) Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. (28) For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.

In the quote that Tony provided by Mr. Carpenter, we find this statement:

The Lord Jesus is "set forth to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood."

This is of course, true. This particular rendering that Mr. Carpenter provides is slightly more literal than the one given by the ESV translators. The word order seems to fit better with it. That being said, however, we have a serious problem, a problem that often arises when a verse (or in this case, part of a verse) is removed from its context:[3] we arrive at a misunderstanding at best, heresy at worst. [4]

One of the greatest doctrines of Scripture recovered in the Reformation was that of Justification by Faith Alone. That is, the means by which God declares someone to be righteous is faith, and that alone. It is a forensic act, a legal declaration. Here indeed, as well as elsewhere in Paul's writings (some of the other places in Romans I'll address here, at least by way of footnote), we see this great doctrine put forth in verse 28: we are justified by faith apart from works. The word translated apart is the Greek word choris which means "separate from" and also "without." This is why we as "Protestants" (and anyone who would claim the title "protestant" for himself must hold to this) insist on the word alone in understanding faith's role with regard to justification. Rome insists that works done in a state of grace merit grace. Yet, Paul makes it clear that we are justified by faith apart from, or without, works. So then, if faith (which is something we do, that is, we are the ones believing) is not a work,[5] then it must be the only thing that is not a work -- it MUST be a grace!

As you the reader I am sure noticed (if not, please read it again!), this fact has not escaped Paul in Romans 3:23-28. In verse 24, we have this statement, the statement that provides the corrective understanding to the quote Mr. Byrne provided by Mr. Carpenter:

and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,
-- Romans 3:24, emphasis added

First we see that we are justified by grace. Justification comes by the grace of God, yet as we have seen, it is by faith[6]. Faith is part of the grace of God that comes to us in salvation! It is right to say then, as Paul does, that we are justified by grace,[7] and also justified by faith. Given that the inspired apostle is the one writing is, such is a given.

Now, however, is where the real meat of the argument comes, and why Mr. Carpenter's interpretation, as well as that of Mr. Ponter and Mr. Byrne must be rejected. Through what does this justification by grace/faith come? How does any grace come to us? Paul tells us that it is "through the redemption" that is in Christ Jesus. To unpack this and get the fullest understanding, we must discern what is meant by the word translated "through" and that of "redemption."

Paul says we are justified by grace through the redemption that is in Jesus. The word rendered through is the Greek preposition dia. Making a theological case on a preposition is shaky ground most of the time; prepositions in Greek (and in English for that matter) are notorious for having a myriad of meanings; pinning them down to one particular understanding can sometimes be difficult. Here, though, I think we tread fairly safely.

The word is used 509 times in the New Testament according to Bibleworks (and my addition). Of those 509 times, the top two meanings are "through" (225) and "because" (111). If something happens "through" something else, then that something else is the means by which the first thing happens. If I speak through an interpreter, then my message is not understood by my audience without that interpreter; he or she is a necessity, and is the means by which the message goes forth. When Paul says we are justified by grace "through" the redemption, he is saying that we are justified in this manner "on account of" or "because of" or "through the agency of"[8]. This justification by grace/faith comes to us by means of the redemption -- that is where it comes from. Faith comes out of the redemption!

So then, what is this "redemption" then? It is "a release effected upon payment of a ransom." What Jesus did on the cross was to guarantee the setting free of the elect by the payment of a ransom! They would indeed be released! A redemption is a releasing as much as it is a payment. When Jesus provided this redemption, He achieved propitiation (next verse), absorbing and satisfying the wrath of God on behalf of all who would believe. I say it that way because of what we've already seen: justification by grace (or say it justification by faith; Paul as we have seen, does both) comes on account of the redemption. It doesn't happen apart from it. This means then that faith is something Jesus obtained in His work on the cross, and since not all have faith, then not all are released. Since not all are released, then (given the meaning of redemption) not all have had payment made for them. Since not all are released and not all have had payment, then God's wrath has not been satisfied on behalf of every single individual, but only against those who will believe -- the elect.

That being the case, the phrase "set forth to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood" needs to be understood as how God applies this propitiation to the elect. Before the point of salvation, even an elect person is not justified. God applies the work of Christ to that person, and the grace that He uses to do so is the faith we've been talking about for some time now. :)

I welcome interaction on this issue, on this text. Please, however, if you comment and wish to take issue with what I've said, bring your exegesis with you. Man's opinions ultimately carry no weight, but only what God has said.


May God use this to the glory of His Name and the edification of His Church!
sdg,
david b. hewitt


_____________________________________

1. When I started this post I could have said "recently" but well, such is not the case now. :)

2. Ok, I confess: it was actually TurretinFan who found the link for me. :) I am indeed indebted to God for men like him.

3. This, of course, is not to say that we can never cite a verse or two (or even part of a verse) to make a valid theological point. What I am trying to draw attention to here is what tends to happen when we do this. Extreme care must be taken to avoid error when quoting verses without their contexts.

4. For the record, I believe this situation to be of the former, not of the latter.

5. Paul brings this out beautifully in Romans chapter 4 with his discussion of Abraham:

Romans 4:2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. (3) For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness." (4) Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. (5) And to the one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, (6) just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works: (7) "Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; (8) blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin."

Please note that the one who trusts God to justify the ungodly is the "one who does not work." If faith is something that one hasn't worked to get, then faith must be of a different nature than works. Faith must be of grace; it necessarily follows.

6. Another oft quoted verse to describe justification by faith is from Romans 5:

Romans 5:1 Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.

7. Paul mentions being justified by grace elsewhere in his corpus, Titus to be exact:

Titus 3:4 But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, (5) he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, (6) whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, (7) so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

8. This is another way the word dia is translated, though admittedly only once. I put it forward here as part of the argument to suggest more connotation than denotion. If someone were to ask, "What does Paul mean by 'through,'" then one could respond, "He means 'through the agency" of," in response.

Overlooking Offenses

We should make all reasonable efforts to be reconciled to those who have taken offense at our words or actions. I say all reasonable efforts because not every offense people take is warranted. Jesus would have done nothing else with His life if He had to seek out every individual Scribe and Pharisee personally who was angry with Him.

- John Piper, What Jesus Demands from the World, page 231

That particular quote may well have been a good thing to include in my previous post that I wrote about the Christian character we ought to have when corresponding with each other. Piper is of course correct; we ought to make every effort to be reconciled to those we offend, should that offense be warranted. After all, Paul indicated as much himself.

However, it is the issue of reasonableness that Piper mentioned in his book that I want to address here. He goes on in that chapter to mention that people are far too ready to take offense at many a thing nowadays, and I couldn't agree more. The reasons for this are many I am sure, not the least of which are the realities of our post-modern age that balk at the idea of certainty about anything, especially truth.

My aim here in this post is to admonish my brothers and sisters in our Lord Jesus Christ to hesitate to take offense. I mean that universally; that is, hesitate to take offense from things that unbelievers say or do to/about you, but even more so, greatly hesitate to take offense from something a believer says or does. I think such a priority is warranted, as is the principle of overlooking offenses. Proverbs greatly helped us in the last post I wrote, and I pray that God will use that wonderful book of wisdom once again to bring conviction, correction, and/or instruction to us in this matter:

Proverbs 19:11
Good sense makes one slow to anger, and it is his glory to overlook an offense. (ESV)

A man's discretion makes him slow to anger, And it is his glory to overlook a transgression. (NASB)

A person's wisdom makes him slow to anger, and it is his glory to overlook an offense. (NET Bible)

First we shall begin with the last part of the book. It is the glory of a person to overlook an offense, or as the NASB puts it, "a transgression." The word means more than just offending someone with one's attitude, personality, or demeanor. It communicates the idea of "rebellion" or a "breach of trust" or "rebellious acts." So, given that meaning of the Hebrew word pesha, it seems clear that it is good for a person to overlook it when people sin against him.

We should always be ready to forgive, my brothers and sisters, and not to take offense when others wrong us. Proverbs tells us that it is our "glory" when we do such things![1] The word translated "glory" is the Hebrew tipharah which means "beauty." It is a beautiful thing when we let such things pass! Furthermore, since this is true for things that are indeed rebellious and sinful, how much more ought we be willing to overlook things that bother us, things that people say and do, that are NOT sin but are rather peculiarities we just don't like very much? I think the answer is obvious.

Now to the beginning. What kind of a person is it that does this, that doesn't take offense but rather overlooks them? Such a person has "discretion;" he has "good sense" and "wisdom." All are great ways to express the Hebrew word sekel which means "prudence" or "insight."

May God make us into that kind of a person, and not allow us to continue in the sin of failing to overlook offenses.

SDG,
dbh

EDIT (3/20/2010):
P.S. -- I think it also beneficial to note that the person described in Proverbs 19:11 who is wise, has good sense, and overlooks offenses is one who is "slow to anger." Indeed, if we are slow to anger, it surely makes it easier to overlook offenses, and since good sense/wisdom is what leads to one being slow to anger, if we are not slow to become angry, it follows that we lack the good sense and discretion spoken of in this verse. Let us all remember what James said about this as well.

May God grant us such wisdom!

_______________________________________

1. This of course is not to say that we shouldn't call such a person to repentance for a sin or think of sin as something other than a heinous crime against our Holy and Awesome God. That is not the writer's point here; the writer of this Proverb is extolling the wisdom and prudence of a person who beautifully rich in forgiveness.

More on the Atonement

Nathan White over at Strange Baptist Fire has written this article about some passages in Hebrews that deal with the Atonement. It's worth your time, and won't take that long!

SDG,
dbh

Sermon Review Part the Last: The term "World" and the Atonement

I've decided that there will be but one last post in this series, and then perhaps I'll go on to posting other things, hoping to bring glory to God in them as well as this, and that the people of God would be encouraged by them.

You can find the first post in the series here. Sadly, the .mp3 file for the message I've been reviewing is no longer available because my free file server has bitten the dust it would seem, but you can run through the posts in the series if you look at my archives over the past few months.

In any case, there are two statements and a lot of Scriptures that I'd like to address in this final post, so expect it to be long. You might want to grab a Coke and some popcorn. :) I'll quote one statement, address it, and then the other and spend some time there. So, on I go, and may God be glorified!

Statement #1:

There are books out there, there are teachers out there, that say "world" doesn't mean everybody. In the Greek it does!

I find this to be a very interesting statement, and if taken at face value it seems to be misleading. I'll explain.

Surely, the word "world" (Greek: kosmos) can in fact mean "everybody." What the statement I quoted from my former pastor could be saying is that the people he referred to are saying that it never means everybody. I hope that wasn't his intention, because it wouldn't be accurate. Reformed people such as myself readily agree that the word "world" can and does mean every single person at times, though if we are honest with the Bible and the contexts in which that word is found, we'll readily discover that this is not the only meaning of the word. Good Greek dictionaries also tell us this. Strong's Greek Dictionary, for example, defines kosmos this way (emphasis mine):

[an] orderly arrangement, that is, decoration; by implication the world (in a wide or narrow sense, including its inhabitants, literally or figuratively [morally]): - adorning, world.

Strong makes it clear; the word can be used in a wide OR narrow sense, referring to the inhabitants of the world in such a way. It can also be used in a figurative sense.

Thayer's Greek Dictionary tells us similar things, but is more thorough:

1) an apt and harmonious arrangement or constitution, order, government
2) ornament, decoration, adornment, i.e. the arrangement of the stars, ‘the heavenly hosts’, as the ornament of the heavens. 1Pe_3:3
3) the world, the universe
4) the circle of the earth, the earth
5) the inhabitants of the earth, men, the human family
6) the ungodly multitude; the whole mass of men alienated from God, and therefore hostile to the cause of Christ
7) world affairs, the aggregate of things earthly
7a) the whole circle of earthly goods, endowments riches, advantages, pleasures, etc, which although hollow and frail and fleeting, stir desire, seduce from God and are obstacles to the cause of Christ
8) any aggregate or general collection of particulars of any sort
8a) the Gentiles as contrasted to the Jews (Rom_11:12 etc)
8b) of believers only, Joh_1:29; Joh_3:16; Joh_3:17; Joh_6:33; Joh_12:47 1Co_4:9; 2Co_5:19

As you can see, Thayer includes a lot of definitions for the term, many of which have nothing to do with people. Interestingly, he also makes reference to several passages in his eighth definition which limit the use of the word to believers only. I'm not convinced of all of his examples, but my main point seems to be proven: The word "world" (kosmos) is NOT always used to refer to "every single individual on the planet," and it would appear that, more often than not, it is used in a more narrow sense. There are a few examples from Scripture that I wanted to look at specifically[1]:

Romans 11:12 Now if their trespass means riches for the world, and if their failure means riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their full inclusion mean!

In the context here, it would seem that the term is being used to contrast Jews to Gentiles to some extent. In fact, this is a common use of the word, and I would argue that John does so frequently in his writings (yes, I'll address 1 John 2:2 in a bit). One example of John's clear use of the term meaning something other than "every person" is found in chapter twelve:

John 12:19 So the Pharisees said to one another, "You see that you are gaining nothing. Look, the world has gone after him."

Here the Pharisees have noticed that a lot of people were following Jesus, and many were telling of the wonders He was performing. The Pharisees were irritated about this, and then made the above quoted statement. Now, they used the term "world" in what they said -- do they mean "every single person?" Of course not! For one, they themselves were not following after him, so they were excluded. Secondly, not everyone else in the world other than the Pharisees were following Him -- there were parts of the world that hadn't even heard of Jesus at that time! Thirdly, not even everyone in the city was following Him there, as the reference for world is the large crowd, and not every city resident (from which, again, the Pharisees would be excluded). So, here we see the term "world" being applied to people, but in a narrow sense, meaning a group of people less than the whole of the world's population.

1 John 2:15 Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. (16) For all that is in the world--the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride in possessions--is not from the Father but is from the world.

Wow, John really used the word a lot here. He tells us not to love the world -- but this cannot mean "every single person" here. The reason is a command from Jesus over in Matthew 5. We are commanded to love our enemies, and of course elsewhere are admonished to love our brothers and sisters in Christ. Given those two biblical mandates, John cannot be meaning world in the sense of everyone in those verses in 1 John 2. Rather, he is meaning Thayer's definition #7 that I mentioned above; John is telling us to avoid things in the world that will seduce us from devotion to the One True God, and not to love them. Very clearly we have an example then of the term "world" (kosmos) that does NOT mean "all people everywhere." One more example (though there are many others) before I continue on:

Luke 2:1 In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered.

Here we must understand that the term is being used figuratively or we have errors in our Bible. The decree didn't reach the Americas, for example. Nor did the people of China register to pay taxes to Caesar. Rather, what Luke was trying to tell us is that the entire Roman world should be registered. So here, we have a use of the term that means a collection of people, and not every single person.

I have to conclude then that my former pastor omitted important information about the term "world" from the message he preached that I've been reviewing now for some time. Far too much confusion can result from what he said if more information about the term is not presented.

Statement #2

There are words out there, folks, that say "not for everybody." There are words out there that say "select." If Jesus meant to die only for the select and the elect, then why didn't He say so?

First, it is important to note that the fact that other words exist that can communicate those meanings is largely irrelevant. For example, other commonly employed terms in our modern vernacular are readily available to assist readers to ascertain my meanings in this post....than the ones I used in this sentence. :) Just because other words exist does NOT mean that the biblical writers had to use them. The Holy Spirit inspired them to use those particular terms, and it behooves us to know the full range of meaning for said terms, both literal and figurative, so that we can determine the correct understanding for any word in its given context.

Second, Jesus DID in fact say that He died for only a select group of people, and they were in fact the elect. In John 10 we read the following:

John 10:14 I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, (15) just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep. (16) 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.

Here we clearly see that Jesus said that He lays His life down for the sheep. These are the same who know Him, the same who will listen to His voice. The ones who will listen to His voice are the elect; no one else will do so. So then, the sheep are equated with the elect, and those who are not the sheep do not receive salvific benefit[2] from Jesus laying down His life.

Of course, I would immediately have an objector who would say something along the lines of, "Wait! This passage says that Jesus lays His life down for the sheep. Sure, those are the elect, but it doesn't say that He didn't do it for someone else. Just because one is included does not immediately mean that another is excluded." Such a person would also be correct; I have not supported my premise with only that passage. However, context is a beautiful thing, and in using it, we do indeed establish the exclusivity of Christ's death for His chosen sheep. Let's read on a bit later in the chapter:

John 10:24 So the Jews gathered around him and said to him, "How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly." (25) Jesus answered them, "I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father's name bear witness about me, (26) but you do not believe because you are not part of my flock. (27) My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. (28) I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. (29) 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. (30) I and the Father are one."

Ah... now we get to the heart of the matter. This is a LOT like what Jesus said back in John 6 about the people who didn't follow him; ultimately, the reason that they did not was because they were not of those given to Him by the Father.

Further, who are those who will hear His voice? The sheep. Who are they who will follow Him and get eternal life and never perish? The only answer is that the sheep, and the sheep only get this eternal life. Does anyone else get eternal life? I don't know of any Christian who would say so. Yet, when we use this same passage where it teaches that Jesus lays down His life for the sheep, we try to say that some who are not sheep get the benefit of that! The laying down of His life that Jesus speaks of here culminates in eternal life for those for whom His life was given. That requires us, if we are to be consistent with this biblical passage, to believe that Jesus only gave His life salvifically for the sheep, the elect, all of whom will come to Him and be saved. For this to happen, His life had to be a propitiation for them as well, a satisfaction and substitute for the wrath of God against sinners, so that all for whom Christ died no longer have God's wrath on them eternally. Jesus took it upon Himself. This is why Substitutionary Atonement is such an important doctrine.

Yet, I do know that there is one further objection to such a statement[3], and I will address it here briefly.

1 John 2:2 He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

Someone might say, "Ah hah! There is that word "propitiation" and it is being applied to the world! What you say then cannot be true!"
This fails to take into account the multiple meanings of the term "world" as I mentioned above in this article, first of all. Second, it fails to take into account the Double Jeopardy argument that I think was introduced nicely by John Owen[4] over 300 years ago. The Elders at Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis have restated it in modern language in one of their theological documents. I've quoted the relevant part here:

One of the most crucial texts on this issue is Romans 8:32. It is one of the most precious promises for God's people in all the Bible. Paul says, "He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, will he not also give us all things with him?"

The crucial thing to see here is how Paul bases the certainty of our inheritance on the death of Christ. He says, "God will most certainly give you all things because he did not spare his own Son but gave him up for you." What becomes of this precious argument if Christ is given for those who do not in fact receive all things but instead are lost? The argument vanishes.

If God gave his own Son for unbelievers who in the end are lost, then he cannot say that the giving of the Son guarantees "all things" for the those for whom he died. But this is what he does say! If God gave his Son for you, then he most certainly will give you all things. The structure of Paul's thought here is simply destroyed by introducing the idea that Christ died for all men in the same way.

We can conclude this section with the following summary argument. Which of these statements is true?

1. Christ died for some of the sins of all men.

2. Christ died for all the sins of some men.

3. Christ died for all the sins of all men.

No one says that the first is true, for then all would be lost because of the sins that Christ did not die for. The only way to be saved from sin is for Christ to cover it with his blood.

The third statement is what the Arminians would say. Christ died for all the sins of all men. But then why are not all saved? They answer, Because some do not believe. But is this unbelief not one of the sins for which Christ died? If they say yes, then why is it not covered by the blood of Jesus and all unbelievers saved? If they say no (unbelief is not a sin that Christ has died for) then they must say that men can be saved without having all their sins atoned for by Jesus, or they must join us in affirming statement number two: Christ died for all the sins of some men. That is, he died for the unbelief of the elect so that God's punitive wrath is appeased toward them and his grace is free to draw them irresistibly out of darkness into his marvelous light.

To that I say, AMEN! However, it doesn't completely address the issue of who the "world" is in 1 John 2:2. Simply saying it is contrasting Jews and Gentiles here doesn't quite cut it. Surely the thoughts of the two groups of people are included in John's meaning, but there is more than that.

The answer comes when we compare this verse to another passage in John's writings, John 11:51-52.

John 11:51 He did not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, (52) and not for the nation only, but also to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad.

Evan May of the TriaBlogue team wrote this article a while back and includes a wonderful discussion of the relation between the two texts. I have included the relevant part:

Notice the parallel:

1 John 2:2
And
He Himself
is the propitiation for
our sins
and not for ours only
but also
for
the world

John 11:51-52
he prophesied that
Jesus
would die for
the nation
and not for the nation only
but also
that He would gather together in one
the children of God scattered abroad

Who, then, is the world? The children of God scattered abroad. Jesus didn’t just die for Jews but Gentiles as well (ethical distinction), not just for those in Asia Minor but from every nation (geographical distinction), not just for those who lived in the 1st century but for all ages to come (time-age-related distinction). In short, with his blood he redeemed a church “from every tongue and tribe and people and nation” (Rev 5:9).

There it is for all who wish to see. THAT is the proper understanding of the word "world" in 1 John 2:2. Truly, the more important word is "propitiation," and if there wasn't so much emotional baggage attached to the word "world" in modern evangelicalism, there would likely be better exegesis of this verse.

Anyway, so ends my sermon review series. May God use it to honor His Name and build up His church.

SDG,
dbh
__________________________________________
1. Once again, all Scripture I cite in this and every post on my blog will come from the ESV Bible version unless otherwise noted.

2. I am fully aware of (and agree with) the theological statements that there were many things that God intended in the death of Christ, such as providing common grace. However, the Atonement itself was limited to the elect, which this passage teaches.

3. OK, there are likely many further objections, but the most common one appears to be 1 John 2:2, so that is what I'll address here.

4. There have been those who have said Dr. John Owen's argument is lacking. I've read some of those objections, but have not been swayed by them. If you are curious as to what some of them are, please feel free either to comment here in this post about them or email me. :)

One more post on the sermon series....

After seven posts, and also since I have been happily in my new church for a while, I think I'll just post one more time in this series and then leave it at that. As I said, my next post will be on the word "world" and what my former pastor said about it.

I do hope to get it done soon, perhaps even today, but I have a couple of sermons to work on today and some grading to do as well, so we'll see how that goes. :)

May God be glorified,
dbh

Finishing the Sermon Series

For a while I've been working on a series that I started right as I left my old church on the last sermon I heard my former pastor preach. I'll be finishing it over the next two weeks, perhaps attaining a bit more closure.

If anyone is wondering, no, I am not blogging against him or the church. I'm examining the things he has said in the light of Scripture, the rule against which all things ought to be measured. If (and sadly, I must say when) I say something contrary to the Word of God, I can only hope people will come to me about it and desire to dialogue with me in the Scriptures about it to show me my error so that I may repent.

I went to my former pastor to discuss the Scriptures with him (the ones I have posted about and a few more) and we never once cracked a Bible; he wasn't interested in doing it. So, I have come here to present the truth. If this is construed as a personal attack, well, it is not. I love my former pastor and church and desire only the best for them; however, if things do not change there in the near future, then I fear the worst for them.

In any case, I wanted to mention this as some rumors have flown around that I've been blogging against my former church or trying to teach hypercalvinism or something. Neither is true of course, and I would ask if there is any substance to those rumors that people would come forward, either here or in person, to confront me. And, if and when they do, to present evidence that I've been doing either of those two aforementioned items.

May God Himself judge between us.

...one other thing of utmost importance before I close this post:

Merry Christmas, and may God bless you as you celebrate the Incarnation!

SDG,
dbh